natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, exporters should demonstrate on the basis of a properly substantiated claim that all five criteria listed in this Article are met so that they can be granted IT.
V ta namen prvi pododstavek člena 9(5) določa, da mora biti vloženi zahtevek ustrezno utemeljen.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the IT claim.
Institucijama Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da izvoznik ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
The five criteria are the following:
Nasprotno, instituciji Unije morata presoditi, ali podatki, ki jih je predložil zadevni izvoznik, zadostujejo za dokaz, da so merila iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, izpolnjena, tako da se mu lahko odobri IO.
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;
V skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, morajo izvozniki na podlagi ustrezno utemeljenega zahtevka dokazati, da izpolnjujejo vseh pet meril iz navedenega člena, tako da se jim lahko odobri IO.
export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;
(41 ) Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za IO.
the majority of the shares belong to private persons; state officials appearing on the board of directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;
Uporablja se naslednjih pet meril:
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and
v primeru družb, ki so v celoti ali deloma v tuji lasti, lahko izvozniki svobodno vrnejo kapital in dobičke v domovino;
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
izvozne cene in količine ter pogoji prodaje so svobodno določeni;
Four exporting producers (Companies V6, V12, V13, V14) failed to meet Criterion 1 (Capital repatriation) since they failed to provided substantiated evidence that repatriation was permitted.
pretvorbe glede menjalnih tečajev se izvajajo po tržnem tečaju; in
More specifically, for nine exporting producers (Companies V1, V2, V4, V7, V8, V9, V10, V13, V14) the Articles of Association, Investment Licence or Business Licence stipulated a limitation in output and therefore they failed to demonstrate that business decisions, such as export quantities are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand.
Vseh štirinajst vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so vložili zahtevek za TGO, je vložilo zahtevek tudi za IO, v primeru, da se jim TGO ne odobri.
The remaining exporting producers concerned did not sell on the domestic market and provided no further explanations so that they have not demonstrated that this was not due to State intervention.
Štirje proizvajalci izvozniki (družbe V6, V12, V13, V14) niso izpolnili merila 1 (vračanje kapitala v domovino), saj niso predložili utemeljenih dokazov, da je vračanje kapitala v domovino dovoljeno.
As regards Criterion 3 (Company –key management and shares- is sufficiently independent from State interference), it was found that two exporting producers (Companies V2, V8) were partly owned by State-owned shareholders.
Nobeden od zadevnih štirinajstih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merilo 2 (izvozne cene in količine so svobodno določene).
The majority of the shares of one exporting producer (Company V2) did not belong to private persons as required by Criterion 3.
Natančneje, pri devetih proizvajalcih izvoznikih (družbe V1, V2, V4, V7, V8, V9, V10, V13, V14) statut družbe, naložbeno dovoljenje ali dovoljenje za opravljanje dejavnosti določajo omejitev proizvodnje, zato niso mogli dokazati, da se poslovne odločitve, kot so na primer izvozne količine, sprejemajo kot odziv na tržne signale, ki odražajo ponudbo in povpraševanje.
In addition, the board members appointed by the respective State-owned shareholders of both exporting producers were found able to block any decision of their respective boards.
Preostali zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki niso prodajali na domačem trgu in v zvezi s tem niso predložili dodatnih pojasnil, s čimer niso dokazali, da to ni posledica posredovanja države.
Therefore both exporting producers failed to demonstrate that they were sufficiently independent from State interference.
Kar zadeva merilo 3 (ključni upravljavski položaji in deleži v družbi so dovolj neodvisni od vmešavanja države), je bilo ugotovljeno, da sta dva proizvajalca izvoznika (družbi V2, V8) v delni lasti državnih delničarjev.
Therefore, none of the fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers concerned fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment and IT was, as a result, denied to all of them.
Večina deležev enega od proizvajalcev izvoznikov (družba V2) ni bila v lasti zasebnikov, kot to zahteva merilo 3.
The residual anti-dumping duty applicable to Vietnam should therefore be imposed for these exporting producers for the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Poleg tega je bilo ugotovljeno, da so lahko člani odbora, ki so jih imenovali ustrezni delničarji obeh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so v državni lasti, blokirali odločitve zadevnega odbora.
The period of application of that Regulation was initially from 7 October 2006 until 7 October 2008.
Zaradi tega proizvajalca izvoznika nista mogla dokazati, da sta dovolj neodvisna od vmešavanja države.
Following the initiation of an expiry review, it was prolonged on 30 December 2009 until 31 March 2011.
Zato nobeden od zadevnih štirinajstih vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni izpolnjeval pogojev iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, zaradi česar se IO zanje ni odobrila.
The illegality identified in the judgments is that the Union Institutions failed to establish whether the products produced by the exporting producers concerned should be subject to the residual duty or to an individual duty.
Zato bi bilo za te proizvajalce izvoznike treba uvesti preostalo protidampinško dajatev, ki velja za Vietnam, za obdobje uporabe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006.
On the basis of the illegality identified by the Court, there is no legal ground for completely exempting the products produced by the exporting producers concerned from paying any anti-dumping duty.
Nezakonitost, ki je bila ugotovljena v teh sodbah, je, da instituciji Unije nista ugotovili, ali bi morala za izdelke zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov veljati preostala dajatev ali individualna dajatev.
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.
Ker je ugotovljeno, da bi bilo treba ponovno uvesti preostalo dajatev za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike po isti stopnji, kot je bilo prvotno določeno v izpodbijani uredbi in Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) št. 1294/2009, niso potrebne nobene spremembe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 388/2008.
Since it is concluded that the residual duty 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 Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2008.
Navedena uredba je še vedno veljavna.
That Regulation remains valid.
C. PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI PO RAZKRITJU
C. COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES AFTER DISCLOSURE
Zgoraj navedene ugotovitve in sklepi so bili razkriti zainteresiranim stranem, ki jim je bil določen rok za pripombe.
The above findings and conclusions were disclosed to the interested parties which were given a time period to comment.
FESI in eden od uvoznikov sta se javila in predložila pripombe.
FESI and one importer came forward and provided comments.
FESI je predložil pripombe tudi v imenu družb Puma SE in Timberland Europe BV.
FESI's comments were also filed on behalf of Puma SE and Timberland Europe BV.
Domnevne nepravilnosti v postopku
Alleged irregularities in the procedure
FESI je trdil, da je pri sedanjem izvajanju prišlo do mnogih kršitev postopka.
FESI claimed that there were a number of procedural errors in the current implementation.
FESI je opozoril na dejstvo, da so bili zahtevki za TGO zadevnih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov že proučeni in razkriti pred sodbo Sodišča v združenih zadevah C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited in C-34/14 Puma SE, tj. dne 3. decembra 2015, kot tudi namen Komisije, da ponovno uvede dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz obutve v višini 16,5 %.
FESI pointed to the fact that the MET claims of the Chinese exporting producers concerned were already examined and disclosed prior to 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, i.e. on 3 December 2015, as well as the Commission's intention to re-impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear of 16,5 %.
Te ocene naj bi bile torej opravljene brez pravne podlage in so predhodno posegale v prihajajočo sodbo Sodišča.
These assessments would therefore have been carried out without legal basis and were pre-empting the up-coming judgment of the Court of Justice.
Vendar pa se Komisija ne strinja z zgoraj navedeno izjavo, saj je samo pripravljala izvrševanje morebitne prihodnje sodbe.
The Commission does not agree with the above statement as it only prepared the implementation of a possible future judgment.
Takšna priprava zagotavlja dobro upravljanje iz naslednjih razlogov: Prvič, nesporno je, da bi Komisija morala proučiti zahtevke za TGO/IO.
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.
Edino sporno vprašanje v postopku pred Sodiščem, ki takrat še ni bil zaključen, je bilo, ali se lahko nepovezani uvozniki, kot so Clark, Puma in Timberland, sklicujejo na to nezakonitost.
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.
Ker je šlo za binarno odločitev da/ne, se je Komisija lahko izjemno dobro pripravila na morebitno negativno sodbo o tem vprašanju.
As a result of that yes/no binary choice, the Commission could exceptionally perfectly prepare for the event of a negative judgment on this question.
Drugič, hitro izvrševanje 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.
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.
Kakršno koli vplivanje na sodbo Sodišča je izključeno, saj se navedena sodba nanaša na drug predmet urejanja (tj. ali se uvozniki lahko sklicujejo na pravico do ocenitve zahtevkov za TGO/IO, ki je bila dodeljena proizvajalcem izvoznikom).
Any influence on the Court's judgment was excluded, as that judgment concerned a different subject-matter (namely whether importers can rely on the right to have MET/IT claims assessed vested in exporting producers).
FESI je nadalje trdil, 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 [19], ni moglo rešiti zgoraj navedenih kršitev postopka, saj ni zagotovilo resnične priložnosti za uveljavljanje pravic zainteresiranih strani do obrambe.
FESI 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 [19] could not cure above procedural errors because it did not provide meaningful opportunity for the interested parties to exercise their rights of defence.
Poleg tega je FESI trdil, da bi mu 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 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.
V sklepih je FESI trdil, da je na osnovi zgoraj navedenih kršitev postopka Komisija kršila osnovni pravni okvir EU in s tem povzročila zlorabo svojih pooblastil.
In conclusions, FESI 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.
Obvestilo o izvajanju sodbe je bilo objavljeno z namenom povečanja preglednosti v skladu s politiko Komisije glede preglednosti v preiskavah trgovinske zaščite in na zahtevo pooblaščenca za zaslišanje, po zaslišanju z eno izmed zadevnih strani, ki je sprožila vprašanje.
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.
Komisija še vedno zagovarja stališče, da ta objava v strogem pomenu besede ni bila zakonsko predpisana.
The Commission continues to take the view that that publication was not, strictly speaking, legally required.
V vsakem primeru, tudi če je bilo to obvestilo potrebno, quod non, za zagotovitev ustreznega postopka in pravice do zaslišanja, so bile te zahteve izpolnjene z njegovo objavo in dejstvom, da je bila vsem stranem dana možnost, da predložijo pripombe.
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.
Dostop do celotnega spisa prvotne preiskave je bil odobren, čeprav Komisija ne vidi, kako bi lahko bile kakršne koli druge informacije, razen zahtevkov zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov za TGO/IO, pomembne za sedanji postopek.
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.
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 o tem, kateri uvozniki so bili njihovi uvozniki.
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.
Iz teh razlogov je treba vse zahtevke, ki se nanašajo na nepravilnosti v postopku, zavrniti.
For those reasons, any claims regarding procedural irregularities have to be rejected.
Pravna podlaga za nadaljevanje protidampinškega postopka
Legal basis for the resumption of the anti-dumping proceeding
FESI je trdil, da ni bilo pravne podlage za sedanje izvajanje.
FESI claimed that there was no legal basis for the current implementation.
Trdil je zlasti, 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 nadaljnjih učinkov, ki izhajajo iz nezakonitosti teh ukrepov.
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.
Zadevne strani so trdile, da člen 266 PDEU ni namenjen retroaktivnemu popravljanju nezakonitosti pretečenih ukrepov.
The parties argued that Article 266 TFEU is not intended to correct retroactively illegalities to expired measures.
To stališče je mogoče okrepiti s členoma 263 in 265 PDEU, ki določata roke za vložitev tožbe zaradi nezakonitih dejanj in nedelovanja institucij EU.
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.
FESI je nadalje trdil, da v tem primeru preiskave ni mogoče obnoviti v točki, na kateri 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 proizvajalci izvozniki.
FESI 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 exporting producers concerned.
FESI je v nadaljevanju trdil, da retroaktivni popravek pretečenih ukrepov krši načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
FESI claimed further that the retro-active correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Trdil je, da je bilo zadevnim stranem sprva zagotovljeno, da so ukrepi pretekli 31. marca 2011 in da so glede na čas, ki je pretekel od prvotne preiskave, upravičeno pričakovale, da se prvotna preiskava ne bo obnovila ali ponovno začela.
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.
Drugič, že samo dejstvo, da v prvotni preiskavi zahtevki za TGO niso bili preiskani v roku 3 mesecev, vietnamskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom daje pravno zagotovilo, da njihovi zahtevki za TGO dejansko ne bodo pregledani.
Secondly, the very fact that during the original investigation MET claims were not investigated within the 3 months deadline provided legal certainty to the Vietnamese exporting producers that their MET claims will indeed not be reviewed.
V zaključku so zadevne strani trdile, da glede na dolgo časovno obdobje, nadaljevanje preiskave predstavlja kršitev splošnega načela zastaranja, ki se uporablja v vseh pravnih okvirih.
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.
FESI je nadalje trdil, da niti člen 266 PDEU niti osnovna uredba ne dovoljujeta retroaktivne ponovne uvedbe dokončne dajatve v višini 10 % na uvoz zadevnih vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
FESI further argued that neither Article 266 TFEU, nor the basic Regulation permit the retroactive re-imposition of the definitive duty of 10 % to imports of the Vietnamese exporting producers concerned.
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 objavi sodbe, s katero je bil prvotni akt razglašen za ničnega, sprejme nov akt, ki bi zamenjal akt, ki je bil razglašen za ničnega.
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 following a judgment annulling the initial act.
V skladu s sodno prakso, navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15 zgoraj, bi bilo treba upravni postopek obnoviti v točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
According to the case-law referred to in recital (15) above, the administrative procedure should be resumed at the point in time where the illegality occurred.
Protidampinški postopki zato še vedno niso zaključeni, saj je bil akt, ki je sklenil postopke, razglašen za ničnega.
The anti-dumping proceedings are hence, as a result of the annulment of the act concluding the proceedings, still open.
Komisija mora zaključiti te postopke, saj člen 9 osnovne uredbe določa, da mora biti preiskava zaključena z aktom Komisije.
The Commission is under an obligation to close those proceedings, as Article 9 of the basic Regulation provides that an investigation has to be closed by an act of the Commission.
Kar zadeva trditev glede retroaktivnosti na podlagi člena 10 osnovne uredbe in člena 10 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO, člen 10(1) osnovne uredbe, v katerem je prevzeto besedilo člena 10(1) Protidampinškega sporazuma STO, 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.
As to the claim concerning retroactivity based on Article 10 of the basic Regulation and Article 10 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘WTO ADA’), Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, which follows the text of Article 10(1) of the WTO 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.
Komisija ugotavlja tudi, da v obravnavani zadevi ni prisotna retroaktivnost ter kršitev pravne varnosti in legitimnih pričakovanj.
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.
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) [20], in okoliščinam, ki so nastale pred začetkom veljavnosti novega predpisa, vendar še niso dokončne (tudi začasne okoliščine) [21].
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.
V tej zadevi okoliščine uvoza zadevnih izdelkov, do katerih je prišlo med obdobjem uporabe Uredbe (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.
The Commission also observes that there is no retroactivity and violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.
Hkrati so bili uvozniki obutve z objavo obvestila o začetku in začasne uredbe opozorjeni glede morebitne uvedbe takšne dajatve.
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) [20], 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) [21].
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 [22].