natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Prejšnje razglasitve ničnosti, na katere so se sklicevale zainteresirane strani, pa so se nasprotno nanašale na ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi in interesu Unije.
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.
Institucije torej lahko ponovno izračunajo natančno stopnjo dajatev za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike.
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.
Zlasti v obravnavani zadevi ni bilo treba pridobiti dodatnih informacij od zainteresiranih strani.
Article 266 of the TFEU does not allow from the deviation of this principle.
Komisija je morala namesto tega oceniti informacije, ki so bile vložene, vendar niso bile ocenjene pred sprejetjem Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006.
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.
V vsakem primeru, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 100, nekdanje prakse v drugih primerih niso natančno in brezpogojno zagotovilo za obravnavani primer.
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.
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.
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 a certain way.
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.
Neither FESI nor the Footwear Coalition have attempted to demonstrate that such assurances were given in 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 bi zamenjal razveljavljeni akt.
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.
V skladu s sodno prakso iz uvodne izjave 15 bi se moral upravni postopek nadaljevati v točki, ko je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
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.
Protidampinški postopki zato še vedno niso zaključeni, saj je bil akt, ki je sklenil postopke, razglašen za ničnega.
The previous annulments relied on by the interested parties, on the contrary, concerned the findings on dumping, injury and Union interest.
Komisija mora zaključiti navedene postopke, saj člen 9(4) osnovne uredbe določa, da mora biti preiskava zaključena z aktom Komisije.
The institutions are therefore permitted to recalculate the precise duty rate for the exporting producers concerned.
Člen 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti
In particular, in the present case, there was no need to seek additional information from interested parties.
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.
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 trdita, da Komisija nima pooblastil za poseganje v člen 236(1) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti s preprečevanjem povračila protidampinških dajatev.
In any event, as noted in recital (100) above, previous practice in other cases does not constitute precise and unconditional assurance for the present case.
Trdila sta, da bi morali nacionalni carinski organi ukrepati zaradi razveljavitve akta o uvedbi protidampinških dajatev in da bi nacionalni carinski organi tudi morali povrniti te dajatve, ki jih je Sodišče razglasilo za nične.
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.
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.
Hence, their rights of defence are safeguarded.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Za ta prenos ni potrebna polna uporaba vseh določb carinske zakonodaje Unije.
The anti-dumping proceedings are hence, as a result of the annulment of the act concluding the proceedings, still open.
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.
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.
Komisija je na tej podlagi izkoristila pooblastila, ki izhajajo iz člena 14(3) osnovne uredbe, in zahtevala, da se nacionalni carinski organi začasno vzdržijo vsakršnega povračila.
Article 236 of the Community Customs Code
To ne izpodbija pristojnosti, ki jih imajo nacionalni carinski organi v zvezi s spori glede carinskega dolga, saj so za odločanje še vedno pristojni carinski organi držav članic.
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 of the TEU.
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.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition sustain 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.
Velja, da nič v carinski zakonodaji Unije ne dovoljuje oviranja povračila napačno plačanih carinskih dajatev, vendar taka posplošena izjava ni mogoča v zvezi s povračilom protidampinških dajatev.
They argued that it was up to the national customs authorities to draw the consequences from an invalidation of an act imposing anti-dumping duties and that the national customs authorities would also be obliged to reimburse those duties that had been declared invalid by the Court.
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 neupravičenih povračil po tem, je morala Komisija začasno odstopati od carinske zakonodaje Unije in izkoristiti svoja pooblastila na podlagi člena 14(3) osnovne uredbe.
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.
Neobrazložitev pravne podlage
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.
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.
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.
Zato sta trdila, da je Komisija kršila pravico do učinkovitega sodnega varstva zainteresiranih strani.
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.
Komisija meni, da obsežna pravna utemeljitev v dokumentu o splošnem razkritju in tej uredbi ustrezno utemeljuje to uredbo.
This transposition does not require a full application of all the provisions of the Union's customs legislation.
Utemeljena pričakovanja
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.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da retroaktivni popravek ukrepov, ki so prenehali veljati, krši načelo varstva utemeljenih pričakovanj.
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.
Združenje FESI je sprva trdilo, da bi strani, vključno z uvozniki, dobile zagotovilo, da so ukrepi prenehali veljati 31. marca 2011 in da glede na čas, ki je pretekel od prvotne preiskave, upravičeno pričakujejo, da se prvotna preiskava ne bo nadaljevala ali ponovno začela.
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.
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 treh mesecih, ki so veljali v prvotni preiskavi, upravičeno utemeljeno pričakovali, da Komisija teh zahtevkov ne bo več pregledovala.
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.
Kar zadeva utemeljena pričakovanja zainteresiranih strani, da so protidampinški ukrepi prenehali veljati in da se preiskava ne bo ponovno uvedla, se navaja sklic na uvodni izjavi 104 in 105, v katerih so bile te trditve podrobno obravnavane.
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 the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties.
Kar zadeva utemeljena pričakovanja kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da njihovi zahtevki za TGO/IO ne bodo pregledani, se navaja sklicevanje na uvodno izjavo 100, v kateri je bilo to obravnavano ob upoštevanju sodne prakse Sodišča v zvezi s to zadevo.
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.
Načelo nediskriminacije
Lack of statement of legal basis
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 prav tako 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, ki niso postale predmet nobene dajatve v skladu z Izvedbenim sklepom 2014/149/EU.
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.
Kar zadeva trditev glede diskriminacije, Komisija najprej opozarja na zahteve v zvezi z diskriminacijo, kot so navedene v uvodni izjavi 93.
Accordingly, FESI and the Footwear coalition claimed that the Commission had breached the right to effective judicial protection of interested parties.
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.
The Commission considers that the extensive legal reasoning provided in the general disclosure document and in this Regulation duly motivates the latter.
Sklep, ki ga sprejme institucija Unije in ga njegov naslovnik ne izpodbija v roku, določenem v členu 263 PDEU, postane zanj pravnomočen.
Legitimate expectations
Taka sodna praksa temelji zlasti na upoštevanju dejstva, da je tožbeni rok namenjen varovanju pravne varnosti, s tem da se prepreči časovno neomejeno izpodbijanje aktov Unije, ki imajo pravne učinke.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed further that the retroactive correction of expired measures violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
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.
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.
Vendar to ne pomeni, da je Komisija obe strani obravnavala neenakovredno in pri tem kršila načelo enake obravnave.
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.
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.
Regarding legitimate expectations of interested parties that anti-dumping measures expired and that the investigation will not be re-opened anymore, reference is made to recitals (104) and (105) where these claims had been addressed in detail.
Vse zainteresirane strani so imele pred sodišči Unije vedno pravico do sodnega varstva.
Regarding the legitimate expectations of Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers not to have their MET/IT claims reviewed, reference is made to recital (100) above, where this has equally been addressed in light of the case-law of the Court on this matter.
Kar zadeva domnevno diskriminacijo zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih zadeva ta izvedbena uredba in se zanje ni uvedla nobena dajatev v skladu z Izvedbenim Sklepom 2014/149/EU, je treba opozoriti, da je bila odločitev Sveta, da se dajatve ponovno ne uvedejo, 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 kolikor je bilo po sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang preklicano prvotno obvestilo dolžniku o dolgu.
Principle of non-discrimination
Po mnenju Sveta so imeli zadevni uvozniki zaradi tega povračila utemeljena pričakovanja.
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.
Ker drugi uvozniki niso prejeli primerljivega povračila, niso v primerljivem položaju z uvozniki, ki jih zadeva sklep Sveta.
Regarding the claim on discrimination, the Commission recalls first of all the requirements for discrimination, as set out in recital (93) above.
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.
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.
Pristojnost Komisije, da uvede dokončne protidampinške ukrepe
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, so se začela in končala ter (iii) Komisija je že sprejela predlog uredbe Sveta o sprejetju dokončnih ukrepov.
Yet, that does not mean that the Commission has treated the two parties unequally in violation of the principle of equal treatment.
Na podlagi tega sta ti strani ugotovili, da bi se morali uporabiti postopki odločanja, ki so veljali pred začetkom veljavnosti uredbe omnibus I.
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.
Navedena trditev se sicer osredotoča na datum začetka preiskave (ki je dejansko pomemben v zvezi z drugimi vsebinskimi spremembami osnovne uredbe), vendar ne upošteva, da se v Uredbi (EU) št. 37/2014 uporablja drugo merilo (tj. začetek postopka za sprejetje ukrepov).
So, all interested parties did enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts at all times.
Stališče združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev torej temelji na napačni razlagi prehodnega pravila v Uredbi (EU) št. 37/2014.