An 13 Meitheamh 2012, ghlac an Chomhdháil Idirnáisiúnta Saothair (CIS) rún "Maidir leis na bearta i ndáil le Maenmar arna nglacadh faoi Airteagal 33 de Bhunreacht CIS" ("Rún CIS").
On 13 June 2012 the International Labour Conference (ILC) adopted a resolution "Concerning the measures on the subject of Myanmar adopted under article 33 of the ILO Constitution" (ILC resolution).
Agus aird á tabhairt ar na conclúidí a ghlac Coiste CIS an 4 Meitheamh 2012 maidir le Caighdeáin a Chur i bhFeidhm, agus i bhfianaise nach gcabhródh sé a thuilleadh leis an toradh atá ag teastáil a bhaint amach na bearta atá ann cheana a choimeád, chinn CIS na srianta lenar eisiadh Rialtas Maenmar/Bhurma ó chomhar agus cúnamh teicniúil CIS a fháil a bhaint.
Taking note of the conclusions adopted on 4 June 2012 by the ILC Committee on the Application of Standards and considering that maintaining the existing measures would no longer help attaining the desired result, the ILC decided to lift restrictions, which excluded the Government of Myanmar/Burma from receiving ILO technical cooperation and assistance.
I bhfianaise rún CIS agus na Tuarascála, agus de bhun Airteagal 2 de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 552/97, ba cheart aistarraingt shealadach rochtain Mhaenmar/Bhurma ar na fabhair taraife arna ndeonú le Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 732/2008 a aisghairm, dá bhrí sin, amhail ón dáta a nglacfar rún CIS.
In view of the ILC resolution and of the Report, and pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 552/97, the temporary withdrawal of Myanmar/Burma’s access to the tariff preferences granted by Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 should therefore be repealed, as of the date of the adoption of the ILC resolution.
Go deimhin, mar a aimsíodh i gCás AS656, ceadaítear leis na téarmaí ‘le rialtas’ in Airteagal 3(1)(a) den Bhunrialachán AS agus in Airteagal 1.1(a)(1) de Chomhaontú SCM, a léirmhínigh inter alia i bhfianaise Airteagal 11 d’Airteagail ILC ar Fhreagracht Stáit d’Achtanna atá Mícheart go hIdirnáisiúnta (‘Airteagail CCC’) an tacaíocht airgeadais a thug an GOC do tháirgeoirí onnmhairithe Indinéiseacha i bPáirc Tionscail Morowali san Indinéis a shannadh.
Indeed, as found in Case AS656, the terms ‘by a government’ in Article 3(1)(a) of the Basic AS Regulation and in Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, interpreted inter alia in light of Article 11 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts (‘ILC Articles’) permits the attribution to the GOID of the financial support granted by the GOC to Indonesian exporting producers in the Morowali Industrial Park in Indonesia.
Is brainse lárnach agus tábhachtach den ghnáthdhlí idirnáisiúnta iad Airteagail ILC, i gcomhréir le sainordú Chomhthionól Ginearálta na Náisiún Aontaithe faoi Airteagal 13(1)(a) de Chairt na Náisiún Aontaithe.
The ILC Articles are an integral and important branch of customary international law, in accordance with the mandate of the UN General Assembly under Article 13(1) (a) of the UN Charter.
Go teagmhasach, féadfar na fíorais atá i gceist a mheas freisin ó thaobh Airteagal 16 d’Airteagail ILC.
Incidentally, the facts at issue may also be considered from the angle of Article 16 of the ILC Articles.
Faoi Airteagal 11 de na hAirteagail ILC, is féidir iompar a chur i leith Stáit ‘má admhaíonn agus a mhéid a aithníonn agus a ghlacfaidh an Stát an t-iompar i dtrácht mar a chuid féin’.
Under Article 11 of the ILC Articles, conduct can be attributed to a State ‘if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own’.
Tá Airteagal 11 de na hAirteagail ILC ábhartha ós rud é go mbaineann sé leis an ábhar céanna leis na téarmaí conartha atá á léirmhíniú.
Article 11 of the ILC Articles is relevant since it concerns the same subject matter as the treaty terms being interpreted.
Dá bhrí sin, ceanglaítear le hAirteagal 11 d’Airteagal ILC scrúdú in concreto a dhéanamh ar iompar na tíre is onnmhaireoir lena léirítear go ndearna sí a hiompar de chuid rialtais eachtraigh a aithint agus a ghlacadh mar a hiompar féin.
Therefore, Article 11 of the ILC Articles requires an in concreto examination of the behaviour of the exporting country indicating that it acknowledged and adopted as its own the conduct of a foreign government.
Maidir le léirmhíniú Airteagal 1.1(a)(1) de Chomhaontú SCM trí Airteagal 11 de ILC, dá dtagraítear in aithrisí (647) go (650), meabhraíodh cásdlí na hEagraíochta Domhanda Trádála maidir le léirmhíniú chomhaontuithe EDT.
In relation to the interpretation of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement through Article 11 of the ILC Articles, referred to in recitals (647) to (650), the GOID recalled the WTO case-law on the interpretation of the WTO agreements.
Dá bhrí sin, is féidir Airteagail ILC a úsáid mar sin chun na téarmaí ‘ag an rialtas’ a léirmhíniú i mír Airteagal 1.1(a)(1) de Chomhaontú SCM d’fhonn iompar (fóirdheontas a dheonú) don goid a shannadh, fiú i gcásanna nach ndearna an goid an ranníocaíocht airgeadais go díreach.
Therefore, the ILC Articles can thus be used to interpret the terms ‘by the government’ in the chapeau of Article 1.1(a)(1)of the SCM Agreement in order to attribute the conduct (granting of a subsidy) to the GOID, even in cases where the financial contribution has not been made directly by the GOID.
Dá bhrí sin, bunaithe ar léirmhíniú Airteagal 2(b), Airteagal 3(1)(a) agus Airteagal 4(2) den bhun-Rialachán i gcomhréir le forálacha ábhartha Chomhaontú EDT SCM agus Airteagal ILC, tháinig an Coimisiún ar an gconclúid go raibh sé i dteideal frithchúiteamh a dhéanamh ar na fóirdheontais a chuir an stát ar fáil, ar fóirdheontais iad a d’aithin agus a ghlac ní hamháin na ranníocaíochtaí airgeadais bunúsacha in-fhrithchúitithe a sholáthair an GOC féin, ach a d’iarr go réamhghníomhach é fiú.
Therefore, based on the interpretation of Articles 2(b), 3(1)(a), and 4(2) of the basic Regulation in conformity with the relevant provisions of the WTO SCM Agreement and the ILC Articles, the Commission concluded that it was entitled to countervail the subsidies provided by the GOID which not only acknowledged and accepted the underlying countervailable financial contributions provided by the GOC as its own, but even proactively sought it.
De réir Ghrúpa IRNC, chinn an Coimisiún gurbh é an t-údarás deonúcháin an t-údarás deonaithe gan míniú agus anailís cheart, trí shannadh bunaithe ar Airteagal 11 d’Airteagail ILC amháin, cé nach ndearnadh tagairt den sórt sin.
According to the IRNC Group, the Commission concluded that the GOID was the granting authority without a proper explanation and analysis, through attribution based only on Article 11 of the ILC Articles, although such a reference was not made.
D’éiligh Grúpa IRNC, chun Airteagal 11 d’Airteagail ILC a chur ar fáil chun tacaíocht airgeadais an GOC a chur ar fáil, gur ghá don Choimisiún a chruthú gur ‘gníomh éagórach go hidirnáisiúnta’ a bhí sa tacaíocht airgeadais líomhnaithe a dheonaigh an GOC ar an gcéad dul síos, murach sin, nárbh ann d’argóint an Choimisiúin.
The IRNC Group claimed that, in order for Article 11 of the ILC Articles to allow the attribution to the GOID of the GOC’s financial support, the Commission needed to prove that the alleged financial support granted by the GOC was an ‘internationally wrongful act’ in the first place, otherwise, the whole basis of the Commission’s argument would not exist.
Mhínigh an Coimisiún go mion trína chrostagairt do na hargóintí agus don réasúnaíocht dhlíthiúil a forbraíodh sa chás AS656 in éineacht leis na míniúcháin bhreise in aithrisí (647)-(651) conas a cuireadh Airteagal 11 de na hAirteagail ILC i bhfeidhm san imscrúdú sin.
The Commission explained at length via its cross-reference to the arguments and legal reasoning developed in the case AS656 combined with the further explanations at recitals (647)-(651) how Article 11 of the ILC Articles applied in this investigation.
Mheabhraigh an Coimisiún gur féidir iompar Airteagail ILC a chur i leith Stáit ‘má admhaíonn agus a mhéid a dhéanann an Stát an t-iompar i dtrácht a aithint agus a ghlacadh mar a chuid féin’.
The Commission recalled that according to Article 11 of the ILC Articles conduct can be attributed to a State ‘if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own’.
Deimhníonn na tráchtairí ar Dhréacht-Airteagail ILC go bhfuil an frása ‘admháil agus glacadh leis an iompar i dtrácht mar a chuid féin’ ceaptha idirdhealú a dhéanamh idir cásanna admhála agus uchtála agus cásanna nach bhfuil iontu ach tacaíocht nó formhuiniú.
The commentaries to the Draft ILC Articles confirm that the phrase ‘acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own’ is intended to distinguish cases of acknowledgement and adoption from cases of mere support or endorsement.
Dá bhrí sin, tá gá le léirmhíniú ceart ar Airteagal 1.1 de Chomhaontú SCM agus ar Rialachán Bunúsach AS chun Airteagail ILC a chur san áireamh, ar Airteagail iad atá breithnithe go sainráite ag an gCúirt Bhreithiúnais cheana féin i roinnt cásanna.
Thus, the proper interpretation of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement and of the Basic AS Regulation do require the taking into account of the ILC Articles, which have already been explicitly considered by the Court of Justice in a number of cases.
Tráchtairí ar na Dréachtairteagail ar Fhreagracht Stát as gníomhartha éagóracha idirnáisiúnta arna nglacadh ag an gCoimisiún Dlí Idirnáisiúnta ag a thríú seisiún is caoga (2001) (“Tráchtaireachtaí CC”), Airteagal 11, mír (8).
Commentaries to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session (2001) (“ILC Commentaries”), Article 11, para. (8).
Deimhníonn an tráchtaireacht ar Dhréacht-Airteagail ILC go bhfuil sé i gceist leis an bhfrása ‘admhaíonn agus glacann sé leis an iompar atá i gceist mar a chuid féin’ idirdhealú a dhéanamh idir cásanna admhála agus uchtaithe ó chásanna nach bhfuil iontu ach tacaíocht nó formhuiniú.
The commentary to the Draft ILC Articles confirms that the phrase ‘acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own’ is intended to distinguish cases of acknowledgement and adoption from cases of mere support or endorsement.
Bhí na gníomhaíochtaí arb é atá i gceist leo fóirdheontais in-fhrithchúitithe an ghoir agus an GOC a dheonú ag teacht salach ar fhorálacha Chomhaontú SCM agus an bhun-Rialacháin, agus dá bhrí sin tagann siad faoi raon feidhme Airteagal 11 d’Airteagail ILC.
The actions consisting of granting of countervailable subsidies of the GOID and GOC were at odds with the provisions of the SCM Agreement and of the basic Regulation, and thus they fall squarely within the scope of Article 11 of the ILC Articles.
Cé nach dtagraítear go sainráite in Airteagal 1.1(a)(1) de Chomhaontú SCM ná sna forálacha comhfhreagracha den bhun-Rialachán don fhéidearthacht tacaíocht airgeadais arna soláthar ag Stát amháin a shannadh do Stát eile, ní bac é sin ar théarmaí a léirmhíniú i gcomhréir leis na prionsabail aitreabúideachta in Airteagal ILC.
The fact that Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, and the corresponding provisions of the basic Regulation, do not refer explicitly to the possibility to attribute financial support provided by one State to another State is not an obstacle to interpret the terms in line with the attribution principles in the ILC Articles.
Le léiriú na dtéarmaí ‘ag an rialtas’ sna forálacha sin i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 11 d’Airteagail ILC, ceadaítear ‘cúngaíocht a dhéanamh ar chomhintinn na bpáirtithe i gcomhaontú ar leith’.
The interpretation of the terms ‘by the government’ in these provisions in line with Article 11 of the ILC Articles permits to ‘ascertain the common intention of the parties to a particular agreement’.
Dá bhrí sin, diúltaíodh d’argóintí na bpáirtithe.D’iarr an GOC soiléiriú ón gCoimisiún maidir le cé acu atá nó nach bhfuil an Coimisiún ag brath ar Airteagal 11 d’Airteagail ILC maidir le léirmhíniú an bhun-Rialacháin, is é sin le rá, de réir an GOC, an féidir an gnáthdhlí idirnáisiúnta a úsáid chun dlí náisiúnta an Aontais a léirmhíniú.
Therefore, the arguments of the parties were rejected. The GOC sought a clarification from the Commission concerning whether the Commission’s reliance on Article 11 of the ILC Articles is applicable to the interpretation of the basic Regulation, that is to say, according to the GOC, whether customary international law can be used to interpret the EU domestic law.