natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Hkrati so bili uvozniki obutve z objavo obvestila o začetku postopka in začasne uredbe opozorjeni glede morebitne uvedbe takšne dajatve.
The contested regulation was adopted in 2006.
Ustaljena sodna praksa sodišč Unije je, da gospodarski subjekti ne morejo imeti legitimnih pričakovanj, dokler instituciji nista sprejeli akta, s katerim se zaključi upravni postopek, ki je postal dokončen.
The relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.
Ta uredba pomeni neposredno uporabo za bodoče učinke položaja, ki je v teku: Nacionalni carinski organi so pobrali dajatve na obutev.
Therefore, this claim is rejected.
Zaradi zahtevkov za povračilo, o katerih še ni bilo dokončno odločeno, ti pomenijo položaj, ki je v teku.
With regard to Clarks et al, it is first claimed that the Commission had no legal basis to investigate the MET/IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the original investigation.
Ta uredba določa stopnjo dajatve, ki se uporablja za navedeni uvoz, s čimer ureja bodoče učinke položaja, ki je v teku.
Clarks et al 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 reopened.
V vsakem primeru, tudi če bi šlo za retroaktivnost v smislu prava Unije, quod non, bi bila ta retroaktivnost upravičena iz naslednjih razlogov:
In reply to this comment, the Commission refers to the explanation provided in recitals 99 to 104.
Materialnopravni predpisi Unije se lahko uporabljajo za dejanska stanja, ki so nastala pred začetkom njihove veljavnosti, če iz njihovega besedila, cilja ali strukture jasno izhaja, da se jim lahko prizna tak učinek.
Second, Clarks et al 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.
Zlasti v zadevi Società agricola fattoria alimentare (SAFA), C-337/88, je Sodišče menilo, da: „[č]eprav načelo pravnevarnosti 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“ [44].
In addition, SIEMES, another importer of footwear, similarly, claimed that there would be no legal basis for imposition of anti-dumping duties on a retroactive basis and referred to case law, i.e. Case C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques v Council [43], and to previous practice of the Commission in this regard.
V tej zadevi je namen zagotoviti skladnost z obveznostjo Komisije v skladu s členom 266 PDEU.
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 and definitive anti-dumping duties shall only be applied to products which enter free circulation after the time when the measures taken pursuant to Article 7(1) or 9(4) of the basic Regulation, as the case may be, enter into force.
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 legitimno pričakovati, da dokončni protidampinški ukrepi ne bodo uvedeni.
In the present case, the anti-dumping duties in question are only applied to products which entered into free circulation after the provisional and the contested (definitive) Regulation taken pursuant to 7(1) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation respectively had entered into force.
Zato za uvedbo, tudi če bi bila retroaktivna, quod non, ni mogoče trditi, da krši legitimna pričakovanja.
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.
Družbe Clarks in druge družbe so trdile tudi, da bi bila ponovna uvedba protidampinških dajatev za 70 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov diskriminatorna in v nasprotju s členom 266 PDEU, saj po sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang protidampinška dajatev ni bila ponovno uvedena.
The Commission also observes that there is neither a violation of the principle of retroactivity, nor a violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.
Ta trditev je neutemeljena.
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).
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.
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.
Do izpodbijanja in povrnitve dajatev pri drugih ni prišlo.
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.
V zvezi s tem glej tudi uvodne izjave 118 do 122.
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 became definitive.
Družba Clarks in druge družbe so trdile tudi, da je v okviru te preiskave prišlo do več postopkovnih nepravilnosti.
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.
Najprej so trdile, 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.
As a result of the requests for reimbursement, which have not been decided in a definitive way, they constitute an ongoing situation.
Na primer, družbe morda ne obstajajo več ali pa ustrezni dokumenti niso več na voljo.
This Regulation sets out the duty rate applicable to those imports, and hence regulates the future effects of an ongoing situation.
Poleg tega so družba Clarks in druge družbe trdile, 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.
In any event, even if there were retroactivity in the sense of Union law, quod non, such retroactivity would be justified, for the following reason:
Komisija ugotavlja, da nobena določba osnovne uredbe od Komisije ne zahteva, da izvoznim družbam, ki zahtevajo TGO/IO, omogoči dopolnitev manjkajočih stvarnih informacij.
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.
Dokazno breme je namreč dejansko na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 88.
In particular, in case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimantare (SAFA), it was held that: ‘[A]lthough in general theprinciple 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’ [44].
Pravica do zaslišanja se nanaša na presojo dejstev, vendar ne vključuje pravice do dopolnitve pomanjkljivih informacij.
In the present case, the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU.
V nasprotnem primeru bi proizvajalec izvoznik oceno lahko neomejeno podaljševal z zagotavljanjem informacij po kosih.
Since, in the judgments referred to in recital 12, 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.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da Komisiji od proizvajalca izvoznika ni treba zahtevati, naj dopolni zahtevek za TGO/IO.
Consequently, that imposition, even if it was retroactive, quod non, cannot be construed as breaching legitimate expectations.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 84, lahko Komisija svojo oceno utemelji na podlagi informacij, ki jih je proizvajalec izvoznik že predložil.
Third, Clarks et al claimed that it would be discriminatory and in breach of Article 266 TFEU to reimpose an anti-dumping duty on the seventy exporting producers concerned, given that no anti-dumping duty was reimposed following the Brosmann and Aokang judgments.
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.
This claim is unfounded.
Ta trditev je zato tako abstraktna, da instituciji teh težav pri ocenjevanju zahtevkov za TGO/IO ne moreta upoštevati.
Importers that have imported from Brosman 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.
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.
No such challenge and no such reimbursement have taken place for others.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da uvozniki ne morejo zagotoviti relevantnih informacij, Komisija ugotavlja naslednje: prvič, uvozniki nimajo pravice do obrambe, saj protidampinški ukrep ni usmerjen zoper njih, temveč zoper proizvajalce izvoznike.
See, in this regard, also recitals 118 to 122.
Poleg tega so imeli uvozniki možnost, da pripombe v zvezi s tem predložijo že v upravnem postopku pred sprejetjem izpodbijane uredbe.
Fourth, Clarks et al alleged that there were several procedural irregularities resulting from this investigation.
Če so uvozniki menili, da je v zvezi s tem prišlo do nepravilnosti, bi s svojimi dobavitelji morali sprejeti potrebne pogodbene dogovore, da bi zagotovili razpolaganje s potrebno dokumentacijo.
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.
Zato je treba to trditev zavrniti.
For example, the companies may no longer exist or relevant documents may no longer be available.
Družba Clarks in druge družbe so trdile tudi, da Komisija ni preučila, ali bi bila uvedba protidampinških dajatev v interesu Unije, ter da bi bili ukrepi v nasprotju z interesom Unije, saj (i) so ukrepi že imeli želeni učinek, ko so bili prvič uvedeni, (ii) ukrepi ne bi prinesli nobene dodatne koristi za industrijo Unije, (iii) ukrepi ne bi vplivali na proizvajalce izvoznike in (iv) ukrepi bi pomenili pomemben strošek za uvoznike v Uniji.
In addition, Clarks et al argued that unlike during the original investigation, the Commission's measures would de facto and de jure affect only importers, whereas they have no means of providing any meaningful input and cannot require their suppliers to cooperate with the Commission.
V obravnavanem primeru gre le za zahtevke za TGO/IO, saj je to edina točka, na kateri je bila storjena pravna napaka, ugotovljena s strani sodišč Unije.
The Commission observes that nothing in the basic Regulation requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET/IT the possibility to complete lacking factual information.
V interesu Unije ostaja ocena iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006 v celoti veljavna.
In fact, and as set out in recital 88 the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Hkrati je ta ukrep upravičen z namenom zaščite finančnega interesa Unije.
The right to be heard concerns the assessment of those facts, but does not comprise the right to remedy deficient information.
Družba Clarks in druge družbe so trdile tudi, da protidampinške dajatve, če bi se ponovno uvedla, ne bi bilo več mogoče pobirati, saj je zastaralni rok iz člena 221(3) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti (zdaj člena 103(1) carinskega zakonika Unije) potekel.
Otherwise, the exporting producer could prolong indefinitely the assessment, by providing information piece by piece.
Po njihovem mnenju bi to stanje pomenilo zlorabo pooblastil s strani Komisije.
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.
Komisija opozarja, da v skladu s členom 221(3) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti (členom 103(1) carinskega zakonika Unije) zastaralni rok ne velja, če je bila vložena pritožba v skladu s členom 243 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti (členom 44(2) carinskega zakonika Unije), kot je to v vseh obravnavanih zadevah, ki se nanašajo na pritožbe na podlagi člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti (člena 119 carinskega zakonika Unije).
As mentioned in recital 84, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Pritožba v smislu člena 103(3) carinskega zakonika Unije v skladu s pojasnilom iz člena 44(2) iste uredbe zajema vse od prvotnega izpodbijanja odločitve nacionalnih carinskih organov, ki uvajajo dajatev, do končne sodbe nacionalnega sodišča in po potrebi vključuje predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
In any event, the exporting producers concerned have not contested the assessment of their MET/IT claims by the Commission, and they have not identified which documents or which people they have no longer been able to rely upon.
Triletno obdobje se zato začne z datumom vložitve pravnega sredstva.
As that argument is based on speculation and not supported by precise indications as to which documents and which people are no longer available and as to what the relevance of those documents and people for the assessment of the MET/IT claim is, that argument is rejected.
Poleg tega je družba SIEMES trdila, da dolžina postopka v zvezi z njenim zahtevkom za povračilo protidampinških dajatev pred nemškimi carinskimi organi, ki še vedno traja, pomeni kršitev pravice do dobrega upravljanja iz člena 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah.
Regarding the claim that an importer would have no means to provide any meaningful input, the Commission observes the following: first, importers do not enjoy rights of defence, as the anti-dumping measure is not directed against them, but against the exporting producers.
Prvič, Komisija opozarja, da so za odločitve o povračilu protidampinških dajatev pristojni nacionalni carinski organi držav članic.
Second, importers had the opportunity to comment on that point already during the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation.
Drugič, Komisija je na podlagi predloženih informacij razumela, da je bil zahtevek družbe SIEMES za povračilo z dne 19. marca 2012 zavrnjen, ker je bila sodba, v skladu s katero je družba vložila ta zahtevek, omejena na zadevo Brosmann in Aokang.
Third, if importers thought that there was an irregularity in that regard, they had to take the necessary contractual arrangements with their suppliers to ensure to dispose of the necessary documentation.
Sodba ni vplivala na druge proizvajalce izvoznike v Kitajski in Vietnamu.
Therefore, the claim has to be rejected.
Sodišče je šele 4. februarja 2016 v združenih zadevah C & J Clark International Limited, C-659/13, in Puma SE, C-34/14, razglasilo, da je izpodbijana uredba nična, kar zadeva vse proizvajalce izvoznike zadevnega izdelka (glej uvodno izjavo 12).
Fifth, Clarks et al argued that the Commission failed to examine whether the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would be in the Union interest and argued that the measures would be against the Union interest because (i) the measures already had their intended effect when first imposed; (ii) the measures would not cause additional benefit for the Union industry; (iii) the measures would not affect the exporting producers and (iv) the measures would impose an important cost on the importers in the Union.
Zato se ni strinjala s trditvijo, da je ta postopek kršil načelo dobrega upravljanja.
Furthermore, the present measure is justified in order to protect the financial interest of the Union.
Komisija je ob upoštevanju pripomb in njihove analize ugotovila, da bi bilo treba ponovno uvesti veljavno preostalo protidampinško dajatev v višini 16,5 % za Kitajsko in 10 % za Vietnam za obdobje uporabe izpodbijane uredbe.
Sixth, Clarks et al claimed that the anti-dumping duty, if reimposed, could no longer be collected because of the statute of limitations of Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code (now Article 103(1) of the Union Customs Code) had expired.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 28, je Komisija odložila ocena družb iz Priloge III Izvedbeni uredbi Komisije (EU) 2017/423, dokler uvoznik, ki od nacionalnih carinskih organov zahteva povračilo, Komisiji ne sporoči imen in naslovov proizvajalcev izvoznikov, od katerih so zadevni trgovci kupili obutev, ali, če v navedenem časovnem obdobju ne prejme odgovora, po preteku roka, ki ga je določila za predložitev navedenih informacij.
According to Clarks et all, this situation would constitute an abuse of power by the Commission.
Komisija je v členu 3 Uredbe (EU) 2017/423 nacionalnim carinskim organom tudi odredila, da ne povrnejo pobranih carinskih dajatev, dokler ne konča ocene zadevnih zahtevkov za TGO/IO.
The Commission recalls that according to Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code/103(1) of the Union Customs Code, the statute of limitations does not apply where an appeal pursuant to Article 243 of the Community Customs Code/Article 44(2) of the Union Customs Code is lodged, as in all the present cases, which concern appeals on the basis of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code/Article 119 of the Union Customs Code.
Zato so se, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 29, družbe Pentland Brands Ltd., Puma UK Ltd. in Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd javile in opredelile svoje dobavitelje.
An appeal within the meaning of Article 103(3) of the Union Customs Code, pursuant to the clarification in Article 44(2) of the same regulation, extends from the initial challenge to the decision by the national customs authorities imposing the duties up to the final judgment rendered by the national court, including, where necessary, a reference for a preliminary ruling.
Komisija je preučila zahtevke dobaviteljev, opredeljenih v tej uredbi, za TGO/IO.
The three year period is consequently stayed from the date the challenge is filed.
Iz tega sledi, da je končala oceno položaja družb iz Priloge III k Uredbi (EU) 2017/423.
Lastly, Clarks et al claimed that, following the expiry of paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China's WTO Protocol of Accession on 11 December 2016, the Commission can no longer rely on the methodology used to determine normal value for Chinese exporters in the original investigation (i.e. the analogue country methodology under Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation).
Zato za družbe, navedene v Prilogi III k Izvedbeni uredbi Komisije (EU) 2017/423, nima evidence, da bi v prvotni preiskavi predložile obrazec zahtevka za TGO/IO.
(152) The contested regulation was adopted in 2006.
Zadevni zahtevki za povračilo dajatev uvoznikom se zato ne bi smeli odobriti, saj izpodbijana uredba ni bila razglašena za nično v delu, ki se nanaša nanje.
The relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union.
Za lažje sklicevanje je Komisija Prilogo III k Uredbi (EU) 2017/423 uporabila kot Prilogo VI k tej uredbi.
In addition, SIEMES argued that the length of the procedure in relation to its ongoing reimbursement request of anti-dumping duties before the German customs authorities violates the right of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
E. RAZKRITJE
First, the Commission notes that decisions over repayment of the anti-dumping duties fall within the competence of the national customs authorities of the Member States.
Zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki, uvozniki, ki jih je zadevala priglasitev s strani nemških in nizozemskih organov, uvozniki, ki so se javili ter sporočili imena in naslove svojih dobaviteljev v Kitajski in/ali Vietnamu, ter vse druge strani, ki so se javile, so bili obveščeni o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala priporočiti ponovna uvedba dokončne protidampinške dajatve na izvoz 70 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Second, the Commission understood from the information provided to it that SIEMES' reimbursement request of 19 March 2012 was rejected because the judgment pursuant to which it lodged its reimbursement request was limited to Brosmann and Aokang.
Po razkritju so imeli na voljo obdobje za predložitev pripomb.
The judgment had no effect vis-à-vis other exporting producers in China and Vietnam.
Ta uredba je v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega s členom 15(1) Uredbe (EU) 2016/1036 –
Only on 4 February 2016 did the Court of Justice declare, in Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the contested Regulation invalid in so far as it concerned all exporting producers of the product concerned (see recital 12).
SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
It is only at this point that SIEMES was concerned by a judgment of the Court, as duly notified to it by the German customs authorities in their letter of 7 September 2016.
Člen 1