natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
24 In its judgment in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council, the Court of First Instance upheld the actions brought by those undertakings within the limits of the forms of order sought from it, that is to say, by annulling Article 1 of Regulation No 2849/92 only in so far as it imposed anti-dumping duties on NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko, in accordance with the case-law which states that, since it would be ultra vires for the Community judicature to rule ultra petita (see Joined Cases 46/59 and 47/59 Meroni v High Authority [1962] ECR 411, at page 419, and Case 37/71 Jamet v Commission [1972] ECR 483, paragraph 12), the scope of the annulment which it pronounces may not go further than that sought by the applicant (Case C-310/97 P Commission v AssiDomän Kraft Products and Others [1999] ECR I-5363, paragraph 52).
24 Prvostupanjski je sud u gore navedenoj presudi NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće prihvatio tužbe tih društava u okviru njihovih zahtjeva, odnosno poništio članak 1. Uredbe br. 2849/92 samo u mjeri u kojoj se njime društvima NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko određuje antidampinška pristojba, u skladu sa sudskom praksom prema kojoj bi sud Zajednice prekoračio svoje ovlasti ako bi odlučivao ultra petita (vidjeti presude od 14. prosinca 1962., Meroni/Visoko tijelo, 46/59 i 47/59, Zb., str. 783. i 801., te od 28. lipnja 1972., Jamet/Komisija, 37/71, Zb., str. 483., t. 12.), zbog čega poništenje koje proglašava ne smije prekoračiti zahtjev tužitelja (presuda od 14. rujna 1999., Komisija/AssiDomän Kraft Products i dr., C-310/97 P, Zb., str. I-5363., t. 52.).
25 The Court has pointed out in this regard that, if an addressee of a decision decides to bring an action for annulment, the matter to be considered by the Community judicature relates only to those aspects of the decision which concern that addressee. Unchallenged aspects concerning other addressees, on the other hand, do not form part of the matter to be tried by the Community judicature (AssiDomän Kraft Products, cited above, paragraph 53).
25 U tom je pogledu Sud naveo da kada određeni adresat odluke odluči podnijeti tužbu za poništenje, sud Zajednice odlučuje samo o elementima odluke koji se na njega odnose, dok, s druge strane, elementi koji se odnose na druge adresate koji se ne pobijaju ne ulaze u predmet spora čije se rješavanje zahtijeva od suda Zajednice (gore navedena presuda Komisija/AssiDomän Kraft Products i dr., t. 53.).
26 The Court has also ruled that, although the authority erga omnes exerted by an annulling judgment of a court of the Community judicature attaches to both the operative part and the ratio decidendi of the judgment, it cannot entail annulment of an act not challenged before the Community judicature but alleged to be vitiated by the same illegality (AssiDomän Kraft Products, paragraph 54).
26 Sud je isto tako odlučio da iako se apsolutna pravomoćnost koju imaju presude o poništenju suda Zajednice odnosi kako na njihovu izreku tako i na obrazloženje koje joj pruža nužnu potporu, ona ne može uključivati poništenje akta koji se ne osporava pred sudom Zajednice, ali je također zahvaćen istom nezakonitosti (gore navedena presuda Komisija/AssiDomän Kraft Products i dr., t. 54.).
27 That being so, the annulment of Article 1 of Regulation No 2849/92 by the Court of First Instance in its judgment in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council, upheld by the Court of Justice in Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko, in so far as that article imposed anti-dumping duties on NTN and Koyo Seiko, did not affect the validity of the other aspects of that regulation, in particular the anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi, since those aspects did not form part of the subject of the dispute on which the Community judicature was called to rule.
27 U tim uvjetima valja utvrditi da poništenje članka 1. Uredbe br. 2849/92, koje je utvrdio Prvostupanjski sud u gore navedenoj presudi NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće i potvrdio Sud u gore navedenoj presudi Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko, u mjeri u kojoj se tim člankom društvima NTN i Koyo Seiko određuje antidampinška pristojba, ne utječe na valjanost ostalih elemenata te uredbe, osobito na antidampinšku pristojbu primjenjivu na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi, jer ti elementi nisu bili predmet postupka u kojem je odlučivao sud Zajednice.
The possibility for Nachi Europe to plead that the anti-dumping duty is invalid in a dispute before a national court
Mogućnost da se Nachi Europe pozove na nevaljanost antidampinške pristojbe u postupku pred nacionalnim sudom
28 Irrespective of the effects of the partial annulment delivered by the Court of First Instance in its judgment in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council, it is necessary to examine whether Nachi Europe has locus standi to plead the invalidity of the anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi in a dispute before a national court.
28 Neovisno o učincima djelomičnog poništenja koje je proglasio Prvostupanjski sud u gore navedenoj presudi NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće, valja ispitati ima li Nachi Europe u postupku pred nacionalnim sudom pravo pozvati se na nevaljanost antidampinške pristojbe primjenjive na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi.
29 First, it is settled case-law that a decision adopted by a Community institution which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time-limit laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC becomes definitive as against that person (see, inter alia, Case 156/77 Commission v Belgium [1978] ECR 1881, paragraphs 20 to 24, Case C-183/91 Commission v Greece [1993] ECR I-3131, paragraphs 9 and 10, and Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf v Germany [1994] ECR I-833, paragraph 13).
29 Prvo valja podsjetiti da u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom odluka institucija Zajednice koju njezin adresat nije pobijao u roku iz članka 230. stavka 5. UEZ-a za njega postaje konačna (vidjeti osobito presude od 12. listopada 1978., Komisija/Belgija, 156/77, Zb., str. 1881., t. 20. do 24., od 10. lipnja 1993., Komisija/Grčka, C-183/91, Zb., str. I-3131., t. 9. i 10., i od 9. ožujka 1994., TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, C-188/92, Zb., str. I-833., t. 13.).
Such a 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 Community measures which produce legal effects from being called in question indefinitely (Case C-178/95 Wiljo v Belgian State [1997] ECR I-585, paragraph 19).
Takva se sudska praksa osobito temelji na mišljenju da je svrha rokova za podnošenje tužbe zaštita pravne sigurnosti osiguravanjem da se mjere Zajednice koje proizvode pravne učinke ne mogu osporavati unedogled (presuda od 30. siječnja 1997., Wiljo, C-178/95, Zb., str. I-585., t. 19.).
30 The Court has also ruled that it follows from the same requirements of legal certainty that it is not possible for a recipient of State aid, forming the subject-matter of a Commission decision addressed directly solely to the Member State from which that beneficiary came, who could undoubtedly have challenged that decision and who allowed the mandatory time-limit laid down in this regard by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC to pass, to call in question the lawfulness of that decision before the national courts in an action brought against the measures taken by the national authorities in implementation of that decision (TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, paragraphs 17 and 24, and Wiljo, paragraphs 20 and 21, both cited above).
30 Sud je isto tako presudio da iz istih zahtjeva pravne sigurnosti proizlazi da korisnik državne potpore koja je predmet odluke Komisije upućene izravno državi članici tog korisnika, koji je bez sumnje mogao pobijati tu odluku i koji je dopustio da prođe rok predviđen u tom pogledu petim stavkom članka 230. UEZ-a, nema mogućnost dovesti u pitanje zakonitost te odluke pred nacionalnim sudovima u okviru tužbe protiv mjera koje su nacionalne vlasti poduzele radi provedbe te odluke (gore navedene presude TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, t. 17. i 24., te Wiljo, t. 20. i 21.).
The Court has taken the view that to find otherwise would enable the recipient of the aid to overcome the definitive nature which a decision necessarily assumed, by virtue of the principle of legal certainty, once the time-limit laid down for bringing proceedings had passed (TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, paragraph 18, and Wiljo, paragraph 21).
Sud je smatrao da bi se donošenjem suprotnog tješenja korisniku potpore omogućilo izbjegavanje pravomoćnosti koja se na temelju načela pravne sigurnosti mora pripisati odluci nakon isteka roka za podnošenje tužbe (gore navedene presude TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, t. 18., i Wiljo, t. 21.).
31 It is necessary to examine whether, as the Council and Commission submit, the solution arrived at in TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf may be extended to a case, such as that here in the main proceedings, in which it is the invalidity of an anti-dumping regulation that is being invoked in a dispute before a national court by an undertaking in a position such as that of Nachi Europe.
31 Valja ispitati, kao što navode Vijeće i Komisija, može li se rješenje iz gore navedene presude TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf proširiti na slučaj, kao što je onaj u glavnom postupku, u kojem se na nevaljanost uredbe o antidampingu u postupku pred nacionalnim sudom poziva poduzeće u situaciji kao što je ona društva Nachi Europe.
32 On this point, Nachi Europe submitted during the hearing that the solution arrived at in TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf could not be applied where the invalidity of a regulation is pleaded incidentally, since Article 241 EC allows any party to plead the inapplicability of a regulation as an incidental issue, notwithstanding the expiry of the period laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
32 S tim je u vezi Nachi Europe na raspravi naveo da se rješenje iz gore navedene presude TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf ne može primijeniti ako se na nevaljanost uredbe poziva uzgredno jer je člankom 241. UEZ-a svakoj stranci omogućeno da se uzgredno pozove na neprimjenjivost uredbe, bez obzira na istek roka za podnošenje tužbe predviđenog člankom 230. petim stavkom UEZ-a.
33 It should first of all be noted in this regard that, according to settled case-law, the possibility provided by Article 241 EC of pleading the inapplicability of a regulation does not constitute an independent right of action and may only be exercised incidentally in proceedings brought before the Court of Justice itself pursuant to a separate provision of the Treaty (judgments in Joined Cases 31/62 and 33/62 Wöhrmann and Lütticke v Commission [1962] ECR 501, at 507, Case 33/80 Albini v Council and Commission [1981] ECR 2141, paragraph 17, and Joined Cases 87/77, 130/77, 22/83, 9/84 and 10/84 Salerno and Others v Commission and Council [1985] ECR 2523, paragraph 36; order in Case C-64/93 Donatab and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I-3595, paragraph 19).
33 U tom pogledu prvo valja podsjetiti da prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi mogućnost pozivanja na neprimjenjivost uredbe, koju nudi članak 241. UEZ-a, ne daje pravo na samostalnu tužbu i ne može se koristiti osim uzgredno u postupku pred Sudom na temelju neke druge odredbe Ugovora (presude od 14. prosinca 1962., Wöhrmann i Lütticke, 31/62 i 33/62, Zb., str. 965. i 979., od 16. srpnja 1981., Albini/Vijeće i Komisija, 33/80, Zb., str. 2141., t. 17., i od 11. srpnja 1985., Salerno i dr./Komisija i Vijeće, 87/77, 130/77, 22/83, 9/84 i 10/84, Zb., str. 2523., t. 36., te rješenje od 28. lipnja 1993., Donatab i dr./Komisija, C-64/93, Zb., str. I-3595., t. 19.).
34 Since Article 241 EC cannot be invoked before the Court in the absence of a main action brought before it, that provision cannot as such be applied in the context of the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 234 EC.
34 Budući da se u slučaju nepostojanja tužbe pred Sudom ne može pozvati na članak 241. UEZ-a, ta se odredba kao takva ne može primijeniti u okviru postupka povodom prethodnog pitanja predviđenog člankom 234. UEZ-a.
As the Advocate General has pointed out in paragraph 62 of his Opinion, Article 234 EC itself provides for a procedure for resolution of a question which arises with regard to the validity of a Community measure, where such a question arises incidentally in a dispute before a national court.
Kao što je u točki 62. svojeg mišljenja utvrdio nezavisni odvjetnik, člankom 234. UEZ-a predviđen je postupak kojim se omogućuje rješavanje pitanja u vezi s valjanošću akta Zajednice koje je postavljeno uzgredno u postupku pred nacionalnim sudom.
35 It is true, however, that Article 241 EC expresses a general principle of law under which an applicant must, in proceedings brought under national law against the rejection of his application, be able to plead the illegality of a Community measure on which the national decision adopted in his regard is based, and the question of the validity of that Community measure may thus be referred to the Court in proceedings for a preliminary ruling (Case 216/82 Universität Hamburg [1983] ECR 2771, paragraphs 10 and 12).
35 Točno je, međutim, da je člankom 241. UEZ-a izraženo opće načelo prava kojim se tužitelju osigurava pravo da se u postupku u skladu s nacionalnim pravom protiv odbijanja njegovog zahtjeva pozove na nezakonitost akta Zajednice koji je osnova nacionalne odluke donesene u pogledu njega, tako da se pitanje valjanosti tog akta Zajednice može uputiti Sudu u prethodnom postupku (presuda od 27. rujna 1983., Universität Hamburg, 216/82, Zb., str. 2771., t. 10. i 12.).
36 The Court has also pointed out that this general principle confers on any party to proceedings the right to challenge, for the purpose of obtaining the annulment of a decision of direct and individual concern to that party, the validity of previous acts of the institutions which form the legal basis of the decision which is being attacked, if that party was not entitled under Article 230 EC to bring a direct action challenging those acts by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to ask that they be declared void (Case 92/78 Simmenthal v Commission [1979] ECR 777, paragraph 39, and TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, paragraph 23).
36 Sud je isto tako naveo da se tim općim načelom svakoj stranci u postupku dodjeljuje pravo da s ciljem postizanja poništenja odluke koja se izravno i osobno na nju odnosi ospori valjanost prethodnih akata institucija koji su pravna osnova pobijane odluke ako ta stranka, na temelju članka 230. UEZ-a, nema pravo podnijeti izravnu tužbu kojom bi mogla osporiti akte čije posljedice izravno trpi bez mogućnosti da zatraži njihovo poništenje (presuda od 6. ožujka 1979., Simmenthal/Komisija, 92/78, Zb., str. 777., t. 39., i gore navedena presuda TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, t. 23.).
37 However, this general principle, which has the effect of ensuring that every person has or will have had the opportunity to challenge a Community measure which forms the basis of a decision adversely affecting him, does not in any way preclude a regulation from becoming definitive as against an individual in regard to whom it must be considered to be an individual decision and who could undoubtedly have sought its annulment under Article 230 EC, a fact which prevents that individual from pleading the illegality of that regulation before the national court (see, in regard to a Commission decision, TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, paragraphs 24 and 25).
37 Međutim, tom općem načelu, čiji je cilj osigurati da svaka osoba ima ili je imala mogućnost osporiti akt Zajednice koji je osnova za nju nepovoljne odluke, ni na koji se način ne protivi da uredba postane konačna u odnosu na pojedinca u pogledu kojeg se ona mora smatrati pojedinačnom odlukom i koji je bez sumnje mogao zahtijevati njezino poništenje na temelju članka 230. UEZ-a, čime se tog pojedinca sprječava da se pozove na nezakonitost te uredbe pred nacionalnim sudom (vidjeti u vezi s odlukom Komisije gore navedenu presudu TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, t. 24. i 25.).
Such a conclusion applies to regulations imposing anti-dumping duties by virtue of their dual nature, noted by the Court in the case-law cited in paragraph 21 of the present judgment, as acts of a legislative nature and acts liable to be of direct and individual concern to certain traders.
Taj se zaključak odnosi na uredbe o uvođenju antidampinških pristojbi zbog njihove dvojne naravi, koje je u sudskoj praksi navedenoj u točki 21. ove presude utvrdio Sud kao akte normativnog karaktera i akte koji se mogu izravno i osobno odnositi na određene gospodarske subjekte.
38 In the present case, Nachi Europe, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, could undoubtedly have sought the annulment of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 inasmuch as it fixed an anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi.
38 U ovom je slučaju Nachi Europe, tužitelj u glavnom postupku, mogao bez sumnje zahtijevati poništenje članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 2849/92 u mjeri u kojoj se njime određuje antidampinška pristojba primjenjiva na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi.
39 As the Advocate General has noted in paragraphs 32 to 34 of his Opinion, Nachi Europe is an importer which is associated with Nachi Fujikoshi and whose resale prices for the goods in question were used to construct the export price applied by Regulation No 2849/92 in order to establish the dumping margins in respect of Nachi Fujikoshi.
39 Kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik naveo u točkama 32. do 34. svojeg mišljenja, Nachi Europe uvoznik je koji je povezan s društvom Nachi Fujikoshi i čije su prodajne cijene predmetne robe bile temelj za izračun izvozne cijene, koja se u Uredbi br. 2849/92 primjenjuje za utvrđivanje dampinških marži za Nachi Fujikoshi.
Pursuant to the case-law cited in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the present judgment, that fact allowed Nachi Europe to be regarded as being directly and individually concerned by the provisions of that regulation which imposed a specific anti-dumping duty on goods manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi.
U skladu sa sudskom praksom navedenom u točkama 21. i 22. ove presude, na temelju te okolnosti moglo se smatrati da se odredbe te uredbe o određivanju posebne antidampinške pristojbe za proizvode koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi izravno i osobno odnose na Nachi Europe.
40 It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that the answer to the first question must be that neither the judgment of the Court of First Instance in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council nor that of the Court of Justice in Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko affected the validity of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 in so far as it fixes an anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi.
40 S obzirom na sva prethodna razmatranja, na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da gore navedena presuda Prvostupanjskog suda NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće i gore navedena presuda Suda Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko ne utječu na valjanost članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 2849/92 u mjeri u kojoj se njime određuje antidampinška pristojba primjenjiva na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi.
An importer of those products, such as Nachi Europe, which undoubtedly had a right of action before the Court of First Instance to seek the annulment of the anti-dumping duty imposed on those goods, but which did not exercise that right, cannot subsequently plead the invalidity of that anti-dumping duty before a national court.
Uvoznik tih proizvoda, kao što je Nachi Europe, koji je bez sumnje imao pravo Prvostupanjskom sudu podnijeti tužbu za poništenje antidampinške pristojbe za te proizvode, ali koji to pravo nije ostvario, ne može se naknadno pozvati na nevaljanost te antidampinške pristojbe pred nacionalnim sudom. U tom je slučaju nacionalni sud vezan konačnošću antidampinške pristojbe primjenjive na temelju članka 1. stavka 2.
In such a case, the national court is bound by the definitive nature of the anti-dumping duty applicable under Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi and imported by Nachi Europe.
Uredbe br. 2849/92 na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi i uvozi Nachi Europe.
41 In view of the fact that the national court posed the second question only in the event that the first question should be answered in the affirmative, it is unnecessary to reply to that second question.
41 S obzirom na to da je sud koji je uputio zahtjev postavio drugo pitanje samo pod pretpostavkom da je odgovor na prvo pitanje potvrdan, na njega nije potrebno odgovoriti.
Costs 42 The costs incurred by the Council and the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
42 Troškovi Vijeća i Komisije, koji su podnijeli očitovanja Sudu, ne nadoknađuju se.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Operative part
Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka.
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of 21 June 1999, hereby rules:
odlučujući o pitanjima koja je rješenjem od 21. lipnja 1999. uputio Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, odlučuje:
Neither the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council nor that of the Court of Justice in Case C-245/95 P Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko affected the validity of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 of 28 September 1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 in so far as it fixes an anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation.
Presuda Prvostupanjskog suda od 2. svibnja 1995., NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće (T-163/94 i T-165/94), i presuda Suda od 10. veljače 1998., Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko (C-245/95 P), ne utječu na valjanost članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2849/92 od 28. rujna 1992. o izmjeni konačne antidampinške pristojbe koja je uvedena Uredbom (EEZ) br. 1739/85 o uvozu kugličnih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana s najvećim vanjskim promjerom većim od 30 milimetara u mjeri u kojoj se njime određuje antidampinška pristojba primjenjiva na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation.
An importer of those products, such as Nachi Europe GmbH, which undoubtedly had a right of action before the Court of First Instance to seek the annulment of the anti-dumping duty imposed on those goods, but which did not exercise that right, cannot subsequently plead the invalidity of that anti-dumping duty before a national court.
Uvoznik tih proizvoda, kao što je Nachi Europe GmbH, koji je bez sumnje imao pravo Prvostupanjskom sudu podnijeti tužbu za poništenje antidampinške pristojbe za te proizvode, ali koji to pravo nije ostvario, ne može se naknadno pozvati na nevaljanost te antidampinške pristojbe pred nacionalnim sudom.
In such a case, the national court is bound by the definitive nature of the anti-dumping duty applicable under Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation and imported by Nachi Europe GmbH.
U tom je slučaju nacionalni sud vezan konačnošću antidampinške pristojbe primjenjive na temelju članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 2849/92 na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation i uvozi Nachi Europe GmbH.
Judgment of the Court of 15 January 2002.
PRESUDA SUDA
Articles 12 EC and 39(2) EC - Old-age benefits - Social security convention concluded between the Italian Republic and the Swiss Confederation - Refusal to take account of periods of insurance completed by a French national in Switzerland. - Case C-55/00.
15. siječnja 2002. - Davanja za slučaj starosti - Ugovor o socijalnoj sigurnosti sklopljen između Talijanske Republike i Švicarske Konfederacije - Neuzimanje u obzir razdoblja osiguranja koja je u Švicarskoj ostvarila francuska državljanka"