natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kaesler Nutrition GmbH has submitted an application in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 proposing to change the name of the holder of the authorisation stated in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/329 [2].
U skladu s člankom 13. stavkom 3. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1831/2003 društvo Kaesler Nutrition GmbH podnijelo je zahtjev za promjenu naziva nositelja odobrenja navedenog u Provedbenoj uredbi Komisije (EU) 2016/329 [2].
The proposed change of the holder of the authorisation is purely administrative in nature and does not entail a fresh assessment of the additives concerned.
Predložena promjena nositelja odobrenja u potpunosti je administrativne prirode i ne podrazumijeva novu procjenu predmetnih dodataka.
In order to enable Kaesler Nutrition GmbH to exploit its marketing rights, it is necessary to change the name of the holder in the authorisation.
Kako bi se društvu Kaesler Nutrition GmbH omogućilo korištenje prava stavljanja proizvoda na tržište potrebno je izmijeniti naziv nositelja odobrenja.
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/329 should therefore be amended accordingly.
Provedbenu uredbu (EU) 2016/329 trebalo bi stoga na odgovarajući način izmijeniti.
Since safety reasons do not require the immediate application of the amendments provided for by this Regulation, it is appropriate to provide for a transitional period during which the feed additive 6-phytase, as well as premixtures and compound feed containing that feed additive, which are in conformity with the provisions applying before the date of entry into force of this Regulation may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.
Budući da ne postoje sigurnosni razlozi zbog kojih bi izmjene predviđene ovom Uredbom bilo potrebno odmah primjenjivati, primjereno je osigurati prijelazno razdoblje tijekom kojeg se 6-fitaza kao dodatak hrani za životinje, premiksi i krmne smjese koji sadržavaju taj dodatak hrani za životinje, a koji su sukladni odredbama koje su se primjenjivale prije datuma stupanja na snagu ove Uredbe, mogu nastaviti stavljati na tržište i upotrebljavati do isteka postojećih zaliha.
Amendment to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/329
Izmjena Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/329
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/329 is amended as follows:
Provedbena uredba (EU) 2016/329 mijenja se kako slijedi:
in the title, the words ‘holder of the authorisation Lohmann Animal Nutrition GmbH’, are replaced by the words ‘holder of the authorisation Kaesler Nutrition GmbH’;
U naslovu, riječi „nositelj odobrenja Lohmann Animal Nutrition GmbH” zamjenjuju se riječima „nositelj odobrenja Kaesler Nutrition GmbH”.
in the Annex, in the second column of the table, entitled ‘Name of the holder of authorisation’, the words ‘Lohmann Animal Nutrition GmbH’ are replaced by the words ‘Kaesler Nutrition GmbH’.
U Prilogu, u drugom stupcu tablice pod nazivom „Naziv nositelja odobrenja”, riječi „Lohmann Animal Nutrition GmbH” zamjenjuju se riječima „Kaesler Nutrition GmbH”.
The feed additive 6-phytase as set out in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/329, as well as premixtures and compound feed containing that additive, which are produced and labelled before 25 December 2017 in accordance with the rules applicable before 25 December 2017 may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.
Dodatak hrani za životinje 6-fitaza kako je naveden u Prilogu Provedbenoj uredbi (EU) 2016/329, premiksi i krmne smjese koji sadržavaju taj dodatak hrani za životinje, a koji su proizvedeni i označeni prije 25. prosinca 2017. u skladu s propisima koji su se primjenjivali prije 25. prosinca 2017. smiju se nastaviti stavljati na tržište i upotrebljavati do isteka postojećih zaliha.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/329 of 8 March 2016 concerning the authorisation of 6-phytase as a feed additive for all avian species and for weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and minor porcine species (holder of authorisation Lohmann Animal Nutrition GmbH) (OJ L 62, 9.3.2016, p. 5).
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/329 оd 8. ožujka 2016. o odobrenju 6-fitaze kao dodatka hrani za sve ptičje vrste i za odbijenu prasad, svinje za tov, krmače i manje značajne vrste svinja (nositelj odobrenja: Lohmann Animal Nutrition GmbH) (SL L 62, 9.3.2016., str. 5.).
Lohmann Animal Nutrition GmbH, the holder of the authorisation for the feed additive 6-phytase, changed its business name into ‘Kaesler Nutrition GmbH’ with effect from 3 July 2017.
Nositelj odobrenja 6-fitaze kao dodatka hrani za životinje Lohmann Animal Nutrition GmbH promijenio je naziv u „Kaesler Nutrition GmbH” s učinkom od 3. srpnja 2017.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2232
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2017/2232
reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by certain exporting producers in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14
o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe uvedene na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i Vijetnama koju proizvode određeni proizvođači izvoznici u Narodnoj Republici Kini i Vijetnamu te o provedbi presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14
Having regard to 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 (‘the basic Regulation’) [1], and in particular Article 9(4) and 14(1) and (3) thereof,
uzimajući u obzir Uredbu (EU) 2016/1036 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 8. lipnja 2016. o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske unije („osnovna uredba”) [1], a posebno njezin članak 9. stavak 4. i članak 14. stavke 1. i 3.,
On 23 March 2006, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 imposing provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather (‘footwear’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘China’) and Vietnam (‘the provisional Regulation’) [2].
Komisija je 23. ožujka 2006. donijela Uredbu (EZ) br. 553/2006 o uvođenju privremenih antidampinških mjera na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože („obuća”) podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine („NRK” ili „Kina”) i Vijetnama („privremena uredba”) [2].
By Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 [3], the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 9,7 % to 16,5 % on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather, originating in Vietnam and in the PRC for two years (‘Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006’ or ‘the contested Regulation’).
Vijeće je Uredbom (EZ) br. 1472/2006 [3] uvelo konačne antidampinške pristojbe u rasponu od 9,7 % do 16,5 % na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Vijetnama i NRK-a na dvije godine („Uredba (EZ) br. 1472/2006” ili „sporna uredba”).
By Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 [4], the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC to imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region (‘SAR’), whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not.
Vijeće je Uredbom (EZ) br. 388/2008 [4] proširilo konačne antidampinške mjere na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz NRK-a na uvoz koji se otprema iz Posebnog upravnog područja Makaa („PUP”), bez obzira na to je li prijavljena kao proizvod podrijetlom iz Posebnog upravnog područja Makaa.
Further to an expiry review initiated on 3 October 2008 [5], the Council further extended the anti-dumping measures for 15 months by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 [6], i.e. until 31 March 2011, when the measures expired (‘Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009’).
Vijeće je nakon revizije zbog predstojećeg isteka mjera pokrenute 3. listopada 2008. [5] dodatno produžilo te antidampinške mjere za 15 mjeseci Uredbom (EU) br. 1294/2009 [6], tj. do 31. ožujka 2011., kad su mjere istekle („Provedbena uredba (EU) br. 1294/2009”).
Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd as well as Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (‘the applicants’) challenged the contested Regulation in the Court of First Instance (now: the General Court).
Društva Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd i Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd te Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd („podnositelji zahtjeva”) osporila su spornu uredbu pred Prvostupanjskim sudom (sada: Opći sud).
In its judgments of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council and of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10 P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council (‘the Brosmann and Aokang judgments’), the Court of Justice set aside those judgments.
U svojim presudama od 2. veljače 2012. u predmetu C-249/10 P Brosmann Footwear (HK) i ostali protiv Vijeća i od 15. studenoga 2012. u predmetu C-247/10 PZhejiang Aokang Shoes protiv Vijeća („presude Brosmann i Aokang”) Sud je ukinuo te presude.
It held that the GeneralCourt erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was not required to examine requests for market economy treatment (‘MET’) under Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic Regulation from non-sampled traders (paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 29 and 32 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Smatrao je da je Opći sud povrijedio pravo tako što je smatrao da Komisija ne treba ispitati zahtjeve za tretman tržišnoga gospodarstva („MET”) prema članku 2. stavku 7. točkama (b) i (c) osnovne uredbe primljene od trgovaca koji nisu u uzorku (točka 36. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točke 29. i 32. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
It held that ‘the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation. It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16,5 % duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation. It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9,7 % was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET. As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate’ (paragraph 42 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Presudio je sljedeće: „Komisija je trebala ispitati potkrijepljene zahtjeve koje su joj dostavili žalitelji na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točaka (b) i (c) osnovne uredbe za potrebe zahtijevanja MET-a u kontekstu antidampinškog postupka [koji je] predmet sporne uredbe. Zatim se mora utvrditi da se ne može isključiti mogućnost da bi posljedica takvog ispitivanja bilo uvođenje konačne antidampinške pristojbe žaliteljima različite od pristojbe od 16,5 % koja se na njih primjenjuje na temelju članka 1. stavka 3. sporne uredbe. Iz te je odredbe očito da je konačna antidampinška pristojba od 9,7 % uvedena za jedinog kineskog trgovca u uzorku kojem je dodijeljen MET. Kako je iz prethodne točke 38. očito da je Komisija utvrdila da su uvjeti tržišnog gospodarstva vrijedili i za žalitelje, i žalitelji su trebali ostvariti korist od iste te stope ako izračun pojedinačne dampinške marže nije bio moguć.” (točka 42. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točka 36. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
As a consequence, it annulled the contested Regulation, in so far as it relates to the applicants concerned.
Stoga je Sud poništio spornu uredbu u dijelu u kojem se odnosi na predmetne podnositelje zahtjeva.
In October 2013, the Commission, by means of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union [7], announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
U listopadu 2013. Komisija je u obavijesti objavljenoj u Službenom listu Europske unije [7] najavila da je odlučila nastaviti antidampinški postupak upravo u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti i ispitati jesu li za podnositelje zahtjeva u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005. prevladavali uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva.
In March 2014, the Council, by Council Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU [8], rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on 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 and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Vijeće je u ožujku 2014. Provedbenom odlukom Vijeća 2014/149/EU [8] odbilo prijedlog Komisije o donošenju provedbene uredbe Vijeća o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe na određenu obuću s gornjim dijelovima od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine koju su proizvela 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 i završilo postupak u pogledu tih proizvođača.
The Council took the view that importers having bought shoes from those exporting producers, to whom the relevant customs duties had been reimbursed by the competent national authorities on the basis of Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code [9] (‘the Community Customs Code’), had acquired legitimate expectations on the basis of Article 1(4) of the contested Regulation, which had rendered the provisions of the Community Customs Code, and in particular its Article 221, applicable to the collection of the duties.
Stajalište Vijeća bilo je da su uvoznici koji su kupili cipele od tih proizvođača izvoznika, kojima su nadležna nacionalna tijela izvršila povrat relevantnih carinskih pristojbi na temelju članka 236. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 2913/1992 od 12. listopada 1992. o Carinskom zakoniku Zajednice [9] („Carinski zakonik Zajednice”), imali legitimna očekivanja na temelju članka 1. stavka 4. sporne uredbe, zbog koje su odredbe Carinskog zakonika Zajednice, a posebno njegov članak 221., postale primjenjive na naplatu pristojbi.
(‘Timberland’) (‘the importers concerned’) challenged the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear from China and Vietnam invoking the jurisprudence mentioned in recitals 5 to 7 before their national Courts, which referred the matters to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
(„Timberland”) („predmetni uvoznici”), osporavala antidampinške mjere na uvoz određene obuće iz Kine i Vijetnama pozivajući se pred svojim nacionalnim sudovima na sudsku praksu navedenu u uvodnim izjavama od 5. do 7., koji su predmete uputili Sudu na odluku o prethodnom pitanju.
On 4 February 2016, in the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE [10], the Court of Justice declared Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 invalid in so far as the European Commission did not examine the MET and individual treatment (‘IT’) claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled (‘the judgments’), contrary to the requirements laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 [11].
Dana 4. veljače 2016. u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE [10] Sud je uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i (EU) br. 1294/2009 proglasio nevaljanima jer Europska komisija nije ispitala zahtjeve za MET i individualni tretman („IT”) koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici iz NRK-a i Vijetnama koji nisu odabrani u uzorak („presude”), što je protivno zahtjevima utvrđenima u članku 2. stavku 7. točki (b) i članku 9. stavku 5. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 384/96 od 22. prosinca 1995. o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske zajednice [11].
In case of annulment of an act adopted by the institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping, compliance with the Court's judgment consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated [12].
U slučaju poništenja akta koji su donijele institucije u kontekstu administrativnog postupka, kao što je antidampinški, usklađenost s presudom Suda sastoji se od zamjene poništenog akta novim aktom, iz kojeg je izbačena nezakonitost koju je utvrdio Sud [12].
According to the case-law of the Court, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred [13].
Prema sudskoj praksi Suda postupak za zamjenu poništenog akta može se nastaviti u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti [13].
In a situation where a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that, subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order [14], except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
Ako se uredba kojom se uvode konačne antidampinške mjere poništi, to znači da je nakon poništenja taj antidampinški postupak i dalje otvoren jer akt kojim se taj antidampinški postupak zaključuje više nije dio pravnog poretka Unije [14], osim ako je do nezakonitosti došlo u fazi pokretanja postupka.
Apart from the fact that the institutions did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, all other findings made in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
Osim činjenice da institucije nisu ispitale zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici u NRK-u i Vijetnamu koji nisu odabrani u uzorak, svi ostali nalazi iz uredbi Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i (EU) br. 1294/2009 i dalje su valjani.
Hence, the Commission decided to resume the present anti-dumping proceeding that was still open following the judgments at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, which was the investigation period (‘investigation period’).
Stoga je Komisija odlučila nastaviti trenutačni antidampinški postupak koji je još bio otvoren nakon donošenja presuda u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti i ispitati jesu li za predmetne proizvođače izvoznike u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005., a to je bilo razdoblje ispitnog postupka („razdoblje ispitnog postupka”), prevladavali uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva.
The Commission also examined, where appropriate, whether the exporting producers concerned qualified for IT in accordance with 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 [15] (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’) [16].
Komisija je isto tako, prema potrebi, ispitala ispunjavaju li predmetni proizvođači izvoznici uvjete za IT u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1225/2009 [15] („osnovna uredba prije izmjena”) [16].
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 [17], the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark and Puma of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC and produced by thirteen Chinese exporting producers that have submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
Komisija je Provedbenom uredbom (EU) 2016/1395 [17] ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno naplatila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz društava Clark i Puma određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz NRK-a koju je proizvelo trinaest kineskih proizvođača izvoznika koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT, ali nisu bili odabrani u uzorak.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 [18], the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark, Puma and Timberland of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by certain Vietnamese exporting producers that had submitted MET and IT claims, but had not been sampled.
Provedbenom uredbom (EU) 2016/1647 [18] Komisija je ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno naplatila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz društava Clark, Puma i Timberland određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Vijetnama koju su proizveli određeni vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT, ali nisu bili odabrani u uzorak.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 [19], the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Puma and Timberland of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by one exporting producer in Vietnam and by two exporting producers in the PRC that submitted MET and IT claims, but had not been sampled.
Komisija je Provedbenom uredbom (EU) 2016/1731 [19] ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno naplatila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz društava Puma i Timberland određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine koju proizvode jedan vijetnamski proizvođač izvoznik i dva proizvođača izvoznika iz NRK-a koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT, ali nisu bili odabrani u uzorak.
The validity of Regulation (EU) 2016/1395, Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 and Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 has been challenged by Puma and Timberland at the General Court in Cases T-781/16 Puma and Others v Commission and T-782/16 Timberland Europe v Commission.
Puma i Timberland pred Općim su sudom u predmetima T-781/16 Puma i ostali protiv Komisije i T-782/16 Timberland Europe protiv Komisije doveli u pitanje valjanost Uredbe (EU) 2016/1395, Uredbe (EU) 2016/1647 i Uredbe (EU) 2016/1731.
Furthermore, the validity of Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 has also been challenged at the General Court by Clark in Cases T-790/16 C & J Clark International v Commission and T-861/16 C & J Clark International v Commission.
Nadalje, i Clark je pred Općim sudom doveo u pitanje valjanost Uredbe (EU) 2016/1395 u predmetima T-790/16 C & J Clark International protiv Komisije i T-861/16 C & J Clark International protiv Komisije.
In view of the implementation of the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE mentioned in recital 12, the Commission adopted on 17 February 2016 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 [20].
U cilju provedbe presude u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE iz uvodne izjave 12. Komisija je donijela Provedbenu uredbu (EU) 2016/223 o uspostavljanju postupka za ocjenu određenih zahtjeva za tretman tržišnoga gospodarstva te za pojedinačni tretman koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici iz Kine i Vijetnama te o provedbi presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 [20].