natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The burden of proof is not limited to filing a request.
Ker se je sedanja preiskava začela pred tem datumom, se spremembe te uredbe osnovne uredbe v obravnavanem primeru ne uporabljajo.
It concerns the content of the request, which has to demonstrate that all conditions for MET/IT are met.
Drugič, Uredba (EU) št. 1168/2012 (tako imenovana „sprememba Brosmann“ o TGO) v členu 2 določa, da „se ta uredba uporablja za vse nove in vse preiskave v teku od 15. decembra 2012“.
The only illegality identified in the judgments is the lack of assessment of the MET/IT claims.
Če bi Komisija torej uporabila strog pristop, zahtevkov za TGO nevzorčenih družb sploh ne bi bilo več treba ocenjevati, saj so izgubile pravico do ocene TGO z dnem 15. decembra 2012.
Therefore, these claims are rejected.
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da bi bilo takšno ravnanje težko uskladiti z njenimi obveznostmi do izvajanja sodb.
Legal basis for the reimposition of duties
Uredba (EU) št. 1168/2012 očitno tudi ne uvaja popolne prepovedi analiziranja zahtevkov za TGO zunaj vzorca, saj v primeru individualne obravnave dovoli takšno preiskavo.
FESI claimed that the Commission should not have applied two different legal regimes, i.e. the basic Regulation prior to its amendment for the assessment of the exporting producers' IT claims on the one hand, and the current basic Regulation on the other hand, that incorporated the amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council introducing Comitology procedures in the area of, inter alia, trade defence and thus delegating the decision making to the Commission.
Po analogiji bi lahko rekli, da to odstopanje velja v tem primeru.
FESI also re-iterated that Article 266 TFEU does not allow for the imposition of anti-dumping duties retroactively, which would also be confirmed by the ruling of the Court of Justice in case C-459/98P IPS v Council, and by Council Regulation (EC) 1515/2001 on measures that may be taken by the Community following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters.
Podredno Komisija meni, da bi rezultat uporabe Uredbe (EU) št. 1168/2012 v obravnavanem primeru vodil do istega rezultata, saj bi bili vsi zahtevki za TGO samodejno zavrnjeni, ne da bi bili ocenjeni.
FESI argued that the Commission has not given any valid justification to deviate from the principle of non-retroactivity and it has therefore violated the principle of legitimate expectations.
Tretjič, v zvezi s postopkom komitologije, člen 3 Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta določa, da Svet še naprej ostaja pristojen za dejanja, ko je Komisija sprejela akt, se je začelo posvetovanje ali pa je Komisija sprejela predlog.
FESI also argued that reimposing the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports from the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned by the current implementation constitutes (i) a discrimination of 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) above 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.
V obravnavani zadevi ni bilo izvedeno nobeno takšno dejanje v zvezi z izvajanjem sodbe pred začetkom veljavnosti Uredbe (EU) št. 37/2014.
This discriminatory treatment was claimed to reflect a lack of uniform interpretation and application of EU law which violates the fundamental right of an effective judicial protection.
Glede retroaktivne uvedbe dokončnih protidampinških dajatev se navaja sklicevanje na ugotovitve, opisane v zgornjih uvodnih izjavah 62 do 69, kjer so te trditve že bile obsežno obravnavane.
Regarding the alleged use of different legal regimes, the Commission considers that that follows from the differences in the transition rules contained in the three Regulations amending the basic Regulation at stake.
Kar zadeva trditev glede diskriminacije, Komisija ugotavlja, da imajo proizvajalci izvozniki in nekateri zadevni uvozniki, na katere se obravnavana uredba nanaša, pravico do sodnega varstva pred sodišči Unije zoper obravnavano uredbo.
First, Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 (the so-called ‘Fasteners amendment’ dealing with IT) provided in its Article 2 that ‘it shall apply to all investigations initiated pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 following the entry into force of this Regulation’.
Drugi uvozniki uživajo tako varstvo prek nacionalnih sodišč, ki delujejo kot sodniki na področju splošnega prava Unije.
As the present investigation was initiated prior to that date, the amendments of that Regulation to the basic Regulation do not apply in the present case.
Trditev o diskriminaciji je prav tako neutemeljena.
Second, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 (the so-called ‘Brosmann amendment’ dealing with MET) provided in its Article 2 that ‘this Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012.’
Uvozniki, ki uvažajo od družbe Brosmann in ostalih štirih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, so v drugačnem dejanskem in pravnem položaju, ker so se njihovi proizvajalci izvozniki odločili izpodbijati izpodbijano uredbo in ker so jim bile plačane dajatve povrnjene, tako da so zaščiteni s členom 221(3) carinskega zakonika Skupnosti.
Therefore, if the Commission had adopted a strict approach, it would not even have been necessary to assess the MET claims of the non-sampled companies any more, as they had lost the right to an MET assessment on 15 December 2012.
Do izpodbijanja in povrnitve dajatev pri drugih ni prišlo.
However, the Commission considers that such treatment would be difficult to reconcile with its obligation to implement the judgments.
Komisija je začela s pripravo izvajanja za kitajske in vietnamske proizvajalce izvoznike družb Clark, Puma in Timberland; vsi ostali nevzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK in Vietnama ter njihovi uvozniki se bodo obravnavali na isti način v poznejši fazi v skladu s postopkom, določenim v tej uredbi.
Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 does also not seem to introduce a complete ban on analysing MET claims outside the sample, as it authorises such examination in case of individual treatment.
Združenje FESI je trdilo tudi, da člen 14 osnovne uredbe ne more biti pravna podlaga za poseg v uporabo člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti in da je izvajanje člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti neodvisno od vseh odločitev, sprejetih v skladu z osnovno uredbo ali obveznosti Komisije v skladu s členom 266 PDEU.
By analogy, that derogation could be said to apply in the present case.
V zvezi s tem je združenje FESI trdilo, da je uporaba člena 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti v izključni pristojnosti nacionalnih carinskih organov, v sklopu katere so ti dolžni povrniti plačane dajatve, ki niso bile zakonito dolgovane.
In the alternative, the Commission considers that the outcome of applying Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 to the present case would lead to the same outcome, as all MET claims would be automatically rejected, without going through the assessment.
Združenje FESI je nadalje trdilo, da člen 236 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti ne more biti predmet člena 14 osnovne uredbe, prav tako pa ne more biti subsidiaren glede na ta člen, ker sta oba sekundarna zakonodaja in zato noben ne nadomesti drugega.
Third, with regard to Comitology, Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council provides that the Council shall remain competent for acts where the Commission has adopted an act, consultation has been initiated or the Commission has adopted a proposal.
Poleg tega se obseg člena 14 osnovne uredbe nanaša na posebne določbe, ki pokrivajo preiskave in postopke v okviru osnovne uredbe, in ga ni mogoče uporabiti za kateri koli drugi pravni instrument, kot je carinski zakonik Skupnosti.
In the present case, no such action had been undertaken with regard to the implementation of the judgment prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.
Komisija ugotavlja, da se carinski zakonik Skupnosti na uvedbo protidampinških dajatev ne nanaša samodejno, ampak zgolj na podlagi sklicevanja na uredbo o uvedbi protidampinških dajatev.
Regarding the retroactive imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties reference is made to the considerations outlined above in recitals (62) to (69) where these claims were already addressed extensively.
V skladu s členom 14 osnovne uredbe se lahko Komisija odloči, da ne uveljavlja posameznih določb tega zakonika in namesto tega oblikuje posebna pravila.
Regarding the claim on discrimination, the Commission observes that exporting producers and certain importers concerned by the present Regulation enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts against the present Regulation.
Ker se carinski zakonik Skupnosti uporablja samo na podlagi sklicevanja v izvedbenih uredbah Sveta in Komisije, v primerjavi s členom 14 osnovne uredbe ni na isti ravni v hierarhiji predpisov, ampak je podrejen in lahko postane neuporaben ali se uporablja na drugačen način.
Other importers enjoy such protection via the national courts and tribunals, which act as judges of ordinary Union law.
Zato je bila tudi ta trditev zavrnjena.
The claim of discrimination is equally unfounded.
Ustrezna obrazložitev
Importers that have imported from Brosmann and the other four exporting producers are in a different factual and legal situation, because their exporting producers decided to challenge the contested Regulation and because they had the paid duties reimbursed, so that they are protected by Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code.
Združenje FESI je nadalje trdilo, 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.
No such challenge and no such reimbursement have taken place for others.
Domnevna odsotnost ustrezne obrazložitve zadeva zlasti naslednja vprašanja: (i) odsotnost pravne podlage in obrazložitve, ki bi Komisiji omogočili delno izvrševanje zadevnih sodb, zgolj z ocenjevanjem zahtevkov za TGO/IO navedenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, pri katerih so bili zahtevki za povračilo vloženi s strani uvoznikov; (ii) odsotnost pravne podlage za ponovni začetek preiskave in za ponovno oceno zahtevkov za TGO/IO zadevnih treh kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, potem ko so ukrepi marca 2011 potekli; (iii) odsotnost pravne podlage, v skladu s katero dobijo carinski organi EU navodilo, naj ne povrnejo protidampinških dajatev, ki so v obravnavi pred sodiščem; (iv) odsotnost pravne podlage za odstopanje od načela prepovedi retroaktivnosti; (v) odsotnost obrazložitve glede uporabe ustreznega pravnega instrumenta za ocenjevanje zahtevkov za TGO/IO in za predlaganje ponovne uvedbe protidampinških dajatev; (vi) odsotnost odziva na pravne argumente, ki so jih posredovale te strani po razkritju Komisije v zvezi z oceno zahtevkov za TGO zadevnih kitajskih in vietnamskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov z dne 15. decembra 2015 ter 6. oziroma 16. junija 2016.
The Commission started to prepare the implementation for the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers of Clark, Puma and Timberland; all other non-sampled exporting producers from the PRC and Vietnam and their importers will be treated in the same fashion at a later stage pursuant to the procedure set out in the present Regulation.
Pri delnem izvrševanju sodb je vprašanje, ali in v kolikšnem obsegu morata instituciji izvrševati sodbo, odvisno od konkretne vsebine sodbe.
FESI also claimed that Article 14 of the basic Regulation cannot serve as a legal basis to interfere in the application of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code, and the operation of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code is independent from any decision taken under the basic Regulation or the Commission's obligations under Article 266 TFEU.
Ali je mogoče potrditi uvedbo dajatev na uvoz, do katerega je prišlo pred sodbo, je zlasti odvisno od tega, ali je zaradi nezakonitosti, ugotovljene v sodbi, prizadeta ugotovitev škodljivega dampinga ali le izračun natančne stopnje dajatev.
In this context FESI argued that the application of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code falls within the exclusive competence of the national customs authorities under which the latter are obliged to reimburse duties paid that were not legally owed.
V slednjem primeru, za kar gre tudi pri obravnavani zadevi, ni razloga za povračilo vseh dajatev.
FESI further argued that Article 236 of the Community Customs Code cannot be made subject to or subsidiary to Article 14 of the basic Regulation because both are secondary legislation and therefore none supersedes the other.
Nasprotno, zadostuje, da se določi ustrezna stopnja dajatve in povrne morebitna razlika (saj stopnje dajatve ne bi bilo mogoče povečati, ker bi to pomenilo retroaktivno uvedbo).
In addition, the scope of Article 14 of the basic Regulation concerns special provisions that cover investigations and procedures under the basic Regulation and is not applicable to any other legal instrument such as the Community Customs Code.
Prejšnje razglasitve ničnosti, na katere so se sklicevale zainteresirane strani, so se nanašale na ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi in interesu Unije (in sicer v zvezi z ugotavljanjem dejstev, oceno dejstev ali pravico do obrambe).
The Commission observes that the Community Customs Code does not apply automatically to the imposition of anti-dumping duties, but only by virtue of a reference in the Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties.
Navedene razglasitve ničnosti so bile delne ali popolne.
Pursuant to Article 14 of the basic Regulation, the Commission may decide not to apply certain provisions of that Code, and instead create special rules.
Sodišča Unije uporabijo tehniko razglasitve delne ničnosti, kadar lahko na podlagi dejstev iz spisa sama sklenejo, da bi morali instituciji odobriti določeno prilagoditev ali uporabiti drugačno metodo za izračun, s katero bi prišli do uvedbe nižje dajatve (vendar ne izpodbijajo ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi in interesu Unije).
Because the Community Customs Code only applies on the basis of a reference in the Council and Commission Implementing Regulations, it does not have, vis-à-vis Article 14 of the basic Regulation, the same rank in the hierarchy of norms, but is subordinated and may be rendered inapplicable or applicable in a different manner.
(Nižja) dajatev ostaja v veljavi za čas pred razglasitvijo ničnosti in čas po razglasitvi ničnosti.
Therefore, this argument was also rejected.
Da bi instituciji ravnali skladno s sodbo, ponovno izračunata stopnjo dajatve in ustrezno spremenita uredbo o uvedbi dajatve za nazaj in za naprej.
Adequate statement of reasons
Poleg tega nacionalnim carinskim organom naročita, naj povrnejo razliko pri tistih zahtevkih, ki so bili vloženi v ustreznem roku.
FESI further 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 reimposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation
Sodišča Unije razglasijo popolno ničnost, kadar na podlagi dejstev iz spisa sama ne morejo ugotoviti, ali sta instituciji upravičeno izhajali iz tega, da je prišlo do dampinga, škode in interesa Unije, saj sta instituciji morali ponovno opraviti del svoje preiskave.
The alleged lack of adequate reasoning concerned, in particular, the following issues: (i) the lack of legal basis and reasoning permitting the Commission to partially implement the judgments at stake, by merely assessing MET/IT claims of those exporting producers where reimbursement claims had been filed by the importers; (ii) the lack of legal basis for reopening the investigation and for reassessing the MET/IT claims of the three Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned, after measures expired in March 2011; (iii) lack of legal basis to instruct the EU customs authorities not to repay the anti-dumping duties subject to the Court case; (iv) the lack of legal basis to derogate from the principle of non-retroactivity; (v) lack of an explanation regarding the application of the appropriate legal instrument for assessing the MET and IT claims and for proposing the reimposition of anti-dumping duties; (vi) the lack of response to the legal arguments provided by these parties following the disclosure of the Commission concerning the assessment of the MET claims of the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned of 15 December 2015, and 6 and 16 June 2016 respectively.
Ker sodišča Unije niso pristojna za izvedbo preiskave namesto Komisije, so uredbe o uvedbi dokončnih dajatev razglasila za nične v celoti.
Regarding the partial implementation of the judgments, the question whether and to what extent the Institutions have to implement a judgment depends on the concrete content of the judgment.
Zato sta instituciji ustrezno dokazali prisotnost treh pogojev, potrebnih za uvedbo ukrepov, šele po sodbi o razglasitvi ničnosti dajatev.
In particular, whether or not it is possible to confirm the imposition of duties on imports that took place prior to the judgment depends on whether the finding of injurious dumping as such, or only the calculation of the precise duty rate are affected by the illegality identified in the judgment.
Za uvoz, ki se je zgodil pred ustrezno ugotovitvijo dampinga, škode in interesa Unije, je uvedba dokončnih dajatev prepovedana tako z osnovno uredbo kot PDS STO.
In the latter situation, which is pertinent here, there is no justification for reimbursing all duties.
Zato akti, ki sta jih instituciji sprejeli za zaključitev navedenih preiskav, uvajajo dokončne dajatve le za prihodnost.
Rather, it suffices to determine the correct duty rate, and to reimburse any possible difference (whereas it would not be possible to increase the duty rate, as the increased part would constitute retroactive imposition).
Ta zadeva se razlikuje od preteklih (delnih ali popolnih) razglasitev ničnosti, saj ne zadeva samega obstoja dampinga, škode in interesa Unije, temveč le izbiro ustrezne stopnje dajatve.
Past annulments to which interested parties refer have concerned the finding of dumping, injury and Union interest (either with regard to the establishment of facts, with regard to the assessment of the facts, or with regard to rights of defence).
Sporno torej ni samo načelo uvedbe dajatve, temveč le natančen znesek (z drugimi besedami: vrsta) dajatve.
Those annulments have either been partial or complete.
Morebitna prilagoditev je možna le navzdol.
The Union Courts use the technique of partial annulment where they can conclude themselves on the basis of the facts in the file that the Institutions ought to have granted a certain adjustment or should have used a different method for a certain calculation, which would have resulted in the imposition of a lower duty (but did not put into question the findings of dumping, injury and Union interest).
V nasprotju s preteklimi primeri razglasitve delne ničnosti, obravnavanimi v uvodni izjavi 103, sodišče ni moglo odločiti, ali je treba določiti novo (znižano) stopnjo dajatve, saj je za tako odločitev najprej potrebna ocena zahtevka za TGO/IO.
The (lower) duty remains in force both for the time prior to annulment and for the time after annulment.
Ocenjevanje zahtevka za TGO/IO spada v pristojnosti Komisije.
In order to comply with the judgment, the Institutions re-calculate the duty and amend the Regulation imposing the duty accordingly for the past and for the future.
Zato Sodišče tega dela preiskave ne more opraviti namesto Komisije, saj bi s tem prekoračilo svoje pristojnosti.
They also instruct national customs authorities to reimburse the difference, where such claims had been made in due time.
V nasprotju s preteklimi primeri razglasitve popolne ničnosti ugotovitve glede dampinga, škode, vzročnosti in interesa Unije niso bile razglašene za nične.
The Union Courts proceed to complete annulment where they cannot establish themselves on the basis of the facts in the file whether or not the Institutions were right in assuming that there was dumping, injury and Union interest, because the Institutions had to re-do part of their investigation.
Zato je bil obstoj dampinga, škode, vzročne zveze in interesa Unije ustrezno ugotovljen ob sprejetju Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006.
As the Union Courts are not competent for carrying out the investigation at the place of the Commission, they annulled the Regulations imposing definitive duties completely.
Zato ni nobenega razloga, da se ponovna uvedba dokončnih protidampinških dajatev omeji na prihodnost.
As a consequence, the Institutions validly established the presence of the three conditions necessary for the imposition of measures only after the judgment annulling the duties.
Obravnavana uredba se torej v nobenem primeru ne oddalji od prakse odločanja institucij, tudi če bi bila ta relevantna.
For imports that took place prior to the valid establishment of dumping, injury and Union interest, the imposition of definitive duties is prohibited both by the basic Regulation and by WTO ADA.
Zaradi odsotnosti kakršne koli pravne podlage za ponovni začetek preiskave Komisija opozarja na sodno prakso, navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15, v skladu s katero lahko nadaljuje preiskavo v točki, na kateri je prišlo do nezakonitosti.
Therefore, the acts adopted by the Institutions to close those investigations imposed definitive duties only for the future.
V skladu s sodno prakso je treba zakonitost protidampinške uredbe ocenjevati z vidika objektivnih norm prava Unije in ne glede na prakso odločanja, tudi če takšna praksa obstaja (v obravnavanem primeru temu ni tako).
The present case is different from past (partial or complete) annulments in so far as it does not concern the very presence of dumping, injury and Union interest, but merely the choice of the appropriate duty rate.
Zato dejstvo, da je Komisija v preteklosti v nekaterih primerih morebiti ravnala drugače ne more ustvariti legitimnih pričakovanj.
What is at dispute is therefore not the very principle of imposing a duty, but only the precise amount (in other words: a modality) of the duty.
To še toliko bolj velja, ker navedena prejšnja praksa ne ustreza dejanskemu in pravnemu položaju obravnavane zadeve, razlike pa je mogoče pripisati dejanskim in pravnim razlikam v primerjavi z obravnavano zadevo.
The adjustment, if any, can only be downwards.
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 naložitve dajatve, temveč le na določeno stopnjo dajatve.
Contrary to the cases of partial annulment in the past discussed above in recital (103), the Court has not been able to decide as to whether a new (reduced) duty rate had to be granted, because that decision requires first an assessment of the MET/IT claim.
Prejšnje razglasitve ničnosti, na katere so se sklicevale zainteresirane strani, pa so se nasprotno nanašale na ugotovitve o dampingu, škodi in interesu Unije.
That task of assessing the MET/IT claim falls within the prerogatives of the Commission.
Po mnenju institucij je bilo zato primerneje, da se za prihodnost sprejmejo novi ukrepi.
Hence, the Court cannot carry out this part of the investigation at the place of the Commission without overstepping its competences.
Zlasti v obravnavani zadevi ni bilo potrebno pridobiti dodatnih informacij od zainteresiranih strani.
Contrary to cases of complete annulment in the past, the findings on dumping, injury, causality and Union interest have not been annulled.
Komisija je morala namesto tega oceniti informacije, ki so bile vložene pri njej, vendar niso bile ocenjene pred sprejetjem Uredbe (ES) št. 1472/2006.