natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of Justice also found in paragraphs 75 and 76, that the conclusion as to the existence of transhipment operations in Sri Lanka could not legally be based only on the two findings expressly made by the Council, that is, first, that there had been a change in the pattern of trade and, second, that some of the producer-exporters had failed to cooperate [9].
V točkah 75 in 76 pa je Sodišče navedlo, da sklepa v zvezi z obstojem dejavnosti pretovarjanja na Šrilanki ni mogoče pravno utemeljiti samo na dvojni ugotovitvi Sveta, in sicer na eni strani glede obstoja spremembe v vzorcih trgovanja in glede nesodelovanja dela proizvajalcev-izvoznikov na drugi [9].
In line with Article 266 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions need to take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment of 26 January 2017.
V skladu s členom 266 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije morajo institucije Unije sprejeti potrebne ukrepe za izvršitev sodbe z dne 26. januarja 2017.
In cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding [10].
V primerih, ko je postopek sestavljen iz več upravnih ukrepov, razglasitev ničnosti enega od ukrepov ne pomeni, da je za ničnega razglašen celoten postopek [10].
Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation.
Zato razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe v delu, v katerem se nanaša na eno stranko, ne pomeni, da je za ničen razglašen celotni postopek, ki je potekal pred sprejetjem zadevne uredbe.
The EU institutions have the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Court judgment [11].
Institucije EU imajo možnost, da odpravijo tiste vidike izpodbijane uredbe, ki so privedli do tega, da je bila razglašena za nično, neizpodbijane dele, na katere se sodba Sodišča ne nanaša, pa pustijo nespremenjene [11].
Procedure until the judgment
Postopek do razglasitve sodbe
The Commission confirms recitals (1) to (23) of the contested Regulation.
Komisija potrjuje uvodne izjave (1) do (23) izpodbijane uredbe.
They are not affected by the judgment.
Sodba jih ne zadeva.
Reopening
Ponoven začetek preiskave
Following the judgment, on 11 April 2017 the Commission published a Notice [12] partially reopening the anti-circumvention investigation concerning imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not that led to the adoption of the contested Regulation (‘the Notice of re-opening’) and resumed it at the point at which the irregularity occurred.
Po objavi sodbe je Komisija 11. aprila 2017 z objavo obvestila [12] deloma ponovno začela preiskavo proti izogibanju v zvezi z uvozom koles, poslanih iz Šrilanke, ne glede na to, ali so deklarirana kot izdelek s poreklom iz Šrilanke ali ne, ki je privedla do sprejetja izpodbijane uredbe („obvestilo o ponovnem začetku“), in sicer na točki, na kateri se je pojavila nepravilnost.
The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment with regard to City Cycle.
Ponovno začeta preiskava je bila po obsegu omejena na izvršitev sodbe v zvezi z družbo City Cycle.
The Commission informed City Cycle, the representatives of the exporting country, the Union industry and other interested parties known to be concerned from the original investigation of the partial reopening of the investigation.
Komisija je družbo City Cycle, predstavnike države izvoznice, industrijo Unije in druge znane zainteresirane strani iz prvotne preiskave obvestila o delnem ponovnem začetku preiskave.
All interested parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard by the Commission services and/or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings.
Vsem zainteresiranim stranem, ki so to zahtevale, je bilo odobreno zaslišanje pri službah Komisije in/ali pooblaščencu za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih.
Nobody requested a hearing either with the Commission services or the Hearing officer in trade proceedings.
Nihče ni zahteval zaslišanja niti pred službami Komisije niti pred pooblaščencem za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih.
Following the judgment, the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association and Maxcom Ltd requested that imports of bicycles in so far as it concerns City Cycle are made subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation so that measures may subsequently be applied on those imports from the date of such registration.
Po sodbi sta združenje evropskih proizvajalcev koles in družba Maxcom Ltd zaprosila, naj se za uvoz koles, kolikor zadeva družbo City Cycle, uvede registracija v skladu s členom 14(5) osnovne uredbe, tako da se bodo lahko pozneje ukrepi uporabljali za ta uvoz od datuma registracije.
On 11 April 2017, the Commission made imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka, whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not, in so far as it concerns the Sri Lankan company City Cycle Industries subject to registration (‘Registration Regulation’) [13].
Komisija je 11. aprila 2017 uvedla registracijo za uvoz koles, poslanih iz Šrilanke, ne glede na to, ali so deklarirana kot izdelek s poreklom iz Šrilanke ali ne, kolikor zadeva šrilanško družbo City Cycle Industries („uredba o registraciji“) [13].
The product under investigation is the same as in the contested Regulation that is bicycles and other cycles (including delivery tricycles, but excluding unicycles), not motorised, originating in the People's Republic of China (‘China’ or ‘PRC’), currently falling within CN codes ex87120030 and ex87120070.
Izdelek v preiskavi je isti kot v izpodbijani uredbi, in sicer zajema dvokolesa in druga podobna kolesa (vključno z dostavnimi tricikli, a brez enokolesnikov), brez motornega pogona, s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“), ki se trenutno uvrščajo pod oznaki KN ex87120030 in ex87120070.
The Commission confirms recitals (25) to (27) of the contested Regulation.
Komisija potrjuje uvodne izjave (25) do (27) izpodbijane uredbe.
C. ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT
C. OCENA PO SODBI
First, the Court of Justice held that the contested Regulation did not contain an individual analysis of circumvention practices in which City Cycle may have been engaged.
Prvič, Sodišče je navedlo, da izpodbijana uredba ne vsebuje nobene posamezne analize morebitnih praks izogibanja, ki naj bi jih opravljala družba City Cycle.
The two findings expressly made by the Council, that that there had been a change in the pattern of trade and that some of the producer-exporters had failed to cooperate were found by the Court of Justice not to be sufficient to entitle the Council to conclude either that City Cycle was involved in transhipment operations or that transhipment operations existed at national level in Sri Lanka.
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da ugotovitvi, ki ju je izrecno navedel Svet, in sicer glede obstoja spremembe v vzorcih trgovanja in glede nesodelovanja dela proizvajalcev-izvoznikov, ne zadostujeta, da bi lahko Svet sklenil, da je bila družba City Cycle vpletena v pretovarjanje ali da je pretovarjanje na Šrilanki obstajalo na nacionalni ravni.
Second, it is recognised in paragraphs 29 and 31 of the judgment that the evidence communicated by City Cycle during the investigation did not show that it was a genuine producer or that its assembly operations did not constitute circumvention practice according to the criteria laid down in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.
Drugič, v točkah 29 in 31 sodbe je potrjeno, da z dokazi, ki jih je družba City Cycle predložila med preiskavo, ni bilo mogoče dokazati, da gre za dejanskega proizvajalca ali da njene dejavnosti sestavljanja ne pomenijo prakse izogibanja v skladu z merili iz člena 13(2) osnovne uredbe.
Recitals (124) to (127) of the contested Regulation are therefore confirmed.
Uvodne izjave (124) do (127) izpodbijane uredbe so zato potrjene.
Third, it follows from the judgment, in conjunction with the judgment of the General Court, that the Council was entitled to consider City Cycle as a non-cooperating party in the investigation and that there was a certain level of non-cooperation at national level in Sri Lanka.
Tretjič, iz sodbe v povezavi s sodbo Splošnega sodišča sledi, da je Svet družbo City Cycle upravičeno štel za nesodelujočo stran v preiskavi in da je na Šrilanki obstajala določena stopnja nesodelovanja na nacionalni ravni.
Recitals (35) to (42) of the contested Regulation are therefore confirmed.
Uvodne izjave (35) do (42) izpodbijane uredbe so zato potrjene.
The Commission had found, in recitals (93) to (96) of the contested Regulation, undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty.
Komisija je v uvodnih izjavah (93) do (96) izpodbijane uredbe ugotovila, da obstaja slabitev popravljalnega učinka protidampinške dajatve.
Those findings are confirmed.
Te ugotovitve so potrjene.
The Commission had found, in recitals (97) and (98) as well as (107) to (110) of the contested Regulation, evidence of dumping.
Komisija je v uvodnih izjavah (97) in (98) ter (107) do (110) izpodbijane uredbe ugotovila, da obstajajo dokazi o dampingu.
Existence of circumvention practices
Obstoj praks izogibanja
The contested Regulation has been annulled because the Council failed to provide, in the contested Regulation, sufficient substantiation as to the existence of circumventing practices for City Cycle Industries.
Izpodbijana uredba je bila razglašena za nično, ker Svet v izpodbijani uredbi za družbo City Cycle Industries ni predložil zadostnih utemeljitev v zvezi z obstojem praks izogibanja.
It is recalled that the existence of circumvention practices can be established, inter alia, on the basis of transhipment or on the basis of assembly operations.
Treba je opozoriti, da se lahko obstoj praks izogibanja med drugim ugotovi na osnovi pretovarjanja ali dejavnosti sestavljanja.
The reopened investigation revealed that there was no further available evidence at company level which could support the finding of transhipment.
V ponovno začeti preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da na ravni družbe ni drugih razpoložljivih dokazov, ki bi lahko podprli ugotovitev o pretovarjanju.
Therefore, no further reasoning regarding transhipment could be put forward under recital (78) of the contested Regulation.
Zato v uvodni izjavi (78) izpodbijane uredbe ni bilo mogoče navesti dodatnih utemeljitev glede pretovarjanja.
However, available evidence shows that circumvention practices via assembly operations took place.
Vendar je iz razpoložljivih dokazov razvidno, da so obstajale prakse izogibanja prek dejavnosti sestavljanja.
The evidence was based on the data submitted by City Cycle itself during the original investigation.
Dokazi so temeljili na podatkih, ki jih je predložila sama družba City Cycle med prvotno preiskavo.
The Council had not assessed that data in detail, because it considered that that was not necessary in order to demonstrate, to the required legal standard, existence of circumvention practices.
Svet teh podatkov ni natančno ocenil, ker je menil, da to ni potrebno, da bi se v skladu z zahtevanim dokaznim standardom dokazal obstoj praks izogibanja.
Now that the Court has clarified the applicable legal standard, the Commission considers it appropriate to reassess all the evidence available in the administrative file in the light of the applicable legal standard.
Zdaj ko je Sodišče pojasnilo veljavni dokazni standard, Komisija meni, da je primerno ponovno oceniti vse razpoložljive dokaze v upravnem spisu glede na ta veljavni dokazni standard.
During the anti-circumvention investigation City Cycle came forward and requested exemption from the possible anti-circumvention measures.
Med preiskavo proti izogibanju se je družba City Cycle javila in zaprosila za izvzetje iz morebitnih ukrepov proti izogibanju.
As described in recitals (37), (38) and (144) of the contested Regulation, City Cycle was unable to prove that it merited an exemption.
Kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah (37), (38) in (144) izpodbijane uredbe, družba City Cycle ni mogla dokazati, da je iizvzetje upravičeno.
The company afforded insufficient cooperation and Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation was applied.
Družba ni zagotovila zadostnega sodelovanja in uporabljen je bil člen 18(1) osnovne uredbe.
The lack of reliable information as regards the value and volume of parts of Chinese origin purchased by the company made it impossible to positively establish that City Cycle was a genuine producer not involved in circumvention or that its assembly operations were not a form of circumvention.
Zaradi pomanjkanja zanesljivih informacij glede vrednosti in količine delov kitajskega porekla, ki jih je nabavila družba, ni bilo mogoče pozitivno dokazati, da je bila družba City Cycle dejanski proizvajalec, ki ni bil vključen v izogibanje, ali da njene dejavnosti sestavljanja niso bile oblika izogibanja.
As explained in recitals (16) and (17) above, these findings were not affected by the judgment.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah (16) in (17), na te ugotovitve sodba ni vplivala.
In any event, however, the data submitted by the company itself demonstrate that:
Vendar pa v vsakem primeru že samo podatki, ki jih je predložila družba, dokazujejo, da:
the raw materials (bicycle parts) from China constituted more than 60 % of the total value of the parts of the assembled product (60/40 test), while
so surovine (deli za kolesa) iz Kitajske predstavljali več kot 60 % celotne vrednosti delov sestavljenega izdelka (preskus 60/40), medtem ko
the value added to the parts brought in during the assembly operation, was lower than 25 % of the manufacturing cost (25 % value added test).
je bila dodana vrednost, ki je bila delom dodana med dejavnostjo sestavljanja, manjša od 25 % proizvodnih stroškov (preskus 25-odstotne dodane vrednosti).
According to the criteria of Article 13(2)(a) and (b) of the basic Regulation, this means that such assembly operations should be considered to constitute circumvention practice given the fulfilment of the other criteria as described in recitals (18) and (19) above.
V skladu z merili iz člena 13(2)(a) in (b) osnovne uredbe to pomeni, da bi se moralo šteti, da take dejavnosti sestavljanja pomenijo prakso izogibanja glede na izpolnjevanje drugih meril, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah (18) in (19).
Consequently, the existence of circumvention practices via assembly operations should be established at country level in Sri Lanka on the basis of the above evidence available at the company level that tends to show circumvention practices and given the high level of non-cooperation in Sri Lanka.
Zato bi bilo treba ugotoviti, ali prakse izogibanja prek dejavnosti sestavljanja na Šrilanki obstajajo na nacionalni ravni, in sicer na podlagi navedenih dokazov, ki so na voljo na ravni družbe in kažejo, da obstajajo prakse izogibanja, ter glede na visoko stopnjo nesodelovanja na Šrilanki.
Consequently, the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation was established in Sri Lanka.
Zato je bil na Šrilanki ugotovljen obstoj dejavnosti sestavljanja v smislu člena 13(2) osnovne uredbe.
After disclosure, City Cycle contested the competence of the Commission to adopt findings on the existence of assembly operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation.
Po razkritju je družba City Cycle izpodbijala pristojnost Komisije za sprejetje ugotovitev glede obstoja dejavnosti sestavljanja v smislu člena 13(2) osnovne uredbe.
It argued that the Commission could not reassess the finding on the assembly operation because it had not been challenged in the court proceedings and that the Commission was therefore obliged to abandon the pursuit of measures against City Cycle.
Trdila je, da Komisija ni mogla ponovno oceniti ugotovitve glede dejavnosti sestavljanja, saj ta ni bila izpodbijana v sodnem postopku, ter da mora torej Komisija opustiti izvajanje ukrepov zoper družbo City Cycle.
This argument should be rejected.
To trditev bi bilo treba zavrniti.
First, it results from the judgments of the Court of Justice cited in recitals (4) and (5) that the condition for imposing anti-circumvention measures relates to the existence of circumventing practices as defined in Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, and not to a specific subset of these practices.
Prvič, iz sodb Sodišča, navedenih v uvodnih izjavah (4) in (5), izhaja, da se pogoj za uvedbo ukrepov proti izogibanju nanaša na obstoj praks izogibanja, kot so opredeljene v členu 13(1) osnovne uredbe, in ne na posebno podskupino teh praks.
Second, City Cycle interprets incorrectly the obligation imposed on the Commission by Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in the present case.
Drugič, družba City Cycle napačno razlaga obveznost Komisije v skladu s členom 266 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije („PDEU“) v obravnavanem primeru.
As made clear in recital (6) of the Notice of re-opening, it is the lack of sufficient reasoning in the contested Regulation concerning the available evidence on the existence of circumventing practices in Sri Lanka that must be corrected in the current procedure.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi (6) obvestila o ponovnem začetku, je treba v tem postopku odpraviti nezadostno obrazložitev v izpodbijani uredbi v zvezi z razpoložljivimi dokazi o obstoju praks izogibanja na Šrilanki.
The Commission is therefore competent for readopting a measure with an improved reasoning making clear that City Cycle is engaged in circumventing practices in Sri Lanka, which is fully in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Komisija je zato pristojna za ponovno sprejetje ukrepa z izboljšano obrazložitvijo, iz katere bo razvidno, da je družba City Cycle opravljala prakse izogibanja na Šrilanki, kar je popolnoma v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča.
In any event, the contested Regulation has been annulled in its totality.
V vsakem primeru je bila izpodbijana uredba v celoti razglašena za nično.
Hence, none of its recitals has become definitive.
Zato nobena od njenih uvodnih izjav ni postala dokončna.
Rather, the Commission needs to assess afresh all aspects of the file.
Nasprotno, Komisija mora ponovno oceniti vse vidike v zvezi s to zadevo.
Where no new developments have taken place in the Court proceedings, the Commission may limit itself to confirming the findings of the initial investigation.
V delih, v katerih ni prišlo do sprememb v postopku pred Sodiščem, se lahko Komisija omeji na potrditev ugotovitev prvotne preiskave.
For the contested part, in the present case circumvention practices, a fresh assessment has to take place.
Za izpodbijani del, ki se v tem primeru nanaša na prakse izogibanja, pa je treba izvesti novo oceno.
After disclosure, City Cycle also contested the competence of the Commission to rely on the evidence that it had submitted in the course of the investigation that lead to the imposition of anti-circumvention measures mentioned in recital (2) and to arrive at a different conclusion.
Po razkritju je družba City Cycle izpodbijala tudi pristojnost Komisije, da se sklicuje na dokaze, ki jih je predložila med preiskavo in so privedli do uvedbe ukrepov proti izogibanju iz uvodne izjave (2), ter da sprejme drugačno ugotovitev.
This argument should also be rejected.
To trditev bi bilo prav tako treba zavrniti.
The Commission is indeed entitled to assess differently the evidence already provided, to the extent that such a new assessment is in line with Article 13 of the basic Regulation as interpreted by the Union Courts, and that City Cycle had full opportunities to comment on this new assessment.
Komisija je res upravičena, da drugače oceni že predložene dokaze pod pogojem, da je ta nova ocena v skladu s členom 13 osnovne uredbe, kot ga razlagajo sodišča Unije, in da je imela družba City Cycle dovolj priložnosti za predložitev pripomb v zvezi s to novo oceno.
As explained in the following recitals, City Cycle has been fully granted its right to submit comments on the Commission's assessment.
Kot je pojasnjeno v naslednjih uvodnih izjavah, je bila družbi City Cycle v celoti priznana njena pravica do predložitve pripomb o oceni Komisije.
However, the comments provided by City Cycle did not alter the Commission's finding that it was engaged in circumventing practices.
Vendar pa pripombe, ki jih je predložila družba City Cycle, niso spremenile ugotovitve Komisije, da je opravljala prakse izogibanja.
After the additional disclosure, City Cycle continued to disagree with the Commission's approach to reassess the evidence available in the administrative file.
Po dodatnem razkritju se družba City Cycle še vedno ni strinjala s pristopom Komisije, da ponovno oceni razpoložljive dokaze v upravnem spisu.
It claimed that following the court judgment, the Commission was allowed to correct only the findings of transhipment and not on assembly operations.
Trdila je, da lahko na podlagi sodbe Sodišča Komisija popravi le ugotovitve o pretovarjanju, ne pa tudi o dejavnostih sestavljanja.
This claim should be rejected.
To trditev bi bilo treba zavrniti.
In the present regulation the Commission is correcting the findings of circumvention practices which, as stated in recital (20), can be established, inter alia, on the basis of transhipment or on the basis of assembly operations.
V tej uredbi Komisija popravlja ugotovitve o praksah izogibanja, ki se lahko, kakor je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (20), med drugim ugotovijo na osnovi pretovarjanja ali dejavnosti sestavljanja.
In the contested Regulation, the Commission has not assessed whether City Cycle was involved in assembly operations as it concluded that it was involved in the transhipment operations.
V izpodbijani uredbi Komisija ni ocenila, ali je družba City Cycle opravljala dejavnosti sestavljanja, saj je ugotovila, da je opravljala pretovarjanje.
After the clarifications provided by the court as explained in recital (22), the Commission has reassessed whether City Cycle was involved in circumvention practices.
Po pojasnilih Sodišča, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi (22), je Komisija ponovno ocenila, ali je bila družba City Cycle vključena v prakse izogibanja.
The Commission conclusion was as follows: firstly, as stated in recital (21) no further available evidence at company level which could support the finding of transhipment was identified; secondly, as explained in recitals (23) and (24), City Cycle was conclusively found to be involved in circumvention via assembly operations based on an assessment of its own data provided in the course of the investigation.
Sklep Komisije je bil naslednji: prvič, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (21), ni bil najden noben nadaljnji razpoložljiv dokaz na ravni družbe, ki bi lahko podprl obstoj pretovarjanja; drugič, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodnih izjavah (23) in (24), je bilo prepričljivo ugotovljeno, da je bila družba City Cycle vključena v izogibanje prek dejavnosti sestavljanja, in sicer na podlagi ocene njenih lastnih podatkov, ki so bili predloženi med preiskavo.
After disclosure, City Cycle further commented on the calculation methodology used by the Commission in carrying out the 60/40 and 25 % value added tests pursuant to Article 13(2)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Po razkritju je družba City Cycle predložila nadaljnje pripombe o metodologiji izračuna, ki jo je uporabila Komisija pri izvedbi preskusov 60/40 in 25-odstotne dodane vrednosti na podlagi člena 13(2)(b) osnovne uredbe.
Firstly, City Cycle argued that the Commission based its calculation on insufficient data, i.e. merely on semi-finished products purchased during the reporting period of the anti-circumvention investigation.
Prvič, družba City Cycle je trdila, da so izračuni Komisije temeljili na nezadostnih podatkih, tj. zgolj v zvezi s polizdelki, nabavljenimi v obdobju poročanja preiskave proti izogibanju.
Secondly, it argued that the Commission disregarded certain data and therefore wrongly rejected the allocation ratio based on sales, as suggested by City Cycle.
Drugič, trdila je, da Komisija ni upoštevala določenih podatkov in zato neupravičeno zavrnila razmerje razdelitve na podlagi podatkov o prodaji, kot je predlagala družba City Cycle.