natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Trije uvozniki zadevnega izdelka, in sicer družbe C&J Clark International Ltd. („Clark“), Puma SE („Puma“) in Timberland Europe B.V.
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 Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code [9] (‘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.
(„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.
Three importers of the product concerned, C&J Clark International Ltd (‘Clark’), Puma SE (‘Puma’) and Timberland Europe B.V.
Sodišče je 4. februarja 2016 v združenih zadevah C & J Clark International Limited in Puma SE, C-659/13 in C-34/14 [10], 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 iz člena 2(7)(b) in člena 9(5) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 [11].
(‘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.
Sodišče je v zvezi z zadevo Timberland Europe, C-571/14, 11. aprila 2016 odločilo, da se zadeva izbriše iz registra na zahtevo nacionalnega predložitvenega sodišča.
On 4 February 2016, in the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE [10], 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 [11].
Člen 266 PDEU določa, da morata instituciji sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za izvršitev sodb Sodišča.
Regarding Case C-571/14 Timberland Europe, the Court of Justice decided on 11 April 2016 to remove the case from the register at the request of the referring national court.
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 [12].
Article 266 TFEU provides that the institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča se postopek za nadomestitev akta, razglašenega za ničnega, nadaljuje v točki, v kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti [13].
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 [12].
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.
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 [13].
Če je za nično razglašena uredba o uvedbi dokončnih protidampinških ukrepov, 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 [14], razen če je nezakonitost nastala v fazi začetka postopka.
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.
Razen tega, da instituciji nista preučili zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni, vse druge ugotovitve iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbene uredbe Sveta (EU) št. 1294/2009 ostajajo veljavne.
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 [14], except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
V tej zadevi je nezakonitost nastala po začetku 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.
Zato se je Komisija odločila, da bo ta protidampinški postopek, ki je po sodbah ostal odprt, obnovila v točki, v kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in preučila, ali so za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike prevladali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva v obdobju od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005, tj. obdobju preiskave („obdobje preiskave“).
In the present case, the illegality occurred after initiation.
Komisija je v primerih, v katerih je bilo to potrebno, preučila tudi, ali so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki izpolnjevali pogoje za IO v skladu s členom 9(5) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 [15] („osnovna uredba v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo“) [16].
Hence, the Commission decided to resume the present anti-dumping proceeding that was still open following the judgments at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, which was the investigation period (‘investigation period’).
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2016/1395 [17] 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 13 kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
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 [15] (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’) [16].
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2016/1647 [18] ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobrala začasno dajatev na uvoz s strani družb Clark, Puma in Timberland določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Vietnama, ki jo proizvajajo nekateri vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 [17], 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 have submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2016/1731 [19] ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobrala začasno dajatev na uvoz s strani družb Puma in Timberland določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo en proizvajalec izvoznik iz Vietnama in dva proizvajalca izvoznika iz LRK, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 [18], 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 had submitted MET and IT claims, but had not been sampled.
Veljavnost Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1395, Uredbe (EU) 2016/1647 in Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1731 sta družbi Puma in Timberland izpodbijali na Splošnem sodišču v zadevah Puma in drugi proti Komisiji, T-781/16, in Timberland Europe proti Komisiji, T-782/16.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 [19], the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Puma and Timberland of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by one exporting producer in Vietnam and by two exporting producers in the PRC that submitted MET and IT claims, but had not been sampled.
Poleg tega je tudi družba Clark na Splošnem sodišču izpodbijala veljavnost Uredbe (EU) 2016/1395 v zadevah C & J Clark International proti Komisiji, T-790/16, in C & J Clark International proti Komisiji, T-861/16.
The validity of Regulation (EU) 2016/1395, Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 and Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 has been challenged by Puma and Timberland at the General Court in Cases T-781/16 Puma and Others v Commission and T-782/16 Timberland Europe v Commission.
V zvezi z izvršitvijo sodbe v združenih zadevah C & J Clark International Limited in Puma SE, C-659/13 in C-34/14, navedene v uvodni izjavi 12, je Komisija sprejela Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2016/223 o uvedbi postopka za oceno nekaterih zahtevkov za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo ter individualno obravnavo kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ter izvajanju sodbe Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 in C-34/14 [20].
Furthermore, the validity of Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 has also been challenged at the General Court by Clark in Cases T-790/16 C & J Clark International v Commission and T-861/16 C & J Clark International v Commission.
V členu 1 navedene uredbe je Komisija nacionalnim carinskim organom naročila, naj ji pošljejo vse zahtevke za povračilo dokončnih protidampinških dajatev, plačanih za uvoz obutve s poreklom iz Kitajske in Vietnama, ki so jih vložili uvozniki na podlagi člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti in ki temeljijo na dejstvu, da je nevzorčeni proizvajalec izvoznik v preiskavi, zaradi katere so bili z Uredbo (ES) št. 1472/2006 uvedeni dokončni ukrepi („prvotna preiskava“), zahteval TGO ali IO.
In view of the implementation of the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE mentioned in recital 12, the Commission adopted on 17 February 2016 Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 [20].
Komisija oceni zadevni zahtevek za TGO ali IO in ponovno uvede ustrezno stopnjo dajatve.
In Article 1 of that regulation, the Commission instructed national customs authorities to forward all requests for reimbursement of the definitive anti-dumping duties paid on imports of footwear originating in China and Vietnam made by importers based on Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and based on the fact that a non-sampled exporting producer had requested MET or IT in the investigation that lead to the imposition of the definitive measures by Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (‘original investigation’).
Na podlagi tega bi morali nacionalni carinski organi naknadno sprejeti odločitev glede zahtevka za povračilo in odpust protidampinških dajatev.
The Commission shall assess the relevant MET or IT claim and reimpose the appropriate duty rate.
Komisija je po uradnem obvestilu francoskih carinskih organov v skladu s členom 1 Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 opredelila kitajska proizvajalca izvoznika, ki sta predložila zahtevka za TGO in IO v prvotni preiskavi, vendar nista bila vzorčena.
On this basis the national customs authorities should subsequently decide on the request for repayment and remission of the anti-dumping duties.
Opredeljen je bil še en proizvajalec izvoznik, ki je bil dobavitelj za družbo Deichmann, tj. nemško družbo uvoznico, ki je izpodbijala plačilo dajatev.
Following a notification from the French customs authorities in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the Commission identified two Chinese exporting producers that provided MET and IT claims in the original investigation but that had not been sampled.
Posledično je Komisija analizirala zahtevek za TGO in IO teh treh kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
Another exporting producer was identified that was supplier of Deichmann, a German importer that contested the payment of duties.
Zaradi navedenega je Komisija z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2016/2257 [21] ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobrala začasno dajatev na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo trije proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
Consequently, the Commission analysed the MET and IT claim form from these three Chinese exporting producers.
Carinski organi Združenega kraljestva, Belgije in Švedske so 12. julija 2016 (Združeno kraljestvo), 13. julija 2016 (Belgija) in 26. julija 2016 (Švedska) Komisiji v skladu s členom 1 Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 priglasili zahtevke za povračilo, ki so jih vložili uvozniki.
As a result of the above, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 [21], the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by three exporting producers that had submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
Komisija je na podlagi teh uradnih obvestil analizirala zahtevke za TGO in IO, ki jih je vložilo 19 proizvajalcev izvoznikov, in z Uredbo (EU) 2017/423 [22] ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobrala začasno dajatev na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz LRK in Vietnama, ki jo proizvaja teh 19 proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
In accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the UK, Belgian (‘BE’), and Swedish (‘SE’) customs authorities notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers on 12 July 2016 (UK), 13 July 2016 (BE) and 26 July 2016 (SE).
Med navedeno preiskavo je bilo na podlagi pripomb več zainteresiranih strani po razkritju opredeljenih še pet dodatnih družb / skupin družb, ki so same ali prek povezanega kitajskega ali vietnamskega proizvajalca izvoznika predložile zahtevek za TGO in IO med prvotno preiskavo, vendar niso bile vzorčene in tudi niso bile ocenjene v okviru prejšnjega izvrševanja.
As a result of these notifications, the Commission analysed MET and IT claims from nineteen exporting producers and, by Regulation (EU) 2017/423 [22], reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC and Vietnam and produced by these nineteen exporting producers.
Te družbe so bile navedene v Prilogi VI k Uredbi (EU) 2017/423 in so bile del štirih skupin družb.
During the above investigation, through comments made by several interested parties following disclosure, five additional companies/company groups were identified that had either themselves or via a related Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producer submitted a MET and IT claim form during the original investigation, but that were not sampled and that had not been assessed in any previous implementation exercise.
Komisija je na podlagi tega opredelila štiri skupine družb, ki jih je skupaj sestavljalo sedem posameznih družb, ki so bile kitajski ali vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki niso bili vzorčeni v prvotni preiskavi, ter ocenila zahtevke za TGO in IO, ki so jih te družbe predložile v prvotni preiskavi.
These companies were listed in Annex VI to Regulation (EU) 2017/423 and were part of four company groups.
Zaradi navedenega je Komisija z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2017/1982 [23] ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobrala začasno dajatev na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo ti proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
On this basis, the Commission identified four company groups comprising together seven individual companies that were Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that were not sampled in the original investigation and assessed the MET and IT claim forms that these companies had submitted during the original investigation.
Poleg tega je Komisija v členu 3 Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2017/423 začasno odložila oceno položaja družb iz Priloge III k navedeni uredbi, dokler uvoznik, ki od nacionalnih carinskih organov zahteva povračilo, Komisiji ne sporoči imen in naslovov zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, od katerih so trgovci kupili obutev.
As a result, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1982 [23], the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by these exporting producers that had submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
Komisija sicer meni, da je dokazno breme za opredelitev zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v Kitajski in/ali Vietnamu na uvoznikih, ki zahtevajo povračilo plačanih protidampinških dajatev, vendar hkrati tudi priznava, da morda niso bili vsi uvozniki, ki so od trgovcev kupili obutev, seznanjeni s tem, da morajo Komisiji sporočiti imena proizvajalcev izvoznikov, od katerih so ti trgovci kupili obutev.
In addition, in Article 3 of the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423, the Commission temporarily suspended the assessment of the situation of companies listed in its Annex III until the importer claiming reimbursement from national customs authorities has informed the Commission of names and addresses of the exporting producers concerned from which traders have purchased the footwear.
Zato je posebej vzpostavila stik z vsemi uvozniki, ki jih zadevajo priglasitve Združenega kraljestva, Belgije in Švedske, in jih pozvala, naj v določenem roku predložijo potrebne informacije, tj. imena in naslove proizvajalcev izvoznikov v LRK ali Vietnama.
Indeed, while the Commission considers that the burden of proof to identify the relevant exporting producers in China and/or Vietnam lies with the importers requesting reimbursement of the anti-dumping duties paid, it also recognised that not all importers that bought footwear from traders may have been aware of the need to inform the Commission of the names of the exporting producers from which those traders acquired their footwear.
Posledično so trije uvozniki, tj. Pentland Brands Ltd., Puma UK Ltd. in Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd., 18. aprila 2017 (Puma UK Ltd.), 27. aprila 2017 (Pentland Brands Ltd.) in 15. maja 2017 (Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd.) predložili imena in naslove svojih dobaviteljev na Kitajskem in/ali v Vietnamu.
Therefore, the Commission specifically contacted all importers concerned by the UK, Belgian, and Swedish notifications and invited them to provide the necessary information, i.e. the names and addresses of the exporting producers in the PRC or Vietnam within a specified deadline.
Nemški carinski organi so Komisiji 7. aprila 2017 v skladu s členom 1 Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 priglasili zahtevke za povračilo, ki so jih vložili uvozniki v Uniji, in ji poslali spremne dokumente.
As a consequence, three importers, i.e. Pentland Brands Ltd, Puma UK Ltd and Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd provided the names and addresses of their respective suppliers in China and/or Vietnam on 18 April 2017 (Puma UK Ltd), on 27 April 2017 (Pentland Brands Ltd) and on 15 May 2017 (Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd), respectively.
Poleg tega so 20. junija 2017 poslali dodatek k svoji prvotni priglasitvi in Komisiji priglasili dodatne zahtevke uvoznikov.
On 7 April 2017, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of Germany notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
Nizozemski carinski organi so Komisiji 23. maja 2017 v skladu s členom 1 Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 priglasili zahtevke za povračilo, ki so jih vložili uvozniki v Uniji, in ji poslali spremne dokumente.
On 20 June 2017, the customs authorities of Germany sent an addendum to their original notification and notified the Commission additional claims of importers.
Poleg tega so 21. julija 2017 poslali dodatek k svoji prvotni priglasitvi in Komisiji priglasili dodatne zahtevke uvoznikov.
On 23 May 2017, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of the Netherlands notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
Tako je Komisija prejela imena in naslove skupno 600 družb, za katere je bilo sporočeno, da so dobaviteljice obutve v LRK in Vietnamu.
On 21 July 2017, the customs authorities of the Netherlands sent an addendum to their original notification and notified the Commission additional claims of importers.
Za 431 od teh družb (navedenih v Prilogi III k tej uredbi) Komisija nima evidence, da bi v prvotni preiskavi predložile obrazec zahtevka za TGO ali IO.
As a result, the Commission received names and addresses of a total of 600 companies that were reported as suppliers of footwear in the PRC and Vietnam.
Te družbe tudi niso mogle dokazati, da so bile povezane s katerim od kitajskih ali vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so v prvotni preiskavi predložili zahtevek za TGO/IO.
For 431 of these companies (listed in the Annex III to this Regulation) the Commission has no record that these companies had submitted any MET or IT claim form in the original investigation.
Od preostalih družb je bilo 19 proizvajalcev izvoznikov (ki so navedeni v Prilogi IV k tej uredbi) že ocenjenih posamično ali kot del skupine družb, izbran iz vzorca kitajskih ali vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v okviru prvotne preiskave.
These companies were also not able to demonstrate that they were related to any of the Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that had provided a MET/IT claim in the original investigation.
Ker nobena od teh družb ni prejela individualne stopnje dajatve, se za uvoz obutve teh družb uporablja dajatev v višini 16,5 % za LRK oziroma 10 % za Vietnam.
Out of the remaining companies, 19 exporting producers were already assessed individually or as part of a company group selected in the sample of Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers in the context of the original investigation (listed in the Annex IV to this Regulation).
Sodba iz uvodne izjave 12 ni vplivala na ti stopnji.
As none of these companies received an individual duty rate, the duty for the PRC of 16,5 % or of 10 % for Vietnam, is applied to imports of footwear from these companies respectively.
Od preostalih družb je bilo 72 proizvajalcev izvoznikov (ki so navedeni v Prilogi V k tej uredbi) že ocenjenih posamično ali kot del skupine družb v okviru izvršitve sodbe iz uvodne izjave 12, in sicer v Izvedbenem sklepu 2014/149/EU oziroma izvedbenih uredbah (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731, (EU) 2016/2257 ali (EU) 2017/1982.