natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By judgments of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council the General Court rejected those challenges.
S sodbama z dne 4. marca 2010 v zadevi Brosmann Footwear (HK) in drugi proti Svetu, T-401/06, ter z dne 4. marca 2010 v združenih zadevah Zhejiang Aokang Shoes in Wenzhou Taima Shoes proti Svetu, T-407/06 in T-408/06, jih je Splošno sodišče zavrnilo.
The applicants appealed those judgments.
Vložniki so se na ti sodbi pritožili.
In its judgments of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council and of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10 P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council (‘the Brosmann and Aokang judgments’), the Court of Justice set aside those judgments.
V sodbah z dne 2. februarja 2012 v zadevi Brosmann Footwear (HK) in drugi proti Svetu, C-249/10 P, ter z dne 15. novembra 2012 v zadevi Zhejiang Aokang Shoes proti Svetu, C-247/10 P, („sodbi v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang“), je Sodišče navedeni sodbi razveljavilo.
It held that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was not required to examine requests for market economy treatment (‘MET’) under Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic Regulation from non-sampled traders (paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 29 and 32 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Menilo je, da je Splošno sodišče napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je navedlo, da Komisija ni bila zavezana preučitvi zahtevkov za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo („TGO“), ki so temeljili na členu 2(7)(b) in (c) osnovne uredbe in so jih predložili trgovci, ki niso zajeti z vzorcem (točka 36 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P ter točki 29 in 32 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
The Court of Justice then gave judgment itself in the matter.
Sodišče je nato razsodilo.
It held that ‘the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of thebasic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation.
Menilo je, da „[…] bi Komisija morala preučiti ustrezno utemeljene zahtevke, ki so ji jih pritožnice predložile na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) in (c) osnovne uredbe, da bi se jim v okviru protidampinškega postopka, na katerega se sporna uredba nanaša, odobrila TGO.
It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16,5 % duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation.
Dalje, ugotoviti je treba, da ni izključeno, da bi jim bila zaradi take preučitve naložena dokončna protidampinška dajatev, ki bi bila drugačna od dajatve 16,5 %, ki se je zanje uporabila na podlagi člena 1(3) sporne uredbe.
It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9,7 % was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET.
Iz iste določbe namreč izhaja, da je bila dokončna protidampinška dajatev 9,7 % naložena le kitajskemu gospodarskemu subjektu, ki je bil zajet z vzorcem in ki mu je bila odobrena TGO.
As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate’ (paragraph 42 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Vendar, kot izhaja iz točke 38 te sodbe, če bi Komisija ugotovila, da pogoji tržnega gospodarstva prevladujejo tudi za pritožnice, bi se tem – če izračun individualne stopnje dampinga ne bi bil mogoč – prav tako morala odobriti ta zadnja stopnja“ (točka 42 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P in točka 36 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
As a consequence, it annulled the contested Regulation, in so far as it relates to the applicants concerned.
Zato je razglasilo ničnost izpodbijane uredbe v tistem delu, ki se nanaša na zadevne vložnike.
In October 2013, the Commission, by means of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union, announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
Komisija je oktobra 2013 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, sporočila, da je sklenila obnoviti protidampinški postopek na točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in preučiti, ali so za vložnike prevladovali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva za obdobje od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005.
That notice invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.
S tem obvestilom je zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj se ji javijo.
In March 2014, the Council, by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Svet je marca 2014 z Izvedbenim sklepom 2014/149/EU zavrnil predlog Komisije za sprejetje izvedbene uredbe Sveta o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvajajo podjetja Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd in Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co.
Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Ltd ter ustavil postopke v zvezi s temi proizvajalci.
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 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (‘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.
Svet je zavzel stališče, da so uvozniki, ki so obutev kupili od navedenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov in ki so jim pristojni nacionalni organi povrnili ustrezne uvozne dajatve na podlagi člena 236 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2913/92 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti („carinski zakonik Skupnosti“), imeli legitimna pričakovanja na podlagi člena 1(4) izpodbijane uredbe, ki prevzema določbe carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, zlasti člena 221, ki se uporablja za pobiranje dajatev.
Three importers of the product concerned, C&J Clark International Ltd (‘Clark’), Puma SE (‘Puma’) and Timberland Europe BV (‘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.
Trije uvozniki zadevnega izdelka, in sicer družbe C&J Clark International Ltd. („Clark“), Puma SE („Puma“) in Timberland Europe B.V. („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.
On 4 February 2016, in the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, 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.
Sodišče je 4. februarja 2016 v združenih zadevah C & J Clark International Limited in Puma SE, C-659/13 in C-34/14, 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 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti.
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.
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.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
Člen 266 PDEU določa, da morajo institucije sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za izvršitev sodb Sodišča.
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.
Če je akt, ki so ga institucije sprejele 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.
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, except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
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, razen če je nezakonitost nastala v fazi začetka 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 Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
Razen tega, da institucije niso preučile 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 (EU) št. 1294/2009 ostajajo veljavne.
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’).
Zato se je Komisija odločila, da bo ta protidampinški postopek, ki je po sodbah ostal odprt, obnovila v točki, na 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“).
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 (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’).
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 („osnovna uredba v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo“).
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395, the Commission re-imposed 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 Komisije (EU) 2016/1395 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve na uvoz s strani družb Clark in Puma določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz LRK, ki jo proizvaja trinajst kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647, the Commission re-imposed 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.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/1647 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve 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 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 the Commission re-imposed 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.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/1731 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve na uvoz s strani družb Puma in Timberland določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvaja en proizvajalec izvoznik iz Vietnama in dva proizvajalca izvoznika iz LRK, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO, vendar niso bili vzorčeni.
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 above in recital (12), the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223.
V zvezi z izvajanjem 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 Komisije (EU) 2016/223.
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’).
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.
The Commission shall assess the relevant MET or IT claim and re-impose the appropriate duty rate.
Komisija oceni zadevni zahtevek za TGO ali IO in ponovno uvede ustrezno stopnjo dajatve.
On this basis the national customs authorities should subsequently decide on the request for repayment and remission of the anti-dumping duties.
Na podlagi tega bi morali nacionalni carinski organi naknadno sprejeti odločitev glede zahtevka za povračilo in odpust protidampinških 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.
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.
Another exporting producer was identified that was supplier of Deichmann, a German importer that contested the payment of duties.
Opredeljen je bil še eden proizvajalec izvoznik, ki je bil dobavitelj za družbo Deichmann, tj. nemško družbo uvoznico, ki je izpodbijala plačilo dajatev.
Consequently, the Commission analysed the MET and IT claim form from these three Chinese exporting producers.
Posledično je Komisija analizirala zahtevek za TGO in IO teh treh kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
As a result of the above, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257, the Commission re-imposed 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.
Zaradi zgoraj navedenega je Komisija z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2016/2257 ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobiranje začasne dajatve 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.
In accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the UK, Belgium and Swedish customs authorities notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers on 12 July 2016 (UK), 13 July 2016 (Belgium) and 26 July 2016 (SWE) respectively.
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 these notifications, the Commission analysed MET and IT claims from 19 exporting producers and, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423, re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by these 19 exporting producers.
Komisija je na podlagi teh uradnih obvestil analizirala zahtevke za TGO in IO, ki jih je vložilo 19 proizvajalcev izvoznikov, in z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2017/423 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 in Vietnama, ki jo proizvaja teh devetnajst proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
As mentioned in recital (34) of the abovementioned Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423, during the above investigation, through comments made by several interested parties following disclosure, five additional companies/company groups were identified that had either itself or via a related Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producer submitted a MET/IT claim form during the original investigation, but that were not sampled and that had not been assessed in any previous implementation exercise.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (34) zgoraj navedene Izvedbene uredbe (EU) 2017/423 je bilo med zgoraj navedeno preiskavo 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 ali IO med prvotno preiskavo, vendar niso bile vzorčene in tudi niso bile ocenjene v okviru prejšnjega izvajanja.
These companies were listed in Annex VI to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 and were part of four company groups.
Te družbe so bile navedene v Prilogi VI k Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) 2017/423 in so bile del štirih skupin družb.
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 that had submitted a MET/IT claim form.
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 in so predložili zahtevek za TGO/IO.
Thus, in the current regulation, the Commission assessed the MET and IT claim forms of: Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co.
Zato je v sedanji uredbi Komisija ocenila zahtevke za TGO in IO naslednjih družb: Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co.
Ltd, Long Son Joint Stock Company and Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co.
Ltd, Long Son Joint Stock Company in Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co.
Ltd (‘the exporting producers concerned’).
Ltd („zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki“).
Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co.
Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co.
Ltd and Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co.
Ltd in Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co.
Ltd are companies related to the company Dah Lih Puh listed in the Annex VI to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423.
Ltd. sta družbi, povezani z družbo Dah Lih Puh, navedeno v Prilogi VI k Uredbi (EU) 2017/423.
Dongguan Shingtak Shoes Co.
Dongguan Shingtak Shoes Co.
Ltd and Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co.
Ltd in Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co.
Ltd are companies related to Shing Tak Ind.
Ltd so družbe, povezane z družbo Shing Tak Ind.
Ltd listed in the Annex VI to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423.
Ltd, navedeno v Prilogi VI k Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) 2017/423.
The company Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co.
Družba Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co.
Ltd is related to Evervan Group P/A EVA Overseas Intl.
Ltd je povezana z družbo Evervan Group P/A Eva Overseas Intl.
Ltd, also listed in the Annex VI to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423.
Ltd, ki je prav tako navedena v Prilogi VI k Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) 2017/423.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM CHINA
B. IZVAJANJE SODBE SODIŠČA V ZDRUŽENIH ZADEVAH C-659/13 IN C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ KITAJSKE
The Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the parts of the assessment which are not affected by the judgment.
Komisija ima možnost, da odpravi tiste vidike izpodbijane uredbe, zaradi katerih je bila ta razglašena za nično, dele ocene, ki jih sodba ne zadeva, pa pusti nespremenjene.
This Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the contested Regulation found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the declaration of invalidity in so far as the exporting producers mentioned in recital (26) are concerned.
Namen te uredbe je popraviti vidike izpodbijane uredbe, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da niso skladni z osnovno uredbo in so zato povzročili razglasitev ničnosti v delu, ki zadeva proizvajalce izvoznike iz uvodne izjave (26).