natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Insofar as it concerns the alleged discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation which were not made subject of any duty following Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, it should be noted that the decision of the Council not to re-impose duties was clearly taken with regard to the particular circumstances of the specific situation as it stood at the time the Commission made its proposal for the re-imposition of those duties and in particular on the grounds that the anti-dumping duties concerned had already been reimbursed, and to the extent that the original communication of the debt to the debtor in question had been withdrawn following the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang.
Ob upoštevanju sklicevanja iz člena 3 Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014 na „postopke za sprejetje ukrepov“, ki določa prehodna pravila za spremembo postopkov odločanja za sprejetje protidampinških ukrepov, in ob upoštevanju pomena izraza „postopek“ v osnovni uredbi za preiskavo, ki se je začela pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014, v kateri Komisija ni začela posvetovanja z ustreznim odborom, da bi sprejela ukrepe pred navedenim začetkom veljavnosti, nova pravila veljajo za postopek za sprejetje navedenih protidampinških ukrepov.
According to the Council, this reimbursement had created legitimate expectations on the part of the importers concerned.
To velja tudi za postopke, v katerih so bili ukrepi uvedeni na podlagi starih pravil in so na vrsti za pregled, 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.
Since no comparable reimbursement took place for other importers, these are not in a comparable situation to those importers concerned by the Council decision.
Povedano drugače, Uredba (EU) št. 37/2014 se uporablja za poseben „postopek za sprejetje“ in ne za celotno obdobje zadevne preiskave ali celo postopka.
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.
Zato je bilo pravilno, da se je uporabil postopek odločanja, ki se je uvedel z uredbo omnibus I.
Commission's competence to impose definitive anti-dumping measures
Kar zadeva družbo Cortina, je ta najprej trdila, da Komisija nima pravne podlage za preučitev zahtevkov za TGO/IO, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki v prvotni preiskavi.
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 Cortina je trdila, 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.
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 than the ones at the time of the original investigation, where definitive measures were adopted by the Council.
Komisija se v odgovor na to pripombo sklicuje na razlago v uvodnih izjavah 104 in 105.
These parties argued that in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (also called ‘Omnibus I Regulation’) 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 Regulation (EC) No 384/96 were initiated and concluded; and (iii) the Commission had already adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation adopting definitive measures.
Družba Cortina je trdila, da sedanji postopek krši načeli neretroaktivnosti in pravne varnosti ter člen 10 osnovne uredbe.
On this basis, these parties concluded that the decision making procedures prior to the entry in force of the Omnibus I Regulation should apply.
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 začasni ukrepi in dokončne protidampinške dajatve uporabijo samo za izdelke, ki vstopajo v prosti promet od trenutka, ko prične veljati odločitev, sprejeta v skladu s členom 7(1) ali členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe, kar je odvisno od konkretne zadeve.
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).
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.
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.
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, kakor tudi iz odstopanja, ki ga določa člen 10(4) osnovne uredbe.
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 said anti-dumping measures.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da v obravnavanem primeru ni prisotna niti kršitev načela retroaktivnosti niti kršitev pravne varnosti in utemeljenih pričakovanj.
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.
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).
In other words, Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 applies to a specific ‘procedure for adoption’ and not to the entire period of a given investigation or even proceeding.
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.
Accordingly, the decision-making procedure introduced by the Omnibus I Regulation was the correct one to apply.
Hkrati so bili uvozniki obutve z objavo obvestila o začetku postopka in začasne uredbe opozorjeni glede morebitne uvedbe takšne dajatve.
With regard to Cortina, it first claimed that the Commission has no legal basis to investigate the MET/IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the original investigation.
Ustaljena sodna praksa sodišč Unije je, da gospodarski subjekti ne morejo imeti utemeljenih pričakovanj, dokler instituciji nista sprejeli akta, s katerim se zaključi upravni postopek, ki je postal dokončen.
Cortina argued that the proceeding, which was closed by the expiry of the measures on 31 March 2011, was not invalidated by the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, and that therefore, it cannot be re-opened.
Ta uredba pomeni neposredno uporabo za bodoče učinke položaja, ki je v teku: Nacionalni carinski organi so pobrali dajatve na obutev.
In reply to this comment, the Commission refers to the explanation provided in recitals (104) and (105) above.
Zaradi zahtevkov za povračilo, o katerih še ni bilo dokončno odločeno, ti pomenijo položaj, ki je v teku.
Second, Cortina claimed that the current proceeding is in breach of the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty enshrined in Article 10 of the basic Regulation.
Ta uredba določa stopnjo dajatve, ki se uporablja za navedeni uvoz, s čimer ureja bodoče učinke položaja, ki je v teku.
As to the claim concerning retroactivity based on Article 10 of the basic Regulation and Article 10 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘WTO ADA’), Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, which follows the text of Article 10(1) of the WTO ADA, stipulates that provisional measures and definitive anti-dumping duties shall only be applied to products which enter free circulation after the time when the decision taken pursuant to Article 7(1) or 9(4) of the basic Regulation, as the case may be, enters into force.
V vsakem primeru, tudi če bi šlo za retroaktivnost v smislu prava Unije, quod non, bi bila ta retroaktivnost upravičena iz naslednjih razlogov:
Retroactivity in the sense of Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, however, refers only to a situation where the goods were introduced into free circulation before measures were introduced, as can be seen from the very text of that provision as well as from the exception for which Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation provides.
Zlasti v zadevi Società agricola fattoria alimentare (SAFA), C-337/88, je Sodišče menilo, da: „[č]eprav načelo pravne varnosti praviloma nasprotuje temu, da bi akt Skupnosti začel veljati pred objavo, je lahko izjemoma drugače, če to zahteva cilj, ki ga je treba doseči, in če se ustrezno upoštevajo upravičena pričakovanja zainteresiranih oseb“.
The Commission also observes that there is neither violation of the principle of retroactivity, nor violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.
V tej zadevi je namen zagotoviti skladnost z obveznostjo Komisije v skladu s členom 266 PDEU.
As to retroactivity, the case-law of the Court distinguishes, when assessing whether a measure is retroactive, between the application of a new rule to a situation that has become definitive (also referred to as an existing or definitively established legal situation), and a situation that started before the entry into force of the new rule, but which is not yet definitive (also referred to as a temporary situation).
Ker je Sodišče v sodbah iz uvodne izjave 12 ugotovilo nezakonitost samo glede določanja veljavne stopnje dajatve in ne glede uvedbe ukrepov (tj. glede ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi, vzročni zvezi in interesu Unije), zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki niso mogli utemeljeno pričakovati, da dokončni protidampinški ukrepi ne bodo uvedeni.
In the present case, the situation of the imports of the products concerned that occurred during the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 has not yet become definitive, because, as a result of the annulment of the contested Regulation, the anti-dumping duty applicable to them has not yet been definitively established.
Zato za uvedbo, tudi če bi bila retroaktivna, quod non, ni mogoče trditi, da krši utemeljena pričakovanja.
At the same time, importers of footwear were warned that such a duty may be imposed by the publication of the Notice of Initiation and the provisional Regulation.
Družba Cortina je trdila tudi, da izjava Komisije iz uvodne izjave 46, da je Sodišče izpodbijano uredbo in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični, in sicer glede izvoza določene obutve določenih kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ni pravilna, saj sodba v zadevah C-659/13 in C-34/14 Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1294/2009 ni razglasila za nični v zvezi z 19 zadevnimi proizvajalci izvozniki, temveč je uredbi razglasila za nični z učinkom erga omnes.
It is standing case-law of the Union Courts that operators cannot acquire legitimate expectations until the institutions have adopted an act closing the administrative procedure, which has become definitive.
Po mnenju družbe Cortina bi v primeru, če bi Komisija ponovno uvedla protidampinško dajatev samo na uvoz 19 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov in ne na uvoz drugih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, na katere enako vpliva sodba Sodišča v združenih zadevah C & J Clark International Limited in Puma SE, C-659/13 in C-34/14, to pomenilo neupravičeno diskriminacijo v razmerju do uvoza teh drugih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, kar bi bilo tudi v nasprotju s členom 266 PDEU.
This Regulation constitutes immediate application to the future effects of a situation that is ongoing: The duties on footwear have been levied by national customs authorities.
V zvezi s trditvijo diskriminacijske obravnave v razmerju do uvoza drugih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, na katere vpliva sodba Sodišča v združenih zadevah C & J Clark International Limited in Puma SE, C-659/13 in C-34/14, Komisija ugotavlja, da imajo proizvajalci izvozniki in nekateri uvozniki, ki jih zadeva ta uredba, pravico do sodnega varstva pred sodišči Unije zoper to uredbo.
As a result of the requests for reimbursement, which have not been decided in a definitive way, they constitute an ongoing situation.
Drugi uvozniki uživajo tako varstvo prek nacionalnih sodišč, ki delujejo kot sodniki na področju splošnega prava Unije.
This Regulation sets out the duty rate applicable to those imports, and hence regulates the future effects of an ongoing situation.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 21, je Komisija v zvezi z izvajanjem sodbe v združenih zadevah C-659/13 in C-34/14, C & J Clark International Limited in Puma SE, sprejela Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/223.
In any event, even if there was retroactivity in the sense of Union law, quod non, such retroactivity would be justified, for the following reason:
V členu 1 navedene uredbe je Komisija nacionalnim carinskim organom naročila, naj ji pošljejo vse zahtevke za povračilo dokončnih protidampinških dajatev, plačanih za uvoz obutve s poreklom iz Kitajske in Vietnama, ki so jih vložili uvozniki na podlagi člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti in ki temeljijo na dejstvu, da je nevzorčeni proizvajalec izvoznik v prvotni preiskavi zahteval TGO ali IO.
The substantive rules of Union law may apply to situations existing before their entry into force in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such effect must be given to them.
Komisija bo ocenila zadevni zahtevek za TGO ali IO in ponovno uvedla ustrezno stopnjo dajatve.
In particular, in case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimantare (SAFA) it was held that: ‘[A]lthough in general the principle of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected’.
Na podlagi tega bodo nacionalni carinski organi naknadno sprejeli odločitev glede zahtevka za povračilo in odpust protidampinških dajatev.
In the present case, the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU.
Zato bo Komisija za ves uvoz obutve, kjer bodo izpolnjena zgoraj navedena merila, preučila zahtevke za TGO in IO ter ponovno uvedla protidampinške dajatve na podlagi objektivnih meril, določenih v členih 2(7)(b) in 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo.
Since, in the judgments referred to in recital (12) above, the Court only found an illegality with regard to the determination of the applicable duty rate, and not with regard to the imposition of the measures themselves (that is, with regard to the finding of dumping, injury, causation and Union interest), the exporting producers concerned could not have legitimately expected that no definitive anti-dumping measures would be imposed.
Zato se bodo vsi ostali nevzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama ter njihovi uvozniki obravnavali na isti način v poznejši fazi v skladu s postopkom, določenim v Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) 2016/223.
Consequently, that imposition, even if it was retroactive, quod non, cannot be construed as breaching legitimate expectations.
Ocena zahtevka za TGO in IO se ne bo izvedla samo, če ne obstajajo nerešeni nacionalni postopki, saj to ne bi imelo praktičnega smisla.
Third, Cortina claimed that the Commission's statement in recital (46) that the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to exports of certain footwear from certain Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers is incorrect, insofar as judgment in cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 did not annul Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to the 19 exporting producers concerned, but it had annulled these regulations with erga omnes effect.
Družba Cortina je trdila tudi, da bi bila ponovna uvedba protidampinških dajatev za 19 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov diskriminatorna, saj po sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang protidampinška dajatev ni bila ponovno uvedena.
According to Cortina, if the Commission were to re-impose an anti-dumping duty only on imports from the 19 exporting producers concerned, and not on imports from other exporting producers equally affected by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, it would constitute unjustifiable discrimination vis-à-vis imports of these other exporting producers, and it would also be in breach of Article 266 TFEU.
Ta trditev je neutemeljena.
Regarding the claim of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis imports of other exporting producers affected by the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, the Commission observes that exporting producers and certain importers concerned by this Regulation enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts against it.
Uvozniki, ki uvažajo od družbe Brosman in ostalih štirih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadevata sodbi v zadevah C-247/10 P in C-249/10 P, 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.
Other importers enjoy such protection via the national courts and tribunals, which act as judges of ordinary Union law.
Do izpodbijanja in povrnitve dajatev pri drugih ni prišlo.
As mentioned in recital (21), in view of the implementation of the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited and Puma SE, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223.
V zvezi s tem glej tudi uvodne izjave od 118 do 122.
In Article 1 of that regulation the Commission instructed national customs authorities to forward all requests for reimbursement of the definitive anti-dumping duties paid on imports of footwear originating in China and Vietnam made by importers based on Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and based on the fact that a non-sampled exporting producer had requested MET or IT in the original investigation.
Družba Cortina je trdila tudi, da je v okviru te preiskave prišlo do več postopkovnih nepravilnosti.
The Commission will assess the relevant MET or IT claim and re-impose the appropriate duty rate.
Najprej je trdila, da zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki morebiti ne morejo več podati smiselnih pripomb ali predložiti dodatnih dokazov, ki bi podprli njihove zahtevke za TGO/IO izpred več let.
Therefore, for all imports of footwear where the above criteria are fulfilled the Commission will examine the MET and IT claims and anti-dumping duties will be re-imposed based on the objective criteria laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
Poleg tega je družba Cortina trdila, da bi v nasprotju s prvotno preiskavo ukrepi Komisije de facto in de jure vplivali le na uvoznike, saj ti ne morejo zagotoviti relevantnih informacij in od svojih dobaviteljev zahtevati, naj sodelujejo s Komisijo.
Therefore, 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 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223.
Komisija ugotavlja, da nobena določba osnovne uredbe od Komisije ne zahteva, da izvoznim družbam, ki zahtevajo TGO/IO, omogoči dopolnitev manjkajočih stvarnih informacij.
It is only where there are no outstanding national procedures that no assessment of the MET and IT claims will be carried out, as it would serve no practical purpose.
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.
Fourth, Cortina claimed that it would be discriminatory to re-impose an anti-dumping duty on the 19 exporting producers concerned, given that no anti-dumping duty was re-imposed following the Brosmann and Aokang judgments.
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 44).
This claim is unfounded.
Pravica do zaslišanja se nanaša na presojo dejstev, vendar ne vključuje pravice do dopolnitve pomanjkljivih informacij.
Importers that have imported from Brosmann and the other four exporting producers concerned by the judgments in cases C-247/10 P and C-249/10 P, 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.
V nasprotnem primeru bi proizvajalec izvoznik oceno lahko neomejeno podaljševal z zagotavljanjem informacij po kosih.
No such challenge and no such reimbursement have taken place for others.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da Komisiji od proizvajalca izvoznika ni treba zahtevati, naj dopolni zahtevek za TGO/IO.
See, in this regard, also recitals (118) to (122) above.
Kot je navedeno v predhodni uvodni izjavi, lahko Komisija svojo oceno utemelji na podlagi informacij, ki jih je proizvajalec izvoznik že predložil.
Fifth, Cortina alleged that there were several procedural irregularities resulting from this investigation.
V vsakem primeru zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki niso izpodbijali ocene svojih zahtevkov za TGO/IO, ki jih je sprejela Komisija, prav tako pa niso navedli, na katere dokumente ali osebe se ne morejo več sklicevati.
In the first place, they argued that the exporting producers concerned may no longer be in a position to provide meaningful comments or adduce additional evidence to support their MET/IT claims that they made several years ago.
Ta trditev je zato tako abstraktna, da instituciji teh težav pri ocenjevanju zahtevkov za TGO/IO ne moreta upoštevati.
For example, the companies may no longer exist or relevant documents may no longer be available.
Ker navedena trditev temelji na domnevah in ni podprta z natančnimi navedbami o tem, kateri dokumenti in osebe niso več na voljo ter kakšen pomen imajo ti dokumenti in ljudje za oceno zahtevka za TGO/IO, se trditev zavrne.