natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
C. COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES AFTER DISCLOSURE
Drugič, hitro izvajanje je bilo potrebno, da se nacionalnim carinskim organom omogoči, da hitro obravnavajo nerešene zahtevke za povračilo, ter da se zagotovi pravna varnost za vse gospodarske subjekte.
The above findings and conclusions were disclosed to the interested parties which were given a time period to comment.
Kakršno koli vplivanje na sodbo Sodišča je bilo izključeno, saj se je navedena sodba nanašala na drug predmet urejanja (tj. ali se uvozniki lahko sklicujejo na pravico, da so ocenitve zahtevkov za TGO/IO v pristojnosti proizvajalcev izvoznikov).
FESI representing importers including Puma and Timberland, Clark, another importer and one exporting producer, which MET/IT claim had not been subject to the current implementation came forward and provided comments.
V nadaljevanju so te strani trdile, da obvestilo o izvajanju sodbe v združenih zadevah C-659/13 in C-34/14 C & J Clark International Limited in Puma SE, pozneje objavljeno dne 17. marca 2016, ni moglo rešiti zgoraj omenjenih kršitev postopka, saj ni zagotovilo resnične priložnosti za uveljavljanje pravic do obrambe zainteresiranih strani.
Alleged irregularities in the procedure
Več strani je poleg tega trdilo, da bi jim moral biti odobren dostop do celotnega preiskovalnega spisa prvotne preiskave in da imena zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v razkritih dokumentih ne bi smela biti anonimizirana.
FESI and one importer claimed that there were a number of procedural errors in the current implementation.
V sklepih so te strani trdile, da je na osnovi zgoraj navedenih kršitev postopka Komisija kršila osnovni pravni okvir EU in s tem povzročila zlorabo svojih pooblastil.
They pointed to the fact that the MET claims of the Chinese exporting producers concerned were already examined and disclosed prior to the judgement of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, i.e. on 3 December 2015, as well as the Commission's intention to reimpose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear of 16,5 %.
Druga stran je podvomila o odnosu med razkritjem, omenjenim v uvodni izjavi (55), in zadnjim razkritjem, poslanim dne 20. maja 2016, ter zaprosila za pojasnilo.
These assessments would therefore have been carried out without legal basis and were pre-empting the up-coming judgment of the Court of Justice.
Obvestilo o izvajanju sodbe je bilo objavljeno z namenom povečanja transparentnosti v skladu s politiko Komisije o transparentnosti v preiskavah trgovinske zaščite in na zahtevo pooblaščenca za zaslišanje, po zaslišanju z eno izmed strani, ki je sprožila vprašanje.
The Commission does not agree with the above statement as it only prepared the implementation of a possible future judgment.
Komisija še naprej meni, da objava v strogem pomenu besede ni bila zakonsko predpisana.
Such preparation was to ensure sound administration, for the following reasons: First, it is uncontested that the Commission ought to have examined the MET/IT requests.
V vsakem primeru, tudi če je bilo potrebno, quod non, za zagotovitev ustreznega postopka in pravice do zaslišanja, so bile te zahteve izpolnjene z objavo in dejstvom, da je bila vsem stranem dana možnost, da predložijo pripombe.
The only issue that was at stake in the Court proceedings still pending at that time was whether an unrelated importer such as Clark, Puma and Timberland can rely on that illegality.
Dostop do celotnega spisa prvotne preiskave je bil odobren, čeprav Komisija ne vidi, kako bi lahko bile kakršne koli druge informacije, razen zahtevkov za TGO/IO zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, pomembne za tekoče postopke.
As a result of that yes/no binary choice, the Commission could exceptionally perfectly well prepare for the event of a negative judgment on this question.
Anonimiziranje imen proizvajalcev izvoznikov je bilo potrebno zaradi zaščite njihovih zaupnih poslovnih podatkov; vendar pa so bile, na njihovo prošnjo, zainteresirane strani, ki so uvažale, obveščene, kateri od uvoznikov so bili njihovi uvozniki.
Second, swift implementation was necessary in order to enable national customs authorities to deal quickly with pending requests for reimbursement, and to provide legal certainty for all operators.
Drugo razkritje je bilo potrebno, ker sedanja ureditev zajema tudi zahtevke za IO, ki prvotno niso bili ocenjeni.
Any influence on the Court's judgment was excluded, as this judgment concerned a different subject-matter (namely whether importers can rely on the right to have MET/IT claims assessed vested in exporting producers).
Iz teh razlogov je treba vse zahtevke, ki se nanašajo na kršitve postopka, zavrniti.
These parties further claimed that the Notice on the implementation of the judgment in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 C&J Clark International Limited and Puma SE later published on 17 March 2016 could not cure above procedural errors because it did not provide meaningful opportunity for the interested parties to exercise their rights of defence.
Pravna podlaga za nadaljevanje protidampinškega postopka
Several parties moreover claimed that they should have been granted access to the full investigation file of the original investigation and that the names of the relevant exporting producers should not have been anonymised in the disclosure documents.
Več zainteresiranih strani je trdilo, da ni bilo pravne podlage za sedanje izvajanje.
In conclusions, these parties argued that on the basis of the above procedural mistakes, the Commission violated the basic legal framework of the EU and thus exercised an abuse of its powers.
Še posebej so trdili, da člena 266 PDEU ni mogoče uporabiti na podlagi dejstva, da so dokončni ukrepi za obutev potekli 31. marca 2011 in da torej ni nobenih nadaljevalnih učinkov, ki izhajajo iz nezakonitosti teh ukrepov.
Another party questioned the relationship between the disclosure mentioned in recital 55 and the latest disclosure sent on 20 May 2016 and requested clarification on this matter.
Strani so trdile, da člen 266 PDEU ni namenjen popravljanju retroaktivnih nezakonitosti pretečenih ukrepov.
The Notice on the implementation of the judgment was published in order to increase transparency, in line with the Commission's policy on transparency in trade defence investigations and at the request of the Hearing Officer, following a hearing with one of the parties raising the issue.
To stališče bi bilo okrepljeno s členoma 263 in 265 PDEU, ki določata roke za vložitev tožbe zaradi nezakonitih dejanj in nedelovanja institucij EU.
The Commission continues to take the view that that publication was not, strictly speaking, legally required.
Trenutni pristop nima precedensov in tudi Komisija ni zagotovila obrazložitve ali predhodne sodne prakse, ki bi podprla njeno razlago člena 266 PDEU.
In any event, even if it was necessary, quod non, to ensure due process and the right to be heard, those requirements have been fulfilled by its publication and the fact of giving all parties the possibility to comment.
Strani so nadalje trdile, da v tem primeru preiskave ni mogoče nadaljevati na točki, kjer je prišlo do nezakonitosti na podlagi člena 266 PDEU, ker Sodišče ni ugotovilo zgolj odsotnosti obrazložitve, ampak nezakonitost zadeva jedro zakonske določbe osnovne uredbe in vpliva na celotno oceno dampinga, povezanega z zadevnimi kitajskimi proizvajalci izvozniki.
Access to the full file of the original investigation has been granted, even though the Commission fails to see how any other information than the MET/IT claims of the exporting producers concerned could possibly be relevant for the present proceedings.
Strani so v nadaljevanju trdile, da retroaktivni popravek pretečenih ukrepov krši načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
The anonymisation of the names of the exporting producers has been necessary in order to ensure that their business-confidential data is protected; however, at their request, interested parties who imported were informed which of the importers were their importers.
Sprva so trdili, da bi strani dobile zagotovilo, da so ukrepi pretekli 31. marca 2011 in da glede na čas, ki je pretekel od prvotne preiskave, upravičeno pričakujejo, da se prvotna preiskava ne bo nadaljevala ali ponovno začela.
The second disclosure had become necessary because the regulation now also covers IT claims, which were not assessed initially.
Drugič, že samo dejstvo, da v prvotni preiskavi zahtevki za TGO niso bili preiskani v roku 3 mesecev, kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom ponuja pravno zagotovilo, da njihovi zahtevki za TGO dejansko ne bodo pregledani.
For those reasons, any claims regarding procedural irregularities have to be rejected.
V zaključku so strani trdile, da glede na dolgo časovno obdobje, nadaljevanje preiskave predstavlja kršitev splošnega načela zastaranja ali omejitve, ki se uporablja v vseh pravnih okvirih.
Legal basis for the resumption of the anti-dumping proceeding
Več zainteresiranih strani je trdilo, da niti člen 266 PDEU niti osnovna uredba ne dovoljujeta retroaktivne ponovne uvedbe dokončne dajatve v višini 16,5 % na uvoz zadevnih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Several interested parties claimed that there was no legal basis for the current implementation.
Glede trditve, da so zadevni ukrepi potekli 31. marca 2011, Komisija ne vidi razloga, zakaj bi iztek ukrepov kakor koli vplival na možnost Komisije, da sprejme nov akt, ki bi zamenjal razveljavljeni akt.
In particular they claimed that Article 266 TFEU is not applicable on the grounds that the definitive measures on footwear expired on 31 March 2011 and that there are therefore no continued effects ensuing from the illegality of these measures.
Sodba, ki razveljavlja prvotni akt, v skladu s sodno prakso ponovno začne upravni postopek, ki se lahko nadaljuje v točki, ko je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
The parties argued that Article 266 TFEU is not intended to correct retroactively illegalities to expired measures.
Protidampinški postopki zato še vedno niso zaključeni, saj je bil akt, ki je sklenil postopke, razglašen za ničnega.
This view would be reinforced by Articles 263 and 265 TFEU which set time limits for bringing actions against illegal acts of and failure to act on the part of the EU institutions.
Komisija mora zaključiti te postopke, saj osnovna uredba določa, da mora biti preiskava zaključena z aktom Komisije.
The current approach does not have any precedents and the Commission did also not provide any reasoning or prior jurisprudence which would support its interpretation of Article 266 TFEU.
Kar zadeva trditev glede retroaktivnosti na podlagi člena 13 osnovne uredbe in člena 10 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO („PDS“), člen 13(1) osnovne uredbe, v katerem je prevzeto besedilo člena 10(1) PDS, navaja, 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.
The parties argued further that in this case the investigation cannot be resumed at the very point where the illegality occurred under Article 266 TFEU because the Court of Justice did not merely establish a lack of reasoning but the illegality concerned a core legal provision of the basic Regulation affecting the entire assessment of dumping related to the Chinese exporting producers concerned.
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 parties claimed further that the retro-active correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
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.
They argued that first, parties would have received assurance that the measures expired on 31 March 2011 and that given the time elapsed since the original investigation parties were entitled to have justified expectations that the original investigation will not be resumed or reopened.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da v obravnavanem primeru ni prisotna retroaktivnost ter kršitev pravne varnosti in legitimnih pričakovanj.
Secondly, the very fact that during the original investigation MET claims were not investigated within the 3 months deadline provided legal certainty to the Chinese exporting producers that their MET claims will indeed not be reviewed.
Kar zadeva retroaktivnost, sodna praksa Sodišča pri ocenjevanju, ali je ukrep retroaktiven, razlikuje med dodelitvijo novega pravila okoliščinam, ki so postale dokončne (tudi obstoječ ali dokončni pravni položaj), in okoliščinami, ki so nastale pred začetkom veljavnosti novega predpisa, vendar še niso dokončne (tudi začasne okoliščine).
In conclusion, the parties claimed that given the long time periods involved, the resumption of the investigation violated the universal principle of prescription or limitation which applied in all legal contexts.
V tej zadevi okoliščine uvoza zadevnih izdelkov, do katerih je prišlo med obdobjem uporabe Uredbe Sveta (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.
Several interested parties argued that neither Article 266 TFEU, nor the basic Regulation permit the retroactive reimposition of the definitive duty of 16,5 % to imports of the Chinese exporting producers concerned.
Hkrati so bili uvozniki obutve z objavo obvestila o začetku postopka in začasne uredbe opozorjeni glede morebitne uvedbe takšne dajatve.
As regards the claim that the measures in question expired on 31 March 2011, the Commission fails to see why the expiry of the measure would be of any relevance for the possibility for the Commission to adopt a new act to replace the annulled act.
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 judgment annulling the initial act reopens, according to the case-law, the administrative procedure, which can be resumed at the point in time where the illegality occurred.
Ta uredba predstavlja neposredno uporabo za bodoče učinke položaja, ki je v teku: Nacionalni carinski organi so pobrali dajatve na obutev.
The anti-dumping proceedings are hence, as a result of the annulment of the act concluding the proceedings, still open.
Zaradi zahtevkov za povračilo, o katerih še ni bilo dokončno odločeno, ti predstavljajo položaj, ki je v teku.
The Commission is under an obligation to close those proceedings, as the basic Regulation provides that an investigation has to be closed by an act of the Commission.
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 13 of the basic Regulation and Article 10 of the WTO Anti Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, which takes over the text of Article 10(1) of the 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:
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.
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.
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 C-337/88, Società agricola fattoria alimentare (SAFA), 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 no retroactivity and violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.
V tej zadevi je namen 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 ugotovilo nezakonitost samo glede določanja veljavne stopnje dajatve in ne glede uvedbe ukrepov (tj. glede ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi in interesu Unije), zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki niso mogli legitimno 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 Council 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 legitimna 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.
Poleg tega se glede zaščite pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj najprej ugotavlja, da v skladu s sodno prakso uvozniki ne morejo zahtevati zaščite pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj v primerih, ko so bili obveščeni o skorajšnji spremembi trgovinske politike Unije.
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.
V tej zadevi so bili uvozniki z objavo obvestila o začetku postopka in začasne uredbe v Uradnem listu, ki sta oba še vedno del pravnega reda Unije, opozorjeni na tveganje, da bi za izdelke zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov lahko bila uvedena protidampinška dajatev.
The present regulation constitutes immediate application to the future effects of a situation that is on-going: The duties on footwear have been levied by national customs authorities.
Zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki se zato ne morejo sklicevati na splošni načeli prava Unije o zaščiti pravnega varstva in varstvu legitimnih pričakovanj.
As a result of the requests for reimbursement, which have not had been decided in a definitive way, they constitute an on-going situation.
Nasprotno, gospodarski subjekti so se pri uvozu obutve v celoti zavedali, da se za uvoz pobirajo dajatve.
The present regulation sets out the duty rate applicable to those imports, and hence regulates the future effects of an on-going situation.
Navedene dajatve so upoštevali pri določanju prodajnih cen in ocenjevanju ekonomskih tveganj.
In any event, even if there was retroactivity in the sense of Union law, quod non, such retroactivity would in any event be justified, for the following reason:
Zato niso pridobili pravne varnosti ali legitimnih pričakovanj, da bo uvoz prost dajatev, stroške dajatev pa so običajno prenesli na svoje stranke.
The substantive rules of Union law may apply to the 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.
Zato je v interesu Unije, da raje zdaj določi stopnjo dajatve, kot da zadevnim uvoznikom zagotovi nepričakovan dobiček, s katerim bi se neupravičeno obogatili.
In particular, in case Case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimentare (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.
Zato ne gre za kršitev načel zastaranja, pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj, kakor tudi ne določb osnovne uredbe in Protidampinškega sporazuma.
In the present case the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU.
Glede trditve, da bi bilo treba TGO določiti v treh mesecih po začetku, je treba opozoriti, da v skladu s sodno prakso drugi pododstavek člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe ne navaja nobenih posledic, če Komisija ne upošteva trimesečnega roka.
Since the Court only found an illegality with regards to the determination of the applicable duty rate, and not with regards to the imposition of the measures themselves (that is, with regards to the finding of dumping, injury and Union interest), the exporting producers concerned could not have legitimately expected that no definitive anti-dumping measures would be imposed.
Splošno sodišče zato meni, da odločitev o TGO, ki je sprejeta pozneje, ne vpliva na veljavnost uredbe o uvedbi dokončnih ukrepov, če seveda vložniki ne dokažejo, da bi Svet, če Komisija ne bi presegla trimesečnega roka, morda sprejel drugačno uredbo, ki bi bila za varstvo njihovih interesov ugodnejša od izpodbijane uredbe.
Consequently, that imposition, even if it was retroactive, quod non, cannot be construed as breaching legitimate expectations.
Poleg tega je Sodišče ugotovilo, da lahko instituciji oceno TGO spreminjata do sprejetja končnih ukrepov.
In addition, with regards to the protection of legal certainty and of legitimate expectations, it is first of all observed that according to the case-law, importers cannot claim the protection of legal certainty and legitimate expectations where they were alerted of an imminent change in the Union's commercial policy.
Sodbi Brosmann in Aokang nista spremenili zgoraj navedene sodne prakse.
In the present case, importers were alerted by the publication of the notice of initiation and of the provisional Regulation in the Official Journal, which are both still part of the legal order of the Union, of the risk that the products produced by the exporting producers concerned may become subject to an anti-dumping duty.
V sodbah Brosmann in Aokang se Sodišče sklicuje na obveznost Komisije, da mora oceno sprejeti v treh mesecih, da bi dokazalo, da ta obveznost glede ocene obstaja neodvisno od tega, ali Komisija uporabi vzorčenje ali ne.
The exporting producers concerned could therefore not rely on the general principles of the Union's law of protection of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
Sodišče se ni opredelilo glede vprašanja, kakšna je pravna posledica, če Komisija oceno TGO izvede v poznejši fazi preiskave.
Rather, economic operators were fully aware, when importing footwear, that those imports were subject to a duty.
Sodišče je samo presodilo, da instituciji nista mogli popolnoma prezreti zahtevkov za TGO, ampak sta jih morali oceniti najpozneje ob uvedbi dokončnih ukrepov.
They took that duty into account when setting sales prices and assessing economic risks.
Sodbi potrjujeta sodno prakso, navedeno v prejšnji uvodni izjavi.