natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 whose 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 čije se razlike mogu objasniti činjeničnim i pravnim razlikama u odnosu na ovaj predmet.
The institutions are therefore permitted to recalculate the precise duty rate for the exporting producers concerned.
Institucijama je stoga dopušten ponovni precizan izračun stope pristojbe za predmetne proizvođače izvoznike.
In particular, in the present case, there was no need to seek additional information from interested parties.
Konkretno, u ovom predmetu nije bilo potrebno tražiti dodatne podatke od zainteresiranih strana.
Rather, the Commission had to assess information that had been filed, 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, as noted in recital (100) above, previous practice in other cases does not constitute precise and unconditional assurance for the present case.
U svakom slučaju, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi (100), prethodna praksa u drugim predmetima ne predstavlja točno i bezuvjetno jamstvo za ovaj predmet.
According to the case-law referred to in recital (15) above, the administrative procedure should be resumed at the point in time where the illegality occurred.
Prema sudskoj praksi iz uvodne izjave (15), administrativni postupak trebalo bi nastaviti u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti.
The Commission is under an obligation to close those proceedings; Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation provides that an investigation has to be closed by an act of the Commission.
Komisija ima obvezu zaključiti te postupke jer je člankom 9. stavkom 4. Osnovne uredbe propisano da se ispitni postupak mora zaključiti aktom Komisije.
Article 236 of the Community Customs Code
Članak 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also submitted that the procedure adopted to reopen the investigation and retroactively impose the duty amounts to an abuse of powers by the Commission and violates of the TEU.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da postupak za ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka i retroaktivnog uvođenja pristojbe predstavlja zlouporabu ovlasti Komisije te da se njime krši UEU.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition sustain in this regard that the Commission does not have the authority to interfere with Article 236(1) of the Community Customs Code by preventing the repayment of the anti-dumping duties.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće stoje pri tome da u tom pogledu Komisija nema ovlasti da sprečavanjem povrata antidampinških pristojbi utječe na članak 236. stavak 1. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
They argued that it was up to the national customs authorities to draw the consequences from an invalidation of an act imposing anti-dumping duties and that the national customs authorities would also be obliged to reimburse those duties that had been declared invalid by the Court.
Tvrdili su da je na nacionalnim carinskim tijelima da povuku posljedice nevaljanosti uvođenja antidampinških pristojbi te da bi nacionalna carinska tijela jednako tako bila obvezna nadoknaditi te pristojbe koje je Sud proglasio nevaljanima.
In this regard, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation does not allow the Commission to derogate from Article 236 of the Community Customs Code, as both legislations are of an equal legal order and the basic Regulation cannot be seen as a lex specialis of the Community Customs Code.
U tom pogledu FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da se člankom 14. stavkom 13. Osnovne uredbe Komisiji ne omogućuje odstupanje od članka 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice jer su oba pravna akta jednakog pravnog poretka i jer se ne može smatrati da je Osnovna uredba lex specialis Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
Furthermore, the same parties continued Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation does not refer to Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and only states that special provisions may be adopted by the Commission, but no derogations to the Community Customs Code.
Nadalje, iste su stranke tvrdile da članak 14. stavak 3. Osnovne uredbe ne upućuje na članak 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice te da se u njemu navodi samo da Komisija može donijeti posebne odredbe, ali ne i odstupanja od Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
This transposition does not require a full application of all the provisions of the Union's customs legislation.
Taj prijenos ne zahtijeva potpunu primjenu svih odredbi carinskih zakonodavstva Unije.
Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation explicitly envisages special provisions with regard to the common definition of the concept of origin, a good example of where deviation from the provisions of the Union's customs legislation occurs.
Člankom 14. stavkom 3. Osnovne uredbe izričito se predviđaju posebne odredbe u pogledu zajedničke definicije pojma podrijetla, što je dobar primjer toga gdje nastaju odstupanja od odredbi carinskog zakonodavstva Unije.
It is on that basis that the Commission made use of the powers arising from Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation and required that national customs authorities refrain temporarily from any reimbursement.
Na temelju toga Komisija je koristila ovlasti koje proizlaze iz članka 14. stavka 3. Osnovne uredbe i zahtijevala od nacionalnih carinskih tijela da se privremeno suzdrže od bilo kakvog povrata.
This does not challenge the exclusive competence that national customs authorities have in relation to disputes concerning customs debt: the decision-making authority remains with the customs authorities of the Member States.
To ne dovodi u pitanje isključivu nadležnost koju imaju nacionalna carinska tijela u sporovima koji se odnose na carinski dug: donošenje odluka i dalje ostaje na carinskim tijelima država članica.
The Member States customs authorities still decide, on the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission vis-à-vis the MET and IT claims, whether reimbursement should be granted or not.
Carinska tijela država članica i dalje, na temelju zaključaka koje je Komisija donijela u pogledu zahtjeva za MET i IT, odlučuju bi li povrat trebao biti odobren.
Thus, while it is true that nothing in the Union's customs legislation allows for an obstacle to the reimbursement of erroneously paid customs duties to be erected, no such sweeping statement can be made in relation to the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties.
Stoga, iako je točno da ništa u carinskom zakonodavstvu ne sprječava ispravak povrata pogrešno plaćenih carina, u pogledu povrata antidampinških pristojbi ne može se donijeti takav opći zaključak.
Accordingly, and with the overarching necessity to protect the Union's own resources from unjustified requests for repayment and the related difficulty this would have caused pursuing unjustified repayments thereafter, the Commission had to deviate temporarily from the Union's customs legislation by making use of its powers under Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation.
Zbog toga, i prije svega zbog potrebe da se Unijina vlastita sredstva zaštite od neopravdanih zahtjeva za povrat i poteškoća do kojih bi došlo zbog daljnjih neopravdanih zahtjeva za povrat, Komisija je na temelju svojih ovlasti iz članka 14. stavka 3. Osnovne uredbe, morala privremeno odstupiti od carinskog zakonodavstva Unije.
Lack of statement of legal basis
Nedostatak navoda pravne osnove
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also 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 i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su 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 kao posljedica toga uvoznicima obuhvaćenima trenutačnom provedbom odbijen je povrat pristojbi.
Accordingly, FESI and the Footwear coalition claimed that the Commission had breached the right to effective judicial protection of interested parties.
Stoga su FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili da je Komisija prekršila pravo na učinkovitu sudsku zaštitu zainteresiranih strana.
The Commission considers that the extensive legal reasoning provided in the general disclosure document and in this Regulation duly motivates the latter.
Komisija smatra da iscrpni pravni razlozi iz općeg dokumenta o objavi i iz ove Uredbe opravdano oblikuju potonju.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed further that the retroactive correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće još su tvrdili da se retroaktivnim ispravkom isteklih mjera krši načelo zaštite legitimnih očekivanja.
FESI argued that first, parties including importers, would have received assurance that the measures expired on 31 March 2011 and that given the time elapsed since the original investigation, parties were entitled to have justified expectations that the original investigation will not be resumed or reopened.
Kao prvo, FESI je tvrdio da su stranke, uključujući uvoznike, dobile jamstvo da mjere istječu 31. ožujka 2011. i da su stranke, s obzirom na vrijeme proteklo od početnog ispitnog postupka, imale pravo opravdano očekivati da se početni ispitni postupak neće nastaviti niti ponovno pokrenuti.
Likewise, the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were entitled to have justified legitimate expatiations that their MET/IT claims provided in the original investigation would not be reviewed anymore by the Commission, based on the mere fact that these claims were no assessed within the three-month period applicable during the original investigation.
Jednako tako, kineski i vijetnamski proizvođači opravdano su mogli imati legitimna očekivanja da Komisija više neće preispitivati njihove zahtjeve za MET/IT iz početnog ispitnog postupka, na temelju činjenice da ti zahtjevi nisu ocijenjeni u razdoblju od tri mjeseca koje se primjenjuje tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
Regarding legitimate expectations of interested parties that anti-dumping measures expired and that the investigation will not be re-opened anymore, reference is made to recitals (104) and (105) where these claims had been addressed in detail.
U pogledu legitimnih očekivanja zainteresiranih strana da su antidampinške mjere istekle i da se ispitni postupak neće ponovno pokretati, upućuje se na uvodne izjave (104) i (105) u kojima je to detaljno objašnjeno.
Regarding the legitimate expectations of Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers not to have their MET/IT claims reviewed, reference is made to recital (100) above, where this has equally been addressed in light of the case-law of the Court on this matter.
U pogledu legitimnih očekivanja kineskih i vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika čiji zahtjevi za MET/IT nisu pregledani, upućuje se na uvodnu izjavu (100), u kojoj je to objašnjeno i u kontekstu sudske prakse o tom pitanju.
Principle of non-discrimination
Načelo nediskriminacije
FESI and the Footwear Coalition submitted that the imposition of anti-dumping measures with retroactive effects constitutes discrimination of (i) 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) 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 Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da uvođenje antidampinških mjera s retroaktivnim učinkom znači diskriminaciju i. 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 2014/149/EU.
Regarding the claim on discrimination, the Commission recalls first of all the requirements for discrimination, as set out in recital (93) above.
U pogledu tvrdnje o diskriminaciji, Komisija najprije podsjeća na sve uvjete u pogledu diskriminacije, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi (93).
Then, it is noted that the difference between importers concerned by the current implementation and those concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments is that the latter decided to challenge Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 in the General Court, whereas the former did not.
Navedeno je da je razlika među uvoznicima obuhvaćenima trenutačnom provedbom i provedbom presude Brosmann i Aokang jest ta da potonja dovodi u pitanje Uredbu (EZ) br. 1472/2006 pred Općim sudom, a prva ne.
A decision adopted by a Union institution, which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time-limit laid down by the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, becomes definitive as against him.
Odluka koju je donijela institucija Unije, a koju njezin adresat nije doveo u pitanje u vremenskom roku iz članka 263. stavka 6. UFEU-a, za njega postaje konačna.
That rule is based in particular on the consideration that the periods within which legal proceedings must be brought are intended to ensure legal certainty by preventing Union measures which produce legal effects from being called into question indefinitely.
To se pravilo konkretno temelji na razmatranju na temelju kojeg se rokovi u kojima se moraju pokrenuti postupci kojima se jamči pravna sigurnost sprečavanjem mjera Unije koje proizvode pravne učinke neograničeno mogu dovoditi u pitanje.
This procedural principle of Union law necessarily creates two groups: those which challenged a Union measure and who may have gained a favourable position as a result (like Brosmann and the other four exporting producers), and those who did not.
To proceduralno načelo prava Unije nužno stvara dvije skupine: skupinu onih koji su doveli u pitanje mjeru Unije, a koji su kao rezultat toga možda ostvarili povoljni položaj (primjerice društva Brosmann i ostala četiri proizvođača izvoznika) i skupinu onih koji to nisu učinili.
Yet, that does not mean that the Commission has treated the two parties unequally in violation of the principle of equal treatment.
Međutim, to ne znači da je Komisija nejednako postupala prema tim dvjema stranama i time prekršila načelo jednakog postupanja.
An acknowledgement that a party falls into the latter category because of a conscious decision not to challenge a Union measure does not discriminate against that group.
Priznanje da stranka ulazi u potonju kategoriju zbog svjesne odluke da ne dovede u pitanje mjeru Unije ne znači diskriminacija te skupine.
So, all interested parties did enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts at all times.
Stoga nisu sve zainteresirane strane u svakom trenutku imale sudsku zaštitu pred sudovima Unije.
Insofar as it concerns the alleged discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation which were not made subject of any duty following Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, it should be noted that the decision of the Council not to re-impose duties was clearly taken with regard to the particular circumstances of the specific situation as it stood at the time the Commission made its proposal for the re-imposition of those duties and in particular on the grounds that the anti-dumping duties concerned had already been reimbursed, and to the extent that the original communication of the debt to the debtor in question had been withdrawn following the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang.
Ako je riječ o navodnoj diskriminaciji predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika u trenutačnoj provedbi u okviru koje se na njih nije odnosila ni jedna pristojba na temelju Provedbene odluke 2014/149/EU, trebalo bi naglasiti da je odluka Vijeća prema kojoj se neće ponovno uvesti pristojbe očito donesena zbog posebnih okolnosti specifične situacije koja je bila u vrijeme kada je Komisija izradila prijedlog za ponovno uvođenje tih pristojbi, a posebno na temelju činjenice da su predmetne antidampinške pristojbe već nadoknađene te pod uvjetom da je prvotna obavijest dužniku o dugu povučena nakon presuda u predmetima Brosmann and Aokang.
According to the Council, this reimbursement had created legitimate expectations on the part of the importers concerned.
Prema Vijeću, zbog tog su povrata nastala legitimna očekivanja za predmetne uvoznike.
Since no comparable reimbursement took place for other importers, these are not in a comparable situation to those importers concerned by the Council decision.
Budući da za druge uvoznike nije bilo sličnog povrata, ne mogu se uspoređivati sa situacijom uvoznika na koje se odnosi odluka Vijeća.
In any event, the fact that the Council chose to act in a certain way, given the particular circumstances of the case before it, cannot bind the Commission to implement another judgment in the exact same way.
U svakom slučaju, činjenica da je Vijeće odlučilo djelovati na određeni način i s obzirom na posebne okolnosti prijašnjih predmeta, ne može Komisiju obvezati da provede drugu presudu na potpuno isti način.
Commission's competence to impose definitive anti-dumping measures
Nadležnost Komisije za uvođenje konačnih antidampinških mjera
In addition, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission does not have the competence to adopt the Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty retroactively in the current implementation exercise, and that this competence would in any event lie with the Council.
Osim toga, FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da Komisija nije nadležna za retroaktivno donošenje uredbe o uvođenju antidampinške pristojbe u trenutačnoj provedbi te da bi za to eventualno bilo nadležno Vijeće.
This claim was based on the argument that if the investigation is resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred, the same rules should also be applicable than the ones at the time of the original investigation, where definitive measures were adopted by the Council.
Ta se tvrdnja temeljila na argumentu da ako se ispitni postupak nastavi ondje gdje je nastala nezakonitost, trebala bi se primjenjivati ista pravila kao i u vrijeme početnog ispitnog postupka u kojemu je mjere donijelo Vijeće.
These parties argued that in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (also called ‘Omnibus I Regulation’) the new decision-making procedure in the field of the common commercial policy does not apply to the present context given that before the entry into force of the Omnibus I Regulation the Commission (i) had already adopted an act (the provisional Regulation); (ii) the consultations that were required under Regulation (EC) No 384/96 were initiated and concluded; and (iii) the Commission had already adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation adopting definitive measures.
Te su stranke tvrdile da u skladu s člankom 3. Uredbe (EU) br. 37/2014 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća („Uredba Omnibus I.”) novi se postupak za donošenje odluka u području zajedničke trgovinske politike ne primjenjuje na ovaj kontekst jer je prije stupanja na snagu Uredbe Omnibus I. Komisija i. već donijela akt (privremena uredba), ii. započela i završila savjetovanja iz Uredbe (EZ) br. 384/96 te iii. već donijela prijedlog za Uredbu Vijeća o donošenju konačnih mjera.
On this basis, these parties concluded that the decision making procedures prior to the entry in force of the Omnibus I Regulation should apply.
Na temelju toga te su stranke zaključile da bi se trebali primjenjivati postupci donošenja odluka prije stupanja na snagu Uredbe Omnibus I.
That claim, however, focuses on the date of initiation of the investigation (which is indeed relevant in relation to the other substantive amendments that were made to the basic Regulation) but fails to note that Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 uses a different criterion (that is, the initiation of the procedure for adoption of measures).
Taj je zahtjev, međutim, usmjeren na datum otvaranja ispitnog postupka (koji je doista relevantan za druge znatne izmjene Osnovne uredbe), ali nije navedeno da je u Uredbi (EU) br. 37/2014 upotrijebljen drugačiji kriterij (tj. otvaranje postupka donošenja mjera).
The position of FESI and the Footwear Coalition is therefore based on an incorrect interpretation of the transitional rule in Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.
Stajalište FESI-ja i Koalicije proizvođača obuće stoga se temelji na netočnoj interpretaciji prijelaznog pravila u Uredbi (EU) br. 37/2014.
Indeed, given the reference in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 to ‘procedures initiated for the adoption of measures’, which sets out the transitional rules for the changes to the decision-making procedures for the adoption of anti-dumping measures, and given the meaning of ‘procedure’ in the basic Regulation, for an investigation that was initiated prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014, but where the Commission had not launched the consultation of the relevant committee with a view to adopting measures prior to that entry into force, the new rules apply to the procedure for adopting said anti-dumping measures.
Doista, s obzirom na upućivanje iz članka 3. Uredbe (EU) br. 37/2014 na „započete postupke za donošenje mjera” kojima se utvrđuju prijelazna pravila za izmjene postupaka donošenja odluka za donošenje antidampinških mjera i s obzirom na značenje pojma „postupak” u Osnovnoj uredbi, na ispitni postupak koji je pokrenut prije stupanja na snagu Uredbe (EU) br. 37/2014, ali ako Komisija nije pokrenula savjetovanje s relevantnim odborom u pogledu donošenja mjera prije tog stupanja na snagu, na donošenje antidampinških mjera primjenjuju se nova pravila.
The same holds true for proceedings where measures had been imposed on the basis of the old rules and come up for review, or for measures where provisional duties had been imposed on the basis of the old rules, but the procedure for adopting definitive measures had not been launched yet when Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 entered into force.
Isto vrijedi i za postupke u kojima su mjere uvedene na temelju starih pravila i predmet su preispitivanja ili za mjere ako su privremene pristojbe uvedene na temelju starih pravila, ali postupak za donošenje konačnih mjera nije još bio pokrenut kada je Uredba (EU) br. 37/2014 stupila na snagu.
In other words, Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 applies to a specific ‘procedure for adoption’ and not to the entire period of a given investigation or even proceeding.
Drugim riječima, Uredba (EU) br. 37/2014 primjenjuje se na određene „postupke za donošenje”, a ne na čitavo razdoblje određenog ispitnog postupka ili čak sudskog postupka.
Accordingly, the decision-making procedure introduced by the Omnibus I Regulation was the correct one to apply.
Stoga postupak donošenja odluka koje su uvedene Uredbom Omnibus I. nije bio ispravan.
With regard to Cortina, it first claimed that the Commission has no legal basis to investigate the MET/IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the original investigation.
Što se tiče društva Cortina, ono je prvo tvrdilo da Komisija nema pravnu osnovu za ispitivanje zahtjeva za MET/IT koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.