natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co.
[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”).
Ltd as well as Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
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 (‘the applicants’) challenged the contested Regulation in the Court of First Instance (now: the General Court).
Ltd („podnositelji zahtjeva”) osporila su spornu uredbu pred Prvostupanjskim sudom (sada: Opći sud).
By judgments of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council the General Court rejected those challenges.
Opći sud odbacio je ta osporavanja presudama od 4. ožujka 2010. u predmetu T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) i ostali protiv Vijeća i od 4. ožujka 2010. u spojenim predmetima T-407/06 i T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes i Wenzhou Taima Shoes protiv Vijeća.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Iz te je odredbe očito da je konačna antidampinška pristojba od 9,7 % uvedena za jedinog kineskog trgovca u uzorku kojem je dodijeljen 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).
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).
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.
That notice invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.
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.
U toj su obavijesti zainteresirane strane pozvane da se jave i iznesu svoje stavove.
Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Vijeće je u ožujku 2014.
Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
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.
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.
Ltd i završilo postupak u pogledu tih proizvođača.
Three importers of the product concerned, C&J Clark International Ltd (‘Clark’), Puma SE (‘Puma’) and Timberland Europe B.V.
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.
(‘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.
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.
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].
Tri su uvoznika predmetnog proizvoda, C&J Clark International Ltd. („Clark”), Puma SE („Puma”) i Timberland Europe B.V.
Regarding Case C-571/14 Timberland Europe, the Court of Justice decided on 11 April 2016 to remove the case from the register at the request of the referring national court.
(„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.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
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.
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].
Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 384/96 od 22. prosinca 1995. o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske zajednice [11].
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].
U pogledu predmeta C-571/14, Timberland Europe, Sud je 11. travnja 2016. odlučio obrisati taj predmet iz registra na zahtjev nacionalnog suda koji mu ga je uputio.
That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure.
U članku 266.
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.
UFEU-a propisuje se da institucije moraju poduzeti potrebne mjere kako bi postupile u skladu s presudama Suda.
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.
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].
In the present case, the illegality occurred after initiation.
Prema sudskoj praksi Suda postupak za zamjenu poništenog akta može se nastaviti u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti [13].
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’).
Pod time se posebno razumijeva da, ako se poništi akt kojim se zaključuje neki administrativni postupak, to poništenje ne utječe nužno na pripremne akte kao što je pokretanje antidampinškog postupka.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
U ovom je predmetu do nezakonitosti došlo nakon pokretanja postupka.
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.
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 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.
Komisija je isto tako, prema potrebi, ispitala ispunjavaju li predmetni proizvođači izvoznici uvjete za IT u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5.
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.
Uredbe (EZ) br. 1225/2009 [15] („osnovna uredba prije izmjena”) [16].
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].
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.
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 investigation that lead to the imposition of the definitive measures by Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (‘original investigation’).
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.
The Commission shall assess the relevant MET or IT claim and reimpose the appropriate duty rate.
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.
On this basis the national customs authorities should subsequently decide on the request for repayment and remission of the anti-dumping duties.
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.
Following a notification from the French customs authorities in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the Commission identified two Chinese exporting producers that provided MET and IT claims in the original investigation but that had not been sampled.
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.
Another exporting producer was identified that was supplier of Deichmann, a German importer that contested the payment of duties.
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.
Consequently, the Commission analysed the MET and IT claim form from these three Chinese exporting producers.
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].
As a result of the above, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 [21], the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by three exporting producers that had submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
U članku 1. te uredbe Komisija je uputila nacionalna carinska tijela da joj proslijede sve zahtjeve uvoznika za povrat konačnih antidampinških pristojbi plaćenih na uvoz obuće podrijetlom iz Kine i Vijetnama podnesene na temelju članka 236.
In accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the UK, Belgian (‘BE’), and Swedish (‘SE’) customs authorities notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers on 12 July 2016 (UK), 13 July 2016 (BE) and 26 July 2016 (SE).
Carinskog zakonika Zajednice i na temelju činjenice da je proizvođač izvoznik koji nije odabran u uzorak zatražio MET ili IT tijekom ispitnog postupka koji je doveo do uvođenja konačnih mjera Uredbom (EZ) br. 1472/2006 („početni ispitni postupak”).
As a result of these notifications, the Commission analysed MET and IT claims from nineteen exporting producers and, by Regulation (EU) 2017/423 [22], reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC and Vietnam and produced by these nineteen exporting producers.
Komisija će ocijeniti relevantne zahtjeve za MET ili IT i ponovno uvesti odgovarajuću stopu pristojbe.
During the above investigation, through comments made by several interested parties following disclosure, five additional companies/company groups were identified that had either themselves or via a related Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producer submitted a MET and IT claim form during the original investigation, but that were not sampled and that had not been assessed in any previous implementation exercise.
Na temelju toga bi nacionalna carinska tijela trebala naknadno donijeti odluku o zahtjevu za povrat i otpust antidampinških pristojbi.
These companies were listed in Annex VI to Regulation (EU) 2017/423 and were part of four company groups.
Nakon obavijesti francuskih carinskih tijela u skladu s člankom 1.
On this basis, the Commission identified four company groups comprising together seven individual companies that were Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that were not sampled in the original investigation and assessed the MET and IT claim forms that these companies had submitted during the original investigation.
Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223, Komisija je utvrdila dva kineska izvoznika proizvođača koji su dostavili zahtjeve za MET i IT u početnom ispitnom postupku, ali nisu bili odabrani u uzorak.