natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Cortina argued that the proceeding, which was closed by the expiry of the measures on 31 March 2011, was not invalidated by the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, and that therefore, it cannot be re-opened.
Cortina je tvrdila da taj postupak, zaključen 31. ožujka 2011. zbog isteka mjera, nije poništen presudom u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 te da stoga ne može biti ponovno otvoren.
In reply to this comment, the Commission refers to the explanation provided in recitals (104) and (105) above.
Kao odgovor na tu primjedbu, Komisija upućuje na objašnjenja u uvodnim izjavama (104) i (105).
Second, Cortina claimed that the current proceeding is in breach of the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty enshrined in Article 10 of the basic Regulation.
Drugo, Cortina je tvrdila da se trenutačnim postupkom krše načela zabrane retroaktivnosti i pravne sigurnosti koje su uvrštene u članak 10. Osnovne uredbe.
In the present case, the anti-dumping duties in question are only applied to products which entered into free circulation after the provisional and the contested (definitive) Regulation taken pursuant to 7(1) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation respectively had entered into force.
U ovom slučaju, antidampinške pristojbe o kojima je riječ primjenjuju se samo na proizvode koji su ušli u slobodan promet nakon stupanja na snagu privremene i sporne (konačne) uredbe donesene u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 1., odnosno člankom 9. stavkom 4. Osnovne uredbe.
The Commission also observes that there is neither violation of the principle of retroactivity, nor 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.
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 has become 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.
This Regulation constitutes immediate application to the future effects of a situation that is ongoing: The duties on footwear have been levied by national customs authorities.
Ova Uredba čini neposrednu primjenu situacije koja je u tijeku na buduće učinke: nacionalna carinska tijela naplatila su pristojbe na obuću.
This Regulation sets out the duty rate applicable to those imports, and hence regulates the future effects of an ongoing situation.
Ovom se Uredbom utvrđuje stopa pristojbe koja se primjenjuje na taj uvoz te se stoga njome uređuju budući učinci situacije koja je u tijeku.
In any event, even if there was 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:
The substantive rules of Union law may apply to situations existing before their entry into force in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such effect must be given to them.
Materijalno-pravne odredbe prava Unije mogu se primijeniti na situacije koje su postojale prije njihova stupanja na snagu ako iz njihovih uvjeta, ciljeva ili općeg programa jasno slijedi da im se mora dati taj učinak.
In particular, in case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimantare (SAFA) it was held that: ‘[A]lthough in general the principle 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’.
Konkretno je u predmetu C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimentare (SAFA) rečeno sljedeće: „iako u pravilu načelo pravne sigurnosti 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”.
In the present case, the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU.
U ovom slučaju svrha je usklađivanje s obvezom Komisije na temelju članka 266. UFEU-a.
Since, in the judgments referred to in recital (12) above, 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, Cortina claimed that the Commission's statement in recital (46) that the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to exports of certain footwear from certain Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers is incorrect, insofar as judgment in cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 did not annul Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to the 19 exporting producers concerned, but it had annulled these regulations with erga omnes effect.
Treće, Cortina je tvrdila da izjava Komisije iz uvodne izjave (46) da je Sud poništio Spornu uredbu i Provedbenu uredbu (EU) br. 1294/2009 u pogledu izvoza određene obuće od određenih kineskih i vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika nije točna jer presudom u predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 nisu poništene Uredba (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i Provedbena uredba (EU) br. 1294/2009 u pogledu triju predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika, nego su te uredbe poništene s učinkom erga omnes.
According to Cortina, if the Commission were to re-impose an anti-dumping duty only on imports from the 19 exporting producers concerned, and not on imports from other exporting producers equally affected by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, it would constitute unjustifiable discrimination vis-à-vis imports of these other exporting producers, and it would also be in breach of Article 266 TFEU.
Prema Cortini, ako Komisija ponovno uvede antidampinšku pristojbu samo na uvoz od triju predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika, a ne na uvoz od svih ostalih proizvođača izvoznika na koje se presuda Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited i Puma SE isto tako odnosi, to bi predstavljalo neopravdanu diskriminaciju tih ostalih proizvođača izvoznika, što bi bilo u suprotnosti i s odredbama članka 266. UFEU-a.
Regarding the claim of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis imports of other exporting producers affected by the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, the Commission observes that exporting producers and certain importers concerned by this Regulation enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts against it.
U pogledu tvrdnje o neopravdanoj diskriminaciji ostalih proizvođača izvoznika na koje se odnosi presuda Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited i Puma SE, Komisija napominje da proizvođači izvoznici i određeni uvoznici na koje se odnosi ova Uredba uživaju sudsku zaštitu pred sudovima Unije u odnosu na nju.
As mentioned in recital (21), in view of the implementation of the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223.
Kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 21., u cilju provedbe presude u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited i Puma SE Komisija je donijela Provedbenu uredbu (EU) 2016/223.
In Article 1 of that regulation the Commission instructed national customs authorities to forward all requests for reimbursement of the definitive anti-dumping duties paid on imports of footwear originating in China and Vietnam made by importers based on Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and based on the fact that a non-sampled exporting producer had requested MET or IT in the original investigation.
U članku 1. te Uredbe Komisija je uputila nacionalna carinska tijela da proslijede sve zahtjeve uvoznika za povrat konačnih antidampinških pristojbi plaćenih na uvoz obuće podrijetlom iz Kine i Vijetnama na temelju članka 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice i činjenice da je proizvođač izvoznik koji nije uključen u uzorak zatražio MET ili IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
The Commission will assess the relevant MET or IT claim and re-impose the appropriate duty rate.
Komisija će ocijeniti relevantne zahtjeve za MET ili IT i ponovno uvodi odgovarajuću stopu pristojbe.
On this basis the national customs authorities will subsequently decide on the request for repayment and remission of the anti-dumping duties.
Na temelju toga nacionalna će carinska tijela trebala naknadno donijeti odluku o zahtjevu za povrat i otpust antidampinških pristojbi.
Therefore, for all imports of footwear where the above criteria are fulfilled the Commission will examine the MET and IT claims and anti-dumping duties will be re-imposed based on the objective criteria laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
Stoga će Komisija za sav uvoz obuće u kojem su ispunjeni prethodni kriteriji ispitati zahtjeve za MET i IT i ponovno uvesti antidampinške pristojbe na temelju objektivnih kriterija iz članka 2. stavka 7. točke (b) i članka 9. stavka 5. Osnovne uredba prije izmjena.
Therefore, all other non-sampled exporting producers from the PRC and Vietnam and their importers will be treated in the same fashion at a later stage pursuant to the procedure set out in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223.
Stoga će se sa svim ostalim proizvođačima izvoznicima iz NRK-a i Vijetnama koji nisu uključeni u uzorak i njihovim uvoznicima postupati na isti način u kasnijoj fazi u skladu s postupkom utvrđenim u ovoj Provedbenoj uredbi (EU) 2016/223.
It is only where there are no outstanding national procedures that no assessment of the MET and IT claims will be carried out, as it would serve no practical purpose.
Ocjena zahtjeva za MET i IT neće se provoditi samo ako ne postoje nezavršeni nacionalni postupci jer to ne bi imalo praktičnu svrhu.
Fourth, Cortina claimed that it would be discriminatory to re-impose an anti-dumping duty on the 19 exporting producers concerned, given that no anti-dumping duty was re-imposed following the Brosmann and Aokang judgments.
Četvrto, Cortina je tvrdila da bi ponovno uvođenje antidampinške pristojbe za devetnaest predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika bilo diskriminirajuće jer nakon presuda Brosmann i Aokang nije ponovno uvedena nikakva antidampinška pristojba.
Importers that have imported from Brosmann 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 nalaze se u drugačijoj činjenično-pravnoj situaciji jer su njihovi proizvođači izvoznici odlučili osporiti Spornu uredbu i jer su im nadoknađene pristojbe tako da su zaštićeni člankom 221. stavkom 3. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
See, in this regard, also recitals (118) to (122) above.
U tom pogledu vidjeti uvodne izjave od (118) do (122).
Fifth, Cortina alleged that there were several procedural irregularities resulting from this investigation.
Peto, Cortina je tvrdila da je u okviru tog ispitnog postupka došlo do nekoliko postupovnih nepravilnosti.
In the first place, they argued that the exporting producers concerned may no longer be in a position to provide meaningful comments or adduce additional evidence to support their MET/IT claims that they made several years ago.
Kao prvo tvrdili su da predmetni proizvođači izvoznici možda više nisu u mogućnosti dostaviti smislene primjedbe ili dodatne dokaze kojima bi podržali zahtjeve za MET/IT podnesene prije nekoliko godina.
For example, the companies may no longer exist or relevant documents may no longer be available.
Primjerice, društva možda više ne postoje ili relevantni dokumenti možda više nisu dostupni.
In addition, Cortina 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, Cortina je tvrdila 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 dopunu činjeničnih podataka koji nedostaju.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET/IT (see above recital (44).
Naprotiv, Komisija treba ocijeniti jesu li dokazi koje je dostavio predmetni proizvođač dostatni da se pokaže da su kriteriji utvrđeni člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) prvim podstavkom Osnovne uredbe ispunjeni kako bi se tom proizvođaču odobrio MET/IT (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu (44)).
As mentioned in the preceding recital, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Kako je navedeno u prethodnoj uvodnoj izjavi, Komisija svoju ocjenu može temeljiti na podacima koje je dostavio proizvođač izvoznik.
The allegation is therefore so abstract that the institutions cannot take into account those difficulties when carrying out the assessment of the MET/IT claims.
Ta je tvrdnja stoga toliko apstraktna da institucije pri ocjenjivanju zahtjeva za MET/IT ne mogu uzeti u obzir te poteškoće.
As that argument is based on speculation and not supported by precise indications as to which documents and which people are no longer available and as to what the relevance of those documents and people for the assessment of the MET/IT claim is, that argument is rejected.
S obzirom na to da se ta tvrdnja temelji na nagađanju i da nije potkrijepljena preciznim naznakama o tome koji dokumenti i koje osobe više nisu dostupni te koja je važnost tih dokumenata i osoba za ocjenu zahtjeva za MET/IT, ta se tvrdnja odbacuje.
Regarding the claim that an importer would have no means to provide any meaningful input, the Commission observes the following: first, importers do not enjoy rights of defence, as the anti-dumping measure is not directed against them, but against the exporting producers.
U pogledu tvrdnje da taj uvoznik ne bi mogao dostaviti značajne podatke Komisija napominje sljedeće: prvo, uvoznici nemaju pravo na zaštitu jer antidampinška mjera nije usmjerena protiv njih, nego protiv proizvođača izvoznika.
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.
Third, if importers thought that there was an irregularity in that regard, they had to take the necessary contractual arrangements with their suppliers to ensure to dispose of the necessary documentation.
Treće, ako su uvoznici mislili da u tom pogledu postoji nepravilnost, trebali su sa svojim dobavljačima ugovoriti potrebna rješenja kako bi osigurali dostupnost potrebne dokumentacije.
Therefore, the claim has to be rejected.
Stoga se ta tvrdnja mora odbaciti.
Sixth, Cortina 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.
Šesto, Cortina je tvrdila 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.
The present case only concerns the MET/IT requests, because this is the only point on which a legal error has been identified by the Union Courts.
Ovaj se predmet odnosi samo na zahtjeve za MET/IT jer je to jedina točka u kojoj su sudovi Unije pronašli zakonske pogreške.
For Union interest, the assessment in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 remains fully valid.
Radi interesa Unije ocjena u Uredbi (EZ) br. 1472/2006 ostaje u cijelosti valjana.
Furthermore, the present measure is justified in order to protect the financial interest of the Union.
Nadalje, trenutačna je mjera opravdana radi zaštite financijskog interesa Unije.
Seventh, Cortina claimed that the anti-dumping duty, if re-imposed, 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.
Sedmo, Cortina je tvrdila da se u slučaju ponovnog uvođenja antidampinška pristojba više ne bi mogla naplaćivati zbog roka zastare iz članka 221. stavka 3. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice (sada članak 103. stavak 1. Carinskog zakonika Unije).
According to Cortina, this situation would constitute an abuse of power by the Commission.
Prema Cortini to bi predstavljalo zlouporabu ovlasti Komisije.
The Commission recalls that according to Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code/103(1) of the Union Customs Code, the statute of limitations does not apply where an appeal pursuant to Article 243 of the Community Customs Code/Article 44(2) of the Union Customs Code is lodged, as in all the present cases, which concern appeals on the basis of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code/Article 119 of the Union Customs Code.
Komisija podsjeća da se u skladu s člankom 221. stavkom 3. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice/člankom 103. stavkom 1. Carinskog zakonika Unije, rok zastare ne primjenjuje ako je uložena žalba u skladu s člankom 243. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice/člankom 44. stavkom 2. Carinskog zakonika Unije, kao u svim dotičnim predmetima koji se odnose na žalbe podnesene na temelju članka 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice/članka 119. Carinskog zakonika Unije.
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.
Žalbena 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 mjeseca obustavlja od datuma donošenja pravnog lijeka.
Lastly, Cortina claimed that, following the expiry of paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China's WTO Protocol of Accession on 11 December 2016, the Commission can no longer rely on the methodology used to determine normal value for Chinese exporters in the original investigation (i.e. the analogue country methodology under Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation).
Naposljetku, Cortina je tvrdila da nakon prestanka valjanosti stavka 15. točke (a) podtočke ii. Protokola o pristupanju Kine WTO-u od 11. prosinca 2016., Komisija se više ne može pozivati na metodologiju koja je korištena za određivanje uobičajene vrijednosti za kineske izvoznike u početnom ispitnom postupku (odnosno metodologije analogne države iz članka 2. stavka 7. točka (a) Osnovne uredbe).
Therefore, this claim is rejected.
Ta je tvrdnja stoga odbijena.
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 (EU) br. 1294/2009.
The TARIC codes are listed in the Annex I to this Regulation.
Oznake TARIC navedene su u Prilogu I. ovoj Uredbi.