natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission sent a questionnaire regarding production and production capacity data of the Union industry to the European Biodiesel Board (‘EBB’) and subsequently carried out a verification visit at their premises.
Prizivno tijelo preporučilo je da TRS zatraži od Europske unije da svoje mjere uskladi sa Sporazumom WTO-a o antidampingu i GATT-om iz 1994.
PRODUCT CONCERNED
POSTUPAK
The product concerned is fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters and/or paraffinic gasoils obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, in pure form or as included in a blend originating in Argentina and Indonesia, currently falling within CN codes ex15162098, ex15180091, ex15180095, ex15180099, ex27101943, ex27101946, ex27101947, 27102011, 27102015, 27102017, ex38249992, 38260010 and ex38260090 (‘the product concerned’, commonly referred to as ‘biodiesel’).
Na temelju članka 1. stavka 3. ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a Europska komisija („Komisija”) pokrenula je 20. prosinca 2016. postupak revizije („revizija”) objavom Obavijesti [5] u Službenom listu Europske unije („Obavijest o pokretanju revizije”).
The Reports do not affect the findings set out in recitals 16 to 27 of the definitive Regulation concerning the product concerned and the like product.
Komisija je obavijestila zainteresirane strane u ispitnom postupku koji je prethodio Provedbenoj uredbi (EU) br. 1194/2013 („početni ispitni postupak”) o reviziji i načinu na koji namjerava uzeti u obzir nalaze izvješćâ.
REVISED DUMPING FINDINGS BASED ON THE REPORTS
Zainteresirane strane imale su priliku dostaviti primjedbe na pokretanje ispitnog postupka revizije i zatražiti saslušanje pred Komisijom i/ili službenikom za saslušanje u trgovinskim postupcima.
As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission reassessed the definitive findings of the original investigation by taking into account the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
Komisija je Europskom odboru za biodizel („EBB”) poslala upitnik o podacima o proizvodnji i proizvodnim kapacitetima industrije Unije te je potom obavila posjet radi provjere u njihovim prostorima.
This reassessment was based on information collected in the original investigation and information received by interested parties after the publication of the Notice of Initiation.
PREDMETNI PROIZVOD
The original investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Predmetni su proizvod monoalkilni esteri masnih kiselina i/ili parafinska plinska ulja dobivena sintezom i/ili hidrotretiranjem, nefosilnog podrijetla, u čistom obliku ili u mješavini, podrijetlom iz Argentine i Indonezije, trenutačno razvrstani u oznake KN ex15162098, ex15180091, ex15180095, ex15180099, ex27101943, ex27101946, ex27101947, 27102011, 27102015, 27102017, ex38249992, 38260010 i ex38260090 („predmetni proizvod”, koji se obično naziva „biodizel”).
With respect to the parameters relevant in the context of the injury assessment, data covering the period from 1 January 2009 to the end of the investigation period were analysed (‘period considered’).
Izvješća ne utječu na nalaze iz uvodnih izjava od 16. do 27. konačne uredbe koje se odnose na predmetni proizvod i istovjetni proizvod.
This Regulation seeks to correct WTO inconsistent aspects of the definitive Regulation and to bring it into conformity with the Reports.
REVIDIRANI NALAZI O DAMPINGU TEMELJENI NA IZVJEŠĆIMA
Inclusion of Indonesia
Kako je navedeno u Obavijesti o pokretanju revizije, Komisija je ponovno ocijenila konačne nalaze početnog ispitnog postupka, uzevši u obzir preporuke i odluke TRS-a.
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission referred to the anti-dumping measures on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia imposed by the same definitive Regulation.
Ta se ponovna ocjena temeljila na informacijama prikupljenima u početnom ispitnom postupku i informacijama koje su zainteresirane strane dobile nakon objave Obavijesti o pokretanju revizije.
These measures are at present subject to a pending WTO dispute by Indonesia against the Union [6] (‘EU Measures concerning Indonesia’).
Početnim ispitnim postupkom o dampingu i šteti obuhvaćeno je razdoblje od 1. srpnja 2011. do 30. lipnja 2012.
In that dispute, Indonesia has raised claims similar to those that were addressed in the Reports.
(„razdoblje ispitnog postupka” ili „RIP”).
As the Appellate Body's legal interpretation contained in the Reports appears to be also relevant for the investigation concerning Indonesia, the Commission considered it appropriate that the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia should also be examined in a concurrent review conducted under Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling regulation, in particular as far as the definitive Regulation was found inconsistent with Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA.
U pogledu parametara relevantnih za procjenu štete analizirani su podaci koji obuhvaćaju razdoblje od 1. siječnja 2009. do kraja ispitnog postupka („razmatrano razdoblje”).
In recitals 12 to 20 of the general disclosure document, the Commission set out its preliminary analysis of the application of the Appellate Body's interpretation of Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA for the Indonesian investigation.
Ovom se Uredbom nastoji ispraviti aspekte konačne uredbe koji nisu sukladni sa sporazumom WTO-a i uskladiti je s izvješćima.
After disclosure, interested parties submitted comments questioning the Commission's analysis, challenging, inter alia, the applicability of the Appellate Body's interpretation as well as the Commission's authority to act ex officio on that interpretation under the WTO enabling Regulation.
Uključivanje Indonezije
Because that analysis requires further time, the Commission decided not to terminate the review concerning Indonesia at this point, but instead to continue its analysis in light of the comments received.
U Obavijesti o pokretanju revizije Komisija navodi antidampinške mjere na uvoz biodizela iz Indonezije uvedene istom konačnom uredbom.
The review initiated under Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation is therefore still ongoing and remains open insofar as it concerns Indonesia.
Te mjere sada ovise o sporu koji je Indonezija pokrenula protiv Unije pri WTO-u i koji je još u tijeku [6] („mjere EU-a u pogledu Indonezije”).
All interested parties were informed accordingly by way of a revised disclosure document of 31 July 2017 and granted the opportunity to comment.
U tom je sporu Indonezija izrazila tvrdnje slične onima kojima su se bavila izvješća.
The Indonesian government claimed that the Commission had infringed general principles of European Union law by first disclosing its intention to amend the definitive Regulation with regard to Indonesia and subsequently by reversing that intention in order to continue the investigation concerning Indonesia.
Budući da je pravno tumačenje Prizivnog tijela koje je sadržano u izvješćima relevantno i za ispitni postupak koji se odnosi na Indoneziju, Komisija je smatrala primjerenim da se u okviru revizije koja se istovremeno provodi na temelju članka 2. stavka 1. ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a ispitaju i antidampinške mjere uvedene na uvoz biodizela iz Indonezije, posebno s obzirom na to da je utvrđeno da konačna uredba nije u skladu s člankom 2.2.1.1.
First, the Indonesian government considered that this results in unequal and discriminatory treatment of Indonesian producers vis-à-vis the Argentinian exporting producers given that the Commission had allegedly acknowledged, as stated in the Notice of Initiation, that Indonesian imports of biodiesel are in a similar situation to that of Argentinian imports.
Sporazuma WTO-a o antidampingu.
By delaying the review in respect of Indonesia, the Indonesian exporting producers are manifestly disadvantaged compared to the Argentinian exporters.
Komisija je u uvodnim izjavama od 12. do 20. općeg dokumenta o objavi iznijela svoju preliminarnu analizu primjene tumačenja članka 2.2.1.1.
Second, given that the Commission initiated the review with regard to both Indonesian and Argentinian imports of biodiesel, the Indonesian exporters could reasonably and legitimately expect to have the review concerning Indonesia concluded at the same time as for Argentina.
Sporazuma WTO-a o antidampingu, koje je dalo Prizivno tijelo, na ispitni postupak koji se odnosi na Indoneziju.
This expectation was further amplified by the first disclosure document in which the Commission proposed to also amend the definitive Regulation for Indonesia.
Zainteresirane strane su nakon objave dostavile primjedbe kojima su dovele u pitanje Komisijinu analizu osporavajući, među ostalim, primjenjivost tumačenja Prizivnog tijela i ovlast Komisije da na temelju ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a djeluje po službenoj dužnosti u skladu s tim tumačenjem.
Accordingly, by changing its position through a revised disclosure the Commission allegedly infringed the principle of legitimate expectations.
Budući da je za tu analizu potrebno više vremena, Komisija je odlučila da zasad neće obustaviti reviziju koja se odnosi na Indoneziju, nego da će s analizom nastaviti na temelju zaprimljenih primjedbi.
Third, the Indonesian government submitted that the Commission infringed the principle of good faith by excluding the Indonesian imports from the review at a late stage of the proceeding despite, including them throughout the investigation.
Stoga je revizija pokrenuta na temelju članka 2. stavka 1. ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a još u tijeku i ostaje otvorena u dijelu koji se odnosi na Indoneziju.
At the outset, the Commission recalled that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body has already made definitive findings on the EU measures against imports of biodiesel from Argentina, while the separate dispute concerning anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Indonesia is still pending before it.
Sve zainteresirane strane o tome su obaviještene revidiranim dokumentom o objavi od 31. srpnja 2017. i omogućeno im je da se očituju.
The latter are thus considered a non-disputed measure within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation.
Indonezijska vlada tvrdi da je Komisija povrijedila opća načela prava Europske unije time što je prvo objavila svoju namjeru da izmijeni konačnu uredbu u pogledu Indonezije, a zatim se predomislila i nastavila ispitni postupak koji se odnosi na Indoneziju.
This is informed, inter alia, by the use of the term ‘report’ in Article 1(1) of the WTO enabling regulation to describe a disputed measure which the WTO Dispute Settlement Body has concerned itself with and adjudicated on.
Prvo, indonezijska vlada smatra da se time nejednako i diskriminirajuće postupa prema indonezijskim proizvođačima u usporedbi s argentinskim proizvođačima izvoznicima s obzirom na to da je Komisija navodno priznala, kako je navedeno u Obavijesti o pokretanju postupka, da su uvoz biodizela iz Indonezije i uvoz iz Argentine u sličnoj situaciji.
The Commission also recalled that, under European Union law, the concepts of ‘equal treatment’ and ‘non-discrimination’ prohibit treating similar situations differently, or different situations in the same way, without any objective ground for doing so [7].
Kašnjenjem revizije u pogledu Indonezije indonezijski proizvođači izvoznici stavljaju se u očito nepovoljan položaj u usporedbi s argentinskim izvoznicima.
For the purpose of implementing the WTO Reports, Indonesian and Argentinian exporting producers are not objectively in the same situation: the implementation exercise vis-à-vis the investigation into injurious dumping of the product concerned from Argentina occurred under Article 1(1) of the WTO enabling regulation and is terminated through this Regulation, whereas the implementation exercise vis-à-vis the investigation into the same practices from Indonesia occurred under Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling regulation and remains open.
Drugo, s obzirom na to da je Komisija pokrenula reviziju uvoza biodizela iz Indonezije i Argentine, indonezijski izvoznici mogli bi razumno i s pravom očekivati da će revizija koja se odnosi na Indoneziju završiti u isto vrijeme kad i revizija koja se odnosi na Argentinu.
A situation of discrimination can only arise if there is a different legal treatment for operators in the same situation.
To je očekivanje dodatno potkrijepljeno prvim dokumentom o objavi u kojem je Komisija predložila da se konačna uredba izmjeni i za Indoneziju.
Since, however, the review into implementation of the findings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body vis-à-vis Argentina and Indonesia was commenced on different legal bases, completing the review into the investigation on injurious dumping from Argentina before that into the investigation on injurious dumping from Indonesia does not result in the differential treatment of a comparable situation.
Stoga je Komisija promjenom stajališta u revidiranoj objavi navodno povrijedila načelo legitimnih očekivanja.
This is because operators find themselves in different situations.
Treće, indonezijska vlada tvrdi da je Komisija povrijedila načelo dobre vjere jer je indonezijski uvoz isključila iz revizije u tako kasnoj fazi postupka, unatoč tome što je bio uključen u cijeli ispitni postupak.
Contrary to the arguments by the Government of Indonesia, there is, consequently, no violation of the principle of ‘equal treatment’ or ‘non-discrimination’ for the purposes of European Union law.
Prvo, Komisija podsjeća da je Tijelo za rješavanje sporova WTO-a već iznijelo konačne nalaze o mjerama EU-a protiv uvoza biodizela iz Argentine, dok je posebni spor pri WTO-u koji se odnosi na antidampinške mjere za biodizel iz Indonezije još u tijeku.
In any case, by including permissive language (‘may’ and ‘if it considers this appropriate’) in Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation, the EU legislature has vested the Commission with significant discretion on whether or not to implement a recommendation from the WTO in respect of a non-disputed measure.
Stoga se potonje smatraju nespornim mjerama u smislu članka 2. stavka 1. ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a.
As noted above in recital 16, the Commission, after having analysed the comments received after disclosure, considered it appropriate not to conclude the review investigation as far as Indonesia is concerned at this point in time but, instead, to continue its assessment of the applicability of those findings also vis-à-vis Indonesia in light of the comments received.
To tumačenje potkrijepljeno je, među ostalim, upotrebom pojma „izvješće” u članku 1. stavku 1. ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a u pogledu sporne mjere, koju je Tijelo za rješavanje sporova WTO-a razmotrilo i o kojoj je donijelo odluku.
Moreover, the Commission cannot accept the argument that a disclosure document gives legitimate expectations as to the final conclusion of an investigation.
Komisija je podsjetila i na činjenicu da u skladu s pravom Europske unije pojmovi „jednako postupanje” i „nediskriminacija” znače zabranu različitog postupanja u sličnim situacijama odnosno jednakog postupanja u različitim situacijama, osim ako je takvo postupanje objektivno opravdano [7].
On the contrary, the purpose of disclosure is to inform interested parties of the Commission's preliminary findings and grant them the possibility to effectively exercise their rights of defence.
Za potrebe provedbe izvješća WTO-a argentinski i indonezijski proizvođači izvoznici objektivno nisu u istoj situaciji: provedba ispitnog postupka o štetnom dampingu predmetnog proizvoda iz Argentine temeljila se na članku 1. stavku 1. ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a i obustavljena je u skladu s tom Uredbom, dok se provedba ispitnog postupka o istim praksama iz Indonezije temeljila na članku 2. stavku 1. ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a i još je u tijeku.
It is thus the very essence of the disclosure for the Commission to take into account arguments and facts presented by interested parties.
Diskriminacija postoji samo u slučaju različitog pravnog tretmana subjekata koji su u istoj situaciji.
For that reason, the cover letter to all interested parties expressly stated that ‘this disclosure does not prejudice any subsequent decision which may be taken by the Commission, but where such decision is based on any different facts and considerations, these will be disclosed to your company as soon as possible’.
Međutim, s obzirom na to da je revizija provedbe nalaza Tijela za rješavanje sporova WTO-a u pogledu Argentine i Indonezije pokrenuta na različitim pravnim osnovama, završetak revizije ispitnog postupka o štetnom dampingu iz Argentine prije završetka revizije ispitnog postupka o štetnom dampingu iz Indonezije ne znači različito postupanje u usporedivoj situaciji.
In this particular case, that exercise led the Commission to take the position that it needs more time in analysing the applicability of the findings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body insofar as it concerns Indonesia.
Razlog tomu jest činjenica da su subjekti u različitim situacijama.
This decision is of a preparatory nature and does not necessarily prejudice the Commission's final conclusion.
Suprotno argumentima koje je iznijela vlada Indonezije, nije dakle riječ o kršenju načela „jednakog postupanja” ili „nediskriminacije” u smislu prava Europske unije.
That same decision is, furthermore, an exercise of the Commission's wide discretion when conducting the type of reviews commenced under the WTO enabling regulation, which fall within the realm of the Common Commercial Policy.
U svakom slučaju upotrebom permisivnih pojmova („mogu” i „ako to smatra primjerenim”) u članku 2. stavku 1. ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a zakonodavac EU-a dodijelio je Komisiji znatno diskrecijsko pravo odlučivanja o tome hoće li provesti preporuku WTO-a u pogledu nesporne mjere.
Accordingly, an interested party cannot rely on the protection of legitimate expectations before the Commission has closed the review procedure at hand if the Commission chooses to act within the powers provided to it by the Union legislator [8].
Kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 16., Komisija smatra da je zasad primjereno nastaviti ispitni postupak revizije kada je riječ o Indoneziji te će na temelju zaprimljenih primjedbi nastaviti s ocjenom primjenjivosti tih nalaza i na Indoneziju.
That argument, too, must, consequently, be rejected.
Nadalje, Komisija ne može prihvatiti argument da se legitimna očekivanja u pogledu konačnog zaključka istrage temelje na dokumentu o objavi.
Finally, no bad faith can be inferred from the fact that his change occurred after initial disclosure of the Commission's preliminary position, nor has the Government of Indonesia presented evidence to this effect.
Naprotiv, svrha je objave obavijestiti zainteresirane strane o preliminarnim nalazima Komisije i omogućiti im učinkovito ostvarivanje prava na obranu.
The Commission has faithfully conducted all steps in the review investigation with full respect of due process rights of all interested parties.
Stoga je smisao objave omogućiti Komisiji da uzme u obzir argumente i činjenice koje su iznijele zainteresirane strane.
The Commission therefore rejected the claims that it had breached fundamental principles of EU law by exercising its discretion not to amend, at this stage of the review, the anti-dumping measures as far as Indonesia is concerned in full respect of due process rights of all interested parties.
Zbog toga je u popratnom pismu svim zainteresiranim stranama izričito navedeno da se „tom objavom ne dovode u pitanje moguće naknadne odluke Komisije, ali ako se te odluke budu temeljile na drukčijim činjenicama i razmatranjima, bit će vam dostavljene u najkraćem roku”.
After the revised disclosure one exporting producer from Indonesia (‘Wilmar’) contested the Commission's view that it required further time to conclude its review vis-à-vis Indonesia given the clear findings of the WTO reports.
Komisija je zbog toga u ovom konkretnom slučaju odlučila da joj treba više vremena za analizu primjenjivosti nalaza Tijela za rješavanje sporova WTO-a na slučaj Indonezije.
It claimed also that the measures against Indonesia should be amended.
Ta je odluka privremena i njome se ne dovodi u pitanje Komisijin konačni zaključak.
In its view, the Commission is competent under the WTO enabling Regulation to amend a non-disputed measure and that its authority to act ex officio could therefore not be put into question.
Tom se odlukom, osim toga, ostvaruje široko diskrecijsko pravo koje Komisija ima pri provođenju revizija koje su započete na temelju ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a i spadaju u područje zajedničke trgovinske politike.
Finally, Wilmar claimed that should the Commission's findings vis-à-vis Indonesia be postponed then also the findings concerning Argentina should be postponed.
U skladu s tim, ako Komisija odluči djelovati u okviru ovlasti koje joj je dodijelio zakonodavac Unije [8], zainteresirana strana ne može se pozvati na zaštitu legitimnih očekivanja prije nego što Komisija završi reviziju koja je u tijeku.
From its perspective, there are legal issues pending in the Indonesian WTO proceeding that might also become relevant and applicable to the measures concerning imports of biodiesel from Argentina, notably in relation to the profit margin.
Zato je i taj argument potrebno odbaciti.
The Commission agreed with Wilmar that it is in principle competent to make findings with regard to a non-disputed measure under Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation.
Naposljetku, iz činjenice da je do te promjene došlo nakon početne objave Komisijina preliminarnog stajališta ne može se zaključiti da je Komisija povrijedila načelo dobre vjere, a ni indonezijska vlada nije dostavila dokaze u tom smislu.
However, as explained above in recital 16, the Commission, after having examined the comments received, did not consider it appropriate, at this stage, to conclude the review investigation as far as Indonesia is concerned by legitimately exercising its discretion provided for in Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation.
Komisija je dosljedno provela sve faze ispitnog postupka revizije pri čemu je u potpunosti poštovala postupovna prava zainteresiranih strana.
With regard to Wilmar's claim that also the findings concerning Argentina should be postponed, the Commission recalled that the WTO reports confirmed the methodology used in the definitive Regulation to establish a profit margin.
Komisija je stoga odbacila tvrdnje da je prekršila temeljna načela prava EU-a time što je iskoristila svoje diskrecijsko pravo da u toj fazi revizije ne izmijeni antidampinške mjere kada je riječ o Indoneziji, pri čemu je u potpunosti poštovala postupovna prava svih zainteresiranih strana.
The issue at stake in the pending Indonesian case was not raised in so far as Argentina was concerned.
Nakon revidirane objave jedan proizvođač izvoznik iz Indonezije („Wilmar”) osporio je mišljenje Komisije da joj je potrebno više vremena za dovršetak revizije u odnosu na Indoneziju s obzirom na jasne nalaze u izvješćima WTO-a.
In any case, the Union and Argentina have agreed on a reasonable time period to implement the findings of the reports, which should be respected.
Isti proizvođač izvoznik tvrdi i da bi mjere protiv Indonezije trebalo izmijeniti.
Determination of the normal value and calculation of the dumping margins
Prema njegovu mišljenju Komisija je na temelju ovlašćujuće uredbe WTO-a nadležna za izmjenu neosporene mjere i stoga se njezina ovlast da djeluje po službenoj dužnosti ne može dovesti u pitanje.
This section sets out the reassessed findings of the original investigation regarding the recommendations and rulings of the Reports that the Union acted inconsistently with:
Naposljetku, društvo Wilmar tvrdi da bi se u slučaju odgode nalaza Komisije o Indoneziji trebali odgoditi i nalazi o Argentini.
Article 2.2.1.1 by failing to calculate the cost of production of the product under investigation on the basis of the records kept by the producers and
To društvo smatra da u kontekstu postupka pred WTO-om koji se odnosi na Indoneziju postoje neriješena pravna pitanja koja bi mogla postati relevantna i primjenjiva i kada je riječ o mjerama koje se odnose na uvoz biodizela iz Argentine, a posebno u odnosu na profitnu maržu.