natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Concerning the claim that the rights of defence were not appropriately respected through the Commission's decision not to send deficiency letters, it is, first of all, recalled that rights of defence are individual rights, and that FESI and the Footwear Coalition cannot rely on a violation of an individual right of other companies.
U pogledu tvrdnje da prava na obranu nisu na odgovarajući način bila poštovana zbog Komisijine odluke da neće slati obavijesti o manjkavosti, prije svega naglašeno je da su prava na obranu individualna prava te da se FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće ne mogu osloniti na individualno pravo drugih društava.
It is recalled that the principle of equal treatment is violated where the Union institutions treat like cases differently, thereby placing some traders at a disadvantage by comparison to others, without such differentiation being justified by the existence of substantial objective differences.
Naglašeno je da se načelo jednakog postupanja krši ako institucije Unije u sličnim predmetima postupaju različito i pritom neke trgovce stavljaju u nepovoljan položaj u odnosu na druge, a da za takvo razlikovanje ne postoje znatne objektivne opravdane razlike.
Yet, that is precisely not what the Commission is doing: by requiring the non-sampled Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers to file MET/IT claims for re-assessment, it intends to bring these formerly non-sampled exporting producers on the same footing as those who were sampled in the initial investigation.
Ipak, Komisija upravo to ne čini: tražeći od kineskih i vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika koji nisu bili uključeni u uzorak da zahtjeve za MET/IT daju na ponovnu ocjenu, namjerajoj je te proizvođače izvoznike koji prije nisu bili uključeni u uzorak dovesti u jednak položaj kao i one koji su bili uključeni u uzorak u početnom ispitnom postupku.
In addition, as the basic Regulation does not set out a minimumtimeframe in this regard, so long as the timeframe for this purpose is reasonable and provides the parties with sufficient opportunity to assemble (or re-assemble) the information needed while at the same time safeguarding their rights of defence, no discrimination occurs.
Osim toga, budući da se u Osnovnoj Uredbi u tom smislu ne utvrđuje minimalan rok, sve dok je rok za tu svrhu razuman i dok se strankama na odgovarajući način omogućuje da prikupe (ili ponovno prikupe) potrebne podatke, a istodobno se osiguravaju njihova prava na obranu, ne dolazi do diskriminacije.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also reiterated that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for the imposition of anti-dumping duties retroactively, which was also confirmed by the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-458/98 P IPS v Council.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće ponovno su naglasili i da se člankom 266. UFEU-a ne omogućava retroaktivno uvođenje antidampinških pristojbi, što potvrđuje i presuda Suda u predmetu C-458/98P, IPS protiv Vijeća.
Hence, the Commission's past practice, quod non, cannot create legitimate expectations: pursuant to settled case-law of the Court, legitimate expectations can only arise where the institutions have given specific assurances which would allow an interested party to lawfully deduce that the Union institutions would act in a certain way.
Stoga Komisijina praksa u prošlosti ne može biti temelj za legitimna očekivanja, što i nije bio slučaj: na temelju ustaljene sudske prakse Suda, legitimna očekivanja mogu nastati ako su institucije dale posebna jamstva koja bi omogućila zainteresiranoj strani da zakonito zaključiti da će institucije Unije djelovati na određeni način.
Those differences are as follows: the illegality identified by the Court does not concern the findings on dumping, injury, and Union interest, and therefore the principle of the imposition of the duty, but only the precise duty rate.
Te su razlike sljedeće: nezakonitost koju je utvrdio Sud ne odnosi se na nalaze o dampingu, šteti i interesu Unije pa stoga ni na načelo uvođenja pristojbe, nego samo na točnu stopu pristojbe.
In any event, as noted in recital (75) 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 75., prethodna praksa u drugim predmetima ne predstavlja točno i bezuvjetno jamstvo za ovaj predmet.
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 the TFEU.
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 UFEU.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argue 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 tvrde 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 of an invalidation of duties and that they would also be obliged to reimburse anti-dumping duties that had been declared invalid by the Court.
Tvrdili su da je na nacionalnim carinskim tijelima da uzmu u obzir posljedice nevaljanosti uvođenja pristojbi te da bi jednako tako bila obvezna nadoknaditi te pristojbe koje je Sud proglasio nevaljanima.
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 iskoristila ovlasti koje proizlaze iz članka 14. stavka 3. Osnovne uredbe i zahtijevala od nacionalnih carinskih tijela da se privremeno suzdrže od bilo kakvog povrata.
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 thereimbursement 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 svegazbog 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.
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 (78) and (79) and 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 78. i 79. i 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 (74) 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 74., u kojoj je to objašnjeno i u kontekstu sudske prakse o tom pitanju.
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 (67) above.
U pogledu tvrdnje o diskriminaciji, Komisija najprije podsjeća na sve uvjete u pogledu diskriminacije, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 67.
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 i Aokang.
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 as 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 (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 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community 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 („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 o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske zajednice te iii. već donijela prijedlog za Uredbu Vijeća o donošenju konačnih mjera.
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 the 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.
F. CONCLUSIONS
F ZAKLJUČCI
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 re-imposed 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.
G. DISCLOSURE
G OBJAVA
The exporting producers concerned and all parties that came forward were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the re-imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on exports of the seven exporting producers concerned.
Predmetni proizvođači izvoznici i sve stranke koje su se javile bili su obaviješteni o bitnim činjenicama i razmatranjima na temelju kojih se namjeravalo preporučiti ponovno uvođenje konačne antidampinške pristojbe na izvoz sedam 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, 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 which took place during the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and 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 unutarnju uporabu 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, 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 koji je ostvaren tijekom razdoblja primjene Uredbe (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i Provedbene uredbe (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;‘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 podbrojeve uz poglavlje 64. Priloga I. Uredbi Komisije (EZ) br. 1719/2005;„obuća proizvedena s pomoću posebne tehnologije” znači obuća čija je cijena s osiguranjem i vozarinom 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 and falling within CN codes: ex64033000, 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 i koja je obuhvaćena oznakama KN: ex64033000, 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;
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable, before duty, to the net free-at-Union-frontier price of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the exporting producers listed in Annex II to this Regulation shall be 16,5 % for the Chinese exporting producers concerned and 10 % for the Vietnamese exporting producer concerned.
Stopa konačne antidampinške pristojbe primjenjive na neto cijenu franko granica Unije, neocarinjeno, proizvoda opisanih u stavku 1. koje su proizveli proizvođači izvoznici navedeni u Prilogu II. ovoj Uredbi iznosi 16,5 % za predmetne kineske proizvođače izvoznike, a 10 % za predmetnog vijetnamskog proizvođača izvoznika.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1).
Spremi stavku Uredba Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2913/92 od 12. listopada 1992. o Carinskom zakoniku Zajednice (SL L 302, 19.10.1992., str. 1.)
Case C-415/96 Spain v Commission [1998] ECR I-6993, paragraph 31; Case C-458/98 P Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v Council [2000] I-8147, paragraphs 80 to 85.
Predmet C-415/96, Španjolska protiv Komisije [1998.] ECR I-6993, točka 31.; Predmet C-458/98 P, Industrie des Poudres Sphériques protiv Vijeća [2000.] I-8147, točke 80. do 85.
The present investigation, however, was initiated on 7 July 2005 (OJ C 166, 7.7.2005, p. 14).
No trenutačni ispitni postupak pokrenut je 7. srpnja 2005. (SL C 166, 7.7.2005., str. 14.)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 of 18 August 2016 re-imposing 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 Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co., Ltd, Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd, Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd, Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd, Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd, Win Profile Industries Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 225, 19.8.2016, p. 52).
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) br. 2016/1395 od 18. kolovoza 2016. 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 koju proizvode trgovačka društva Buckinghan Shoe Mfg Co., Ltd., Buildyet Shoes Mfg., DongGuan Elegant Top Shoes Co. Ltd, Dongguan Stella Footwear Co Ltd, Dongguan Taiway Sports Goods Limited, Foshan City Nanhai Qun Rui Footwear Co., Jianle Footwear Industrial, Sihui Kingo Rubber Shoes Factory, Synfort Shoes Co. Ltd., Taicang Kotoni Shoes Co. Ltd., Wei Hao Shoe Co. Ltd., Wei Hua Shoe Co. Ltd. i Win Profile Industries Ltd i o provedbi presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 (SL L 225, 19.8.2016., str. 52.).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 245, 14.9.2016, p. 16).
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1647 od 13. rujna 2016. o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe uvedene na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Vijetnama koju proizvode trgovačka društva Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd. i njegovo povezano trgovačko društvo Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd., Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd., Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, i o provedbi presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 (SL L 245, 14.9.2016., str. 16.).