natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
Ta uredba predstavlja neposredno uporabo za bodoče učinke položaja, ki je v teku: nacionalni carinski organi so pobrali dajatve na obutev.
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.
Zaradi zahtevkov za povračilo, o katerih še ni bilo dokončno odločeno, ti predstavljajo položaj, ki je v teku.
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.
Ta uredba določa stopnjo dajatve, ki se uporablja za navedeni uvoz, s čimer ureja bodoče učinke položaja, ki je v teku.
[22]
V vsakem primeru, tudi če bi šlo za retroaktivnost v smislu prava Unije, quod non, bi bila ta retroaktivnost upravičena iz naslednjih razlogov:
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.
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 [23].
As a result of the requests for reimbursement, which have not had been decided in a definitive way, they constitute an on-going situation.
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“ [24].
The present Regulation sets out the duty rate applicable to those imports, and hence regulates the future effects of an on-going situation.
V tej zadevi je namen skladnost z obveznostjo Komisije v skladu s členom 266 PDEU.
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:
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.
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 the them [23].
Zato za uvedbo, tudi če bi bila retroaktivna, quod non, ni mogoče trditi, da krši legitimna pričakovanja.
In particular, in 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’ [24].
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 [25].
In the present case the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU.
V tej zadevi so bili uvozniki z objavo obvestila o začetku [26] in začasne uredbe v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, ki sta oba še vedno del pravnega reda Unije, opozorjeni na tveganje, da bi za izdelke zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov lahko bila uvedena protidampinška dajatev.
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.
Zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki se zato ne morejo sklicevati na pravno varnost in varstvo legitimnih pričakovanj.
Consequently, that imposition, even if it was retroactive, quod non, cannot be construed as breaching legitimate expectations.
Nasprotno, gospodarski subjekti so se pri uvozu obutve iz Vietnama v celoti zavedali, da se za uvoz pobirajo dajatve.
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.
Navedene dajatve so upoštevali pri določanju prodajnih cen in ocenjevanju ekonomskih tveganj.
In the present case, importers were alerted by the publication of the Notice of Initiation [26] and of the provisional Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, 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.
Zato niso pridobili pravne varnosti ali legitimnih pričakovanj, da bo uvoz prost dajatev, stroške dajatev pa so običajno prenesli na svoje stranke.
The exporting producers concerned could therefore not invoke legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
Zato je v interesu Unije, da raje zdaj določi stopnjo dajatve, kot da zadevnim uvoznikom zagotovi nepričakovan dobiček, s katerim bi se neupravičeno obogatili.
Rather, economic operators were fully aware, when importing footwear from Vietnam, that those imports were subject to a duty.
Zato ne gre za kršitev načel zastaranja, pravne varnosti in varstva legitimnih pričakovanj, kakor tudi ne za kršitev določb osnovne uredbe in Protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
They took that duty into account when setting sales prices and assessing economic risks.
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.
They therefore did not acquire legal certainty or legitimate expectations that the imports would be free of a duty, and usually passed on the duty to their customers.
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 [27].
It is therefore in the Union interest to set now the applicable duty rate, rather than providing a windfall gain to the importers concerned, which would be enriched without due cause.
Poleg tega je Sodišče ugotovilo, da lahko instituciji oceno TGO spreminjata do sprejetja končnih ukrepov [28].
There is hence neither violation of the principles of prescription, legal certainty and legitimate expectations, nor of the provisions of the basic Regulation and the WTO ADA.
Sodbi Brosmann in Aokang iz uvodne izjave 6 zgoraj nista spremenili zgoraj navedene sodne prakse.
As regards the claim that the MET determination had to be completed within three months of the initiation, it is recalled that according to the case law, the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation does not contain any indication as regards the consequences of the Commission's failure to comply with the three-month period.
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 General Court therefore takes the view that an MET decision at a later stage does not affect the validity of the Regulation imposing definitive measures as long as applicants have not proved that, if the Commission had not exceeded the three-month period, the Council might have adopted a different Regulation more favourable to their interests than the contested Regulation.
Sodišče se ni opredelilo glede vprašanja, kakšna je pravna posledica, če Komisija oceno TGO izvede v poznejši fazi preiskave.
The Court has furthermore recognized that the Institutions may modify the MET assessment until the adoption of final measures.
Sodišče je samo presodilo, da instituciji ne moreta popolnoma prezreti zahtevkov za TGO, ampak jih morata oceniti najpozneje ob uvedbi dokončnih ukrepov.
[28]
Sodbi potrjujeta sodno prakso, navedeno v prejšnji uvodni izjavi.
The above case-law has not been overturned by the Brosmann and Aokang judgments, referred to in recital (6) above.
V tej zadevi zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki niso dokazali, da bi v primeru, če bi Komisija oceno TGO izvedla v treh mesecih po začetku protidampinškega postopka leta 2005, Svet morda sprejel drugačno uredbo, ki bi bila za varstvo njihovih interesov ugodnejša od izpodbijane uredbe.
In the Brosmann and Aokang judgments, the Court relies on the obligation for the Commission to carry out the assessment in three months in order to show that the obligation of that assessment exists independently of whether the Commission applies sampling or not.
Zahtevek na podlagi zastaranja roka za oceno zahtevka za TGO se zato zavrne.
The Court does not pronounce itself on the question what legal consequence it has if the Commission concludes the MET assessment at a later stage of the investigation.
Drugič, trdilo se je tudi, da bi morala Komisija postopek obnoviti v točki pred uvedbo začasnih ukrepov, ker je prišlo do nezakonitosti v točki ocen TGO.
The Court only rules that the Institutions could not completely ignore MET claims, but had to assess them the latest when imposing definitive measures.
V zvezi s tem Komisija opozarja, da začasni ukrepi niso nujen korak postopka, temveč samostojen akt, katerega učinki se končajo s sprejetjem dokončnih ukrepov [29].
The judgments confirm the case-law quoted in the preceding recital.
Edino bistveno procesno dejanje pred sprejetjem dokončnih ukrepov je začetek.
In the present case, the exporting producers concerned have not shown that, had the Commission carried out the MET assessment within three months after the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure in 2005, the Council might have adopted a different Regulation more favourable to their interests than the contested Regulation.
Zato je ta argument brezpredmeten.
The claim on time-bar for the assessment of the MET claim is therefore rejected.
FESI, ki se sklicuje na sodbo Splošnega sodišča v zadevi T-2/95, IPS proti Svetu, je opozoril na formalno razliko med „preiskavo“ in „postopkom“ ter trdil, da postopka ni več mogoče obnoviti, ko je enkrat zaključen, kot v trenutnem primeru.
It was also claimed that since the illegality occurred at the point of MET assessments, the Commission should have resumed the proceeding to the point prior to the imposition of provisional measures.
Komisija ne vidi bistvene razlike med izrazoma „preiskava“ in „postopek“ v okviru izvrševanja zadevnih sodb.
In that regard, the Commission observes that provisional measures are not a necessary step of the proceeding, but an autonomous act that ceases its effects with the adoption of definitive measures [29].
Sodbi obravnavata nepravilnost v zvezi s specifično preiskavo v okviru postopka, ki jo je Komisija zavezana odpraviti, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah 21 do 29 zgoraj.
The only essential procedural step prior to the adoption of definitive measures is the initiation.
V vsakem primeru je sodbo v zadevi T-2/95 treba brati v luči sodbe o pritožbi v tej zadevi.
Therefore, that argument is inoperative.
FESI prav tako trdi, da člen 266 PDEU ne omogoča delnega izvrševanja sodbe Sodišča in, v sedanji zadevi, obrnjenega dokaznega bremena.
FESI, referring to the judgment of the General Court in case T-2/95, IPS v Council, pointed to the formal difference between an ‘investigation’ and a ‘proceeding’ and argued that once a proceeding is terminated, like in the current case, it cannot be resumed anymore.
Zaradi tega FESI trdi, da je Komisija napačno ocenila samo zahtevke za TGO/IO tistih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so bili dobavitelji uvoznikov, ki so vložili zahtevke za povračilo.
The Commission fails to see any material difference between the terms ‘investigation’ and ‘proceeding’ in the context of the implementation of the judgments at stake.
Zahtevek je utemeljil na razumevanju, da je učinek sodbe Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited in C-34/14 Puma SE erga omnes in da ne more biti izključeno, da imajo rezultati trenutne ocene zahtevkov za TGO/IO vpliv tudi na preostalo dajatev, ki se uporablja za vse vietnamske proizvajalce izvoznike.
The judgments concern an irregularity with regard to a specific investigation as part of a proceeding which the Commission is under an obligation to remedy as explained in recitals (21) to (29) above.
Zato je trdil, da bi morala Komisija oceniti vse zahtevke za TGO/IO, ki so bili predloženi med prvotno preiskavo.
In any event, the judgment in case T-2/95 has to be read in the light of the judgment on appeal in that case.
Poleg tega se FESI ne strinja, da leži dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi vložiti zahtevek za TGO/IO, in trdi, da so proizvajalci temu dokaznemu bremenu zadostili v letu 2005, ko so med prvotno preiskavo vložili zahtevke za TGO/IO.
FESI also claimed that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for a partial implementation of a judgment of the Court of Justice and in the current case the reversal of the burden of proof.
Prav tako se ne strinja, da je sodba Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited in C-34/14 Puma SE lahko izvedena s preprosto oceno zahtevkov za TGO/IO, ki so jih predložili nevzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki, saj Sodišče ni izrecno določilo, da je ugotovljena razglasitev ničnosti dejansko omejena na ta vidik.
Thus, FESI claimed that the Commission wrongly assessed only the MET/IT requests of those exporting producers that were suppliers of importers that filed reimbursements claims.
Komisija meni, da je izvrševanje sodbe obvezno samo za tiste proizvajalce izvoznike, za katere vse uvozne transakcije niso postale dokončne.
They based their claim on the understanding that the effect of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE is erga omnes and that it cannot be excluded that the results of the current assessment the MET/IT claims has also an impact on the residual duty which is applicable to all Vietnamese exporting producers.
Ko je potekel zastaralni rok treh let, ki je predpisan v carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti, je dajatev postala dokončna, kot je bilo potrjeno v sodbah.
FESI also disagreed that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE can be implemented by simply assessing the MET/IT requests submitted by the non-sampled exporting producers as the Court of Justice did not specifically outline that the invalidation found is indeed limited to this aspect.
Nanaša se na vsebino zahtevka, ki mora dokazati, da so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji za TGO/IO.
The Commission considers that the implementation of the judgment is only necessary for those exporting producers for which not all import transactions have become definitive.
Edina nezakonitost, ugotovljena v sodbah, je odsotnost ocene zahtevkov za TGO/IO.
Indeed, once the three year prescription period foreseen in the Community Customs Code has expired, the duty has become definitive, as confirmed in the judgments.
Pravna podlaga za ponovno uvedbo dajatev
Any impact on the residual duty is excluded, because the MET/IT claim for the companies in the sample has been assessed, and the fact of granting MET/IT to one of the companies outside the sample does not affect the residual duty rate.
FESI trdi, da Komisija ne bi smela uporabljati dveh različnih pravnih režimov, tj. na eni strani osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, za ocenjevanje zahtevkov proizvajalcev izvoznikov za IO [30] in na drugi strani sedanje osnovne uredbe [31], ki vključuje spremembe na podlagi Uredbe (EU) št. 1168/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [32], s katero so bili uvedeni postopki komitologije na področju, med drugim, trgovinske zaščite, ter s tem preneseno odločanje na Komisijo.
The burden of proof is not limited to filing a request.
FESI je prav tako ponovno poudaril, da člen 266 PDEU ne dovoljuje retroaktivne uvedbe protidampinških dajatev, kar naj bi bilo potrjeno tudi s sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-459/98P, IPS proti Svetu, in Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1515/2001 o ukrepih, ki jih Skupnost lahko uvede na podlagi poročila, ki ga sprejme Organ STO za reševanje sporov v zvezi s protidampinškimi in protisubvencijskimi zadevami [33].
It concerns the content of the request, which has to demonstrate that all conditions for MET/IT are met.
FESI je trdil, da Komisija ni podala nobenega utemeljenega razloga za odstopanje od načela prepovedi retroaktivnosti in je zato kršila načelo upravičenih pričakovanj.
The only illegality identified in the judgments is the lack of assessment of the MET/IT claims.
FESI prav tako trdi, da ponovna uvedba dokončnih protidampinških ukrepov na uvoz vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvrševanje, pomeni (i) diskriminacijo uvoznikov, ki jih zadeva trenutno izvrševanje, glede na uvoznike, ki jih zadeva izvajanje sodb Brosmann in Aokang, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 6 zgoraj, in ki so jim bile povrnjene dajatve, plačane za uvoz obutve petih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih prav tako zadevata ti sodbi, kot tudi (ii) diskriminacijo proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvrševanje, glede na pet proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadevata sodbi Brosmann in Aokang, ki niso postali predmet nobene dajatve v skladu z Izvedbenim sklepom Sveta z dne 18. marca 2014 o zavrnitvi predloga izvedbene uredbe o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo podjetja Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Legal basis for the re-imposition of duties
Ltd [34].
FESI claimed that the Commission should not have applied two different legal regimes, i.e. the basic Regulation prior to its amendment for the assessment of the exporting producers' IT claims on the one hand [30], and the current basic Regulation on the other hand [31], that incorporated the amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council [32] introducing Comitology procedures in the area of, inter alia, trade defence and thus delegating the decision making to the Commission.
Trdi, da ta diskriminatorna obravnava odraža pomanjkanje enotne razlage in uporabe prava EU, kar je v nasprotju s temeljno pravico do učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
FESI also re-iterated that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for the imposition of anti-dumping duties retro-actively which would also be confirmed by the ruling of the Court of Justice in case C-459/98P, IPS v Council and Council Regulation (EC) 1515/2001 [33].
V zvezi z domnevno uporabo različnih pravnih režimov Komisija meni, da to izhaja iz razlik v prehodnih pravilih iz treh uredb, ki spreminjajo zadevno osnovno uredbo.
FESI argued that the Commission has not given any valid justification to deviate from the principle of non-retroactivity and has therefore violated the principle of legitimate expectations.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da bi bilo takšno ravnanje težko uskladiti z njenimi obveznostmi do izvajanja sodb.
FESI also argued that re-imposing the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of the Vietnamese exporting producers concerned by the current implementation constitutes (i) a discrimination of the importers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis importers concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments referred to in recital (6) above that were reimbursed duties paid on imports of footwear from the five exporting producers concerned by these judgments as well as (ii) a discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis the five exporting producers concerned by the Brosmann and Aokang judgments which were not made subject of any duty following the Council Implementing Decision of 18 March 2014 rejecting the proposal for an Implementing Regulation reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of 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.
Zdi se, da Uredba (EU) št. 1168/2012 ne uvaja popolne prepovedi analiziranja zahtevkov za TGO zunaj vzorca, saj v primeru individualne obravnave dovoli takšen pregled.
Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
To odstopanje bi po analogiji lahko veljalo za obravnavano zadevo.
Ltd [34].
Po drugi strani Komisija meni, da bi rezultat uporabe Uredbe (EU) št. 1168/2012 v obravnavani zadevi vodil do istega rezultata, saj bi bili vsi zahtevki za TGO samodejno zavrnjeni, ne da bi bili ocenjeni.
This discriminatory treatment was claimed to reflect a lack of uniform interpretation and application of EU law which violates the fundamental right of an effective judicial protection.
Tretjič, v zvezi s postopkom komitologije, člen 3 Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [35] določa, da Svet še naprej ostaja pristojen za akte, kadar je Komisija sprejela akt, se je začelo posvetovanje ali pa je Komisija sprejela predlog.
Regarding the alleged use of different legal regimes, the Commission considers that that follows from the differences in the transition rules contained in the three Regulations amending the basic Regulation at stake.
V obravnavani zadevi ni bilo izvedeno nobeno takšno dejanje v zvezi z izvrševanjem sodbe pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014.
First, Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 (the so-called ‘Fasteners amendment’ dealing with IT) provided in its Article 2 that ‘it shall apply to all investigations initiated pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 following the entry into force of this Regulation’.
Glede retroaktivne uvedbe dokončnih protidampinških dajatev se navaja sklicevanje na ugotovitve, opisane v zgoraj navedenih uvodnih izjavah 67 do 75, kjer so bile te trditve že obsežno obravnavane.
As the present investigation was initiated prior to that date, the amendments of that Regulation to the basic Regulation do not apply in the present case.
Kar zadeva diskriminacijo, Komisija ugotavlja, da imajo proizvajalci izvozniki in nekateri zadevni uvozniki, na katere se sedanja uredba nanaša, pravico do sodnega varstva pred sodišči Unije zoper sedanjo uredbo.
Second, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 (the so-called ‘Brosmann amendment’ dealing with MET) provided in its Article 2 that ‘this Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012’.
Drugi uvozniki uživajo tako varstvo prek nacionalnih sodišč, ki delujejo kot sodniki na področju splošnega prava Unije.
Therefore, if the Commission had adopted a strict approach, it would not even have been necessary to assess the MET claims of the non-sampled companies any more, as they had lost the right to an MET assessment on 15 December 2012.
Trditev o diskriminaciji je prav tako neutemeljena.