natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retroactivity in the sense of Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, however, refers only to a situation where the goods were introduced into free circulation before measures were introduced, as can be seen from the very text of that provision as well as from the exception for which Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation provides.
Međutim, retroaktivnost u smislu članka 10. stavka 1. osnovne uredbe odnosi se samo na situaciju u kojoj je roba stavljena u slobodni promet prije uvođenja mjera, kao što se može vidjeti iz samog teksta te odredbe te iz izuzeća predviđenog u članku 10. stavku 4. osnovne uredbe.
The Commission also observes that there is neither a violation of the principle of retroactivity, nor a violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.
Komisija primjećuje i da u ovom predmetu nije došlo ni do kršenja načela retroaktivnosti ni do povrede pravne sigurnosti i legitimnih očekivanja.
As to retroactivity, the case-law of the Court distinguishes, when assessing whether a measure is retroactive, between the application of a new rule to a situation that has become definitive (also referred to as an existing or definitively established legal situation), and a situation that started before the entry into force of the new rule, but which is not yet definitive (also referred to as a temporary situation).
U pogledu retroaktivnosti, sudska praksa Suda pri ocjeni je li mjera retroaktivna razlikuje primjenu novog pravila na situaciju koja je postala konačna (koja se naziva i postojećom ili konačno uspostavljenom pravnom situacijom) od situacije koja je nastala prije nego što je novo pravilo stupilo na snagu, ali koja još nije konačna (koja se naziva i privremenom situacijom).
In the present case, the situation of the imports of the products concerned that occurred during the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 has not yet become definitive, because, as a result of the annulment of the contested Regulation, the anti-dumping duty applicable to them has not yet been definitively established.
U ovom slučaju stanje uvoza predmetnih proizvoda koji se dogodio tijekom razdoblja primjene Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006 još nije postalo konačno jer, kao posljedica poništenja sporne uredbe, antidampinška pristojba koja se na njega primjenjuje još nije konačno utvrđena.
At the same time, importers of footwear were warned that such a duty may be imposed by the publication of the Notice of Initiation and the provisional Regulation.
U isto su vrijeme uvoznici obuće objavom obavijesti o pokretanju postupka i privremene uredbe upozoreni da bi takva pristojba mogla biti uvedena.
It is standing case-law of the Union courts that operators cannot acquire legitimate expectations until the institutions have adopted an act closing the administrative procedure, which became definitive.
Uobičajena je sudska praksa sudova Unije da subjekti ne mogu steći legitimna očekivanja sve dok institucije ne donesu akt kojim se zaključuje administrativni postupak koji je postao konačan.
In any event, even if there were retroactivity in the sense of Union law, quod non, such retroactivity would be justified, for the following reason:
U svakom slučaju, čak i da je postojala retroaktivnost u smislu prava Unije, što nije bio slučaj, ta bi retroaktivnost bila opravdana zbog sljedećeg razloga:
In particular, in case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimantare (SAFA), it was held that: ‘[A]lthough in general theprinciple of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected’ [44].
Konkretno je u predmetu C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimantare (SAFA) rečeno sljedeće: „iako u pravilu načelo pravnesigurnosti sprječava da neka mjera Zajednice ima učinak od trenutka koji prethodi njezinoj objavi, iznimno može vrijediti suprotno ako je to nužno radi postizanja neke svrhe i pod uvjetom da se na propisan način poštuju legitimna očekivanja uključenih strana.” [44]
Since, in the judgments referred to in recital 12, the Court only found an illegality with regard to the determination of the applicable duty rate, and not with regard to the imposition of the measures themselves (that is, with regard to the finding of dumping, injury, causation and Union interest), the exporting producers concerned could not have legitimately expected that no definitive anti-dumping measures would be imposed.
S obzirom na to da je u presudama iz uvodne izjave 12. Sud utvrdio nezakonitost jedino u pogledu utvrđivanja primjenjive stope pristojbe, a ne i u pogledu uvođenja samih mjera (tj. u pogledu utvrđivanja dampinga, štete, uzročnosti i interesa Unije), predmetni proizvođači izvoznici nisu mogli legitimno očekivati da neće biti uvedene nikakve konačne antidampinške mjere.
Third, Clarks et al claimed that it would be discriminatory and in breach of Article 266 TFEU to reimpose an anti-dumping duty on the seventy exporting producers concerned, given that no anti-dumping duty was reimposed following the Brosmann and Aokang judgments.
Treće, Clarks et al je tvrdio da bi ponovno uvođenje antidampinške pristojbe za sedamdeset predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika bilo diskriminirajuće i da bi se time kršio članak 266. UFEU-a jer nakon presuda u predmetu Brosmann i Aokang nije ponovno uvedena nikakva antidampinška pristojba.
Importers that have imported from Brosman and the other four exporting producers concerned by the judgments in cases C-247/10 P and C-249/10 P, 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 na koje se odnosi presuda u predmetima C-247/10 P i C-249/10 P nalaze se u drugačijoj činjenično-pravnoj situaciji jer su njihovi proizvođači izvoznici odlučili osporiti spornu uredbu i jer su dobili povrat svojih pristojbi tako da su zaštićeni člankom 221. stavkom 3. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
See, in this regard, also recitals 118 to 122.
U tom pogledu vidjeti i uvodne izjave od 118. do 122.
Fourth, Clarks et al alleged that there were several procedural irregularities resulting from this investigation.
Četvrto, Clarks et al je tvrdio da je u okviru tog ispitnog postupka došlo do nekoliko postupovnih nepravilnosti.
In addition, Clarks et al argued that unlike during the original investigation, the Commission's measures would de facto and de jure affect only importers, whereas they have no means of providing any meaningful input and cannot require their suppliers to cooperate with the Commission.
Osim toga, Clarks et al je tvrdio da bi za razliku od početnog ispitnog postupka Komisijine mjere de facto i de iure utjecale samo na uvoznike jer oni ne mogu dostaviti značajne podatke i ne mogu od svojih dobavljača zahtijevati suradnju s Komisijom.
The Commission observes that nothing in the basic Regulation requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET/IT the possibility to complete lacking factual information.
Komisija napominje da se ni u jednoj odredbi osnovne uredbe od Komisije ne zahtijeva da društvima izvoznicima koji traže MET/IT omogući dopuna činjeničnih podataka koji nedostaju.
In fact, and as set out in recital 88 the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Naime, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 88., teret dokazivanja na proizvođaču je koji želi podnijeti zahtjev za MET/IT na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točke (b) osnovne uredbe.
As mentioned in recital 84, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 84., Komisija svoju ocjenu može temeljiti na podacima koje je dostavio proizvođač izvoznik.
Second, importers had the opportunity to comment on that point already during the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation.
Drugo, uvoznici su tijekom administrativnog postupka koji je prethodio donošenju sporne uredbe već imali priliku dostaviti primjedbe u vezi s time.
Fifth, Clarks et al argued that the Commission failed to examine whether the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would be in the Union interest and argued that the measures would be against the Union interest because (i) the measures already had their intended effect when first imposed; (ii) the measures would not cause additional benefit for the Union industry; (iii) the measures would not affect the exporting producers and (iv) the measures would impose an important cost on the importers in the Union.
Peto, Clarks et al je tvrdio da Komisija nije ispitala bi li uvođenje antidampinških pristojbi bilo u interesu Unije te je tvrdio da bi mjere bile protivne interesu Unije jer i. bi mjere već postigle svoj planirani učinak pri prvom uvođenju; ii. mjere ne bi donijele dodatnu korist za industriju Unije; iii. mjere ne bi utjecale na proizvođače izvoznike te iv. mjerama bi se nametnuli znatni troškovi za uvoznike u Uniji.
For Union interest, the assessment in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 remains fully valid.
Radi interesa Unije ocjena u Uredbi Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006 ostaje u cijelosti valjana.
Sixth, Clarks et al claimed that the anti-dumping duty, if reimposed, could no longer be collected because of the statute of limitations of Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code (now Article 103(1) of the Union Customs Code) had expired.
Šesto, Clarks et al je tvrdio da se u slučaju ponovnog uvođenja antidampinška pristojba više ne bi mogla naplaćivati zbog isteka roka zastare iz članka 221. stavka 3. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice (sada članak 103. stavak 1. Carinskog zakonika Unije).
According to Clarks et all, this situation would constitute an abuse of power by the Commission.
Prema strani Clarks et al to bi predstavljalo zlouporabu ovlasti Komisije.
An appeal within the meaning of Article 103(3) of the Union Customs Code, pursuant to the clarification in Article 44(2) of the same regulation, extends from the initial challenge to the decision by the national customs authorities imposing the duties up to the final judgment rendered by the national court, including, where necessary, a reference for a preliminary ruling.
Žalba u smislu članka 103. stavka 3. Carinskog zakonika Unije, na temelju pojašnjenja u članku 44. stavku 2. iste uredbe, odnosi se na sve od početnog osporavanja do odluka nacionalnih carinskih tijela o uvođenju pristojbi, do konačne odluke koju je donio nacionalni sud, uključujući, ako je potrebno, upućivanje na prethodnu odluku.
The three year period is consequently stayed from the date the challenge is filed.
Stoga se rok od tri godine obustavlja od datuma podnošenja osporavanja.
The relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union.
Relevantno zakonodavstvo koje se odnosi na ovaj postupak jest Uredba (EU) 2016/1036 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 8. lipnja 2016. o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske unije.
In addition, SIEMES argued that the length of the procedure in relation to its ongoing reimbursement request of anti-dumping duties before the German customs authorities violates the right of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Osim toga, SIEMES je tvrdio da se dužinom trajanja postupka u pogledu tekućih zahtjeva za povrat antidampinških pristojbi pri njemačkim carinskim tijelima krši pravo na dobru upravu iz članka 41. Povelje o temeljnim pravima Europske unije.
First, the Commission notes that decisions over repayment of the anti-dumping duties fall within the competence of the national customs authorities of the Member States.
Kao prvo, Komisija napominje da je odluka o povratu antidampinških pristojbi u nadležnosti nacionalnih carinskih tijela država članica.
Second, the Commission understood from the information provided to it that SIEMES' reimbursement request of 19 March 2012 was rejected because the judgment pursuant to which it lodged its reimbursement request was limited to Brosmann and Aokang.
Drugo, Komisija iz podataka koji su joj dostavljeni tumači da je zahtjev za povrat koji je podnio SIEMES 19. ožujka 2012. odbijen jer je presuda u skladu s kojom je podnio svoj zahtjev za povrat ograničena na predmete Brosmann i Aokang.
The judgment had no effect vis-à-vis other exporting producers in China and Vietnam.
Presuda nije imala učinak na druge proizvođače izvoznike u Kini i Vijetnamu.
Only on 4 February 2016 did the Court of Justice declare, in Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the contested Regulation invalid in so far as it concerned all exporting producers of the product concerned (see recital 12).
Sud je tek 4. veljače 2016., u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE, proglasio spornu uredbu nevaljanom jer se ona odnosi na sve proizvođače izvoznike predmetnog proizvoda (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 12.).
In particular, as regards imports subject to reimbursement claims notified to the Commission by the German customs authorities in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 (reference is made to recital 30), the Commission fully respected the eight month time limit for implementation set out in Article 1(2) of that Regulation.
Konkretno, u pogledu uvoza koji podliježe zahtjevima za povrat koje su njemačka carinska tijela prijavila Komisiji u skladu s člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 (upućuje se na uvodnu izjavu 30.), Komisija je u potpunosti poštovala rok od osam mjeseci za provedbu iz članka 1. stavka 2. te uredbe.
The Commission, accordingly, disagreed with the argument that this procedure violated the principle of good administration.
Komisija se, u skladu s tim, nije složila s argumentom da je tim postupkom prekršeno načelo dobre uprave.
Having taken account of the comments made and the analysis thereof, the Commission concluded that the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China and Vietnam, i.e. 16,5 % and 10 % respectively, should be reimposed for the period of application of the contested Regulation.
Uzevši u obzir dane primjedbe i analizu tih primjedbi Komisija je zaključila da je potrebno ponovno uvesti preostalu antidampinšku pristojbu koja se primjenjuje za Kinu i Vijetnam, slijedom 16,5 % i 10 %, za razdoblje primjene sporne uredbe.
As mentioned in recital 28, the Commission suspended the assessment of the companies listed in Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 until the importer claiming reimbursement from national customs authorities has informed the Commission of the names and addresses of the exporting producer(s) from which the relevant traders purchased footwear, or where no reply is received within that period of time, the expiry of the deadline set by the Commission for providing that information.
Kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 28., Komisija je suspendirala ocjenu društava navedenih u Prilogu III. Provedbenoj uredbi Komisije (EU) 2017/423 dok uvoznici koji zahtijevaju povrat od nacionalnih carinskih tijela ne obavijeste Komisiju o nazivima i adresama proizvođača izvoznika od kojih su relevantni trgovci kupili obuću ili, ako ne dobije nikakav odgovor u tom roku, na dan isteka roka za dostavljanje tih podataka koji odredi Komisija.
In Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2017/423 the Commission also instructed the relevant national customs authorities not to reimburse the customs duties collected until the Commission has finalised the assessment of the relevant MET/IT claims.
U članku 3. Uredbe (EU) 2017/423 Komisija je naložila relevantnim nacionalnim carinskim tijelu i da ne izvrše povrat naplaćenih pristojbi sve dok Komisija ne dovrši procjenu relevantnih zahtjeva za MET/IT.
As a consequence, as mentioned in recital 29, Pentland Brands Ltd, Puma UK Ltd and Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd came forward and identified their suppliers.
Kao posljedica toga, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 29., Pentland Brands Ltd., Puma UK Ltd. i Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd javili su se i utvrdili identitet svojih dobavljača.
The Commission analysed the MET/IT claims of the suppliers identified in the current Regulation.
Komisija je analizirala zahtjeve za MET/IT dobavljača navedenih u ovoj Uredbi.
It follows that the Commission finalised the assessment of the situation of the companies listed in Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2017/423.
Iz toga slijedi da je Komisija završila ocjenu stanja društava navedenih u Prilogu III. Uredbi (EU) 2017/423.
As a result, for companies listed in Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423, the Commission has no record that these companies submitted any MET/IT claim form in the original investigation.
Kao posljedica toga, za trgovačka društva navedena u Prilogu III. Provedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) 2017/423, Komisija nema evidenciju da su ta društva podnijela obrazac zahtjeva za MET/IT u početnom ispitnom postupku.
The relevant reimbursement claim of the importers should therefore not be granted because the contested Regulation has not been annulled as far as they are concerned.
Relevantni zahtjev za povrat koji su predali uvoznici stoga ne bi trebalo odobriti jer sporna uredba nije poništena u dijelu koji se odnosi na njih.
For ease of reference, the Commission has reproduced Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2017/423 as Annex VI to this Regulation.
Radi lakšeg upućivanja Komisija je Prilog III. Uredbi (EU) 2017/423 uzela kao Prilog VI. ovoj Uredbi.
The exporting producers concerned, the importers that were concerned by notification of the customs authorities of Germany and the Netherlands, the importers that came forward providing the names and addresses of their respective suppliers in China and/or Vietnam as well as all other parties that came forward were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the reimposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on exports of the 70 exporting producers concerned.
Predmetni proizvođači izvoznici, uvoznici na koje se odnose obavijesti njemačkih i nizozemskih carinskih tijela, uvoznici koji su javili nazive i adrese svojih dobavljača u Kini i/ili Vijetnamu te sve strane koje su se javile obaviješteni su o bitnim činjenicama i razmatranjima na temelju kojih se namjeravalo preporučiti ponovno uvođenje konačne antidampinške pristojbe za izvoz 70 predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather, excluding sports footwear, footwear involving special technology, slippers and other indoor footwear and footwear with a protective toecap, originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by the exporting producers listed in Annex II to this Regulation and falling within CN codes: 64032000, ex64033000 [45], ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000 [46] which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009.
Uvodi se konačna antidampinška pristojba na uvoz obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože ili umjetne kože, isključujući sportsku obuću, obuću proizvedenu s pomoću posebne tehnologije, papuče i ostalu obuću za unutarnje prostore te obuću sa zaštitnom kapicom, podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i Vijetnama koju proizvode proizvođači izvoznici navedeni u Prilogu II. ovoj Uredbi i koja je obuhvaćena sljedećim oznakama KN: 64032000, ex64033000 [45], ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 i ex64051000 [46], koji je ostvaren tijekom razdoblja primjene Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1294/2009.
‘sports footwear’ shall mean footwear within the meaning of subheading note 1 to Chapter 64 of Annex I of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 [47];‘footwear involving special technology’ shall mean footwear having a CIF price per pair of not less than EUR 7,5, for use in sporting activities, with a single- or multi-layer moulded sole, not injected, manufactured from synthetic materials specially designed to absorb the impact of vertical or lateral movements and with technical features such as hermetic pads containing gas or fluid, mechanical components which absorb or neutralise impact, or materials such as low-density polymers and falling within CN codes ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998;
„sportska obuća” znači obuća u smislu napomene 1. za podbroj uz poglavlje 64. Priloga I. Uredbi Komisije (EZ) br. 1719/2005 [47];„obuća proizvedena s pomoću posebne tehnologije” znači obuća čija je cijena CIF po paru najmanje 7,5 EUR, za upotrebu u sportskim aktivnostima, s jednoslojno ili višeslojno oblikovanim potplatom, koji nije brizgan, proizvedena od sintetičkih materijala koji po svojoj prirodi apsorbiraju udarce u smjeru okomitog ili lateralnog kretanja, s posebnim tehničkim svojstvima kao što su plinom ili tekućinom punjeni hermetički jastučići, mehaničke komponente za apsorpciju ili neutralizaciju udaraca, ili materijala kao što su polimeri niske gustoće, obuhvaćena oznakama KN ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996 i ex64039998;
‘footwear with a protective toecap’ shall mean footwear incorporating a protective toecap with an impact resistance of at least 100 joules [48] and falling within CN codes: ex64033000 [49], ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000;
„obuća sa zaštitnom kapicom” znači obuća u koju je ugrađena zaštitna kapica s otpornošću na udarce od najmanje 100 džula [48] i koja je obuhvaćena oznakama KN: ex64033000 [49], ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 i ex64051000;
‘slippers and other indoor footwear’ shall mean such footwear falling within CN code ex64051000.
„papuče i ostala obuća za unutarnje prostore” znači obuća obuhvaćena oznakom KN ex64051000.
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 shall be definitively collected.
Konačno se naplaćuju iznosi osigurani privremenom antidampinškom pristojbom prema Uredbi Komisije (EZ) br. 553/2006 od 27. ožujka 2006.
The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rate of anti-dumping duties shall be released.
Oslobađaju se osigurani iznosi koji premašuju konačnu stopu antidampinških pristojbi.