natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The outcome of this assessment will be subject to a separate legal act.
Iz istega razloga sta trdila tudi, da sodbi Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen/Altana nista pravno pomembna referenca.
The request with regard to these companies was therefore granted and these companies are not listed in Annex III.
Kar zadeva člen 278 PDEU in sodbi Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen/Altana, se Komisija strinja z združenjem FESI in koalicijo za obutev, da se navedena sodna praksa ne uporablja za ocenjevanje, ali je treba začasno odložiti izvajanje sodbe Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 in C-34/14.
With regard to traders that claimed re-imbursement of the duties paid (related or unrelated to Chinese or Vietnamese suppliers), the Commission considers that the burden of proof lies with these traders.
Vendar Komisija meni, da mora navedeno sodbo izvesti v razumnem časovnem okviru in da tekoči postopki v zvezi s prej sprejetimi akti o izvajanju navedene sodbe niso veljaven razlog za nedokončanje izvajanja sodbe.
None of the traders listed in Annex III provided, however, information or proof of their suppliers in China or Vietnam (with the exception of the ones mentioned in recital (76)).
Zlasti meni, da bi se s tem zainteresiranim stranem, ki niso združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev, preprečilo uveljavljanje njihovih pravic v upravnem in morebitnem sodnem postopku.
The Commission recognises, however, that not all importers that bought footwear from those traders may have been aware of the need to inform the Commission of the names of the exporting producers from which those traders acquired their footwear.
Kar zadeva veljavnost izvedbenih uredb (EU) 2016/1647 in (EU) 2016/1731, sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev trdila, da imajo navedeni uredbi in morebitne nove uredbe o ponovni uvedbi dokončnih dajatev na uvoz obutve s poreklom iz Kitajske in Vietnama isto pravno podlago, zato bi pristop in utemeljitev Komisije ter razveljavitev izvedbenih uredb (EU) 2016/1647 in (EU) 2016/1731 pomenili tudi, da bi bila nična tudi vsaka nadaljnja podobna uredba.
In order to ensure full respect of their rights of defence, the Commission therefore has decided to specifically contact the importers in question and make them aware of the situation and their burden of proof.
Iz pristopa Komisije zato ne bi bilo razvidno prizadevanje v dobri veri za izvajanje sodbe v združenih zadevah C & J Clark International, C-659/13, in Puma, in C-34/14, iz uvodne izjave 12.
In order to provide for the time necessary to implement this decision, the examination of the companies listed in Annex III is temporarily suspended until the Commission has contacted the relevant importers and given them time to react.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila, da za izvajanje navedene sodbe po eni strani ne bi veljali roki, ki jih določi Sodišče, in bi imelo negativen učinek na uvoznike v Uniji, po drugi strani pa Uniji ne bi prineslo nobene davčne ugodnosti.
The deadline of eight months for assessing MET/IT claims will start on the day the importer informs the Commission of the names and addresses of the exporting producers concerned, or, where no reply is received within the time period determined by the Commission, from the date of expiry of that time period.
Zato bi morala Komisija opustiti izvajanje sodbe, dokler niso znani rezultati zadev pred Sodiščem iz uvodne izjave 80.
Suspension of ongoing implementation exercise
Komisija se sklicuje na zgoraj navedene razloge iz uvodne izjave 81.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued also that in the interest of legal certainty, the Commission should not adopt and publish any further legal acts regarding the implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, until the Court of Justice rules on an ongoing preliminary rulings on the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 referred to in recital (23) and the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 referred to in recital (19) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 referred to in (20).
Postopkovne zahteve pri ocenjevanju obrazcev zahtevka za TGO in IO
In this respect, it was argued that Article 278 TFEU, whereas a legal action against legal acts adopted by the institutions does not have suspensive effect, is not applicable in the current case because the claim made in this regard is not to suspend Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, but to refrain to adopt further Regulations re-imposing the definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of footwear from China and Vietnam.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila, da dokazno breme pri ocenjevanju zahtevkov za TGO/IO nosi Komisija, saj so kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki bremenu zadostili s predložitvijo zahtevkov za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi.
For the same reasons, it was also argued that the judgments in the Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen/Altana were not a legally relevant reference.
Trdila sta tudi, da bi morale biti zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, na katere se nanaša trenutno izvajanje, zagotovljene enake procesne pravice, kot so bile zagotovljene vzorčnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom v prvotni preiskavi.
Regarding Article 278 TFEU and the Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen/Altana judgments, the Commission agrees with FESI and the Footwear Coalition that that case-law is not applicable to assess whether or not to suspend the implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14.
Zlasti sta trdila, da je bila namesto preverjanj na kraju samem opravljena le teoretična analiza ter da kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki niso imeli možnosti, da bi dopolnili obrazce zahtevka za TGO/IO prek pozivov k dopolnitvam.
However, the Commission considers that it is obliged to implement that judgment in a reasonable time-frame, and that ongoing proceedings concerning earlier acts implementing that judgment do not constitute a valid reason for not finalising the implementation of the judgment.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta nadalje trdila, da proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki jih to izvajanje zadeva, niso bila zagotovljena enaka postopkovna jamstva kot tista, ki se uporabljajo v standardnih protidampinških preiskavah, ampak so bili uporabljeni strožji standardi.
In particular, it considers that doing so would deprive interested parties other than FESI and the Footwear Coalition from exercising their rights in the administrative procedure and in a possible court procedure.
Trdila sta, da Komisija ni upoštevala časovnega zamika med vložitvijo zahtevkov za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi in oceno teh zahtevkov.
Regarding the validity of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1647 and (EU) 2016/1731, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that given that the latter and any new Regulation re-imposing definitive duties on imports of footwear originating in China and Vietnam have the same legal basis, approach and reasoning of the Commission and the invalidation of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1647 and (EU) 2016/1731 would also entail that any further similar Regulation would be equally invalid.
Poleg tega so imeli proizvajalci izvozniki med prvotno preiskavo na voljo le 15 dni, da vložijo zahtevke za TGO/IO, namesto običajnih 21 dni.
The Commission's approach would therefore not reflect a good faith effort in implementing the judgment in the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International and C-34/14 Puma referred to in recital (12).
Na podlagi tega sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev trdila, da temeljno pravno načelo glede omogočanja zainteresiranim stranem, da v polni meri uveljavljajo pravico do obrambe iz člena 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah in člena 6 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, ni bilo spoštovano.
Finally, FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that the implementation of the above judgment would not be subject to any deadlines imposed by the Court of Justice, would have a negative impact on the importers in the Union, while on the other hand would not have any fiscal advantage for the Union.
Zato sta trdila, da je Komisija zlorabila svoje pooblastila, ker proizvajalcem izvoznikom ni dala priložnosti, da dopolnijo nepopolne informacije, in v fazi izvajanja obrnila dokazno breme.
For these reasons the Commission should refrain from implementing the judgment, pending the outcome of the Court cases mentioned in recital (80).
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta nazadnje trdila tudi, da bi bil ta pristop diskriminatoren do kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so bili vzorčeni v prvotni preiskavi, pa tudi do drugih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v državah z netržnim gospodarstvom, za katere se je uvedla protidampinška preiskava in ki so v navedeni preiskavi vložili zahtevke za TGO/IO.
The Commission refers to the reasons set out above at recital (81).
Zato za kitajske in vietnamske družbe, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje, ne bi smel veljati enak prag za zagotavljanje informacij, kot se uporabi v običajni 15-mesečni preiskavi, in zanje ne bi smeli veljati strožji postopkovni standardi.
Procedural requirements when assessing MET and IT claim forms
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da je Komisija uporabila de facto razpoložljiva dejstva v skladu s členom 18(1) osnovne uredbe, vendar pa Komisija ni delovala skladno s procesnimi pravili iz člena 18(4) osnovne uredbe.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the burden of proof when assessing MET/IT claims lies with the Commission, as the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers had discharged the burden by submitting the MET/IT claims in the original investigation.
Komisija opozarja, da mora biti na podlagi sodne prakse dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO/IO.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the same procedural rights should have been granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation as those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
Institucijama zato v skladu z mnenjem Sodišča v sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued in particular, that only a desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-spot verification visits, and that the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters.
Nasprotno, Komisija mora oceniti, ali podatki, ki jih je predložil zadevni proizvajalec, zadostujejo za dokaz, da so merila iz prvega pododstavka člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe izpolnjena, tako da se mu lahko odobri TGO/IO (glej uvodno izjavo 48).
FESI and the Footwear Coalition further argued that the exporting producers concerned by this implementation were not provided with the same procedural guarantees than those applied in standard anti-dumping investigations, but stricter standards were applied.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da Komisiji od proizvajalca izvoznika ni treba zahtevati, naj dopolni zahtevek za TGO/IO.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission has not taken into account the time lag between the filing of the MET/IT request in the original investigation and the assessment of these claims.
Komisija lahko svojo oceno utemelji na podlagi informacij, ki jih je proizvajalec izvoznik že predložil.
In addition, exporting producers during the original investigation were only provided 15 days in order to fill in the MET/IT requests, instead of the usual 21 days.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da je bila opravljena le teoretična analiza, Komisija ugotavlja, da je teoretična analiza postopek, pri katerem se zahtevki za TGO/IO analizirajo na podlagi dokumentacije, ki jo predloži proizvajalec izvoznik.
On this basis, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the fundamental legal principle of granting interested parties full opportunity to exercise their rights of defence laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, was not respected.
Komisija teoretično analizira vse vloge za TGO/IO.
On this basis, it was argued that by not giving the exporting producers the opportunity to complete incomplete information the Commission misused its powers and effectively reversed the burden of proof at the stage of the implementation.
Poleg tega se lahko Komisija odloči, da bo opravila inšpekcijske preglede na kraju samem.
Finally, FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that this approach would be discriminatory vis-à-vis the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers that were sampled in the original investigation, but also other exporting producers in non-market economy countries that were subject to an anti-dumping investigation and filed MET/IT claims in that investigation.
Vendar inšpekcijski pregledi na kraju samem niso obvezni in se ne izvajajo za vsako vlogo za TGO/IO.
Thus, the Chinese and Vietnamese companies concerned by the current implementation should not be made subject to the same information provision threshold as applied in a normal 15 months investigation and should not be subject to stricter procedural standards.
Namen inšpekcijskih pregledov na kraju samem, kadar se izvedejo, je običajno potrditi določeno predhodno oceno, ki so jo opravile institucije, in/ali preveriti verodostojnost informacij, ki jih je predložil zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the Commission applied de facto facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, while the Commission did not comply with the procedural rules set out in Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Povedano drugače, če je iz dokazov, ki jih je predložil proizvajalec izvoznik, jasno razvidno, da TGO/IO ni upravičena, se dodatni in neobvezni inšpekcijski pregled na kraju samem običajno ne bi organiziral.
The Commission recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija sama presodi, kdaj je primerno opraviti preveritveni obisk.
Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
Ta institucija se po lastni presoji odloči, kako bo preverila informacije v obrazcu za TGO/IO.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET/IT (see recital (48)).
Kadar se torej Komisija, kot v tem primeru, na podlagi teoretične analize odloči, da je prejela dovolj dokazov za odločitev o zahtevku za TGO/IO, preveritveni obisk ni potreben in ga ni mogoče zahtevati.
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation for the Commission to request the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim.
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 subjektivna pravica ter da se združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev ne moreta sklicevati na kršitev subjektivne pravice drugih družb.
The Commission may base its assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Komisija nasprotuje navedbi, da je njena praksa, da se obsežna izmenjava informacij in podrobna dopolnitev opravita le, kadar se opravi zgolj teoretična analiza, in ne, kadar se opravita teoretična analiza in preverjanje na kraju samem.
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.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev dejansko nista mogla dokazati nasprotnega.
All MET/IT applications are subject to a desk analysis by the Commission.
Tudi pripombe združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev glede diskriminacije je treba zavrniti kot neutemeljene.
In addition, the Commission may decide to carry out on-site inspections.
Opozoriti je treba, da je načelo enake obravnave kršeno, kadar institucije Unije različno obravnavajo primerljive položaje v škodo nekaterih trgovcev v primerjavi z drugimi, ne da bi bila ta razlika v obravnavi upravičena z obstojem pomembnih objektivnih razlik.
On-site inspections are, however, not required, nor are they carried out for every application for MET/IT.
Vendar ravno tega Komisija ne počne, saj s tem, ko od nevzorčenih kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov zahteva, naj vložijo zahtevke za TGO/IO za ponovno oceno, namerava te prej nevzorčene proizvajalce izvoznike izenačiti s tistimi, ki so bili vzorčeni v prvotni preiskavi.
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.
Poleg tega, 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 ščiti njihova pravica do obrambe, ni diskriminacije.
In other words, if the evidence submitted by the exporting producer clearly shows that MET/IT is not warranted, the additional and optional step of on-site inspections would typically not be organised.
Kar zadeva člen 18(1) osnovne uredbe, je Komisija v obravnavani zadevi sprejela informacije, ki so jih predložili zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki, teh informacij torej ni zavrnila, pač pa je na njih temeljila njena ocena.
It is for the Commission to assess whether a verification visit is appropriate.
Komisija zato ni uporabila člena 18.
The discretion to decide on the means of verifying the information in an MET/IT form lies with that institution.
Iz tega sledi, da ni treba slediti postopku iz člena 18(4) 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) 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 subjective rights, and that FESI and the Footwear Coalition cannot rely on a violation of a subjective right of other companies.
Pravna podlaga za ponovno uvedbo preiskave
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.
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.
Indeed, FESI and the Footwear Coalition have not been able to provide evidence to the contrary.
Hkrati sta ponovno poudarila, da člen 266 PDEU ne dovoljuje retroaktivne uvedbe protidampinških dajatev, kar bi bilo potrjeno tudi s sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-458/98P, IPS proti Svetu.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition's comments on discrimination must equally be rejected as unfounded.
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.
It is recalled 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.
Komisija je v ta namen 16. marca 2011 objavila obvestilo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije v zvezi z iztekom dajatev („obvestilo o izteku“), industrija Unije pa ni trdila, da se damping nadaljuje, in tudi sodba Sodišča Evropske unije ni razveljavila obvestila o izteku.
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 re-assessment, it intends to bring these formerly non-sampled exporting producers on the same footing as those who were sampled in the initial investigation.
Poleg tega sta isti strani trdili, da tudi v osnovni uredbi ni nobenih razlogov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko Komisija ponovno uvedla protidampinško preiskavo.
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 re-assemble) the information needed while at the same time safeguarding their rights of defence, no discrimination occurs.
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.
Regarding Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, in the current case, the Commission accepted the information provided by the exporting producers concerned, it did not reject this information and based its assessment on it.
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.
Therefore, the Commission did not apply Article 18.
Člen 266 PDEU ne omogoča odstopanja od tega načela.
It follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Poleg tega sta trdili, da Komisija ni zagotovila obrazložitve ali predhodne sodne prakse, ki bi podprla uporabo člena 266 PDEU kot pravne podlage za ponovno uvedbo postopka.
The procedure under Article 18(4) is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
Zaradi odsotnosti 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, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
Legal basis of re-opening of the investigation
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).
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 utemeljenih pričakovanj, saj v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča utemeljena pričakovanja lahko nastanejo le, če institucije zagotovijo natančna zagotovila, na podlagi katerih bi lahko zainteresirana stran zakonito sklepala, da bodo institucije Unije ravnale na določen način.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also reiterated that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for the imposition of anti-dumping duties retroactively, which would also be confirmed by the ruling of the Court of Justice in case C-458/98P IPS v Council.
Niti združenje FESI niti koalicija za obutev nista poskušala dokazati, da so bila v tem primeru dana taka zagotovila.