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 therein are met so that they can be granted IT.
Uporablja se naslednjih pet meril:
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the IT claim.
v primeru podjetij ali skupnih podjetij, ki so v celoti ali deloma v tuji lasti, lahko izvozniki svobodno vrnejo kapital in dobičke v domovino;
The five criteria are the following:
izvozne cene in količine ter prodajni pogoji se svobodno določajo;
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;
večina delnic je v lasti zasebnikov; državni uradniki, ki so v upravnem odboru ali na ključnih upravljavskih položajih, morajo biti v manjšini ali pa je treba dokazati, da je družba kljub temu dovolj neodvisna od vmešavanja države;
export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;
spremembe menjalnega tečaja se izvajajo po tržni stopnji ter
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;
vmešavanje države ni takšno, da bi omogočalo izogibanje ukrepom, če se individualnim izvoznikom dodelijo različne stopnje dajatve.
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and
Vseh 70 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so zahtevali TGO, je zahtevalo tudi IO, če jim TGO ne bi bila odobrena.
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
Komisija je zato po zavrnitvi njihovih zahtevkov za TGO, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah 49 do 57, ocenila zahtevke za IO vsakega zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika.
All seventy exporting producers concerned that requested MET also claimed IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.
Kar zadeva merilo 1 (vrnitev kapitala in dobičkov v domovino), družbe 69, 77, 86 in 95 niso dokazale, da so lahko svobodno vrnile kapital in dobičke v domovino, zato niso dokazale, da je to merilo izpolnjeno.
The Commission therefore assessed the IT claims of each exporting producer concerned, in addition to rejecting their MET claims as described in recitals 49 to 57.
Kar zadeva merilo 2 (izvozne cene in količine se svobodno določijo), družbe 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 in 100 niso dokazale, da so bili poslovne odločitve, kot so izvozne cene in količine, ter prodajni pogoji svobodno določeni v odziv na tržne signale, saj je bila iz analiziranih dokazov, kot so statuti ali dovoljenja za poslovanje, razvidna omejitev pri proizvodnji in/ali količini prodaje obutve na določenih trgih.
Regarding criterion 1 (Repatriation of capital and profits), Companies 69, 77, 86 and 95 failed to prove that they were free to repatriate capital and profits and did thus not demonstrate that this criterion was fulfilled.
Kar zadeva merilo 3 (ključni upravljavski položaji in delnice družbe so dovolj neodvisni od vmešavanja države), družbe 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101 in 102 niso dokazale, da so bile poslovne odločitve sprejete dovolj neodvisno od vmešavanja države.
With regard to criterion 2 (Export sales and prices freely determined), Companies 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 100 failed to prove that business decisions such as export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale were freely determined in response to market signals, as the evidence analysed, such as articles of association or business licences, showed a limitation in output and/or on the sales quantities of footwear in specific markets.
Med drugim niso predložile nobenih informacij o svoji lastniški strukturi in načinu sprejemanja odločitev ali pa so bile te informacije nezadostne.
As regards criterion 3 (Company — key management and shares — is sufficiently independent from State interference), Companies 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101 and 102 failed to demonstrate that business decisions were made sufficiently independent from State interference.
Družbe 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66,67, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101 in 102 niso predložile zadostnih informacij o tem, kako in pod kakšnimi pogoji je bila nanje prenesena pravica do rabe zemljišč.
Inter alia, no information or insufficient information was provided as regards the ownership structure of the company and how the decisions were taken.
Poleg tega družbe 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 51, 59, 62, 81 in 95 niso predložile angleškega prevoda zadevnih dokumentov.
In addition, Companies 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86,87, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102 did not provide sufficient information on how the land use right were transferred to these companies and at what terms and conditions.
Družba 70 ni dokazala, da so bile spremembe menjalnega tečaja izvedene po tržni stopnji.
Therefore, it did not fulfil the requirements of criterion 4 (Market based exchange rate).
Zato njihovi zahtevki za IO niso bili podrobno analizirani.
In addition, Companies 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101 and 102 also failed to prove that they fulfilled the requirements of criterion 5 (Circumvention) on the basis that no information was provided as to how decisions were taken within the company and whether the State exerted significant influence in this decision making of the company.
Glede na navedeno nobeden od 70 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni izpolnjeval pogojev iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, zato jim IO ni bila odobrena.
Their IT claims were therefore not subject to a detailed analysis.
Komisija je zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike o tem ustrezno obvestila in jih pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe.
In light of the above, none of the seventy exporting producers concerned fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment and IT was therefore denied to all of them.
Glede na nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče, ni pravne podlage za popolno oprostitev morebitne protidampinške dajatve za izdelke zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly and invited them to provide comments.
Z novim aktom, ki odpravlja nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče, je treba torej samo ponovno oceniti veljavno stopnjo protidampinške dajatve in ne samih ukrepov.
The residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China and Vietnam, of 16,5 % and 10 % respectively, should therefore be imposed for exports made by the seventy exporting producers concerned for the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Ker je Komisija ugotovila, da bi bilo treba ponovno uvesti veljavno preostalo dajatev za Kitajsko oziroma Vietnam za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike po isti stopnji, kot je bilo prvotno določeno v izpodbijani uredbi in Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) št. 1294/2009, spremembe Uredbe (ES) št. 388/2008 niso potrebne.
The period of application of that regulation was initially from 7 October 2006 until 7 October 2008.
Navedena uredba je še vedno veljavna.
Following the initiation of an expiry review, it was prolonged on 30 December 2009 until 31 March 2011.
C. PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI PO RAZKRITJU
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.
Po razkritju je Komisija prejela pripombe v imenu (i) združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev [26], ki zastopata uvoznike obutve v Uniji, (ii) družb C&J Clark International, Cortina, Deichmann in Wortmann („družba Clarks in druge družbe“), ki so uvozniki obutve v Uniji, ter (iii) družb Sino Pro Trading in (iv) Schuhhaus SIEMES Einkaufs & Beteiligungs GmBH („SIEMES“), ki sta uvoznika obutve iz Kitajske in Vietnama.
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 any anti-dumping duty.
Družbe, navedene v Prilogi III k tej uredbi
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.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila, da je glede na javno dostopno dokumentacijo Komisije družba z imenom Fortune Footwear Co.
Since the Commission concluded that the residual duty applicable to China and Vietnam respectively should be reimposed in respect of the exporting producers concerned at the same rate as originally imposed by the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, no changes are required to Regulation (EC) No 388/2008.
Ltd vložila zahtevek za TGO/IO za obdobje preiskave in zato ne bi smela biti navedena v Prilogi III k tej uredbi.
That latter regulation remains valid.
Vendar ni nobene evidence o morebitnem zahtevku te družbe za TGO/IO, združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev pa nista predložila nobenih nadaljnjih dokazov, da je ta družba dejansko predložila tak zahtevek.
Following disclosure, the Commission received comments on behalf of (i) FESI and the Footwear Coalition [26] representing importers of footwear in the Union; (ii) C&J Clark International, Cortina, Deichmann and Wortmann (‘Clarks et al’), importers of footwear in the Union, (iii) Sino Pro Trading, and (iv) Schuhhaus SIEMES Einkaufs & Beteiligungs GmbH (‘SIEMES’), both importers of footwear from China and Vietnam.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da je bila družba z imenom Foshan Nanhai SHYANG Yuu/Hu Footwear neustrezno navedena v Prilogi III, saj naj bi vložila zahtevek za TGO/IO.
Companies listed in Annex III to this Regulation
Vendar v Prilogi III ali kateri koli drugi prilogi k tej uredbi ni nobene družbe s tem imenom.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that according to the Commission's open file a company named Fortune Footwear Co.
V Prilogi III je navedena družba s podobnim imenom (Nanhai Shyang Ho Footwear Co.
Ltd submitted an MET/IT claim for the investigation period and therefore should not be listed in Annex III to this Regulation.
Ltd), vendar združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev nista predložila nobenih dokazov, da je to ista družba kot Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear.
However, there is no record of any MET/IT claim submitted by this company and FESI and the Footwear Coalition did not provide any further evidence that this company indeed submitted such claim.
Vendar prav tako ni dokazov, da je to ista družba kot Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear.
Therefore this claim is rejected.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da je družba Guangzhou Panyu Xintaiy Footwear Industry Commerce Co., Ltd predložila zahtevek za TGO/IO in da bi morala Komisija ta zahtevek oceniti.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that a company named Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear was incorrectly listed in Annex III since this company had allegedly submitted an MET/IT claim.
Pojasnjeno je, da je bil zahtevek te družbe za TGO/IO dejansko ocenjen.
There is however no company named Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear listed in Annex III or any other Annex to this Regulation.
Družba ni izpolnjevala meril za TGO in IO, zaradi česar je bil njen zahtevek zavrnjen.
A company with a similar name (Nanhai Shyang Ho Footwear Co.
Za družbo bi bilo treba torej ponovno uvesti dokončno dajatev in zato je navedena v Prilogi II k tej uredbi.
Ltd) is listed in Annex III but FESI and the Footwear Coalition did not provide any evidence that it is the same company as Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear.
Zato se trditev združenja FESI in koalicije za obutev v zvezi s tem zavrne.
For the sake of completeness, it must also be noted thata company with a similar name, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd, was assessed in Regulation (EU) 2016/2257.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da je družba z imenom Mega Power Union Co.
It is clarified that the MET/IT claim of this company was indeed assessed.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da je skupina Evervan predložila zahtevek za TGO/IO in da je zato neustrezno navedena v Prilogi III.
The company did not fulfil the criteria for MET and IT and its claim was therefore rejected.
Vendar je v Prilogi III navedenih šest družb, katerih imena vsebujejo besedo „Evervan“ (Evervan, Evervan Deyang Footwear Co., Ltd, Evervan Golf, Evervan Qingyuan Footwear Co., Ltd, Evervan Qingyuan Vulcanized in Evervan Vietnam), združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev pa nista predložila nobenih dokazov, da so bile te družbe dejansko del skupine.
Consequently, the definitive duty should be reimposed in its regard and the company is therefore listed in Annex II to this Regulation.
Poleg tega nista predložila nobenih dokazov, da je ta skupina kot celota dejansko vložila zahtevek za TGO/IO.
Therefore the claim of FESI and the Footwear Coalition in this regard is rejected.
Postopkovne zahteve pri ocenjevanju obrazcev zahtevka za TGO in IO
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed in addition, that a company named Mega Power Union Co.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila, da dokazno breme pri ocenjevanju zahtevkov za TGO/IO nosi Komisija, saj so kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki bremenu zadostili s predložitvijo zahtevkov za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi.
Ltd submitted an MET/IT claim.
Trdila sta tudi, da bi morale biti zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, na katere se nanaša trenutno izvrševanje, zagotovljene enake procesne pravice, kot so bile zagotovljene vzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom v prvotni preiskavi.
However the Commission has no record of this MET/IT claim and FESI and the Footwear Coalition failed to provide any evidence that this company indeed submitted such claim.
Zlasti sta trdila, da je bila namesto preverjanj na kraju samem opravljena le teoretična analiza ter da kitajski in vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki niso imeli možnosti, da bi dopolnili obrazce zahtevka za TGO/IO na podlagi poziva k dopolnitvam.
Finally, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that a group named ‘the Evervan group’ submitted an MET/IT claim and that the company group was therefore incorrectly listed in Annex III.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta nadalje trdila, da proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki jih to izvrševanj zadeva, niso bila zagotovljena enaka postopkovna jamstva kot tista, ki se uporabljajo v standardnih protidampinških preiskavah, ampak so bili uporabljeni strožji standardi.
However, while six companies listed in Annex III have names which contain the word ‘Evervan’ (Evervan, Evervan Deyang Footwear Co., Ltd, Evervan Golf, Evervan Qingyuan Footwear Co., Ltd, Evervan Qingyuan Vulcanized, Evervan Vietnam), FESI and the Footwear Coalition failed to provide any evidence that they were indeed part of a group.
Trdila sta, da Komisija ni upoštevala časovnega zamika med vložitvijo zahtevkov za TGO/IO v prvotni preiskavi in oceno teh zahtevkov.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also failed to provide evidence that this group as a whole indeed submitted an MET/IT claim.
Poleg tega so imeli proizvajalci izvozniki med prvotno preiskavo na voljo le 15 dni, da vložijo zahtevke za TGO/IO, namesto običajnih 21 dni.
For the sake of completeness it must be noted that a company named ‘Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co., Ltd’ submitted an MET/IT claims that was assessed and rejected in Regulation (EU) 2017/1982.
Na podlagi tega sta združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev trdila, da temeljno pravno načelo glede omogočanja zainteresiranim stranem, da v polni meri uveljavljajo pravico do obrambe iz člena 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah in člena 6 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, ni bilo spoštovano.
There is no evidence available that would allow establishing a relationship with the other companies containing the word ‘Evervan’ listed in Annex III.
Zato sta trdila, da je Komisija zlorabila svoja pooblastila, ker proizvajalcem izvoznikom ni dala priložnosti, da dopolnijo nepopolne informacije, in je v fazi izvrševanja dejansko obrnila dokazno breme.
Procedural requirements when assessing MET and IT claim forms
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta nazadnje trdila tudi, da bi bil ta pristop diskriminatoren do kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so bili vzorčeni v prvotni preiskavi, pa tudi do drugih proizvajalcev izvoznikov v državah z netržnim gospodarstvom, za katere se je uvedla protidampinška preiskava in ki so v taki preiskavi vložili zahtevke za TGO/IO.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the burden of proof when assessing MET/IT claims lies with the Commission, as the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers had discharged the burden by submitting the MET/IT claims in the original investigation.
Zato za kitajske in vietnamske družbe, ki jih zadeva sedanje izvrševanje, ne bi smel veljati enak prag za zagotavljanje informacij, kot se uporabi v običajni 15-mesečni preiskavi, in zanje ne bi smeli veljati strožji postopkovni standardi.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the same procedural rights should have been granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation as those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
Združenje FESI in koalicija za obutev sta trdila tudi, da je Komisija dejansko uporabila razpoložljiva dejstva v skladu s členom 18(1) osnovne uredbe, vendar pa Komisija ni delovala skladno s postopkovnimi pravili iz člena 18(4) osnovne uredbe.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued in particular, that only a desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-spot verification visits, and that the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters.
Komisija opozarja, da je v skladu s sodno prakso dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO/IO.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition further argued that the exporting producers concerned by this implementation were not provided with the same procedural guarantees than those applied in standard anti-dumping investigations, but stricter standards were applied.
Institucijama zato v skladu z mnenjem Sodišča v sodbah v zadevah Brosmann in Aokang ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev za odobritev navedene obravnave.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission has not taken into account the time lag between the filing of the MET/IT request in the original investigation and the assessment of these claims.
Nasprotno, Komisija mora oceniti, ali podatki, ki jih je predložil zadevni proizvajalec, zadostujejo za dokaz, da so merila iz prvega pododstavka člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe izpolnjena, tako da se mu lahko odobri TGO/IO (glej uvodno izjavo 49).
In addition, exporting producers during the original investigation were only provided 15 days in order to fill in the MET/IT requests, instead of the usual 21 days.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da Komisija na podlagi osnovne uredbe ali sodne prakse ni dolžna proizvajalcu izvozniku omogočiti, da ta dopolni zahtevek za TGO/IO z vsemi manjkajočimi dejstvi.
On this basis, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the fundamental legal principle of granting interested parties full opportunity to exercise their rights of defence laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, was not respected.
Komisija lahko svojo oceno utemelji na podlagi informacij, ki jih je predložil proizvajalec izvoznik.
On this basis, it was argued that by not giving the exporting producers the opportunity to complete incomplete information the Commission misused its powers and effectively reversed the burden of proof at the stage of the implementation.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da je bila opravljena le teoretična analiza, Komisija ugotavlja, da je teoretična analiza postopek, pri katerem se zahtevki za TGO/IO analizirajo na podlagi dokumentacije, ki jo predloži proizvajalec izvoznik.
Finally, FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that this approach would be discriminatory vis-à-vis the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers that were sampled in the original investigation, but also other exporting producers in non-market economy countries that were subject to an anti-dumping investigation and filed MET/IT claims in that investigation.
Komisija opravi teoretično analizo za vse vloge za TGO/IO.
Thus, the Chinese and Vietnamese companies concerned by the current implementation should not be made subject to the same information provision threshold as applied in a normal 15 months investigation and should not be subject to stricter procedural standards.
Poleg tega se lahko Komisija odloči, da bo opravila preveritvene obiske na kraju samem.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the Commission applied de facto facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, while the Commission did not comply with the procedural rules set out in Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Vendar preveritveni obiski na kraju samem niso obvezni in se ne izvajajo za vsako vlogo za TGO/IO.
The Commission recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Namen inšpekcijskih pregledov na kraju samem, kadar se izvedejo, je običajno potrditi določeno predhodno oceno, ki sta jo opravili instituciji, in/ali preveriti verodostojnost informacij, ki jih je predložil zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik.
Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
Povedano drugače, če je iz dokazov, ki jih je predložil proizvajalec izvoznik, jasno razvidno, da TGO/IO ni upravičena, se dodatni in neobvezni inšpekcijski pregled na kraju samem običajno ne bi organiziral.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET/IT (see recital 49).
Komisija sama presodi, če je primerno opraviti preveritveni obisk [27].
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation for the Commission contained in the basic Regulation or in the case-law to give the possibility of the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim with all missing factual information.
Ta institucija se po lastni presoji odloči, kako bo preverila informacije v obrazcu za TGO/IO.
The Commission may base its assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Kadar se torej Komisija, kot v tem primeru, na podlagi teoretične analize odloči, da ima dovolj dokazov za odločitev o zahtevku za TGO/IO, preveritveni obisk ni potreben in ga ni mogoče zahtevati.