natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission reopened the investigation precisely at that point in order to assess whether MET/IT claims that were unassessed should have been granted, and, alongside, possibly a lower duty rate has been due (which, in turn would have allowed these concerned companies to request a repayment of those overpaid duties via their competent customs authority alongside interest [36]).
Komisija je na tej podlagi izkoristila pooblastila, ki izhajajo iz člena 14(3) osnovne uredbe, in zahtevala, da nacionalni carinski organi začasno ne izvajajo nobenih povračil.
A notice of expiry, while officially terminating the proceeding, cannot have the effect of denying those companies the right to have their MET/IT claims reviewed — a right that, after all, had been due during the investigation, as recognised by the Court in C&J Clark [37].
To ne izpodbija izključne pristojnosti, ki jo imajo nacionalni carinski organi v zvezi s spori glede carinskega dolga, saj so za odločanje o tem še vedno pristojni carinski organi držav članic.
The investigation was, accordingly, reopened on 17 March 2016, and will be closed by way of this Regulation in line with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation.
Carinski organi držav članic še vedno na podlagi sklepov, ki jih Komisija sprejme v zvezi z zahtevki za TGO in IO, odločijo, ali bi bilo treba povračilo odobriti ali ne.
Article 236 of the Community Customs Code
Čeprav drži, da nič v carinski zakonodaji Unije ne dovoljuje oviranja povračila napačno plačanih carinskih dajatev, pa taka posplošena izjava ni mogoča v zvezi s povračilom protidampinških dajatev.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also submitted that the procedure adopted to reopen the investigation and retroactively impose the duty amounts to an abuse of powers by the Commission and violates the TFEU.
V skladu s tem in zaradi splošne potrebe po zaščiti lastnih sredstev Unije pred neupravičenimi zahtevami za povračilo ter s tempovezanimi težavami, ki bi jih povzročilo zahtevanje povračil po tem, je morala Komisija začasno odstopati od carinske zakonodaje Unije in izkoristiti svoja pooblastila na podlagi člena 14(3) osnovne uredbe.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argue in this regard that the Commission does not have the authority to interfere with Article 236(1) of the Community Customs Code by preventing the repayment of the anti-dumping duties.
Neobrazložitev razlogov glede pravne podlage
They argued that it was up to the national customs authorities to draw the consequences of an invalidation of duties and that they would also be obliged to reimburse anti-dumping duties that had been declared invalid by the Court.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da v nasprotju s členom 296 PDEU Komisija ni zagotovila ustrezne obrazložitve in navedbe pravne podlage, na osnovi katere so bile retroaktivno ponovno uvedene dajatve ter s tem zavrnjena povračila dajatev uvoznikom, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvrševanje.
In this regard, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation does not allow the Commission to derogate from Article 236 of the Community Customs Code, as both legislations are of an equal legal order and the basic Regulation cannot be seen as a lex specialis of the Community Customs Code.
Zato sta trdila, da je Komisija kršila pravico do učinkovitega sodnega varstva zainteresiranih strani.
Furthermore, the same parties continued Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation does not refer to Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and only states that special provisions may be adopted by the Commission, but no derogations to the Community Customs Code.
Družba SIEMES, ki je eden od uvoznikov, ki so poslali pripombe v zvezi z razkritjem, je trdila, da zadevna izvedbena uredba Komisije nima ustrezne utemeljitve, kar je v nasprotju s členom 296 PDEU, vendar te trditve ni nadalje podrobno pojasnila.
In response thereto, it is important to underline that Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation does not automatically render applicable the rules governing Union customs legislation to the imposition of the individual anti-dumping duties [38].
V podporo svoji trditvi se je ta stran sklicevala na sodbo v zadevi Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals proti Svetu, T-310/12 [40].
Rather, Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation gives the Union's institutions the right to transpose and make applicable, where necessary and useful, the rules governing the Union's customs legislation [39].
Komisija meni, da obsežna pravna utemeljitev v dokumentu o splošnem razkritju in tej uredbi, vključno s sklicevanjem na pravne podlage za to uredbo, ustrezno utemeljuje to uredbo.
This transposition does not require a full application of all the provisions of the Union's customs legislation.
Legitimna pričakovanja
Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation explicitly envisages special provisions with regard to the common definition of the concept of origin, a good example of where deviation from the provisions of the Union's customs legislation occurs.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da retroaktivni popravek ukrepov, ki so prenehali veljati, krši načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
It is on that basis that the Commission made use of the powers arising from Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation and required that national customs authorities refrain temporarily from any reimbursement.
Združenje FESI je trdilo, da so strani, vključno z uvozniki, najprej dobile zagotovilo, da ukrepi prenehajo veljati 31. marca 2011, in da so glede na čas, ki je pretekel od prvotne preiskave, upravičeno pričakovale, da se prvotna preiskava ne bo nadaljevala ali ponovno uvedla.
This does not challenge the exclusive competence that national customs authorities have in relation to disputes concerning customs debt: the decision-making authority remains with the customs authorities of the Member States.
Podobno so kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki zato, ker njihovi zahtevki za TGO/IO, ki so jih predložili v prvotni preiskavi, niso bili ocenjeni v roku treh mesecev, ki je veljal v prvotni preiskavi, upravičeno imeli legitimna pričakovanja, da Komisija teh zahtevkov ne bo več pregledovala.
The Member States customs authorities still decide, on the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission vis-à-vis the MET and IT claims, whether reimbursement should be granted or not.
Kar zadeva legitimna pričakovanja zainteresiranih strani, da so protidampinški ukrepi prenehali veljati in da se preiskava ne bo ponovno uvedla, se navaja sklicevanje na uvodno izjavo 104, v kateri so bile te trditve podrobno obravnavane.
Thus, while it is true that nothing in the Union's customs legislation allows for an obstacle to the reimbursement of erroneously paid customs duties to be erected, no such sweeping statement can be made in relation to the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties.
Kar zadeva legitimna pričakovanja kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da njihovi zahtevki za TGO/IO ne bodo pregledani, se navaja sklicevanje na uvodno izjavo 99, v kateri je bilo to obravnavano ob upoštevanju sodne prakse Sodišča v zvezi s to zadevo.
Accordingly, and with the overarching necessity to protect the Union'sown resources from unjustified requests for repayment and the related difficulty this would have caused pursuing unjustified repayments thereafter, the Commission had to deviate temporarily from the Union's customs legislation by making use of its powers under Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation.
Načelo nediskriminacije
Lack of statement of reasons on legal basis
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila, da retroaktivna uvedba protidampinških ukrepov pomeni diskriminacijo (i) uvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvrševanje, glede na uvoznike, ki jih zadeva izvršitev sodb v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang iz uvodne izjave 6 in ki so jim bile povrnjene dajatve, plačane za uvoz obutve od petih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki sta jih prav tako zadevali ti sodbi, ter (ii) proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvrševanja, glede na pet proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadevata sodbi v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang in za katere ni bila uvedena nobena dajatev v skladu z Izvedbenim sklepom 2014/149/EU.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also argued that in violation of Article 296 TFEU, the Commission failed to provide adequate statement of reasons and indication of the legal basis on which duties were reimposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation.
Kar zadeva trditev glede diskriminacije, Komisija najprej opozarja na vse zahteve v zvezi z diskriminacijo, kot so navedene v uvodni izjavi 87.
Accordingly, FESI and the Footwear coalition claimed that the Commission had breached the right to effective judicial protection of interested parties.
Nato ugotavlja, da je razlika med uvozniki, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvrševanje, in tistimi, ki jih zadeva izvršitev sodb v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang, ta, da so se slednji odločili izpodbijati Uredbo (ES) št. 1472/2006 na Splošnem sodišču, prvi pa ne.
SIEMES, one of the importers providing comments to the disclosure, also claimed that the Commission Implementing Regulation lacks appropriate reasoning, which is in violation of Article 296 TFEU, however, without further explaining this claim in more detail.
Sklep, ki ga sprejme institucija Unije in ga njegov naslovnik ne izpodbija v roku, določenem v šestem odstavku člena 263 PDEU, postane zanj pravnomočen.
In support of its claim this party referred to the judgment in T-310/12 Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council [40].
Taka sodna praksa temelji zlasti na upoštevanju dejstva, da je tožbeni rok namenjen varovanju pravne varnosti, s tem da se prepreči časovno neomejeno izpodbijanje aktov Unije, ki imajo pravne učinke [41].
The Commission considers that the extensive legal reasoning provided in the general disclosure document and in this Regulation, including the reference to the legal bases for the present Regulation, duly motivates the latter.
To postopkovno načelo prava Unije nujno vodi do oblikovanja dveh skupin družb, in sicer tistih, ki so izpodbijale ukrep Unije in so zato morda v ugodnejšem položaju (kot družba Brosmann in drugi štirje proizvajalci izvozniki), in tistih, ki tega niso storile.
Legitimate expectations
Vendar to ne pomeni, da je Komisija zadevni strani obravnavala neenako in tako kršila načelo enake obravnave.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed further that the retroactive correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Priznanje, da neka stran spada v drugo kategorijo, ker se je zavestno odločila, da ne bo izpodbijala ukrepa Unije, ne pomeni diskriminacije proti navedeni skupini.
FESI argued that first, parties including importers, would have received assurance that the measures expired on 31 March 2011 and that given the time elapsed since the original investigation, parties were entitled to have justified expectations that the original investigation will not be resumed or reopened.
Vse zainteresirane strani so torej imele pred sodišči Unije vedno pravico do sodnega varstva.
Likewise, the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were entitled to have justified legitimate expatiations that their MET/IT claims provided in the original investigation would not be reviewed anymore by the Commission, based on the mere fact that these claims were no assessed within the three-month period applicable during the original investigation.
Kar zadeva domnevno diskriminacijo zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva to izvrševanje in se zanje po sprejetju Izvedbenega sklepa 2014/149/EU ni uvedla nobena dajatev, je treba opozoriti, da je bila odločitev Sveta, da se dajatve ne uvedejo ponovno, očitno sprejeta ob upoštevanju posebnih okoliščin posebnega položaja, kakršen je bil v času, ko je Komisija podala predlog za ponovno uvedbo navedenih dajatev, in zlasti ob upoštevanju, da so bile zadevne protidampinške dajatve že povrnjene, ter v kolikor je bilo po sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang preklicano prvotno obvestilo zadevnemu dolžniku o dolgu.
Regarding legitimate expectations of interested parties that anti-dumping measures expired and that the investigation will not be reopened anymore, reference is made to recital 104, where these claims had been addressed in detail.
Po mnenju Sveta so imeli zadevni uvozniki zaradi tega povračila legitimna pričakovanja.
Regarding the legitimate expectations of Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers not to have their MET/IT claims reviewed, reference is made to recital 99, where this has equally been addressed in light of the case-law of the Court on this matter.
Ker drugi uvozniki niso prejeli primerljivega povračila, niso v primerljivem položaju z uvozniki, ki jih zadeva sklep Sveta.
Principle of non-discrimination
Dejstvo, da se je Svet ob upoštevanju posebnih okoliščin zadeve, ki jo je obravnaval, odločil za določeno ravnanje, Komisije ne more zavezati k popolnoma enaki izvršitvi druge sodbe.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition submitted that the imposition of anti-dumping measures with retroactive effects constitutes discrimination of (i) the importers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis importers concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments referred to in recital 6 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 Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU.
Pristojnost Komisije, da uvede dokončne protidampinške ukrepe
Regarding the claim on discrimination, the Commission recalls first of all the requirements for discrimination, as set out in recital 87.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da Komisija nima pristojnosti za sprejetje uredbe o retroaktivni uvedbi protidampinške dajatve v okviru sedanjega izvrševanja in da bi to pristojnost v vsakem primeru imel Svet.
Then, it is noted that the difference between importers concerned by the current implementation and those concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments is that the latter decided to challenge Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 in the General Court, whereas the former did not.
Ta trditev je temeljila na navedbi, da bi morala v primeru nadaljevanja preiskave v točki, v kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, veljati ista pravila kot v času prvotne preiskave, pri kateri je dokončne ukrepe sprejel Svet.
A decision adopted by a Union institution, which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time-limit laid down by the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, becomes definitive as against him.
Ti strani sta trdili, da se v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 15. januarja 2014 o spremembi določenih uredb o skupni trgovinski politiki v zvezi s postopki za sprejetje določenih ukrepov (imenovane tudi „uredba omnibus I“) [42] novi postopek sprejemanja odločitev na področju splošne trgovinske politike v tem okviru ne uporablja, saj je pred začetkom veljavnosti uredbe omnibus I (i) Komisija že sprejela akt (začasno uredbo), (ii) posvetovanja, zahtevana na podlagi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti, so se začela in končala ter (iii) Komisija je že sprejela predlog uredbe Sveta o sprejetju dokončnih ukrepov.
That rule is based in particular on the consideration that the periods within which legal proceedings must be brought are intended to ensure legal certainty by preventing Union measures which produce legal effects from being called into question indefinitely [41].
Na podlagi tega sta ti strani menili, da bi se morali uporabiti postopki odločanja, ki so veljali pred začetkom veljavnosti uredbe omnibus I.
This procedural principle of Union law necessarily creates two groups: those which challenged a Union measure and who may have gained a favourable position as a result (like Brosmann and the other four exporting producers), and those who did not.
Navedena trditev se sicer osredotoča na datum začetka preiskave (ki je dejansko pomemben v zvezi z drugimi vsebinskimi spremembami osnovne uredbe), vendar ne upošteva, da se v Uredbi (EU) št. 37/2014 uporablja drugo merilo (tj. začetek postopka za sprejetje ukrepov).
Yet, that does not mean that the Commission has treated the two parties unequally in violation of the principle of equal treatment.
Stališče združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev torej temelji na napačni razlagi prehodne določbe v Uredbi (EU) št. 37/2014.
An acknowledgement that a party falls into the latter category because of a conscious decision not to challenge a Union measure does not discriminate against that group.
Ob upoštevanju sklicevanja na „postopke za sprejetje ukrepov“ v členu 3 Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014, ki določa prehodne določbe za spremembe postopkov odločanja za sprejetje protidampinških ukrepov, in ob upoštevanju pomena izraza „postopek“ v osnovni uredbi se za preiskavo, ki se je začela pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014, vendar Komisija v zvezi z njo ni začela posvetovanja z ustreznim odborom s ciljem sprejetja ukrepov pred navedenim začetkom veljavnosti, uporabljajo za postopek za sprejetje navedenih protidampinških ukrepov nova pravila.
So, all interested parties did enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts at all times.
To velja tudi za postopke, v katerih so bili ukrepi uvedeni na podlagi starih pravil in jih je treba pregledati, ali za ukrepe, s katerimi so bile začasne dajatve uvedene na podlagi starih pravil, vendar se postopek za sprejetje dokončnih ukrepov še ni začel, ko je začela veljati Uredba (EU) št. 37/2014.
According to the Council, this reimbursement had created legitimate expectations on the part of the importers concerned.
Ta trditev se zato zavrne.
Since no comparable reimbursement took place for other importers, these are not in a comparable situation to those importers concerned by the Council decision.
Kar zadeva družbo Clarks in druge družbe, so slednje najprej trdile, da Komisija nima pravne podlage za preučitev zahtevkov za TGO/IO, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki v prvotni preiskavi.
In any event, the fact that the Council chose to act in a certain way, given the particular circumstances of the case before it, cannot bind the Commission to implement another judgment in the exact same way.
Trdile so, da postopek, ki je bil zaključen z iztekom ukrepov dne 31. marca 2011, ni bil razveljavljen s sodbo Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 in C-34/14 ter da ga zato ni mogoče ponovno uvesti.
Commission's competence to impose definitive anti-dumping measures
Komisija se v odgovor na to pripombo sklicuje na razlago v uvodnih izjavah 99 do 104.
In addition, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission does not have the competence to adopt the Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty retroactively in the current implementation exercise, and that this competence would in any event lie with the Council.
Družba Clarks in druge družbe so trdile, da sedanji postopek krši načeli neretroaktivnosti in pravne varnosti ter člen 10 osnovne uredbe.
This claim was based on the argument that if the investigation is resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred, the same rules should also be applicable as the ones at the time of the original investigation, where definitive measures were adopted by the Council.
Poleg tega je družba SIEMES, ki je prav tako uvoznik obutve, podobno trdila, da ni pravne podlage za retroaktivno uvedbo protidampinških dajatev, ter se je sklicevala na sodno prakso, in sicer na sodbo v zadevi Industrie des poudres sphériques proti Svetu, C-458/98 P [43], in predhodno prakso Komisije v zvezi s tem.
These parties argued that in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2014 amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures (also called ‘Omnibus I Regulation’) [42] the new decision-making procedure in the field of the common commercial policy does not apply to the present context given that before the entry into force of the Omnibus I Regulation the Commission (i) had already adopted an act (the provisional Regulation), (ii) the consultations that were required under Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community were initiated and concluded, and (iii) the Commission had already adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation adopting definitive measures.
Kar zadeva trditev glede retroaktivnosti na podlagi člena 10 osnovne uredbe in člena 10 Protidampinškega sporazuma Svetovne trgovinske organizacije („PDS STO“), člen 10(1) osnovne uredbe, v katerem je prevzeto besedilo člena 10(1) PDS STO, določa, da se začasne in dokončne protidampinške dajatve uporabijo samo za izdelke, ki vstopajo v prosti promet od trenutka, ko začne veljati ukrep, sprejet na podlagi člena 7(1) ali členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe, kar je odvisno od konkretne zadeve.
On this basis, these parties concluded that the decision making procedures prior to the entry in force of the Omnibus I Regulation should apply.
V tej zadevi so se zadevne protidampinške dajatve nanašale samo na izdelke, ki so v prosti promet vstopili po začetku veljavnosti začasne in izpodbijane (dokončne) uredbe, sprejete v skladu s členom 7(1) oziroma 9(4) osnovne uredbe.
That claim, however, focuses on the date of initiation of the investigation (which is indeed relevant in relation to the other substantive amendments that were made to the basic Regulation) but fails to note that Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 uses a different criterion (that is, the initiation of the procedure for adoption of measures).
Vendar se retroaktivnost v smislu člena 10(1) osnovne uredbe nanaša samo na stanje, v katerem je bilo blago sproščeno v prosti promet, preden so bili uvedeni ukrepi, kot je mogoče razbrati iz samega besedila navedene določbe ter iz odstopanja, ki ga določa člen 10(4) osnovne uredbe.
The position of FESI and the Footwear Coalition is therefore based on an incorrect interpretation of the transitional rule in Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da v obravnavanem primeru ni prisotna niti kršitev načela retroaktivnosti niti kršitev pravne varnosti in legitimnih pričakovanj.
Indeed, given the reference in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 to ‘procedures initiated for the adoption of measures’, which sets out the transitional rules for the changes to the decision-making procedures for the adoption of anti-dumping measures, and given the meaning of ‘procedure’ in the basic Regulation, for an investigation that was initiated prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014, but where the Commission had not launched the consultation of the relevant committee with a view to adopting measures prior to that entry into force, the new rules apply to the procedure for adopting the said anti-dumping measures.
Kar zadeva retroaktivnost, sodna praksa Sodišča pri ocenjevanju, ali je ukrep retroaktiven, razlikuje med uporabo novega pravila v okoliščinah, ki so postale dokončne (tudi obstoječ ali dokončni pravni položaj), in okoliščinah, ki so nastale pred začetkom veljavnosti novega predpisa, vendar še niso dokončne (tudi začasne okoliščine).
The same holds true for proceedings where measures had been imposed on the basis of the old rules and come up for review, or for measures where provisional duties had been imposed on the basis of the old rules, but the procedure for adopting definitive measures had not been launched yet when Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 entered into force.
V tej zadevi okoliščine uvoza zadevnih izdelkov, ki so nastale v obdobju uporabe Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006, še niso postale dokončne, ker zaradi razglasitve ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe protidampinška dajatev, ki velja za te izdelke, še ni bila dokončno določena.