natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard, the Commission observes that provisional measures are not a necessary step of the proceeding, but an autonomous act that ceases its effects with the adoption of definitive measures [29].
U tom pogledu, Komisija naglašava da privremene mjere nisu nužna faza postupka, nego autonoman akt čiji učinci prestaju donošenjem konačnih mjera [29].
Therefore, that argument is inoperative.
Stoga taj argument nije valjan.
FESI, referring to the judgment of the General Court in case T-2/95, IPS v Council, pointed to the formal difference between an ‘investigation’ and a ‘proceeding’ and argued that once a proceeding is terminated, like in the current case, it cannot be resumed anymore.
FESI je, pozivajući se na presudu Općeg suda u predmetu T-2/95, IPS protiv Vijeća, upozorio na formalne razlike između „ispitnog postupka” i „postupka” te tvrdio da se jednom okončan postupak, kao u ovom slučaju, više ne može nastaviti.
The Commission fails to see any material difference between the terms ‘investigation’ and ‘proceeding’ in the context of the implementation of the judgments at stake.
Komisija ne vidjeti bitnu razliku između izraza „ispitni postupak” i „postupak” u kontekstu provedbe predmetnih presuda.
The judgments concern an irregularity with regard to a specific investigation as part of a proceeding which the Commission is under an obligation to remedy as explained in recitals (21) to (29) above.
Presude se odnose na nepravilnost u određenom ispitnom postupku kao dio postupka koji Komisija ima obvezu ispraviti, kako je objašnjeno u uvodnim izjavama 21. do 29.
FESI also claimed that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for a partial implementation of a judgment of the Court of Justice and in the current case the reversal of the burden of proof.
FESI je također tvrdio da se člankom 266. UFEU-a ne omogućava djelomična provedba presude Suda ni, kako je slučaj u ovom predmetu, prebacivanje tereta dokazivanja na drugu stranu.
Thus, FESI claimed that the Commission wrongly assessed only the MET/IT requests of those exporting producers that were suppliers of importers that filed reimbursements claims.
Stoga je FESI tvrdio da je Komisija pogrešno ocijenila samo zahtjeve za MET/IT onih proizvođača izvoznika koji su bili dobavljači za uvoznike koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za povrat.
They based their claim on the understanding that the effect of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE is erga omnes and that it cannot be excluded that the results of the current assessment the MET/IT claims has also an impact on the residual duty which is applicable to all Vietnamese exporting producers.
Svoju je tvrdnju temeljio na shvaćanju da se učinak presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE odnosi na sve te da se ne može isključiti da rezultati trenutačne ocjene zahtjeva za MET/IT utječu i na preostalu pristojbu koja se primjenjuje na sve vijetnamske proizvođače izvoznike.
They therefore claimed that the Commission should have assessed all MET/IT claims that were provided during the original investigation.
Stoga je tvrdio da je Komisija trebala ocijeniti sve zahtjeve za MET/IT koji su dostavljeni tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
Moreover, FESI disagreed that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT arguing that producers had discharged this burden of proof in 2005 by filing the MET/IT requests during the original investigation.
Štoviše, FESI nije bio suglasan s time da teret dokazivanja počiva na proizvođaču koji podnosi zahtjev za MET/IT, tvrdeći da su proizvođači taj teret dokazivanja ispunili 2005. godine podnošenjem zahtjeva za MET/IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
FESI also disagreed that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE can be implemented by simply assessing the MET/IT requests submitted by the non-sampled exporting producers as the Court of Justice did not specifically outline that the invalidation found is indeed limited to this aspect.
FESI se nije složio ni s time da se presuda Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE može provesti samo ocjenom zahtjeva za MET/IT koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici koji nisu u uzorku jer Sud nije izričito naglasio da je ustanovljeni prestanak valjanosti doista ograničen na ovaj aspekt.
The Commission considers that the 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 three 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 je predviđeno Carinskim zakonikom 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 ocijenjen, a činjenica da je MET/IT odobren nekom društvu izvan uzorka ne utječe na stopu preostale pristojbe.
Legal basis for the re-imposition of duties
Pravna osnova za ponovno uvođenje pristojbi
FESI 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 [30], and the current basic Regulation on the other hand [31], that incorporated the amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council [32] introducing Comitology procedures in the area of, inter alia, trade defence and thus delegating the decision making to the Commission.
FESI je tvrdio da Komisija nije trebala primijeniti dva različita pravna režima, odnosno Osnovnu uredbu prije izmjena za ocjenu zahtjeva za IT proizvođača izvoznika s jedne strane [30] i, s druge strane, trenutačnu Osnovnu uredbu [31] koja obuhvaća izmjene Uredbom (EU) br. 1168/2012 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća [32] kojom se uvode komitološki postupci, među ostalim, u područje trgovinske zaštite, čime se postupak odlučivanja delegira Komisiji.
FESI also re-iterated 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 [33].
FESI je također ponovno naglasio da se člankom 266. 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 [33].
FESI argued that the Commission has not given any valid justification to deviate from the principle of non-retroactivity and has therefore violated the principle of legitimate expectations.
FESI je tvrdio da Komisija nije pružila valjano opravdanje za odstupanje od načela zabrane retroaktivnosti te je stoga prekršila načelo legitimnih očekivanja.
FESI also argued that re-imposing the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of the Vietnamese 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 referred to in recital (6) above 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 [34].
FESI je također tvrdio da ponovno uvođenje konačnih antidampinških mjera na uvoz predmetnih vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika na koje se odnosi trenutačna provedba znači i. diskriminaciju uvoznika obuhvaćenih trenutačnom provedbom u odnosu na uvoznike obuhvaćene provedbom presuda Brosmann i Aokang, na koje se upućuje u uvodnoj izjavi 6., kojima su nadoknađene pristojbe koje su platili na uvoz obuće pet proizvođača izvoznika obuhvaćenih tim presudama te ii. diskriminaciju proizvođača izvoznika obuhvaćenih trenutačnom provedbom u odnosu na pet proizvođača izvoznika obuhvaćenih presudama Brosmann i Aokang na koje se nije primjenjivala nikakva pristojba slijedom Provedbene odluke Vijeća od 18. ožujka 2014. o odbijanju prijedloga 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 [34].
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 razlika u prijelaznim pravilima koja su sadržana u tri Uredbe o izmjeni predmetne Osnovne uredbe.
However, the Commission considers that such treatment would be difficult to reconcile with its obligation to implement the judgments.
Međutim, Komisija smatra da bi takvo postupanje bilo teško uskladiti s njezinom obvezom da provede presude.
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 jer se njome dopušta takvo ispitivanje u slučaju individualnog tretmana.
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 jer bi zahtjevi za MET bili automatski odbijeni bez postupka ocjene.
Third, with regard to Comitology, Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council [35] 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, kada je riječ o komitologiji, člankom 3. Uredbe (EU) br. 37/2014 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća [35] predviđeno je da Vijeće ostaje nadležno za akte kada je Komisija donijela akt, kada je pokrenut postupak savjetovanja ili kada je Komisija donijela 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 Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.
U ovom predmetu nikakva radnja u pogledu provedbe presude nije poduzeta prije stupanja na snagu Uredbe (EU) br. 37/2014.
Regarding the retro-active imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties reference is made to the considerations outlined above in recitals (67) to (75) where these claims were already addressed extensively.
U pogledu retroaktivnog uvođenja konačnih antidampinških pristojbi, upućuje se na razmatranja iz prethodnih uvodnih izjava 67. do 75. u kojima su ovi navodi detaljno objašnjeni.
Regarding the claim on 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 tvrdnje o diskriminaciji, Komisija primjećuje da proizvođači izvoznici i određeni uvoznici na koje se odnosi ova Uredba uživaju sudsku zaštitu pred sudovima Unije u odnosu na ovu Uredbu.
Other importers enjoy such protection via the national courts and tribunals, which act as judges of ordinary Union law.
Ostali uvoznici uživaju tu zaštitu preko nacionalnih sudova koji djeluju kao suci u području općeg prava Unije.
Importers that have imported from Brosmann 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 had the paid duties reimbursed, 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 plaćene pristojbe tako da su zaštićeni člankom 221. stavkom 3. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
The Commission started to prepare implemenation for the Chinese and Vietnamese 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 je počela s pripremom provedbe za kineske i vijetnamske proizvođače izvoznike društava Clark, Puma i Timberland; sa svim ostalim proizvođačima izvoznicima iz NRK-a i Vijetnama koji nisu uključeni u uzorak i njihovim uvoznicima postupat će se na isti način u kasnijoj fazi u skladu s postupkom utvrđenim u ovoj Uredbi.
FESI 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.
FESI je tvrdio i da članak 14. Osnovne uredbe ne može služiti kao pravna osnova za ometanje primjene članka 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice te da je djelovanje članka 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice neovisno od svake odluke koja se donese na temelju Osnovne uredbe ili obveza Komisije u skladu s člankom 266. UFEU-a.
In this context FESI 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 je kontekstu FESI tvrdio da je primjena članka 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice pod isključivom nadležnosti nacionalnih carinskih tijela prema kojoj su oni obvezni nadoknaditi plaćene pristojbe koje nisu bile zakonski obvezne.
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.
Predmetne stranke nadalje su tvrdile da članak 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice ne može biti podložan ili podređen članku 14. Osnovne uredbe jer oba propisa pripadaju sekundarnom zakonodavstvu te stoga nijedan od njih ne zamjenjuje onaj drugi.
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.
Usto, opseg članka 14. Osnovne uredbe odnosi se na posebne odredbe koje obuhvaćaju ispitne postupke i postupke na temelju Osnovne uredbe 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 na temelju upućivanja u uredbi o uvođenju antidampinških pristojbi.
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.
Na temelju članka 14. Osnovne uredbe Komisija može odlučiti da neće primijeniti određene odredbe Zakonika, nego da će sastaviti posebna pravila.
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.
Zbog toga što se Carinski zakonik Zajednice primjenjuje samo na temelju upućivanja u Provedbenim uredbama Vijeća i Komisije, on u odnosu na članak 14. Osnovne uredbe nema jednak položaj u hijerarhiji normi, već je podređen i može se proglasiti neprimjenjivim ili primjenjivim na drugačiji način.
Therefore, this argument is also rejected.
Stoga je i ovaj argument odbačen.
FESI further 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 re-imposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation.
FESI je tvrdio i da pri povredi članka 296. UFEU-a Komisija nije pružila odgovarajuće obrazloženje ni navela pravnu osnovu na temelju koje su pristojbe retroaktivno ponovno uvedene, a uvoznicima obuhvaćenima trenutačnom provedbom, posljedično, odbijen povrat pristojbi.
The alleged lack of adequate reasoning concerned in particular (i) the lack of legal basis for the re-opening of the investigation and the lack of publishing a relevant notice announcing such re-opening; (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.
Navodno nepostojanje odgovarajućeg obrazloženja odnosio se posebno na i. izostanak pravne osnove za ponovno otvaranje ispitnog postupka i izostanak objave relevantne obavijesti o tom ponovnom otvaranju; ii. samo djelomičnu provedbu presude Općeg suda ocjenom zahtjeva za MET/IT samo onih proizvođača izvoznika za koje su zahtjev za povratom podnijeli uvoznici; iii. odstupanje od načela zabrane retroaktivnosti antidampinških pristojbi; iv. primjenu Osnovne uredbe prije izmjena od 6. rujna 2012. za ocjenu zahtjeva za IT proizvođačâ izvoznikâ s jedne strane i trenutačne Osnovne uredbe kako je izmijenjena Uredbom (EU) br. 1168/2012 s obzirom na primjenjive postupke odlučivanja; te v. izostanak odgovora na pravne argumente koje su iznijele te stranke nakon što je Komisija objavila informacije o ocjeni zahtjeva za MET predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika od 15. prosinca 2015.
Concerning the lack of any legal basis to re-open 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 izostanka 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 onoj točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti.
That was after initiation.
To je bilo nakon pokretanja postupka.
There is no legal obligation for the Commission to publish a notice to re-initiate, to resume or to re-open the proceeding or the investigation.
Komisija nije pravno obvezna objaviti obavijest o ponovnom pokretanju, nastavku ili ponovnom otvaranju postupka ili ispitnog postupka.
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 uredbe o antidampingu 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) [36].
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, a razlike se mogu objasniti činjeničnim i pravnim razlikama u odnosu na ovaj predmet.
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 pozivale 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.
Konkretno, u ovom predmetu nije ni u kojem slučaju bilo potrebno tražiti dodatne podatke od zainteresiranih strana.
Finally, all parties against which the proceeding is directed, i.e. the exporting producers concerned, as well as the parties in the 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/IT assessment.
Konačno, sve stranke na koje se postupak odnosi, tj. predmetni proizvođači izvoznici, te stranke u postupcima pred Sudom 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/IT-a.
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. [37]
U tom je pogledu potrebno posebno napomenuti da nepovezani uvoznici u antidampinškom postupku nemaju pravo na zaštitu jer ti postupci nisu usmjereni protiv njih [37].
Regarding the partial implementation of the judgments, the question 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, o konkretnom sadržaju presude ovisi jesu li i u kojoj su mjeri institucije obvezne provesti presudu.