Cuimseoidh Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh an Chúirt Bhreithiúnais, an Chúirt Ghinearálta agus cúirteanna speisialaithe.
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall include the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialised courts.
cuirtear ‘AN CHÚIRT GHINEARÁLTA’ mar cheannteideal nua ar Theideal IV;
the heading of Title IV shall be replaced by ‘GENERAL COURT’;
AN CHÚIRT GHINEARÁLTA
GENERAL COURT
Suífidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta i ndlísheomraí de thriúr nó cúigear Breithiúna.
The General Court shall sit in chambers of three or five Judges.
Ceapfaidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta a Cláraitheoir agus leagfaidh sí síos na rialacha a bhainfidh lena sheirbhís.
The General Court shall appoint its Registrar and lay down the rules governing his service.
Glacfaidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta a rialacha nós imeachta le comhaontú na Cúirte Breithiúnais.
The General Court shall establish its Rules of Procedure in agreement with the Court of Justice.
AN CHÚIRT GHINEARÁLTA
GENERAL COURT
Suífidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta i ndlísheomraí de thriúr nó cúigear Breithiúna.
The General Court shall sit in chambers of three or five Judges.
Cuimseoidh Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh an Chúirt Bhreithiúnais, an Chúirt Ghinearálta agus cúirteanna speisialaithe.
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall include the Court of Justice, the General Court and specialised courts.
Neamhnigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta Rialachán 2014 lena breithiúnas an 14 Nollaig 2017 (“breithiúnas na Cúirte Ginearálta”).
In its judgment of 14 December 2017 (‘the judgment of the General Court’), the General Court annulled the 2014 Regulation.
Chláraigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta an cás faoi T-561/18.
The General Court registered the case under T-561/18.
Ina theannta sin, chinn an Chúirt Ghinearálta gur sáraíodh ceart cosanta na n-iarratasóirí.
In addition, the General Court found a breach of the applicants’ right of defence.
ATHSCRÚDÚ AR NA SAINCHEISTEANNA A SHAINAITHIN AN CHÚIRT GHINEARÁLTA AGUS AR SHEAS AN CHÚIRT BHREITHIÚNAIS LEO.
RE-EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE GENERAL COURT AND UPHELD BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE
Ina theannta sin, shuigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta gur sáraíodh ceart cosanta na n-iarratasóirí.
In addition, the General Court found a breach of the applicants’ right of defence.
Níor thug an Coimisiún aghaidh ar na maímh uile nár thug an Chúirt Ghinearálta aghaidh orthu.
The Commission did not address all the claims which were not addressed by the General Court.
Liostaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta na sonraí lena mbaineann (mír 244 den bhreithiúnas):
The General Court listed the data concerned (paragraph 244 of the judgment):
Ina theannta sin, shuigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta gur sáraíodh ceart cosanta na n-iarratasóirí.
In addition, the General Court found a breach of the applicants’ right of defence.
Níor thug an Coimisiún aghaidh ar na maímh uile nár thug an Chúirt Ghinearálta aghaidh orthu.
The Commission did not address all the claims which were not addressed by the General Court.
Liostaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta na sonraí lena mbaineann í mír 244 den bhreithiúnas:
The General Court listed the data concerned in paragraph 244 of the judgment:
Sheas an Chúirt Ghinearálta le Cinneadh 2018 i gcás T-561/18.
The 2018 Decision was upheld by the General Court in case T-561/18.
Dheimhnigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta é sin freisin in T-561/18.
This was also confirmed by the General Court in T-561/18.
C. De bhrí go bhfuil dhá chúirt i CBAE: an Chúirt Bhreithiúnais agus an Chúirt Ghinearálta;
C. whereas the CJEU comprises two courts: the Court of Justice and the General Court;
ATHSCRÚDÚ AR NA SAINCHEISTEANNA A SHAINAITHIN AN CHÚIRT GHINEARÁLTA
RE-EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE GENERAL COURT
Os a choinne sin, torthaí nár chuir na hiarratasóirí ina gcoinne nó ar dhiúltaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta dóibh nó nár imscrúdaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta (“torthaí deimhnithe nó tionscnaimh”), is torthaí iad atá fós bailí.
By contrast, findings which were not contested by the Applicants or which were rejected or not examined by the General Court (‘undisputed or confirmed findings’), remain valid.
Chinn an Chúirt Ghinearálta gur sháraigh an Coimisiún Airteagal 2(1) den bhun-Rialachán nuair a chinn sé gnáthluach a ríomh de bhun Airteagal 2(3) den bhun-Rialachán do chineál táirge a dhíoltar le Hansol Artone Paper Co. Ltd., cé go raibh díolacháin ionadaíocha intíre ag an gcineál céanna táirgí le Hansol Paper Co. Ltd. Chinn an Chúirt Ghinearálta freisin gur suíodh an earráid ualaithe líomhnaithe agus gur cheart don Choimisiún na cainníochtaí a dhíol Schades Nordic, tiontaire de chuid Grúpa Hansol, a chur san áireamh.
The General Court found that the Commission had infringed Article 2(1) of the basic Regulation when determining to construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation for a product type sold by Hansol Artone Paper Co. Ltd., whereas the same product type had representative domestic sales by Hansol Paper Co. Ltd. The General Court also found that the alleged weighting error was established and that the Commission should have taken into account the quantities sold by Schades Nordic, one of Hansol Group’s related converters in the Union, to independent customers.
Ina leith sin, thagair Astir Vitogiannis do chás Kazchrome inar dheimhnigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta “Nach bhfuil feidhm ag Airteagal 6(1) den bhun-Rialachán sa chomhthéacs lena gcinntear cé acu a bhfuil leas Comhphobail ann mar a bheartaítear in Airteagal 21(1) den bhun-Rialachán nó nach bhfuil, rud a chiallaíonn go bhféadfar faisnéis a bhaineann le tréimhse tar éis na tréimhse imscrúdúcháin a chur san áireamh chun na gcríoch sin” agus do chás CPME inar chinn an Chúirt Ghinearálta go bhfuil “réamhaisnéis bunaithe ar hipitéisí maidir le forbairtí amach anseo, lena n-áirítear breithmheas ar staideanna eacnamaíocha casta” i gceist le measúnú ar leas an Aontais.
In this respect, Astir Vitogiannis referred to case Kazchrome where the General Court confirmed that ‘Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation does not apply in the context of determining whether there is a Community interest as contemplated in Article 21(1) of the basic Regulation, which means that information relating to a period subsequent to the investigation period may be taken into account for those purposes’ and case CPME where the General Court held that the assessment of Union interest involves a ‘forecast based on hypotheses regarding future developments, which includes an appraisal of complex economic situations’.
Torthaí sa Rialachán i gceist, nár cuireadh ina gcoinne, nó gur cuireadh ina gcoinne ach gur dhiúltaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta iad nó nach ndearna an Chúirt Ghinearálta scrúdú orthu, agus dá bhrí sin nár eascair neamhniú an Rialacháin i gceist as, beidh na torthaí sin fós bailí.
Findings in the Regulation at issue, which were not contested, or which were contested but rejected by the General Court or not examined by the General Court, and therefore did not lead to the annulment of the Regulation at issue, remain fully valid.
Torthaí sa Rialachán faoi chonspóid, nár cuireadh ina gcoinne, nó gur cuireadh ina gcoinne ach gur dhiúltaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta iad nó nach ndearna an Chúirt Ghinearálta scrúdú orthu, agus dá bhrí sin nár neamhníodh an Rialachán faoi chonspóid dá thoradh, tá siad fós go hiomlán bailí agus ní dhéanann an athoscailt seo difear dóibh.
Findings in the contested Regulation, which were not contested, or which were contested but rejected by the General Court or not examined by the General Court, and therefore did not lead to the annulment of the contested Regulation, remain fully valid and are not affected by this reopening.
Mhaígh CRIA, tráth an tionscnaimh agus tar éis an nochta araon, maidir le héilimh dhlíthiúla atá déanta ach nár rialaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta ina leith fós, gur gá iad a mheas agus gur cheart don Choimisiún na maímh nár thug an Chúirt Ghinearálta aghaidh orthu a thabhairt san áireamh go gníomhach.
CRIA claimed, both at initiation and after disclosure, that legal claims raised but not yet ruled on by the General Court need to be considered and that the Commission should actively take into consideration the claims not addressed by the General Court.
Torthaí sa Rialachán faoi chonspóid, nár cuireadh ina gcoinne, nó gur cuireadh ina gcoinne ach gur dhiúltaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta iad nó nach ndearna an Chúirt Ghinearálta scrúdú orthu, agus dá bhrí sin nár neamhníodh an Rialachán faoi chonspóid dá thoradh, tá siad fós go hiomlán bailí agus ní dhéanann an athoscailt seo difear dóibh.
Findings in the contested Regulation, which were not contested, or which were contested but rejected by the General Court or not examined by the General Court, and therefore did not lead to the annulment of the contested Regulation, remain fully valid and are not affected by this reopening.
Mhaígh CRIA, tráth an tionscnaimh agus tar éis an nochta araon, maidir le héilimh dhlíthiúla atá déanta ach nár rialaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta ina leith fós, gur gá iad a mheas agus gur cheart don Choimisiún na maímh nár thug an Chúirt Ghinearálta aghaidh orthu a thabhairt san áireamh go gníomhach.
CRIA claimed, both at initiation and after disclosure, that legal claims raised but not yet ruled on by the General Court need to be considered and that the Commission should actively take into consideration the claims not addressed by the General Court.
ag cur sonrú i mbreithiúnas na Cúirte Ginearálta an 23 Feabhra 2022 maidir le cás ciaptha féideartha a tuairiscíodh in 2018 trína neamhníonn an Chúirt Ghinearálta Cinneadh Uimh. 293/19 ón gCoiste an 5 Nollaig 2019 lenar forchuireadh an pionós íosta féideartha lena mbaineann rabhadh i scríbhinn, lena ndéantar an ghníomhaíocht maidir leis an gcuid eile a dhíbhe, agus lena n-ordaítear don Choiste na costais a íoc; ag dréim le machnamh inmheánach tar éis an bhreithiúnais sin, go háirithe maidir leis na sáruithe nós imeachta a d’aimsigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta i ndáil leis an bhfiosrúchán inmheánach, amhail an ceann a bhaineann leis an gceart chun cosanta;
Takes note of the judgment of the General Court of 23 February 2022 on the case of possible harassment reported in 2018 by which the General Court annuls Decision No 293/19 of the Committee of 5 December 2019 that imposed the minimal possible penalty consisting of a written warning, dismisses the action as to the remainder, and orders the Committee to pay the costs; expects an internal reflection following that judgment, in particular on the procedural violations found by the General Court in relation to the internal inquiry, such as the one related to the right of defence;
Mar a míníodh san Fhógra athoscailte, ba é an cuspóir a bhí leis an imscrúdú bunaidh a athoscailt aghaidh a thabhairt go hiomlán ar na hearráidí a shainaithin an Chúirt Ghinearálta, agus a mheas an gá, de bharr chur i bhfeidhm na rialacha mar a shoiléirigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta iad, na bearta a ath-fhorchur, rud a d’fhágfadh go dtabharfaí isteach arís dleachtanna na Comhtharaife Custaim ar allmhairí ríse Indica de thionscnamh na Cambóide a thagann faoi chóid AC 10063027, 10063048, 10063067 agus 10063098, agus lenar laghdaigh sé de réir a chéile an ráta dleachta is infheidhme ina dhiaidh sin, ar feadh na tréimhse tosaigh 3 bliana, is é sin idir an 18 Eanáir 2019 agus an 18 Eanáir 2022.
As explained in the re-opening Notice, the purpose of reopening the original investigation was to fully address the errors identified by the General Court, and to assess whether the application of the rules as clarified by the General Court warrants the re-imposition of the measures, which would lead to the reintroduction of the Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of Indica rice originating in Cambodia falling under CN codes 10063027, 10063048, 10063067 and 10063098, followed by a progressive reduction in the rate of duty applicable, for the original period of 3 years, namely between 18 January 2019 and 18 January 2022.
Maidir le cinntí sa Rialachán atá i gceist, ar cinntí iad nár cuireadh ina gcoinne, nó ar cuireadh ina gcoinne ach ar dhiúltaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta dóibh, nó nár scrúdaigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta iad agus nach mbaineann na hearráidí a fuarthas sa Bhreithiúnas leo, tá siad go hiomlán bailí i gcónaí.
Findings in the Regulation at issue, which were not contested, or which were contested but rejected by the General Court or not examined by the General Court and not tainted by the errors found in the Judgment, remain fully valid.
Measann an Coimisiún go dtugann anailís agus conclúidí an imscrúdaithe seo aghaidh iomlán ar na hearráidí a shainaithin an Chúirt Ghinearálta agus tá sé den tuairim gur gá na bearta a ath-fhorchur de bharr chur i bhfeidhm na rialacha, mar a shoiléirigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta iad.
The Commission considers that the analysis and conclusions of the present investigation fully address the errors identified by the General Court and is of the view that the application of the rules, as clarified by the General Court, warrants the re-imposition of the measures.
Maidir le ríomh na gcorrlach sladghearrtha, shuigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta nach ndearna an Coimisiún comparáid chóir nuair a rinne sé coigeartú ar an bpraghas onnmhairiúcháin (mar atá, asbhaint chostais díola, ghinearálta agus riaracháin an allmhaireora chomhlachaithe agus brabús barúlach — nuair a rinneadh díolacháin trí eintiteas díolacháin comhlachaithe san Aontas. Thug an Chúirt dá haire go ndearna táirgeoirí de chuid an Aontais díolacháin áirithe trí eintitis díolacháin chomhlachaithe freisin, agus nár coigeartaíodh a bpraghsanna díola ar an mbealach céanna. Tháinig an Chúirt Ghinearálta ar an gconclúid maidir le ríomh an tsladghearrtha praghais a rinne an Coimisiún sa Rialachán faoi chonspóid, gur cuireadh ó bhail é mar gheall ar earráid dlí agus ar earráid fhollasach measúnaithe agus, dá bhrí sin, gur sháraigh an ríomh sin Airteagal 3(2) agus (3) de Rialachán (AE) 2016/1036 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle (“an bun-Rialachán frithdhumpála”) agus Airteagal 8(1) agus (2) de Rialachán (AE) 2016/1037 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 8 Meitheamh 2016 maidir le cosaint i gcoinne allmhairí ar tugadh fóirdheontas ina leith, ar allmhairí iad ó thíortha nach baill den Aontas Eorpach iad (“an bun-Rialachán frith-fhóirdheontais”). Thairis sin, shuigh an Chúirt Ghinearálta go raibh tionchar ag na hearráidí ar na torthaí foriomlána díobhála agus cúisíochta agus ar na corrlaigh dhíobhála chomh maith, agus nárbh fhéidir a chinneadh go beacht a mhéid a bhí bunús i bpáirt fós leis na dleachtanna cinntitheacha frithdhumpála.
Regarding the calculation of the undercutting margins, the General Court found that the Commission failed to make a fair comparison when it made an adjustment to the export price (namely the deduction of the related importer’s SG&A and a notional profit – when sales were made through a related selling entity in the Union. The Court noted that Union producers also made some sales via related selling entities, and their sales prices were not adjusted in the same manner. The General Court concluded that the calculation of the price undercutting carried out by the Commission in the contested Regulation was vitiated by an error of law and a manifest error of assessment and that, as a result, that calculation infringed Article 3(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the basic anti-dumping Regulation’) and Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the basic anti-subsidy Regulation’). Furthermore, the General Court found that the errors had an impact on the overall injury and causality findings as well as on the injury margins, and that it was not possible to determine precisely to what extent the definitive anti-dumping duties remained well founded in part.
cuirtear an leagan cuí gramadaí de na focail ‘an Chúirt Ghinearálta’ in ionad an leagain chomhfhreagraigh de na focail ‘an Chúirt Chéadchéime’;
the words ‘Court of First Instance’ shall be replaced by ‘General Court’;
I gcásanna áirithe atá sainithe sna rialacha nós imeachta, féadfaidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta suí mar chúirt iomlán nó féadfar í a chomhdhéanamh de Bhreitheamh aonair.
In certain cases governed by the Rules of Procedure, the General Court may sit as a full court or be constituted by a single Judge.
Féadfar a fhoráil sna rialacha nós imeachta go bhféadfaidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta suí mar Mhór-Dhlísheomra sna cásanna agus faoi na coinníollacha atá sonraithe iontu.
The Rules of Procedure may also provide that the General Court may sit in a Grand Chamber in cases and under the conditions specified therein.
Má dhéanann Ballstát agus institiúid de chuid an Aontais an gníomh céanna a chonspóid, diúltóidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta dlínse chun go bhféadfaidh an Chúirt Bhreithiúnais breith a thabhairt ar na hiarratais sin.
Where a Member State and an institution of the Union are challenging the same act, the General Court shall decline jurisdiction so that the Court of Justice may rule on those applications.
Má tharchuirtear cás ar ais go dtí an Chúirt Ghinearálta, beidh breith na Cúirte Breithiúnais maidir le poncanna dlí ina ceangal ar an gCúirt sin.
Where a case is referred back to the General Court, that Court shall be bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law.
Ní foláir an togra a dhéanamh laistigh de mhí ón tráth a thugann an Chúirt Ghinearálta an bhreith.
The proposal must be made within one month of delivery of the decision by the General Court.
Faoi réir na gcoinníollacha a leagtar síos sna rialacha nós imeachta, féadfaidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta, tar éis di na páirtithe a éisteacht, an nós imeachta ó bhéal a fhágáil ar lár.
In accordance with conditions laid down in the Rules of Procedure, the General Court, having heard the parties, may dispense with the oral procedure.
Má bhíonn bunús leis an achomharc, neamhneoidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta breith Bhinse na Seirbhíse Sibhialta agus déanfaidh sí féin breithiúnas a thabhairt san ábhar.
If the appeal is well founded, the General Court shall quash the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal and itself give judgment in the matter.
I gcásanna áirithe atá sainithe sna rialacha nós imeachta, féadfaidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta suí mar chúirt iomlán nó féadfar í a chomhdhéanamh de Bhreitheamh aonair.
In certain cases governed by the Rules of Procedure, the General Court may sit as a full court or be constituted by a single Judge.
Féadfar a fhoráil sna rialacha nós imeachta go bhféadfaidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta suí mar Mhór-Dhlísheomra sna cásanna agus faoi na coinníollacha atá sonraithe iontu.
The Rules of Procedure may also provide that the General Court may sit in a Grand Chamber in cases and under the conditions specified therein.
Má dhéanann Ballstát agus institiúid de chuid an Aontais an gníomh céanna a chonspóid, diúltóidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta dlínse chun go bhféadfaidh an Chúirt Bhreithiúnais breith a thabhairt ar na hiarratais sin.
Where a Member State and an institution of the Union are challenging the same act, the General Court shall decline jurisdiction so that the Court of Justice may rule on those applications.
Má tharchuirtear cás ar ais go dtí an Chúirt Ghinearálta, beidh breith na Cúirte Breithiúnais maidir le poncanna dlí ina ceangal ar an gCúirt sin.
Where a case is referred back to the General Court, that Court shall be bound by the decision of the Court of Justice on points of law.
Ní foláir an togra a dhéanamh laistigh de mhí ón tráth a thugann an Chúirt Ghinearálta an bhreith.
The proposal must be made within one month of delivery of the decision by the General Court.
Faoi réir na gcoinníollacha a leagtar síos sna rialacha nós imeachta, féadfaidh an Chúirt Ghinearálta, tar éis di na páirtithe a éisteacht, an nós imeachta ó bhéal a fhágáil ar lár.
In accordance with conditions laid down in the rules of procedure, the General Court, having heard the parties, may dispense with the oral procedure.