Ina dhiaidh sin, mhaígh CLEPA nár thug tionscal an Aontais bunús lena chuid infheistíochtaí chun cur lena acmhainneacht trí fhianaise láidir nó réasúnaíocht leordhóthanach.
In its turn, CLEPA claimed that the Union industry did not substantiate its investments to expand capacity by compelling evidence or sufficient reasoning.
Tar éis nochtadh breise a dhéanamh, chuir Valeo agus CLEPA i gcoinne chur chuige an Choimisiúin táirgeadh carranna i dtíortha amhail an Tuirc, an Rúis agus an Ríocht Aontaithe a chur as an áireamh óna ríomhanna.
Following additional disclosure, Valeo and CLEPA contested the Commission’s approach to exclude car production in countries such as Turkey, Russia and the UK from its calculations.
Mhaígh CLEPA freisin go raibh sciar suntasach de pháirteanna AE nó de bhreisluach AE i bhfeithiclí a tháirgtear sa Ríocht Aontaithe, sa Rúis nó sa Tuirc suntasach.
CLEPA also claimed that the share of EU parts or EU added value in vehicles produced in the UK, Russia or Turkey was significant.
Ar an mbonn sin, d’áitigh Valeo agus CLEPA gur cheart an t-éileamh ar AFRPanna AHEX a bhunú ar riachtanais iarbhír tháirgeoirí AHEX beag beann ar cheann scríbe a dtáirgí.
On this basis, Valeo and CLEPA argued that the demand for AHEX AFRPs should be based on the actual needs of AHEX producers regardless of the destination of their products.
I ndáil leis sin, dúirt CLEPA freisin go bhfuil an t-ionchur ábhartha céanna ag teastáil ó thionscadail chustaiméirí domhanda áirithe, i gcás ina dtáirgtear an pháirt chéanna, chun comhsheasmhacht i bhfeidhmíocht an chláir a áirithiú.
In this regard, CLEPA also added that certain global customer projects, where the same part is produced, require the same material input to ensure consistency of the programme performance.
Mhaígh CLEPA agus Mahle, cé go bhfuil sé contrártha don anailís a rinne an Coimisiún ar an acmhainneacht a bhí ar fáil sa Rialachán sealadach, gur líomhnaíodh gur tháinig 30 % ar leibhéal na bpraghsanna.
CLEPA and Mahle claimed, contrary to the Commission’s analysis on available capacity in the provisional Regulation, that the level of prices had increased by an alleged 30 %.
I ndáil leis sin, mhaígh CLEPA go bhfuil monaróirí malartóirí teasa ann atá san iomaíocht go díreach le táirgeoirí eile sa réigiún; i.e. Maracó agus an Úcráin.
In this regard, CLEPA claimed that the manufacturers of heat exchangers are in direct competition with other producers in the region; i.e. Morocco and Ukraine.
Maidir leis sin, mhaígh CLEPA nach raibh údar le leibhéal na mbeart sealadach de bharr na difríochta praghsanna idir AFRPanna AHEX allmhairithe agus cinn a táirgeadh san Aontas.
In the same regard, CLEPA claimed that the price difference between EU produced and imported AHEX AFRPs did not justify the level of the provisional measures.
Chomh maith leis sin, thagair sé do bharúlacha CLEPA agus Valeo maidir le leibhéal an chorrlaigh dhíola, agus cheistigh sé conas a cuireadh sin san áireamh nuair a bhí an corrlach gearrdhíola á shuí.
Also, it referred to the CLEPA and Valeo’s comments regarding the level of the underselling margin and questioned how this was taken into account in the establishment of the underselling margin.
Barúlacha CLEPA agus Valeo ar leibhéal an chorrlaigh gearrdhíola, is barúlacha iad a bhí gan tionchar ar leibhéal an chorrlaigh gearrdhíola.
CLEPA and Valeo’s comments on the level of the underselling margin did not have an effect on the level of the underselling margin.
Fuarthas barúlacha ó na trí thairgeoir shampláilte de chuid an Aontais agus óna gcomhlachas (EA), ó 14 úsáideoir lena n-áirítear an Cumann Eorpach Soláthróirí Gluaisteán (CLEPA) agus ó 6 allmhaireoir agus a gcomhlachas (EURANIMI).
Comments were received from the three sampled Union producers and their association (EA), from 14 users, including the European Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA) and from 6 importers and their association (EURANIMI).
Mhaígh roinnt páirtithe leasmhara, Huafon, Valeo, Mahle GmbH, comhlachas Eorpach na soláthraithe mótarfheithiclí (“Clepa”) agus TITANX Holding AB (“TITANX”) nach raibh na buntréithe fisiceacha, teicniúla agus ceimiceacha céanna ag baint le AFRPanna HEX mótarfheithiclí.
Several interested parties, Huafon, Valeo, Mahle GmbH, European association of automotive suppliers (‘Clepa’) and TitanX Holding AB (‘TitanX’) claimed that automotive HEX AFRPs did not share the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics.
Agus foinse eile faisnéise á lorg aige, cheadaigh an Coimisiún airteagal a d’fhoilsigh an Boston Consulting Group (“BCG”), a chuir an Cumann Eorpach Soláthróirí Gluaisteán (CLEPA) ar fáil, rud a dhearbhaigh go dtiocfaidh méadú ar an sciar d’fheithiclí nach feithiclí ICE iad sna blianta amach romhainn.
In a search for another source of information, the Commission consulted an article published by the Boston Consulting group (‘BCG’), provided by the European association of automotive suppliers (CLEPA), which confirmed that the share of non-ICE vehicles will increase in the coming years.
Ina dhiaidh sin, mhaígh CLEPA gur sciar suntasach den táirgeadh ó sholáthróirí mótarfheithiclí san Aontas í an táirgeacht feithiclí lasmuigh den Aontas agus go bhfuil acmhainneacht táirgeachta theoranta ag AHEX lasmuigh den Aontas.
In its turn, CLEPA claimed that the vehicle production outside the Union is responsible for a significant share of production by automotive suppliers in the EU and that there is limited production capacity for AHEX outside the EU.
Dá bhrí sin, mhaígh CLEPA go nginfidh onnmhairí ioncam suntasach do sholáthróirí gluaisteán an Aontais agus nár cheart táirgeacht soláthróirí gluaisteán a chinneadh trí bhíthin táirgeadh feithiclí san Aontas féin amháin, ach sa réigiún máguaird chomh maith.
Hence, CLEPA claimed that exports generate significant revenues for EU automotive suppliers and that production of automotive suppliers should not just be determined by vehicle production in the EU itself, but by the wider region as well.
Tar éis nochtadh breise a dhéanamh, mhaígh Valeo agus CLEPA go raibh easpa réasúnaíochta ann agus nár thacaigh aon anailís chainníochtúil le conclúid an Choimisiúin go bhféadfaí éileamh an Aontais a ionsú le hacmhainneacht réamh-mheasta thionscal an Aontais agus na hallmhairí réamh-mheasta ó thríú tíortha.
Following additional disclosure, Valeo and CLEPA claimed that the Commission’s conclusion that Union demand could be absorbed by the projected Union industry’s capacity and projected imports from third countries was vitiated by a lack of reasoning and not supported by any quantitative analysis.
Mhaígh CLEPA go gcuirfeadh úsáid feithiclí leictreacha agus aisghabháil eacnamaíoch leis na heasnaimh acmhainneachta agus go gcuirfí téarnamh agus forbairt tionscail láidir déantúsaíochta carranna san Aontas i mbaol tar éis d'ioncaim agus do chorrlaigh titim le blianta beaga anuas.
CLEPA claimed that the uptake of electric vehicles and economic recovery would accentuate the capacity deficiencies and jeopardise the recovery and development of a strong EU car manufacturing industry after revenues and margins dropped in the past years.
Maidir le spriocanna i leith astaíochtaí ceaptha teasa, mhaígh CLEPA go gcuirfeadh bearta teorainn le hinfheistíochtaí sa nuálaíocht le gnóthú na spriocanna digiteacha agus glasa arna leagan síos ag an Aontas Eorpach agus le forbairt shlabhra soláthair ceallraí mótarfheithiclí san Eoraip go háirithe.
With regard to greenhouse emission targets, CLEPA claimed that measures would limit investments in innovation pursuing the digital and green goals set by the European Union and the development of a European automotive battery supply chain in particular.
Tar éis nochtadh sealadach a dhéanamh, mhaígh TitanX, Valeo agus CLEPA nach ndearna an Coimisiún measúnú ar an tsuim a chuir úsáideoirí AFRPanna AHEX in iúl go hiomchuí ós rud é gurb ionann an comhlachas Eorpach de sholáthróirí gluaisteán agus úsáideoirí AFRPanna AHEX agus 50 % de thomhaltas an táirge sin, ós mó oibrithe a fhostaíonn úsáideoirí AFRPanna AHEX ná tionscal an Aontais, agus d’fhágfadh neamh-eisiamh AFRPanna AHEX go gcuirfí bacainn ar aistriú leictreach na feithiclí tráchtála i dtionscal na ngluaisteán.
Following provisional disclosure, TitanX, Valeo and CLEPA claimed that the Commission did not assess the interest expressed by AHEX AFRPs users appropriately as the European association of automotive suppliers and the AHEX AFRPs users account for more than 50 % of the consumption of this product, the AHEX AFRPs users employ more workers than the Union industry and the non-exclusion of AHEX AFRPs would form a barrier to the electrification transition in the commercial vehicles segment of the automotive industry.
Cé gur ghlac CLEPA páirt san imscrúdú trí bharúlacha a chur ar fáil agus trí thacú le maímh TitanX agus Valeo maidir le raon feidhme an táirge, ba iad TitanX agus Valeo an t-aon dá úsáideoir san earnáil sin a chomhoibrigh go hiomlán leis an imscrúdú trí fhreagraí agus tuairimí sa cheistneoir a chur ar fáil.
While CLEPA participated in the investigation by providing comments and supported TitanX and Valeo’s claims regarding product scope, TitanX and Valeo were the only two users in this sector that cooperated fully with the investigation by providing questionnaire replies and comments.