natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They therefore did not acquire legal certainty or legitimate expectations that the imports would be free of a duty, and usually passed on the duty to their customers.
V tej zadevi zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki niso dokazali, da bi v primeru, če bi Komisija oceno TGO sprejela v treh mesecih po začetku protidampinškega postopka leta 2005, Svet morda sprejel drugačno uredbo, ki bi bila za varstvo njihovih interesov ugodnejša od izpodbijane uredbe.
It is therefore in the Union interest to set now the applicable duty rate, rather than providing a windfall gain to the importers concerned, which would be enriched without due cause.
Zahtevek na podlagi zastaranja roka za oceno zahtevka za TGO se zato zavrne.
There is hence neither violation of the principles of prescription, legal certainty and legitimate expectations, nor of the provisions of the basic Regulation and the ADA.
Drugič, trdilo se je tudi, da ker je prišlo do nezakonitosti na točki ocen TGO, bi morala Komisija postopek nadaljevati na točki pred uvedbo začasnih ukrepov.
As regards the claim that the MET determination had to be completed within 3 months of the initiation, it is recalled that according to the case law, the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation does not contain any indication as regards the consequences of the Commission's failure to comply with the 3-month period.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja, da začasni ukrepi niso nujen korak postopka, temveč samostojen akt, katerega učinki se končajo s sprejetjem dokončnih ukrepov.
The General Court therefore takes the view that an MET decision at a later stage does not affect the validity of the Regulation imposing definitive measures as long as applicants have not proved that, if the Commission had not exceeded the 3-month period, the Council might have adopted a different regulation more favourable to their interests than the contested regulation.
Edino bistveno procesno dejanje pred sprejetjem dokončnih ukrepov je začetek.
The Court has furthermore recognized that the Institutions may modify the MET assessment until the adoption of final measures.
Zato je ta argument brezpredmeten.
The above case-law has not been overturned by the Brosmann and Aokang judgments.
Nekatere strani, ki se sklicujejo na sodbo Splošnega sodišča v zadevi IPS proti Svetu, T-2/95, so opozorile na formalne razlike med „preiskavo“ in „postopkom“ ter trdile, da ko je postopek zaključen, kot v trenutnem primeru, ga ni mogoče več nadaljevati.
In the Brosmann and Aokang judgments, the Court relies on the obligation for the Commission to carry out the assessment in 3 months in order to show that the obligation of that assessment exists independently of whether the Commission applies sampling or not.
Komisija ne vidi bistvene razlike med izrazoma „preiskava“ in „postopek“.
The Court does not pronounce itself on the question what legal consequence it has if the Commission concludes the MET assessment at a later stage of the investigation.
V osnovni uredbi in v sodni praksi se uporabljata zamenljivo.
The Court only rules that the Institutions could not completely ignore MET claims, but had to assess them the latest when imposing definitive measures.
V vsakem primeru je sodbo v zadevi T-2/95 potrebno brati v luči sodbe o pritožbi v tej zadevi.
The judgments confirm the case-law quoted in the preceding recital.
Več strani je tudi trdilo, da člen 266 PDEU ne omogoča delnega izvajanja sodbe Sodišča in, v trenutnem primeru, obrnjenega dokaznega bremena.
In the present case, the exporting producers concerned have not shown that, had the Commission carried out the MET assessment within 3 months after the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure in 2005, the Council might have adopted a different regulation more favourable to their interests than the contested regulation.
Zato so trdili, da je Komisija napačno ocenila samo zahtevke za TGO/IO tistih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so bili dobavitelji uvoznikov, ki so vložili zahtevek za povračilo.
The claim on time-bar for the assessment of the MET claim is therefore rejected.
Te strani so svojo trditev utemeljile na razumevanju, da je učinek sodbe Sodišča v združenih primerih C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited in C-34/14 Puma SE erga omnes in da ne more biti izključeno, da imajo rezultati trenutne ocene zahtevkov za TGO/IO vpliv tudi na preostalo dajatev, ki se uporablja za vse kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike.
It was also claimed that since the illegality occurred at the point of MET assessments, the Commission should have resumed the proceeding to the point prior to the imposition of provisional measures.
Te strani so zato trdile, da bi morala Komisija oceniti vse zahtevke za TGO/IO, ki so bili predloženi med prvotno preiskavo.
In that regard, the Commission observes that provisional measures are not a necessary step of the proceeding, but an autonomous act that ceases its effects with the adoption of definitive measures.
Poleg tega se te strani ne strinjajo, da leži dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi vložiti zahtevek za TGO/IO, in trdijo, da so proizvajalci to dokazno breme razveljavili v letu 2005, ko so med prvotno preiskavo izpolnili zahtevke za TGO/IO.
The only essential procedural step prior to the adoption of definitive measures is the initiation.
Prav tako se niso strinjale, da je sodba Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited in C-34/14 Puma SE lahko izvedena s preprosto oceno zahtevkov za TGO/IO s strani nevzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, saj Sodišče ni izrecno določilo, da je ugotovljena razveljavitev dejansko omejena na ta vidik.
Therefore, that argument is inoperative.
Komisija meni, da je izvajanje sodbe obvezno samo za tiste proizvajalce izvoznike, za katere vse uvozne transakcije niso postale dokončne.
Some parties referring to the judgment of the General Court in case T-2/95, IPS v Council, pointed to the formal difference between an ‘investigation’ and a ‘proceeding’ and argued that once a proceeding is terminated, like in the current case, it cannot be resumed anymore.
Ko je poteklo obdobje treh let, kot predpisuje carinski zakonik Skupnosti, je dajatev postala dokončna, kot je bilo potrjeno v sodbah.
The Commission fails to see any material difference between the terms ‘investigation’ and ‘proceeding’.
Kakršen koli vpliv na preostale dajatve je izključen, ker je bil ocenjen zahtevek za TGO/IT za družbe v vzorcu, in dejstvo, da je bil odobren zahtevek za TGO/IO eni od družb zunaj vzorca ne vpliva na stopnjo preostale dajatve.
They are used in an interchangeable manner in the basic Regulation and in the case-law.
Dokazno breme ni omejeno na vložitev zahteve.
In any event, the judgment in case T-2/95 has to be read in the light of the judgment on appeal in that case.
Nanaša se na vsebino zahteve, ki mora dokazati, da so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji za TGO/IO.
Several parties also claimed that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for a partial implementation of a judgment of the Court of Justice and in the current case the reversal of the burden of proof.
Edina nezakonitost, opredeljena v sodbah, je odsotnost ocene zahtevkov za TGO/IO.
These parties based their claim on the understanding that the effect of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE is erga omnes and that it cannot be excluded that the results of the current assessment the MET/IT claims has also an impact on the residual duty which is applicable to all Chinese exporting producers.
Več zainteresiranih strani je trdilo, da Komisija ne bi smela uporabljati dveh različnih pravnih režimov, tj. osnovne uredbe pred spremembo za ocenjevanje zahtevkov za IO proizvajalcev izvoznikov na eni strani in sedanje osnovne uredbe na drugi strani, ki je vključevala spremembe Uredbe (EU) št. 1168/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta, in uvedla postopke komitologije na področju, inter alia, trgovinske zaščite ter s tem prenesla odločanje na Komisijo.
These parties therefore claimed that the Commission should have assessed all MET/IT claims that were provided during the original investigation.
Te strani so hkrati ponovno poudarile, da člen 266 PDEU ne dovoljuje uvedbe retroaktivnih protidampinških dajatev, kar bi bilo potrjeno tudi s sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-459/98P, IPS proti Svetu, in Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1515/2001 o ukrepih, ki jih lahko sprejme Skupnost na podlagi poročila, ki ga sprejme Organ STO za reševanje sporov v zvezi s protidampinškimi in protisubvencijskimi zadevami.
Moreover, these parties disagreed that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT arguing that producers had discharged this burden of proof in 2005 by filing the MET/IT requests during the original investigation.
Trdile so, da Komisija ni podala nobenega utemeljenega razloga za odstopanje od načela prepovedi retroaktivnosti in je zato kršila načelo upravičenih pričakovanj.
They also disagreed that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE can be implemented by simply assessing the MET/IT requests submitted by the non-sampled exporting producers as the Court of Justice did not specifically outline that the invalidation found is indeed limited to this aspect.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da bi bila uvedba ukrepov v vsakem primeru brezpredmetna, saj je zastaralni rok iz člena 103 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti potekel.
The Commission considers that implementation of the judgment is only necessary for those exporting producers for which not all import transactions have become definitive.
Zbiranje protidampinških dajatev bi zato pomenilo kršitev načela dobrega upravljanja, kot tudi člena 21 osnovne uredbe in bi pomenilo zlorabo pooblastil.
Indeed, once the 3-year prescription period foreseen in the Community Customs Code has expired, the duty has become definitive, as confirmed in the judgments.
Več strani je tudi trdilo, da ponovna uvedba dokončnih protidampinških ukrepov na uvoz kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje, pomeni (i) diskriminacijo uvoznikov, ki jih zadeva trenutno izvajanje napram uvoznikom, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje sodb Brosmann in Aokang in ki so jim bile povrnjene dajatve, plačane za uvoz obutve od petih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so jih prav tako zadevale te sodbe, kot tudi (ii) diskriminacijo proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje napram petim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki jih zadevajo sodbe Brosmann in Aokang, ki niso postale predmet nobene dajatve v skladu z izvedbenim sklepom Sveta z dne 18. marca 2014 o zavrnitvi predloga izvedbene uredbe o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo podjetja Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
The burden of proof is not limited to filing a request.
Trdile so, da to diskriminatorno vedenje odraža pomanjkanje enotne razlage in uporabe prava EU, kar je v nasprotju s temeljno pravico do učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
It concerns the content of the request, which has to demonstrate that all conditions for MET/IT are met.
V zvezi z domnevno uporabo različnih pravnih režimov Komisija meni, da to izhaja iz razlik v prehodnih pravilih treh uredb, ki spreminjajo trenutno osnovno uredbo.
The only illegality identified in the judgments is the lack of assessment of the MET/IT claims.
Prvič, Uredba št. 765/2012 (tako imenovana „Pritrdilna sprememba“ o IO) v členu 2 določa, da „se uporablja za vse preiskave, začete v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1225/2009 po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe“.
Legal basis for the reimposition of duties
Ker se je sedanja preiskava začela pred tem datumom, se spremembe te uredbe osnovne uredbe v obravnavanem primeru ne uporabljajo.
Several interested parties claimed that the Commission should not have applied two different legal regimes, i.e. the basic Regulation prior to its amendment for the assessment of the exporting producers' IT claims on the one hand and the current basic Regulation on the other hand that incorporated the amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council introducing Comitology procedures in the area of, inter alia, trade defence and thus delegating the decision making to the Commission.
Uredba št. 1168/2012 očitno tudi ne uvaja popolne prepovedi analiziranja zahtevkov za TGO zunaj vzorca, saj v primeru individualne obravnave dovoli takšno preiskavo.
These parties also reiterated that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for the imposition of anti-dumping duties retro-actively which would also be confirmed by the ruling of the Court of Justice in case C-459/98P, IPS v Council and Council Regulation (EC) 1515/2001 on measures that may be taken by the Community following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters.
Po analogiji bi lahko rekli, da to odstopanje velja v tem primeru.
They argued that the Commission has not given any valid justification to deviate from the principle of non-retroactivity and has therefor violated the principle of legitimate expectations.
Podredno Komisija meni, da bi rezultat uporabe Uredbe (EU) št. 1168/2012 v obravnavanem primeru vodil do istega rezultata, saj bi bili vsi zahtevki za TGO samodejno zavrnjeni, ne da bi bili ocenjeni.
One interested party claimed any imposition of measures would be in any event without object since the statute of limitations laid down in Article 103 of the Community Customs Code expired.
Tretjič, v zvezi s postopkom komitologije, člen 3 Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014 določa, da Svet še naprej ostaja pristojen za dejanja, ko je Komisija sprejela akt, se je začelo posvetovanje ali pa je Komisija sprejela predlog.
Collecting anti-dumping duties would therefore violate the principle of good administration as well as Article 21 of the basic Regulation and would constitute an abuse of power.
V obravnavanem primeru ni bilo izvedeno nobeno takšno dejanje v zvezi z izvajanjem sodbe pred začetkom veljavnosti te Uredbe.
Several parties also argued that reimposing the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of the Chinese exporting producers concerned by the current implementation constitutes (i) a discrimination of the importers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis importers concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments that were reimbursed duties paid on imports of footwear from the five exporting producers concerned by these judgments as well as (ii) a discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis the five exporting producers concerned by the Brosmann and Aokang judgments which were not made subject of any duty following the Council Implementing Decision of 18 March 2014 rejecting the proposal for an Implementing Regulation reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of 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.
Glede retroaktivne uvedbe dokončnih protidampinških dajatev se navaja sklicevanje na ugotovitve, opisane v zgornjih uvodnih izjavah (73) do (81), kjer so te trditve že bile obsežno obravnavane.
Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Kar zadeva diskriminacijo, Komisija ugotavlja, da imajo proizvajalci izvozniki in nekateri zadevni uvozniki, na katere se obravnavana uredba nanaša, pravico do sodnega varstva pred sodišči Unije zoper obravnavano uredbo.
Ltd.
Drugi uvozniki uživajo tako varstvo prek nacionalnih sodišč, ki delujejo kot sodniki na področju splošnega prava Unije.
This discriminatory treatment was claimed to reflect a lack of uniform interpretation and application of EU law which violates the fundamental right of an effective judicial protection.
Trditev o diskriminaciji je prav tako neutemeljena.
Regarding the alleged use of different legal regimes, the Commission considers that that follows from the differences in the transition rules contained in the three Regulations amending the basic Regulation at stake.
Uvozniki, ki uvažajo od družbe Brosman in ostalih štirih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, so v drugačnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju, ker so se njihovi proizvajalci izvozniki odločili izpodbijati izpodbijano uredbo in ker so jim bile dajatve povrnjene, tako da so zaščiteni s členom 221(3) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti.
First, Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 (the so-called ‘Fasteners amendment’ dealing with IT) provided in its Article 2 that ‘it shall apply to all investigations initiated pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 following the entry into force of this Regulation’.
Do izpodbijanja in povrnitve dajatev pri drugih ni prišlo.
As the present investigation was initiated prior to that date, the amendments of that Regulation to the basic Regulation do not apply in the present case.
Komisija začenja s pripravo izvajanja za kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike Clark, Puma in Timberland; vsi ostali nevzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama ter njihovi uvozniki se bodo obravnavali na isti način v poznejši fazi v skladu s postopkom, določenim v tej uredbi.
Second, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 (the so-called ‘Brosmann amendment’ dealing with MET) provided in its Article 2 that ‘this Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012’.
Iste zainteresirane strani so trdile tudi, da člen 14 osnovne uredbe ne more biti pravna podlaga za poseg v uporabo člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti in da je izvajanje člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti neodvisno od vseh odločitev, sprejetih v skladu z osnovno uredbo ali obveznosti Komisije v skladu s členom 266 PDEU.
Therefore, if the Commission had adopted a strict approach, it would not even have been necessary to assess the MET claims of the non-sampled companies any more, as they had lost the right to an MET assessment on 15 December 2012.
V zvezi s tem se je trdilo, da je uporaba člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti v izključni pristojnosti nacionalnih carinskih organov, v sklopu katere so ti dolžni povrniti plačane dajatve, ki niso bile zakonito dolgovane.
However, the Commission considers that such treatment would be difficult to reconcile with its obligation to implement the judgments.
Zadevne strani so nadalje trdile, da člen 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti ne more biti predmet ali nadomestek za člen 14 osnovne uredbe, ker sta oba sekundarna zakonodaja in zato noben ne nadomesti drugega.
Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 does also not seem to introduce a complete ban on analysing MET claims outside the sample, as it authorizes such examination in case of individual treatment.
Poleg tega se obseg člena 14 osnovne uredbe nanaša na posebne določbe, ki pokrivajo preiskave in postopke v okviru osnovne uredbe in ga ni mogoče uporabiti za kateri koli drugi pravni instrument, kot je carinski zakonik Skupnosti.
By analogy, that derogation could be said to apply in the present case.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se carinski zakonik Skupnosti na uvedbo protidampinških dajatev ne nanaša samodejno, ampak zgolj na podlagi sklicevanja na uredbo o uvedbi protidampinških dajatev.
In the alternative, the Commission considers that the outcome of applying Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 to the present case would lead to same outcome, as all MET claims would be automatically rejected, without going through the assessment.
V skladu s členom 14 osnovne uredbe se lahko Komisija odloči, da ne uveljavlja posameznih določb tega zakonika in namesto tega oblikuje posebna pravila.
Third, with regard to Comitology, Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 provides that the Council shall remain competent for acts where the Commission has adopted an act, consultation has been initiated or the Commission has adopted a proposal.
Ker se carinski zakonik Skupnosti uporablja samo na podlagi sklicevanja v izvedbenih uredbah Sveta in Komisije, v primerjavi s členom 14 osnovne uredbe ni na isti ravni v hierarhiji predpisov, ampak je podrejen in lahko postane neuporaben ali se uporablja na drugačen način.
In the present case, no such action had been undertaken with regard to the implementation of the judgment prior to the entry into force of that Regulation.
Ustrezna obrazložitev
Regarding the retro-active imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties reference is made to the considerations outlined above in recitals 73 to 81 where these claims were already addressed extensively.
Zgoraj navedene zainteresirane strani so trdile, da v nasprotju s členom 296 PDEU Komisija ni zagotovila ustrezne obrazložitve in navedbe pravne podlage, na osnovi katere so bile ponovno uvedene retroaktivne dajatve ter s tem zavrnjena povračila dajatev uvoznikom, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje.
Regarding discrimination, the Commission observes that exporting producers and certain importers concerned by the present regulation enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts against the present regulation.
Odsotnost ustrezne obrazložitve zadeva zlasti (i) odsotnost pravne osnove za ponovni začetek preiskave in odsotnost objave ustreznega obvestila, ki najavlja takšen ponovni začetek; (ii) zgolj delno izvajanje sodbe Splošnega sodišča le z ocenjevanjem zahtevkov za TGO/IO teh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, kjer so bili zahtevki za povračilo vloženi s strani uvoznikov; (iii) odstopanje od načela prepovedi retroaktivnosti protidampinških dajatev; (iv) uporaba osnovne uredbe pred njeno spremembo z dne 6. septembra 2012 za ocenjevanje zahtevkov za IO proizvajalcev izvoznikov na eni strani in sedanje osnovne uredbe, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (EU) št. 1168/2012 v zvezi z veljavnimi postopki odločanja in (v) pomanjkanje odziva na pravne argumente, ki so jih posredovale te strani po razkritju Komisije v zvezi z oceno zahtevkov za TGO zadevnih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov z dne 15. decembra 2015.
Other importers enjoy such protection via the national courts and tribunals, which act as judges of ordinary Union law.
Zaradi odsotnosti kakršne koli pravne podlage za ponovni začetek preiskave Komisija opozarja na sodno prakso, navedeno v uvodni izjavi (15), v skladu s katero lahko nadaljuje preiskavo v točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
The claim of discrimination is equally unfounded.
To je bilo po začetku postopka.
Importers that have imported from Brosman and the other four exporting producers are in a different factual and legal situation, because their exporting producers decided to challenge the contested Regulation and because they were reimbursed their duties, so that they are protected by Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code.
Komisija ni pravno zavezana objaviti sporočila o ponovnem začetku, nadaljevanju ali obnovi postopka ali preiskave.
No such challenge, and no such reimbursement have taken place for others.
Nasprotno, tak je samodejni učinek sodbe, ki jo morata instituciji nato izvajati.
The Commission starts to prepare implementation for the Chinese exporting producers of Clark, Puma and Timberland; all other non-sampled exporting producers from the PRC and Vietnam and their importers will be treated in the same fashion at a later stage pursuant to the procedure set out in the present Regulation.
V skladu s sodno prakso 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).
The same interested parties also claimed that Article 14 of the basic Regulation cannot serve as a legal basis to interfere in the application of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code, and the operation of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code is independent from any decision taken under the basic Regulation or the Commission's obligations under Article 266 TFEU.
Zato dejstvo, da je Komisija v preteklosti v nekaterih primerih morebiti ravnala drugače ne more ustvariti legitimnih pričakovanj.