natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Tako se na kineska i vijetnamska društva na koja se odnosi trenutačna provedba ne bi trebala primjenjivati jednaka obveza podnošenja podataka koja se primjenjuje u uobičajenom ispitnom postupku u trajanju od 15 mjeseci te se na njih ne bi trebale odnositi strože proceduralne norme.
The procedure under Article 18(4) is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće također su tvrdili da je Komisija primijenila de facto podatke koji su bili dostupni u smislu članka 18. stavka 1.
Legal basis of re-opening of the investigation
Osnovne uredbe, a da pritom nije postupala u skladu s postupovnim pravilima koja su predviđena člankom 18. stavkom 4.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that the Commission would be in breach of Article 266 TFEU, as this article does not provide it with the legal basis to reopen the investigation with respect to an expired measure.
Osnovne uredbe.
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.
Komisija podsjeća da je prema sudskoj praksi teret dokazivanja na proizvođaču koji zahtijeva MET/IT na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točke (b) Osnovne uredbe.
In this regard, FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of footwear from China and Vietnam had been concluded on 31 March 2011 with the expiry of the measures.
U skladu s time, kako je Sud odlučio u presudama Brosmann i Aokang, institucije nemaju nikakvu obvezu dokazati da proizvođač ne ispunjava uvjete utvrđene za priznavanje tog statusa.
To this aim, the Commission had issued a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the expiry of the duties on 16 March 2011 (‘notice of expiry’), the Union industry had not claimed any continuation of dumping and also the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union did not invalidate the notice of expiry.
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 48.).
In addition, the same parties argued that there would also not be any grounds in the basic Regulation which would allow the Commission to re-open the anti-dumping investigation.
S time u vezi podsjeća se da Komisija u skladu s Osnovnom uredbom ni sudskom praksom nema obvezu proizvođačima izvoznicima dati mogućnost da nadopune svoj zahtjev za MET/IT sa svim činjenicama koje nedostaju.
In this context, FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued in addition that the resumption of the investigation and the assessment of the MET/IT claims filed by the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned in the original investigation is in violation of the universal principle of prescription or limitation.
Komisija svoju ocjenu može temeljiti na podacima koje je dostavio proizvođač izvoznik.
This principle is laid down in the WTO Agreement and the basic Regulation that set a 5-year time limit for the duration of measures and in Articles 236(1) and 221(3) of the Community Customs Code that set a 3-year period for importers to claim the repayment of anti-dumping duties on the one hand and for national customs authorities to collect import duties and anti-dumping duties on the other hand.
U pogledu argumenta da je provedena samo analiza dokumentacije, Komisija napominje da je analiza dokumentacije postupak u kojem se zahtjevi za MET/IT analiziraju na temelju dokumenata koje je dostavio proizvođač izvoznik.
Concerning the lack of any legal basis to re-open the investigation, the Commission recalls the case-law quoted above at recital (15), pursuant to which it may resume the investigation at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
Međutim, provjere na terenu nisu obvezne niti se provode za svaki zahtjev za MET/IT.
According to the case-law, the legality of an anti-dumping Regulation has to be assessed in the light of the objective norms of Union law, and not of a decisional practice, even where such a practice exists (which is not the case here).
Ako se provode, obično je cilj inspekcija na terenu potvrditi određene preliminarne ocjene institucija i/ili provjeriti istinitost informacija koje je dostavio predmetni proizvođač izvoznik.
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.
Drugim riječima, ako dokazi koje je dostavio proizvođač izvoznik jasno pokazuju da MET/IT nije opravdan, obično se organiziraju dodatne i neobvezne inspekcije na terenu.
Neither FESI nor the Footwear Coalition have attempted to demonstrate that such assurances were given in the present case.
Na Komisiji je da procijeni je li prikladna provjera na licu mjesta.
That is all the more the case because the previous practice referred to does not correspond to the factual and legal situation of the present case, and whose differences can be explained by factual and legal differences with the present case.
Ta institucija ima diskrecijsko pravo odlučivanja o načinima provjere podataka u obrascu za MET/IT.
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.
Stoga, ako, kao i u ovom predmetu, Komisija odluči da je na temelju analize dokumenata imala dovoljno dokaza da donese odluku o zahtjevu za MET/IT, nije potrebna provjera na licu mjesta.
The previous annulments relied on by the interested parties, on the contrary, concerned the findings on dumping, injury and Union interest.
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.
The institutions are therefore permitted to recalculate the precise duty rate for the exporting producers concerned.
Drugo, Komisija osporava tvrdnju da postoji praksa Komisije u okviru koje pri analizi dokumentacije zajedno s provjerom na licu mjesta dolazi do znatne razmjene podataka i provodi detaljan postupak zahtijevanja informacija.
In particular, in the present case, there was no need to seek additional information from interested parties.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće doista nisu bili u mogućnosti dostaviti dokaze kojima bi dokazali suprotno.
Rather, the Commission had to assess information that had been filed, but not assessed before the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Primjedbe FESI-ja i Koalicije proizvođača obuće o diskriminaciji također se moraju odbaciti kao neutemeljene.
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.
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.
Finally, all parties against which the proceeding is directed, i.e. the exporting producers concerned, as well as the parties in the Court cases and the association representing one of those parties, have been informed by the disclosure of the relevant facts on the basis of which the Commission intends to adopt the present MET/IT assessment.
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.
Hence, their rights of defence are safeguarded.
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.
In that regard, it is to be noted in particular that unrelated importers do not enjoy, in an antidumping proceeding, rights of defence, as those proceedings are not directed against them.
U pogledu članka 18. stavka 1.
As regards the claim that the measures in question expired on 31 March 2011, the Commission fails to see why the expiry of the measure would be of any relevance for the possibility for the Commission to adopt a new act to replace the annulled act following a judgment annulling the initial act.
Osnovne uredbe, u ovom je predmetu Komisija prihvatila podatke koje su dostavili predmetni proizvođači izvoznici, nije ih odbila i svoju je ocjenu temeljila na njima.
According to the case-law referred to in recital (15) above, the administrative procedure should be resumed at the point in time where the illegality occurred.
Stoga Komisija nije primijenila članak 18.
The anti-dumping proceedings are hence, as a result of the annulment of the act concluding the proceedings, still open.
Iz toga proizlazi da nije bilo potrebno slijediti postupak na temelju članka 18. stavka 4.
The Commission is under an obligation to close those proceedings; Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation provides that an investigation has to be closed by an act of the Commission.
Osnovne uredbe.
Article 236 of the Community Customs Code
Postupak iz članka 18. stavka 4. slijedi se u slučajevima kada Komisija namjerava odbaciti određene podatke koje je dostavila zainteresirana strana i umjesto toga koristiti se dostupnim činjenicama.
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.
Pravna osnova i ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka
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 tvrdili su da bi Komisija kršila članak 266.
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.
UFEU-a jer joj tim člankom nije pružena pravna osnova za ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka u pogledu mjere koja je istekla.
In this regard, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation does not allow the Commission to derogate from Article 236 of the Community Customs Code, as both legislations are of an equal legal order and the basic Regulation cannot be seen as a lex specialis of the Community Customs Code.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće ponovno su naglasili i da se člankom 266.
Furthermore, the same parties continued Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation does not refer to Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and only states that special provisions may be adopted by the Commission, but no derogations to the Community Customs Code.
UFEU-a ne omogućava retroaktivno uvođenje antidampinških pristojbi, što potvrđuje i presuda Suda u predmetu C-458/98P, IPS protiv Vijeća.
In response thereto, it is important to underline that Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation does not automatically render applicable the rules governing Union customs legislation to the imposition of the individual anti-dumping duties.
U tom su pogledu FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili da je antidampinški postupak koji se odnosi na uvoz obuće iz Kine i Vijetnama sklopljen 31. ožujka 2011., po isteku mjera.
Rather, Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation gives the Union's institutions the right to transpose and make applicable, where necessary and useful, the rules governing the Union's customs legislation.
U tom je cilju Komisija u Službenom listu Europske unije izdala obavijest o isteku pristojbi 16. ožujka 2011. („obavijest o isteku”), industrija Unije nije prijavila nastavak dampinga i presudom Suda Europske unije nije poništena obavijest o isteku.
This transposition does not require a full application of all the provisions of the Union's customs legislation.
Te su stranke tvrdile da Komisija na temelju Osnovne uredbe neće moći ponovno pokrenuti antidampinški ispitni postupak.
Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation explicitly envisages special provisions with regard to the common definition of the concept of origin, a good example of where deviation from the provisions of the Union's customs legislation occurs.
U tom kontekstu, FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da bi nastavak ispitnog postupka i ocjene zahtjeva za MET/IT koje su podnijeli predmetni kineski i vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici iz početnog ispitnog postupka predstavljao kršenje univerzalnog načela preskripcije ili zastare.
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.
To je načelo utvrđeno u Sporazumu WTO-a, u Osnovnoj uredbi, u kojoj je za mjere određeno vremensko ograničenje od 5 godina te u članku 236. stavku 1. i članku 221. stavku 3.
This does not challenge the exclusive competence that national customs authorities have in relation to disputes concerning customs debt: the decision-making authority remains with the customs authorities of the Member States.
Carinskog zakonika kojima se, s jedne strane, za uvoznike određuje vremenski rok od tri godine da podnesu zahtjev za ponovno plaćanje antidampinških pristojbi, a s druge strane za nacionalna carinska tijela da naplate uvozne pristojbe i antidampinške pristojbe.
The Member States customs authorities still decide, on the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission vis-à-vis the MET and IT claims, whether reimbursement should be granted or not.
Člankom 266.
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.
UFEU-a ne dopušta se odstupanje od tog načela.
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.
Naposljetku, tvrdili su da Komisija nije pružila obrazloženje niti prethodnu sudsku praksu kako bi opravdala korištenje članka 266.
Lack of statement of legal basis
UFEU-a kao pravne osnove za ponovno pokretanje postupka.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also argued that in violation of Article 296 TFEU, the Commission failed to provide adequate statement of reasons and indication of the legal basis on which duties were re-imposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation.
U pogledu izostanka pravne osnove za ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka, Komisija podsjeća na sudsku praksu citiranu u uvodnoj izjavi 15. prema kojoj može nastaviti ispitni postupak upravo u onoj točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti.
Accordingly, FESI and the Footwear coalition claimed that the Commission had breached the right to effective judicial protection of interested parties.
Prema sudskoj praksi, zakonitost uredbe o antidampingu potrebno je ocijeniti s obzirom na objektivne norme prava Unije, a ne na praksu odlučivanja, čak i ako ta praksa postoji (što ovdje nije slučaj).
The Commission considers that the extensive legal reasoning provided in the general disclosure document and in this Regulation duly motivates the latter.
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.
Legitimate expectations
Ni FESI ni Koalicija proizvođača obuće nisu pokušali dokazati da su takva jamstva pružena u ovom slučaju.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed further that the retroactive correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
To je tim više slučaj jer prethodna praksa na koju se upućuje ne odgovara činjeničnoj i pravnoj situaciji iz ovog predmeta, a čije se razlike mogu objasniti činjeničnim i pravnim razlikama u odnosu na ovaj predmet.
FESI argued that first, parties including importers, would have received assurance that the measures expired on 31 March 2011 and that given the time elapsed since the original investigation, parties were entitled to have justified expectations that the original investigation will not be resumed or reopened.
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.
Likewise, the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were entitled to have justified legitimate expatiations that their MET/IT claims provided in the original investigation would not be reviewed anymore by the Commission, based on the mere fact that these claims were no assessed within the three-month period applicable during the original investigation.
Suprotno tome, prethodna poništenja na koja su se pozivale zainteresirane strane odnosila su se na nalaze o dampingu, šteti i interesu Unije.
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.
Konkretno, u ovom predmetu nije bilo potrebno tražiti dodatne podatke od zainteresiranih strana.
Principle of non-discrimination
Naprotiv, Komisija je ocijenila podatke koji su joj dostavljeni, ali nisu ocijenjeni prije donošenja Uredbe (EZ) br. 1472/2006.
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.
U svakom slučaju, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 75., prethodna praksa u drugim predmetima ne predstavlja točno i bezuvjetno jamstvo za ovaj predmet.
Regarding the claim on discrimination, the Commission recalls first of all the requirements for discrimination, as set out in recital (67) above.
Konačno, sve stranke na koje se postupak odnosi, tj. predmetni proizvođači izvoznici, te stranke u postupcima pred Sudom i udruženje koje predstavlja jednu od tih stranaka, u okviru objave obaviješteni su o relevantnim činjenicama na temelju kojih Komisija namjerava donijeti ovu ocjenu MET-a/IT-a.
Then, it is noted that the difference between importers concerned by the current implementation and those concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments is that the latter decided to challenge Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 in the General Court, whereas the former did not.
Stoga je njihovo pravo na obranu zaštićeno.
A decision adopted by a Union institution, which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time-limit laid down by the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, becomes definitive as against him.
U tom je pogledu potrebno posebno napomenuti da nepovezani uvoznici u antidampinškom postupku nemaju pravo na zaštitu jer ti postupci nisu usmjereni protiv njih.
That rule is based in particular on the consideration that the periods within which legal proceedings must be brought are intended to ensure legal certainty by preventing Union measures which produce legal effects from being called into question indefinitely.
U pogledu tvrdnje da su mjere o kojima je riječ istekle 31. ožujka 2011.
This procedural principle of Union law necessarily creates two groups: those which challenged a Union measure and who may have gained a favourable position as a result (like Brosmann and the other four exporting producers), and those who did not.
Komisija ne vidjeti zašto bi istek mjere utjecao na mogućnost Komisije da nakon presude kojom se poništava početni akt donese novi akt kojim bi se zamijenio poništeni akt.
Yet, that does not mean that the Commission has treated the two parties unequally in violation of the principle of equal treatment.
Prema sudskoj praksi iz uvodne izjave 15., administrativni postupak trebalo bi nastaviti u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti.
An acknowledgement that a party falls into the latter category because of a conscious decision not to challenge a Union measure does not discriminate against that group.
Antidampinški postupci stoga su i dalje otvoreni kao posljedica poništenja akta kojim se ti postupci zaključuju.
So, all interested parties did enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts at all times.
Komisija ima obvezu zaključiti te postupke jer je člankom 9. stavkom 4.
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.
Osnovne uredbe propisano da se ispitni postupak mora zaključiti aktom Komisije.
According to the Council, this reimbursement had created legitimate expectations on the part of the importers concerned.
Članak 236.
Since no comparable reimbursement took place for other importers, these are not in a comparable situation to those importers concerned by the Council decision.
Carinskog zakonika Zajednice
In any event, the fact that the Council chose to act in a certain way, given the particular circumstances of the case before it, cannot bind the Commission to implement another judgment in the exact same way.
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.
Commission's competence to impose definitive anti-dumping measures
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrde da u tom pogledu Komisija nema ovlasti da sprečavanjem povrata antidampinških pristojbi utječe na članak 236. stavak 1.