natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In relation to the argument that only a desk analysis was carried out, the Commission notes that a desk analysis is a procedure whereby the requests for MET/IT are analysed on the basis of the documents submitted by the exporting producer.
Kar zadeva trditev, da pravica do obrambe zaradi odločitve Komisije, da ne bo poslala pozivov k dopolnitvam, ni bila ustrezno spoštovana, je treba najprej opozoriti, da je pravica do obrambe individualna pravica ter da se združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev ne moreta sklicevati na kršitev individualne pravice drugih družb.
All MET/IT applications are subject to a desk analysis by the Commission.
Komisija nasprotuje navedbi, da je njena praksa, da se obsežna izmenjava informacij in podrobna dopolnitev izvedeta, kadar se opravi zgolj teoretična analiza, in ne teoretična analiza in preverjanje na kraju samem.
In addition, the Commission may decide to carry out on-site verification visits.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev dejansko nista mogla dokazati nasprotnega.
On-site verifications visits are, however, not required, nor are they carried out for every application for MET/IT.
Tudi pripombe združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev glede diskriminacije je treba zavrniti kot neutemeljene.
On-site inspections, where they are carried out, usually have as their purpose to confirm a certain preliminary assessment made by the institutions and/or to check the veracity of the information provided by the exporting producer concerned.
Opozoriti je treba, da je načelo enake obravnave kršeno, kadar instituciji Unije različno obravnavata primerljive položaje v škodo nekaterih trgovcev v primerjavi z drugimi, ne da bi bila ta razlika v obravnavi upravičena z obstojem pomembnih objektivnih razlik [28].
It is for the Commission to assess whether a verification visit is appropriate [27].
Poleg tega ni diskriminacije, ker osnovna uredba v zvezi s tem ne določa najmanjšega časovnega okvira, dokler je časovni okvir v ta namen razumen in stranem zagotavlja dovolj priložnosti za zbiranje (ali ponovno zbiranje) potrebnih informacij in se hkrati varuje njihova pravica do obrambe.
The discretion to decide on the means of verifying the information in an MET/IT form lies with that institution.
Kar zadeva trditve v zvezi s členom 18(1) osnovne uredbe, Komisija opozarja, da v obravnavanem primeru ni uporabila člena 18 osnovne uredbe.
So, where, as in the present case, the Commission decides, on the basis of a desk analysis, that it was in possession of sufficient evidence to rule on an MET/IT claim, a verification visit is not necessary and cannot be required.
Postopek iz člena 18(4) osnovne uredbe se uporablja v primerih, ko namerava Komisija zavrniti nekatere informacije, ki so jih zagotovile zainteresirane strani, in namesto tega uporabiti razpoložljiva dejstva.
Concerning the claim that the rights of defence were not appropriately respected through the Commission's decision not to send deficiency letters, it is, first of all, recalled that rights of defence are individual rights, and that FESI and the Footwear Coalition cannot rely on a violation of an individual right of other companies.
Drug uvoznik, in sicer Sino Pro Trading Limited, je trdil, da Komisija ni imela dovolj časa, da bi le v nekaj mesecih preučila zahtevke 600 družb za TGO in IO, in da njena preiskava torej ni mogla zagotoviti zanesljivih rezultatov.
Second, the Commission contests the assertion that there is a practice by the Commission that significant exchange of information and a detailed deficiency completion process is carried out when use is made of desk analysis alone as opposed to desk analysis plus on-site verification.
Ta stran je nadalje trdila, da izid te preiskave, tj. da so bili vsi ocenjeni zahtevki za TGO/IO zavrnjeni, kaže na to, da je bila preiskava Komisije pristranska.
Indeed, FESI and the Footwear Coalition have not been able to provide evidence to the contrary.
Po drugi strani pa je trdila, da ni bilo preučenih dovolj zahtevkov za TGO/IO, saj jih je bilo preučenih samo 70 od prvotnih 600.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition's comments on discrimination must equally be rejected as unfounded.
Trdila je tudi, da glede na to, da so bile ocene družb iz uvodnih izjav 49 do 72 anonimne, zainteresirane strani niso mogle vzpostaviti povezave med ugotovitvami in posamezno družbo.
It is recalled that the principle of equal treatment is violated where the Union institutions treat like cases differently, thereby placing some traders at a disadvantage by comparison to others, without such differentiation being justified by the existence of substantial objective differences [28].
Poleg tega je trdila, da njen dobavitelj ni bil preiskan, čeprav je naveden v Prilogi II k tej uredbi, temveč mu je bil samo poslan vprašalnik, pri čemer ni imel dovolj časa za odziv.
Yet, that is precisely not what the Commission is doing: by requiring the non-sampled Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers to file MET/IT claims for reassessment, it intends to bring these formerly non-sampled exporting producers on the same footing as those who were sampled in the initial investigation.
Kar zadeva zgornje trditve, je Komisija najprej pojasnila, da so ji nemški in nizozemski carinski organi oziroma trije uvozniki iz uvodne izjave 29 predložili imena 600 družb, ki dobavljajo obutev v Kitajski in Vietnamu.
In addition, as the basic Regulation does not set out a minimum timeframe in this regard, so long as the timeframe for this purpose is reasonable and provides the parties with sufficient opportunity to assemble (or reassemble) the information needed while at the same time safeguarding their rights of defence, no discrimination occurs.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 33, Komisija za večino teh družb ni imela evidence, da bi v prvotni preiskavi predložile kakršen koli zahtevek za TGO ali IO.
Insofar as it concerns the arguments regarding Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission would like to note that, in the current case, it did not apply Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Za številne druge družbe pa je zahtevke za TGO in IO ocenila že v prejšnjih izvedbenih uredbah.
It follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Trditev, da je Komisija v obravnavanem primeru domnevno preiskala 600 družb, je nepravilna in jo je zato treba zavrniti.
The procedure under Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
Sklepi teh ocen so bili razkriti zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki jim je bil določen rok za pripombe.
Another importer, namely Sino Pro Trading Limited, claimed that the Commission could not have had sufficient time to investigate the MET and IT claims of 600 companies in a period of only several months, alleging that the investigation carried out by the Commission could therefore not have prompted solid results.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 70, nobeden od zadevnih izvoznikov, vključno z dobaviteljem družbe Sino Pro Trading Ltd, ni predložil pripomb v zvezi s tem razkritjem.
This party further alleged that the outcome of this investigation, i.e. that all MET/IT claims that were assessed were also rejected would indicate that the Commission's investigation was biased.
Poudariti je treba, da se informacije, ki so jih proizvajalci izvozniki predložili v zahtevkih za TGO/IO, štejejo za zaupne v smislu člena 19 osnovne uredbe.
On the other hand, this party also argued that insufficient MET/IT claims were investigated, namely only 70 out of the original 600.
Zato so bila imena družb zaradi varovanja zaupnosti nadomeščena s številkami.
In addition, the same importer argued that given that the companies' assessments in recitals 49 to 72 were on an anonymous basis, the interested parties were prevented to link the findings made to a specific company.
Vse zgornje trditve je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
Finally, this importer alleged that its supplier although listed in Annex II to this Regulation had not been investigated, but that only a questionnaire would have been sent to this supplier with an insufficient delay to respond.
Pravna podlaga za ponovno uvedbo preiskave
Regarding the above claims, the Commission first clarified that it was provided with names of 600 companies by the German or Dutch customs authorities or provided by the three importers mentioned in recital 29 as suppliers of footwear in China and Vietnam.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila, da bi Komisija kršila člen 266 PDEU, saj ji ta člen ne zagotavlja pravne podlage za ponovno uvedbo preiskave v zvezi z ukrepom, ki je prenehal veljati.
As explained in recital 33, for most of these companies, the Commission had no record that they had submitted any MET or IT claim during the original investigation.
Hkrati sta ponovno poudarila, da člen 266 PDEU ne dovoljuje retroaktivne uvedbe protidampinških dajatev, pri čemer sta se sklicevala na sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Industrie des poudres sphériques proti Svetu, C-458/98 P [29].
For a substantial number of the remaining companies, the Commission had already assessed their MET and IT claim in previous implementation exercises.
V zvezi s tem sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev trdila, da se je protidampinški postopek v zvezi z uvozom obutve iz Kitajske in Vietnama zaključil 31. marca 2011 z iztekom ukrepov.
This procedure is explained in detail in recitals 34 to 36 and the relevant companies as well as the relevant legal acts are listed in Annexes IV to VI to this Regulation.
Komisija je v ta namen 16. marca 2011 objavila obvestilo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije v zvezi z iztekom dajatev [30] („obvestilo o izteku“), industrija Unije pa ni trdila, da se damping nadaljuje, in tudi sodba Sodišča ne bi razveljavila obvestila o izteku.
The argument that the Commission allegedly investigated 600 companies in the present exercise is incorrect and must, accordingly, be rejected.
Poleg tega sta isti strani trdili, da tudi v osnovni uredbi ni nobenih razlogov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko Komisija ponovno uvedla protidampinško preiskavo.
Furthermore, the Commission clarified, that, as mentioned in recital 17, the Commission resumed the present anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and therefore examined whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, i.e. during the investigation period of the investigation which led to the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties in 2006.
V zvezi s tem sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev trdila tudi, da nadaljevanje preiskave in ocena zahtevkov za TGO/IO, ki so jih zadevni kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki vložili v prvotni preiskavi, pomenita kršitev splošnega načela zastaranja ali omejitve.
Therefore, the Commission did also not collect new information, but based its assessment on the MET/IT claim submitted by the relevant exporting producer during this investigation.
To načelo je določeno v Sporazumu o STO, osnovni uredbi, v kateri je določeno petletno trajanje ukrepov, ter členih 236(1) in 221(3) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, v skladu s katerim lahko v obdobju treh let uvozniki zahtevajo povračilo protidampinških dajatev, nacionalni carinski organi pa poberejo uvozne in protidampinške dajatve [31].
The conclusions of these assessments were disclosed to the relevant exporting producers which were given a time period to comment.
Člen 266 PDEU ne omogoča odstopanja od tega načela.
As set out in recital 70, none of the exporters concerned, including the supplier of Sino Pro Trading Ltd provided any comment to this disclosure.
Poleg tega sta trdila, da Komisija ni zagotovila utemeljitve ali predhodne sodne prakse, ki bi podprla uporabo člena 266 PDEU kot pravne podlage za ponovno uvedbo postopka.
Finally, it is highlighted that the information provided by the exporting producers in their MET/IT claims is considered confidential within the meaning of Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi z odsotnostjo kakršne koli pravne podlage za ponovno uvedbo preiskave Komisija opozarja na sodno prakso, navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15, v skladu s katero lahko nadaljuje preiskavo v točki, v kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
Therefore, in order to protect confidentiality, company names have been replaced by numbers.
Kot je nedavno opozoril generalni pravobranilec, člen 266 PDEU tako pooblašča Komisijo, da ravna na način, da obnovi zakonitost z izvršitvijo sodbe o razglasitvi ničnosti, kot tudi zavezuje, da svoja dejanja prilagodi vsebini te sodbe [32].
All above claims had therefore to be rejected.
Zadeva Komisija proti McBride in drugim [33], na katero se sklicujeta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev, se v zvezi s tem ne uporablja, saj v navedeni zadevi pravila o pristojnosti za sprejetje akta (ki bi zamenjal razveljavljeni akt) niso bila več vključena v zakonodajo EU, medtem ko v obravnavani zadevi pravna podlaga še vedno obstaja in je edina sprememba ta, da je bila pristojnost prenesena na Komisijo [34].
Legal basis of reopening of the investigation
Kar zadeva legitimna pričakovanja, bi bilo treba opozoriti, da je treba zakonitost protidampinške uredbe ocenjevati z vidika objektivnih norm prava Unije in ne glede na prakso odločanja, tudi če takšna praksa obstaja (v obravnavanem primeru temu ni tako).
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that the Commission would be in breach of Article 266 TFEU, as this article does not provide it with the legal basis to reopen the investigation with respect to an expired measure.
Zato prejšnja praksa Komisije, quod non, ne more ustvariti legitimnih pričakovanj, saj v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča legitimna pričakovanja lahko nastanejo le, če instituciji zagotovita natančna zagotovila, na podlagi katerih bi lahko zainteresirana stran zakonito sklepala, da bosta instituciji Unije ravnali na določen način [35].
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also reiterated that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for the imposition of anti-dumping duties retroactively, referring to the ruling of the Court of Justice in case C-458/98P Industrie des poudres sphériques v Council [29].
Niti združenje FESI niti koalicija za obutev nista poskušala dokazati, da so bila v tem primeru dana taka zagotovila.
In this regard, FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of footwear from China and Vietnam had been concluded on 31 March 2011 alongside the expiry of the measures.
To še toliko bolj velja, ker navedena prejšnja praksa ne ustreza dejanskemu in pravnemu položaju obravnavane zadeve, zadevne razlike pa je mogoče pripisati dejanskim in pravnim razlikam v primerjavi z obravnavano zadevo.
To this end, the Commission had issued a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the expiry of the duties on 16 March 2011 [30] (‘notice of expiry’), the Union industry had not claimed any continuation of dumping, nor would the judgment of the Court of Justice have invalidated the notice of expiry.
Navedene razlike so naslednje: nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče, se ne nanaša na ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi ter interesu Unije in s tem na načelo uvedbe dajatve, temveč le na natančno stopnjo dajatve.
In addition, the same parties argued that there would also not be any powers in the basic Regulation which would allow the Commission to reopen the anti-dumping investigation.
Prejšnje razglasitve ničnosti, na katere so se sklicevale zainteresirane strani, pa so se nasprotno nanašale na ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi in interesu Unije.
In this context, FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued in addition that the resumption of the investigation and the assessment of the MET/IT claims filed by the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned in the original investigation is in violation of the universal principle of prescription or limitation.
Instituciji torej lahko ponovno izračunata natančno stopnjo dajatev za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike.
This principle is laid down in the WTO Agreement and the basic Regulation that set a 5 year time limit for the duration of measures and in Articles 236(1) and 221(3) of the Community Customs Code that set a 3-years period for importers to claim the repayment of anti-dumping duties on the one hand and for national customs authorities to collect import duties and anti-dumping duties on the other hand [31].
Zlasti v obravnavani zadevi ni bilo treba pridobiti dodatnih informacij od zainteresiranih strani.
Finally, it was claimed that the Commission has not provided any reasoning or prior jurisprudence to support of the use of Article 266 TFEU as a legal basis for the reopening of the procedure.
V vsakem primeru, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 99, nekdanje prakse v drugih primerih niso natančno in brezpogojno zagotovilo za obravnavani primer.
Concerning the lack of any legal basis to reopen the investigation, the Commission recalls the case-law quoted above at recital 15, pursuant to which it may resume the investigation at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
Vse strani, na katere se nanaša postopek, tj. zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki in strani v zadevah pred sodiščem ter združenje, ki zastopa eno od teh strani, so bile z razkritjem obveščene o pomembnih dejstvih, na podlagi katerih namerava Komisija sprejeti sedanjo oceno TGO/IO.
In any case, as Advocate General recently recalled, Article 266 TFEU both empowers the Commission to take action to restore legality in a manner consistent with the findings of a judgment declaring the measure in question invalid as well as obliges it to bring its conduct in line with the content of that judgment [32].
S tem so njihove pravice do obrambe zaščitene.
The case in Commission v McBride and Others [33], on which FESI and the Footwear Coalition rely, does not apply in this context as in that case the rules conferring competence to adopt an act (in replacement of the one annulled) were no longer contained in EU law, whereas, in the present case, the legal basis has not disappeared and the only change has been that competence has been conferred on the Commission [34].
V zvezi s tem je treba zlasti poudariti, da nepovezani uvozniki v okviru protidampinškega postopka niso deležni pravice do obrambe, saj ti postopki niso usmerjeni proti njim.
Insofar as it concerns legitimate expectations, it should be recalled that the legality of an anti-dumping Regulation has to be assessed in the light of the objective norms of Union law, and not of a decisional practice, even where such a practice exists (which is not the case here).
Glede trditve, da so zadevni ukrepi potekli 31. marca 2011, Komisija ne vidi razloga, zakaj bi iztek ukrepov kakor koli vplival na možnost Komisije, da po sodbi, ki razveljavlja prvotni akt, sprejme nov akt, ki bi zamenjal razveljavljeni akt.
Hence, the Commission's past practice, quod non, cannot create legitimate expectations: pursuant to settled case-law of the Court, legitimate expectations can only arise where the institutions have given specific assurances which would allow an interested party to lawfully deduce that the Union institutions would act in a certain way [35].
V skladu s sodno prakso iz uvodne izjave 15 bi se moral upravni postopek nadaljevati v točki, v kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
Neither FESI nor the Footwear Coalition have attempted to demonstrate that such assurances were given in the present case.
Komisija je obnovila preiskavo prav v tej točki, da bi ocenila, ali bi morali biti neocenjeni zahtevki za TGO/IO odobreni in ali bi morala biti stopnja dajatve morda nižja (kar bi tem zadevnim družbam omogočilo, da prek pristojnega carinskega organa zahtevajo povračilo preplačanih dajatev, vključno z obrestmi [36]).
That is all the more the case because the previous practice referred to does not correspond to the factual and legal situation of the present case, and whose differences can be explained by factual and legal differences with the present case.
Z obvestilom o izteku se sicer postopek uradni zaključi, vendar ne more vplivati na to, da je tem družbam zavrnjena pravica do pregleda njihovih zahtevkov za TGO/IO, pri čemer jim je ta pravica pripadala med preiskavo, kot je Sodišče priznalo v zadevi C & J Clark [37].
Those differences are as follows: the illegality identified by the Court does not concern the findings on dumping, injury, and Union interest, and therefore the principle of the imposition of the duty, but only the precise duty rate.
Preiskava je bila zato obnovljena 17. marca 2016 in se bo zaključila s to uredbo v skladu s členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe.
The previous annulments relied on by the interested parties, on the contrary, concerned the findings on dumping, injury and Union interest.
Člen 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti
The institutions are therefore permitted to recalculate the precise duty rate for the exporting producers concerned.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da postopek, sprejet za ponovno uvedbo preiskave in retroaktivno uvedbo dajatve, pomeni zlorabo pooblastil s strani Komisije in kršitev PDEU.
In particular, in the present case, there was no need to seek additional information from interested parties.
V zvezi s tem trdita, da Komisija nima pooblastil za poseganje v člen 236(1) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti s preprečevanjem povračila protidampinških dajatev.
Rather, the Commission had to assess information that had been filed, but not assessed before the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Trdila sta, da bi morali nacionalni carinski organi ukrepati zaradi razveljavitve dajatev in da bi morali tudi povrniti protidampinške dajatve, ki jih je Sodišče razglasilo za nične.
In any event, as noted in recital 99, previous practice in other cases does not constitute precise and unconditional assurance for the present case.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta v zvezi s tem trdila, da člen 14(3) osnovne uredbe Komisiji ne omogoča odstopanja od člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, saj sta obe zakonodaji pravno enakovredni in osnovne uredbe ni mogoče šteti za lex specialis carinskega zakonika Skupnosti.
Finally, all parties against which the proceeding is directed, i.e. the exporting producers concerned, as well as the parties in the Court cases and the association representing one of those parties, have been informed by the disclosure of the relevant facts on the basis of which the Commission intends to adopt the present MET/IT assessment.
Poleg tega sta isti strani trdili, da se člen 14(3) osnovne uredbe ne sklicuje na člen 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti in navaja le, da lahko Komisija sprejme posebne določbe, ne pa tudi odstopanj od carinskega zakonika Skupnosti.
Hence, their rights of defence are safeguarded.
V odgovor na navedeno je treba poudariti, da se na podlagi člena 14(1) osnovne uredbe pravila, ki urejajo carinsko zakonodajo Unije, ne uporabljajo samodejno za uvedbo posameznih protidampinških dajatev [38].
In that regard, it is to be noted in particular that unrelated importers do not enjoy, in an anti-dumping proceeding, rights of defence, as those proceedings are not directed against them.
Namesto tega člen 14(3) osnovne uredbe institucijama Unije daje pravico, da, kadar je potrebno in koristno, preneseta in uporabita pravila, ki urejajo carinsko zakonodajo Unije [39].
As regards the claim that the measures in question expired on 31 March 2011, the Commission fails to see why the expiry of the measure would be of any relevance for the possibility for the Commission to adopt a new act to replace the annulled act following a judgment annulling the initial act.
Za ta prenos ni potrebna polna uporaba vseh določb carinske zakonodaje Unije.
According to the case-law referred to in recital 15, the administrative procedure should be resumed at the point in time where the illegality occurred.
Člen 14(3) osnovne uredbe izrecno predvideva posebne določbe v zvezi s skupno opredelitvijo pojma porekla, kar je dober primer tega, kje nastane odstopanje od določb carinske zakonodaje Unije.