natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
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.
Therefore, the following recitals are limited to the new assessment necessary in order to comply with the judgments of the Court.
Zato so naslednje uvodne izjave omejene na novo oceno, ki jo je treba izvesti za izvršitev sodb Sodišča.
The Commission has examined whether MET or IT prevailed for the exporting producers concerned mentioned in recital (26) which submitted MET/IT requests for the investigation period.
Komisija je preučila, ali je TGO ali IO prevladovala za zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike iz uvodne izjave (26), ki so predložili zahtevke za TGO/IO za obdobje preiskave.
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.
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.
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.
Če bi analiza pokazala, da bi TGO morala biti odobrena zadevnim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, za izvoz katerih 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 s 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.
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.
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 s Kitajske in 10 % v primeru uvoza iz Vietnama, in individualno dajatvijo, izračunano za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika, če obstaja.
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.
Če bi analiza teh zahtevkov za TGO in IO pokazala, da bi bilo treba TGO in IO zavrniti, pa povračila protidampinških dajatev ne bi bilo mogoče odobriti.
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.
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 predložili ti proizvajalci izvozniki.
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.
Komisija je zato preučila zahtevke za TGO in IO zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, da bi določila stopnjo dajatve, ki se uporablja za njihov izvoz.
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 (37) and following).
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 (37) in naslednje v nadaljevanju).
C. ASSESSMENT OF THE MET CLAIMS
C. OCENA ZAHTEVKOV ZA TGO
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.
Poudariti je treba, da je dokazno breme na proizvajalcu, ki želi, da se mu na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe odobri TGO.
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.
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.
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.
Institucijam Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da proizvajalec ne izpolnjuje pogojev, ki se zahtevajo za odobritev navedene obravnave.
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).
Nasprotno, institucije Unije morajo presoditi, 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).
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.
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.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za TGO.
None of the exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that it met criterion 1 (Business decisions).
Nobeden od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni mogel dokazati, da izpolnjuje merilo 1 (poslovne odločitve).
More specifically, the Commission found that certain exporting producers (Companies 28, 29, 31 and 32) could not determine freely their sales quantities for domestic and export markets.
Natančneje, Komisija je ugotovila, da določeni proizvajalci izvozniki (družbe 28, 29, 31 in 32) niso mogli svobodno določiti količine prodaje na domačem in izvoznih trgih.
In this respect, the Commission established that there were limitations in the output and/or a limitation to sales quantities on specific markets (domestic and export).
V zvezi s tem je Komisija ugotovila, da so obstajale omejitve v proizvodnji in/ali omejitev količine prodaje na določenih trgih (domačem in izvoznih trgih).
Moreover, all exporting producers concerned failed to provide essential and complete information (such as evidence concerning the structure and the capital of the company, evidence or explanations concerning the company's decision making, evidence concerning the cost of electricity or an English version of the Articles of Association) to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Poleg tega nobeden od zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni predložil bistvenih in popolnih informacij (kot so dokazi o strukturi in kapitalu družbe, dokazi ali pojasnila o postopkih odločanja v družbi, dokazi o stroških elektrike ali angleška različica statuta), ki bi dokazovali, da je svoje poslovne odločitve sprejemal v skladu s tržnimi signali brez večjega vmešavanja države.
With regard to criterion 2 (Accounting), all seven exporting producers concerned failed to demonstrate that they had a set of basic accounting records independently audited in line with international accounting standards.
Kar zadeva merilo 2 (računovodstvo), nobeden od sedmih zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni dokazal, da ima zbirko osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki se neodvisno revidirajo v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi.
In this regard, the assessment for Companies 27, 28, 29, 31 revealed that their accounts were in breach of international accounting standards such as the lack of information concerning the lease of buildings or incorrect reporting of land use right or use of fixed exchange rate.
V zvezi s tem je ocena za družbe 27, 28, 29, 31 pokazala, da njihovi računovodski izkazi niso bili v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi, kar je bilo na primer razvidno iz pomanjkanja informacij v zvezi z najemom zgradb ali nepravilnega poročanja o pravici do rabe zemljišča ali uporabe fiksnega deviznega tečaja.
For Companies 27, 28, 30 and 32 the Commission found inconsistencies between the information provided in the MET claim and the supporting documentation (i.e. Balance Sheet).
Pri družbah 27, 28, 30 in 32 je Komisija ugotovila neskladnosti med predloženimi informacijami in zahtevkom za TGO ter spremnimi dokumenti (tj. bilancami stanja).
Company 26 provided the Commission with an independent auditor opinion/report and the financial statements only in Vietnamese language and failed to submit an English translation thereof.
Družba 26 je Komisiji predložila mnenje/poročilo neodvisnega revizorja in izvod računovodskih izkazov izključno v vietnamskem jeziku in ni priložila angleškega prevoda.
Regarding criterion 3 (Assets and carry-over), Companies 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 failed to demonstrate that no distortions are carried over from the non-market economy system.
Kar zadeva merilo 3 (sredstva in prenos), družbe 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 in 32 niso dokazale, da iz sistema netržnega gospodarstva niso bila prenesena izkrivljanja.
In particular, these companies failed to provide essential and complete information, inter alia, about the assets owned by the company, the terms and the value of the land use-rights, the deviation from the standard tax rate, the recruitment policy of the company, the tax rate or the electricity suppliers and rates.
Te družbe zlasti niso predložile bistvenih in popolnih informacij, med drugim o sredstvih v lasti družbe ter pogojih in vrednosti pravic do rabe zemljišč, odstopanju od standardne davčne stopnje, politiki družbe o zaposlovanju, davčni stopnji ali dobaviteljih električne energije in njihovih tarifah.
Company 27 failed to demonstrate that it met Criterion 4 (Legal environment).
Družba 27 ni dokazala, da izpolnjuje merilo 4 (pravno okolje).
In particular, although the company was in the situation of apparent insolvency according to its balance sheet, this was not disclosed in its financial statements or auditor report.
Čeprav je bila ta družba v skladu s svojo bilanco stanja očitno insolventna, to ni bilo razkrito v njenih računovodskih izkazih ali poročilu revizorja.
The company thus failed to demonstrate that it operated under bankruptcy and property laws that guarantee stability and legal certainty.
Družba zato ni dokazala, da je delovala v skladu s stečajnim pravom in pravom lastninskih razmerij, ki zagotavljata stabilnost in pravno varnost.
Company 29 failed to demonstrate that it met Criterion 5 (Currency exchange) since, according to the Notes of the financial statements, 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 a market rate.
Družba 29 ni dokazala, da izpolnjuje merilo 5 (menjava valute), ker je glede na pojasnila k računovodskim izkazom za posle v tujih valutah uporabljala fiksni devizni tečaj, kar ni v skladu z merilom 5, ki določa, da se spremembe menjalnega tečaja izvajajo po tržni stopnji.
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned that none of them should be granted MET and invited them to provide comments.
Komisija je zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike obvestila o tem, da nobenemu od njih ne bi smela biti odobrena TGO in jih pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe.
Therefore, none of the seven 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.
Torej nobeden od sedmih zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni izpolnjeval vseh pogojev iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zato TGO ni bila odobrena nobenemu od njih.
D. ASSESSMENT OF THE IT CLAIMS
D. OCENA ZAHTEVKOV ZA 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.
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.
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.
Institucijam Unije zato ni treba dokazati, da izvoznik ne izpolnjuje pogojev za odobritev navedene obravnave.
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.
Nasprotno, institucije Unije morajo 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.
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.
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.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the IT claim.
Komisija je zato menila, da neizpolnjevanje vsaj enega merila zadostuje za zavrnitev zahtevka za IO.
The five criteria are the following:
Uporablja se naslednjih pet meril:
export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale are freely determined;
izvozne cene in količine ter prodajni pogoji se svobodno določajo;
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;
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;
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and
spremembe menjalnega tečaja se izvajajo po tržni stopnji ter
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
vmešavanje države ni takšno, da bi omogočalo izogibanje ukrepom, če se individualnim izvoznikom dodelijo različne stopnje dajatve.
All seven exporting producers concerned claimed IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.
Vseh sedem zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov je za primer, če jim TGO ne bi bila odobrena, zahtevalo IO.
Therefore, the Commission also assessed whether IT should be granted to these exporting producers, in addition to rejecting their MET claims as described in recitals (37) to (44) above.
Komisija je zato po zavrnitvi njihovih zahtevkov za TGO, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah (37) do (44), ocenila tudi, ali bi morala biti tem proizvajalcem izvoznikom odobrena IO.
Regarding criterion 1 (Repatriation of capital and profits), Company 30 failed to demonstrate that it was free to repatriate capital and profits and did thus not demonstrate that this criterion was fulfilled.
Kar zadeva merilo 1 (vrnitev kapitala in dobičkov v domovino), družba 30 ni predložila dokazov, iz katerih bi bilo razvidno, da lahko svobodno vrne kapital in dobičke v domovino, zato ni dokazala, da je to merilo izpolnjeno.
With regard to criterion 2 (Export sales and prices freely determined), the Commission concluded that Companies 29, 31 and 32 had 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.
Kar zadeva merilo 2 (izvozne cene in količine se svobodno določijo), je Komisija ugotovila, da družbe 29, 31 in 32 niso dokazale, da so bile 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.
As regards criterion 3 (Company — key management and shares — is sufficiently independent from State interference), the Commission concluded that Companies 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 failed to provide the necessary information to demonstrate that they were sufficiently independent from State interference.
Kar zadeva merilo 3 (ključni upravljavski položaji in delnice družbe so dovolj neodvisni od vmešavanja države), je Komisija sklenila, da družbe 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 in 31 niso predložile potrebnih informacij, s katerimi bi dokazale, da so bile dovolj neodvisne od vmešavanja države.
Inter alia, no information or insufficient information was provided as regards the ownership structure of the company and how the decisions were taken (Companies 27, 28, 29, 30), on how the land use right were transferred to these companies and at what terms and conditions (Companies 28, 29 and 31).
Med drugim niso predložile informacij o lastniški strukturi družbe in o tem, kako so se sprejemale odločitve (družbe 27, 28, 29, 30) ter kako in pod kakšnimi pogoji je bila na te družbe prenesena pravica do rabe zemljišč (družbe 28, 29 in 31) ali pa so v zvezi s tem predložile nezadostne informacije.
Company 26 also provided only a Vietnamese version of the Articles of Association and failed to provide an English translation thereof.
Družba 26 je poleg tega predložila zgolj vietnamsko različico statuta brez angleškega prevoda.
In addition, Companies 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 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.
Poleg tega družbe 26, 27, 28, 29 in 30 tudi niso dokazale, da izpolnjujejo zahteve iz merila 5 (izogibanje), saj niso predložile informacij o načinu sprejemanja odločitev v družbi in o tem, ali je imela država pomemben vpliv pri sprejemanju odločitev v družbi.
Finally, for Company 29 exchange rate conversions were not carried out at the market rate, but at a fixed rate as mentioned in recital (43) above.
Nazadnje, za družbo 29 spremembe menjalnega tečaja niso bile izvedene po tržni stopnji, temveč po fiksni stopnji, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (43).
Therefore, it did not fulfil the requirements of criterion 4 (Market based exchange rate).
Zato ni izpolnjevala zahtev iz merila 4 (tržni menjalni tečaj).
In light of the above, none of the seven 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 zgoraj navedeno nobeden od sedmih 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.
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly and invited them to provide comments.
Komisija je zadevne proizvajalce izvoznike o tem ustrezno obvestila in jih pozvala, naj predložijo pripombe.
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 seven exporting producers concerned for the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Na podlagi nezakonitosti, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče, ni pravne podlage za popolno oprostitev plačila protidampinške dajatve za izdelke zadevnih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The period of application of that regulation was initially from 7 October 2006 until 7 October 2008.
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.
Following the initiation of an expiry review, it was prolonged on 30 December 2009 until 31 March 2011.
Ker je bilo ugotovljeno, 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 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.
Navedena uredba je še vedno veljavna.
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 paying any anti-dumping duty.
E. PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI PO RAZKRITJU