natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Regarding the third case C-571/14, Timberland Europe B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, the Court of Justice decided on 11 April 2016 to remove the case from the register at the request of the referring national court.
Svet je zavzel stališče, da so uvozniki, ki so obutev kupili od navedenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so jim pristojni carinski organi povrnili ustrezne carine na podlagi člena 236 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2913/92 [9] („carinski zakonik Skupnosti“), imeli legitimna pričakovanja na podlagi člena 1(4) izpodbijane uredbe, ki prevzema določbe carinskega zakonika Skupnosti [10], zlasti člena 221, ki se uporabljajo za pobiranje dajatev.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
Trije uvozniki zadevnega izdelka, in sicer družbe C&J Clark International Ltd. („Clark“), Puma SE („Puma“) in Timberland Europe B.V.
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.
(„Timberland“) („zadevni uvozniki“), so izpodbijali protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz nekatere 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.
[12]
Sodišče je v združenih zadevah C-659/13, C & J Clark International Limited, in C-34/14, Puma SE, Uredbo (ES) št. 1472/2006 in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični, ker Evropska Komisija ni proučila zahtevkov za TGO in individualno obravnavo („IO“), ki so jih predložili proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama, ki niso bili vzorčeni, kar je v nasprotju z zahtevami, določenimi v členu 2(7)(b) in členu 9(5) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 („sodbi“) [11].
According to the case-law of the Court, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
Sodišče je v zvezi s tretjo zadevo C-571/14, Timberland Europe B.V. proti Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, 11. aprila 2016 odločilo, da se zadeva izbriše iz registra na zahtevo nacionalnega predložitvenega sodišča.
That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure.
Člen 266 PDEU določa, da morata instituciji sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za izvršitev sodb Sodišča.
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 [14], except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
Če je akt, ki sta ga instituciji sprejeli v okviru upravnega postopka, kot je protidampinški postopek, razglašen za ničnega, se v skladu s sodbama Sodišča nični akt zamenja z novim aktom, v katerem je odpravljena nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče [12].
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 in Council Regulations (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča se postopek za nadomestitev akta, razglašenega za ničnega, obnovi v točki, na kateri je nastala nezakonitost [13].
In the present case, the illegality occurred after initiation.
To pomeni zlasti, da v primeru, ko je za ničnega razglašen akt, ki zaključuje upravni postopek, razglasitev ničnosti ne vpliva nujno na pripravljalne akte, kot je začetek protidampinškega postopka.
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 in the investigation that led to the imposition of definitive duties mentioned in recitals (1) and (2) (‘the original investigation’).
V primeru, ko 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 [14], razen če je nezakonitost nastala v fazi začetka postopka.
The Commission also examined, where appropriate, whether the exporting producers concerned qualified for IT in accordance with 9(5) of the basic Regulation in its form prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council [15] (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’) [16].
Razen tega, da instituciji nista proučili 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.
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 [17], 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 submitted MET and IT claims in the investigation that lead to the imposition of definitive duties (‘original investigation’) but that had not been sampled during that investigation.
V tej zadevi je nezakonitost nastala po začetku postopka.
For imports of Clark, Puma and Timberland from Vietnam the Commission assessed all MET and IT claims provided by the relevant non-sampled exporting producers that submitted such claims in the original investigation.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da bo sedanji protidampinški postopek, ki po izreku sodb še ni bil zaključen, obnovila v točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti, in proučila, ali so za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike prevladali pogoji tržnega gospodarstva v obdobju med 1. aprilom 2004 in 31. marcem 2005, tj. obdobju preiskave, ki je privedla do uvedbe dokončnih dajatev, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah 1 in 2 („prvotna preiskava“).
Regarding imports of Timberland, one of the two Chinese suppliers identified in the case C-571/14, General Shoes Ltd was in fact established in Vietnam and assessed as such in the current exercise.
Komisija je v primerih, kjer je bilo to potrebno, prav tako proučila, ali so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki izpolnjevali pogoje za IO v skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) št. 765/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [15] („osnovna uredba v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo“) [16].
As mentioned below in recital (144) this was later contested by the Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (‘FESI’) that claimed that General Shoes Ltd was in fact a Chinese supplier.
Z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2016/1395 [17], je Komisija ponovno uvedla dokončno protidampinško dajatev in dokončno pobrala začasno dajatev, uvedeno na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja družb Clark in Puma s poreklom iz LRK, ki jo proizvaja trinajst kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO in IO v preiskavi, ki je privedla do uvedbe dokončnih dajatev, vendar pa ti proizvajalci med preiskavo niso bili vzorčeni („prvotna preiskava“).
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM VIETNAM
Za uvoz družb Clark, Puma in Timberland iz Vietnama je Komisija ocenila vse zahtevke za TGO in IO, ki so jih vložili zadevni nevzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki, ki so tovrstne zahtevke vložili že v prvotni preiskavi.
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 [18].
Kar zadeva uvoz družbe Timberland, je sedež enega od obeh kitajskih dobaviteljev, identificiranih v zadevi C-571/14, in sicer družbe General Shoes Ltd, dejansko v Vietnamu, kar se je pri oceni tudi upoštevalo.
The present 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 certain exporting producers from Vietnam are concerned.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 144 v nadaljevanju je bila ta trditev pozneje izpodbijana s strani Združenja evropske industrije športnih izdelkov („FESI“), ki je trdilo, da je družba General Shoes Ltd. dejansko kitajski dobavitelj.
All other findings made in the contested Regulation, which were not declared invalid by the Court of Justice, remain valid and are herewith incorporated into the present Regulation.
B. IZVRŠEVANJE SODB SODIŠČA V ZDRUŽENIH ZADEVAH C-659/13 IN C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ VIETNAMA
Therefore, the following recitals are limited to the new assessment necessary in order to comply with the judgments.
Komisija ima možnost, da odpravi tiste vidike izpodbijane uredbe, ki so privedli do tega, da je bila razglašena za nično, dele ocene, ki jih Sodba ne zadeva, pa pusti nespremenjene [18].
The Commission has examined whether MET and IT prevailed for the Vietnamese exporting producers, suppliers of Clark, Puma and Timberland, which submitted MET and/or IT requests in that investigation, during the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
Namen sedanje uredbe je popraviti vidike izpodbijane uredbe, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da niso v skladu z osnovno uredbo in so zato privedli do razglasitve ničnosti v delu, ki zadeva nekatere proizvajalce izvoznike iz Vietnama.
The purpose of this determination is to ascertain the extent to which the three importers concerned are entitled to receive a repayment of the anti-dumping duty paid with regard to anti-dumping duties paid on exports of their Vietnamese suppliers which requested MET and/or IT.
Vse ostale ugotovitve iz izpodbijane uredbe, ki jih Sodišče ni razglasilo za nične, ostajajo v veljavi in so vključene v sedanjo uredbo.
Should the analysis reveal that MET or IT was to be granted to the Vietnamese exporting producer whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by either of the three importers concerned, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to the exporting producers concerned and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid, namely 10 %, and the individual duty rate calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Zato so naslednje uvodne izjave omejene na novo oceno, ki jo je treba izvesti za namene usklajenosti s sodbama.
Conversely, should the analysis of such MET and IT claims reveal that both MET and IT should be rejected, no repayment of anti-dumping duties can be awarded.
Komisija je proučila, ali sta TGO in IO prevladovali za vietnamske proizvajalce izvoznike Clark, Puma in Timberland, ki so predložili zahtevek za TGO in/ali IO v zadevni preiskavi v obdobju od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005.
As explained in recital 12, the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to exports of certain footwear from fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers, i.e. Best Royal Co.
Namen te analize je bil ugotoviti obseg, v katerem so zadevni trije uvozniki upravičeni do povračila plačane protidampinške dajatve glede na protidampinške dajatve, plačane za izvoz njihovih vietnamskih dobaviteljev, ki so zahtevali TGO in/ali IO.
Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co.
Če bi analiza pokazala, da bi bilo treba MET ali IO odobriti vietnamskemu proizvajalcu izvozniku, čigar izvoz je bil predmet protidampinške dajatve, ki jo je plačal eden od treh zadevnih uvoznikov, bi se morala zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom odobriti individualna stopnja dajatve, povračilo dajatve pa bi bilo omejeno na znesek, ki ustreza morebitni razliki med plačano dajatvo, tj. 10 %, in individualno stopnjo dajatve, izračunano za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika.
Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, (‘the exporting producers concerned’) to the Union and imported by C&J Clark International Ltd, Puma SE and Timberland Europe B.V., in so far as the Commission did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by, inter alia, the exporting producers in Vietnam.
Če pa bi analiza zadevnih zahtevkov za TGO in IO pokazala, da bi bilo treba TGO in IO zavrniti, povračila protidampinških dajatev ne bi bilo mogoče odobriti.
The Commission has therefore in a first step examined the MET and IT claims of these fourteen exporting producers in order to determine the duty rate applicable to their exports.
Kot je obrazloženo v uvodni izjavi 12, je Sodišče za nično razglasilo izpodbijano uredbo in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009, in sicer glede izvoza določene obutve štirinajstih vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, tj. družb Best Royal Co.
The assessment showed that the information provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that the exporting producers concerned operated under market economy conditions or that they qualified for individual treatment (see for a detailed explanation below recitals (30) and following).
Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd., Freetrend Industrial Ltd. in z njo povezana družba Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co.
Assessment of the MET claims
Ltd., Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd. („zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki“), v Unijo, ki je bil uvožen s strani družb C&J Clark International Ltd, Puma SE in Timberland Europe B.V., v obsegu, v katerem Komisija ni proučila zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih predložili, med drugim, proizvajalci izvozniki v Vietnamu.
It is necessary to point out that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je zaradi tega najprej proučila zahtevke za TGO in IO teh štirinajstih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da bi lahko določila stopnjo dajatve za njihov izvoz.
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) provides that the claim submitted by such a producer must contain sufficient evidence, as laid down in that provision, that the producer operates under market economy conditions.
Ocena je pokazala, da predložene informacije niso ustrezno dokazale, da so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki delovali v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva ali da izpolnjujejo pogoje za individualno obravnavo (za podrobno razlago glej uvodno izjavo 30 in naslednje v nadaljevanju).
Accordingly, there is no obligation on the Union Institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
Ocena zahtevkov za TGO
On the contrary, it is for the Union Institutions 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 and it is for the Union judicature to examine whether that assessment is vitiated by a manifest error (paragraph 32 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 24 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Poudariti je treba, da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO.
In accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation all five criteria listed in this Article should be met so that an exporting producer can be granted MET.
Prvi pododstavek člena 2(7)(c) v ta namen določa, da mora zahtevek, ki ga tak proizvajalec predloži, vsebovati zadostne dokaze, kot so opredeljeni v tej določbi, da proizvajalec deluje v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Institucijama Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
None of the exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that it met criteria 1 (Business decisions).
Nasprotno, ti instituciji Unije morata 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, sodišče Unije pa mora preveriti, ali je ta presoja očitno napačna (točka 32 sodbe v zadevi C-249/10 P in točka 24 sodbe v zadevi C-247/10 P).
More specifically, the information provided by eight exporting producers (V1, V2, V4, V7, V8, V9, V13, V14) demonstrated that the State exerted a significant influence in the business decisions.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe mora biti izpolnjenih vseh pet meril iz tega člena, da se proizvajalcu izvozniku lahko odobri TGO.
As for the six remaining exporting producers, they failed to provide essential and complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the structure and the capital of the company, evidence concerning domestic sales, evidence concerning the appointment of directors, etc.) to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za TGO.
As concerns criterion 2 (Accounting), ten companies (V1, V2, V3, V5, V6, V7, V9, V10, V11, V12) did not meet this criterion as they did not submit a clear set of basic accounting records.
Nobeden od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merilo 1 (poslovne odločitve).
The deficiencies observed were the absence of audited accounts or auditor's opinions, severe issues highlighted by auditors in their opinion (such as non-compliance with international accounting standards) and contradictions regarding loans between certain statements made in the MET claim form and the financial statements.
Natančneje, podatki, ki jih je predložilo osem proizvajalcev izvoznikov (V1, V2, V4, V7, V8, V9, V13, V14) dokazujejo, da je država bistveno vplivala na njihove poslovne odločitve.
For the remaining four companies criterion 2 was not assessed for the reasons set out in recital (31).
Kar zadeva preostalih šest proizvajalcev izvoznikov, le-ti niso predložili bistvenih in popolnih informacij (npr. dokazov o strukturi in kapitalu družbe, dokazov o domači prodaji, dokazov o imenovanju direktorjev, itd.), ki bi dokazovale, da so se njihove poslovne odločitve sprejemale v skladu s tržnimi razmerami in brez večjega vmešavanja države.
Regarding criterion 3 (Assets and ‘carry-over’), eight exporting producers (V2, V4, V5, V7, V8, V10, V11, V12) failed to provide complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the assets owned by the company and the land use right, explanation for non-payment of income taxes) to demonstrate that no distortions were carried over from the non-market economy system.
Kar zadeva merilo 2 (računovodstvo), deset družb (V1, V2, V3, V5, V6, V7, V9, V10, V11, V12) tega merila ni izpolnilo, saj niso predložile jasnega seznama osnovnih računovodskih evidenc.
For the remaining six companies criterion 3 was not assessed for the reasons set out in recital (31).
Ugotovljene pomanjkljivosti so odsotnost revidiranih računovodskih izkazov ali mnenj revizorjev, resne pomanjkljivosti, ki jih v svojem mnenju navajajo revizorji (kot je neskladnost z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi) ter nasprotujoče si navedbe glede posojil v obrazcu zahtevka za TGO in računovodskih izkazih.
For the reasons set out in recital (31), for none of the exporting producers concerned criteria 4 (Bankruptcy and property laws) and 5 (Exchange rate conversions) were assessed.
Pri preostalih štirih podjetjih merilo 2 ni bilo predmet ocene zaradi razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 31.
On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that none of the fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers concerned should be granted MET and informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly, which were invited to provide comments.
Kar zadeva merilo 3 (sredstva in „prenos“), osem proizvajalcev izvoznikov (V2, V4, V5, V7, V8, V10, V11, V12) ni predložilo popolnih informacij (kot so npr. dokazi o sredstvih, ki so v lasti družbe, in pravica do uporabe zemljišč, pojasnilo o neplačilu davka od dohodkov), ki bi dokazale, da iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva niso bila prenesena izkrivljanja.
No comments were received from any of the fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers concerned.
Pri preostalih šestih družbah merilo 3 ni bilo predmet ocene zaradi razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 31.
Therefore, none of the fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers concerned fulfilled all the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and MET is, as a result, denied for all of them.
Zaradi razlogov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 31, za nobenega od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov nista bila predmet ocene merilo 4 (stečajno pravo in pravo lastninskih razmerij) in 5 (pretvorbe glede menjalnih tečajev).
Assessment of the IT claims
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je Komisija sklenila, da nobenemu od zadevnih štirinajstih vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ne odobri TGO, in o tem ustrezno obvestila zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike, ki so bili pozvani, naj predložijo pripombe.
Pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, where Article 2(7)(a) of the same Regulation applies, an individual duty shall however be specified for the exporters which can demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
Nobeden od zadevnih štirinajstih vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni predložil pripomb.
As mentioned in recital (30) it is necessary to point out that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT under Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
Zato nobeden od zadevnih štirinajstih vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ne izpolnjuje vseh pogojev iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zaradi česar se TGO zanje ne odobri.
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 9(5) provides that the claim submitted must be properly substantiated.
Ocena zahtevkov za IO
Accordingly, there is no obligation on the Union Institutions to prove that the exporter does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
Člen 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, določa, da kadar se uporablja člen 2(7)(a) iste uredbe, se individualna dajatev določi za izvoznike, ki lahko dokažejo, da izpolnjujejo vsa merila iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo.
On the contrary, it is for the Union Institutions to assess whether the evidence supplied by the exporter concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment are fulfilled in order to grant IT.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 30, je treba poudariti, da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, odobri IO.