natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should also cover the part of the province of Bari where it is likely that that organism has already spread and is established.
To bi prav tako moralo zajemati del pokrajine Bari, za katerega je verjetno, da se je na njem navedeni organizem že razširil in naselil.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food, and Feed,
Ukrepi iz tega sklepa so v skladu z mnenjem Stalnega odbora za rastline, živali, hrano in krmo –
the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) is deleted;
tretji pododstavek člena 4(2) se črta;
Part A of Annex II is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.
del A Priloge II se spremeni v skladu s Prilogo k temu sklepu.
Done at Brussels, 27 June 2018.
V Bruslju, 27. junija 2018
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2015/789 z dne 18. maja 2015 glede ukrepov za preprečevanje vnosa organizma Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) v Unijo in njegovega širjenja znotraj Unije (UL L 125, 21.5.2015, str. 36).
(OJ L 125, 21.5.2015, p. 36).
PRILOGA
ANNEX
Del A Priloge II k Izvedbenemu sklepu (EU) 2015/789 se nadomesti z naslednjim:
Part A of Annex II to Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 is replaced by the following:
„DEL A
‘PART A
Okuženo območje v Italiji
Infected zone in Italy
V okuženo območje v Italiji so vključena naslednja območja:
The infected zone of Italy includes the following areas:
pokrajina Lecce
The province of Lecce
pokrajina Brindisi
The province of Brindisi
občine v pokrajini Taranto:
Municipalities located in the province of Taranto:
Občina v pokrajini Bari:
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/928
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2018/928
of 28 June 2018
z dne 28. junija 2018
terminating the re-opening of the investigation concerning the judgments in joined cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P in relation to Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People's Republic of China and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
o zaključku ponovne uvedbe preiskave v zvezi s sodbama v združenih zadevah C-186/14 P in C-193/14 P v zvezi z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 926/2009 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in o dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih brezšivnih cevi iz železa ali jekla s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, in Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2015/2272 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih brezšivnih cevi iz železa ali jekla s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa v skladu s členom 11(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 266 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in zlasti člena 266 Pogodbe,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘the basic Regulation’),
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) 2016/1036 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 8. junija 2016 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske unije („osnovna uredba“),
A. MEASURES IN FORCE AND COURT PROCEEDINGS
A. VELJAVNI UKREPI IN SODNI POSTOPKI
On 6 October 2009, following an anti-dumping investigation in accordance with Article 5 of the basic Regulation (‘the original investigation’), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron and steel (‘SPT’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘the PRC’), by Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 (the ‘original measures’ or ‘original Regulation’).
Po protidampinški preiskavi („prvotna preiskava“) v skladu s členom 5 osnovne uredbe je Svet z Uredbo (ES) št. 926/2009 („prvotni ukrepi“ ali „prvotna uredba“) 6. oktobra 2009 uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih brezšivnih cevi iz železa ali jekla („brezšivne cevi“) s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („Kitajska“ ali „LRK“).
The measures took the form of the following ad valorem duty rates: 17,7 % (Shandong Luxing Steel Pipe Co. Ltd), 27,2 % (for other cooperating companies), and 39,2 % (all other companies).
Ukrepi so bili v obliki naslednjih stopenj dajatve ad valorem: 17,7 % (Shandong Luxing Steel Pipe Co. Ltd.), 27,2 % (za druge sodelujoče družbe) in 39,2 % (za vse ostale družbe).
On 8 December 2015, following an expiry review investigation in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2272 (‘the expiry review Regulation’), the Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping measures for a further five years on the basis of the existence of a likelihood of a recurrence of a threat of injury.
Po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe je Komisija z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2015/2272 („uredba o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa“) 8. decembra 2015 uvedla dokončne protidampinške ukrepe za nadaljnjih pet let na podlagi obstoja verjetnosti ponovitve nevarnosti škode.
Judgments of the General Court and the Court of Justice
Sodbe Splošnega sodišča in Sodišča Evropske unije
The original measures were based on a finding of a threat of injury and were annulled by a judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 in case T-528/09, insofar as it concerned the exporting producer Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (‘Hubei’).
Prvotni ukrepi so temeljili na ugotovitvi nevarnosti škode in so bili razveljavljeni s sodbo Splošnega sodišča z dne 29. januarja 2014 v zadevi T-528/09, kolikor se je nanašala na proizvajalca izvoznika Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd („Hubei“).
By judgment of 7 April 2016 in joined cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P, the Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) upheld the findings of the General Court, insofar as they concerned Hubei (together with the judgment of the General Court hereafter collectively referred to as ‘the Hubei judgments’).
S sodbo z dne 7. aprila 2016 v združenih zadevah C-186/14 P in C-193/14 P je Sodišče Evropske unije („Sodišče“) potrdilo ugotovitve Splošnega sodišča, kolikor so se nanašale na družbo Hubei (skupaj s sodbo Splošnega sodišča v nadaljnjem besedilu skupaj „sodbi Hubei“).
As a direct consequence of the Hubei judgments, imports into the Union of SPT originating in the PRC, as produced by Hubei, were deemed to have never been subject to anti-dumping measures.
Kot neposredna posledica sodb Hubei se je štelo, da za uvoz brezšivnih cevi v Unijo s poreklom iz LRK, ki jih proizvaja družba Hubei, nikoli niso veljali protidampinški ukrepi.
Hence, the anti-dumping duties collected on these imports had to be reimbursed in accordance with the applicable customs legislation.
Zato so se morale protidampinške dajatve, pobrane od uvoza, povrniti v skladu z veljavno carinsko zakonodajo.
In June 2016, the Commission removed Hubei from the list of companies listed under the TARIC Additional Code A950 and listed it under a new TARIC Additional Code C129.
Komisija je junija 2016 izbrisala družbo Hubei s seznama družb, vpisanih pod dodatno oznako TARIC A950, in jo vpisala pod novo dodatno oznako TARIC C129.
On 9 September 2016, the Commission published a notice concerning the judgments in joined cases C-186/14 P and C-193/14 P (the ‘Notice’), reopening the review investigation under Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation that lead to the adoption of the expiry review Regulation.
Komisija je 9. septembra 2016 objavila obvestilo o sodbah v združenih zadevah C-186/14 P in C-193/14 P („Obvestilo“), s katerim je ponovno začela preiskavo v zvezi s pregledom v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe, ki je privedla do sprejetja uredbe o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa.
The re-opening was limited in scope to determining whether, in light of the Hubei judgments, it would be appropriate to repeal the expiry review Regulation for Chinese exporting producers other than Hubei.
Ponovni začetek je bil omejen na ugotavljanje, ali bi bilo v luči sodb Hubei primerno razveljaviti uredbo o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa za kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike, razen za družbo Hubei.
The Commission officially informed the Union industry represented by the Defence Committee of the Seamless Steel Tube Industry of the European Union (‘the Defence Committee’), the other known Union producers, the exporting producers in the PRC, importers/users which were known to be concerned, as well as the authorities of the PRC of the re-opening of the investigation.
Komisija je o ponovnem začetku preiskave uradno obvestila industrijo Unije, ki jo je zastopal Zaščitni odbor industrije jeklenih brezšivnih cevi Evropske unije („zaščitni odbor“), druge znane proizvajalce Unije, proizvajalce izvoznike v LRK, uvoznike/uporabnike, za katere je bilo znano, da jih to zadeva, ter organe LRK.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set out in the Notice.
Zainteresirane strani so imele možnost, da pisno izrazijo svoja stališča in Komisijo zaprosijo za zaslišanje v roku iz Obvestila.
After the reopening of the investigation, the Chinese Iron and Steel Association (‘CISA’) and four Chinese exporting producers submitted comments.
Po ponovnem začetku preiskave so kitajsko združenje za železo in jeklo („CISA“) in štirje kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki predložili pripombe.
The Commission also received comments from the Defence Committee, representing the Union industry, within the time-limits specified in the Notice.
Komisija je v rokih, določenih v Obvestilu, prejela tudi pripombe zaščitnega odbora, ki zastopa industrijo Unije.
Two hearings were held with the Defence Committee in the presence of the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.
V navzočnosti pooblaščenca za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih sta potekali dve zaslišanji z zaščitnim odborom.
The other parties did not request to be heard.
Druge strani niso zaprosile za zaslišanje.
C. COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES
C. PRIPOMBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANI
As mentioned in recital 10, two groups of interested parties, namely the Defence Committee, on one side, and CISA and four Chinese exporting producers, on the other side, provided comments.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 10, sta pripombe predložili dve skupini zainteresiranih strani, tj. zaščitni odbor na eni strani ter CISA in štirje kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki na drugi strani.
First, the Defence Committee argued that the Commission should not have annulled the anti-dumping duty in place for Hubei since the Hubei judgments entailed only the annulment of the original measures and not those imposed by the expiry review Regulation.
Prvič, zaščitni odbor je trdil, da Komisija ne bi smela razveljaviti veljavne protidampinške dajatve za Hubei, saj sta sodbi Hubei zajemali le razveljavitev prvotnih ukrepov in ne ukrepov, uvedenih z uredbo o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa.
The Defence Committee further asserted that the scope of the Hubei judgments could not be extended to legal acts that were not challenged before the Union courts even if these acts are vitiated by the same legal errors.
Zaščitni odbor je opozoril tudi, da področja uporabe sodb Hubei ni mogoče razširiti na pravne akte, ki niso bili izpodbijani pred sodišči Unije, tudi če so ti akti vsebovali enake pravne napake.
According to the jurisprudence of the European courts, the invalidity of an original regulation affects the validity of subsequent regulations alike.
V skladu s sodno prakso evropskih sodišč neveljavnost prvotne uredbe vpliva tudi na veljavnost poznejših uredb.
In this case, the invalidity of the original measure vis-à-vis Hubei also affected the validity of the expiry review Regulation, insofar as it concerned Hubei.
V tem primeru je neveljavnost prvotnega ukrepa v zvezi z družbo Hubei vplivala tudi na veljavnost uredbe o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa, kolikor se je nanašala na družbo Hubei.
As a result of the judgment, Hubei is deemed not to have ever been subject to the original measures, and, consequently, neither should it have been subject to the expiry review Regulation.
Na podlagi sodbe se šteje, da za družbo Hubei nikoli niso veljali prvotni ukrepi, zato družba posledično tudi ne bi smela biti predmet uredbe o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa.
Therefore, the Defence Committee's claim that Hubei should still be subject to anti-dumping duties as imposed by the expiry review Regulation was rejected.
Zato je bila trditev zaščitnega odbora, da bi za družbo Hubei še vedno morale veljati protidampinške dajatve, uvedene z uredbo o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa, zavrnjena.
Second, the Defence Committee claimed that the Commission had no legal basis to re-open the expiry review investigation or to repeal the measures imposed by the expiry review Regulation for all exporting producers in China.
Drugič, zaščitni odbor je trdil, da Komisija ni imela pravne podlage za ponovni začetek pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa ali za razveljavitev ukrepov, uvedenih z uredbo o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa, za vse proizvajalce izvoznike na Kitajskem.
It also claimed that the Hubei judgments did not render the expiry review Regulation invalid since the Commission did not base its findings on the same grounds (declared illegal) in the original investigation.
Trdil je tudi, da sodbi Hubei nista razveljavili uredbe o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa, saj Komisija svojih ugotovitev v prvotni preiskavi ni utemeljila na isti podlagi (ugotovljena nezakonitost).
The Commission also rejected those arguments.
Komisija je tudi te trditve zavrnila.
It follows from case-law that, while a legal consequence of a finding that an act of the European Union is invalid is that the institution that adopted the act must take the necessary measures to remedy the illegality established — the obligation set out in Article 266 TFEU in the event of annulment being applicable by analogy — that institution does nevertheless have a wide discretion in its choice of measures, it being understood that such measures must be compatible with the operative part of the judgment in question and the grounds that constitute its essential basis.
Iz sodne prakse izhaja, da je pravna posledica ugotovitve neveljavnosti akta Unije sicer to, da mora institucija, ki je sprejela ta akt, sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za odpravo ugotovljene nezakonitosti, saj se obveznost iz člena 266 PDEU za primer sodbe o razglasitvi ničnosti uporablja po analogiji, vendar ta institucija nima zmanjšane široke diskrecijske pravice pri izbiri teh ukrepov, pri čemer morajo biti ti ukrepi v skladu z izrekom zadevne sodbe in z obrazložitvijo, ki je njegova potrebna podlaga.
In this particular case, and by reference to the operative part and the grounds of the Hubei judgments, the Commission considered it appropriate to re-open the investigation in order to assess, after receiving comments from interested parties, whether duties in place on Chinese exporting producers other than Hubei should also be repealed.
V tem primeru ter glede na izrek in obrazložitev sodb Hubei se je Komisija odločila ponovno začeti preiskavo, da se po prejetju pripomb zainteresiranih strani presodi, ali bi bilo treba dajatve za kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike, razen za Hubei, prav tako razveljaviti.
In any case, the Commission considers that it has the power to re-open investigations, even where it is not legally bound to do so.
V vsakem primeru Komisija meni, da ima pooblastila za ponovni začetek preiskave, tudi če ni pravno zavezana, da to stori.
Third, the Defence Committee argued that by repealing the expiry review Regulation the Commission would infringe the principle of legal certainty since the expiry review Regulation became definitive due to the fact it had not been challenged before the Court.
Tretjič, zaščitni odbor je trdil, da bi Komisija z razveljavitvijo uredbe o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa kršila načelo pravne varnosti, saj je uredba o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa postala dokončna, ker ni bila izpodbijana pred Sodiščem.
However, as already stated, the invalidity of an original regulation may affect the validity of subsequent regulations to the same extent.
Vendar, kot je bilo že navedeno, neveljavnost prvotne uredbe lahko v enaki meri vpliva na veljavnost poznejših uredb.
Thus, even if a subsequent regulation is not challenged before the European courts, it may nonetheless be deemed to be affected by the illegality found in the original regulation – on the basis of which it was enacted – such that it would be necessary to repeal the former to that extent.
Zato se lahko kljub temu, da se poznejša uredba ne izpodbija pred evropskimi sodišči, šteje, da nanjo vpliva neveljavnost, ugotovljena v zvezi s prvotno uredbo – na podlagi katere je bila sprejeta –, tako da bi bilo treba poznejšo uredbo v določenem obsegu razveljaviti.
In this case, the Commission decided to assess the effects of the Hubei judgments cited in recitals 3 and 4 on the expiry review Regulation.
V tem primeru se je Komisija odločila, da oceni učinke sodb Hubei, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah 3 in 4, na uredbo o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa.
In doing so, and in order to respect the rights of defence of interested parties, it requested comments on the effects of those judgments on the expiry review Regulation.
Pri tem je zaradi spoštovanja pravice do obrambe zainteresiranih strani pozvala k predložitvi pripomb o učinkih navedenih sodb na uredbo o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa.
Consequently, it is incorrect to argue, without further qualification, that the principle of legal certainty is violated whenever the Commission considers repealing measures which were found partially invalid by the European courts altogether, in particular if it appropriately respected the rights of defence of interested parties.
Zato je brez podrobnejšega opisa zmotno trditi, da je načelo pravne varnosti kršeno tudi, kadar Komisija razmišlja o razveljavitvi ukrepov, za katere so evropska sodišča ugotovila, da so delno neveljavni, zlasti če je ustrezno spoštovala pravico zainteresiranih strani do obrambe.
Finally, the Defence Committee argued that the repeal of the measures would have a significant negative impact on the Union industry, as concluded in the expiry review investigation in terms of likelihood of recurrence of threat of injury, which should be taken into consideration.
Nazadnje, zaščitni odbor je trdil, da bi razveljavitev ukrepov znatno negativno vplivala na industrijo Unije, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa glede verjetnosti ponovitve nevarnosti škode, kar bi bilo treba upoštevati.
The Union industry's comments regarding the impact of the repeal of the measures on their situation are addressed in recitals 58 to 66.
Pripombe industrije Unije glede vpliva razveljavitve ukrepov na njihov položaj so obravnavane v uvodnih izjavah 58 do 66.
By contrast, CISA and the four Chinese companies claimed that the findings regarding the threat of injury affect Hubei and all other Chinese exporting producers equally.
Nasprotno so CISA in štiri kitajske družbe trdili, da ugotovitve glede nevarnosti škode enako vplivajo na družbo Hubei in vse druge kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike.
Therefore, according to them, repealing the measures only for Hubei and not for the rest of Chinese exporting producers would be in breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
Zato bi bila po njihovem mnenju razveljavitev ukrepov le za družbo Hubei in ne tudi za ostale kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike v nasprotju z načelom nediskriminacije.
That argument could also not be accepted.
Te trditve prav tako ni bilo mogoče sprejeti.
The principle of non-discrimination prohibits, first, treating similar situations differently and, secondly, treating different situations in the same way unless there are objective reasons for such treatment.
Z načelom nediskriminacije je prepovedano, prvič, različno obravnavanje primerljivih položajev in, drugič, enako obravnavanje različnih položajev, razen če obstajajo objektivni razlogi, ki upravičujejo takšno obravnavo.
However, since other Chinese exporting producers did not challenge the original and/or the expiry review Regulation before the General Court, they find themselves in a different position than Hubei.
Ker pa drugi kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki pred Splošnim sodiščem niso izpodbijali prvotne uredbe in/ali uredbe o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa, so se znašli v drugačnem položaju kot družba Hubei.
This fact justifies a different treatment vis-à-vis the application of the expiry review Regulation.
Ta okoliščina upravičuje različno obravnavanje v zvezi z uporabo uredbe o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa.
Therefore, a difference in treatment alone cannot be considered discriminatory as long as the parties complaining against this differential position are not in the same position as Hubei.
Zato razlike v obravnavanju same po sebi ni mogoče šteti za diskriminatorno, če stranke, ki so se pritožile zoper ta različna stališča, niso v enakem položaju kot družba Hubei.
In fact, in this particular case, the Commission is under no legal obligation to repeal the measures vis-à-vis the remaining exporting producers as only Hubei chose to contest the findings of that regulation before the European courts.
Pravzaprav v tem določenem primeru Komisija nima nikakršne pravne obveznosti, da bi razveljavila ukrepe v razmerju do preostalih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, saj se je samo družba Hubei odločila, da bo izpodbijala ugotovitve navedene uredbe pred evropskimi sodišči.
CISA and the four Chinese companies also submitted that the illegality found by the Court of Justice meant that the investigation leading to the original measures should have never been initiated since the premise for its initiation was the alleged threat of injury which the Court found to never have existed.
CISA in štiri kitajske družbe so trdili tudi, da nezakonitost, ki jo je ugotovilo Sodišče, pomeni, da se preiskava, ki je privedla do prvotnih ukrepov, sploh ne bi smela začeti, saj je bilo izhodišče za njen začetek domnevna nevarnost škode, ki po mnenju Sodišča ni nikoli obstajala.
Accordingly, CISA and the four Chinese companies claimed that the nature of the illegality found by the Court affected the legality of the entire anti-dumping measure and thus raised an issue of public interest which should prevail over the principle of legal certainty.
CISA in štiri kitajske družbe so tako trdili, da je narava nezakonitosti, ki jo je ugotovilo sodišče, vplivala na zakonitost celotnega protidampinškega ukrepa, zato so izpostavili vprašanje javnega interesa, ki bi moral prevladati nad načelom pravne varnosti.
CISA did not explain how maintaining the measures for the remaining exporting producers could be against the overall Union interest, in particular considering the findings during the expiry review investigation that concluded, inter alia, that they were no compelling reasons of Union interest against the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures on imports from China.
CISA ni razložilo, kako bi ohranitev ukrepov za preostale proizvajalce izvoznike lahko bila v nasprotju s splošnimi interesi Unije, zlasti ob upoštevanju ugotovitev pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa, v katerem je bilo med drugim ugotovljeno, da v okviru interesa Unije ni utemeljenih razlogov proti ohranitvi protidampinških ukrepov na uvoz iz Kitajske.
As regards the claim that the Court's findings vitiated the original Regulation to such an extent that the expiry review Regulation cannot remain in force, it is noted that the findings of the Court were limited to Hubei alone.
Kar zadeva trditev, da so ugotovitve Sodišča vsebovale napake v zvezi s prvotno uredbo do te mere, da uredba o pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa ne more ostati v veljavi, je treba opomniti, da so ugotovitve Sodišča omejene samo na družbo Hubei.