natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the Commission considers that such treatment would be difficult to reconcile with its obligation to implement the judgments.
Uvozniki, ki uvažajo izdelke družbe Brosmann 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 plačane dajatve povrnjene, tako da so zaščiteni s členom 221(3) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti.
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.
Do izpodbijanja in povrnitve dajatev pri drugih ni prišlo.
By analogy, that derogation could be said to apply in the present case.
Komisija je začela s pripravo izvajanja za kitajske in vietnamske 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 sedanji uredbi.
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.
FESI je prav tako trdil, 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.
Third, with regard to Comitology, Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council [35] 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.
V zvezi s tem je FESI trdil, 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.
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 Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.
Zadevne strani so nadalje trdile, da člen 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti ne more biti predmet člena 14 osnovne uredbe, prav tako pa ne more biti subsidiaren glede na ta člen, ker oba predstavljata sekundarno zakonodajo in zato noben ne nadomesti drugega.
Regarding the retro-active imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties reference is made to the considerations outlined above in recitals (67) to (75) where these claims were already addressed extensively.
Poleg tega se področje uporabe člena 14 osnovne uredbe nanaša na posebne določbe, ki zajemajo preiskave in postopke v okviru osnovne uredbe, in se ne nanaša na noben drug pravni instrument, na primer carinski zakonik Skupnosti.
Regarding the claim on 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.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se carinski zakonik Skupnosti na uvedbo protidampinških dajatev ne nanaša samodejno, ampak zgolj na podlagi sklicevanja nanj v uredbi o uvedbi protidampinških dajatev.
Other importers enjoy such protection via the national courts and tribunals, which act as judges of ordinary Union law.
V skladu s členom 14 osnovne uredbe se lahko Komisija odloči, da ne bo uporabljala nekaterih določb tega zakonika in namesto tega oblikuje posebna pravila.
The claim of discrimination is equally unfounded.
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.
Importers that have imported from Brosmann 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 had the paid duties reimbursed, so that they are protected by Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code.
Zato se tudi ta trditev zavrne.
No such challenge, and no such reimbursement have taken place for others.
Ustrezna obrazložitev
The Commission started to prepare implemenation for the Chinese and Vietnamese 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.
FESI nadalje trdi, 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.
FESI 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.
Domnevna odsotnost ustrezne obrazložitve zadeva zlasti (i) odsotnost pravne osnove za ponovni začetek preiskave in odsotnost objave ustreznega obvestila, ki napoveduje takšen ponovni začetek; (ii) zgolj delno izvrševanje sodbe Splošnega sodišča, tj. ocenjeni so bili le zahtevki za TGO/IO, ki so jih predložili tisti proizvajalci izvozniki, za katere so uvozniki vložili zahtevke za povračilo; (iii) odstopanje od načela prepovedi retroaktivnosti protidampinških dajatev; (iv) uporaba osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, na dan 6. septembra 2012 za ocenjevanje zahtevkov proizvajalcev izvoznikov za IO 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) odsotnost odziva na pravne argumente, ki so jih predložile te strani po razkritju Komisije v zvezi z oceno zahtevkov zadevnih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov za TGO, predloženih dne 15. decembra 2015.
In this context FESI argued that the application of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code falls within the exclusive competence of the national customs authorities under which the latter are obliged to reimburse duties paid that were not legally owed.
Kar zadeva odsotnost kakršne koli pravne podlage za ponovni začetek preiskave, Komisija opozarja na sodno prakso, navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15 zgoraj, v skladu s katero lahko obnovi preiskavo v točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
The parties concerned further argued that Article 236 of the Community Customs Code cannot be made subject to or subsidiary to Article 14 of the basic Regulation because both are secondary legislation and therefore none supersedes the other.
To je bilo po začetku postopka.
In addition, the scope of Article 14 of the basic Regulation concerns special provisions that cover investigations and procedures under the basic Regulation and is not applicable to any other legal instrument such as the Community Customs Code.
Komisija ni pravno zavezana objaviti obvestila o ponovnem začetku, obnovi ali nadaljevanju postopka ali preiskave.
The Commission observes that the Community Customs Code does not apply automatically to the imposition of anti-dumping duties, but only by virtue of a reference in the Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties.
Nasprotno, tak je samodejni učinek sodbe, ki jo morata instituciji nato izvajati.
Pursuant to Article 14 of the basic Regulation, the Commission may decide not to apply certain provisions of that Code, and instead create special rules.
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 takšna praksa ne obstaja) [36].
Because the Community Customs Code only applies on the basis of a reference in the Council and Commission Implementing Regulations, it does not have, vis-à-vis Article 14 of the basic Regulation, the same rank in the hierarchy of norms, but is subordinated and may be rendered inapplicable or applicable in a different manner.
Zato dejstvo, da je Komisija v preteklosti v nekaterih primerih morebiti ravnala drugače ne more ustvariti legitimnih pričakovanj.
Therefore, this argument is also rejected.
To še toliko bolj velja, ker navedena prejšnja praksa ne ustreza dejanskemu in pravnemu položaju obravnavane zadeve, razlike pa je mogoče pripisati dejanskim in pravnim razlikam v primerjavi z obravnavano zadevo.
Adequate statement of reasons
Te 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 naložitve dajatve, temveč le na določeno stopnjo dajatve.
FESI further 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 re-imposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation.
Prejšnje razglasitve ničnosti, na katere so se sklicevale zainteresirane strani, pa so se nasprotno nanašale na ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi in interesu Unije.
The alleged lack of adequate reasoning concerned in particular (i) the lack of legal basis for the re-opening of the investigation and the lack of publishing a relevant notice announcing such re-opening; (ii) the only partial implementation of the judgment of the General Court by merely assessing MET/IT claims of those exporting producers where reimbursement claims had been filed by the importers; (iii) the derogation from the principle of non-retroactivity of anti-dumping duties; (iv) the application of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment on 6 September 2012 for the assessment of the exporting producers' IT claims on the one hand and the current basic Regulation as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 with regard to the applicable decision making procedures and (v) the lack of response to the legal arguments provided by these parties following the disclosure of the Commission concerning the assessment of the MET claims of the Chinese exporting producers concerned of 15 December 2015.
Po mnenju institucij je bilo zato primerneje, da se sprejmejo novi ukrepi za prihodnost.
Concerning the lack of any legal basis to re-open 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.
Zlasti v obravnavani zadevi ni bilo potrebno pridobiti dodatnih informacij od zainteresiranih strani.
That was after initiation.
Komisija je morala namesto tega oceniti informacije, ki so bile vložene pri njej, vendar niso bile ocenjene pred sprejetjem Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006.
There is no legal obligation for the Commission to publish a notice to re-initiate, to resume or to re-open the proceeding or the investigation.
V vsakem primeru prejšnje prakse v drugih zadevah ne predstavljajo natančnega in brezpogojnega zagotovila za obravnavano zadevo.
Rather, such is the automatic effect of the judgment which the Institutions then have to implement.
Vse strani, na katere se nanaša postopek, tj. zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki in zadevne 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.
According to the case-law, 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).
S tem so njihove pravice do obrambe zaščitene.
Hence, the fact that the Commission may have followed in the past in certain cases a different practice cannot create legitimate expectations.
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 [37].
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 differences can be explained by factual and legal differences with the present case.
Pri delnem izvrševanju sodb se poraja vprašanje, ali morata instituciji izvrševati sodbo in v kolikšnem obsegu, kar je odvisno od konkretne vsebine sodbe.
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.
Ali je mogoče potrditi uvedbo dajatev na uvoz, do katerega je prišlo pred sodbo, je zlasti odvisno od tega, ali je zaradi nezakonitosti, ugotovljene v sodbi, prizadeta ugotovitev škodljivega dampinga ali le izračun natančne stopnje dajatve.
The previous annulments relied on by the interested parties, on the contrary, concerned the findings on dumping, injury and Union interest.
V slednjem primeru, za kar gre tudi pri obravnavani zadevi, ni razloga za povračilo vseh dajatev.
The Institutions therefore considered it more appropriate to adopt new measures for the future.
Nasprotno, zadostuje, da se določi pravilna stopnja dajatve in povrne morebitna razlika (vendar pa stopnje dajatve ne bi bilo mogoče povečati, ker bi povečanje pomenilo retroaktivno uvedbo).
In particular, in the present case, there was no need whatsoever to seek additional information from interested parties.
Prejšnje razglasitve ničnosti, na katere so se sklicevale zainteresirane strani, so se nanašale na ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi in interesu Unije (in sicer v zvezi z ugotavljanjem dejstev, presojo dejstev ali pravico do obrambe).
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.
(Nižja) dajatev ostaja v veljavi za čas pred razglasitvijo ničnosti in čas po razglasitvi ničnosti [38].
Hence, their rights of defence are safeguarded.
Da bi instituciji ravnali skladno s sodbo, ponovno izračunata stopnjo dajatve in ustrezno spremenita uredbo o uvedbi dajatve za nazaj in za naprej.
In that regard, it is to be noted in particular that unrelated importers do not enjoy, in an antidumping proceeding, rights of defence, as those proceedings are not directed against them.
Poleg tega nacionalnim carinskim organom naročita, naj povrnejo razliko pri tistih zahtevkih, ki so bili vloženi v ustreznem roku [39].
[37]
Sodišča Unije razglasijo popolno ničnost, kadar na podlagi dejstev iz spisa sama ne morejo ugotoviti, ali sta instituciji upravičeno izhajali iz tega, da je prišlo do dampinga, škode in interesa Unije, ker sta instituciji morali ponovno opraviti del svoje preiskave.
Regarding the partial implementation of the judgments, the question whether and to what extent the Institutions have to implement a judgment depends on the concrete content of the judgment.
Ker sodišča Unije niso pristojna za izvedbo preiskave namesto Komisije, so uredbe o uvedbi dokončnih dajatev razglasila za nične v celoti.
In particular, whether or not it is possible to confirm the imposition of duties on imports that took place prior to the judgment depends on whether the finding of injurious dumping as such, or only the calculation of the precise duty rate are affected by the illegality identified in the judgment.
Zato sta instituciji ustrezno dokazali prisotnost treh pogojev, potrebnih za uvedbo ukrepov, šele po sodbi o razglasitvi ničnosti dajatev.
In the latter situation, which is pertinent here, there is no justification for reimbursing all duties.
Za uvoz, ki je bil opravljen pred ustrezno ugotovitvijo dampinga, škode in interesa Unije, je uvedba dokončnih dajatev prepovedana tako z osnovno uredbo kot tudi s Protidampinškim sporazumom STO.
Rather, it suffices to determine the correct duty rate, and to reimburse any possible difference (whereas it would not be possible to increase the duty rate, as the increased part would constitute retroactive imposition).
Zato so akti, ki sta jih instituciji sprejeli za zaključitev navedenih preiskav, uvedli dokončne dajatve le za prihodnost [40].
Past annulments to which interested parties refer have concerned the finding of dumping, injury and Union interest (either with regard to the establishment of facts, with regard to the assessment of the facts, or with regard to rights of defence).
Morebitna prilagoditev pa je možna le navzdol.
Those annulments have either been partial or complete.
V nasprotju s preteklimi primeri razglasitve delne ničnosti, obravnavanimi v zgoraj navedeni uvodni izjavi 113, sodišče ni moglo odločiti, ali je treba določiti novo (znižano) stopnjo dajatve, saj je za tako odločitev najprej potrebna ocena zahtevka za TGO/IO.
The Union Courts use the technique of partial annulment where they can conclude themselves on the basis of the facts in the file that the Institutions ought to have granted a certain adjustment or should have used a different method for a certain calculation, which would have resulted in the imposition of a lower duty (but did not put into question the findings of dumping, injury and Union interest).
Ocenjevanje zahtevka za TGO/IO spada v pristojnost Komisije.
The (lower) duty remains in force both for the time prior to annulment and for the time after annulment [38].
Zato Sodišče tega dela preiskave ne more opraviti namesto Komisije, saj bi s tem prekoračilo svoje pristojnosti.
In order to comply with the judgment, the Institutions re-calculate the duty and amend the Regulation imposing the duty accordingly for the past and for the future.
V nasprotju s preteklimi primeri razglasitve popolne ničnosti ugotovitve glede dampinga, škode, vzročnosti in interesa Unije niso bile razglašene za nične.
They also instruct national customs authorities to reimburse the difference, where such claims had been made in due time [39].
Zato je bil obstoj dampinga, škode, vzročnosti in interesa Unije ustrezno ugotovljen ob sprejetju Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006.
The Union Courts proceed to complete annulment where they cannot establish themselves on the basis of the facts in the file whether or not the Institutions were right in assuming that there was dumping, injury and Union interest, because the Institutions had to re-do part of their investigation.
Zato ni nobenega razloga, da se ponovna uvedba dokončnih protidampinških dajatev omeji na prihodnost.
As the Union Courts are not competent for carrying out the investigation at the place of the Commission, they annulled the Regulations imposing definitive duties completely.
Obravnavana uredba se torej v nobenem primeru ne oddalji od prakse odločanja institucij, tudi če bi bila ta relevantna.
As a consequence, the Institutions validly established the presence of the three conditions necessary for the imposition of measures only after the judgment annulling the duties.
Zainteresirane strani so poleg tega trdile, da razglasitev ničnosti protidampinških dajatev ne bi zajemala morebitne neupravičene obogatitve uvoznikov, kot trdi Komisija, saj so ti uvozniki morebiti utrpeli upad prodaje zaradi dajatve, ki je bila vključena v prodajno ceno.
For imports that took place prior to the valid establishment of dumping, injury and Union interest, the imposition of definitive duties is prohibited both by the basic Regulation and by ADA.
V sodni praksi Sodišča je priznano, da se vračilo dajatev, ki so bile neupravičeno zaračunane, lahko zavrne, če bi se prejemniki na tak način neupravičeno obogatili [41].
Therefore, the acts adopted by the Institutions to close those investigations imposed definitive duties only for the future [40].
Komisija ugotavlja, da navedene zainteresirane strani ne izpodbijajo dejstva, da je bila dajatev prenesena, in da niso zagotovile nobenih dokazov za upad prodaje, v vsakem primeru pa sodna praksa na področju neupravičene obogatitve obravnava samo prenos, ne pa tudi morebitnih sekundarnih učinkov prenosa.
The present case is different from past (partial or complete) annulments in so far, as it does not concern the very presence of dumping, injury and Union interest, but merely the choice of the appropriate duty rate.
V zvezi z domnevnim odstopanjem od načela prepovedi retroaktivnosti se sklicuje na uvodne izjave 67 do 75, kjer je bilo to obsežno obravnavano.
What is at dispute is therefore not the very principle of imposing a duty, but only the precise amount (in other words: a modality) of the duty.
V zvezi z domnevno uporabo dveh različnih pravnih okvirov pri trenutnem izvrševanju se sklicuje na uvodne izjave 92 do 95, kjer je bilo to obsežno obravnavano.
And the adjustment, if any, can only be downwards.
Glede pripomb, ki so jih predložile navedene strani po razkritju ocene TGO zadevnih vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, se šteje, da so bile v celoti obravnavane v veljavni uredbi.
Contrary to the cases of partial annulment in the past discussed above in recital (113), the Court has not been able to decide as to whether a new (reduced) duty rate had to be granted, because that decision requires first an assessment of the MET/IT claim.
Druga postopkovna vprašanja
That task of assessing the MET/IT claim falls within the prerogatives of the Commission.
FESI je trdil, da bi morale biti zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom glede trenutnega izvrševanja zagotovljene enake procesne pravice, kot so bile zagotovljene vzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom med prvotno preiskavo.
Hence, the Court cannot carry out this part of the investigation at the place of the Commission without overstepping its competences.
Trdil je, da zlasti vietnamskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom niso bile zagotovljene nobene možnosti, da bi dopolnili obrazce za zahtevke za TGO/IO prek pozivov k dopolnitvam in da je bila opravljena le teoretična analiza, ne pa tudi preveritveni obisk na kraju samem.
Contrary to cases of complete annulment in the past, the findings on dumping, injury, causality and Union interest have not been annulled.
Poleg tega Komisija ni zagotovila ustrezne dostave razkritja ocene zahtevkov zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov za TGO/IO, saj so bili ti poslani le pravnim zastopnikov teh družb v času prvotne preiskave.
Therefore, dumping, injury, causality and Union interest have been validly established at the time of adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
V nadaljevanju je FESI trdil, da proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki jih to izvrševanje zadeva, niso bila zagotovljena enaka postopkovna jamstva kot so tista, ki se uporabljajo v standardnih protidampinških preiskavah, ampak so bili uporabljeni strožji standardi.
Therefore, there is no reason to limit the re-imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties to the future.
Komisija ni upoštevala časovnega zamika med vložitvijo zahtevkov za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi in oceno teh zahtevkov.
The present Regulation does therefore in any event not depart from the decisional practice of the Institutions, even if it was relevant.
Poleg tega je bilo proizvajalcem izvoznikom med prvotno preiskavo na razpolago danih le 15 dni, da vložijo zahtevke za TGO/IO, namesto običajnih 21 dni.
Interested parties also argued that the annulment of anti-dumping duties would not entail any unjust enrichment by the importers, as claimed by the Commission, since these importers may have sufferred a decline in sales due to the duty which had been incorporated in the sales price.
FESI je prav tako trdil, 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, navedenimi v členu 18(4) osnovne uredbe.