natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On-site inspections, where they are carried out, usually have as their purpose to confirm a certain preliminary assessment made by the institutions and/or to check the veracity of the information provided by the exporting producer concerned.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće posebno su tvrdili da kineskim i vijetnamskim proizvođačima izvoznicima nije pružena mogućnost da nadopune svoje obrasce zahtjeva za MET/IT putem obavijesti o manjkavosti te da je provedena samo analiza dokumentacije, ali ne i provjere na licu mjesta.
It is for the Commission to assess whether a verification visit is appropriate [27].
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da Komisija nije uzela u obzir vremensku razliku između podnošenja zahtjeva za MET/IT u početnom ispitnom postupku i ocjene tih zahtjeva.
The discretion to decide on the means of verifying the information in an MET/IT form lies with that institution.
Nadalje, proizvođačima izvoznicima tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka omogućeno je samo 15 dana za ispunjavanje zahtjeva za MET/IT umjesto uobičajenog roka od 21 dana.
So, where, as in the present case, the Commission decides, on the basis of a desk analysis, that it was in possession of sufficient evidence to rule on an MET/IT claim, a verification visit is not necessary and cannot be required.
Na temelju toga su FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili da nije poštovano osnovno pravno načelo omogućavanja zainteresiranim stranama da u potpunosti ostvare svoja prava na obranu iz članka 41.
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.
Povelje o temeljnim pravima Europske unije i članka 6.
Second, the Commission contests the assertion that there is a practice by the Commission that significant exchange of information and a detailed deficiency completion process is carried out when use is made of desk analysis alone as opposed to desk analysis plus on-site verification.
Ugovora o Europskoj uniji.
Indeed, FESI and the Footwear Coalition have not been able to provide evidence to the contrary.
Na temelju toga tvrdili su da je time što proizvođači izvoznici nisu dobili priliku dopuniti nepotpune podatke Komisija zloupotrijebila svoje ovlasti i učinkovito prebacila teret dokazivanja u fazi provedbe.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition's comments on discrimination must equally be rejected as unfounded.
Naposljetku, FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da bi se tim pristupom diskriminirali kineski i vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici koji su bili odabrani u uzorak tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka, ali i drugi proizvođači izvoznici u državama bez tržišnoga gospodarstva nad kojima je proveden antidampinški ispitni postupak, a koji su u tom ispitnom postupku podnijeli zahtjeve za MET/IT.
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 [28].
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 postupovne norme.
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 reassessment, it intends to bring these formerly non-sampled exporting producers on the same footing as those who were sampled in the initial investigation.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće također su tvrdili da je Komisija primijenila de facto podatke koji su bili raspoloživi u smislu članka 18. stavka 1. osnovne uredbe, a da pritom nije postupala u skladu s postupovnim pravilima koja su predviđena člankom 18. stavkom 4. osnovne uredbe.
In addition, as the basic Regulation does not set out a minimum timeframe in this regard, so long as the timeframe for this purpose is reasonable and provides the parties with sufficient opportunity to assemble (or reassemble) the information needed while at the same time safeguarding their rights of defence, no discrimination occurs.
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.
Insofar as it concerns the arguments regarding Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission would like to note that, in the current case, it did not apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
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.
It follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
S time u vezi podsjeća se da Komisija ni 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.
The procedure under Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
Komisija svoju ocjenu može temeljiti na podacima koje je dostavio proizvođač izvoznik.
Another importer, namely Sino Pro Trading Limited, claimed that the Commission could not have had sufficient time to investigate the MET and IT claims of 600 companies in a period of only several months, alleging that the investigation carried out by the Commission could therefore not have prompted solid results.
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.
This party further alleged that the outcome of this investigation, i.e. that all MET/IT claims that were assessed were also rejected would indicate that the Commission's investigation was biased.
Svi su zahtjevi za MET/IT predmet analize dokumenata koju provodi Komisija.
On the other hand, this party also argued that insufficient MET/IT claims were investigated, namely only 70 out of the original 600.
Osim toga, Komisija može odlučiti provoditi provjere na terenu.
In addition, the same importer argued that given that the companies' assessments in recitals 49 to 72 were on an anonymous basis, the interested parties were prevented to link the findings made to a specific company.
Međutim, provjere na terenu nisu obvezne niti se provode za svaki zahtjev za MET/IT.
Finally, this importer alleged that its supplier although listed in Annex II to this Regulation had not been investigated, but that only a questionnaire would have been sent to this supplier with an insufficient delay to respond.
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.
Regarding the above claims, the Commission first clarified that it was provided with names of 600 companies by the German or Dutch customs authorities or provided by the three importers mentioned in recital 29 as suppliers of footwear in China and Vietnam.
Drugim riječima, ako dokazi koje je dostavio proizvođač izvoznik jasno pokazuju da MET/IT nije opravdan, obično se ne organiziraju dodatne i neobvezne inspekcije na terenu.
As explained in recital 33, for most of these companies, the Commission had no record that they had submitted any MET or IT claim during the original investigation.
Na Komisiji je da procijeni je li prikladna provjera na licu mjesta [27].
For a substantial number of the remaining companies, the Commission had already assessed their MET and IT claim in previous implementation exercises.
Ta institucija ima diskrecijsko pravo odlučivanja o načinima provjere podataka u obrascu za MET/IT.
This procedure is explained in detail in recitals 34 to 36 and the relevant companies as well as the relevant legal acts are listed in Annexes IV to VI to this Regulation.
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 argument that the Commission allegedly investigated 600 companies in the present exercise is incorrect and must, accordingly, be rejected.
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 kršenje individualnog prava drugih društava.
Furthermore, the Commission clarified, that, as mentioned in recital 17, the Commission resumed the present anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and therefore examined whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, i.e. during the investigation period of the investigation which led to the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties in 2006.
Drugo, Komisija osporava tvrdnju da postoji praksa Komisije u okviru koje dolazi do znatne razmjene podataka i provodi se detaljan postupak zahtijevanja informacija kada se upotrebljava samo analiza dokumentacije za razliku od analize dokumentacije zajedno s provjerom na licu mjesta.
Therefore, the Commission did also not collect new information, but based its assessment on the MET/IT claim submitted by the relevant exporting producer during this investigation.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće doista nisu bili u mogućnosti dostaviti dokaze kojima bi dokazali suprotno.
The conclusions of these assessments were disclosed to the relevant exporting producers which were given a time period to comment.
Primjedbe FESI-ja i Koalicije proizvođača obuće o diskriminaciji također se moraju odbaciti kao neutemeljene.
As set out in recital 70, none of the exporters concerned, including the supplier of Sino Pro Trading Ltd provided any comment to this disclosure.
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 [28].
Finally, it is highlighted that the information provided by the exporting producers in their MET/IT claims is considered confidential within the meaning of Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Ipak, Komisija upravo to ne čini: tražeći od kineskih i vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika koji nisu bili odabrani u uzorak da zahtjeve za MET/IT daju na ponovnu ocjenu, namjera joj je te proizvođače izvoznike koji prije nisu bili odabrani u uzorak dovesti u jednak položaj kao i one koji su bili odabrani u uzorak u početnom ispitnom postupku.
Therefore, in order to protect confidentiality, company names have been replaced by numbers.
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 stranama na odgovarajući način omogućuje da prikupe (ili ponovno prikupe) potrebne podatke, a istodobno se osiguravaju njihova prava na obranu, ne dolazi do diskriminacije.
All above claims had therefore to be rejected.
Kad je riječ o tvrdnjama u pogledu članka 18. stavka 1. osnovne uredbe, Komisija bi željela napomenuti da u tom slučaju nije primijenila članak 18. osnovne uredbe.
Legal basis of reopening of the investigation
Postupak iz članka 18. stavka 4. osnovne uredbe slijedi se u slučajevima kada Komisija namjerava odbaciti određene podatke koje je dostavila zainteresirana strana i umjesto toga koristiti se raspoloživim podacima.
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.
Drugi je uvoznik, Sino Pro Trading Limited, tvrdio da Komisija nije mogla imati dovoljno vremena za ispitivanje zahtjeva za MET i IT 600 trgovačkih društava u razdoblju od samo nekoliko mjeseci te da ispitni postupak koji je provela Komisija zbog toga ne može imati dobre rezultate.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also reiterated that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for the imposition of anti-dumping duties retroactively, referring to the ruling of the Court of Justice in case C-458/98P Industrie des poudres sphériques v Council [29].
Ta je strana nadalje tvrdila da ishod tog ispitnog postupka, tj. činjenica da su odbijeni svi zahtjevi za MET/IT koji su ocijenjeni, upućuje na to da su Komisijini ispitni postupci bili pristrani.
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 alongside the expiry of the measures.
S druge strane, ta je strana tvrdila i da nije ispitano dovoljno zahtjeva za MET/IT, tj. samo 70 od 600 prvotnih.
To this end, the Commission had issued a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the expiry of the duties on 16 March 2011 [30] (‘notice of expiry’), the Union industry had not claimed any continuation of dumping, nor would the judgment of the Court of Justice have invalidated the notice of expiry.
Osim toga, isti je uvoznik tvrdio da s obzirom na to da su ocjene društava iz uvodnih izjava od 49. do 72. bile na anonimnoj osnovi, zainteresirane strane nisu mogle povezati nalaze s određenim trgovačkim društvom.
In addition, the same parties argued that there would also not be any powers in the basic Regulation which would allow the Commission to reopen the anti-dumping investigation.
Konačno, taj je uvoznik tvrdio da njegov dobavljač nije bio ispitan bez obzira na to što je bio naveden u Prilogu II. ovoj Uredbi te da mu je poslan samo upitnik s nedovoljno dugim rokom za odgovor.
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.
U pogledu prethodno navedenih tvrdnji, Komisija je najprije pojasnila da su joj nazive 600 trgovačkih društava dostavila njemačka i nizozemska carinska tijela ili tri uvoznika koji su u uvodnoj izjavi 29. navedeni kao dobavljači iz Kine i Vijetnama.
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-years 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 [31].
Kako je objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi 33., za većinu tih trgovačkih društava Komisija nije imala evidenciju da su tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka podnijela zahtjev za MET ili IT.
Article 266 of the TFEU does not allow from the deviation of this principle.
Za znatan broj preostalih trgovačkih društava Komisija je njihove zahtjeve za MET i IT ocijenila već u prijašnjim provedbama.
Finally, it was claimed that the Commission has not provided any reasoning or prior jurisprudence to support of the use of Article 266 TFEU as a legal basis for the reopening of the procedure.
Taj je postupak detaljno objašnjen u uvodnim izjavama od 34. do 36., a relevantna trgovačka društva, kao i relevantni pravni akti, navedeni su u Prilozima od IV. do VI. ovoj Uredbi.
Concerning the lack of any legal basis to reopen 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.
Argument da je Komisija navodno ispitala 600 trgovačkih društava u ovoj provedbi nije točan i stoga ga treba odbiti.
In any case, as Advocate General recently recalled, Article 266 TFEU both empowers the Commission to take action to restore legality in a manner consistent with the findings of a judgment declaring the measure in question invalid as well as obliges it to bring its conduct in line with the content of that judgment [32].
Zaključci tih ocjena dostavljeni su relevantnim proizvođačima izvoznicima koji su imali određeni vremenski rok za dostavu primjedbi.
The case in Commission v McBride and Others [33], on which FESI and the Footwear Coalition rely, does not apply in this context as in that case the rules conferring competence to adopt an act (in replacement of the one annulled) were no longer contained in EU law, whereas, in the present case, the legal basis has not disappeared and the only change has been that competence has been conferred on the Commission [34].
Kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 70., nijedan predmetni izvoznik, uključujući dobavljača Sino Pro Trading Ltd, nije dostavio nikakve primjedbe na tu objavu.
Insofar as it concerns legitimate expectations, it should be recalled that 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).
Naposljetku, istaknuto je da se informacije koje su dostavili proizvođači izvoznici u svojim zahtjevima za MET/IT smatraju povjerljivima u smislu članka 19. osnovne uredbe.
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 [35].
Stoga su u cilju zaštite povjerljivosti imena društava zamijenjena brojevima.
Neither FESI nor the Footwear Coalition have attempted to demonstrate that such assurances were given in the present case.
Svi su se prethodni argumenti stoga morali odbaciti.
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.
Pravna osnova ponovnog pokretanja ispitnog postupka
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.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da bi Komisija kršila članak 266.
The previous annulments relied on by the interested parties, on the contrary, concerned the findings on dumping, injury and Union interest.
UFEU-a jer joj tim člankom nije pružena pravna osnova za ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka u pogledu mjere koja je istekla.
The institutions are therefore permitted to recalculate the precise duty rate for the exporting producers concerned.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće ponovno su naglasili i da se člankom 266.
In particular, in the present case, there was no need to seek additional information from interested parties.
UFEU-a ne omogućava retroaktivno uvođenje antidampinških pristojbi, upućujući na presudu Suda u predmetu C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques protiv Vijeća [29].
Rather, the Commission had to assess information that had been filed, but not assessed before the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
U tom su pogledu FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili da je antidampinški postupak koji se odnosi na uvoz obuće iz Kine i Vijetnama završen 31. ožujka 2011. uz istek mjera.
In any event, as noted in recital 99, previous practice in other cases does not constitute precise and unconditional assurance for the present case.
U tom je cilju Komisija u Službenom listu Europske unije izdala obavijest o isteku pristojbi 16. ožujka 2011.
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.
[30] („obavijest o isteku”), industrija Unije nije prijavila nastavak dampinga niti bi presudom Suda Europske unije bila poništena obavijest o isteku.
Hence, their rights of defence are safeguarded.
Osim toga, te su strane tvrdile da Komisija na temelju osnovne uredbe nije ovlaštena za ponovno pokretanje antidampinškog ispitnog postupka.
In that regard, it is to be noted in particular that unrelated importers do not enjoy, in an anti-dumping proceeding, rights of defence, as those proceedings are not directed against them.
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.
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.
To je načelo utvrđeno u Sporazumu WTO-a i osnovnoj uredbi u kojima je za mjere određeno vremensko ograničenje od 5 godina te u članku 236. stavku 1. i članku 221. stavku 3.
According to the case-law referred to in recital 15, the administrative procedure should be resumed at the point in time where the illegality occurred.
Carinskog zakonika kojima se, s jedne strane, za uvoznike određuje vremenski rok od tri godine da podnesu zahtjev za povrat antidampinških pristojbi, a s druge strane za nacionalna carinska tijela da naplate uvozne pristojbe i antidampinške pristojbe [31].
The Commission reopened the investigation precisely at that point in order to assess whether MET/IT claims that were unassessed should have been granted, and, alongside, possibly a lower duty rate has been due (which, in turn would have allowed these concerned companies to request a repayment of those overpaid duties via their competent customs authority alongside interest [36]).
Člankom 266.
A notice of expiry, while officially terminating the proceeding, cannot have the effect of denying those companies the right to have their MET/IT claims reviewed — a right that, after all, had been due during the investigation, as recognised by the Court in C&J Clark [37].
UFEU-a ne dopušta se odstupanje od tog načela.
The investigation was, accordingly, reopened on 17 March 2016, and will be closed by way of this Regulation in line with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation.
Naposljetku, tvrdili su da Komisija nije pružila obrazloženje niti prethodnu sudsku praksu kako bi opravdala korištenje članka 266.
Article 236 of the Community Customs Code
UFEU-a kao pravne osnove za ponovno pokretanje postupka.
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.
U pogledu izostanka pravne osnove za ponovno otvaranje 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.
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.
U svakom slučaju, kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik nedavno podsjetio, člankom 266.