natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 [3], the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 9,7 % to 16,5 % on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather, originating in Vietnam and in the PRC for two years (‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006’ or ‘the contested Regulation’).
Z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006 [3] je Svet uvedel dokončne protidampinške dajatve v višini od 9,7 % do 16,5 % na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Vietnama in Ljudske republike Kitajske za dve leti („Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006“ ali „izpodbijana uredba“).
By Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 [4] the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with upper leather originating in the PRC to imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region (‘SAR’), whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not.
Z Uredbo (ES) št. 388/2008 [4] je Svet dokončne protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske razširil na uvoz izdelkov, poslanih iz Posebne upravne regije Macao, ne glede na to, ali so deklarirani kot izdelki s poreklom iz Posebne upravne regije Macao ali ne.
Further to an expiry review initiated on 3 October 2008 [5], the Council further extended the anti-dumping measures for 15 months by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 [6], namely until 31 March 2011, when the measures expired (‘Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009’).
Po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov, ki se je začel 3. oktobra 2008 [5], je Svet z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 [6] protidampinške ukrepe podaljšal za 15 mesecev, tj. do 31. marca 2011, ko so ukrepi prenehali veljati („Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 1294/2009“).
Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd as well as Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Družbe Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Ltd (‘the applicants’) challenged the contested Regulation in the Court of First Instance (now: the General Court).
Ltd („vložniki“) so izpodbijano uredbo izpodbijale na Sodišču prve stopnje (zdaj Splošnem sodišču).
By judgements of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council [2010] ECR II-671 and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council [2010] ECR II-747 (‘the judgments of the General Court’), the General Court rejected those challenges.
S sodbama z dne 4. marca 2010 v zadevi T-401/06, Brosmann Footwear (HK) in drugi proti Svetu, ZOdl.
The applicants appealed those judgements.
2010, str.
In its judgments of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P Brosmann et al and of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
II-671, in z dne 4. marca 2010 v združenih zadevah T-407/06 in T-408/06, Zhejiang Aokang Shoes in Wenzhou Taima Shoes proti Svetu, ZOdl.
The Court of Justice then gave judgement itself in the matter.
V sodbah z dne 2. februarja 2012 v zadevi C-249/10 P Brosmann in drugi ter z dne 15. novembra 2012 v zadevi C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
It held:
Ltd je Sodišče Evropske unije razveljavilo sodbi Splošnega sodišča.
‘[…] the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation.
Menilo je, da je Splošno sodišče napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je navedlo, da Komisija ni bila zavezana proučiti zahtevkov za TGO, ki so temeljili na členu 2(7)(b) in (c) osnovne uredbe in so jih predložili trgovci, ki niso zajeti z vzorcem (točka 36 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P ter točki 29 in 32 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16,5 % duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation.
Menilo je, da „[…] bi Komisija morala preučiti ustrezno utemeljene zahtevke, ki so ji jih pritožnice predložile na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) in (c) osnovne uredbe, da bi se jim v okviru protidampinškega postopka, na katerega se sporna uredba nanaša, odobrila TGO.
It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9,7 % was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET.
Dalje, ugotoviti je treba, da ni izključeno, da bi jim bila zaradi take preučitve naložena dokončna protidampinška dajatev, ki bi bila drugačna od dajatve 16,5 %, ki se je zanje uporabila na podlagi člena 1(3) sporne uredbe.
As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate’ (paragraph 42 of the judgement in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgement in Case C-247/10 P).
Iz iste določbe namreč izhaja, da je bila dokončna protidampinška dajatev 9,7 % naložena le kitajskemu gospodarskemu subjektu, ki je bil zajet z vzorcem in ki mu je bila odobrena TGO.
As a consequence, it annulled the contested Regulation, in so far as it relates to the applicants concerned.
Vendar, kot izhaja iz točke 38 te sodbe, če bi Komisija ugotovila, da pogoji tržnega gospodarstva prevladujejo tudi za pritožnice, bi se tem – če izračun individualne stopnje dampinga ne bi bil mogoč – prav tako morala odobriti ta zadnja stopnja“ (točka 42 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P in točka 36 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
In October 2013, the Commission by means of notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union [7] announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 and invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.
Zato je razglasilo ničnost izpodbijane uredbe v tistem delu, ki se nanaša na zadevne vložnike.
In March 2014, the Council, by Council Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU [8], rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Komisija je oktobra 2013 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [7], sporočila, da je sklenila obnoviti protidampinški postopek na točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in proučiti, ali so za vložnike prevladovali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva za obdobje od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005, ter je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj se ji javijo.
Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Svet je marca 2014 z Izvedbenim sklepom Sveta 2014/149/EU [8] zavrnil predlog Komisije za sprejetje Izvedbene uredbe Sveta o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve na določeno obutev z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo družbe Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
The Council took the view that importers having bought shoes from those exporting producers, to whom the relevant customs duties had been reimbursed by the competent national authorities on the basis of Article 236 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code [9] (‘the Community Customs Code’), had acquired legitimate expectations on the basis of Article 1(4) of the contested Regulation, which had rendered the provisions of the Community Customs Code, and in particular its Article 221, applicable to the collection of the duties, which would be put into question by the adoption of the Commission proposal.
Ltd, postopke v zvezi s temi proizvajalci pa je ustavil.
Two importers of the product concerned, C&J Clark International Ltd. and Puma SE challenged the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear from China and Vietnam invoking the jurisprudence mentioned in recitals (5) to (7) before their national Courts, which referred the matters to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Svet je zavzel stališče, da so uvozniki, ki so obutev kupili od navedenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so jim pristojni carinski organi povrnili ustrezne uvozne dajatve na podlagi člena 236 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2913/1992 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti [9] („carinski zakonik Skupnosti“), imeli legitimna pričakovanja na podlagi člena 1(4) izpodbijane uredbe, ki prevzema določbe carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, zlasti člena 221, ki se uporablja za pobiranje dajatev in bi bil s sprejetjem predloga Komisije postavljen pod vprašaj.
In the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the Court of Justice declared Council Regulations (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 invalid in so far as the European Commission did not examine the MET and individual treatment (‘IT’) claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, contrary to the requirements laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [10] (‘the judgments’).
Dva uvoznika zadevnega izdelka, in sicer družbi C&J Clark International Ltd. in Puma SE, sta izpodbijala protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz nekatere obutve iz Kitajske in Vietnama, pri čemer sta se pred svojimi nacionalnimi sodišči sklicevala na sodno prakso iz uvodnih izjav (5) do (7), ta pa so zadevo predložila Sodišču v predhodno odločanje.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
Sodišče je v združenih zadevah C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited in C-34/14 Puma SE Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični, ker Evropska komisija ni proučila zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni, kar je v nasprotju z zahtevami, določenimi v členu 2(7)(b) in členu 9(5) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti („sodbi“).
In case of annulment of an act adopted by the Institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping, compliance with the Court's judgement consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated (‘Asteris judgment’) [11].
Člen 266 PDEU določa, da morata instituciji sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za izvršitev sodb Sodišča.
According to the case-law of the Court, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred [12].
Če je akt, ki sta ga instituciji sprejeli v okviru upravnega postopka, kot je protidampinški postopek, razglašen za ničnega, se v skladu s sodbo Sodišča nični akt zamenja z novim aktom, v katerem je odpravljena nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče („sodba v zadevi Asteris“) [10].
That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča se postopek za nadomestitev akta, razglašenega za ničnega, nadaljuje v točki, na kateri je nastala nezakonitost [11].
In a situation where a Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order [13], except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
To pomeni zlasti, da v primeru, ko je za ničnega razglašen akt, ki zaključuje upravni postopek, razglasitev ničnosti ne vpliva nujno na pripravljalne akte, kot je začetek protidampinškega postopka.
Apart from the fact that the Institutions did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, all other findings made in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
V primeru, ko je za nično razglašena uredba o uvedbi dokončnih protidampinških dajatev, to pomeni, da po razglasitvi ničnosti protidampinški postopek še vedno ni zaključen, saj je bil akt, ki je zaključil protidampinški postopek, odstranjen iz pravnega reda Unije [12], razen če je nezakonitost nastala v fazi začetka postopka.
In this case, the illegality occurred after initiation.
Razen tega, da instituciji nista proučili zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni, vse druge ugotovitve iz uredb Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 1294/2009 ostajajo veljavne.
Hence, the Commission decided to resume this anti-dumping proceeding that was still open at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
V tej zadevi je nezakonitost nastala po začetku postopka.
For imports of C&J Clark International Ltd. and Puma SE, the Commission will assess all MET and IT claims submitted.
Zato se je Komisija odločila, da bo ta protidampinški postopek obnovila v točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in proučila, ali so v obdobju med 1. aprilom 2004 in 31. marcem 2005 za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike prevladali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
It is appropriate to order the national customs authorities, on the basis of Article 14 of the basic Regulation, not to reimburse those duties in the meantime.
Komisija bo za uvoz družb C&J Clark International Ltd. in Puma SE ocenila vse predložene zahtevke za TGO in IO.
The Commission will make that assessment within eight months from the date of the judgment.
Primerno je, da se nacionalnim carinskim organom na podlagi člena 14 osnovne uredbe naroči, da v tem času navedenih dajatev ne vračajo.
For imports of other importers that did not have standing themselves to bring an action for annulment, and which hence can rely on the judgment in their applications for re-imbursement of anti-dumping duties pursuant to Article 236 Community Customs Code, the Commission will, for the sake of efficient use of resources, only assess MET and IT claims of those exporting producers which are concerned by re-imbursement claims that have been filed with national customs authorities in due time and form.
Komisija bo navedeno oceno izvedla v osmih mesecih od datuma sodbe.
The Commission notes that according to Article 236(2) of the Community Customs Code Import duties or export duties shall be repaid or remitted upon submission of an application to the appropriate customs office within a period of three years from the date on which the amount of those duties was communicated to the debtor.
Komisija bo za uvoz drugih uvoznikov, ki niso imeli procesnega upravičenja za vložitev ničnostne tožbe in ki se pri svojih zahtevkih za povračilo protidampinških dajatev v skladu s členom 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti torej lahko sklicujejo na sodbo, zaradi učinkovite rabe virov ocenila le zahtevke za TGO in IO za tiste proizvajalce izvoznike, ki jih zadevajo zahtevki za povračilo, ki so bili vloženi pri nacionalnih carinskih organih pravočasno in na primeren način.
The Commission also notes that the invalidation of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties does not constitute unforeseeable circumstances within the meaning of that provision, allowing an extension of the three-year time-limit during which an importer can request the repayment of import duties paid pursuant to that regulation.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se v skladu s členom 236(2) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti povračilo ali odpust uvoznih ali izvoznih dajatev odobri na podlagi zahtevka, vloženega pri pristojnem carinskem uradu pred potekom roka treh let, ki se šteje od dneva posredovanja sporočila o teh dajatvah dolžniku.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da razglasitev ničnosti uredbe o uvedbi protidampinških dajatev ne predstavlja nepredvidljivega dogodka v smislu navedene določbe, ki dovoljuje podaljšanje triletnega roka, v katerem lahko uvoznik zahteva povračilo uvoznih dajatev, plačanih na podlagi navedene uredbe.
If an act of the Institutions has been declared invalid by a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice, such judgment has erga omnes effects [14], namely. it is not limited to the applicant before the national court which then raises the question to the Court of Justice.
B. IZVRŠEVANJE SODB SODIŠČA V ZDRUŽENIH ZADEVAH C-659/13 IN C-34/14
In such a situation, the Commission is thus obliged to implement the judgement with regard to all the parties affected by the illegality which led to the annulment of the measure.
Če se akt institucij s predhodnim odločanjem Sodišča razglasi za ničnega, ima taka sodba učinke erga omnes [13], tj. ni omejena le na tožnika pred nacionalnim sodiščem, ki nato vprašanje posreduje Sodišču.
The Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the parts of the assessment which are not affected by the judgment [15].
V takem primeru Komisija torej mora izvrševati sodbo v zvezi z vsemi stranmi, ki jih zadeva nezakonitost, zaradi katere je prišlo do razglasitve ničnosti ukrepa.
In order to ensure an efficient use of resources, the Commission refrains from investigating all the MET and IT claims made by non-sampled Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers during the investigation which led to the adoption of the contested Regulation.
Komisija ima možnost, da odpravi tiste vidike izpodbijane uredbe, ki so privedli do tega, da je bila razglašena za nično, dele ocene, ki jih Sodba ne zadeva, pa pusti nespremenjene [14].
Instead, it considers it appropriate to oblige national customs authorities, which have to decide on an application for re-imbursement of anti-dumping duties on the basis of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code [16], to forward the request for re-imbursement to the Commission and to await the Commission's assessment of the MET and IT claim and, where appropriate, the re-imposition of the antidumping duty at the appropriate rate, before proceeding with re-imbursement.
Da bi zagotovila učinkovito rabo virov, Komisija ne preiskuje vseh zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih vložili kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki med preiskavo, ki je privedla do sprejetja izpodbijane uredbe.
The legal basis for such an obligation is Article 14 basic Regulation, which provides that the Regulation imposing duties shall specify the detailed modalities of its collection by Member States.
Namesto tega se ji zdi primerneje, da nacionalnim carinskim organom, ki odločajo o prošnji za povračilo protidampinških dajatev na podlagi člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti [15], naroči, naj zahtevek za povračilo posredujejo Komisiji in počakajo na oceno Komisije glede zahtevka za TGO in IO ter, kadar je to primerno, ponovno uvedbo protidampinške dajatve na ustrezni stopnji, preden nadaljujejo s povračilom.
The Commission will then verify whether the exporting producer whose exports were subject to the repayment claim had indeed requested the MET or IT assessment and if yes, whether such an exporting producer should be granted MET or IT or not.
Pravna podlaga za tako obveznost je člen 14 osnovne uredbe, ki določa, da uredba o uvedbi dajatev natančno določa način pobiranja dajatev s strani držav članic.
The Commission will adopt Regulations establishing the assessment and re-imposing, where appropriate, the applicable duty rate.
Komisija bo nato preverila, ali je proizvajalec izvoznik, katerega izvoz je bil predmet zahtevka za povračilo, dejansko zaprosil za oceno TGO ali IO in, če je temu tako, ali bi bilo takemu proizvajalcu izvozniku treba odobriti TGO ali IO ali ne.
Those newly established rates will take effect as from the date on which the annulled regulation entered into force.
Komisija bo sprejela predpise, ki bodo določali oceno in, kjer je to primerno, ponovno uvedbo veljavne stopnje dajatve.
Therefore, the national customs authorities are obliged to await the outcome of such investigation before deciding on any repayment claim.
Te na novo določene stopnje bodo začele veljati od datuma, s katerim je razveljavljena uredba začela veljati.
The Commission will strive to respect the delay provided for in the basic Regulation for assessing MET and IT, that is eight months from receiving the information from national customs authorities, in order to avoid any undue delays.
Nacionalni carinski organi so zato dolžni počakati na izid preiskave, preden sprejmejo odločitev o kakršnem koli zahtevku za povračilo.
C. CONCLUSIONS
Komisija si bo prizadevala upoštevati rok, določen v osnovni uredbi, za oceno TGO in IO, tj. osem mesecev po prejemu informacij od nacionalnih carinskih organov, da bi se izognili kakršnim koli neupravičenim zamudam.
The analysis of MET and IT claims of exporting producers that have sold to Puma SE and C&J Clark International Ltd should be carried out within eight months from the date of the judgment.
C. SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE
As regards the anti-dumping duty imposed on other Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers (apart from those subject to Council Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU and those referred to in the first sentence hereof) the national customs authorities before which claims for repayment or remission of anti-dumping duties paid in respect of exports of these other exporting producers were made should contact the Commission, so that it can assess the MET and IT claims and re-impose, where appropriate, the anti-dumping duties.
Analizo zahtevkov za TGO in IO proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so prodajali družbama Puma SE in C&J Clark International Ltd, bi bilo treba izvesti v osmih mesecih od datuma sodbe.
D. COMMITTEE
Kar zadeva protidampinško dajatev, uvedeno za druge kitajske in vietnamske proizvajalce izvoznike (razen tiste, za katere velja Izvedbeni sklep Sveta 2014/149/EU, in tiste iz prvega stavka), bi se morali nacionalni carinski organi, pri katerih so bili vloženi zahtevki za povračilo ali odpust protidampinških dajatev, plačanih za izvoz teh drugih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, obrniti na Komisijo, tako da lahko ta oceni zahtevke za TGO in IO ter, kadar je to primerno, ponovno uvede protidampinške dajatve.
The Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009,
D. ODBOR
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Uredba je v skladu z mnenjem Odbora, ustanovljenega s členom 15(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1225/2009 –
National customs authorities, which have received a request for re-imbursement, based on Article 236 of the Community Customs Code, of anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 or Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 and collected by national customs authorities, which is based on the fact that a non-sampled exporting producer had requested MET or IT, shall forward that request and any supporting documents to the Commission.
Člen 1