natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘A countervailing duty may be imposed for the purpose of offsetting any subsidy granted, directly or indirectly, for the manufacture, production, export or transport of any product whose release for free circulation in the Community causes injury.’
„Izravnalna dajatev se lahko uvede zaradi kompenzacije kakr�ne koli neposredno ali posredno dodeljene subvencije za izdelavo, proizvodnjo, izvoz ali prevoz katerega koli izdelka, katerega sprostitev v prosti promet v Skupnosti povzroča �kodo.“
Article 8(7) of the basic regulation provides:
Člen 8(7) te uredbe določa:
‘Known factors other than the subsidised imports which are injuring the Community industry at the same time shall also be examined to ensure that injury caused by these other factors is not attributed to the subsidised imports pursuant to paragraph 6.
„Poleg subvencioniranega uvoza se preučijo tudi znani dejavniki, ki hkrati �kodujejo industriji Skupnosti, za zagotovitev, da se �koda, ki jo povzročajo ti drugi dejavniki, ne pripi�e subvencioniranemu uvozu v skladu z odstavkom 6.
Factors which may be considered in this respect include the volume and prices of non-subsidised imports, contraction in demand or changes in the patterns of consumption, restrictive trade practices of, and competition between, third country and Community producers, developments in technology and the export performance and productivity of the Community industry.’
Med dejavnike, ki se v zvezi s tem lahko preučijo, spadajo obseg in cene nesubvencioniranega uvoza, zmanj�anje povpra�evanja ali spremembe vzorca porabe, restriktivna trgovinska praksa proizvajalcev iz tretjih držav in Skupnosti ter konkurenca med njimi, razvoj tehnologije ter izvažanje in produktivnost industrije Skupnosti.“
Regulation No 1599/1999
Uredba št. 1599/1999
On 23 March 1999, the Commission of the European Communities adopted Regulation (EC) No 618/1999 imposing a provisional countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India and the Republic of Korea (OJ 1999 L 79, p.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti je 23. marca 1999 sprejela Uredbo (ES) �t. 618/1999 o uvedbi začasne izravnalne dajatve na uvoz žice iz nerjavnega jekla premera 1 mm ali več s poreklom iz Indije in Republike Koreje (UL L 79, str.
25; ‘the provisional regulation’).
25, v nadaljevanju: začasna uredba).
Subsequently, on 12 July 1999, the Council adopted Regulation No 1599/1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports originating in India and terminating the proceeding concerning imports originating in the Republic of Korea.
Nato je Svet 12. julija 1999 sprejel Uredbo (ES) �t. 1599/1999 o uvedbi dokončne izravnalne dajatve na uvoz s poreklom iz Indije ter o ustavitvi postopka v zvezi z uvozom s poreklom iz Republike Koreje.
In another proceeding, concerning stainless steel bars, the Council had adopted, on 13 November 1998, Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel bars originating in India and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1998 L 304, p. 1).
V drugem postopku v zvezi s palicami iz nerjavnega jekla je Svet 13. novembra 1998 sprejel Uredbo (ES) �t. 2450/98 o uvedbi dokončne izravnalne dajatve na uvoz palic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije in o dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve (UL L 304, str. 1).
That regulation was annulled by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-58/99 Mukand and Others v Council [2001] ECR II-2521.
Sodi�če prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti je s sodbo z dne 19. septembra 2001 v zadevi Mukand in drugi proti Svetu (T-58/99, Recueil, str. II-2521) omenjeno uredbo razglasilo za nično.
AGST is one of the principal German producers of flexible stainless steel wires.
Družba AGST sodi med glavne nem�ke proizvajalce mehkih žic iz nerjavnega jekla.
On 7 August and 17 November 2000, it declared to the Hauptzollamt stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more, corresponding to subheading 7223 00 19 in the CN, for their release for free circulation.
Omenjena družba je 7. avgusta in 17. novembra 2000 pri Hauptzollamt za sprostitev v prosti promet prijavila žico iz nerjavnega jekla premera 1 mm in več, ki ustreza tarifni pod�tevilki 7223 00 19 KN.
AGST declared the United Arab Emirates as the goods’ place of origin and, in addition, produced invoices addressed to it by Link Middle East Ltd and certificates of origin in Form A, according to which the goods had been manufactured in the United Arab Emirates.
Družba je kot kraj porekla blaga navedla Združene arabske emirate in predložila tudi račune, ki jih je nanjo naslovila družba Link Middle East Ltd, ter potrdila o poreklu na obrazcih A, ki so izkazovala, da so bili izdelki proizvedeni v Združenih arabskih emiratih.
An investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) revealed, however, that the country of origin of the imported products was in fact India.
Preiskava Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF) pa je pokazala, da je bila država porekla izdelkov pravzaprav Indija.
In OLAF’s view, the stainless steel wires imported into the Community by Link Middle East Ltd, between June 1999 and December 2000 had been manufactured by Venus Wire Industries Ltd, established in Mumbai (India).
Po mnenju OLAF je žico iz nerjavnega jekla, ki jo je družba Link Middle East uvažala v Skupnost med junijem 1999 in decembrom 2000, izdelala družba Venus Wire Industries Ltd iz Mumbaja (Indija).
By decision of 30 July 2003, the Hauptzollamt, on the basis of Regulation No 1599/1999, imposed post-clearance customs and countervailing duties on those customs declarations of sums, respectively, of DEM 4 034.79 and DEM 59 513.21.
Hauptzollamt je z odločbo z dne 30. julija 2003 na podlagi Uredbe �t. 1599/1999 za omenjeni carinski deklaraciji uvedel naknadno plačilo carine in izravnalne dajatve v vi�ini 4034,79 DEM oziroma 59.513,12 DEM.
By decision of 29 June 2004, the Hauptzollamt rejected an objection by AGST to the imposition of those duties.
Hauptzollamt je z odločbo z dne 29. junija 2004 zavrnil pritožbo, ki jo je družba AGST vložila v zvezi z uvedbo omenjenih dajatev.
On 21 July 2004, AGST brought an action against that decision before the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf in which it alleges, in particular, that the post-clearance imposition of the countervailing duty is unlawful, on the ground that Regulation No 1599/1999 is invalid.
Zoper to odločbo je družba 21. julija 2004 pred Finanzgericht Düsseldorf vložila tožbo, v kateri je med drugim navedla, da je bila naknadna uvedba izravnalne dajatve nezakonita, saj naj bi bila Uredba �t. 1599/1999 neveljavna.
It is in those circumstances that the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Finanzgericht Düsseldorf prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is … Regulation … No 1599/1999 … invalid in so far as it provides that countervailing duty under subheading 7223 00 19 of the [CN] is to be imposed on wire manufactured by Venus Wire Industries Ltd [in] Mumbai, India?’
„Ali se Uredbe […] �t. 1599/1999 […] ne uporabi, če je v skladu z njo treba zaračunati izravnalne dajatve za žico, ki jo je izdelala družba Venus Wire Industries Ltd iz Mumbaja v Indiji, [uvr�čeno pod tarifno pod�etvilko] 7223 00 19 [KN]?“
It is clear from the contents of the Court file that the referring court is asking, in essence, whether Regulation No 1599/1999 is invalid, since the determination by the Council of the European Union concerning the existence of injury to the Community industry and of the causal link between that injury and the subsidised imports of stainless steel wires is vitiated by manifest error.
Iz spisa izhaja, da predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je Uredba �t. 1599/1999 neveljavna, če naj bi bile ugotovitve Sveta Evropske unije o obstoju �kode za industrijo Skupnosti in vzročne zveze med omenjeno �kodo in subvencioniranim uvozom žice iz nerjavnega jekla očitno napačne.
AGST submits that Regulation No 1599/1999 is void, as a matter of law, on the ground that the Council’s determination concerning the existence of injury to the Community industry and the causal link between that injury and the subsidised imports of stainless steel wires is vitiated by manifest error.
Družba AGST meni, da je Uredba �t. 1599/1999 nična, saj naj bi bile ugotovitve Sveta o obstoju �kode za industrijo Skupnosti in vzročne zveze med to �kodo in subvencioniranim uvozom žice iz nerjavnega jekla očitno napačne.
The Community institutions did not take sufficient account of the Indian exporting producers’ objection that the Community producers of flat stainless steel products had caused injury to the Community industry by forming an ‘alloy surcharge cartel’.
Institucije Skupnosti niso dovolj upo�tevale ugovora indijskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, v skladu s katerim naj bi �kodo industriji Skupnosti povzročili proizvajalci plo�čatih izdelkov iz nerjavnega jekla v Skupnosti s sklenitvijo „omejevalnih sporazumov o dodatni dajatvi na zlitine“.
At the hearing, AGST argued that, for flat products, the alloy surcharge, which is a coefficient incorporated in the calculation of the price of steel products, was artificially increased by a yield factor of 1.35.
Na obravnavi je družba AGST navedla, da je bila dodatna dajatev na zlitine, količnik, vključen v izračun cen izdelkov iz jekla, za plo�čate izdelke umetno povečana s količnikom donosnosti 1,35.
The alloy surcharge applied to steel wires was fixed by multiplying the alloy surcharge applied to flat products also by a factor of 1.35, which inevitably increased that alloy surcharge for steel wires.
Tudi za jeklene žice naj bi se dodatna dajatev na zlitine določila z množenjem dodatne dajatve na zlitine, ki se uporablja za plo�čate izdelke, s količnikom 1,35, s čimer se je omenjena dodatna dajatev na zlitine za jeklene žice neizogibno povi�ala.
AGST observes, in addition, that Mukand and Others v Council should be applied, by analogy, and Regulation No 1599/1999 declared invalid.
Družba AGST med drugim poudarja, da je treba po analogiji uporabiti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Mukand in drugi proti Svetu in Uredbo �t. 1599/1999 razglasiti za nično.
In that regard, AGST argues that, so far as concerns the existence of the alloy surcharge cartel for flat products, it makes no difference that the steel wire is not produced from flat products or that the respective producers are not always the same.
V zvezi s tem družba AGST navaja, da to, da se jeklena žica ne izdeluje iz plo�čatih izdelkov in da zadevni proizvajalci niso vedno isti, ne vpliva na obstoj omejevalnega sporazuma o dodatni dajatvi na zlitine.
The Commission has already established the existence of that cartel, which, as the Court of First Instance held in Mukand and Others v Council, has influenced the prices of stainless steel bars.
Kot naj bi že ugotovila Komisija, tak�en omejevalni sporazum obstaja in je, kot je presodilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Mukand in drugi proti Svetu, vplival na cene palic iz nerjavnega jekla.
AGST submits that the cartel has also influenced the prices of stainless steel wire.
Družba AGST zatrjuje, da je omenjeni omejevalni sporazum vplival tudi na cene žice iz nerjavnega jekla.
There is no distinction between stainless steel bars and stainless steel wire, given that both are long products.
Pravzaprav naj ne bi bilo med palicami iz nerjavnega jekla in žico iz nerjavnega jekla nobenih razlik, saj oba izdelka sodita med podolgovate izdelke.
Indeed, due to the significance of flat products, price developments in the stainless steel markets are very often driven by pricing decisions by producers of those products.
Poleg tega naj bi se cene na trgih nerjavnega jekla zaradi pomembnosti plo�čatih izdelkov pogosto spreminjale v skladu z odločitvami, ki jih sprejemajo proizvajalci teh izdelkov.
In AGST’s submission, since there is no distinction between stainless steel bars and stainless steel wire, the alloy surcharge cartel has influenced stainless steel wire prices to the same extent as those of stainless steel bars.
Ker se po mnenju družbe AGST palice iz nerjavnega jekla v ničemer ne razlikujejo od žice iz nerjavnega jekla, naj bi omejevalni sporazum o dodatni dajatvi na zlitine enako kot na cene palic vplival tudi na cene žice iz nerjavnega jekla.
The Commission submits, on the other hand, that the Community institutions examined, both in the provisional regulation and in Regulation No 1599/1999, the Indian producers’ objections concerning the existence of an alloy surcharge cartel between the Community producers of flat products.
Komisija nasprotno zatrjuje, da so institucije Skupnosti tako v začasni uredbi kot v Uredbi �t. 1599/1999 preučile ugovore indijskih proizvajalcev v zvezi z obstojem omejevalnih sporazumov o dodatni dajatvi na zlitine med proizvajalci plo�čatih izdelkov v Skupnosti.
In that regard, the Commission states that it found, among other matters, in the 212th to 216th recitals in the preamble to the provisional regulation, that stainless steel wires were not manufactured from flat products and that comparison of the Community industry producers’ sale prices revealed that they varied for identical references.
V zvezi s tem Komisija navaja, da je zlasti v uvodnih izjavah od 212 do 216 začasne uredbe ugotovila, da žica iz nerjavnega jekla ni bila izdelana iz plo�čatih izdelkov in da je primerjava prodajnih cen proizvajalcev Skupnosti pokazala, da so te različne za enake referenčne izdelke.
Moreover, those recitals stated that the alloy surcharge cartel constituted only a small percentage of the total price of stainless steel wire products.
Poleg tega je bilo v omenjenih uvodnih izjavah ugotovljeno, da predstavljajo omejevalni sporazumi o dodatni dajatvi na zlitine le majhen delež skupne cene izdelkov iz žice iz nerjavnega jekla.
The Council confirmed those findings, subsequently, in the 93rd recital in the preamble to the definitive Regulation No 1599/1999.
Svet naj bi nato te ugotovitve potrdil v uvodni izjavi 93 dokončne Uredbe �t. 1599/1999.
Furthermore, the Council and the Commission submit that the conclusions of the Court of First Instance in Mukand and Others v Council are not applicable to the main proceedings for the purpose of determining the validity of Regulation
Svet in Komisija tudi menita, da ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje iz zgoraj omenjene sodbe Murand in drugi proti Svetu ni mogoče uporabiti v zadevi v postopku v
2008 — CASE C-398/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-398/05 glavni stvari za presojo o veljavnosti Uredbe �t. 1599/1999.
In that regard, the Community institutions correctly concluded, in that regulation, that the application of the alloy surcharge, which constituted only a small percentage of the total price of the products in question, had cast no doubt on the reliability of the final weighted average prices for the purposes of the determination of the injury to the Community industry.
Glede tega so institucije Skupnosti v tej uredbi utemeljeno ugotovile, da uporaba dodatne dajatve na zlitine, ki predstavlja le majhen delež skupne cene zadevnih izdelkov, ne zbuja dvoma o verodostojnosti tehtanih povprečnih končnih cen za ugotavljanje �kode za industrijo Skupnosti.
In any event, those institutions state that the observations based on the final weighted average prices in Regulation No 1599/1999 concerning the injury and the causal link between it and the subsidised imports of the products in question in the main proceedings are not vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
Vsekakor pa omenjeni instituciji menita, da ugotovitve, sprejete na podlagi tehtanih povprečnih končnih cen, ki so vključene v Uredbo �t. 1599/1999 in se nana�ajo na �kodo in vzročno zvezo med omenjeno �kodo in subvencioniranim uvozom zadevnih izdelkov v postopku v glavni stvari, niso očitno napačne.
In the context of the determination of that injury, the two essential factors were, first, a considerable undercutting of the imports from India and, second, a significant depression in the Community industry’s sale prices.
Pri ugotavljanju �kode naj bi bila bistvena dva dejavnika, znatno nelojalno nižanje cen za uvoz s poreklom iz Indije na eni strani in precej�nje znižanje prodajnih cen industrije Skupnosti na drugi.
Consequently, even assuming that the application of the alloy surcharge raised all the net prices in the Community and that, in addition, that increase was entirely attributable to anticompetitive conduct, the undercutting would be of around 17% of those imports.
Omenjene uvozne cene naj bi bile tako zaradi nelojalnega nižanja tudi ob domnevi, da je uporaba dodatne dajatve na zlitine povi�ala vse neto cene v Skupnosti in da je poleg tega omenjeno povi�anje mogoče pripisati izključno protikonkurenčnemu ravnanju, �e vedno za približno 17 % nižje.
The Court’s reply
Odgovor Sodišča
It must be examined whether the Community institutions fell into manifest error in the determination of the existence of injury to the Community industry and of the causal link between that injury and the subsidised imports of stainless steel wires.
Preučiti je treba, ali so institucije Skupnosti storile očitno napako pri presoji obstoja �kode za industrijo Skupnosti in vzročne zveze med omenjeno �kodo in subvencioniranim uvozom žice iz nerjavnega jekla.
It must be noted, on the one hand, that, under Article 8(7) of the basic regulation, known factors, other than the subsidised imports, which are injuring the Community industry at the same time are also to be examined to ensure that injury caused by those other factors is not attributed to the subsidised imports pursuant to Article 8(6).
Na eni strani je treba spomniti, da se v skladu s členom 8(7) osnovne uredbe poleg subvencioniranega uvoza preučijo tudi znani dejavniki, ki hkrati �kodujejo industriji Skupnosti, in sicer za zagotovitev, da se �koda, ki jo povzročajo ti drugi dejavniki, ne pripi�e subvencioniranemu uvozu v skladu z odstavkom 6 tega člena.
As an indication, that article provides, among other things, that the factors which may be considered relevant in this respect include restrictive trade practices of, and competition between, third country and Community producers.
Omenjeni člen med drugim primeroma določa, da sta med dejavniki, ki se v zvezi s tem lahko preučijo, restriktivna trgovinska praksa proizvajalcev iz tretjih držav in Skupnosti ter konkurenca med njimi.
It must, on the other hand, be observed that in the sphere of the common commercial policy and, most particularly, in the realm of measures to protect trade, the Community institutions enjoy a broad discretion by reason of the complexity of the economic, political and legal situations which they have to examine (see Case C-351/04 Ikea Wholesale [2007] ECR I-7723, paragraph 40, and the caselaw cited).
Na drugi strani pa velja poudariti, da imajo institucije Skupnosti na področju skupne trgovinske politike in predvsem ukrepov trgovinske za�čite �iroko diskrecijsko pravico zaradi zapletenosti gospodarskih, političnih in pravnih razmer, ki jih morajo preučevati (glej sodbo z dne 27. septembra 2007 v zadevi Ikea Wholesale, C-351/04, Zodl., str. I-7723, točka 40 in navedena sodna praksa).
Furthermore, it is settled caselaw that the determination of the existence of harm to the Community industry requires an appraisal of complex economic situations and the judicial review of such an appraisal must therefore be limited to verifying whether relevant procedural rules have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error in the appraisal of those facts or a misuse of powers (see Ikea Wholesale, paragraph 41, and the caselaw cited).
Med drugim ustaljena sodna praksa določa, da ugotavljanje obstoja �kode za industrijo Skupnosti zahteva presojo zapletenih gospodarskih razmer in da mora biti sodni nadzor take presoje omejen na preverjanje tega, ali so bila spo�tovana postopkovna pravila, ali je bilo pravilno ugotovljeno dejansko stanje, ali je pri�lo do očitne napake pri presoji tega dejanskega stanja oziroma ali so bila zlorabljena pooblastila (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ikea Wholesale, točka 41 in navedena sodna praksa).
That is, particularly, the case as regards the determination of the factors injuring the Community industry in an antisubsidy proceeding.
To velja zlasti za ugotavljanje dejavnikov, ki povzročajo �kodo industriji Skupnosti, v okviru protisubvencijskih postopkov.
In determining injury, the Council and the Commission are under an obligation to consider whether the injury on which they intend to base their conclusions actually derives from the subsidised imports and must disregard any injury deriving from other factors, particularly from the conduct of Community producers themselves (see Case C-358/89 Extramet Industrie v Council [1992] ECR I-3813, paragraph 16).
Pri ugotavljanju �kode imata Svet in Komisija dolžnost, da preverita, ali �koda, ki jo skleneta upo�tevati, dejansko izhaja iz subvencioniranega uvoza, in da ne upo�tevata �kode, ki izhaja iz drugih dejavnikov, zlasti tiste, katere vzrok je ravnanje proizvajalcev Skupnosti (glej sodbo z dne 11. junija 1992 v zadevi Extramet Industrie proti Svetu, C-358/89, Recueil, str. I-3813, točka 16).
In that regard, it should be noted that, in order to refute AGST’s argument that the Indian producers’ objections concerning the alloy surcharge cartel for flat products was not examined by the Community institutions, those institutions referred, in the proceedings before the Court, to the 93rd recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1599/1999, which confirmed the conclusions set forth in the 209th to 216th recitals in the preamble to the provisional regulation, since none of the parties concerned put forward additional arguments concerning the Indian exporting producers’ objections that all data submitted by the Community industry within the framework of the antisubsidy proceeding would be artificially inflated as a result of the uniform application of the ‘alloy surcharge’ system.
Glede tega je treba pripomniti, da sta se instituciji Skupnosti, da bi ovrgli argumentacijo družbe AGST, v skladu s katero naj ne bi preučili ugovorov indijskih proizvajalcev v zvezi z omejevalnimi sporazumi o dodatni dajatvi na zlitine, v postopku pred Sodi�čem sklicevali na uvodno izjavo 93 Uredbe �t. 1599/1999, ki potrjuje ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav od 209 do 216 začasne uredbe, saj nobena izmed zadevnih strank ni predstavila novih argumentov v zvezi z ugovorom indijskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, v skladu s katerim naj bi bili vsi podatki, ki jih je v okviru protisubvencijskega postopka predložila industrija Skupnosti, umetno napihnjeni zaradi enotne uporabe sistema dodatne dajatve na zlitine.
In the 210th and 211th recitals in the preamble to the provisional regulation, it was noted that the decision which held that the alloy surcharge was an anticompetitive practice covered flat products as opposed to long products, which include the stainless steel wires in question in the main proceedings.
V uvodnih izjavah 210 in 211 začasne uredbe je bilo poudarjeno, da se odločba, s katero je bila ugotovljena protikonkurenčna praksa dodatne dajatve na zlitine, nana�a na plo�čate in ne na podolgovate izdelke, med katere sodi zadevna žica iz nerjavnega jekla v postopku v glavni stvari.
However, the exporting producers argued that the existing illegal practice for flat products would have a synergy or downstream effect on long products.
Kljub temu proizvajalci izvozniki zatrjujejo, da ima nezakonita praksa v zvezi s plo�čatimi izdelki sinergijske učinke in posledice tudi za podolgovate izdelke.