natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission considers that implementation of the judgment is only necessary for those exporting producers for which not all import transactions have become definitive.
Komisija smatra da je provedba presude nužna samo za one proizvođače izvoznike za koje nije sav uvozni promet postao konačan.
Indeed, once the 3-year prescription period foreseen in the Community Customs Code has expired, the duty has become definitive, as confirmed in the judgments.
Čim protekne trogodišnje razdoblje zastare koje predviđa Carinski zakonik Zajednice, pristojba postaje konačna, kao što je potvrđeno u presudama.
Any impact on the residual duty is excluded, because the MET/IT claim for the companies in the sample has been assessed, and the fact of granting MET/IT to one of the companies outside the sample does not affect the residual duty rate.
Isključuje se svaki utjecaj na preostalu pristojbu jer je zahtjev za MET/IT društava u uzorku ocijeljen, a činjenica što je MET/IT odobren nekom društvu izvan uzorka ne utječe na stopu preostale pristojbe.
The burden of proof is not limited to filing a request.
Teret dokazivanja nije ograničen na podnošenje zahtjeva.
It concerns the content of the request, which has to demonstrate that all conditions for MET/IT are met.
On se odnosi na sadržaj zahtjeva, kojim se mora dokazati da su ispunjeni svi uvjeti za MET/IT.
The only illegality identified in the judgments is the lack of assessment of the MET/IT claims.
Jedina nezakonitost koja je ustanovljena u presudama odnosi se na nedostatak ocjene zahtjeva za MET/IT.
Legal basis for the reimposition of duties
Pravna osnova za ponovno uvođenje pristojbi
Several interested parties claimed that the Commission should not have applied two different legal regimes, i.e. the basic Regulation prior to its amendment for the assessment of the exporting producers' IT claims on the one hand and the current basic Regulation on the other hand that incorporated the amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council introducing Comitology procedures in the area of, inter alia, trade defence and thus delegating the decision making to the Commission.
Nekoliko zainteresiranih strana tvrdilo je da Komisija nije trebala primijeniti dva različita pravna režima, odnosno Osnovnu uredbu prije izmjene za ocjenu zahtjeva za IT proizvođača izvoznika s jedne strane i s druge strane Osnovnu uredbu koja obuhvaća izmjene Uredbe (EU) 1168/2012 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća kojom se uvode komitološki postupci, između ostalog, u područje trgovinske zaštite te se postupak odlučivanja delegira Komisiji.
These parties also reiterated that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for the imposition of anti-dumping duties retro-actively which would also be confirmed by the ruling of the Court of Justice in case C-459/98P, IPS v Council and Council Regulation (EC) 1515/2001 on measures that may be taken by the Community following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters.
Te su stranke također ponovno naglasile da čl.
They argued that the Commission has not given any valid justification to deviate from the principle of non-retroactivity and has therefor violated the principle of legitimate expectations.
UFEU-a ne omogućava retroaktivno uvođenje antidampinških pristojbi, što također potvrđuje presuda Suda u predmetu C-459/98P, IPS protiv Vijeća te Uredba Vijeća (EZ) 1515/2001 o mjerama koje Zajednica može poduzeti slijedom izvješća koje usvoji Tijelo za rješavanje sporova WTO-a u pogledu antidampinških i antisubvencijskih pitanja. Tvrdile su da Komisija nije pružila valjano opravdanje za odstupanje od načela zabrane retroaktivnosti te je stoga prekršila načelo legitimnih očekivanja.
One interested party claimed any imposition of measures would be in any event without object since the statute of limitations laid down in Article 103 of the Community Customs Code expired.
Jedna zainteresirana strana tvrdila je da bi uvođenje mjera u svakom slučaju bilo bespredmetno, budući da je protekao rok zastare predviđen čl. 103. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice. Naplata antidampinških pristojbi stoga bi prekršila načelo dobrog upravljanja kao i čl.
Collecting anti-dumping duties would therefore violate the principle of good administration as well as Article 21 of the basic Regulation and would constitute an abuse of power.
21 Osnovne uredbe te bi se smatrala zlouporabom ovlasti.
Several parties also argued that reimposing the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of the Chinese exporting producers concerned by the current implementation constitutes (i) a discrimination of the importers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis importers concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments that were reimbursed duties paid on imports of footwear from the five exporting producers concerned by these judgments as well as (ii) a discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis the five exporting producers concerned by the Brosmann and Aokang judgments which were not made subject of any duty following the Council Implementing Decision of 18 March 2014 rejecting the proposal for an Implementing Regulation reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd.
Nekoliko je stranaka također tvrdilo da ponovno uvođenje konačnih antidampinških mjera na uvoz predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika u trenutnoj provedbi dovodi do i. diskriminacije predmetnih uvoznika posredstvom trenutne provedbe u odnosu na predmetne uvoznike posredstvom provedbe presuda Brosmann i Aokang kojima su nadoknađene plaćene pristojbe na uvoz obuće od strane pet predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika posredstvom ovih presuda te ii. diskriminacije predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika zbog trenutačne provedbe u odnosu na pet predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika posredstvom presuda Brosmann i Aokang na koje se nije primjenjivala nikakva pristojba slijedom Provedbene odluke Vijeća od 18. ožujka 2014. kojom se odbija prijedlog Provedbene uredbe o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe uvedene na uvoz određene obuće s gornjištima od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine koju proizvode trgovačka društva Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd i Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd.
This discriminatory treatment was claimed to reflect a lack of uniform interpretation and application of EU law which violates the fundamental right of an effective judicial protection.
Navodi se da ovaj diskriminirajući tretman pokazuje nedostatak jedinstvenog tumačenja i primjene prava EU-a čime se krši temeljno pravo na učinkovitu pravnu zaštitu.
Regarding the alleged use of different legal regimes, the Commission considers that that follows from the differences in the transition rules contained in the three Regulations amending the basic Regulation at stake.
U pogledu navodne uporabe različitih pravnih režima, Komisija smatra da ona proizlazi iz razlike u prijelaznim pravilima koja su sadržana u tri Uredbe o izmjeni predmetne Osnovne uredbe.
First, Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 (the so-called ‘Fasteners amendment’ dealing with IT) provided in its Article 2 that ‘it shall apply to all investigations initiated pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 following the entry into force of this Regulation’.
Kao prvo, Uredba 765/2012 (tzv. „Izmjena koja se odnosi na elemente za pričvršćivanje” koja se tiče IT-a) u svom čl. 2. predviđa da „se primjenjuje na sve ispitne postupke pokrenute u skladu s Uredbom (EZ) br. 1225/2009 nakon stupanja ove Uredbe na snagu”.
As the present investigation was initiated prior to that date, the amendments of that Regulation to the basic Regulation do not apply in the present case.
Budući da je trenutačni ispitni postupak započet prije tog datuma, izmjene te Uredbe na Osnovnu uredbu ne primjenjuju se u ovom slučaju.
Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 does also not seem to introduce a complete ban on analysing MET claims outside the sample, as it authorizes such examination in case of individual treatment.
Čini se da se ni Uredbom (EU) br. 1168/2012 ne uvodi potpuna zabrana na obradu zahtjeva za MET izvan uzorka, budući da se njome dopušta takvo ispitivanje u slučaju pojedinačnog tretmana.
By analogy, that derogation could be said to apply in the present case.
Sukladno tome, moglo bi se reći da se to odstupanje primjenjuje u ovom slučaju.
In the alternative, the Commission considers that the outcome of applying Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 to the present case would lead to same outcome, as all MET claims would be automatically rejected, without going through the assessment.
Isto tako, Komisija smatra da bi primjena Uredbe (EU) br. 1168/2012 na ovaj predmet dovela do istog ishoda, budući da bi zahtjevi za MET bili automatski odbijeni bez postupka ocjene.
Third, with regard to Comitology, Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 provides that the Council shall remain competent for acts where the Commission has adopted an act, consultation has been initiated or the Commission has adopted a proposal.
Kao treće, s obzirom na komitologiju, čl. 3. Uredbe (EU) br. 37/2014 predviđa da bi Vijeće trebalo ostati nadležno za akte u kojima je Komisija donijela akt, u kojima je pokrenut postupak savjetovanja ili kada Komisija donese prijedlog.
In the present case, no such action had been undertaken with regard to the implementation of the judgment prior to the entry into force of that Regulation.
U ovom predmetu takva radnja nije poduzeta s obzirom na provedbu presude prije stupanja te Uredbe na snagu.
Regarding the retro-active imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties reference is made to the considerations outlined above in recitals 73 to 81 where these claims were already addressed extensively.
U pogledu retroaktivnog uvođenja konačnih antidampinških pristojbi, upućuje se na razmatranja iz prethodnih uvodnih izjava 73. do 81. u kojima su detaljno objašnjeni ovi navodi.
Regarding discrimination, the Commission observes that exporting producers and certain importers concerned by the present regulation enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts against the present regulation.
U pogledu diskriminacije, Komisija primjećuje da proizvođači izvoznici i određeni predmetni uvoznici posredstvom ove Uredbe uživaju sudsku zaštitu pred sudovima Unije od ove Uredbe.
Other importers enjoy such protection via the national courts and tribunals, which act as judges of ordinary Union law.
Ostali uvoznici uživaju tu zaštitu pred nacionalnim sudovima koji djeluju kao suci općeg prava Unije.
The claim of discrimination is equally unfounded.
Tvrdnja o diskriminaciji jednako je tako neosnovana.
Importers that have imported from Brosman and the other four exporting producers are in a different factual and legal situation, because their exporting producers decided to challenge the contested Regulation and because they were reimbursed their duties, so that they are protected by Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code.
Uvoznici koji su uvozili od društva Brosmann i ostala četiri proizvođača izvoznika nalaze se u drugačijoj činjenično-pravnoj situaciji jer su njihovi proizvođači izvoznici odlučili osporiti Spornu uredbu i jer su im nadoknađene pristojbe tako da su zaštićeni člankom 221. stavkom 3. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
No such challenge, and no such reimbursement have taken place for others.
U slučaju drugih nije bilo takvog osporavanja i povrata.
The Commission starts to prepare implementation for the Chinese exporting producers of Clark, Puma and Timberland; all other non-sampled exporting producers from the PRC and Vietnam and their importers will be treated in the same fashion at a later stage pursuant to the procedure set out in the present Regulation.
Komisija počinje pripremu provedbe za kineske proizvođače izvoznike društava Clark, Puma i Timberland; sa svim će se ostalim proizvođačima izvoznicima iz NRK-a i Vijetnama koji nisu uključeni u uzorak i njihovim uvoznicima jednako postupiti u kasnijoj fazi u skladu s postupkom utvrđenim u ovoj Uredbi.
The same interested parties also claimed that Article 14 of the basic Regulation cannot serve as a legal basis to interfere in the application of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code, and the operation of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code is independent from any decision taken under the basic Regulation or the Commission's obligations under Article 266 TFEU.
Iste su zainteresirane strane utvrdile da čl. 14. Osnovne uredbe ne može služiti kao pravna osnova za ometanje primjene čl. 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice te da je djelovanje čl. 236 Carinskog zakonika Zajednice neovisno od svake odluke koja se donese na temelju Osnovne uredbe ili obveza Komisije prema čl. 266. UFEU-a.
In this context it was argued that the application of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code falls within the exclusive competence of the national customs authorities under which the latter are obliged to reimburse duties paid that were not legally owed.
U ovom se kontekstu navodi da primjena čl. 236 Carinskog zakonika Zajednice spada pod isključivu nadležnost nacionalnih carinskih tijela prema kojoj su oni obvezni nadoknaditi plaćene pristojbe koje nisu bile zakonski obvezne. Predmetne strane nadalje su tvrdile da čl.
The parties concerned further argued that Article 236 of the Community Customs Code cannot be made subject to or subsidiary to Article 14 of the basic Regulation because both are secondary legislation and therefore none supersedes the other.
236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice ne može biti podložan ili podređen čl. 14. Osnovne uredbe jer oba propisa spadaju u sekundarno zakonodavstvo te stoga nijedan od njih ne zamjenjuje onaj drugi. Usto, opseg čl.
In addition, the scope of Article 14 of the basic Regulation concerns special provisions that cover investigations and procedures under the basic Regulation and is not applicable to any other legal instrument such as the Community Customs Code.
14. Osnovne uredbe odnosi se na posebne odredbe koje obuhvaćaju ispitne postupke i postupke prema Osnovnoj uredbi te se ne primjenjuje na ostale zakonske instrumente poput Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
The Commission observes that the Community Customs Code does not apply automatically to the imposition of anti-dumping duties, but only by virtue of a reference in the regulation imposing anti-dumping duties.
Komisija smatra da se Carinski zakonik Zajednice ne primjenjuje automatski na uvođenje antidampinških pristojbi, već samo putem upućivanja u uredbi o uvođenju antidampinških pristojbi. Na temelju čl.
Pursuant to Article 14 of the basic Regulation, the Commission may decide not to apply certain provisions of that Code, and instead create special rules.
14. Osnovne uredbe, Komisija može odlučiti da neće primijeniti određene uredbe Zakonika, nego da će sastaviti posebna pravila. Zbog toga što se Carinski zakonik Zajednice primjenjuje samo na temelju upućivanja u Provedbenim uredbama Vijeća i Komisije, u odnosu na čl.
Because the Community Customs Code only applies on the basis of a reference in the Council and Commission Implementing Regulations, it does not have, vis-à-vis Article 14 of the basic Regulation, the same rank in the hierarchy of norms, but is subordinated and may be rendered inapplicable or applicable in a different manner.
14. Osnovne uredbe on nema jednak položaj u hijerarhiji normi, već je podređen i može se proglasiti neprimjenjivim ili primjenjivim na drugačiji način.
Adequate statement of reasons
Odgovarajuće obrazloženje
The above mentioned interested parties argued that in violation of Article 296 TFEU, the Commission failed to provide adequate statement of reasons and indication of the legal basis on which duties were reimposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation.
Navedene su zainteresirane strane utvrdile da pri povredi čl. 296 UFEU-a Komisija nije pružila odgovarajuće obrazloženje i napomenu o pravnoj osnovi po kojoj su pristojbe retroaktivno ponovno uvedene te je stoga trenutačnom provedbom odbijena nadoknada pristojbi predmetnim uvoznicima.
The lack of adequate reasoning concerned in particular (i) the lack of legal basis for the reopening of the investigation and the lack of publishing a relevant notice announcing such reopening; (ii) the only partial implementation of the judgment of the General Court by merely assessing MET/IT claims of those exporting producers where reimbursement claims had been filed by the importers; (iii) the derogation from the principle of non-retroactivity of anti-dumping duties; (iv) the application of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment on 6 September 2012 for the assessment of the exporting producers' IT claims on the one hand and the current basic Regulation as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 with regard to the applicable decision making procedures and (v) the lack of response to the legal arguments provided by these parties following the disclosure of the Commission concerning the assessment of the MET claims of the Chinese exporting producers concerned of 15 December 2015.
Nedostatak odgovarajućeg obrazloženja odnosio se posebno na i. nedostatak pravne osnove za ponovno otvaranje ispitnog postupka i izostanak objave relevantne obavijesti o ponovnom otvaranju; ii. samo djelomičnu provedbu presude Općeg suda ocjenom zahtjeva za MET/IT samo onih proizvođača izvoznika za koje su zahtjev za nadoknadom podnijeli uvoznici; iii. odstupanje od načela zabrane retroaktivnosti antidampinških pristojbi; iv. primjenu Osnovne uredbe prije izmjene od 6. rujna 2012. radi ocjene zahtjeva za IT proizvođača izvoznika s jedne strane i trenutne Osnovne uredbe izmijenjene Uredbom (EU) br. 1168/2012 s obzirom na primjenjive postupke odlučivanja te v. nedostatak odgovora na pravne argumente koje su iznijele te stranke slijedom objave Komisije u pogledu ocjene zahtjeva za MET predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika od 15. prosinca 2015.
Concerning the lack of any legal basis to reopen the investigation the Commission recalls the case-law quoted above at recital 15, pursuant to which it may resume the investigation at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
U pogledu nedostatka pravne osnove za ponovno otvaranje ispitnog postupka, Komisija podsjeća na sudsku praksu citiranu u uvodnoj izjavi 15. prema kojoj može nastaviti ispitni postupak upravo u onom dijelu u kojem je došlo do nezakonitosti.
That was after initiation.
To je bilo nakon pokretanja.
There is no legal obligation for the Commission to publish a notice to reinitiate, to resume or to reopen the proceeding or the investigation.
Komisija nije pravno obvezna objaviti obavijest o ponovnom pokretanju, nastavku ili ponovnom otvaranju postupka ili ispitnog postupka.
Rather, such is the automatic effect of the judgment which the Institutions then have to implement.
Naprotiv, to je automatski učinak presude koju institucije zatim moraju provesti.
According to the case-law, the legality of an anti-dumping regulation has to be assessed in the light of the objective norms of Union law, and not of a decisional practice, even where such a practice exists (which is not the case here).
Prema sudskoj praksi, zakonitost antidampinške uredbe potrebno je ocijeniti s obzirom na objektivne norme prava Unije, a ne na praksu odlučivanja, čak i ako ta praksa postoji (što ovdje nije slučaj).
Hence, the fact that the Commission may have followed in the past in certain cases a different practice cannot create legitimate expectations.
Stoga činjenica da je Komisija u prošlosti možda primjenjivala drukčiju praksu ne može biti temelj za legitimna očekivanja.
That is all the more the case because the previous practice referred to does not correspond to the factual and legal situation of the present case, and differences can be explained by factual and legal differences with the present case.
To je tim više slučaj jer prethodna praksa na koju se upućuje ne odgovara činjeničnoj i pravnoj situaciji iz ovog predmeta te se razlike mogu objasniti činjeničnim i pravnim razlikama u odnosu na ovaj predmet.
Those differences are as follows: The illegality identified by the Court does not concern the findings on dumping, injury, and Union interest, and therefore the principle of the imposition of the duty, but only the precise duty rate.
Te su razlike sljedeće: nezakonitost koju je utvrdio Sud ne odnosi se na nalaze o dampingu, šteti i interesu Unije pa stoga ni na načelo uvođenja pristojbe, nego samo na točnu stopu pristojbe.
The previous annulments relied on by the interested parties, on the contrary, concerned the findings on dumping, injury and Union interest.
Suprotno tome, prethodna poništenja na koja su se oslanjale zainteresirane strane odnosila su se na nalaze o dampingu, šteti i interesu Unije.
The institutions therefore considered it more appropriate to adopt new measures for the future.
Institucije su stoga smatrale da bi bilo prikladnije donijeti nove mjere za budućnost.
In particular, in the present case, there was no need whatsoever to seek additional information from interested parties.
Točnije, u ovom predmetu nije ni u kojem slučaju bilo potrebno tražiti dodatne podatke od zainteresiranih strana.
Rather, the Commission had to assess information that had been filed with it, but not assessed before the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Naprotiv, Komisija je ocijenila podatke koji su joj dostavljeni, ali nisu ocijenjeni prije donošenja Uredbe (EZ) br. 1472/2006.
In any event, previous practice in other cases does not constitute precise and unconditional assurance for the present case.
U svakom slučaju, prethodna praksa u drugim predmetima ne predstavlja točno i bezuvjetno jamstvo za ovaj predmet.
Finally, all parties against which the proceeding is directed, i.e. the exporting producers concerned, as well as the parties in the pending Court cases and the association representing one of those parties, have been informed by the disclosure of the relevant facts on the basis of which the Commission intends to adopt the present MET assessment.
Konačno, sve strane na koje se postupak odnosi, tj. predmetni proizvođači izvoznici, te stranke u postupcima pred Sudom koji su u tijeku i udruženje koje predstavlja jednu od tih stranaka, u okviru objave obaviješteni su o relevantnim činjenicama na temelju kojih Komisija namjerava donijeti ovu ocjenu MET-a.
Hence, their rights of defence are safeguarded.
Stoga je njihovo pravo na obranu zaštićeno.
In that regard, it is to be noted in particular that unrelated importers do not enjoy, in an antidumping proceeding, rights of defence, as those proceedings are not directed against them.
U tom je pogledu potrebno posebno napomenuti da nepovezani uvoznici u antidampinškom postupku nemaju pravo na zaštitu jer se ti postupci na njih ne odnose.
Regarding the partial implementation of the judgments is concerned whether and to what extent the Institutions have to implement a judgment depends on the concrete content of the judgment.
U pogledu djelomične provedbe presuda, jesu li i u kojoj su mjeri institucije obvezne provesti presudu ovisi o konkretnom sadržaju presude.
In particular, whether or not it is possible to confirm the imposition of duties on imports that took place prior to the judgment depends on whether the finding of injurious dumping as such, or only the calculation of the precise duty rate are affected by the illegality identified in the judgment.
Točnije, mogućnost potvrde uvođenja pristojbi na uvoz koji je izvršen prije presude ovisi o tome utječe li nezakonitost utvrđena presudom na nalaz o štetnom dampingu kao takav ili samo na izračun točne stope pristojbe.
In the latter situation, which is pertinent here, there is no justification for reimbursing all duties.
U potonjoj situaciji, o kojoj je ovdje riječ, nema opravdanja za povrat svih pristojbi.