natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 ovlašćuje se Komisiju da poduzme mjere radi ponovne uspostave zakonitosti u skladu s nalazima presude kojom se predmetna mjera proglašava ništavom te obvezuje da uskladi svoje postupanje u skladu sa sadržajem te presude [32].
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.
Predmet Komisija protiv Petera McBridea i dr.
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.
[33], na koji se FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće oslanjaju, ne može se primijeniti u ovom kontekstu jer u tom predmetu pravila kojima se dodjeljuju ovlasti za donošenje akta (umjesto onog poništenog) više nisu bila sadržana u zakonodavstvu EU-a i stoga u ovom predmetu pravna osnova nije nestala, a jedina je promjena da je ovlast dodijeljena Komisiji [34].
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 [38].
Kad je riječ o legitimnim očekivanjima trebalo bi podsjetiti da je zakonitost uredbe o antidampingu potrebno ocijeniti s obzirom na objektivne norme prava Unije, a ne na praksu odlučivanja, čak i ako ta praksa postoji (što ovdje nije slučaj).
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 [39].
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 zaključi da će institucije Unije djelovati na određeni način [35].
This transposition does not require a full application of all the provisions of the Union's customs legislation.
Ni FESI ni Koalicija proizvođača obuće nisu pokušali dokazati da su takva jamstva pružena u ovom slučaju.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Suprotno tome, prethodna poništenja na koja su se pozivale zainteresirane strane odnosila su se na nalaze o dampingu, šteti i interesu Unije.
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.
Institucijama je stoga dopušten ponovni precizan izračun stope pristojbe za predmetne proizvođače izvoznike.
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 the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties.
Konkretno, u ovom predmetu nije bilo potrebno tražiti dodatne podatke od zainteresiranih strana.
Accordingly, and with the overarching necessity to protect the Union'sown 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.
Naprotiv, Komisija je ocijenila podatke koji su joj dostavljeni, ali nisu ocijenjeni prije donošenja Uredbe (EZ) br. 1472/2006.
Lack of statement of reasons on legal basis
U svakom slučaju, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 99., prethodna praksa u drugim predmetima ne predstavlja točno i bezuvjetno jamstvo za ovaj predmet.
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 reimposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation.
Konačno, sve strane na koje se postupak odnosi, tj. predmetni proizvođači izvoznici, te strane u postupcima pred Sudom i udruženje koje predstavlja jednu od tih strana, u okviru objave obaviješteni su o relevantnim činjenicama na temelju kojih Komisija namjerava donijeti ovu ocjenu MET-a/IT-a.
Accordingly, FESI and the Footwear coalition claimed that the Commission had breached the right to effective judicial protection of interested parties.
Stoga je njihovo pravo na obranu zaštićeno.
SIEMES, one of the importers providing comments to the disclosure, also claimed that the Commission Implementing Regulation lacks appropriate reasoning, which is in violation of Article 296 TFEU, however, without further explaining this claim in more detail.
U tom je pogledu potrebno posebno napomenuti da nepovezani uvoznici u antidampinškom postupku nemaju pravo na zaštitu jer ti postupci nisu usmjereni protiv njih.
In support of its claim this party referred to the judgment in T-310/12 Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council [40].
U pogledu tvrdnje da su mjere o kojima je riječ istekle 31. ožujka 2011.
The Commission considers that the extensive legal reasoning provided in the general disclosure document and in this Regulation, including the reference to the legal bases for the present Regulation, duly motivates the latter.
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.
Legitimate expectations
Prema sudskoj praksi iz uvodne izjave 15., administrativni postupak trebalo bi nastaviti u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed further that the retroactive correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Komisija je ponovno pokrenula ispitni postupak upravo u tom trenutku kako bi ocijenila je li neocijenjene zahtjeve za MET/IT bilo potrebno odobriti, te je li im eventualno trebalo odobriti nižu stopu pristojbe (što bi tim predmetnim trgovačkim društvima omogućilo da zatraže povrat preplaćenih pristojbi s kamatama putem svojih nadležnih carinskih tijela [36]).
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.
Obavijest o isteku, kojom se službeno prekida postupak, ne može za posljedicu imati uskraćivanje prava tim trgovačkim društvima da im se zahtjevi za MET/IT preispitaju, pravo koje su, uostalom, imala tijekom ispitnog postupka, što je Sud priznao u predmetu C&J Clark [37].
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.
Ispitni je postupak, u skladu s time, nastavljen 17. ožujka 2016., a zaključit će se ovom Uredbom u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 4. osnovne uredbe.
Regarding legitimate expectations of interested parties that anti-dumping measures expired and that the investigation will not be reopened anymore, reference is made to recital 104, where these claims had been addressed in detail.
Članak 236.
Regarding the legitimate expectations of Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers not to have their MET/IT claims reviewed, reference is made to recital 99, where this has equally been addressed in light of the case-law of the Court on this matter.
Carinskog zakonika Zajednice
Principle of non-discrimination
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da postupak donesen za ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka i retroaktivno uvođenje pristojbe predstavlja zlouporabu ovlasti Komisije te da se njime krši UFEU.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition submitted that the imposition of anti-dumping measures with retroactive effects constitutes discrimination of (i) the importers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis importers concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments referred to in recital 6 that were reimbursed duties paid on imports of footwear from the five exporting producers concerned by these judgments, as well as (ii) a discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis the five exporting producers concerned by the Brosmann and Aokang judgments which were not made subject of any duty following Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrde da u tom pogledu Komisija nema ovlasti da sprečavanjem povrata antidampinških pristojbi utječe na članak 236. stavak 1.
Regarding the claim on discrimination, the Commission recalls first of all the requirements for discrimination, as set out in recital 87.
Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
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.
Tvrdili su da je na nacionalnim carinskim tijelima da uzmu u obzir posljedice nevaljanosti pristojbi te da bi jednako tako bila obvezna na povrat te pristojbe koje je Sud proglasio nevaljanima.
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 pogledu FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da se člankom 14. stavkom 3. osnovne uredbe Komisiji ne omogućuje odstupanje od članka 236.
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 [41].
Carinskog zakonika Zajednice jer su oba pravna akta jednakog pravnog poretka i jer se ne može smatrati da je osnovna uredba lex specialis Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
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.
Nadalje, iste su strane tvrdile da članak 14. stavak 3. osnovne uredbe ne upućuje na članak 236.
Yet, that does not mean that the Commission has treated the two parties unequally in violation of the principle of equal treatment.
Carinskog zakonika Zajednice te da se u njemu navodi samo da Komisija može donijeti posebne odredbe, ali ne i odstupanja od Carinskog zakonika Zajednice.
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.
Kao odgovor na to, važno je naglasiti da u skladu s člankom 14. stavkom 1. osnovne uredbe, pravila koja uređuju carinsko zakonodavstvo Unije ne postaju automatski primjenjiva na uvođenje pojedinačnih antidampinških pristojbi [38].
So, all interested parties did enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts at all times.
Umjesto toga se člankom 14. stavkom 3. osnovne uredbe institucijama Unije, ako je potrebno i korisno, daje pravo prenošenja i primjene pravila kojima se uređuje carinsko zakonodavstvo Unije [39].
According to the Council, this reimbursement had created legitimate expectations on the part of the importers concerned.
Člankom 14. stavkom 3. osnovne uredbe izričito se predviđaju posebne odredbe u pogledu zajedničke definicije pojma podrijetla, što je dobar primjer toga gdje nastaju odstupanja od odredbi carinskog zakonodavstva Unije.
Since no comparable reimbursement took place for other importers, these are not in a comparable situation to those importers concerned by the Council decision.
Na temelju toga Komisija je iskoristila ovlasti koje proizlaze iz članka 14. stavka 3. osnovne uredbe i zahtijevala od nacionalnih carinskih tijela da se privremeno suzdrže od bilo kakvog povrata.
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.
To ne dovodi u pitanje isključivu nadležnost koju imaju nacionalna carinska tijela u sporovima koji se odnose na carinski dug: carinska tijela država članica i dalje su ovlaštena za donošenje odluka.
Commission's competence to impose definitive anti-dumping measures
Carinska tijela država članica i dalje, na temelju zaključaka koje je Komisija donijela u pogledu zahtjeva za MET i IT, odlučuju bi li povrat trebao biti odobren.
In addition, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission does not have the competence to adopt the Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty retroactively in the current implementation exercise, and that this competence would in any event lie with the Council.
Stoga, iako je točno da ništa u carinskom zakonodavstvu ne sprječava ispravak povrata pogrešno plaćenih carina, u pogledu povrata antidampinških pristojbi ne može se donijeti takav opći zaključak.
This claim was based on the argument that if the investigation is resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred, the same rules should also be applicable as the ones at the time of the original investigation, where definitive measures were adopted by the Council.
Zbog toga, i prije svegazbog potrebe da se Unijini resursi zaštite od neopravdanih zahtjeva za povrat i povezanih poteškoća do kojih bi došlo zbog daljnjih neopravdanih zahtjeva za povrat, Komisija je na temelju svojih ovlasti iz članka 14. stavka 3. osnovne uredbe, morala privremeno odstupiti od carinskog zakonodavstva Unije.
These parties argued that in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2014 amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures (also called ‘Omnibus I Regulation’) [42] the new decision-making procedure in the field of the common commercial policy does not apply to the present context given that before the entry into force of the Omnibus I Regulation the Commission (i) had already adopted an act (the provisional Regulation), (ii) the consultations that were required under Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community were initiated and concluded, and (iii) the Commission had already adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation adopting definitive measures.
Nedostatak navoda o pravnoj osnovi
On this basis, these parties concluded that the decision making procedures prior to the entry in force of the Omnibus I Regulation should apply.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da pri povredi članka 296.
That claim, however, focuses on the date of initiation of the investigation (which is indeed relevant in relation to the other substantive amendments that were made to the basic Regulation) but fails to note that Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 uses a different criterion (that is, the initiation of the procedure for adoption of measures).
UFEU-a Komisija nije pružila odgovarajuće obrazloženje ni navela pravnu osnovu na temelju koje su pristojbe retroaktivno ponovno uvedene, a kao posljedica toga uvoznicima obuhvaćenima trenutačnom provedbom odbijen je povrat pristojbi.
The position of FESI and the Footwear Coalition is therefore based on an incorrect interpretation of the transitional rule in Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.
Stoga su FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili da je Komisija prekršila pravo na učinkovitu sudsku zaštitu zainteresiranih strana.
Indeed, given the reference in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 to ‘procedures initiated for the adoption of measures’, which sets out the transitional rules for the changes to the decision-making procedures for the adoption of anti-dumping measures, and given the meaning of ‘procedure’ in the basic Regulation, for an investigation that was initiated prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014, but where the Commission had not launched the consultation of the relevant committee with a view to adopting measures prior to that entry into force, the new rules apply to the procedure for adopting the said anti-dumping measures.
SIEMES, jedan od uvoznika koji je dostavio primjedbu na objavu tvrdio je i da Provedbena uredba Komisije ne sadržava odgovarajuće obrazloženje, čime se krši članak 296.
The same holds true for proceedings where measures had been imposed on the basis of the old rules and come up for review, or for measures where provisional duties had been imposed on the basis of the old rules, but the procedure for adopting definitive measures had not been launched yet when Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 entered into force.
UFEU-a, međutim bez detaljnijeg objašnjenja te tvrdnje.
In other words, Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 applies to a specific ‘procedure for adoption’ and not to the entire period of a given investigation or even proceeding.
Kako bi podržala svoju tvrdnju, ta se strana pozvala na presudu u predmetu T-310/12 Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals protiv Vijeća [40].
The contested regulation was adopted in 2006.
Komisija smatra da iscrpni pravni razlozi iz općeg dokumenta o objavi i iz ove Uredbe, uključujući upućivanje na pravne osnove za ovu Uredbu, opravdano oblikuju potonju.
The relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.
Legitimna očekivanja
Therefore, this claim is rejected.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće još su tvrdili da se retroaktivnim ispravkom isteklih mjera krši načelo zaštite legitimnih očekivanja.
With regard to Clarks et al, it is first claimed that the Commission had no legal basis to investigate the MET/IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the original investigation.
Kao prvo, FESI je tvrdio da su strane, uključujući uvoznike, dobile jamstvo da mjere istječu 31. ožujka 2011. i da su strane, s obzirom na vrijeme proteklo od početnog ispitnog postupka, imale pravo opravdano očekivati da se početni ispitni postupak neće nastaviti niti ponovno pokrenuti.
Clarks et al 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 reopened.
Jednako tako, kineski i vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici opravdano su mogli imati legitimna očekivanja da Komisija više neće preispitivati njihove zahtjeve za MET/IT iz početnog ispitnog postupka, na temelju činjenice da ti zahtjevi nisu ocijenjeni u razdoblju od tri mjeseca koje se primjenjuje tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
In reply to this comment, the Commission refers to the explanation provided in recitals 99 to 104.
U pogledu legitimnih očekivanja zainteresiranih strana da su antidampinške mjere istekle i da se ispitni postupak neće ponovno pokretati, upućuje se na uvodnu izjavu 104., u kojoj je to detaljno objašnjeno.
Second, Clarks et al 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.
U pogledu legitimnih očekivanja kineskih i vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika da njihovi zahtjevi za MET/IT neće biti pregledani, upućuje se na uvodnu izjavu 99., u kojoj je to objašnjeno i u kontekstu sudske prakse o tom pitanju.
In addition, SIEMES, another importer of footwear, similarly, claimed that there would be no legal basis for imposition of anti-dumping duties on a retroactive basis and referred to case law, i.e. Case C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques v Council [43], and to previous practice of the Commission in this regard.
Načelo nediskriminacije
As to the claim concerning retroactivity based on Article 10 of the basic Regulation and Article 10 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘WTO ADA’), Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, which follows the text of Article 10.1 of the WTO ADA, stipulates that provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties shall only be applied to products which enter free circulation after the time when the measures taken pursuant to Article 7(1) or 9(4) of the basic Regulation, as the case may be, enter into force.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da uvođenje antidampinških mjera s retroaktivnim učinkom znači diskriminaciju i. uvoznika obuhvaćenih trenutačnom provedbom u odnosu na uvoznike obuhvaćene provedbom presuda Brosmann i Aokang, na koje se upućuje u uvodnoj izjavi 6., koji su dobili povrat pristojbi koje su platili na uvoz obuće pet proizvođača izvoznika obuhvaćenih tim presudama; te ii. diskriminaciju proizvođača izvoznika obuhvaćenih trenutačnom provedbom u odnosu na pet proizvođača izvoznika obuhvaćenih presudama Brosmann i Aokang na koje se nije primjenjivala nikakva pristojba slijedom Provedbene odluke 2014/149/EU.
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 pogledu tvrdnje o diskriminaciji, Komisija najprije podsjeća na sve uvjete u pogledu diskriminacije, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 87.
Retroactivity in the sense of Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, however, refers only to a situation where the goods were introduced into free circulation before measures were introduced, as can be seen from the very text of that provision as well as from the exception for which Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation provides.
Navedeno je da je razlika među uvoznicima obuhvaćenima trenutačnom provedbom i onima na koje se odnosi provedba presude Brosmann i Aokang ta da potonji dovode u pitanje Uredbu (EZ) br. 1472/2006 pred Općim sudom, a prvi ne.
The Commission also observes that there is neither a violation of the principle of retroactivity, nor a violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.
Odluka koju je donijela institucija Unije, a koju njezin adresat nije doveo u pitanje u vremenskom roku iz članka 263. šestog stavka UFEU-a, za njega postaje konačna.