natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
14 In support of the action which it then brought before the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Nachi Europe submitted that Regulation No 2849/92 imposes anti-dumping duties on the ball bearings which it imported and that, in the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko, the actions for annulment brought by other importers had been upheld. 
14 Nachi Europe naveo je u potporu tužbi koju je zatim podnio pred Finanzgerichtom Düsseldorf da se Uredbom br. 2849/92 određuju antidampinške pristojbe za kuglične ležajeve koje je on uvezao i da su u gore navedenim presudama NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko prihvaćene tužbe drugih uvoznika za poništenje.
15 The Finanzgericht noted that, while the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko declared Regulation No 2849/92 invalid only in regard to the applicants in those cases, and not in regard to Nachi Europe, the grounds of those judgments none the less point to the conclusion that Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 is invalid in its entirety. 
15 Finanzgericht je utvrdio da iako je u gore navedenim presudama NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko Uredba br. 2849/92 proglašena nevaljanom samo u pogledu tužitelja u tim predmetima, ali ne i u pogledu društva Nachi Europe, iz obrazloženja tih presuda proizlazi da je članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 2849/92 u cijelosti nevaljan.
16 In those circumstances, the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
16 U tim je okolnostima Finanzgericht Düsseldorf odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
1. Is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 invalid? 
„1. Je li članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 2849/92 nevaljan?
2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, from what point in time is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 to be considered invalid in regard to the plaintiff? 
2. Ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje potvrdan, otkada se članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 2849/92 smatra nevaljanim u pogledu tužitelja?"
17 It is clear from the order for reference that, by its first question, the referring court is seeking to ascertain, not whether Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 is invalid in its entirety, but only whether that provision is invalid to the extent to which it imposes an anti-dumping duty on ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi and imported by its subsidiary Nachi Europe, these being the only products at issue in the main proceedings. 
17 Iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da sud koji je uputio zahtjev svojim prvim pitanjem ne želi utvrditi je li članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe br. 2849/92 nevaljan u cijelosti, već samo je li ta odredba nevaljana u mjeri u kojoj se njome određuje antidampinška pristojba za kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi i koje uvozi njegovo društvo kći Nachi Europe te koji su jedini proizvodi koji su predmet glavnog postupka.
18 To that end it is necessary to consider, first, whether the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko affected the validity of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2849/92 in so far as that provision fixes an anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi and, second, whether, if they did not have such an effect, Nachi Europe can plead that that anti-dumping duty is invalid in a dispute before a national court. 
18 U tom pogledu valja ispitati, s jedne strane, utječu li gore navedene presude NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko na valjanost članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 2849/92 u mjeri u kojoj se tom odredbom određuje antidampinška pristojba primjenjiva na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi i, s druge strane, ako nema takvog utjecaja, može li se Nachi Europe pozvati na nevaljanost te antidampinške pristojbe u postupku pred nacionalnim sudom.
The effect of the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko on the validity of the anti-dumping duty applicable to ball bearings manufactured by Nachi Fujikoshi 
Utjecaj gore navedenih presuda NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko na valjanost antidampinške pristojbe primjenjive na kuglične ležajeve koje proizvodi Nachi Fujikoshi
19 It is appropriate at the outset to recall the conditions under which an individual has locus standi to bring an action for the annulment of a regulation, such as Regulation No 2849/92, which imposes anti-dumping duties. 
19 Na početku valja podsjetiti na uvjete pod kojima pojedinac ima procesnu legitimaciju za podnošenje tužbe za poništenje uredbe o uvođenju antidampinških pristojbi, kao što je Uredba br. 2849/92.
20 The fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC makes the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person subject to the condition that the contested measure, although in the form of a regulation, is of direct and individual concern to that person. 
20 Prema članku 230. četvrtom stavku UEZ-a prihvatljivost tužbe za poništenje koju je podnijela fizička ili pravna osoba uvjetovana je time da se pobijani akt, iako je u obliku uredbe, izravno i osobno odnosi na tu osobu.
21 According to settled case-law, regulations imposing an anti-dumping duty, although by their nature and scope of a legislative nature, are liable to be of direct and individual concern to inter alios those producers and exporters who are able to establish that they were identified in the measures adopted by the Commission or the Council or were concerned by the preliminary investigations (see, in particular, Joined Cases 239/82 and 275/82 Allied Corporation and Others v Commission [1984] ECR 1005, paragraph 12), or, again, to those importers whose retail prices for the products in question form the basis of the constructed export price, where exporter and importer are associated (see, in particular, Joined Cases C-305/86 and C-160/87 Neotype Techmashexport v Commission and Council [1990] ECR I-2945, paragraph 19). 
21 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi uredbe koje uvode antidampinšku pristojbu, iako su po naravi i dosegu normativnoga karaktera, mogu se izravno i osobno odnositi, među ostalim, na one proizvođače i izvoznike koji mogu pokazati da se akti Komisije i Vijeća odnose na njih ili da su predmet pripremnih istraga (vidjeti osobito presudu od 21. veljače 1984., Allied Corporation i dr./Komisija, 239/82 i 275/82, Zb., str. 1005., t. 12.) ili na one uvoznike čije su prodajne cijene predmetnih proizvoda osnova za izračun izvozne cijene ako je izvoznik povezan s uvoznikom (vidjeti osobito presudu od 11. srpnja 1990., Neotype Techmashexport/Komisija i Vijeće, C-305/86 i C-160/87, Zb., str. I-2945., t. 19.).
22 The Court has ruled that, where a regulation which introduces an anti-dumping duty imposes different duties on a series of undertakings, an undertaking is individually concerned only by those provisions which impose on it a specific anti-dumping duty and determine the amount thereof, and not by those provisions which impose anti-dumping duties on other undertakings, with the result that an action brought by that undertaking will be admissible only in so far as it seeks the annulment of those provisions of the regulation that exclusively concern it (Case 240/84 Toyo v Council [1987] ECR 1809, paragraphs 6 and 7; Case 255/84 Nachi Fujikoshi v Council [1987] ECR 1861, paragraphs 7 and 8; Case 256/84 Koyo Seiko v Council [1987] ECR 1899, paragraphs 6 and 7; and Case 258/84 Nippon Seiko v Council [1987] ECR 1923, paragraphs 7 and 8). 
22 Sud je presudio da ako se uredbom o uvođenju antidampinške pristojbe određuju različite pristojbe za više društava, na određeno se društvo osobno odnose samo one odredbe kojima se tom društvu određuju posebna antidampinška pristojba i njezin iznos, ali ne i one kojima se drugim društvima određuju antidampinške pristojbe, tako da je tužba koju podnese to društvo prihvatljiva samo u mjeri u kojoj se njome zahtijeva poništenje onih odredaba uredbe koje se odnose isključivo na njega (vidjeti presude od 7. svibnja 1987., Toyo/Vijeće, 240/84, Zb., str. 1809., t. 6. i 7., Nachi Fujikoshi/Vijeće, 255/84, Zb., str. 1861., t. 7. i 8., Koyo Seiko/Vijeće, 256/84, Zb., str. 1899., t. 6. i 7., te Nippon Seiko/Vijeće, 258/84, Zb., str. 1923., t. 7. i 8.).
23 It was within the context of that case-law that NTN and Koyo Seiko, ball-bearing manufacturers named in Regulation No 2849/92, each brought an action before the Court of First Instance in which they sought annulment of that regulation to the extent to which it affected them individually. 
23 NTN i Koyo Seiko, proizvođači kugličnih ležajeva na koje se odnosi Uredba br. 2849/92, podnijeli su svaki u okviru te sudske prakse tužbu pred Prvostupanjskim sudom za poništenje te uredbe u mjeri u kojoj ona utječe na svako od tih društava.
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.).