Tar éis an nochta, d’áitigh GBR agus Usiminas go raibh an mhodheolaíocht a d’úsáid an Coimisiún chun sonraí na Brasaíle a athríomh doiléir agus nach bhféadfadh páirtithe leasmhara í a fhíorú.
After disclosure, the GBR and USIMINAS argued that the methodology used by the Commission to recalculate Brazilian data was unclear and could not be verified by interested parties.
Thairis sin, d’áitigh GBR agus Usiminas araon go raibh tionscal an Aontais faoi chosaint shuntasach cheana féin ag na bearta coimirce.
Furthermore, both the GBR and USIMINAS argued that the Union industry was already significantly protected by the safeguards measures.
Sa bhreithiúnas uaithi i gcás Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, níor chuir an Chúirt in aghaidh dhlisteanacht an chuspóra maidir le rialú poiblí ar úsáid an airgid ó na Cistí. a neartú.
In its judgment in Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, the Court did not contest the legitimacy of the objective of reinforcing public control of the use of the money from the Funds.
Fuair an Coimisiún barúlacha maidir leis an tionscnamh ón Aireacht um Fhorbairt Eacnamaíoch i gCónaidhm na Rúise agus ón Aireacht Tionscail agus Trádála i gCónaidhm na Rúise (‘GOR’), ó Rialtas Cónaidhme na Brasaíl (‘GBR’), arna n-ionadú ag Misean na Brasaíle den Aontas Eorpach, agus ó na táirgeoirí Brasaíleacha Usinas Siderúrgicas de Minas Gerais S.A (‘USIMINAS’) agus ón gComhluadar Siderúrgica Nacional (‘CSN’),
The Commission received comments on initiation from the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation (‘GOR’), the Federal Government of Brazil (‘GBR’), represented by the Mission of Brazil of the European Union, and the Brazilian producers Usinas Siderúrgicas de Minas Gerais S.A (‘USIMINAS’) and Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional (‘CSN’).
Ina theannta sin, d’áitigh Usiminas, CSN, agus GBR nach raibh gá le measúnú carnach ar éifeachtaí na n-allmhairí ó na tíortha lena mbaineann, i bhfianaise na gcoinníollacha éagsúla iomaíochta idir allmhairí ón mBrasaíl agus na hallmhairí ó na tíortha eile a ndearnadh imscrúdú orthu, na méideanna diomaibhseacha allmhairí, agus forbairt praghsanna na n-allmhairí ón mBrasaíl.
Furthermore, USIMINAS, CSN, and the GBR submitted that a cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports from the countries concerned was not warranted, in light of the different conditions of competition between imports from Brazil and the imports from the other investigated countries, the negligible import volumes, and the price development of imports from Brazil.
Mhaígh GBR go ndíríonn táirgeoirí HRF na Brasaíle ar a bheith ag freastal ar a margaí intíre agus réigiúnacha agus nach bhfuil aon dreasacht acu a n-onnmhairí chuig an Aontas a mhéadú.
The GBR claimed that the Brazilian HRF producers are focused on serving their domestic and regional markets and have no incentive to increase their exports to the Union.
Sna barúlacha a thug siad tar éis an nochta, d’athdhearbhaigh GBR a mhaíomh nach bhfuil na dreasachtaí ag táirgeoirí HRF na Brasaíle chun a n-onnmhairí chuig an Aontas a mhéadú agus rinne sé tagairt do dhíriú líomhnaithe tháirgeoirí na Brasaíle ar na margaí intíre agus réigiúnacha, don acmhainneacht bhreise theoranta sa Bhrasaíl, do Shásra an Aontais um Choigeartú Carbóin ar Theorainneacha (CBAM), agus do dhleachtanna coimirce an Aontais ar allmhairí táirgí cruach áirithe.
In their comments following disclosure, the GBR reiterated its claim that Brazilian HRF producers lack the incentives to increase their exports to the Union and referred to the alleged focus of Brazilian producers on the domestic and regional markets, the limited spare capacity in Brazil, the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and the EU safeguard duties on imports of certain steel products.
Thairis sin, dhearbhaigh GBR agus Usiminas araon go ndearnadh rómheastachán ar an sciar den mhargadh a bhí ag allmhairí ón mBrasaíl, agus gur cheart sciar mhargadh na Brasaíle a shloinneadh mar chéatadán den tomhaltas comhiomlán.
Furthermore, both the GBR and USIMINAS affirmed that the market share of Brazilian imports had been overstated, and that the Brazilian market share should be expressed as a percentage of aggregate consumption.
Maidir le saincheist na comparáide leis an saormhargadh, go háirithe, thagair GBR do mhíreanna 7.272 agus 7.273 den tuarascáil ón bpainéal an 31 Deireadh Fómhair 2018 maidir leis an díospóid ‘Maracó – Bearta Frithdhumpála maidir le Cruach Theorollta áirithe ón Tuirc (WT/DS513/R)’, inar iarradh ar údarás imscrúdaithe anailís a dhéanamh ar gach cuid de staid an tionscail intíre, chun a áirithiú nach ndíreodh an t-údarás ach ar chodanna den tionscal intíre nach raibh ag feidhmiú go maith ach ar chodanna den tionscal intíre nach raibh ag feidhmiú go maith, agus vice versa.
On the issue of comparison with the free market, in particular, the GBR referred to the paragraphs 7.272 and 7.273 of the panel report of 31 October 2018 on the dispute ‘Morocco – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel from Turkey (WT/DS513/R)’, which called upon an investigating authority to analyse all parts of the state of the domestic industry, to ensure that the authority would not focus only on parts of the domestic industry that were performing poorly and excluding those performing well, and vice versa.
Le breithiúnas na Cúirte Bhreithiúnais an 9 Samhain 2010, i gCásanna Uamtha C-92/09 agus 93/09 [24] Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, dearbhaíodh, maidir le pointe (8b) d'Airteagal 42 agus le hAirteagal 44a de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1290/2005, agus le Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 259/2008 [25] ón gCoimisiún go raibh an méid sin neamhbhailí sa mhéid is, maidir leis na daoine nádúrtha a thairbhíonn de na Cistí, go bhforchuireann na forálacha sin oibleagáid faisnéis phearsanta a bhaineann le gach tairbhí a fhoilsiú gan idirdhealú a dhéanamh bunaithe ar chritéir ábhartha amhail na tréimhsí ina bhfuair na daoine sin an chabhair sin, agus minicíocht, cineál nó méid na cabhrach sin.
In its judgment of 9 November 2010 in Joined Cases C-92/09 and 93/09 [24] Volker und Markus Schecke GbR and Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen the Court of Justice of the European Union declared point (8b) of Article 42 and Article 44a of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 [25] to be invalid in so far as, with regard to natural persons benefiting from the European agricultural funds, those provisions imposed an obligation to publish personal data relating to each beneficiary without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria such as the periods during which those persons have received such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and amount thereof.