natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A new act remedying the illegality identified by the Court therefore only needs to reassess the applicable anti-dumping duty rate, and not the measures themselves.
Po razkritju je Komisija prejela pripombe v imenu združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev, ki zastopata uvoznike obutve v Uniji.
Since it is concluded that the residual duty applicable to China and Vietnam respectively should be re-imposed in respect of the exporting producers concerned at the same rate as originally imposed by the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, no changes are required to Regulation (EC) No 388/2008.
Postopkovne zahteve pri ocenjevanju obrazcev zahtevka za TGO in IO
That latter regulation remains valid.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila, da dokazno breme pri ocenjevanju zahtevkov za TGO/IO nosi Komisija, saj so kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki bremenu zadostili s predložitvijo zahtevkov za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi.
E. COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES AFTER DISCLOSURE
Trdila sta tudi, da bi morale biti zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, na katere se nanaša trenutno izvajanje, zagotovljene enake procesne pravice, kot so bile zagotovljene vzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom v prvotni preiskavi.
Following disclosure, the Commission received comments on behalf of FESI and the Footwear Coalition representing importers of footwear in the Union.
Zlasti sta trdila, da je bila namesto preverjanj na kraju samem opravljena le teoretična analiza ter da kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki niso imeli možnosti, da bi dopolnili obrazce zahtevka za TGO/IO na podlagi poziva k dopolnitvam.
Procedural requirements when assessing MET and IT claim forms
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta nadalje trdila, da proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki jih to izvajanje zadeva, niso bila zagotovljena enaka postopkovna jamstva kot tista, ki se uporabljajo v standardnih protidampinških preiskavah, ampak so bili uporabljeni strožji standardi.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the burden of proof when assessing MET/IT claims lies with the Commission, as the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers had discharged the burden by submitting the MET/IT claims in the original investigation.
Trdila sta, da Komisija ni upoštevala časovnega zamika med vložitvijo zahtevkov za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi in oceno teh zahtevkov.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the same procedural rights should have been granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation as those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
Poleg tega so imeli proizvajalci izvozniki med prvotno preiskavo na voljo le 15 dni, da vložijo zahtevke za TGO/IO, namesto običajnih 21 dni.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued in particular, that only a desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-the-spot verification visits, and that the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters.
Na podlagi tega sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev trdila, da temeljno pravno načelo glede omogočanja zainteresiranim stranem, da v polni meri uveljavljajo pravico do obrambe iz člena 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah in člena 6 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, ni bilo spoštovano.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition further argued that the exporting producers concerned by this implementation were not provided with the same procedural guarantees than those applied in standard anti-dumping investigations, but stricter standards were applied.
Zato sta trdila, da je Komisija zlorabila svoje pooblastila, ker proizvajalcem izvoznikom ni dala priložnosti, da dopolnijo nepopolne informacije, in je v fazi izvajanja dejansko obrnila dokazno breme.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission has not taken into account the time lag between the filing of the MET/IT request in the original investigation and the assessment of these claims.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta nazadnje trdila tudi, da bi bil ta pristop diskriminatoren do kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so bili vzorčeni v prvotni preiskavi, pa tudi do drugih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v državah z netržnim gospodarstvom, za katere se je uvedla protidampinška preiskava in ki so v taki preiskavi vložili zahtevke za TGO/IO.
In addition, exporting producers during the original investigation were only provided 15 days in order to fill in the MET/IT requests, instead of the usual 21 days.
Zato za kitajske in vietnamske družbe, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje, ne bi smel veljati enak prag za zagotavljanje informacij, kot se uporabi v običajni 15-mesečni preiskavi, in zanje ne bi smeli veljati strožji postopkovni standardi.
On this basis, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the fundamental legal principle of granting interested parties full opportunity to exercise their rights of defence laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, was not respected.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da je Komisija dejansko uporabila razpoložljiva dejstva v skladu s členom 18(1) osnovne uredbe, vendar pa Komisija ni delovala skladno s postopkovnimi pravili iz člena 18(4) osnovne uredbe.
On this basis, it was argued that by not giving the exporting producers the opportunity to complete incomplete information the Commission misused its powers and effectively reversed the burden of proof at the stage of the implementation.
Komisija opozarja, da je v skladu s sodno prakso dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO/IO.
Finally, FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that this approach would be discriminatory vis-à-vis the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers that were sampled in the original investigation, but also other exporting producers in non-market economy countries that were subject to an anti-dumping investigation and filed MET/IT claims in that investigation.
Institucijam zato v skladu z mnenjem Sodišča v sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
Thus, the Chinese and Vietnamese companies concerned by the current implementation should not be made subject to the same information provision threshold as applied in a normal 15-month investigation and should not be subject to stricter procedural standards.
Nasprotno, Komisija mora 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 TGO/IO (glej uvodno izjavo (48)).
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the Commission applied de facto facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, while the Commission did not comply with the procedural rules set out in Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da Komisija na podlagi osnovne uredbe ali sodne prakse ni dolžna proizvajalcu izvozniku omogočiti, da ta dopolni zahtevek za TGO/IO z vsemi manjkajočimi dejstvi.
The Commission recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija lahko svojo oceno utemelji na podlagi informacij, ki jih je predložil proizvajalec izvoznik.
Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da je bila opravljena le teoretična analiza, Komisija ugotavlja, da je teoretična analiza postopek, pri katerem se zahtevki za TGO/IO analizirajo na podlagi dokumentacije, ki jo predloži proizvajalec izvoznik.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET/IT (see recital (48)).
Komisija opravi teoretično analizo za vse vloge za TGO/IO.
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation for the Commission contained in the basic Regulation or in the case-law to give the possibility of the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim with all missing factual information.
Poleg tega se lahko Komisija odloči, da bo opravila preveritvene obiske na kraju samem.
The Commission may base its assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Vendar preveritveni obiski na kraju samem niso obvezni in se ne izvajajo za vsako vlogo za TGO/IO.
In relation to the argument that only a desk analysis was carried out, the Commission notes that a desk analysis is a procedure whereby the requests for MET/IT are analysed on the basis of the documents submitted by the exporting producer.
Namen inšpekcijskih pregledov na kraju samem, kadar se izvedejo, je običajno potrditi določeno predhodno oceno, ki so jo opravile institucije, in/ali preveriti verodostojnost informacij, ki jih je predložil zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik.
All MET/IT applications are subject to a desk analysis by the Commission.
Povedano drugače, če je iz dokazov, ki jih je predložil proizvajalec izvoznik, jasno razvidno, da TGO/IO ni upravičena, se dodatni in neobvezni inšpekcijski pregled na kraju samem običajno ne bi organiziral.
In addition, the Commission may decide to carry out on-site verification visits.
Komisija sama presodi, če je primerno opraviti preveritveni obisk.
On-site verifications visits are, however, not required, nor are they carried out for every application for MET/IT.
Ta institucija se po lastni presoji odloči, kako bo preverila informacije v obrazcu za TGO/IO.
On-site inspections, where they are carried out, usually have as their purpose to confirm a certain preliminary assessment made by the institutions and/or to check the veracity of the information provided by the exporting producer concerned.
Kadar se torej Komisija, kot v tem primeru, na podlagi teoretične analize odloči, da ima dovolj dokazov za odločitev o zahtevku za TGO/IO, preveritveni obisk ni potreben in ga ni mogoče zahtevati.
In other words, if the evidence submitted by the exporting producer clearly shows that MET/IT is not warranted, the additional and optional step of on-site inspections would typically not be organised.
Kar zadeva trditev, da pravica do obrambe zaradi odločitve Komisije, da ne bo poslala pozivov k dopolnitvam, ni bila ustrezno spoštovana, je treba najprej opozoriti, da je pravica do obrambe individualna pravica ter da se združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev ne moreta sklicevati na kršitev individualne pravice drugih družb.
It is for the Commission to assess whether a verification visit is appropriate.
Komisija nasprotuje navedbi, da je njena praksa, da se obsežna izmenjava informacij in podrobna dopolnitev izvedeta, kadar se opravi zgolj teoretična analiza, in ne teoretična analiza in preverjanje na kraju samem.
The discretion to decide on the means of verifying the information in an MET/IT form lies with that institution.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev dejansko nista mogla dokazati nasprotnega.
So, where, as in the present case, the Commission decides, on the basis of a desk analysis, that it was in possession of sufficient evidence to rule on an MET/IT claim, a verification visit is not necessary and cannot be required.
Tudi pripombe združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev glede diskriminacije je treba zavrniti kot neutemeljene.
Concerning the claim that the rights of defence were not appropriately respected through the Commission's decision not to send deficiency letters, it is, first of all, recalled that rights of defence are individual rights, and that FESI and the Footwear Coalition cannot rely on a violation of an individual right of other companies.
Opozoriti je treba, da je načelo enake obravnave kršeno, kadar institucije Unije različno obravnavajo primerljive položaje v škodo nekaterih trgovcev v primerjavi z drugimi, ne da bi bila ta razlika v obravnavi upravičena z obstojem pomembnih objektivnih razlik.
Second, the Commission contests the assertion that there is a practice by the Commission that significant exchange of information and a detailed deficiency completion process is carried out when use is made of desk analysis alone as opposed to desk analysis plus on-site verification.
Vendar ravno tega Komisija ne počne, saj s tem, ko od nevzorčenih kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov zahteva, naj za namene ponovne ocene vložijo zahtevke za TGO/IO, namerava te, prej nevzorčene, proizvajalce izvoznike izenačiti s tistimi, ki so bili vzorčeni v prvotni preiskavi.
Indeed, FESI and the Footwear Coalition have not been able to provide evidence to the contrary.
Poleg tega ni diskriminacije, ker osnovna uredba v zvezi s tem ne določa najmanjšega časovnega okvira, dokler je časovni okvir v ta namen razumen in stranem zagotavlja dovolj priložnosti za zbiranje (ali ponovno zbiranje) potrebnih informacij in se hkrati varuje njihova pravica do obrambe.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition's comments on discrimination must equally be rejected as unfounded.
Kar zadeva člen 18(1) osnovne uredbe, je Komisija v obravnavani zadevi sprejela informacije, ki so jih predložili zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki, teh informacij torej ni zavrnila, pač pa je na njih temeljila njena ocena.
It is recalled that the principle of equal treatment is violated where the Union institutions treat like cases differently, thereby placing some traders at a disadvantage by comparison to others, without such differentiation being justified by the existence of substantial objective differences.
Komisija zato ni uporabila člena 18.
Yet, that is precisely not what the Commission is doing: by requiring the non-sampled Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers to file MET/IT claims for re-assessment, it intends to bring these formerly non-sampled exporting producers on the same footing as those who were sampled in the initial investigation.
Iz tega sledi, da ni treba slediti postopku iz člena 18(4) osnovne uredbe.
In addition, as the basic Regulation does not set out a minimumtimeframe in this regard, so long as the timeframe for this purpose is reasonable and provides the parties with sufficient opportunity to assemble (or re-assemble) the information needed while at the same time safeguarding their rights of defence, no discrimination occurs.
Postopek iz člena 18(4) se uporablja v primerih, ko namerava Komisija zavrniti nekatere informacije, ki so jih zagotovile zainteresirane strani, in namesto tega uporabiti razpoložljiva dejstva.
Regarding Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, in the current case, the Commission accepted the information provided by the exporting producers concerned, it did not reject this information and based its assessment on it.
Pravna podlaga za ponovno uvedbo preiskave
Therefore, the Commission did not apply Article 18.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila, da bi Komisija kršila člen 266 PDEU, saj ji ta člen ne zagotavlja pravne podlage za ponovno uvedbo preiskave v zvezi z ukrepom, ki je prenehal veljati.
It follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Hkrati sta ponovno poudarila, da člen 266 PDEU ne dovoljuje retroaktivne uvedbe protidampinških dajatev, kar je bilo potrjeno tudi s sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-458/98P, IPS proti Svetu.
The procedure under Article 18(4) is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
V zvezi s tem sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev trdila, da se je protidampinški postopek v zvezi z uvozom obutve iz Kitajske in Vietnama zaključil 31. marca 2011 z iztekom ukrepov.
Legal basis of re-opening of the investigation
Komisija je v ta namen 16. marca 2011 objavila obvestilo v Uradnem listu Evropske unije v zvezi z iztekom dajatev („obvestilo o izteku“), industrija Unije pa ni trdila, da se damping nadaljuje, in tudi sodba Sodišča Evropske unije ni razveljavila obvestila o izteku.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that the Commission would be in breach of Article 266 TFEU, as this article does not provide it with the legal basis to reopen the investigation with respect to an expired measure.
Poleg tega sta isti strani trdili, da tudi v osnovni uredbi ni nobenih razlogov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko Komisija ponovno uvedla protidampinško preiskavo.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also reiterated that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for the imposition of anti-dumping duties retroactively, which was also confirmed by the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-458/98 P IPS v Council.
V zvezi s tem sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev trdila tudi, da nadaljevanje preiskave in ocena zahtevkov za TGO/IO, ki so jih zadevni kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki vložili v prvotni preiskavi, pomenita kršitev splošnega načela zastaranja ali omejitve.
In this regard, FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of footwear from China and Vietnam had been concluded on 31 March 2011 with the expiry of the measures.
To načelo je določeno v Sporazumu o STO, osnovni uredbi, v kateri je določeno petletno trajanje ukrepov, ter členih 236(1) in 221(3) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, v skladu s katerima lahko v obdobju treh let uvozniki zahtevajo povračilo protidampinških dajatev, nacionalni carinski organi pa poberejo uvozne in protidampinške dajatve.
To this aim, the Commission had issued a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the expiry of the duties on 16 March 2011 (‘notice of expiry’), the Union industry had not claimed any continuation of dumping and also the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union did not invalidate the notice of expiry.
Člen 266 PDEU ne omogoča odstopanja od tega načela.
In addition, the same parties argued that there would also not be any grounds in the basic Regulation which would allow the Commission to re-open the anti-dumping investigation.
Poleg tega sta trdila, da Komisija ni zagotovila obrazložitve ali predhodne sodne prakse, ki bi podprla uporabo člena 266 PDEU kot pravne podlage za ponovno uvedbo postopka.
In this context, FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued in addition that the resumption of the investigation and the assessment of the MET/IT claims filed by the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned in the original investigation is in violation of the universal principle of prescription or limitation.
V zvezi z odsotnostjo kakršne koli pravne podlage za ponovno uvedbo preiskave Komisija opozarja na sodno prakso, navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15, v skladu s katero lahko nadaljuje preiskavo v točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
This principle is laid down in the WTO Agreement and the basic Regulation that set a 5-year time limit for the duration of measures and in Articles 236(1) and 221(3) of the Community Customs Code that set a 3-year period for importers to claim the repayment of anti-dumping duties on the one hand and for national customs authorities to collect import duties and anti-dumping duties on the other hand.
V skladu s sodno prakso je treba zakonitost protidampinške uredbe ocenjevati z vidika objektivnih norm prava Unije in ne glede na prakso odločanja, tudi če takšna praksa obstaja (v obravnavanem primeru temu ni tako).
Article 266 of the TFEU does not allow from the deviation of this principle.
Zato prejšnja praksa Komisije, quod non, ne more ustvariti legitimnih pričakovanj, saj v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča legitimna pričakovanja lahko nastanejo le, če institucije zagotovijo natančna zagotovila, na podlagi katerih bi lahko zainteresirana stran zakonito sklepala, da bodo institucije Unije ravnale na določen način.
Finally, it was claimed that the Commission has not provided any reasoning or prior jurisprudence to support of the use of Article 266 TFEU as a legal basis for the re-opening of the procedure.
Niti združenje FESI niti koalicija za obutev nista poskušala dokazati, da so bila v tem primeru dana taka zagotovila.
Concerning the lack of any legal basis to re-open the investigation, the Commission recalls the case-law quoted above at recital (15), pursuant to which it may resume the investigation at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
To še toliko bolj velja, ker navedena prejšnja praksa ne ustreza dejanskemu in pravnemu položaju obravnavane zadeve, zadevne razlike pa je mogoče pripisati dejanskim in pravnim razlikam v primerjavi z obravnavano zadevo.
According to the case-law, the legality of an anti-dumping Regulation has to be assessed in the light of the objective norms of Union law, and not of a decisional practice, even where such a practice exists (which is not the case here).
Navedene razlike so naslednje: nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče, se ne nanaša na ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi ter interesu Unije in s tem na načelo uvedbe dajatve, temveč le na natančno stopnjo dajatve.
Hence, the Commission's past practice, quod non, cannot create legitimate expectations: pursuant to settled case-law of the Court, legitimate expectations can only arise where the institutions have given specific assurances which would allow an interested party to lawfully deduce that the Union institutions would act in a certain way.
Prejšnje razglasitve ničnosti, na katere so se sklicevale zainteresirane strani, pa so se nasprotno nanašale na ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi in interesu Unije.
Neither FESI nor the Footwear Coalition have attempted to demonstrate that such assurances were given in the present case.
Institucije torej lahko ponovno izračunajo natančno stopnjo dajatev za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike.
That is all the more the case because the previous practice referred to does not correspond to the factual and legal situation of the present case, and whose differences can be explained by factual and legal differences with the present case.
Zlasti v obravnavani zadevi ni bilo treba pridobiti dodatnih informacij od zainteresiranih strani.
Those differences are as follows: the illegality identified by the Court does not concern the findings on dumping, injury, and Union interest, and therefore the principle of the imposition of the duty, but only the precise duty rate.
Komisija je morala namesto tega oceniti informacije, ki so bile vložene, vendar niso bile ocenjene pred sprejetjem Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006.
The previous annulments relied on by the interested parties, on the contrary, concerned the findings on dumping, injury and Union interest.
V vsakem primeru, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (75), nekdanje prakse v drugih primerih niso natančno in brezpogojno zagotovilo za obravnavani primer.
The institutions are therefore permitted to recalculate the precise duty rate for the exporting producers concerned.
Vse strani, na katere se nanaša postopek, tj. zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki in strani v zadevah pred sodiščem ter združenje, ki zastopa eno od teh strani, so bile z razkritjem obveščene o pomembnih dejstvih, na podlagi katerih namerava Komisija sprejeti sedanjo oceno TGO/IO.
In particular, in the present case, there was no need to seek additional information from interested parties.
S tem so njihove pravice do obrambe zaščitene.
Rather, the Commission had to assess information that had been filed, but not assessed before the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
V zvezi s tem je treba zlasti poudariti, da nepovezani uvozniki v okviru protidampinškega postopka niso deležni pravice do obrambe, saj ti postopki niso usmerjeni proti njim.
In any event, as noted in recital (75) above, previous practice in other cases does not constitute precise and unconditional assurance for the present case.
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 po sodbi, ki razveljavlja prvotni akt, sprejme nov akt, ki nadomesti razveljavljeni akt.