natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with upper leather originating in the PRC to imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region (‘SAR’), whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not.
Po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov, ki se je začel 3. oktobra 2008, je Svet z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 protidampinške ukrepe podaljšal za 15 mesecev, tj. do 31. marca 2011, ko so ukrepi prenehali veljati („Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 1294/2009“).
Further to an expiry review initiated on 3 October 2008, the Council further extended the anti-dumping measures for 15 months by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, i.e. until 31 March 2011, when the measures expired (‘Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009’).
Družbe Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co.
Ltd („vložniki“) so izpodbijano uredbo izpodbijale na Sodišču prve stopnje (zdaj Splošnem sodišču).
Ltd as well as Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
S sodbama z dne 4. marca 2010 v zadevi T-401/06, Brosmann Footwear (HK) in drugi proti Svetu, ZOdl.
Ltd (‘the applicants’) challenged the contested Regulation in the Court of First Instance (now: the General Court).
2010, str.
By judgments of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council [2010] ECR II-671 and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council [2010] ECR II-747, the General Court rejected those challenges.
II-671 ter z dne 4. marca 2010 v združenih zadevah T-407/06 in T-408/06, Zhejiang Aokang Shoes in Wenzhou Taima Shoes proti Svetu, ZOdl.
The applicants appealed those judgments.
2010, str. II-747, jih je Splošno sodišče zavrnilo.
It held that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was not required to examine requests for market economy treatment (‘MET’) under Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic Regulation from non-sampled traders (paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 29 and 32 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Ltd („sodbi v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang“) je Sodišče Evropske unije navedeni sodbi razveljavilo.
The Court of Justice then gave judgment itself in the matter.
Menilo je, da je Splošno sodišče napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je navedlo, da Komisija ni bila zavezana preučitvi zahtevkov za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo („TGO“), ki so temeljili na členu 2(7)(b) in (c) osnovne uredbe in so jih predložili trgovci, ki niso zajeti z vzorcem (točka 36 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P ter točki 29 in 32 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
It held: ‘[…] the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation.
Sodišče je nato razsodilo.
As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate’ (paragraph 42 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Iz iste določbe namreč izhaja, da je bila dokončna protidampinška dajatev 9,7 % naložena le kitajskemu gospodarskemu subjektu, ki je bil zajet z vzorcem in ki mu je bila odobrena TGO.
In October 2013, the Commission by means of notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 and invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.
Zato je razglasilo ničnost izpodbijane uredbe v tistem delu, ki se nanaša na zadevne vložnike.
In March 2014, the Council, by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co.
Komisija je oktobra 2013 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, sporočila, da je sklenila obnoviti protidampinški postopek na točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in preučiti, ali so za vložnike prevladovali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva za obdobje od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005, ter je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj se ji javijo.
Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Svet je marca 2014 z Izvedbenim sklepom Sveta 2014/149/EU zavrnil predlog Komisije za sprejetje Izvedbene uredbe Sveta o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve na določeno obutev z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo družbe Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Ltd, postopke v zvezi s temi proizvajalci pa je ustavil.
The Council took the view that importers having bought shoes from those exporting producers, to whom the relevant customs duties had been reimbursed by the competent national authorities on the basis of Article 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (‘the Community Customs Code’), had acquired legitimate expectations on the basis of Article 1(4) of the contested Regulation, which had rendered the provisions of the Community Customs Code, and in particular its Article 221, applicable to the collection of the duties.
Svet je zavzel stališče, da so uvozniki, ki so obutev kupili od navedenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov in ki so jim pristojni carinski organi povrnili ustrezne uvozne dajatve na podlagi člena 236 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2913/92 („carinski zakonik Skupnosti“), imeli legitimna pričakovanja na podlagi člena 1(4) izpodbijane uredbe, ki prevzema določbe carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, zlasti člena 221, ki se uporablja za pobiranje dajatev.
Three importers of the product concerned, C & J Clark International Ltd (‘Clark’), Puma SE (‘Puma’) and Timberland Europe BV (‘Timberland’) (‘the importers concerned’) challenged the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear from China and Vietnam invoking the jurisprudence mentioned in recitals (5) to (7) before their national Courts, which referred the matters to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Trije uvozniki zadevnega izdelka, in sicer družbe C&J Clark International Ltd („Clark“), Puma SE („Puma“) in Timberland Europe B.V. („Timberland“) („zadevni uvozniki“), so izpodbijali protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz določene obutve iz Kitajske in Vietnama, pri čemer so se pred svojimi nacionalnimi sodišči sklicevali na sodno prakso iz uvodnih izjav 5 do 7, ta pa so zadevo predložila Sodišču v predhodno odločanje.
In the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the Court of Justice declared Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 invalid in so far as the European Commission did not examine the MET and individual treatment (‘IT’) claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled (‘the judgments’), contrary to the requirements laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.
Sodišče je v združenih zadevah C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited in C-34/14 Puma SE Uredbo (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični, ker Evropska komisija ni preučila zahtevkov za TGO in individualno obravnavo („IO“), ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni („sodbi“), kar je v nasprotju z zahtevami, določenimi v členu 2(7)(b) in členu 9(5) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96.
Regarding the third case C-571/14, Timberland Europe BV against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, the Court of Justice decided on 11 April 2016 to remove the case from the register at the request of the referring national court.
Sodišče je v zvezi s tretjo zadevo C-571/14, Timberland Europe B.V. proti Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, 11. aprila 2016 odločilo, da se zadeva izbriše iz registra na zahtevo nacionalnega predložitvenega sodišča.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
Člen 266 PDEU določa, da morata instituciji sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za izvršitev sodb Sodišča.
In case of annulment of an act adopted by the Institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping, compliance with the Court's judgment consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated.
Če je akt, ki sta ga instituciji sprejeli v okviru upravnega postopka, kot je protidampinški postopek, razglašen za ničnega, se v skladu s sodbo Sodišča nični akt zamenja z novim aktom, v katerem je odpravljena nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče.
According to the case-law of the Court, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča se postopek za nadomestitev akta, razglašenega za ničnega, nadaljuje v točki, na kateri je nastala nezakonitost.
That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure.
To pomeni zlasti, da v primeru, ko je za ničnega razglašen akt, ki zaključuje upravni postopek, razglasitev ničnosti ne vpliva nujno na pripravljalne akte, kot je začetek protidampinškega postopka.
In a situation where a Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order, except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
V primeru, ko je za nično razglašena uredba o uvedbi dokončnih protidampinških dajatev, to pomeni, da po razglasitvi ničnosti protidampinški postopek še vedno ni zaključen, saj je bil akt, ki je zaključil protidampinški postopek, odstranjen iz pravnega reda Unije, razen če je nezakonitost nastala v fazi začetka postopka.
Apart from the fact that the Institutions did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, all other findings made in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
Razen tega, da instituciji nista preučili zahtevkov za TGO in individualno obravnavo, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni, vse druge ugotovitve iz Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1294/2009 ostajajo veljavne.
In the present case, the illegality occurred after initiation.
V tej zadevi je nezakonitost nastala po začetku postopka.
The Commission also examined, where appropriate, whether the exporting producers concerned qualified for IT in accordance with 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’).
Komisija je v primerih, kjer je bilo to potrebno, prav tako preučila, ali so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki izpolnjevali pogoje za IO v skladu s členom 9(5) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 („osnovna uredba v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo“).
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395, the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark and Puma of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC and produced by thirteen Chinese exporting producers that submitted MET and IT claims in the investigation that lead to the imposition of definitive duties (the ‘original investigation’) but that had not been sampled during that investigation.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/1395 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobrala začasno dajatev na uvoz s strani družb Clark in Puma določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz LRK, ki jo proizvaja trinajst kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO v preiskavi, ki je privedla do uvedbe dokončnih dajatev („prvotna preiskava“), vendar ki niso bili vzorčeni v navedeni preiskavi.
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647, the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark, Puma and Timberland of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by certain Vietnamese exporting producers that submitted MET and IT claims in the original investigation, but had not been sampled during that investigation.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/1647 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve na uvoz s strani družb Clark, Puma in Timberland določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Vietnama, ki jo proizvajajo določeni vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO v prvotni preiskavi, vendar ki niso bili vzorčeni v navedeni preiskavi.
Subsequently, two additional suppliers of Puma in Vietnam, Diamond Vietnam Co.
Naknadno sta bila v Vietnamu odkrita dva dodatna dobavitelja družbe Puma, tj. Diamond Vietnam Co Ltd in Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co.
Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co.
Ltd („Ty Hung Co Ltd.“), ki sta predložila obrazce zahtevka za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi.
Ltd (‘Ty Hung Co.
Kar zadeva družbo Ty Hung Co Ltd., je bilo v dokumentaciji v zvezi z družbo Puma pred nacionalnim sodiščem ugotovljeno, da se je eden od vietnamskih dobaviteljev imenoval „Lac Hung Co.
Ltd’) were identified that provided MET/IT claim forms during the original investigation.
Ltd“, pri čemer so informacije, ki so bile na voljo, kazale na morebitno spremembo imena med prvotno preiskavo in uporabo pred nacionalnim sodiščem.
Concerning Ty Hung Co.
Izkazalo se je, da se je zadevna družba prej imenovala „Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co.
Ltd it is noted that in Puma's file before the national Court, one of the Vietnamese suppliers was identified as ‘Lac Hung Co.
Ltd“ („Ty Hung Co Ltd“).
Ltd’, while the information available pointed to a possible name change between the original investigation and the application before the national Court.
Kar zadeva uvoz s strani družbe Timberland, je imel eden od dveh kitajskih dobaviteljev, opredeljenih v zadevi C-571/14, tj. družba General Shoes Ltd, dejansko sedež v Vietnamu in je bil kot tak tudi ocenjen.
It appeared that the company at stake was formerly named ‘Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co.
Ugotovitve z zvezi s to družbo so bile objavljene v zgoraj omenjeni Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) 2016/1647 (uvodna izjava 19).
Ltd’ (‘Ty Hung Co.
To je pozneje izpodbijalo Združenje evropske industrije športnih izdelkov („združenje FESI“), ki je trdilo, da je družba General Shoes Ltd v resnici kitajski dobavitelj.
Ltd’).
Za uvoz s strani družb Puma in Timberland s Kitajske in iz Vietnama je Komisija preučila zahtevke za TGO in IO, ki so jih predložili zadevni zgoraj omenjeni nevzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki v okviru prvotne preiskave.
Regarding imports of Timberland one of the two Chinese suppliers identified in the case C-571/14, General Shoes Ltd was in fact established in Vietnam and assessed as such.
B. IZVRŠEVANJE SODB SODIŠČA V ZDRUŽENIH ZADEVAH C-659/13 IN C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ VIETNAMA IN LRK
Findings with regard to this company were published by the abovementioned Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 (recital (19)).
Komisija ima možnost, da odpravi tiste vidike izpodbijane uredbe, ki so privedli do tega, da je bila razglašena za nično, dele ocene, ki jih sodba ne zadeva, pa pusti nespremenjene.
This was contested by the Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (‘FESI’) that claimed that General Shoes Ltd was in fact a Chinese supplier.
Namen sedanje uredbe je popraviti vidike izpodbijane uredbe, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da niso v skladu z osnovno uredbo, in ki so zato privedli do razglasitve ničnosti v delu, ki zadeva nekatere proizvajalce izvoznike iz Vietnama in LRK.
FESI claimed that the MET/IT request of the Chinese company General Footwear Ltd should also be assessed.
Vse ostale ugotovitve iz izpodbijane uredbe, ki jih Sodišče ni razglasilo za nične, ostajajo v veljavi in so vključene v sedanjo uredbo.
The Commission notes that although the relevant MET/IT claim form was ambiguous as to whether the company at stake is in fact Chinese or Vietnamese, for the sake of completeness the MET/IT claim form of General Footwear Ltd was now also assessed.
Zato so naslednje uvodne izjave omejene na novo oceno, ki jo je treba izvesti za namene usklajenosti s sodbama.
For imports of Puma and Timberland from China and Vietnam the Commission assessed the MET and IT claims provided by the relevant abovementioned non-sampled exporting producers that submitted these claims in the original investigation.
Komisija je preučila, ali sta TGO in IO prevladovali za tri proizvajalce izvoznike, dobavitelje družb Puma in Timberland, iz uvodnih izjav 20 in 21, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi v obdobju od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM VIETNAM AND THE PRC
Namen te analize je bil ugotoviti obseg, v katerem sta zadevna uvoznika upravičena do povračila plačanih protidampinških dajatev glede na protidampinške dajatve, plačane za izvoz teh dobaviteljev.
The Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the parts of the assessment which are not affected by the judgment.
Če bi analiza pokazala, da bi TGO ali IO morala biti odobrena zadevnim kitajskim in vietnamskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, za izvoz katerih se je uporabljala protidampinška dajatev, plačana s strani enega od dveh zadevnih uvoznikov, bi bilo navedenemu proizvajalcu izvozniku treba priznati individualno stopnjo dajatve, povračilo dajatve pa bi bilo omejeno na znesek, ki bi ustrezal razliki med plačano dajatvijo in individualno stopnjo dajatve, tj. v primeru Kitajske razlika med 16,5 % in dajatvijo, uvedeno za edino vzorčeno izvozno družbo, ki ji je bila odobrena TGO, tj. družbo Golden Step, za katero je dajatev znašala 9,7 %; v primeru Vietnama pa razlika med 10 % in individualno stopnjo dajatve, izračunano za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika, kadar je to primerno.
The present Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the contested Regulation found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the declaration of invalidity in so far as certain exporting producers from Vietnam and the PRC are concerned.
Nasprotno, če bi analiza zahtevkov za TGO in IO pokazala, da bi bilo TGO in IO treba zavrniti, povračila protidampinških dajatev ni mogoče odobriti.
All other findings made in the contested Regulation, which were not declared invalid by the Court of Justice, remain valid and are herewith incorporated into the present Regulation.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 12, je Sodišče izpodbijano uredbo in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični, in sicer glede izvoza določene obutve določenih trinajstih kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov („zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki“), saj Komisija ni preučila zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih predložili zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki.
Therefore, the following recitals are limited to the new assessment necessary in order to comply with the judgments.
Komisija je zato preučila zahtevke za TGO in IO zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da bi določila stopnjo dajatve, ki se uporablja za njihov izvoz.
The Commission has examined whether MET and IT prevailed for the three exporting producers, suppliers of Puma and Timberland, mentioned above in recitals (20) and (21) which submitted MET/IT requests in the original investigation, during the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
Ocena je pokazala, da predložene informacije niso ustrezno dokazale, da so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki delovali v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva ali da so izpolnjevali pogoje za individualno obravnavo (za podrobno razlago glej uvodno izjavo 32 in naslednje v nadaljevanju).
The purpose of this determination is to ascertain the extent to which the two importers concerned are entitled to receive a repayment of the anti-dumping duty paid with regard to anti-dumping duties paid on exports of these suppliers.
Ocena zahtevkov za TGO
Should the analysis reveal that MET or IT was to be granted to the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by either of the two importers concerned, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to that exporting producer and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid and the individual duty rate, i.e. in case of China, the difference between 16,5 % and the duty imposed on the only exporting company in the sample that has obtained MET, i.e. Golden Step, namely 9,7 %; and in in case of Vietnam, the difference between 10 % and the individual duty rate calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Poudariti je treba, da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri zahtevek za TGO.
Conversely, should the analysis of such MET and IT claims reveal that both MET and IT should be rejected, no repayment of anti-dumping duties can be awarded.
Prvi pododstavek člena 2(7)(c) v ta namen določa, da mora zahtevek, ki ga tak proizvajalec predloži, vsebovati zadostne dokaze, kot so opredeljeni v tej določbi, da deluje v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva.
As explained in recital (12), 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, (‘the exporting producers concerned’), in so far as the Commission did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by the exporting producers concerned.
Institucijama Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
The Commission has therefore examined the MET and IT claims of exporting producers concerned in order to determine the duty rate applicable to their exports.
Nasprotno, instituciji Unije morata 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 navedena obravnava, sodišče Unije pa mora preveriti, ali je ta ocena očitno napačna (točka 32 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P in točka 24 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
The assessment showed that the information provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that the exporting producers concerned operated under market economy conditions or that they qualified for individual treatment (see for a detailed explanation below recitals (32) and following).
V skladu s členom 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe mora biti izpolnjenih vseh pet meril iz tega člena, da se proizvajalcu izvozniku lahko odobri TGO.
Assessment of the MET claims
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za TGO.