natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, all parties against which the proceeding is directed, i.e. the exporting producers concerned, as well as the parties in the Court cases and the association representing one of those parties, have been informed by the disclosure of the relevant facts on the basis of which the Commission intends to adopt the present MET/IT assessment.
V skladu s sodno prakso iz uvodne izjave (15) bi se moral upravni postopek nadaljevati v točki, ko je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
Hence, their rights of defence are safeguarded.
Protidampinški postopki zato še vedno niso zaključeni, saj je bil akt, ki je sklenil postopke, razglašen za ničnega.
In that regard, it is to be noted in particular that unrelated importers do not enjoy, in an antidumping proceeding, rights of defence, as those proceedings are not directed against them.
Komisija mora zaključiti navedene postopke; člen 9(4) osnovne uredbe določa, da mora biti preiskava zaključena z aktom Komisije.
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.
Člen 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti
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.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da postopek, sprejet za ponovno uvedbo preiskave in retroaktivno uvedbo dajatve, pomeni zlorabo pooblastil s strani Komisije in kršitev PDEU.
The anti-dumping proceedings are hence, as a result of the annulment of the act concluding the proceedings, still open.
V zvezi s tem trdita, da Komisija nima pooblastil za poseganje v člen 236(1) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti s preprečevanjem povračila protidampinških dajatev.
The Commission is under an obligation to close those proceedings; Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation provides that an investigation has to be closed by an act of the Commission.
Trdila sta, da bi morali nacionalni carinski organi ukrepati zaradi razveljavitve dajatev in da bi morali tudi povrniti protidampinške dajatve, ki jih je Sodišče razglasilo za nične.
Article 236 of the Community Customs Code
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta v zvezi s tem trdila, da člen 14(3) osnovne uredbe Komisiji ne omogoča odstopanja od člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, saj sta obe zakonodaji pravno enakovredni in osnovne uredbe ni mogoče šteti za lex specialis carinskega zakonika Skupnosti.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also submitted that the procedure adopted to reopen the investigation and retroactively impose the duty amounts to an abuse of powers by the Commission and violates the TFEU.
Poleg tega sta isti strani trdili, da se člen 14(3) osnovne uredbe ne sklicuje na člen 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti in navaja le, da lahko Komisija sprejme posebne določbe, ne pa tudi odstopanj od carinskega zakonika Skupnosti.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argue in this regard that the Commission does not have the authority to interfere with Article 236(1) of the Community Customs Code by preventing the repayment of the anti-dumping duties.
V odgovor na navedeno je treba poudariti, da se na podlagi člena 14(1) osnovne uredbe pravila, ki urejajo carinsko zakonodajo Unije, ne uporabljajo samodejno za uvedbo posameznih protidampinških dajatev.
They argued that it was up to the national customs authorities to draw the consequences of an invalidation of duties and that they would also be obliged to reimburse anti-dumping duties that had been declared invalid by the Court.
Namesto tega člen 14(3) osnovne uredbe institucijam Unije daje pravico, da, kadar je potrebno in koristno, prenesejo in uporabijo pravila, ki urejajo carinsko zakonodajo Unije.
In this regard, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation does not allow the Commission to derogate from Article 236 of the Community Customs Code, as both legislations are of an equal legal order and the basic Regulation cannot be seen as a lex specialis of the Community Customs Code.
Za ta prenos ni potrebna polna uporaba vseh določb carinske zakonodaje Unije.
Furthermore, the same parties continued Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation does not refer to Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and only states that special provisions may be adopted by the Commission, but no derogations to the Community Customs Code.
Člen 14(3) osnovne uredbe izrecno predvideva posebne določbe v zvezi s skupno opredelitvijo pojma porekla, kar je dober primer tega, kje nastane odstopanje od določb carinske zakonodaje Unije.
In response thereto, it is important to underline that Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation does not automatically render applicable the rules governing Union customs legislation to the imposition of the individual anti-dumping duties.
Komisija je na tej podlagi izkoristila pooblastila, ki izhajajo iz člena 14(3) osnovne uredbe, in zahtevala, da nacionalni carinski organi začasno ne izvajajo nobenih povračil.
Rather, Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation gives the Union's institutions the right to transpose and make applicable, where necessary and useful, the rules governing the Union's customs legislation.
To ne izpodbija izključne pristojnosti, ki jo imajo nacionalni carinski organi v zvezi s spori glede carinskega dolga, saj so za odločanje o tem še vedno pristojni carinski organi držav članic.
This transposition does not require a full application of all the provisions of the Union's customs legislation.
Carinski organi držav članic še vedno na podlagi sklepov, ki jih Komisija sprejme v zvezi z zahtevki za TGO in IO, odločijo, ali bi bilo treba povračilo odobriti ali ne.
Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation explicitly envisages special provisions with regard to the common definition of the concept of origin, a good example of where deviation from the provisions of the Union's customs legislation occurs.
Čeprav drži, da nič v carinski zakonodaji Unije ne dovoljuje oviranja povračila napačno plačanih carinskih dajatev, pa taka posplošena izjava ni mogoča v zvezi s povračilom protidampinških dajatev.
It is on that basis that the Commission made use of the powers arising from Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation and required that national customs authorities refrain temporarily from any reimbursement.
V skladu s tem in zaradi splošne potrebe po zaščiti lastnih sredstev Unije pred neupravičenimi zahtevami za povračilo ter s tem povezanimi težavami, ki bi jih povzročilo zahtevanje povračil po tem, je morala Komisija začasno odstopati od carinske zakonodaje Unije in izkoristiti svoja pooblastila na podlagi člena 14(3) osnovne uredbe.
This does not challenge the exclusive competence that national customs authorities have in relation to disputes concerning customs debt: the decision-making authority remains with the customs authorities of the Member States.
Neobrazložitev pravne podlage
The Member States customs authorities still decide, on the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission vis-à-vis the MET and IT claims, whether reimbursement should be granted or not.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da v nasprotju s členom 296 PDEU Komisija ni zagotovila ustrezne obrazložitve in navedbe pravne podlage, na osnovi katere so bile retroaktivno ponovno uvedene dajatve ter s tem zavrnjena povračila dajatev uvoznikom, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje.
Thus, while it is true that nothing in the Union's customs legislation allows for an obstacle to the reimbursement of erroneously paid customs duties to be erected, no such sweeping statement can be made in relation to thereimbursement of anti-dumping duties.
Zato sta trdila, da je Komisija kršila pravico do učinkovitega sodnega varstva zainteresiranih strani.
Accordingly, and with the overarching necessity to protect the Union's own resources from unjustified requests for repayment and the related difficulty this would have caused pursuing unjustified repayments thereafter, the Commission had to deviate temporarily from the Union's customs legislation by making use of its powers under Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija meni, da obsežna pravna utemeljitev v dokumentu o splošnem razkritju in tej uredbi ustrezno utemeljuje to uredbo.
Lack of statement of legal basis
Legitimna pričakovanja
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also argued that in violation of Article 296 TFEU, the Commission failed to provide adequate statement of reasons and indication of the legal basis on which duties were re-imposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da retroaktivni popravek ukrepov, ki so prenehali veljati, krši načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
Accordingly, FESI and the Footwear coalition claimed that the Commission had breached the right to effective judicial protection of interested parties.
Združenje FESI je sprva trdilo, da naj bi zainteresirane strani, vključno z uvozniki, dobile zagotovilo, da ukrepi prenehajo veljati 31. marca 2011 in da so glede na čas, ki je pretekel od prvotne preiskave, upravičeno pričakovale, da se prvotna preiskava ne bo nadaljevala ali ponovno uvedla.
The Commission considers that the extensive legal reasoning provided in the general disclosure document and in this Regulation duly motivates the latter.
Podobno so kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki zato, ker njihovi zahtevki za TGO/IO, ki so jih predložili v prvotni preiskavi, niso bili ocenjeni v roku treh mesecev, ki je veljal v prvotni preiskavi, upravičeno legitimno pričakovali, da Komisija teh zahtevkov ne bo več pregledovala.
Legitimate expectations
Kar zadeva legitimna pričakovanja zainteresiranih strani, da so protidampinški ukrepi prenehali veljati in da se preiskava ne bo ponovno uvedla, se navaja sklic na uvodni izjavi (78) in (79), v katerih so bile te trditve podrobno obravnavane.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed further that the retroactive correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Kar zadeva legitimna pričakovanja kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da njihovi zahtevki za TGO/IO ne bodo pregledani, se navaja sklicevanje na uvodno izjavo (74), v kateri je bilo to obravnavano ob upoštevanju sodne prakse Sodišča v zvezi s to zadevo.
FESI argued that first, parties including importers, 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.
Načelo nediskriminacije
Likewise, the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were entitled to have justified legitimate expatiations that their MET/IT claims provided in the original investigation would not be reviewed anymore by the Commission, based on the mere fact that these claims were no assessed within the three-month period applicable during the original investigation.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila, da retroaktivna uvedba protidampinških ukrepov pomeni diskriminacijo (i) uvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje glede na uvoznike, ki jih zadeva izvajanje sodb v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang iz uvodne izjave (6) in ki so jim bile povrnjene dajatve, plačane za uvoz obutve od petih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki sta jih zadevali ti sodbi, ter (ii) proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje glede na pet proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadevata sodbi v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang, za katere po sprejetju Izvedbenega sklepa Sveta 2014/149/EU niso bile uvedene nobene dajatve.
Regarding the legitimate expectations of Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers not to have their MET/IT claims reviewed, reference is made to recital (74) above, where this has equally been addressed in light of the case-law of the Court on this matter.
Nato ugotavlja, da je razlika med uvozniki, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvajanje, in tistimi, ki jih zadeva izvajanje sodb v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang, ta, da so se slednji odločili za izpodbijanje Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006 na Splošnem sodišču, prvi pa ne.
Principle of non-discrimination
Sklep, ki ga sprejme institucija Unije in ga njegov naslovnik ne izpodbija v roku, določenem v šestem odstavku člena 263 PDEU, postane zanj pravnomočen.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition submitted that the imposition of anti-dumping measures with retroactive effects constitutes discrimination of (i) 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) 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 Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU.
To pravilo temelji zlasti na upoštevanju dejstva, da je tožbeni rok namenjen varovanju pravne varnosti, tj. da se prepreči časovno neomejeno izpodbijanje aktov Unije, ki imajo pravne učinke.
Regarding the claim on discrimination, the Commission recalls first of all the requirements for discrimination, as set out in recital (67) above.
To postopkovno načelo prava Unije nujno vodi do oblikovanja dveh skupin družb, in sicer tistih, ki so izpodbijale ukrep Unije in so zato morda v ugodnejšem položaju (kot družba Brosmann in drugi štirje proizvajalci izvozniki), in tistih, ki tega niso storile.
Then, it is noted that the difference between importers concerned by the current implementation and those concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments is that the latter decided to challenge Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 in the General Court, whereas the former did not.
Vendar to ne pomeni, da je Komisija zadevni strani obravnavala neenako in tako kršila načelo enake obravnave.
A decision adopted by a Union institution, which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time-limit laid down by the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, becomes definitive as against him.
Priznanje, da neka stran spada v drugo kategorijo, ker se je zavestno odločila, da ne bo izpodbijala ukrepa Unije, ne pomeni diskriminacije proti navedeni skupini.
That rule is based in particular on the consideration that the periods within which legal proceedings must be brought are intended to ensure legal certainty by preventing Union measures which produce legal effects from being called into question indefinitely.
Vse zainteresirane strani so torej imele pred sodišči Unije vedno pravico do sodnega varstva.
This procedural principle of Union law necessarily creates two groups: those which challenged a Union measure and who may have gained a favourable position as a result (like Brosmann and the other four exporting producers), and those who did not.
Kar zadeva domnevno diskriminacijo zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva to izvajanje in se zanje po sprejetju Izvedbenega sklepa Sveta 2014/149/EU ni uvedla nobena dajatev, je treba opozoriti, da je bila odločitev Sveta, da se dajatve ne uvedejo ponovno, očitno sprejeta ob upoštevanju posebnih okoliščin posebnega položaja, kakršen je bil v času, ko je Komisija podala predlog za ponovno uvedbo navedenih dajatev, in zlasti ob upoštevanju, da so bile zadevne protidampinške dajatve že povrnjene, ter v kolikor je bilo po sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang preklicano prvotno obvestilo zadevnemu dolžniku o dolgu.
Yet, that does not mean that the Commission has treated the two parties unequally in violation of the principle of equal treatment.
Po mnenju Sveta so imeli zadevni uvozniki zaradi tega povračila legitimna pričakovanja.
An acknowledgement that a party falls into the latter category because of a conscious decision not to challenge a Union measure does not discriminate against that group.
Ker drugi uvozniki niso prejeli primerljivega povračila, niso v primerljivem položaju z uvozniki, ki jih zadeva sklep Sveta.
So, all interested parties did enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts at all times.
Dejstvo, da se je Svet ob upoštevanju posebnih okoliščin zadeve, ki jo je obravnaval, odločil za določeno ravnanje, Komisije ne more zavezati k popolnoma enakemu izvajanju druge sodbe.
Insofar as it concerns the alleged discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation which were not made subject of any duty following Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, it should be noted that the decision of the Council not to re-impose duties was clearly taken with regard to the particular circumstances of the specific situation as it stood at the time the Commission made its proposal for the re-imposition of those duties and in particular on the grounds that the anti-dumping duties concerned had already been reimbursed, and to the extent that the original communication of the debt to the debtor in question had been withdrawn following the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang.
Pristojnost Komisije, da uvede dokončne protidampinške ukrepe
According to the Council, this reimbursement had created legitimate expectations on the part of the importers concerned.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da Komisija nima pristojnosti za sprejetje uredbe o retroaktivni uvedbi protidampinške dajatve v okviru sedanjega izvajanja in da bi to pristojnost v vsakem primeru imel Svet.
Since no comparable reimbursement took place for other importers, these are not in a comparable situation to those importers concerned by the Council decision.
Ta trditev je temeljila na navedbi, da če se preiskava nadaljuje v točki, na kateri je nastala nezakonitost, bi morala veljati ista pravila kot v času prvotne preiskave, pri kateri je dokončne ukrepe sprejel Svet.
In any event, the fact that the Council chose to act in a certain way, given the particular circumstances of the case before it, cannot bind the Commission to implement another judgment in the exact same way.
Ti stranki sta trdili, da se v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (imenovane tudi „uredba omnibus I“) novi postopek sprejemanja odločitev na področju splošne trgovinske politike v tem okviru ne uporablja, saj je pred začetkom veljavnosti uredbe omnibus I (i) Komisija že sprejela akt (začasno uredbo), (ii) posvetovanja, zahtevana na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 384/96 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti, so se začela in končala ter (iii) Komisija je že sprejela predlog za uredbo Sveta o sprejetju dokončnih ukrepov.
Commission's competence to impose definitive anti-dumping measures
Na podlagi tega sta ti strani menili, da bi se morali uporabiti postopki odločanja, ki so veljali pred začetkom veljavnosti uredbe omnibus I.
In addition, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission does not have the competence to adopt the Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty retroactively in the current implementation exercise, and that this competence would in any event lie with the Council.
Toda navedena trditev se osredotoča na datum začetka preiskave (ki je dejansko pomemben v zvezi z drugimi vsebinskimi spremembami osnovne uredbe) in ne upošteva, da se v Uredbi (EU) št. 37/2014 uporablja drugo merilo (tj. začetek postopka za sprejetje ukrepov).
This claim was based on the argument that if the investigation is resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred, the same rules should also be applicable as the ones at the time of the original investigation, where definitive measures were adopted by the Council.
Stališče združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev torej temelji na napačni razlagi prehodne določbe v Uredbi (EU) št. 37/2014.
These parties argued that in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 (also called ‘Omnibus I Regulation’), the new decision-making procedure in the field of the common commercial policy does not apply to the present context given that before the entry into force of the Omnibus I Regulation the Commission (i) had already adopted an act (the provisional Regulation), (ii) the consultations that were required under Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community were initiated and concluded, and (iii) the Commission had already adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation adopting definitive measures.
Ob upoštevanju sklicevanja na „postopke za sprejetje ukrepov“ v členu 3 Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014, ki določa prehodne določbe za spremembe postopkov odločanja za sprejetje protidampinških ukrepov, in ob upoštevanju pomena izraza „postopek“ v osnovni uredbi se za preiskavo, ki se je začela pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014, vendar Komisija v zvezi z njo ni začela posvetovanja z ustreznim odborom s ciljem sprejetja ukrepov pred navedenim začetkom veljavnosti, uporabljajo za postopek za sprejetje navedenih protidampinških ukrepov nova pravila.
On this basis, these parties concluded that the decision making procedures prior to the entry in force of the Omnibus I Regulation should apply.
To velja tudi za postopke, v katerih so bili ukrepi uvedeni na podlagi starih pravil in jih je treba pregledati, ali za ukrepe, s katerimi so bile začasne dajatve uvedene na podlagi starih pravil, vendar se postopek za sprejetje dokončnih ukrepov še ni začel, ko je začela veljati Uredba (EU) št. 37/2014.
That claim, however, focuses on the date of initiation of the investigation (which is indeed relevant in relation to the other substantive amendments that were made to the basic Regulation) but fails to note that Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 uses a different criterion (that is, the initiation of the procedure for adoption of measures).
Povedano drugače, Uredba (EU) št. 37/2014 se uporablja za določen„postopek za sprejetje“ in ne za celotno obdobje zadevne preiskave ali celo postopka.
The position of FESI and the Footwear Coalition is therefore based on an incorrect interpretation of the transitional rule in Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.
Ta trditev se zato zavrne.
Indeed, given the reference in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 to ‘procedures initiated for the adoption of measures’, which sets out the transitional rules for the changes to the decision-making procedures for the adoption of anti-dumping measures, and given the meaning of ‘procedure’ in the basic Regulation, for an investigation that was initiated prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014, but where the Commission had not launched the consultation of the relevant committee with a view to adopting measures prior to that entry into force, the new rules apply to the procedure for adopting the said anti-dumping measures.
F. SKLEPI
The same holds true for proceedings where measures had been imposed on the basis of the old rules and come up for review, or for measures where provisional duties had been imposed on the basis of the old rules, but the procedure for adopting definitive measures had not been launched yet when Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 entered into force.
Komisija je ob upoštevanju pripomb in njihove analize ugotovila, da bi bilo treba ponovno uvesti veljavno preostalo protidampinško dajatev v višini 16,5 % za Kitajsko in 10 % za Vietnam za obdobje uporabe izpodbijane uredbe.
In other words, Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 applies to a specific ‘procedure for adoption’ and not to the entire period of a given investigation or even proceeding.
G. RAZKRITJE
The contested Regulation was adopted in 2006.
Zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki in vse strani, ki so sodelovale v postopku, so bili obveščeni o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala priporočiti ponovna uvedba dokončne protidampinške dajatve na izvoz sedmih zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is the basic Regulation.
Po razkritju so imeli na voljo obdobje za predložitev pripomb.