natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
These rates were not affected by the judgment mentioned in recital 12.
Za družbe ali skupine družb, ki so bile ocenjene v Izvedbenem sklepu 2014/149/EU, ni veljala ponovna uvedba protidampinške dajatve, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 10, saj so bile tem družbam dajatve že povrnjene in so lahko legitimno pričakovale, da se zanje ne bodo ponovno uvedle.
Out of the remaining companies, 72 exporting producers (listed in Annex V to this Regulation) were already assessed either individually or as part of a company group in the context of the implementation of the judgment mentioned in recital 12: namely, in Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU or in Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731, (EU) 2016/2257 and (EU) 2017/1982 respectively.
Zahtevki za povračilo dajatev uvoznikom v Uniji v zvezi z družbami ali skupinami družb, ki so bile ocenjene v izvedbenih uredbah (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731, (EU) 2016/2257 ali (EU) 2017/1982, pa se po drugi strani ne bi smeli odobriti.
Companies or company groups assessed by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU were not made subject to any reimposition of an anti-dumping duty, as mentioned in recital 10, on the basis that the reimbursement of duties to these companies had already taken place and thus provided legitimate expectations to them that no such reimposition would occur.
Ti uvozniki so namreč v drugačnem pravnem položaju kot uvozniki, ki so bili ocenjeni v Izvedbenem sklepu 2014/149/EU, in zlasti niso pridobili legitimnih pričakovanj.
The reimbursement claims of importers in the Union relating to companies or company groups assessed by Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731, (EU) 2016/2257 and (EU) 2017/1982, should, on the other hand, not be granted.
Preostalih 70 družb (ki so navede v Prilogi II k tej uredbi) so sestavljali kitajski ali vietnamski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki niso bili vzorčeni v prvotni preiskavi in ki so predložili obrazec zahtevka za TGO/IO.
This is because these importers find themselves in a different legal situation than those assessed by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, having notably not gained legitimate expectations.
Komisija je zato ocenila zahtevke za TGO in IO, ki so jih vložile te družbe.
The remaining 70 companies (listed in Annex II to this Regulation) were Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that were not sampled in the original investigation and that had submitted an MET/IT claim form.
B. IZVRŠITEV SODBE SODIŠČA V ZDRUŽENIH ZADEVAH C-659/13 IN C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ KITAJSKE IN VIETNAMA
The Commission therefore assessed the MET and IT claims provided by these companies.
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 [24].
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM CHINA AND VIETNAM
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 30.
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 [24].
Vse ostale ugotovitve iz izpodbijane uredbe in Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1294/2009, ki jih Sodišče ni razglasilo za nične, ostajajo v veljavi in so vključene v to uredbo.
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 30 are concerned.
Zato so naslednje uvodne izjave omejene na novo oceno, ki jo je treba izvesti za izvršitev sodb Sodišča.
All other findings made in the contested Regulation and in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, which were not declared invalid by the Court, remain valid and are herewith incorporated into this Regulation.
Komisija je preučila, ali je TGO ali IO prevladovala za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike iz uvodne izjave 38, ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO/IO za obdobje preiskave.
Therefore, the following recitals are limited to the new assessment necessary in order to comply with the judgments of the Court.
Namen te analize je ugotoviti obseg, v katerem so zadevni uvozniki upravičeni do povračila plačanih protidampinških dajatev glede na protidampinške dajatve, plačane za izvoz teh dobaviteljev.
The Commission has examined whether MET or IT prevailed for the exporting producers concerned mentioned in recital 38 which submitted MET/IT requests for the investigation period.
Če bi analiza pokazala, da bi TGO morala biti odobrena zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, za katerih izvoz se je uporabljala protidampinška dajatev, plačana s strani zadevnih uvoznikov, bi bilo navedenemu proizvajalcu izvozniku treba priznati individualno stopnjo dajatve, povračilo dajatve pa bi bilo omejeno na znesek, ki bi ustrezal razliki med plačano dajatvijo in individualno stopnjo dajatve, tj. v primeru uvoza iz Kitajske razliki med 16,5 % in dajatvijo, uvedeno za edino vzorčeno izvozno družbo, ki ji je bila odobrena TGO, tj. 9,7 %, v primeru uvoza iz Vietnama pa razliki med 10 % in individualno stopnjo dajatve, izračunano za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika, če obstaja.
The purpose of this determination is to ascertain the extent to which the importers concerned are entitled to receive a repayment of the anti-dumping duty paid with regard to anti-dumping duties paid on exports of these suppliers.
Če bi analiza pokazala, da bi bilo treba IO odobriti proizvajalcu izvozniku, za katerega je bila zavrnjena TGO, bi se morala zadevnemu proizvajalcu izvozniku odobriti individualna stopnja dajatve, povračilo dajatve pa bi bilo omejeno na znesek, ki ustreza razliki med plačano dajatvijo, tj. 16,5 % v primeru uvoza iz Kitajske in 10 % v primeru uvoza iz Vietnama, in individualno dajatvijo, izračunano za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika, če obstaja.
Should the analysis reveal that MET was to be granted to the exporting producers concerned whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by the importers concerned, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to that exporting producer and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid and the individual duty rate, i.e. in case of imports from China, the difference between 16,5 %, and the duty imposed on the only exporting company in the sample that obtained MET, namely 9,7 %; and, in case of imports from Vietnam, the difference between 10 % and the individual duty rate calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Nasprotno, če bi analiza zahtevkov za TGO in IO pokazala, da bi bilo treba TGO in IO zavrniti, povračila protidampinških dajatev ne bi bilo mogoče odobriti.
Should the analysis reveal that IT was to be granted to an exporting producer for which MET was rejected, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to the exporting producer concerned and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid, i.e. in case of imports from China 16,5 % and in case of imports from Vietnam 10 %, and the individual duty calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 12, je Sodišče izpodbijano uredbo in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1294/2009 razglasilo za nični glede izvoza določene obutve določenih kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, saj Komisija ni preučila zahtevkov za TGO in IO, ki so jih poslali ti proizvajalci izvozniki.
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 zato preučila zahtevke za TGO in IO zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da bi določila stopnjo dajatve, ki se uporablja za njihov izvoz.
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 certain Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers, in so far as the Commission did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by these exporting producers.
Ocena je pokazala, da predložene informacije niso dokazale, da so zadevni proizvajalci izvozniki delovali v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva ali da izpolnjujejo pogoje za individualno obravnavo (za podrobno razlago glej uvodno izjavo 49 in naslednje v nadaljevanju).
The Commission has therefore examined the MET and IT claims of the exporting producers concerned in order to determine the duty rate applicable to their exports.
Ocena zahtevkov za TGO
That assessment showed that the information provided did not 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 49 and following).
Poudariti je treba, da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO.
Assessment of the MET claims
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 navedeni določbi, da deluje v pogojih tržnega gospodarstva.
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.
Institucijama Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
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.
Nasprotno, 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).
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.
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.
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).
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za 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.
Nobeden od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merilo 1 (poslovne odločitve).
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Natančneje, Komisija je ugotovila, da družbe 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 58, 65, 66,67, 69, 72, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 in 102 [25] niso mogle svobodno določiti količine prodaje na domačem in izvoznih trgih.
None of the exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that they met criterion 1 (Business decisions).
V zvezi s tem je ugotovila, da so na določenih trgih (domačem in izvoznih trgih) obstajale omejitve pri proizvodnji in/ali količini prodaje.
More specifically, the Commission found that Companies 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 53, 54, 58, 65, 66, 67, 69, 72, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 [25] could not determine freely their sales quantities for domestic and exporting markets.
Nekatere družbe (33, 35, 39, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 96, 97, 101 in 102) niso predložile zadostnih informacij o svoji lastniški strukturi, delničarjih, upravnem odboru ali izboru direktorjev, ki bi dokazovale, da so poslovne odločitve sprejemale v skladu s tržnimi signali in brez večjega vmešavanja države.
In this respect, the Commission established that there were limitations on the output and/or a limitation to sales quantities on specific markets (domestic and export).
Nekatere družbe niso predložile dovoljenja za poslovanje ali njegovega angleškega prevoda (33, 35, 59, 60, 62, 81 in 87) oziroma statuta ali njegovega angleškega prevoda (34, 40, 41, 51, 59, 63, 64, 95, 101 in 102).
Certain Companies 33, 35, 39, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 96, 97, 101 and 102 did not provide sufficient information on their ownership structure, shareholder, board of directors, or the selection of directors to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Poleg tega nekatere družbe niso predložile zadostnih informacij o svojih dobaviteljih (42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 51, 57, 60, 64, 65, 69, 74, 76 in 95) ali pa niso mogle dokazati, da je bil izbor zaposlenih dovolj neodvisen od lokalnih organov (38, 39, 42, 45 in 46), in zato niso predložile zadostnih dokazov, da so bile poslovne odločitve sprejemale brez večjega vmešavanja države.
Furthermore, certain companies failed to provide a business licence or an English translation thereof (Companies 33, 35, 59, 60, 62, 81 and 87), or failed to provide the Articles of Association or an English translation thereof (Companies 34, 40, 41, 51, 59, 63, 64, 95, 101 and 102).
Družbe 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101 in 102 niso mogle dokazati, da izpolnjujejo merilo 2 (računovodstvo).
Additionally, certain companies did not provide sufficient information on their suppliers (Companies 42, 43, 44, 46, 49, 51, 57, 60, 64, 65, 69, 74, 76 and 95) or were unable to demonstrate that the selection of labour was sufficiently independent from local authorities (Companies 38, 39, 42, 45 and 46) and therefore did not provide sufficient evidence that business decisions were taken without significant state interference.
Natančneje, družbe 33, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 101 in 102 niso dokazale, da imajo jasno določeno zbirko računovodskih evidenc, ki se pregledujejo neodvisno v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi.
Additionally, Companies 33, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 100, 101 and 102 were not able to demonstrate they met criterion 2 (Accounting).
Ocene za TGO so zlasti pokazale, da te družbe Komisiji niso predložile mnenja/poročila neodvisnega revizorja ali pa ni bila izvedena revizija njihovih računovodskih izkazov ali pa niso bile pojasnjene nekatere postavke v bilanci stanja in izkazu poslovnega izida.
More specifically, Companies 33, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 96, 97, 101 and 102 failed to demonstrate that they had a set of basic accounting records independently audited in line with international accounting standards.
Druge družbe niso predložile zadevnega angleškega prevoda (34, 35, 40, 41, 51, 57, 69, 70, 95 in 100).
In particular, the MET assessments revealed that these companies either failed to provide the Commission with an independent auditor opinion/report, or their accounts were not audited, or lacked explanatory notes on several items of the balance sheet and income statement.
Poleg tega so bila v revidiranih računovodskih izkazih nekaterih družb (43, 44, 45, 57, 65 in 72) ugotovljena znatna neskladja, in sicer med drugim razlike v sporočenih podatkih za različna leta, razlike med izvirnikom in angleškim prevodom, pomisleki glede pravilnosti metode amortizacije, popisa zalog in pregleda stanja ter težave, ki so bile izpostavljene v poročilu revizorjev in ki pozneje niso bile popravljene.
Other companies failed to provide an English translation thereof (Companies 34, 35, 40, 41, 51, 57, 69, 70, 95 and 100).
Zato te družbe niso izpolnjevale merila 2.
Furthermore, the audited accounts of certain Companies 43, 44, 45, 57, 65 and 72 were found to have significant inconsistencies, inter alia, discrepancies in the data reported for different years, differences between the original version and the English translation, doubt on the correctness of depreciation method, inventory and stock taking, or problems noted by the auditors' report that were not corrected subsequently.
Kar zadeva merilo 3 (sredstva in „prenos“), več družb ni dokazalo, da iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva niso bila prenesena izkrivljanja.
Therefore these companies did not fulfil criterion 2.
Družbe 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101 in 102 zlasti niso predložile bistvenih in popolnih informacij o pogojih in vrednosti pravic do rabe zemljišč.
Regarding criterion 3 (Assets and ‘carry over’), several companies failed to demonstrate that no distortions are carried over from the non-market economy system.
Poleg tega družbe 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 57, 60, 63, 65, 66, 72, 77, 79, 84, 85, 87, 93, 94, 95 in 98 niso predložile informacij o odstopanjih od splošne davčne stopnje ali o sledi plačila tega davka, medtem ko družbe 37, 42, 43, 44, 57, 84, 87 in 94 niso predložile informacij o dobavi ali ceni električne energije.
In particular, the Companies 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101 and 102 failed to provide essential and complete information about the terms and the value of the land use-rights.
Družbi 40 in 41 nista predložili angleškega prevoda bistvenih informacij o svojih sredstvih.
Furthermore, Companies 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 57, 60, 63, 65, 66, 72, 77, 79, 84, 85, 87, 93, 94, 95 and 98 did not provide information on deviations from the standard tax rate or the track of payment of this tax, while Companies 37, 42, 43, 44, 57, 84, 87 and 94 failed to provide information on their electricity supply or price.
Kar zadeva merilo 4 (pravno okolje), družbe 76, 101 in 102 niso dokazale, da so delovale v skladu s stečajnim pravom in pravom lastninskih razmerij, ki zagotavljata stabilnost in pravno varnost.
Companies 40 and 41 did not provide an English translation of essential information concerning their assets.
Družba 70 ni dokazala, da izpolnjuje merilo 5 (menjava valute), ker je glede na pojasnila k računovodskim izkazom za posle v tujih valutah uporabljala fiksen menjalni tečaj, kar ni v skladu z merilom 5, ki določa, da se spremembe menjalnega tečaja izvajajo po tržni stopnji.
As for criterion 4 (Legal environment), Companies 76, 101 and 102 failed to demonstrate that they operated under bankruptcy and property laws that guarantee stability and legal certainty.
Družbe 56, 71, 78 in 90 niso predložile dokazov o proizvodnji zadevnega izdelka, lastništvu glavnih surovin, lastništvu zadevnega izdelka in nadzoru nad določanjem cen.
Company 70 failed to demonstrate that it met Criterion 5 (Currency exchange) since, according to the Notes to the accounts, the company used a fixed exchange rate for the foreign currency business, which is not in line with criterion 5 which stipulates that exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate.
Zato njihovi zahtevki za TGO niso bili podrobno analizirani.
Furthermore, the Companies 56, 71, 78 and 90 failed to provide evidence on the production of the product concerned, ownership of the main raw materials, ownership of the product concerned and control over the price setting.
Komisija je zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike obvestila o tem, da nobenemu od njih ne bi smela biti odobrena TGO, in jih pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe.
Their MET claims were therefore not subject to a detailed analysis.
Prejela ni nobenih pripomb.
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned that none of them should be granted MET and invited them to provide comments.
Noben od 70 zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov torej ni izpolnjeval vseh pogojev iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zato jim TGO ni bila odobrena.
No comments were received.
Ocena zahtevkov za IO
Therefore, none of the seventy exporting producers concerned fulfilled all the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and MET is, as a result, rejected for all of them.
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.
Assessment of the IT claims
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 49, 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.
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.
Za ta namen prvi pododstavek člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, določa, da mora biti vloženi zahtevek ustrezno utemeljen.
As mentioned in recital 49 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.
Institucijama Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da izvoznik ne izpolnjuje pogojev za odobritev navedene obravnave.
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment provides that the claim submitted must be properly substantiated.
Nasprotno, instituciji Unije morata presoditi, ali podatki, ki jih je predložil zadevni izvoznik, zadostujejo za dokaz, da so merila iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, izpolnjena, tako da se mu lahko odobri 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.
V skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe v obliki, kakršna je bila pred spremembo, morajo izvozniki z ustrezno utemeljenim zahtevkom dokazati, da izpolnjujejo vseh pet meril iz navedenega člena, tako da se jim lahko odobri IO.
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.
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za IO.