natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
17 It should be observed, first, that while Member States are still, in principle, free to determine the requirements of public policy and public security in the light of their national needs, those grounds must, in the Community context and, in particular, as derogations from the fundamental principle of free movement of capital, be interpreted strictly, so that their scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the Community institutions (see, to this effect, Case 36/75 Rutili v Minister for the Interior [1975] ECR 1219, paragraphs 26 and 27). 
17 Treba napomenuti, prvo, da iako države članice u načelu i dalje slobodno određuju zahtjeve u vezi s javnim poretkom i javnom sigurnosti s obzirom na svoje nacionalne potrebe, ta se utemeljenja u kontekstu Zajednice, a posebno kao odstupanja od osnovnih načela slobodnog kretanja kapitala, moraju strogo tumačiti, pa stoga njihov opseg ne može određivati svaka pojedinačna država članica jednostrano bez ikakvog nadzora institucija Zajednice (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 28. listopada 1975., Rutili, 36/75, Zb., str. 1219., t. 26. i 27.).
Thus, public policy and public security may be relied on only if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society (see, to this effect, Rutili, cited above, paragraph 28, and Case C-348/96 Calfa [1999] ECR I-11, paragraph 21). 
Stoga je pozivanje na javni poredak i javnu sigurnost moguće samo ako postoji istinska i dovoljno ozbiljna prijetnja za temeljni interes društva (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Rutili, t. 28. i presudu od 19. siječnja 1999., Calfa, C-348/96, Zb., str. I-11., t. 21.).
Moreover, those derogations must not be misapplied so as, in fact, to serve purely economic ends (to this effect, see Rutili, paragraph 30). 
Osim toga, ova se odstupanja ne smiju zloupotrijebiti, kako bi, u osnovi, služila isključivo gospodarskim svrhama (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Rutili, t.
Further, any person affected by a restrictive measure based on such a derogation must have access to legal redress (see, to this effect, Case 222/86 Unectef v Heylens and Others [1987] ECR 4097, paragraphs 14 and 15). 
30.). Nadalje, svaka osoba na koju utječe restriktivna mjera utemeljena na takvom odstupanju, mora imati pristup pravnom lijeku (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 15. listopada 1987., Heylens i dr., C-222/86, Zb., str. 4097., t. 14. i 15.).
18 Second, measures which restrict the free movement of capital may be justified on public-policy and public-security grounds only if they are necessary for the protection of the interests which they are intended to guarantee and only in so far as those objectives cannot be attained by less restrictive measures (see, to this effect, Sanz de Lera and Others, cited above, paragraph 23). 
18 Drugo, valja napomenuti da se mjere koje ograničavaju slobodno kretanje kapitala mogu opravdati razlozima javnog poretka i javne sigurnosti samo ako su nužne za zaštitu interesa koji se njima žele jamčiti i samo ukoliko se ti ciljevi ne mogu postići manje ograničavajućim mjerama (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Sanz de Lera i dr., t. 23.).
19 However, although the Court has held, in Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 Bordessa and Others [1995] ECR I-361 and in Sanz de Lera and Others, which concerned the exportation of currency, that systems of prior authorisation were not, in the circumstances particular to those cases, necessary in order to enable the national authorities to carry out checks designed to prevent infringements of their laws and regulations and that such systems consequently constituted restrictions contrary to Article 73b of the Treaty, it has not held that a system of prior authorisation can never be justified, particularly where such authorisation is in fact necessary for the protection of public policy or public security (see judgment of 1 June 1999 in Case C-302/97 Konle v Austria [1999] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 45 and 46). 
19 Međutim, iako je Sud u presudama od 23. veljače 1995., Bordessa i dr. (spojeni predmeti C-358/93 i C-416/93, Zb., str. I-361.) i gore navedenoj Sanz de Lera i dr., koje se odnose na izvoz deviza, presudio da sustavi prethodnog odobrenja, u okolnostima svojstvenim za te predmete, nisu bili nužni kako bi se nacionalnim tijelima omogućilo provođenje nadzora s ciljem sprečavanja kršenja njihovih zakona i drugih propisa te da su, prema tome, takvi sustavi predstavljali ograničenja koja se protive članku 73.b Ugovora, on nije presudio da sustav prethodnog odobrenja ne može nikad biti opravdan, posebno kada je takvo odobrenje stvarno potrebno za zaštitu javnog poretka ili javne sigurnosti (vidjeti presudu od 1. lipnja 1999., Konle, C-302/97, Zb., str. I-3099., t. 45. i 46.).
20 In the case of direct foreign investments, the difficulty in identifying and blocking capital once it has entered a Member State may make it necessary to prevent, at the outset, transactions which would adversely affect public policy or public security. 
20 U slučaju izravnih stranih ulaganja, radi poteškoće pri identificiranju i blokiranju kapitala jednom kada on uđe u državu članicu, može biti potrebno spriječiti na samom početku transakcije koje bi mogle negativno utjecati na javni poredak ili javnu sigurnost.
It follows that, in the case of direct foreign investments which constitute a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public policy and public security, a system of prior declaration may prove to be inadequate to counter such a threat. 
Iz navedenog proizlazi da se u slučaju izravnih stranih ulaganja koja predstavljaju istinsku i dovoljno ozbiljnu prijetnju za javni poredak i javnu sigurnost sustav prethodne prijave može pokazati nedostatnim za suzbijanje takve prijetnje.
21 In the present case, however, the essence of the system in question is that prior authorisation is required for every direct foreign investment which is such as to represent a threat to public policy [and] public security, without any more detailed definition. 
21 Međutim, u predmetu u glavnom postupku, bit sustava o kojem je riječ jest da se prethodno odobrenje zahtijeva za svako izravno strano ulaganje koje je „takvo da dovodi u pitanje javni poredak i javnu sigurnost", bez ikakve detaljnije definicije.
Thus, the investors concerned are given no indication whatever as to the specific circumstances in which prior authorisation is required. 
Tako se zainteresiranim ulagačima ne daju nikakvi pokazatelji o posebnim okolnostima u kojima se zahtijeva prethodno odobrenje.
22 Such lack of precision does not enable individuals to be apprised of the extent of their rights and obligations deriving from Article 73b of the Treaty. 
22 Ovakav nedostatak preciznosti onemogućava pojedincima obaviještenost o opsegu njihovih prava i obveza koje proizlaze iz članka 73.b Ugovora.
That being so, the system established is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. 
Stoga je uspostavljeni sustav u suprotnosti s načelom pravne sigurnosti.
23 The answer to the question submitted must therefore be that Article 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding a system of prior authorisation for direct foreign investments which confines itself to defining in general terms the affected investments as being investments that are such as to represent a threat to public policy and public security, with the result that the persons concerned are unable to ascertain the specific circumstances in which prior authorisation is required. 
23 Zbog toga na postavljeno pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 73.d stavak 1. točku (b) Ugovora treba tumačiti tako da on ne dozvoljava sustav prethodnog odobrenja za izravna strana ulaganja koji se ograničava na općenito definiranje dotičnih ulaganja kao ulaganja koja su takva da dovode u pitanje javni poredak i javnu sigurnost, što rezultira time da zainteresirane osobe ne mogu utvrditi posebne okolnosti u kojima je potrebno prethodno odobrenje.
24 The costs incurred by the French and Greek Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. 
24 Troškovi francuske i grčke vladu te Komisije, koje su podnijele očitovanja Sudu, ne nadoknađuju se.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main action, a step in the proceedings 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 question referred to it by the Conseil d'État by decision of 6 January 1999, hereby rules: 
odlučujući o pitanju koje je Conseil d'État uputio odlukom od 6. siječnja 1999., odlučuje:
Article 73d(1)(b) of the EC Treaty (now Article 58(1)(b) EC) must be interpreted as precluding a system of prior authorisation for direct foreign investments which confines itself to defining in general terms the affected investments as being investments that are such as to represent a threat to public policy and public security, with the result that the persons concerned are unable to ascertain the specific circumstances in which prior authorisation is required. 
Članak 73.d stavak 1. točku (b) Ugovora o EZ-u [koji je postao članak 58. stavak 1. točka (b) UEZ-a] treba tumačiti tako da on ne dozvoljava sustav prethodnog odobrenja za izravna strana ulaganja koji se ograničava na općenito definiranje dotičnih ulaganja kao ulaganja koja su takva da dovode u pitanje javni poredak i javnu sigurnost, što rezultira time da zainteresirane osobe ne mogu utvrditi posebne okolnosti u kojima je potrebno prethodno odobrenje.
Judgment of the Court of 15 February 2001. - Common commercial policy - Anti-dumping measures - Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 - Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan - Reference for a preliminary ruling on whether that regulation is valid - Failure by the plaintiff in the main proceedings to bring an action seeking annulment of the regulation. In Case C-239/99, 
PRESUDA SUDA 15. veljače 2001.() „Zajednička trgovinska politika - Zaštita od dampinških praksi - Članak 1. stavak 2. Uredbe (EEZ) br. 2849/92 - Izmjena konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz kugličnih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana s najvećim vanjskim promjerom većim od 30 milimetara - Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku kojom se ocjenjuje valjanost - Propust tužitelja u glavnom postupku da podnese tužbu za poništenje" U predmetu C-239/99,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Njemačka), u postupku koji se vodi pred tim sudom između
Nachi Europe GmbH 
Nachi Europe GmbH
and Hauptzollamt Krefeld, 
i Hauptzollamt Krefeld,
on 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 (OJ 1992 L 286, p. 2), 
o valjanosti 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 (SL L 286, str. 2.) [neslužbeni prijevod],
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges, 
u sastavu: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, predsjednik, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (izvjestitelj), M. Wathelet i V. Skouris (predsjednici vijeća), D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen i F. Macken, suci,
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, 
tajnik: H. A. Rühl, glavni administrator,
Nachi Europe GmbH, by N. Polley and A. Scheffler, Rechtsanwälte, 
za Nachi Europe GmbH, N. Polley i A. Scheffler, Rechtsanwälte,
the Council of the European Union, by S. Marquardt, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwälte, 
za Vijeće Europske unije, S. Marquardt, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju G. Berrischa i H.-G. Kamanna, Rechtsanwälte,
the Commission of the European Communities, by V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan, acting as Agents, 
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, V. Kreuschitz i N. Khan, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the oral observations of Nachi Europe GmbH, the Council and the Commission, at the hearing on 26 September 2000, 
saslušavši usmena očitovanja društva Nachi Europe GmbH, Vijeća i Komisije na raspravi održanoj 26. rujna 2000.,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 November 2000, 
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 16. studenoga 2000.,
1 By order of 21 June 1999, received at the Court on 24 June 1999, the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Düsseldorf referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC two questions on 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 (OJ 1992 L 286, p. 2). 
1 Rješenjem od 21. lipnja 1999., koje je Sud zaprimio 24. lipnja 1999., Finanzgericht Düsseldorf postavio je Sudu na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a dva prethodna pitanja o valjanosti 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 (SL L 286, str. 2.).
2 Those questions have been raised in a dispute between Nachi Europe GmbH (Nachi Europe) and the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Krefeld (the Hauptzollamt) following the latter's decision to reject Nachi Europe's request for reimbursement of anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to Regulation No 2849/92. 
2 Ta su pitanja postavljena u okviru spora između društva Nachi Europe GmbH (u daljnjem tekstu: Nachi Europe) i Hauptzollamt Krefelda (u daljnjem tekstu: Hauptzollamt) nakon odluke potonjeg o odbijanju zahtjeva društva Nachi Europe za povrat antidampinških pristojbi plaćenih u skladu s Uredbom br. 2849/92.
3 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1739/85 of 24 June 1985 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain ball bearings and tapered roller bearings originating in Japan (OJ 1985 L 167, p. 3) imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of ball bearings of Japanese origin having a greatest external diameter of more than 30 mm. 
3 Uredbom Vijeća (EEZ) br. 1739/85 od 24. lipnja 1985. o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz određenih kugličnih ležajeva i valjkastih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana [neslužbeni prijevod] (SL L 167, str. 3.) uvedene su konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz kugličnih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana s najvećim vanjskim promjerom većim od 30 milimetara.
In particular, Regulation No 1739/85 imposed on ball bearings manufactured by NTN Toyo Bearing Ltd (NTN), Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd (Koyo Seiko) and Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation (Nachi Fujikoshi) definitive anti-dumping duties amounting, respectively, to 3.2%, 5.5% and 13.9% of the net, free-at-Community-frontier price before duty. 
Uredbom br. 1739/85 osobito se uvode konačne antidampinške pristojbe za kuglične ležajeve koje proizvode društva NTN Toyo Bearing Ltd (u daljnjem tekstu: NTN), Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd (u daljnjem tekstu: Koyo Seiko) i Nachi Fujikoshi Corporation (u daljnjem tekstu: Nachi Fujikoshi) u iznosu od 3,2 %, 5,5 % odnosno 13,9 % neto cijene franko granica Zajednice, neocarinjene.
4 Those duties were modified by Regulation No 2849/92, which was adopted pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community (OJ 1988 L 209, p. 1) and entered into force on 2 October 1992. 
4 Te su pristojbe izmijenjene Uredbom br. 2849/92, koja je donesena na temelju Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2423/88 od 11. srpnja 1988. o zaštiti od dampinškog ili subvencioniranog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske ekonomske zajednice [neslužbeni prijevod] (SL L 209, str. 1.) i koja je stupila na snagu 2. listopada 1992.
5 It is clear, in particular, from the recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2849/92 that the Council concluded that removing the existing anti-dumping measures would lead to a recurrence of material injury for the Community industry (recital 39) and that the Community clearly had an interest in maintaining protection for its ball bearings industry against unfair competition caused by imports at dumped prices (recital 44). 
5 Iz uvodnih izjava Uredbe br. 2849/92 osobito proizlazi da je Vijeće ocijenilo da bi uklanjanje postojećih antidampinških mjera dovelo do ponavljanja znatne štete za industriju Zajednice (uvodna izjava 39.) i da Zajednica ima jasan interes za daljnju zaštitu svoje industrije kugličnih ležajeva od nepoštenog tržišnog natjecanja uzrokovanog uvozom po dampinškim cijenama (uvodna izjava 44.).
After comparing price levels (recitals 45 to 52), Regulation No 2849/92 modified the existing definitive duties, inter alia by fixing them, in Article 1(2), at 11.6% for NTN, 13.7% for Koyo Seiko, and 7.7% for Nachi Fujikoshi. 
Nakon usporedbe razina cijena (uvodne izjave 45. do 52.) Uredbom br. 2849/92 izmijenjene su postojeće konačne pristojbe tako da su, među ostalim, u članku 1. stavku 2. utvrđene pristojbe od 11,6 % za NTN, 13,7 % za Koyo Seiko i 7,7 % za Nachi Fujikoshi.
The judgment of the Court of First Instance in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko 
Presuda Prvostupanjskog suda NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće i presuda Suda Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko
6 By judgment of 2 May 1995 in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council [1995] ECR II-1381, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, ruling in an action brought by NTN and Koyo Seiko seeking the annulment of Regulation No 2849/92, annulled Article 1 of Regulation No 2849/92 in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicants. 
6 Presudom od 2. svibnja 1995., NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće (T-163/94 i T-165/94, Zb., str. II-1381.), Prvostupanjski sud Europskih zajednica, koji je odlučivao o tužbi za poništenje Uredbe br. 2849/92 koju su podnijeli NTN i Koyo Seiko, poništio je članak 1. Uredbe br. 2849/92 „u mjeri u kojoj se njome tužiteljima određuje antidampinška pristojba". [neslužbeni prijevod]
7 The above judgment in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council makes clear that the Court of First Instance took the view that several recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 2849/92 contained statements which were vitiated by errors of fact or of law, or which were misleading because they were incomplete. 
7 Iz gore navedene presude NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće proizlazi da je Prvostupanjski sud smatrao da više uvodnih izjava Uredbe br. 2849/92 sadržava tvrdnje s činjeničnim ili pravnim greškama ili tvrdnje koje su obmanjujuće zbog svoje nepotpunosti.
The Court of First Instance accordingly concluded that the finding in recital 39 in the preamble to that regulation that dumped imports threatened to cause the Community ball-bearing industry material injury was itself wrong in law and in fact. 
Prvostupanjski je sud stoga zaključio da je tvrdnja iz uvodne izjave 39. te uredbe, prema kojoj se dampinškim uvozom može nanijeti znatna šteta proizvodnji kugličnih ležajeva u Zajednici, sama po sebi pravno i činjenično pogrešna.
8 In its judgment of 10 February 1998 in Case C-245/95 P Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko [1998] ECR I-401, the Court dismissed the Commission's appeal against the judgment in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council. 
8 Presudom od 10. veljače 1998., Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko (C-245/95 P, Zb., str. I-401.), Sud je odbio žalbu Komisije protiv gore navedene presude NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće.
The Court pointed out in particular that the Council's failure, as found by the Court of First Instance, to establish that there was injury or threat of injury within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 2423/88 was sufficient to warrant the annulment of Article 1 of Regulation No 2849/92. 
Sud je osobito istaknuo da je činjenica da Vijeće, kako je utvrdio Prvostupanjski sud, nije dokazalo štetu ili prijetnju štete u smislu članka 4. Uredbe br. 2423/88, dovoljna da se opravda poništenje članka 1. Uredbe br. 2849/92.
9 Drawing the consequences from the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko, the Commission, on 3 June 1998, published Notice 98/C 168/04 entitled Notice concerning anti-dumping measures on imports of ball-bearings with a greatest external diameter exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan (OJ 1998 C 168, p. 6), which stated, so far as definitive duties collected after the entry into force of Regulation No 2849/92 were concerned, that importers could request their refund from national customs authorities with regard to products manufactured by Koyo Seiko and NTN. The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions submitted for a preliminary ruling 
9 Kao posljedica gore navedenih presuda NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće i Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko, Komisija je 3. lipnja 1998. objavila komunikaciju 98/C 168/04 pod nazivom „Obavijest o uvozu kugličnih ležajeva podrijetlom iz Japana s najvećim vanjskim promjerom većim od 30 milimetara" (SL C 168, str. 6.), u kojoj je navela da uvoznici mogu od nacionalnih carinskih tijela zatražiti povrat konačnih pristojbi naplaćenih nakon stupanja na snagu Uredbe br. 2849/92 za proizvode koje proizvode Koyo Seiko i NTN. Glavni postupak i prethodna pitanja
10 Nachi Europe, which is a subsidiary of Nachi Fujikoshi, imported, in November and December 1995, ball bearings of Japanese origin manufactured by its parent company, and cleared them for release into free circulation at the customs post in Mönchengladbach, which comes under the responsibility of the Hauptzollamt. 
10 Nachi Europe, društvo kći društva Nachi Fujikoshi, uvezao je u studenom i prosincu 1995. kuglične ležajeve podrijetlom iz Japana koje proizvodi njegovo društvo majka te ih je pustio u slobodni promet u carinarnici u Mönchengladbachu, koja je u nadležnosti Hauptzollamta.
11 To that end, Nachi Europe paid anti-dumping duties totalling DEM 58 891.51 imposed by payment notices of 17 November 1995 and 29 December 1995. 
11 U tu je svrhu Nachi Europe platio antidampinške pristojbe u ukupnom iznosu od 58 891,51 DEM određene carinskom odlukom od 17. studenoga 1995. i 29. prosinca 1995.
12 In a letter received by the Hauptzollamt on 19 November 1998, Nachi Europe requested reimbursement of the anti-dumping duties which it had paid, pleading the illegality of Regulation No 2849/92 resulting from the judgments in NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council and Commission v NTN and Koyo Seiko. 
12 Nachi Europe zatražio je u dopisu koji je Hauptzollamt zaprimio 19. studenoga 1998. povrat antidampinških pristojbi koje je platio pozivajući se na nezakonitost Uredbe br. 2849/92 na temelju gore navedenih presuda NTN Corporation i Koyo Seiko/Vijeće te Komisija/NTN i Koyo Seiko.
13 By decision of 11 January 1999 the Hauptzollamt rejected the request for reimbursement. 
13 Hauptzollamt je odlukom od 11. siječnja 1999. odbio zahtjev za povrat.
It also dismissed the administrative complaint lodged by Nachi Europe against that decision. 
Isto je tako odbio prigovor koji je protiv te odluke podnio Nachi Europe.