natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 8 November 2011, the General Court in its judgment in Case T-274/07 (‘the General Court judgment’) found that the failure to comply with the period prescribed by Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation was such as in fact to affect the rights of defence of Harmonic, and that the Commission had also infringed Article 8 of the basic Regulation, which conferred on Harmonic the right to offer undertakings up to the expiry of that period.
Splošno sodišče je 8. novembra 2011 v svoji sodbi v zadevi T-274/07 („sodba Splošnega sodišča“) ugotovilo, da je neupoštevanje roka, določenega v členu 20(5) osnovne uredbe, dejansko vplivalo na pravice družbe Harmonic do obrambe in da je Komisija kršila člen 8 osnovne uredbe, ki družbi Harmonic daje pravico, da ponudi zaveze do izteka navedenega obdobja.
Therefore, the General Court annulled Articles 1 and 2 of the contested Regulation in so far as they impose a definitive anti-dumping duty and collect definitively the provisional duty on ironing boards manufactured by Harmonic.
Zato je Splošno sodišče za nična razglasilo člena 1 in 2 izpodbijane uredbe, v kolikor uvajata dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve na likalne deske, ki jih proizvaja družba Harmonic.
Moreover, according to the Court’s case-law, in order to comply with a judgment annulling a measure and to implement it fully, the institution which took the measure should resume the procedure at the very point at which the illegality occurred and replace that measure [5].
Poleg tega bi morala v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča institucija, ki je sprejela ukrep, potreben za uskladitev s sodbo o razglasitvi ničnosti ukrepa in njeno popolno izvršitvijo, nadaljevati postopek na točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in nadomestiti ukrep [5].
Finally, the implementation of a court ruling also implies the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the General Court judgment, as was held in Case C-458/98 P [6].
Nazadnje pomeni izvrševanje sodbe sodišča tudi, da se lahko izpodbijana uredba v vidikih, zaradi katerih je bila razglašena za nično, popravi, ob tem pa se deli, ki niso bili izpodbijani in o katerih Splošno sodišče ni odločalo, ne spremenijo, kakor to izhaja iz zadeve C-458/98 P [6].
It should be noted that apart from the finding of an infringement of Article 20(5) and of Article 8 of the basic Regulation, all other findings made in the contested Regulation remain automatically valid to the extent that the General Court dismissed all arguments made in this respect.
Treba je opozoriti, da razen ugotovljene kršitve člena 20(5) in člena 8 osnovne uredbe vse ostale ugotovitve iz izpodbijane uredbe samodejno ostanejo v veljavi, ker je Splošno sodišče zavrnilo vse argumente v zvezi s tem.
Following the General Court judgment of 8 November 2011, a notice [7] was published concerning the partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in China.
Po sodbi Splošnega sodišča z dne 8. novembra 2011 je bilo objavljeno obvestilo [7] o delni obnovi protidampinške preiskave v zvezi z uvozom likalnih desk s poreklom, med drugim, iz Kitajske.
The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the General Court judgment in so far as Harmonic is concerned.
Obnova je bila po obsegu omejena na izvrševanje sodbe Splošnega sodišča, v kolikor je zadevala družbo Harmonic.
The Commission officially advised the exporting producers, the importers and users known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country and the Union industry of the partial reopening of the investigation.
Komisija je o delni ponovni uvedbi preiskave uradno obvestila proizvajalce izvoznike, uvoznike in uporabnike, za katere je bilo znano, da jih to zadeva, predstavnike države izvoznice in industrijo Unije.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice.
Zainteresirane strani so imele možnost, da pisno izrazijo svoja stališča in zaprosijo Komisijo za zaslišanje v roku iz obvestila.
All parties who so requested within the above time limit, and who demonstrated that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted the opportunity to be heard.
Vsem zainteresiranim stranem, ki so zahtevale zaslišanje in dokazale, da zanj obstajajo posebni razlogi, je bilo zaslišanje odobreno.
Representations were received from one exporting producer in China (the party directly concerned, i.e. Harmonic) and one unrelated importer.
Pripombe sta predložila en proizvajalec izvoznika na Kitajskem (stran, ki jo to neposredno zadeva, tj. družba Harmonic) in en nepovezan uvoznik.
All parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on Harmonic.
Vse zadevne strani so bile obveščene o pomembnih dejstvih in pomislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala priporočiti uvedba dokončnih protidampinških dajatev za družbo Harmonic.
They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure, but none reacted at that stage.
Po razkritju so imele na voljo obdobje za predložitev pripomb, vendar se na tej stopnji nobena ni odzvala.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL COURT JUDGMENT
B. IZVRŠEVANJE SODBE SPLOŠNEGA SODIŠČA
It is recalled that the reason for the annulment of the contested Regulation was that the Commission had sent its proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty to the Council before the end of the 10-day mandatory deadline for receiving comments following the sending to interested parties of a definitive disclosure document, as provided for in Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation.
Opozoriti je treba, da je bil razlog za ničnost izpodbijane uredbe, da je Komisija svoj predlog za uvedbo dokončne protidampinške dajatve poslala Svetu pred koncem obveznega 10-dnevnega roka za prejem pripomb po tem, ko je bil zainteresiranim stranem poslan dokument o dokončnem razkritju, kot je določeno v členu 20(5) osnovne uredbe.
Furthermore, the Commission had also infringed Article 8 of the basic Regulation, which conferred on Harmonic the right to offer undertakings up to the expiry of that period.
Poleg tega je Komisija kršila člen 8 osnovne uredbe, ki družbi Harmonic daje pravico, da ponudi zaveze do izteka navedenega obdobja.
Harmonic stated that a breach of the rights of defence of the type identified by the General Court cannot be cured by the reopening of the investigation.
Družba Harmonic je navedla, da kršitev pravic do obrambe, kot jo je ugotovilo Splošno sodišče, ni mogoče odpraviti s ponovnim odprtjem preiskave.
The General Court judgment would require no implementing measures.
Sodba Splošnega sodišča ne bi zahtevala izvedbenih ukrepov.
For Harmonic, the only way for the Commission to comply with the General Court judgment, as required by Article 266 TFEU, would be to withdraw the measures permanently as far as Harmonic was concerned.
Družba meni, da bi Komisija ravnala v skladu s sodbo Splošnega sodišča, kot to zahteva člen 266 PDEU, le tako, da trajno prekliče ukrepe, ki zadevajo družbo Harmonic.
The violation of Article 8 of the basic Regulation would require the EU institutions to restore Harmonic’s right to offer price undertakings back in 2007.
Kršitev člena 8 osnovne uredbe bi od institucij EU zahtevala, da obnovijo pravico družbe Harmonic do ponudbe cenovne zaveze iz leta 2007.
According to Harmonic, the reopening would be illegal because there is no specific provision in the basic Regulation allowing for such an approach, and because such reopening would be in conflict with the 15-month statutory deadline for the completion of an investigation laid down by Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation, and the 18-month deadline as set out by Article 5.10 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (‘Anti-dumping Agreement’).
Po mnenju družbe Harmonic bi bila ponovna uvedba preiskave nezakonita, saj v osnovni uredbi ni nobene posebne določbe, ki bi to dovoljevala, in ker bi bila v nasprotju z zakonskim 15-mesečnim rokom za zaključitev preiskave iz člena 6(9) osnovne uredbe in 18-mesečnim rokom iz člena 5.10 Sporazuma STO o izvajanju člena VI GATT 1994 (Protidampinški sporazum).
It alleged that the EU institutions cannot purport to reimpose measures based on their powers to adopt definitive measures (in particular Article 9 of the basic Regulation) and at the same time deny that these deadlines in the same provision of the basic Regulation apply.
Trdila je, da institucije EU ne morejo trditi, da bodo ponovno uvedle ukrepe, ki temeljijo na njihovih pristojnostih sprejemanja dokončnih ukrepov (zlasti člen 9 osnovne uredbe), in hkrati zanikati veljavnost rokov iz iste določbe osnovne uredbe.
Harmonic submitted that the IPS case could not serve as a precedent because it was based on Council Regulation (EЕC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community [8] (‘the old basic Regulation’), under which mandatory deadlines did not yet apply.
Družba Harmonic je navedla, da se zadeva IPS ne more uporabljati kot precedenčni primer, ker je temeljila na Uredbi Sveta (EGS) št. 2423/88 z dne 11. julija 1988 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu ali subvencioniranemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske gospodarske skupnosti [8] („prejšnja osnovna uredba“), v skladu s katero še ni bilo treba uporabljati obveznih rokov.
Harmonic also argued that reissuing a revised disclosure and granting a period to reply in line with Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation could not correct the violation of Harmonic’s rights of defence and the unlawful imposition of duties.
Družba Harmonic je trdila tudi, da ponovna izdaja revidiranega dokumenta o razkritju in odobritev roka za odgovor v skladu s členom 20(5) osnovne uredbe ne more popraviti kršitve pravice družbe Harmonic do obrambe in nezakonite uvedbe dajatev.
According to Harmonic, once the Commission’s proposal for definitive measures was submitted to the Council in 2007, the Commission irremediably lost its ability to make a proposal to the Council to impose duties against Harmonic without breaching the company’s rights of defence.
Po mnenju družbe Harmonic je Komisija, ko je leta 2007 Svetu predložila predlog za dokončne ukrepe, dokončno izgubila zmožnost, da Svetu predlaga uvedbo dajatve za družbo Harmonic, ne da bi pri tem kršila pravice družbe do obrambe.
In Harmonic’s view, the Commission would no longer be in a position to receive any comments with the required room for manoeuvre and consider Harmonic’s proposal for an undertaking.
Družba Harmonic meni, da Komisija ne more več prejeti nobenih pripomb in nima potrebnega manevrskega prostora pri upoštevanju predloga zaveze družbe Harmonic.
Harmonic submits that its right to offer price undertakings within the prescribed period cannot be corrected by procedurally reopening the original investigation.
Družba Harmonic trdi, da se njene pravice do ponudbe cenovnih zavez v predpisanem roku ne da popraviti s ponovnim odprtjem postopka iz prvotne preiskave.
In addition, Harmonic alleges that recital 68 of the contested Regulation apparently included the assessment of a formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic.
Poleg tega družba Harmonic trdi, da je bila v uvodni izjavi 68 izpodbijane uredbe očitno vključena ocena uradne cenovne zaveze, ki jo je ponudila družba Harmonic.
Furthermore, Harmonic argued that the Commission could not reopen the case because it would have lost its objectivity and impartiality since the contested Regulation proposed by the Commission was partially annulled by the General Court.
Poleg tega je družba Harmonic trdila, da Komisija ne more obnoviti zadeve, ker ne bi bila objektivna in nepristranska, saj je izpodbijano uredbo, ki jo je predlagala, Splošno sodišče razglasilo za delno nično.
Lastly, Harmonic pointed out that the Commission could not reimpose anti-dumping measures based on information relating to 2005, being more than six years prior to the initiation of the partial reopening of the investigation, as this would not be in line with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation.
Na koncu je družba Harmonic poudarila, da Komisija ne more ponovno uvesti protidampinških ukrepov na podlagi podatkov iz leta 2005, več kot šest let pred začetkom delne obnove preiskave, saj to ne bi bilo v skladu s členom 6(1) osnovne uredbe.
One unrelated Union importer/producer pointed out the repercussions of the General Court’s annulment and of the subsequent partial reopening of the investigation on its business.
Eden nepovezanih uvoznikov/proizvajalcev Unije je poudaril posledice, ki jih ima razglasitev ničnosti Splošnega sodišča in poznejša delna obnova preiskave na njegovo poslovanje.
It did not submit any information and data as to the legal merits of the reinvestigation, but rather referred to the comments submitted in the context of a previous reinvestigation that was concluded by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 805/2010 of 13 September 2010 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactured by Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd, Foshan [9].
Predložil ni nobenih informacij in podatkov v zvezi s pravnim vidikom ponovne preiskave, vendar se je skliceval na pripombe, podane v eni prejšnjih ponovnih preiskav, ki je bila sklenjena z Izvedbeno uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 805/2010 z dne 13. septembra 2010 o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz likalnih desk s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jih proizvaja družba Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd., Foshan [9].
It is recalled that the General Court has dismissed all the substantive arguments of Harmonic referring to the merits of the case.
Treba je opozoriti, da je Splošno sodišče zavrnilo vse vsebinske argumente družbe Harmonic v zvezi z zadevo.
Thus, the Union institutions’ obligation is focused on correcting the part of the administrative procedure in the initial investigation where the irregularity occurred.
Zato so institucije Unije zavezane popraviti tisti del upravnega postopka, pri katerem se je pojavila nepravilnost v prvotni preiskavi.
The claim that the introduction, pursuant to Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation, of a 15-month deadline to conclude anti-dumping investigations prevents the Commission from following the approach underlying the IPS case was found to be unwarranted.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je bila trditev, da uvedba 15-mesečnega roka v skladu s členom 6(9) osnovne uredbe za zaključek protidampinških preiskav Komisiji onemogoča nadaljevanje s pristopom, na katerem temelji zadeva IPS, neutemeljena.
It is considered that this deadline is not relevant for the implementation of a judgment of the General Court.
Šteje se, da ta rok ni relevanten za izvršitev sodbe Splošnega sodišča.
Indeed, such deadline only governs the completion of the original investigation from the date of initiation to the date of definitive action, and does not concern any subsequent action that might have to be taken, for instance as a result of judicial review.
Takšen rok ureja le zaključek začetne preiskave od datuma začetka do datuma dokončnega ukrepa in ne zadeva nobenega poznejšega ukrepa, ki ga je morebiti treba sprejeti na primer zaradi ponovne sodne presoje.
Furthermore, it is noted that any other interpretation would mean that, for example, a successful legal action brought by the Union industry would be without any practical effect for that party if the expiry of the time limit to conclude the original investigation would not permit the implementation of a judgment of the General Court.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da bi kakršna koli druga razlaga na primer pomenila, da uspešna rešitev pravnega spora, ki ga sproži industrija Unije, za navedeno stran ne bi imela praktičnega učinka, če iztek roka za zaključitev prvotne preiskave ne bi omogočil izvrševanja sodbe Splošnega sodišča.
This would be at odds with the principle that all parties should have the right to effective judicial review.
To bi bilo v nasprotju z načelom, da bi vse stranke morale imeti pravico do učinkovite ponovne sodne presoje.
It is also recalled that the General Court in its judgment in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 [10] has held that even the soft deadline applicable under the old basic Regulation could not be stretched beyond reasonable limits, and that an investigation lasting for more than three years was too long.
Treba je tudi opozoriti, da je Splošno sodišče v svoji sodbi v skupnih zadevah T-163/94 in T-165/94 [10] razsodilo, da se nezavezujoč rok iz prejšnje osnovne uredbe ne more podaljšati prek razumnih meja in da je preiskava, ki traja že več kot tri leta, predolga.
This contrasts with the IPS case, where the implementation of a previous Court of Justice judgment occurred almost seven years after the initiation of the original investigation, and the Court of Justice judgment contains no indication that deadlines were an issue.
To je v nasprotju z zadevo IPS, pri kateri se je predhodna sodba Sodišča izvrševala skoraj sedem let po začetku začetne preiskave, v sodbi pa niso navedeni nikakršni pomisleki v zvezi z roki.
Therefore, it is concluded that Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation only applies to the initiation of proceedings and the conclusion of the investigation initiated pursuant to Article 5(9) of the basic Regulation, and not to a partial reopening of an investigation with a view to implementing a judgment of the General Court.
Zato se sklene, da se člen 6(9) osnovne uredbe uporablja le za začetek postopka in zaključek preiskave, začete v skladu s členom 5(9) osnovne uredbe, in ne za delno obnovo preiskave zaradi izvrševanja sodbe Splošnega sodišča.
This conclusion is in line with the approach taken for the implementation of WTO panels and Appellate Body reports, where it is accepted that institutions could amend deficiencies of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties in order to comply with dispute settlement body reports, including in cases concerning the Union [11].
Ta sklep je v skladu s pristopom, uporabljenim za izvajanje poročil odborov STO in pritožbenega organa STO, za katerega velja, da institucije lahko spremenijo pomanjkljivosti uredbe o uvedbi protidampinške dajatve, zaradi uskladitve s poročili organa za reševanje sporov, kar vključuje tudi primere v zvezi z Unijo [11].
In such cases it was felt necessary to adopt special procedures to implement WTO panel and Appellate Body reports because of the lack of direct applicability of such reports in the Union legal order, contrary to the implementation of the judgments of the General Court which are directly applicable.
V takšnih primerih se je zdelo primerno sprejeti posebne postopke za izvajanje poročil odbora STO in pritožbenega organa STO, ker se v pravnem redu Unije takšna poročila ne uporabljajo neposredno, za razliko od izvrševanja sodbe Splošnega sodišča, ki se uporabljajo neposredno.
It is recalled that Article 9 of the basic Regulation does not concern deadlines for conducting anti-dumping investigations.
Opozoriti je treba, da se člen 9 osnovne uredbe ne nanaša na roke za izvajanje protidampinških preiskav.
It concerns general issues related to terminations without measures and the imposition of definitive duties.
Nanaša se na splošna vprašanja glede zaključka brez ukrepov in uvedbe dokončnih dajatev.
With respect to the arguments submitted on the application of Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, it is noted that no infringement of Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation could be established since the Commission has not opened a new proceeding but reopened the original investigation to implement the General Court judgment.
V zvezi s pripombami o uporabi člen 6(1) osnovne uredbe je treba opozoriti, da ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti kršitve člena 6(1) osnovne uredbe, ker Komisija ni začela novega postopka, temveč je prvotno preiskavo obnovila zaradi izvrševanja sodbe Splošnega sodišča.
As regards Harmonic’s allegation concerning the breach of its right to offer price undertakings, it should be noted that Harmonic’s argument is twofold.
Kar zadeva trditev družbe Harmonic v zvezi s kršitvijo njene pravice, da ponudi cenovno zavezo, je treba opozoriti, da je argument družbe Harmonic dvojen.
First, Harmonic alleges that it is not legally, practically or realistically possible for the Commission to retroactively backdate a price undertaking for a period of almost five years.
Prvič, družba Harmonic trdi, da pravno, praktično ali realno ni možno, da bi Komisija za skoraj pet let nazaj določila datum cenovne zaveze.
Second, Harmonic claims that on the one hand, recital 68 of the contested Regulation includes the assessment of a formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic, whilst on the other hand, the Commission sustains that any price undertakings that could have been submitted by Harmonic would have been rejected anyway, because they would be impractical to monitor.
Drugič, družba Harmonic trdi, da po eni strani uvodna izjava 68 izpodbijane uredbe vključuje oceno uradne cenovne zaveze, ki jo je ponudila družba Harmonic, in da po drugi strani Komisija vztraja, da bi bile cenovne zaveze, ki bi jih lahko predložila družba Harmonic, zavrnjene, saj bi bile nepraktične za spremljanje.
Regarding Harmonic’s allegation on the reopening of the original investigation in order to remedy the infringement of its right to offer price undertakings within a prescribed period, the reopening is justified given that Harmonic’s right to offer undertakings was infringed in the context of the original investigation.
Glede trditve družbe Harmonic o ponovnem začetku prvotne preiskave, ki naj bi odpravila kršitev pravice do ponudbe cenovnih zavez v predpisanem roku, je ponovno odprtje upravičeno, saj je bila v okviru prvotne preiskave kršena pravica družbe Harmonic, da ponudi zaveze.
In any event, in the absence of a formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic, the discussion of its potential effects is devoid of purpose.
V vsakem primeru pa družba Harmonic formalno ni ponudila cenovne zaveze, zato je razprava o možnih učinkih brezpredmetna.
In addition, as to Harmonic’s interpretation of recital 68 of the contested Regulation, it should be pointed out that that recital simply reflects the fact that there were discussions about potential price undertakings proposed by some exporting producers, and the reasons why the institutions deemed undertakings in general impractical at that point in time.
Poleg tega je v zvezi z razlago uvodne izjave 68 izpodbijane uredbe družbe Harmonic treba poudariti, da navedena uvodna izjava enostavno upošteva dejstvo, da so potekale razprave o morebitnih cenovnih zavezah, ki so jih ponudili nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki, in razlogih, zakaj so institucije na splošno zaveze štele za nepraktične v danem času.
Harmonic’s claim that the recital apparently includes the assessment of a (non-submitted) formal price undertaking offered by Harmonic is thus unfounded.
Trditev družbe Harmonic, da uvodna izjava očitno vključuje oceno uradne cenovne zaveze (ki ni bila predložena), ponujene s strani družbe Harmonic, je zato neutemeljena.
Moreover, it is noted that the arguments put forward in recital 68 of the contested Regulation do not prejudge offers of formal price undertakings that could be made at a later stage, but set out the reasons why the acceptance of price undertakings is unlikely in this case, in particular if the concerns about their practicability are not properly addressed.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da argumenti iz uvodne izjave 68 izpodbijane uredbe ne prejudicirajo uradnih cenovnih zavez, ki bi lahko bile ponujene v poznejši fazi, vendar navajajo razloge, zakaj je v tem primeru sprejetje cenovnih zavez malo verjetno, zlasti če vprašanja glede njihove izvedljivosti niso ustrezno obravnavana.