type: legislation

text:
 Svarīgs juridisks paziņojums
 |
 52009PC0165
 Priekšlikums Padomes regula, ar ko nosaka galīgo antidempinga maksājumu un galīgi iekasē pagaidu maksājumu, kas noteikts dažu Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes iepriekš un vēlāk stiegrotu dzelzs vai neleģētā tērauda stiepļu un dzīslu (PSC stieples un dzīslas) importam /* COM/2009/0165 galīgā redakcija */
 [pic] | EIROPAS KOPIENU KOMISIJA |Briselē, 8.4.2009COM(2009) 165 galīgā redakcijaPriekšlikumsPADOMES REGULA,ar ko nosaka galīgo antidempinga maksājumu un galīgi iekasē pagaidu maksājumu, kas noteikts dažu Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes iepriekš un vēlāk stiegrotu dzelzs vai neleģētā tērauda stiepļu un dzīslu (PSC stieples un dzīslas) importam(iesniegusi Komisija)PASKAIDROJUMA RAKSTS1. Priekšlikuma konteksts |Priekšlikuma pamatojums un mērķi Šis priekšlikums attiecas uz to, kā Padomes 1995. gada 22. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 384/96 par aizsardzību pret importu par dempinga cenām no valstīm, kas nav Eiropas Kopienas dalībvalstis, kurā jaunākie grozījumi izdarīti ar Padomes 2005. gada 21. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 2117/2005 (“pamatregula”), piemērot procedūrā, kas attiecas uz dažu Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes iepriekš un vēlāk stiegrotu dzelzs vai neleģētā tērauda stiepļu un dzīslu (PSC stieples un dzīslas) importu. |Vispārīgais konteksts Šis priekšlikums sagatavots, īstenojot pamatregulu un veicot izmeklēšanu saskaņā ar pamatregulā noteiktajām pamatprasībām un procedūras prasībām. |Spēkā esošie noteikumi priekšlikuma jomā Komisijas Regula (EK) Nr. 1129/2008, ar ko nosaka pagaidu antidempinga maksājumu Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes PSC stiepļu un dzīslu importam. |Atbilstība pārējiem ES politikas virzieniem un mērķiem Nepiemēro. |2. Apspriešanās ar ieinteresētajām personām un ietekmes novērtējums |Apspriešanās ar ieinteresētajām personām |Procedūrā iesaistītajām ieinteresētajām personām jau ir bijusi iespēja aizstāvēt savas intereses izmeklēšanas laikā saskaņā ar pamatregulas noteikumiem. |Ekspertu atzinumu pieprasīšana un izmantošana |Neatkarīgu ekspertu atzinums nebija vajadzīgs. |Ietekmes novērtējums Šis priekšlikums ir sagatavots, īstenojot pamatregulu. Pamatregulā nav paredzēts vispārējs ietekmes novērtējums, bet sniegts pilnīgs vērtējamo nosacījumu uzskaitījums. |3. Priekšlikuma juridiskie aspekti |Ierosināto pasākumu kopsavilkums Komisija 2008. gada 16. februārī uzsāka antidempinga procedūru attiecībā uz dažu Ķīnas Tautas Republikas (turpmāk “ĶTR”) izcelsmes iepriekš un vēlāk stiegrotu dzelzs vai neleģētā tērauda stiepļu un dzīslu (turpmāk “PSC stieples un dzīslas”) importu. Ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 1129/2008 Komisija šim importam noteica pagaidu antidempinga maksājumus. Pievienotais Padomes regulas priekšlikums ir pamatots ar galīgajiem secinājumiem par dempingu, kaitējumu, cēloņsakarību un Kopienas interesēm. Attiecībā uz dempingu konstatēts, ka divi ražotāji eksportētāji, kuriem piešķīra atsevišķo režīmu, izmeklēšanas laikā nav snieguši būtisku informāciju. Līdz ar to un saskaņā ar pamatregulas 18. pantu ražotāju eksportētāju atsevišķā režīma pieprasījumus noraidīja. Cits ražotājs eksportētājs, kam pagaidu posmā atsevišķo režīmu nepiešķīra, sniedza skaidrojumu par vadības sastāvu un balsošanas tiesībām un tādējādi pierādīja, ka nepastāv būtiska valsts iejaukšanās pamatregulas 9. panta 5. punkta c) apakšpunkta nozīmē. Tādēļ šim ražotājam eksportētājam tika aprēķināta īpaša maksājumu likme. Attiecībā uz citiem izmeklēšanas aspektiem tika apstiprināti pagaidu secinājumi, tomēr ieviešot dažas izmaiņas dempinga starpības un kaitējuma apmēra aprēķināšanā. Tādēļ tiek ierosināts Padomei pieņemt pievienoto regulas priekšlikumu, kas jāpublicē ne vēlāk kā 2009. gada 13. maijā. |Juridiskais pamats Padomes 1995. gada 22. decembra Regula (EK) Nr. 384/96 par aizsardzību pret importu par dempinga cenām no valstīm, kas nav Eiropas Kopienas dalībvalstis, kurā jaunākie grozījumi izdarīti ar Padomes 2005. gada 21. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 2117/2005. |Subsidiaritātes princips Priekšlikums ir Kopienas ekskluzīvā kompetencē. Tāpēc subsidiaritātes principu nepiemēro. |Proporcionalitātes princips Priekšlikums ir saskaņā ar proporcionalitātes principu šādu iemeslu dēļ. |Rīcības forma ir aprakstīta iepriekš minētajā pamatregulā un neparedz valstu lēmumus. |Netiek prasīts norādīt, kā līdz minimumam samazina un proporcionāli priekšlikuma mērķim sadala Kopienas, valstu valdību, reģionālo un vietējo varas iestāžu, uzņēmēju un pilsoņu finansiālo un administratīvo slogu. |Juridisko instrumentu izvēle |Ierosinātais juridiskais instruments: regula. |Citi instrumenti nebūtu piemēroti šāda iemesla dēļ. Citi instrumenti nebūtu piemēroti, jo pamatregula neparedz alternatīvas. |4. Ietekme uz budžetu |Priekšlikums neietekmē Kopienas budžetu. |PriekšlikumsPADOMES REGULA,ar ko nosaka galīgo antidempinga maksājumu un galīgi iekasē pagaidu maksājumu, kas noteikts dažu Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes iepriekš un vēlāk stiegrotu dzelzs vai neleģētā tērauda stiepļu un dzīslu ( PSC stieples un dzīslas) importamEIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME,ņemot vērā Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līgumu,ņemot vērā Padomes 1995. gada 22. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 384/96 par aizsardzību pret importu par dempinga cenām no valstīm, kas nav Eiropas Kopienas dalībvalstis[1] (“pamatregulu”), un jo īpaši tās 9. pantu,ņemot vērā priekšlikumu, ko Komisija iesniegusi pēc apspriešanās ar Padomdevēju komiteju,tā kā:1. PROCEDŪRA4.1. Pagaidu pasākumi(1) Komisija ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 1129/2008[2] (turpmāk “pagaidu regula”) noteica pagaidu antidempinga maksājumu dažu Ķīnas Tautas Republikas (“ĶTR”) izcelsmes iepriekš un vēlāk stiegrotu neleģētā tērauda stiepļu un dzīslu (“ PSC stiepļu un dzīslu”) importam.(2) Jāpiezīmē, ka procedūru uzsāka pēc tam, kad Eurostress Information Service ( ESIS ) iesniedza sūdzību to ražotāju vārdā, kuru produkcija veido lielāko daļu, šajā gadījumā vairāk nekā 57 %, no Kopienas kopējās PSC stiepļu un dzīslu produkcijas.(3) Kā minēts pagaidu regulas 13. apsvērumā, dempinga un kaitējuma izmeklēšana aptvēra laiku no 2007. gada 1. janvāra līdz 2007. gada 31. decembrim (“izmeklēšanas periods” jeb “IP”). Kaitējuma novērtēšanai būtisko tendenču pārbaude aptvēra laiku no 2004. gada 1. janvāra līdz izmeklēšanas perioda beigām (turpmāk “attiecīgais periods”).4.2. Turpmākā procedūra(4) Pēc tam, kad atklātībā tika nodoti būtiski fakti un apsvērumi, pamatojoties uz kuriem tika nolemts noteikt antidempinga pagaidu pasākumus (“pagaidu paziņojuma sniegšana”), vairākas ieinteresētās personas iesniedza rakstiskus iesniegumus, kuros izteica savu viedokli par pagaidu konstatējumiem. Personām, kas lūdza iespēju tās uzklausīt, tādu iespēju deva. Komisija turpināja vākt un pārbaudīt visu informāciju, ko tā uzskatīja par nepieciešamu galīgajiem konstatējumiem.(5) Komisija turpināja izmeklēšanu saistībā ar Kopienu interesējošiem aspektiem un pēc antidempinga pagaidu pasākumu noteikšanas veica dažu Kopienas lietotāju atbildēs uz anketas jautājumiem iegūto datu analīzi.(6) Četrus papildus pārbaudes apmeklējumus veica šādu lietotāju uzņēmumu telpās:- Hormipresa SL, Santa Coloma de Queralt , Spānija- Group Pacadar SA, Madrid , Spānija- Strongforce Engineering PLC, Dartford , Apvienotā Karaliste- Hanson Building Products Limited, Somercotes , Apvienotā Karaliste.(7) Visas ieinteresētās personas tika informētas par būtiskajiem faktiem un apsvērumiem, pamatojoties uz kuriem plānoja ieteikt galīgo antidempinga maksājumu uzlikšanu ĶTR izcelsmes PSC stiepļu un dzīslu importam un attiecīgo summu galīgo iekasēšanu, un to summu galīgo iekasēšanu, kas nodrošinātas ar pagaidu maksājumu. Tika noteikts arī termiņš, kurā ieinteresētās personas varēja sniegt iebildumus pēc minētās informācijas saņemšanas.(8) Ņēma vērā ieinteresēto personu mutiski un rakstiski iesniegtos komentārus un vajadzības gadījumā attiecīgi grozīja konstatējumus.5. ATTIECĪGAIS RAŽOJUMS UN LĪDZĪGAIS RAŽOJUMS5.1. Attiecīgais ražojums(9) Viena ieinteresētā persona apgalvoja, ka no procedūras jāizslēdz īpašs dzīslu veids ar 19 stieplēm, pamatojoties uz to, kas šis ražojuma veids izmantots ļoti specifiskos lietošanas gadījumos, to nevar lietot betona armēšanā vai piekares elementos, vai atsaites trošu tiltos, kas ir attiecīgā ražojuma galvenie pielietojuma veidi, un turklāt Kopienā to neražo. Notika apspriešanās ar Kopienas ražošanas nozari, un tika apstiprināts, ka aprakstītais ražojums, t.i., 19 stiepļu dzīsla, bet arī dzīslas ar vairāk nekā 19 stieplēm, nav attiecīgais ražojums. Tāpēc prasību pieņēma, un 19 un vairāk stiepļu dzīslas izslēgs no ražojuma definīcijas.(10) Tā kā par attiecīgo ražojumu un līdzīgo ražojumu nav saņemti citi komentāri, ar šo tiek apstiprināts pagaidu regulas 14. līdz 20. apsvērums.6. DEMPINGS6.1. Tirgus ekonomikas režīms (TER)(11) Viens Ķīnas ražotājs eksportētājs apstrīdēja pagaidu konstatējumus attiecībā uz TER noteikšanu un apgalvoja, ka ir izpildīti kritēriji, kas noteikti pamatregulas 2. panta 7. punkta c) apakšpunkta 1. līdz 3. kritērijā.(12) Saistībā ar 1. kritēriju izmeklēšanā attiecībā uz TER konstatēja, ka attiecīgā ražotāja eksportētāja elektroenerģijas izmaksas, kuras veido kopējo ražošanas izmaksu lielu daļu, nav uzticamas. Konstatēts, ka elektroenerģijas izmaksu rēķins saņemts caur trešo uzņēmumu, kurā notiek likvidācija (nevis tieši no elektroenerģijas piegādātāja). Tika skaidrots, ka uzņēmumu, kurā notiek likvidācija un kurš sākotnēji bija attiecīgā ražojuma ražošanas iekārtu īpašnieks (taču starplaikā uzsākta uzņēmuma likvidācija), joprojām uzskata par iekārtu daļas īpašnieku. Tādēļ elektroenerģijas uzņēmums vēl joprojām rēķinu par visu elektroenerģijas patēriņu sūta uzņēmumam, kurā notiek likvidācija, kurš savukārt rēķinu par šīm izmaksām piesūta attiecīgajam ražotājam eksportētājam.(13) Taču tika pārbaudīts, ka ražotājs eksportētājs IP laikā 2007. gadā ražošanas iekārtas nopirka, un vismaz daļu IP bija ražošanas iekārtu likumīgais īpašnieks. Turklāt norādītās summas neatbilda ražotāja eksportētāja uzskaitē norādītajām summām. Visbeidzot, pēc pagaidu paziņojuma sniegšanas uzņēmums nesniedza nekādu informāciju vai pierādījumus, kas varētu pierādīt elektroenerģijas izdevumu uzticamību un kas tādējādi mainītu pagaidu konstatējumus šajā jautājumā.(14) Tas pats ražotājs eksportētājs atkārtoti norādīja, ka tā uzņēmējdarbības licence ar ierobežotu derīguma termiņu nevarētu liecināt par valsts būtisku iejaukšanos pamatregulas 2. panta 7. punkta c) apakšpunkta 1. kritērija nozīmē kā noteikts izmeklēšanā par TER. Šajā saistībā jāatzīmē, ka konstatēts, ka uzņēmējdarbības licences ierobežotais derīguma termiņš ir šķērslis uzņēmējdarbības ilgtermiņa lēmumiem un plānošanai. Jo īpaši, konstatēts, ka uzņēmumiem līdzīgās situācijās parasti piešķīra būtiski ilgāku uzņēmējdarbības licences derīguma termiņu. Taču pēc pagaidu paziņojuma sniegšanas varēja precizēt, ka savlaicīga ražotāja eksportētāja uzņēmējdarbības licences pagarināšana ir vienkārša formalitāte, ko vairs nevar uzskatīt par šķērsli uzņēmējdarbības ilgtermiņa lēmumiem un plānošanai.(15) Pamatojoties uz iepriekš minēto, secināts, ka šajā atsevišķajā gadījumā uzņēmējdarbības licences derīguma termiņš tiešām nav kvalificējams kā būtiska valsts iejaukšanās 2. panta 7. punkta c) apakšpunkta 1. kritērija nozīmē, un ražotāja eksportētāja argumenti tika pieņemti. Attiecīgi tika pārskatīti pagaidu konstatējumi.(16) Attiecīgais ražotājs eksportētājs arī apstrīdēja konstatējumus, ka nav izpildījis pamatregulas 2. panta 7. punkta c) apakšpunkta 2. kritērija prasības, t.i., ka tam ir viena, skaidri saprotama pamata grāmatvedības uzskaite, kuru pārbauda saskaņā ar starptautiskajiem grāmatvedības standartiem. Jāatzīmē, ka izmeklēšanā attiecībā uz TER konstatēts, ka ievērojams atkārtotu aizņēmumu apjoms iegrāmatots nepareizā pozīcijā. Lai gan ražotājs eksportētājs apgalvoja, ka šis konstatējums neatbilst reālajiem faktiem, tas nesniedza pārliecinošu skaidrojumu vai derīgus pierādījumus, kas pamato tā prasību. Tāpēc prasība bija jānoraida.(17) Visbeidzot, tas pats ražotājs eksportētājs apgalvoja, ka nepastāv nozīmīgi izkropļojumi, kas mantoti no agrākās sistēmas, kurā nebija tirgus ekonomikas, kā noteikts pamatregulas 2. panta 7. punkta c) apakšpunkta 3. kritērijā. Jo īpaši ražotājs eksportētājs apstrīdēja konstatējumu, ka tas varēja aizņemties naudu ar procentu likmi, kas ir būtiski zemāka par tirgus procentu likmi. Taču ražotājs eksportētājs nesniedza jaunu informāciju vai pierādījumus, kas varētu mainīt pagaidu konstatējumus šajā jautājumā, un tāpēc prasība bija jānoraida.(18) Ņemot vērā iepriekšminēto un neskatoties uz 14. apsvērumā izklāstītajiem konstatējumiem, ar šo tiek apstiprināti pagaidu regulas 35. apsvērumā minētie konstatējumi par TER attiecībā uz šo ražotāju eksportētāju.(19) Tā kā par TER noteikšanu citu komentāru nav, ar šo tiek apstiprināti pagaidu konstatējumi, kas ietverti pagaidu regulas 25. līdz 36. apsvērumā.6.2. Atsevišķs režīms (AR)(20) Ražotājs eksportētājs, kuram AR nepiešķīra, apgalvoja, ka tā lēmumu pieņemšana ir pietiekami neatkarīga no valsts iejaukšanās pamatregulas 9. panta 5. punkta c) apakšpunkta nozīmē.(21) Pamatojot šo apgalvojumu, ražotājs eksportētājs varēja sniegt paskaidrojumus par uzņēmuma direktoru valdes sastāvu un tā akcionāru balsošanas tiesībām. Tādējādi ražotājs eksportētājs varēja pierādīt, ka ir pietiekami neatkarīgs no iespējamās valsts iejaukšanās cenu noteikšanā pamatregulas 9. panta 5. punkta c) apakšpunkta nozīmē. Turklāt ražotājs eksportētājs, kā minēts 14. apsvērumā, varēja arī pierādīt, ka tā uzņēmējdarbības licences derīguma termiņš nav uzskatāms par būtisku valsts iejaukšanos. Līdz ar to šis ražotājs eksportētājs atbilst visām AR prasībām, kā noteikts pamatregulas 9. panta 5. punktā, tāpēc viņam jāaprēķina individuāls galīgais maksājums, kas piemērojams šā uzņēmuma ražotajiem un eksportētajiem ražojumiem.(22) Attiecībā uz diviem ražotājiem eksportētājiem, kuriem AR piemēroja, pēc pagaidu pasākumu piemērošanas jaunā pieejamā informācija liecina, ka šo uzņēmumu vadošie darbinieki ir valsts iestāžu darbinieki pamatregulas 9. panta 5. punkta c) apakšpunkta nozīmē. Neviens no abiem uzņēmumiem TER/AR pieprasījumā šo informāciju nesniedza.(23) Tiek uzskatīts, ka šādas informācijas nesniegšana ir maldinoša pamatregulas 18. panta 1. punkta nozīmē un ka attiecīgajos TER/AR pieprasījumos sniegto informāciju nav jāņem vērā. Attiecīgiem uzņēmumiem tika dota iespēja sniegt turpmākus paskaidrojumus saskaņā ar pamatregulas 18. panta 4. punktu. Taču neviens no attiecīgajiem uzņēmumiem nesniedza apmierinošu skaidrojumu. Uz šā pamata AR iepriekš minētajiem uzņēmumiem netiek piemērots.(24) Attiecībā uz trešo uzņēmumu, kuram AR piemēroja, Kopienas ražošanas nozare apšaubīja, vai tas faktiski ir uzņēmums, kas pilnībā pieder ārvalstniekiem, un vai tādējādi tas atbilst pamatregulas 9. panta 5. punkta c) apakšpunktā noteiktajam kritērijam. Tomēr izmeklēšanā bija iespējams pārbaudīt un salīdzināt visus attiecīgos maksājumus un bankas pārvedumus uzņēmuma iegādes laikā, kas liecina, ka uzņēmums pilnībā pieder ārvalstniekiem. Tāpēc prasība bija jānoraida.7. NORMĀLĀ VĒRTĪBA7.1. Analogā valsts(25) Dažas ieinteresētās personas apgalvoja, ka analogās valsts izvēle ir nepiemērota. Tika apgalvots, ka jo īpaši tādēļ, ka Turcijas tirgū ir tikai viens PSC ražotājs, konkurences līmenis Turcijā ir nepietiekams, lai normālo vērtību balstītu uz šā ražotāja datiem.(26) Taču šīs personas šajā jautājumā jaunus pierādījumus nesniedza un vienīgi atkārtoja pirms pagaidu pasākumu ieviešanas izteiktos apgalvojumus. Kā minēts pagaidu regulas 44. apsvērumā, lai gan Turcijā ir tikai viens ražotājs, Turcijas importa apjoms ir ievērojams, t.i., tas veido vairāk nekā 50 % no kopējā tirgus. Pamatojoties uz iepriekš minēto un ņemot vērā, ka neviens citu potenciālo analogo valstu ražotājs šajā izmeklēšanā nesadarbojās, tiek apstiprināts, ka Turcija ir atbilstīga analogā valsts pamatregulas 2. panta 7. punkta a) apakšpunkta nozīmē.(27) Tā kā par analogo valsti citu komentāru nav, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 40. līdz 45. apsvērumā izklāstītos pagaidu konstatējumus.7.2. Normālās vērtības aprēķina metodika(28) Viens ražotājs eksportētājs apgalvoja, ka izmantotā normālā vērtība nav piemērota, jo vairākumam ražojuma veidu, kā norādīts pagaidu regulas 48. un 49. apsvērumā, normālo vērtību aprēķināja, pamatojoties uz Turcijas ražotāja ražošanas izmaksām. Šis ražotājs eksportētājs apgalvoja, ka to ražojumu veidu, ko eksportē Ķīnas eksportētāji, normālās vērtības pamatā vajadzētu būt pašu Ķīnas eksportētāju ražošanas izmaksām.(29) Jāatzīmē, ka pamatregulas 2. punkta 7. punkta a) apakšpunktā skaidri noteikts, ka normālo vērtību nosaka, pamatojoties uz cenu vai salikto vērtību kādā valstī ar tirgus ekonomiku. Tādēļ fakts, ka normālo vērtību noteica, pamatojoties uz salikto vērtību, neļauj secināt, ka izmantotās vērtības nebija piemērotas. Jāatzīmē, ka attiecīgajam eksportētājam TER nepiemēroja, tāpēc tā izmaksas saistībā ar eksporta modeļiem uzskatīja par neuzticamām. Analogās valsts izvēles mērķis ir noteikt ticamas izmaksas un cenas, pamatojoties uz atbilstīgā analogā valstī apkopoto informāciju. Tā kā ir noteikts, ka Turcija ir atbilstīga izvēle, nav pamata uzskatīt, ka ar attiecīgo ražojumu saistītās izmaksas nav ticamas vai ir nepiemērotas.(30) Attiecīgais ražotājs eksportētājs neminēja nevienu citu īpašu iemeslu (izņemot iepriekš 25. apsvērumā minēto), kāpēc analogās valsts izvēle nav piemērota, jo īpaši, kāpēc uzskatāms, ka šā ražotāja eksportētāja un analogās valsts ražotāja ražotie un pārdotie ražojuma veidi nav salīdzināmi. Tāpēc šīs prasības bija jānoraida.(31) Tā kā par normālās vērtības aprēķina metodiku citu komentāru nav, ar šo tiek apstiprināti pagaidu regulas 46. līdz 50. apsvērumā minētie pagaidu konstatējumi.7.3. Eksporta cena(32) Ražotājs eksportētājs, kas minēts pagaidu regulas 52. apsvērumā un kas eksporta pārdevumus veica, izmantojot saistītu importētāju Kopienā, apgalvoja, ka aprēķinot eksporta cenu saskaņā ar pamatregulas 2. panta 9. punktu, būtu jāizmanto faktiskā peļņa, ko guvis saistītais importētājs, pārdodot PSC Kopienā.(33) Jāatzīmē, ka pārdošanas cenas starp saistītām personām tiek uzskatītas par neuzticamām, jo pastāv attiecības starp pircēju un pārdevēju. Līdz ar to arī peļņas norma no tālākpārdošanas uzskatāma par neuzticamu. Ražotājs eksportētājs nesniedza pierādījumus tam, ka tā saistītā importētāja peļņas norma tomēr būtu uzticama. Tāpēc prasība bija jānoraida.(34) Attiecībā uz 32. apsvērumā minēto ražotāju eksportētāju jāatzīmē, ka tam AR nepiemēroja 22. un 23. apsvērumā izklāstīto iemeslu dēļ, un jautājums par piemēroto metodiku, aprēķinot šā ražotāja eksportētāja eksporta cenu, kļuvis nebūtisks, jo šā ražotāja eksportētāja dempinga starpību tādēļ noteica, pamatojoties uz 41. apsvērumā izklāstīto metodiku.(35) Attiecībā uz vienu no ražotājiem eksportētājiem, kuriem AR piemēroja, Kopienas ražošanas nozare apšaubīja paziņotās eksporta cenas uzticamību. Tika apgalvots, ka, ņemot vērā IP laikā eksportēto nelielo daudzumu, kā arī īpašos apstākļus (jo īpaši, eksportētajam ražojumam nebija noteiktā apstiprinājuma sertifikāta), tas varētu norādīt uz attiecībām starp importētāju un ražotāju eksportētāju, un tādējādi attiecīgā eksporta cena nav jāņem vērā. Taču Kopienas ražošanas nozare nevarēja iesniegt pierādījumus, kas pamatotu šo apgalvojumu. Turklāt izmeklēšanā netika konstatēta nekāda saistība starp ražotāju eksportētāju un nesaistīto importētāju. Tāpēc prasība bija jānoraida.(36) Tā kā par eksporta cenas noteikšanu citu komentāru nav, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 51. apsvērumā minētos pagaidu konstatējumus.7.4. Salīdzinājums(37) Tā kā par normālās vērtības un eksporta cenas salīdzinājumu citu komentāru nav, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu konstatējumus, kas minēti pagaidu regulas 53. un 54. apsvērumā.8. DEMPINGA STARPĪBA8.1. Sadarbībā iesaistītie ražotāji, kam piemērots AR(38) Uzņēmumiem, kam piemēroja AR, vidējo svērto normālo vērtību salīdzināja ar vidējo svērto eksporta cenu, kā noteikts pamatregulas 2. panta 11. un 12. punktā.(39) Galīgā vidējā svērtā dempinga starpība, kas izteikta procentos no CIF cenas uz Kopienas robežas pirms nodokļu nomaksas, ir šāda:Uzņēmums | Galīgā dempinga starpība |Kiswire Qingdao, Ltd. | 26,8% |Ossen MaanShan Steel Wire and Co. Ltd, Maanshan, and Ossen Jiujiang Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag | 49,8% |8.2. Visi citi ražotāji eksportētāji(40) Kā minēts pagaidu regulas 57. apsvērumā, sadarbības līmenis bija zems.(41) Tādēļ uzskatīja ka ir lietderīgi noteikt valsts mēroga dempinga starpību, pamatojoties uz datiem, ko snieguši uzņēmumi, kuriem nav piemērots ne TER, ne AR.(42) Pamatojoties uz iepriekš minēto, valsts mēroga dempinga starpība visiem ražotājiem eksportētājiem, kam nav piešķirts atsevišķs režīms, noteikta 50,0 % apmērā no CIF cenas uz Kopienas robežas pirms nodokļa nomaksas.9. KAITĒJUMS9.1. Kopienas produkcija un Kopienas ražošanas nozares definīcija(43) Tā kā par produkciju un Kopienas ražošanas definīciju komentāru nav, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 60. līdz 63. apsvērumu.9.2. Kopienas patēriņš(44) Tā kā par Kopienas patēriņu komentāru nav, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 64. līdz 66. apsvērumu.9.3. Kopienas imports no ĶTR(45) Viena ieinteresētā persona apgalvoja, ka Ķīnas importa vidējā cena ir līdzīga Kopienas ražošanas nozares vidējām pārdošanas cenām. Šajā saistībā Komisijas konstatējumi, kas pamatojās uz Eurostat datiem par importa cenām no ĶTR un pārbaudītiem datiem attiecībā uz Kopienas ražošanas nozari, liecina, ka šis apgalvojums nav pareizs. Tādēļ šī prasība bija jānoraida.(46) Tā kā par šo jautājumu citu komentāru nav, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 67. līdz 70. apsvērumu.9.4. Kopienas ražošanas nozares stāvoklis(47) Viens lietotājs apgalvoja, ka Kopienas ražošanas nozares vidējās cenas 2004. un 2005. gadā bija augstākas nekā norādīts pagaidu regulā, un tādējādi tās nav pareizas. Attiecībā uz šo apgalvojumu jāuzsver, ka šie konstatējumi ir ES mēroga, nevis reģionāla vai valsts mēroga izmeklēšanas rezultāts. Attiecībā uz šo apgalvojumu ieinteresētā persona pierādījumus nesniedza, tāpēc tas bija jānoraida.(48) Tā kā par Kopienas ražošanas nozares stāvokli citu komentāru nav, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 71. līdz 91. apsvēruma secinājumu, ka Kopienas ražošanas nozarei ir nodarīts būtisks kaitējums.10. CĒLOŅSAKARĪBA10.1. Importa par dempinga cenām ietekme(49) Dažas ieinteresētās personas apgalvoja, ka Ķīnas importa tirgus daļa nav pietiekami liela, lai radītu Kopienas ražošanas nozarei nodarīto kaitējumu. Kā skaidri norādīts pagaidu regulas 93. apsvērumā, vienlaikus ar importa par dempinga cenām kraso kāpumu par 2106 % no 2004. gada līdz IP un tā tirgus daļas atbilstošo pieaugumu Kopienas tirgū no 0,4 % 2004. gadā līdz 8,2 % IP laikā, kā arī IP laikā konstatēto cenas samazinājumu par 18 %, Kopienas ražošanas ekonomiskā situācija pasliktinājās.(50) Turklāt, lai gan galvenā izejmateriāla (velmēta stieple) cena, kas veido 75 % ražošanas izmaksu, pieauga, kam vajadzētu skart visus uzņēmējus tirgū, Ķīnas vidējā cena no 2004. gada līdz IP samazinājās par 45 %. Tādēļ secināts, ka spiedienam, ko radīja imports par dempinga cenām, kura apjoms un tirgus daļa no 2006. gada būtiski palielinājās, bija noteicošā nozīme, izraisot Kopienas ražošanas nozarei nodarīto kaitējumu. Tādēļ šo apgalvojumu noraida.(51) Pamatojoties uz iepriekš minēto, apstiprina pagaidu regulas 92. līdz 94. apsvērumā izklāstītos konstatējumus un secinājumus.10.2. Citu faktoru ietekme(52) Dažas ieinteresētās personas apgalvoja, ka Kopienas ražošanas nozarei nodarītā kaitējuma cēlonis ir imports no citām trešām valstīm. Kā norādīts pagaidu regulas 95. un 96. apsvērumā, importa apjoms no citām trešām valstīm laikā no 2004. gada līdz IP beigām pieauga par 112 %. Tomēr šā importa vidējās cenas ievērojami pārsniedza Ķīnas ražotāju eksportētāju cenas un pat Kopienas ražošanas nozares cenas. Līdz ar to nevar uzskatīt, ka tās palielinājušas Kopienas ražošanas nozarei nodarīto kaitējumu.(53) Konstatēts, ka divās no citām trešām valstīm, kuru daļa Kopienas tirgū ir 2,5 %, cenas ir zemākas par attiecīgā ražojuma no ĶTR importa cenām. Tomēr, ņemot vērā samērā nelielo attiecīgā importa apjomu, to nevar uzskatīt par pietiekamu, lai novērstu cēloņsakarību starp importu par dempinga cenām no ĶTR un Kopienas ražošanas nozarei nodarīto kaitējumu.(54) Pamatojoties uz iepriekš minēto, apstiprina pagaidu regulas 95. un 96. apsvērumā izklāstītos konstatējumus un secinājumus.10.3. Izlasē iekļautās Kopienas ražošanas nozares eksporta darbība(55) Dažas ieinteresētās personas apgalvoja, ka Kopienas ražošanas nozarei nodarītais kaitējums ir saistīts ar eksportu par cenām, kas ir zemākas par ražošanas izmaksām. Eksports uz valstīm, kas nav ES dalībvalstis, veidoja tikai aptuveni 14 % no Kopienas ražošanas nozares līdzīgā ražojuma kopējiem pārdevumiem IP laikā. Šā eksporta apjoms no 2004. gada līdz IP palielinājās par 16 %. Taču Kopienas ražotāju eksporta vienības pārdošanas cena saruka par 8 % no EUR 715 par tonnu 2004. gadā līdz EUR 660 par tonnu IP laikā. Kā skaidrots pagaidu regulas 98. apsvērumā, nevar pieņemt, ka šie pārdevumi veikti par cenām, kas ir zemākas par ražošanas izmaksām, jo dažādos uzņēmumos un laikos izmaksas un cenas ir ļoti atšķirīgas. Eksporta cenas pazemināšanos radīja Ķīnas eksporta spiediens ar krasu cenu samazinājumu arī Kopienas ražošanas nozares galvenajos eksporta tirgos.(56) Pamatojoties uz iepriekš minēto, apstiprina pagaidu regulas 97. līdz 99. apsvērumā izklāstītos konstatējumus un secinājumus.(57) Tā kā par ražošanas izmaksu palielinājumu un pārējo Kopienas ražotāju konkurenci komentāri nav saņemti, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 100. līdz 102. apsvērumā izklāstītos secinājumus.10.4. Secinājums par cēloņsakarību(58) Ņemot vērā iepriekšējo analīzi, kas atbilstoši nodalīja un atdalīja visu citu zināmo faktoru ietekmi uz Kopienas ražošanas nozari no importa par dempinga cenām kaitīgās ietekmes, ar šo apstiprina, ka šie citi faktori nenoliedz faktu, ka novērtētais būtiskais kaitējums attiecināms uz importu par dempinga cenām.(59) Ņemot vērā iepriekš minēto, tiek apstiprināts, ka ĶTR izcelsmes PSC stiepļu un dzīslu imports par dempinga cenām ir nodarījis būtisku kaitējumu Kopienas ražošanas nozarei pamatregulas 3. panta 6. punkta nozīmē.(60) Tā kā par šo jautājumu citi komentāri nav saņemti, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 103. un 104. apsvēruma secinājumus.11. KOPIENAS INTERESES11.1. Kopienas ražošanas nozares un citu Kopienas ražotāju intereses(61) Tā kā par Kopienas ražošanas nozares un citu Kopienas ražotāju interesēm komentāri nav saņemti, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 105. līdz 111. apsvērumā izklāstītos secinājumus.11.2. Importētāju intereses(62) Viena ieinteresētā persona, kas no ĶTR importē PSC stieples un dzīslas, apgalvoja, ka jebkādu antidempinga pasākumu piemērošanai būs būtiska ietekme uz importētāju situāciju, jo viņi nevarēs novirzīt cenu pieaugumu uz klientu rēķina.(63) Izmeklēšanā konstatēts, ka importētāju peļņas norma no attiecīgā ražojuma ir salīdzinoši augsta. Turklāt zemajam attiecīgā ražojuma izmaksu īpatsvaram attiecībā pret klienta kopējām izmaksām vajadzētu dot importētājiem iespēju novirzīt jebkādu cenu pieaugumu uz to rēķina. Turklāt importētāju līgumu ar klientiem noteikumi nav tādi, kas tiem neļautu mainīt attiecīgā ražojuma piegādes avotu vai nu uz uzņēmumiem ar zemiem maksājumiem vai bez tiem, vai nu uz citām piegādātājvalstīm, piemēram Taizemi un Dienvidāfriku. Tādēļ šī prasība bija jānoraida.(64) Tā kā šajā saistībā citu komentāru nav, apstiprina konstatējumus, kas izklāstīti pagaidu regulas 112. līdz 114. apsvērumā.11.3. Lietotāju intereses(65) Vairākas ieinteresētās personas apgalvoja, ka jebkādu antidempinga pasākumu piemērošanai būs būtiska ietekme uz PSC stiepļu un dzīslu lietotāju situāciju, jo viņi nevarēs novirzīt cenu pieaugumu uz savu klientu rēķina.(66) Kā minēts iepriekš 4. un 5. apsvērumā, pasākumu iespējamā ietekme uz lietotāju nozaru situāciju tika izskatīta plašāk pēc pagaidu pasākumu piemērošanas, veicot papildus izmeklēšanas uz vietas četru lietotāju telpās. Visi šie lietotāji ir starpniekuzņēmumi, kas ražo un piegādā betona armēšanas, piekares elementu un atsaites trošu tiltu konkrētus elementus.(67) Komisijas konstatējumi liecina, ka attiecībā uz reprezentatīvāko apmeklēto lietotāju un uz lielāko piemērojumu daļu, attiecīgais ražojums veido tikai 5 % no tā kopējām ražošanas izmaksām. Tomēr lietotājiem proporcija vidēji var sasniegt 13 %. Antidempinga maksājumu ietekme uz to izmaksām tika lēsta no 0 līdz 6 %. Tomēr attiecībā uz to galalietotājiem (pārsvarā būvuzņēmumiem) maksājuma ietekme būs minimāla un jebkurā gadījumā zemāka par 1 % no to kopējām ražošanas izmaksām. Līdz ar to tiem nevajadzētu būt lielām grūtībām maksājumu novirzīt uz saviem klientiem. Tādēļ šis apgalvojums bija jānoraida.(68) Viena ieinteresētā persona apgalvoja, ka jebkādu antidempinga pasākumu piemērošana radīs PSC stiepļu un dzīslu nepietiekamu piedāvājumu Apvienotajā Karalistē (AK), jo AK tirgus ir atkarīgs no importa. Šajā saistībā jāpatur prātā, ka šie secinājumi iegūti ES, bet nevis reģiona vai vienas valsts mērogā. Taču, atsevišķi aplūkojot AK tirgu, konstatējumi liecina, ka izmeklētajiem AK ražotājiem ir liela pieejamā jauda tirgus apgādei. Turklāt Kopienas ražošanas nozarei kopumā ir pietiekami liela pieejamā jauda, lai nodrošinātu visu ES patēriņu. Tādēļ šis apgalvojums bija jānoraida.(69) Dažas ieinteresētās puses apgalvoja, ka PSC stiepļu un dzīslu Kopienas ražošanas nozarē pastāv kartelis. Šajā saistībā jāatzīmē, ka Komisija 2008. gada oktobrī iesniedza iebildumus virknei uzņēmumu, kas darbojas iepriekš stiegrota tērauda piegādē. Taču Komisija šajā jautājumā galīgo lēmumu vēl nav pieņēmusi. Iebildumu iesniegšana neliecina par procedūras gala rezultātu. Ja pierādīs karteļa pastāvēšanu Eiropas tirgū, pasākumus var attiecīgi pārskatīt.(70) Tā kā šajā jautājumā citu komentāru nav, apstiprina pagaidu regulas 115. līdz 117. apsvērumā izklāstītos konstatējumus.11.4. Secinājums par Kopienas interesēm(71) Ņemot vērā turpmākās izmeklēšanas par Kopienu interesējošiem aspektiem rezultātus, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 118. apsvērumā izklāstītos konstatējumus.12. GALĪGIE ANTIDEMPINGA PASĀKUMI12.1. Kaitējuma novēršanas līmenis(72) Dažas ieinteresētās personas apstrīdēja pagaidu konstatējumu, ka 8,5 % peļņas norma būs tā peļņas norma, ko ražošanas nozare var saprātīgi sasniegt šādā jomā normālas konkurences apstākļos.(73) Viena ieinteresētā persona apgalvoja, ka aprēķinot Kopienas ražošanas nozares peļņas normu nav jāņem vērā 2005. gada ienesīgums, jo tas nozarei bija īpaši veiksmīgs gads. Konstatēts, ka tas tā ir, un tāpēc šis arguments tiek pieņemts. Tā rezultātā kaitējuma novēršanas līmeņa aprēķinā izmantota 6,2 % peļņas norma, kas sasniegta 2004. gadā, kad ĶTR importa apjoms nebija tik nozīmīgs un cena bija augstāka nekā Kopienas ražošanas nozarē.(74) Tad noteica vajadzīgo cenu palielinājumu, salīdzinot vidējo svērto importa cenu, kas noteikta cenu samazinājuma aprēķiniem, ar kaitējumu neradošu cenu ražojumiem, kurus Kopienas ražošanas nozare pārdod Kopienas tirgū. Pēc tam minētā salīdzinājuma rezultātā iegūto starpību izteica procentos no kopējās CIF importa vērtības.(75) Viena ieinteresētā persona apgalvoja, ka vidējā svērtā cenu samazinājuma starpību jāaprēķina, pamatojoties uz katra Kopienas ražošanas nozares pārdotā ražojuma veida daudzumu. Katra ražojuma veida eksporta CIF vērtības izmantošana, aprēķinot vidējo svērto cenu samazinājuma starpību, ir ierasta prakse. Šāds aprēķins tiek loģiski pamatots ar to, ka, aprēķinot maksājumu šādā veidā, ja to piemēro uzņēmuma pārdevumiem IP laikā, cenu samazinājuma starpība ir nulle, t.i., cena, kas nerada kaitējumu. Tas tā nebūtu, ja par aprēķinos izmantotu Kopienas ražošanas nozares katra pārdotā ražojuma veida daudzumu, kā apgalvots.(76) Viena Ķīnas ražotāja eksportētāja, kuram piemēroja AR un kurš ir minēts 24. apsvērumā, kaitējuma novēršanas līmenis tika pārrēķināts pārrakstīšanās kļūdas dēļ pagaidu noteikšanā. Tā rezultātā kaitējuma novēršanas līmenis bija mazāks par 2 %, kas tika uzskatīts par de minimis . Līdz ar to attiecībā uz šā uzņēmuma ražotā attiecīgā ražojuma importu maksājumu neuzliek.(77) Tā kā par kaitējuma novēršanas līmeni citu komentāru nav, ar šo apstiprina pagaidu regulas 119. līdz 122. apsvērumu.(78) Valsts mēroga kaitējuma novēršanas līmeni pārrēķināja, pamatojoties uz datiem, ko snieguši uzņēmumi, kuriem nav piešķirts ne TER, ne AR.12.2. Maksājumu veids un apjoms(79) Ņemot vērā iepriekš minēto un saskaņā ar pamatregulas 9. panta 4. punktu, galīgais antidempinga maksājums jānosaka tādā līmenī, kas ir pietiekams, lai novērstu importa par dempinga cenām radīto kaitējumu, nepārsniedzot konstatēto dempinga starpību.(80) Galīgā maksājuma likmes galīgi tiek noteiktas šādas.Uzņēmums | Dempinga starpība | Kaitējuma novēršanas līmenis | Galīgā antidempinga maksājuma likme |Kiswire Qingdao, Ltd | 26,8% | 0% | 0% |Ossen MaanShan Steel Wire and Co. Ltd, Maanshan, and Ossen Jiujiang Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag | 49,8% | 31,1% | 31,1% |Visi pārēji uzņēmumi | 50,0% | 46,2% | 46,2% |(81) Individuālā uzņēmuma antidempinga maksājuma likmes, kas precizētas šajā regulā, tika noteiktas, balstoties uz pašreizējās izmeklēšanas secinājumiem. Tāpēc tās atspoguļo izmeklēšanas gaitā konstatēto stāvokli šajos uzņēmumos. Šīs maksājuma likmes (pretēji valsts mēroga maksājumam, kas piemērojams “visiem pārējiem uzņēmumiem”) tādējādi ir piemērojamas vienīgi tādu attiecīgās valsts izcelsmes ražojumu importam, kurus ražo minētie uzņēmumi. Šīs likmes nevar izmantot importētiem ražojumiem, ko ražojis kāds cits uzņēmums, kura nosaukums un adrese nav norādīta šīs regulas rezolutīvajā daļā, tostarp personas, kas saistītas ar konkrēti norādītajiem uzņēmumiem, un šādiem ražojumiem piemēro maksājuma likmi, kas noteikta “visiem pārējiem uzņēmumiem”.(82) Visas prasības piemērot uzņēmumam individuālo antidempinga maksājuma likmi (piemēram, pēc uzņēmuma nosaukuma nomaiņas vai jaunu ražošanas vai tirdzniecības uzņēmumu darbības sākšanas) nekavējoties jāadresē Komisijai[3], sniedzot visu attiecīgo informāciju, jo īpaši par jebkādām pārmaiņām uzņēmuma darbībā attiecībā uz ražošanu, pārdevumiem iekšējā tirgū vai eksportu saistībā ar, piemēram, tā nosaukuma maiņu vai ražošanas un tirdzniecības uzņēmumu struktūras izmaiņām. Vajadzības gadījumā regulu attiecīgi groza, atjauninot to uzņēmumu sarakstu, kuriem piemēro individuālas maksājuma likmes.12.3. Pagaidu maksājumu galīgā iekasēšana(83) Ņemot vērā konstatēto dempinga starpību lielumu un Kopienas ražošanas nozarei nodarītā kaitējuma apmēru, tiek uzskatīts par vajadzīgu atbilstīgi galīgā maksājuma līmenim galīgi iekasēt summas, kas nodrošinātas ar pagaidu antidempinga maksājumiem, kuri noteikti ar pagaidu regulu, t.i., Regulu (EK) Nr. 1129/2008. Tā kā galīgie maksājumi ir zemāki par pagaidu maksājumiem, anulē provizoriski nodrošinātās summas, kas pārsniedz galīgo antidempinga maksājumu apmēru. Ja galīgie maksājumi ir lielāki nekā pagaidu maksājumi, tad galīgi iekasē vienīgi pagaidu maksājumu līmenī nodrošinātās summas. Anulē provizoriski nodrošinātās summas par ražojumiem, ko izslēdz no ražojuma definīcijas saskaņā ar 9. apsvērumu.12.4. Īpašā uzraudzība(84) Lai samazinātu apiešanas risku maksājumu summu lielo atšķirību dēļ starp ražotājiem eksportētājiem, tika izlemts, ka šajā gadījumā ir nepieciešami īpaši pasākumi, lai nodrošinātu pienācīgu antidempinga maksājumu piemērošanu. Šie īpašie pasākumi ir šādi.(85) Dalībvalstu muitas dienestiem tiek uzrādīts derīgs rēķins, kurš atbilst šīs regulas pielikumā izklāstītajiem noteikumiem. Uz importu, kam nav pievienots šāds rēķins, attiecina atlikušo antidempinga maksājumu, kas piemērojams visiem pārējiem eksportētājiem.(86) Gadījumā, ja to uzņēmumu eksporta apjoms, kas gūst labumu no zemākām individuālām maksājumu likmēm, pēc attiecīgā pasākumu piemērošanas būtiski palielinās, tad šādu apjoma palielinājumu varētu uzskatīt par tirdzniecības modeļa izmaiņām, ko radījusi pasākumu piemērošana pamatregulas 13. panta 1. punkta nozīmē. Tādos apstākļos un ar noteikumu, ka ir ievēroti nosacījumi, var sākt izmeklēšanu, lai novērstu pasākumu apiešanu. Šajā izmeklēšanā cita starpā var pārbaudīt vajadzību atcelt individuālās maksājumu likmes un attiecīgo valsts mēroga maksājuma piemērošanu.13. SAISTĪBAS(87) Pēc tam, kad atklātībā tika nodoti būtiskākie fakti un apsvērumi, uz kuriem balstījās nodoms ieteikt galīgo antidempinga maksājumu piemērošanu, viens no ražotājiem eksportētājiem, kuram piešķīra atsevišķo režīmu, piedāvāja cenu saistības saskaņā ar pamatregulas 8. panta 1. punktu.(88) Šis piedāvājums tika izskatīts un konstatēts, ka IP laikā minētā uzņēmuma ražojuma cenas bija ārkārtīgi nepastāvīgas, proti, zemākās un augstākās pārdošanas cenas ES atšķirība par vienu un to pašu ražojumu kategoriju varēja svārstīties pat par 46 %. Turklāt attiecīgajā periodā arī Kopienas ražošanas nozarē tika konstatētas būtiskas pārdošanas cenu svārstības. Tādēļ ražojums nav piemērots, lai pieņemtu saistības par noteiktu cenu. Uzņēmums ierosināja, ka minimālo cenu jāindeksē, pamatojoties uz izejmateriāla, proti, velmētas stieples, cenu izmaiņām. Taču tā kā attiecīgajā ražojumā izmantotā izejmateriāla cenas informācija nav publiski pieejama un, ņemot vērā to, ka salīdzināmā izejmateriāla, proti, velmētās stieples tīkla, cenu izmaiņas ir pretējas, nav konstatēta sakarība starp galaprodukta un galvenā izejmateriāla pārdošanas cenu Kopienā. Saistību piedāvājums uzskatāms par nepraktisku pamatregulas 8. panta 3. punkta nozīmē, jo tas nenovērsīs konstatētā kaitējumu radošā dempinga ietekmi.(89) Turklāt attiecīgajam ražojumam ir daudz dažādi tipi. Uzņēmums, lai atvieglotu izmeklēšanas laikā veicamo pārskatu sniegšanu, vienkāršoja ražojuma klasifikācijas kritērijus un panāca, ka tika sagrupēts ražoto un pārdoto ražojumu tipu skaits. Taču tas nemaina faktu, ka IP laikā uzņēmums ražoja un uz ES pārdeva vairākus stiepļu un dzīslu tipus. Lai ierobežotu šķērskompensācijas risku starp dažādiem ražojumu veidiem, uzņēmums piedāvāja ievērot trīs minimālās importa cenas – vienu stieplēm un divas dzīslām atkarībā no to diametra. Taču 88. apsvērumā minēto iemeslu dēļ ražotāja eksportētāja piedāvātās saistības nebija pieņemamas.14. NOSAUKUMA MAIŅA(90) Viens no attiecīgajiem ražotājiem eksportētājiem, proti, Ossen MaanShan Steel Wire and Co. Ltd, Maanshan, and Ossen Jiujiang Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag, pēc IP šīs izmeklēšanas laikā mainīja savu nosaukumu uz Ossen Innovation Materials Co. Joint Stock Company Ltd, Maanshan, and Ossen Jiujiang Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag.(91) Grozījums nerada būtiskas izmaiņas, kurām varētu būt ietekme uz šīs izmeklēšanas konstatējumiem, un tādēļ secināts, ka galīgie konstatējumi attiecībā uz Ossen MaanShan Steel Wire and Co. Ltd, Maanshan , and Ossen Jiujiang Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag ir piemērojami Ossen Innovation Materials Co. Joint Stock Company Ltd, Maanshan , and Ossen Jiujiang Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag ,IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO REGULU.1. pants1. Ar šo tiek noteikts galīgais antidempinga maksājums attiecībā uz tādu Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes neleģētā tērauda plakētu vai neplakētu stiepļu, neleģētā tērauda cinkotu stiepļu un neleģētā tērauda plakētu vai neplakētu vai cinkotu stiepļu vijumu importu, kuriem ir ne vairāk kā 18 stieples, ar oglekļa saturu pēc svara 0,6 % vai vairāk, kuru šķērsgriezuma maksimālais izmērs pārsniedz 3 mm, un kuri atbilst KN kodam ex 7217 10 90, ex 7217 20 90, ex 7312 10 61, ex 7312 10 65 un ex 7312 10 69 ( TARIC kodi 7217 10 90 10, 7217 20 90 10, 7312 10 61 11, 7312 10 61 91, 7312 10 65 11, 7312 10 65 91, 7312 10 69 11 un 7312 10 69 91).15. Galīgā antidempinga maksājuma likme, ko piemēro neto cenai uz Kopienas robežas pirms nodokļa nomaksas tiem ražojumiem, kas uzskatīti 1. punktā un ko ražo turpmāk norādītie uzņēmumi, ir šāda.Uzņēmums | Antidempinga maksājums | TARIC papildu kods |Kiswire Qingdao, Ltd , Qingdao | 0 % | A899 |Ossen Innovation Materials Co. Joint Stock Company Ltd, Maanshan, and Ossen Jiujiang Steel Wire Cable Co. Ltd, Jiujinag | 31,1% | A952 |Visi pārējie uzņēmumi | 46,2 % | A999 |16. Šā panta 2. punktā minētajam uzņēmumam noteikto individuālo maksājumu likmi piemēro, ja dalībvalstu muitas dienestiem uzrāda derīgu rēķinu, kas atbilst pielikumā minētajiem noteikumiem. Ja šādu rēķinu neuzrāda, piemēro visiem pārējiem uzņēmumiem noteikto maksājuma likmi.17. Ja vien nav noteikts citādi, tad piemēro spēkā esošos noteikumus par muitas nodokļiem.2. pantsGalīgi jāiekasē summas, kas nodrošinātas ar pagaidu antidempinga maksājumiem atbilstīgi Komisijas Regulai (EK) Nr. 1129/2008 par dažu Ķīnas Tautas Republikas izcelsmes iepriekš un vēlāk stiegrotu neleģētā tērauda stiepļu un dzīslu (“ PSC stiepļu un dzīslu”) importu. Anulē provizoriski nodrošinātās summas par precēm, uz ko neattiecas 1. panta 1. punkts.3. pantsŠī regula stājas spēkā nākamajā dienā pēc tās publicēšanas Eiropas Savienības Oficiālajā Vēstnesī .Šī regula uzliek saistības kopumā un ir tieši piemērojama visās dalībvalstīs.Briselē, [...]Padomes vārdā —priekšsēdētājs [...]PIELIKUMSŠīs regulas 1. panta 3. punktā minētajā derīgajā rēķinā jābūt uzņēmuma pārstāvja parakstītai deklarācijai šādā formā.1. Rēķina izrakstītāja uzņēmuma pārstāvja uzvārds un amats.2. Šāda deklarācija: “Es, apakšā parakstījies, apliecinu, ka šajā rēķinā norādīto PSC stiepļu un dzīslu [apjomu], ko pārdod eksportam uz Eiropas Kopienu, ir ražojis (uzņēmuma nosaukums un juridiskā adrese) (TARIC papildu kods), (attiecīgā valsts). Apliecinu, ka šajā rēķinā sniegtās ziņas ir pilnīgas un pareizas.Datums un paraksts”[1] OV L 56, 6.3.1996., 1. lpp. Regulā jaunākie grozījumi izdarīti ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 2117/2005 (OV L 340, 23.12.2005., 17. lpp.).[2] OV L 306, 15.11.2008., 5. lpp.[3] European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate H, Office N-105 4/92, 1049 Brussels, Belgium .


type: other

text:
Erminia Parfitt vs Krea (Malta) Limited
 Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 2.
 Judgment concerning the choice of either seeking the rescission of the contract or else a reduction in the price
 Plaintiff filed a claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal asking for a refund of three hundred and sixty Maltese liri which she paid on for kitchen furniture which was delivered after well the stipulated date of delivery and which also had various shortcomings. The Tribunal decided in favour of plaintiff awarding her the amounts requested, observing that defendant company admitted that it was late in delivering the kitchen and that there were some shortcomings. Tribunal further noted that defendant company had various opportunities in addressing the aforesaid shortcomings, but failed to rectify matters adequately.
 Defendant company appealed this decision arguing that the Tribunal did not abide with the requirements of article 79 of the Consumer Affairs Act as consumer did not notify the trader of the lack of conformity within a period of two months from when she became aware of the said shortcomings. Furthermore the Tribunal acted contrary to article 76 of the said Act, when it decided to grant the remedy of rescission of contract when the shortcomings were minor and insignificant.
 The Court noted that plaintiff at the moment of the delivery and assembly of the kitchen furniture had made various complaints about shortcomings and imperfections such as wrong colours and fittings. Defendant company accepted that these existed and promised to rectify them, but failed to do so. Defendant company had ample time to rectify matters and offered to replace part of the kitchen furniture, however the samples shown to plaintiff were not acceptable to her and she opted instead for a reduction in the price. The reduction in price offered to her was not acceptable to her, hence plaintiff decided to make her claim.
 The Court determined that the shortcomings could not be considered as being minor or insignificant since the material imperfections and other shortcomings were such as to impact negatively on the use and value of the product in a significant manner. In such instances the law gives the buyer the choice of either seeking the rescission of the contract or else a reduction in the price of the product purchased. In such circumstances it was incorrect for defendant company to promise to rectify matters, let time pass and not undertake to make the required rectifications. In such circumstance the Court in deciding in favour of plaintiff, held that plaintiff could not be precluded from seeking either the rescission of the contract or a reduction of the price of the product bought.
 Seduta tat-12 ta' Dicembru, 2007
 Appell Civili Numru. 10/2007
 Erminia Parfitt
 Fl-20 ta’ Marzu, 2007, it-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal- Konsumaturi ppronunzja s-segwenti sentenza fl-ismijiet premessi:-
 Wara li ha konjizzjoni ta’ l-Avviz fl-ismijiet fuq premessi pprezentat fid-29 ta’ Awissu 2005 fejn irrikorrenti talbet refund ta’ tliet mija u sittin Lira Maltin (Lm360) illi kienu thallsu fuq kcina illi apparti li kienet konsenjata zmien wara d-data stipulata kellha wkoll diversi nuqqasijiet.
 L-intimat ipprezenta risposta ghal din it-talba kif ukoll ghamel kontro-talba u attenda ghas-seduta.
 Ir-rikorrenti ppezentat risposta ghall-kontro talba.
 Illi wara li sema’ x-xhieda tar-rikorrenti li hija l-istess rikorrenti, u wara li sema’ x-xhieda ta’ l-intimat li huwa rapprezentant tad-ditta intimata, u wara li ha konjizzjoni tal-fatti kif ukoll tac-cirkostanzi kollha talkaz, kif ukoll ezamina r-ritratti esebiti;
 1. Ir-Rikorrenti xtrat ghamara tal-kamra ta’ l-ikel minghand id-ditta intimata li minbarra li waslet hafna wara z-zmien miftiehem kellha wkoll diversi nuqqasijiet.
 L-intimat ammetta li l-ghamara kienet waslet tard u li kellha certu nuqqasijiet u ta’ dan offra kumpens.
 It-Tribunal jinnota illi d-ditta intimata kellha diversi opportunitajiet sabiex tirrettifika l-pozizzjoni taghha kif ukoll illi ma attendietx ghall-ahhar zewg seduti minkejja li kienet notifikata bid-data u l-hin tassmigh.
 It-Tribunal jilqa’ t-talba tar-rikorrenti u jordna lillintimat ihallas is-somma ta’ Lm360 bl-ispejjez kontra l-istess intimat b’ dan illi l-ghamara tal-kcina ssir proprjeta` ta’ l-intimat wara li jsir il-hlas.”
 Fil-konfront ta’ din is-sentenza s-socjeta` intimata tissolleva dawn l-aggravji:-
 (1) It-Tribunal ma ghamelx stharrig probatorju logiku u naqas milli jsegwi d-dettami ta’ l-Artikolu 79 tal- Kapitolu 378;
 (2) It-Tribunal illedilha l-principju ta’ gustizzja naturali b’ mod gravi meta ma okkupax ruhu milleccezzjonijiet kollha taghha, senjatament l-ewwel eccezzjoni sottomessa;
 (3) Ugwalment, it-Tribunal ivvjola l-istess principju meta adotta r-rimedju drastiku tar-rexxissjoni tal-vendita kkuntrattata, meta dan ma kellux ikun hekk il-kaz ghallinadempjenzi minuri u insinjifikanti, skond l-Artikolu 76 (2) tal-Kapitolu imsemmi;
 (4) It-Tribunal, f’ kull kaz, naqas li jipprovdi dwar is-sufan li, flimkien mal-kcina, kien jifforma parti mill-bejgh;
 (5) Tezisti inkongruwenza procedurali stante li lkundanna saret di fronte ghall-“intimat" u mhux ukoll kontra “s-socjeta` intimata”;
 Qabel kull konsiderazzjoni ohra din il-Qorti trid taghmel ilprecizazzjonijiet
 li gejjin:-
 (1) Kull kaz irid jigi skrutinat fuq il-fattezzi partikulari tieghu. Li jfisser ukoll illi meta l-principji taddritt, applikabbli f’ kazijiet ohra, ma jghoddux ghallfattispeci tal-kaz ezaminat dawn ma ghandhomx jircievu applikabilita` bhal fil-kazijiet l-ohra. Dan qed jigi rilevat in kwantu s-socjeta` appellanti tirreferi, b’ sostenn ghallargoment taghha, ghal certa gurisprudenza ta’ din l-istess Qorti meta l-fatti fihom huma distinti minn dawk verifikati fil-kaz prezenti;
 (2) Hu prekluz, u anzi mhux lecitu, li din il-Qorti ta’ revizjoni tokkupa ruhha minn kwestjonijiet, taht forma ta’ aggravji, li ma jkunux ifformaw parti mill-kontestazzjoni quddiem l-ewwel tribunal. Fuq dan il-principju tezisti gurisprudenza ben konkordi. Ara, b’ ezemplari, “George Abela -vs- Joseph Cortis nomine”, Appell Superjuri, 27 ta’ Lulju 2007;
 (3) Huwa veru li fil-maggjor parti tad-decizjonijiet tieghu t-Tribunal specjali adit jadopera l-istess modulu ciklostilat fir-redazzjoni taghhom, b’ mod li dan jinducih ghal certi zbalji li jistghu b’ aktar attenzjoni jigu evitati. B’ danakollu, anke jekk din il-Qorti drabi ohra esprimiet ruhha b’ dizfavur ghal dan il-metodu, dan ma jgibx ghaddenunzja ta’ inkongruwenza procedurali u sostanzjali senjalata mis-socjeta` appellanti, ladarba, kif inhu l-kaz hawnhekk, l-uniku “intimata” fil-kontradittorju tat-talba attrici ma kienetx hlief l-istess socjeta` intimata sokkombenti fil-gudizzju; Fermi dawn l-osservazzjonijiet, ghar-rizoluzzjoni ta’ lilmenti komplessivi sottoposti lil Qorti mis-socjeta` appellanti huwa xieraq li jinzammu prezenti, u filperspettiva tal-perkors kronologiku taghhom, il-fatti infraskritti:-
 (1) Jekk wiehed joqghod ghall-versjoni ta’ lappellata, kif deskritta b’ certu dettal fid-dikjarazzjoni akkompanjanti l-avviz promotur taghha tal-kawza, fl-istess mument tal-konsenja u mmuntar tal-kcina komprata hi avvanzat diversi lanjanzi dwar imperfezzjonijiet u difetti materjali fiha. Tali kienu jirrigwardaw dawk l-attributi filhaga li jolqtu l-utilabilita`, il-funzjoni jew il-pregju. Ad ezempju, mizurazzjonijiet u kuluri hziena. In generali, ilmetodu tal-produzzjoni tal-kcina. Is-socjeta` appellanti filwaqt li rrikonoxxiet l-ezistenza taghhom ippromettiet li tirrettifikahom, pero` xorta wahda baqghet inadempjenti. Zmien wara kienet anke issuggeriet ir-rimpjazzament ta’ whud mill-komponenti tal-kcina izda l-kampjun muri lillappellata ma kienx accettabbli minnha u optat li titlob riduzzjoni fil-prezz. Dak offert lilha bhala tnaqqis ukoll ma sabx l-adezjoni taghha u konsegwentement ghaddiet biex tirrisolvi l-ftehim u titlob ir-rimbors tas-somma li hallset bhala akkont;
 (2) Skond il-linja difensjonali taghha s-socjeta` appellanti ppretendiet li gjaladarba l-appellata accettat ilkonsenja u zammet ghandha l-kcina, u una volta wkoll, accettat li jsiru xoghlijiet rimedjali, hi giet li rrinunzjat gharrizoluzzjoni tal-ftehim;
 (3) Ghal kompletar tal-kwadru jirrizulta wkoll illi filmori tal-gudizzju quddiem it-Tribunal kien hemm tentattivi ta’ soluzzjoni bonarja ghall-vertenza, kif manifest milliskambju ta’ e-mails minn fol. 25 sa fol. 36 pero` dawn ma taw ebda rizultat posittiv;
 Fuq il-valutazzjoni taghha ta’ dawn il-fatti kif johorgu millatti tal-kawza hi l-fehma ta’ din il-Qorti illi, kuntrarjament ghal dak asserit mis-socjeta` appellanti, l-inadempjenzi filkcina ma jistghux jitqiesu ta’ portata minuri jew insinjifikanti. L-imperfezzjonijiet materjali fil-haga u dawk tan-nuqqasijiet l-ohra, accertati u rikonoxxuti, huma tali li fil-hsieb konsiderat tal-Qorti, jincidu kemm fuq l-uzu kif ukoll fuq il-valur tal-haga, u dan b’ mod apprezzabbli, avut anke rigward ghall-funzjoni presunta mill-kontrattazzjoni. Jidher apparentement li jezistu mankanzi kemm fit-tip ta’ kwalita kif ukoll fil-kulur ta’ l-oggett. Mhux lanqas eskluz illi l insorgenza ta’ dawn l-imperfezzjonijiet u mankanzi ghandhom rapport mal-konsenja nnifisha;
 Ghal dawn, il-ligi gustament toffri t-tutela misthoqqa lixxerrej. Dan sew fil-kaz ta’ difetti fil-haga jew ta’ assenza ta’ certa kwalita promessa. Tutela din li a xelta talkompratur tiehu l-forma tar-rizoluzzjoni tal-vendita jew tarriduzzjoni fil-prezz. Fuq is-sekwela tal-fatti maghrufa hu ferm difficli ghal din il-Qorti li taccetta l-proposizzjoni tarrinunzja ghar-rimedju esperit mill-appellata. Ma thossx li hu sewwa illi fic-cirkostanzi maghrufa s-socjeta` appellanti twieghed li taghmel bosta affarijiet biex tirrimedja ghallinadempjenzi taghha stess, thalli z-zmien ghaddej
 inutilment bla ma taghmel xejn, ma taghmelx lanqas ixxoghlijiet rettifikatorji proposti mill-appellata, biex, imbaghad, meta tigi azzjonata, tirrinfaccja lill-appellata illi hi zammet il-kcina u wkoll, ghamlet l-ghazla taghha u ma tistax aktar tindetreggja lura ghax tkun irrinunzjat. Opportunement fl-ewwel lok ghandu dejjem jigi mfakkar bhala punt ta’ ligi illi r-rinunzji “di stretto diritto” jridu jirrizultaw minn fatti univoci li minnhom ma tista’ tingibed ebda kongettura ohra hlief il-propozitu evidenti tarrinunzja. (Ara Kollez. Vol. XXXIV P II p 646.) Fit-tieni lok, ankorke seta’ kien hemm f’ dan is-sens certa volonta manifesta da parti ta’ l-appellata ghal xoghlijiet rimedjali, jekk din l-istess volonta ma gietx percepita kif mistenni mill-kontroparti, u dan ma ghaddiex ghall-ezekuzzjoni ta’ dik l-istess volonta espressa skond l-ghazla primarja maghmula mill-appellata, tali volonta ma kellhiex, anke skond ir-rikjami elemantari tal-gustizzja, titqies ta’ natura tali li tekwivali ghal xi stat ta’ rinunzja permanenti jew ta’ abdikazzjoni ta’ ghazliet ohra, anke fejn bhal f’ dan il-kaz, ir-rispons mill-kontroparti jkun wiehed indifferenti jew negattiv. Jekk dan jigi accettat ikun ifisser, inikwita u pregudizzju serju ghall appellata ghax din ikollha nolens volens tissokkombi ghall-qaghda irresponsabbli talkondotta tat-terz li mieghu kkuntrattat, u dan ghal din il- Qorti mhux accettabbli u lanqas ammissibbli;
 Minn dan kollu jikkonsegwi, fl-opinjoni tal-Qorti, illi lappellata, fil-fattispeci ma kienetx prekluza milli tghaddi biex titlob ir-rizoluzzjoni tal-ftehim u r-rimbors tal-prezz. Dejjem fuq il-konsiderazzjoni u l-valutazzjoni tal-fatti hi lfehma tal-Qorti illi t-Tribunal ma ghamelx hazin li laqa’ rrikjesta ta’ l-appellata u applika l provvediment restitutorju. Naturalment, hemm qbil mas-socjeta` appellanti illi rrizoluzzjoni tal-ftehim kellha tinkorpora wkoll is-sufan in kwantu, kif inhu accettat anke mill-appellata, dan l-oggett kien jifforma, flimkien mal-kcina, parti integrali millkontrattazzjoni.
 Ghal dawn il-motivi din il-Qorti qed tiddeciedi billi tichad lappell u tikkonferma s-sentenza appellata, b’ dan illi oltre l-ghamara tal-kcina ghandu jkun restitwit ukoll is-sufan lissocjeta` appellanti, avverat ir-rimbors lill-appellata tassomma ta’ tliet mija u sittin lira (Lm360), ghal liema ssentenza tat-Tribunal tirreferi. L-ispejjez ta’ din ilprocedura jitbatew mis-socjeta` appellanti.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 4.5.2013
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 129/4
 Digriet tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja (It-Tmien Awla) tas-7 ta’ Marzu 2013 (talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari tal-Juzgado de lo Social — Spanja) — Rafaela Rivas Montes vs Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)
 (Kawża C-178/12) (1)
 (Artikoli 53(2) u 99 tar-Regoli tal-Proċedura tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja - Politika soċjali - Prinċipju ta’ ugwaljanza fit-trattament - Direttiva 1999/70/KE - Ftehim qafas bejn CES, UNICE u CEEP fuq ix-xogħol għal żmien determinat - Klawżola 4 - Kuntratti ta’ xogħol għal żmien determinat fis-settur pubbliku - Determinazzjoni tal-anzjanità - Differenza fit-trattament bejn persunal irregolat minn regolamenti dwar il-persunal u membri tal-persunal bil-kuntratt - Teħid inkunsiderazzjoni ta’ perijodi ta’ attività preċedenti mwettqa fi ħdan l-amministrazzjoni - Nuqqas manifest ta’ ġurisdizzjoni tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja)
 2013/C 129/06
 Lingwa tal-kawża: l-Ispanjol
 Qorti tar-rinviju
 Juzgado de lo Social
 Partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali
 Rikorrenti: Rafaela Rivas Montes
 Konvenut: Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)
 Suġġett
 Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari — Juzgado de lo Social — Interpretazzjoni tal-Artikolu 45(4) TFUE — Leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali li tirregola l-metodu ta’ kalkolu tal-bonus ta’ anzjanità fis-servizz pubbliku — Applikazzjoni minn amministrazzjoni pubblika ta’ regoli differenti skont jekk ir-relazzjoni ta’ xogħol hijiex irregolata minn regolamenti dwar il-persunal jew minn kuntratt — Assenza ta’ teħid inkunsiderazzjoni ta’ ċerti perijodi mwettqa mill-persunal li ma huwiex irregolat minn regolamenti dwar il-persunal
 Dispożittiv
 Il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea manifestament ma għandhiex ġurisdizzjoni sabiex tirrispondi għad-domandi preliminari magħmula mill-Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba (Spanja), permezz ta’ deċiżjoni tas-27 ta’ Frar 2012.
 (1) ĠU C 209, 14.07.2012.


jurisdiction: US

text: b'UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT\nNational Labor Relations Board\nOffice of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n Continuity of Operations\n\n\n Report No. OIG-AMR-55-07-03\n\n\n\n\n September 2007\n\x0c\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBACKGROUND ......................................................................................1\n\nOBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ..........................................2\n\nFINDINGS ..............................................................................................3\n\nNLRB DISASTER EXPERIENCES............................................................3\n\nCOORDINATION OF COOP RESPONSIBILITIES......................................4\n\nFPC 65 REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................4\n Essential Functions.............................................................................4\n Delegation of Authority ........................................................................6\n Orders of Succession ...........................................................................6\n Alternate Operating Facilities ..............................................................7\n Devolution of Control and Direction.....................................................8\n Interoperable Communications............................................................8\n Vital Files, Records, and Databases .....................................................9\n Test, Training, and Exercise Program ................................................10\n Reconstitution ...................................................................................10\nRECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................11\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n Memorandum from the Director of Administration, Response\n to Inspector General\'s Draft Report "Continuity of\n Operations: (OIG-AMR-55)," dated September 14, 2007.\n\x0c BACKGROUND\n\nThe National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Agency) administers the principal\nlabor relations law of the United States, the National Labor Relations Act\n(NLRA) of 1935, as amended. The NLRA is generally applied to all enterprises\nengaged in interstate commerce, including the United States Postal Service, but\nexcluding other governmental entities as well as the railroad and the airline\nindustries. As of February 1, 2007, the NLRB had approximately 1,765 full-\ntime equivalents that are located at Headquarters, 51 field offices throughout\nthe country, and 3 satellite offices for administrative law judges.\n\nFederal Preparedness Circular (FPC) 65, Federal Executive Branch Continuity\nof Operations (COOP), which was issued on July 26, 1999, and updated on\nJune 15, 2004, provides guidance for use in developing COOP plans. COOP\nplanning includes plans and procedures that: delineate essential functions;\nspecify succession to office and the emergency delegation of authority; provide\nfor the safekeeping of vital records and databases; identify alternate operating\nfacilities; provide for interoperable communications; and validate the capability\nthrough regularly scheduled tests, training, and exercises. A viable COOP plan\nmust be capable of implementation both with and without warning, be\noperational within 12 hours, and capable of maintaining sustained operations\nuntil normal business activities can be reconstituted, which may be up to 30\ndays. Reconstitution, the last phase of a COOP situation, is the process by\nwhich the surviving or replacement agency personnel resume normal agency\noperations from the original or replacement primary operating facility.\n\nFPC 65 requires that all Federal Executive Branch departments, agencies, and\nindependent organizations, regardless of location, have in place a viable COOP\ncapability to ensure continued performance of essential functions from\nalternate operating sites during any emergency or situation that may disrupt\nnormal operations. The Agency is responsible for maintaining COOP plans for\nHeadquarters and all subordinate elements. The NLRB is classified as a\nCategory III agency based on its COOP responsibilities.\n\nThe Agency is responsible for appointing a senior Federal government executive\nas an emergency coordinator to serve as program manager and agency point of\ncontact for coordinating agency COOP activities. The former Deputy Director of\nAdministration was the senior executive for COOP at the NLRB. The Director of\nAdministration is currently assuming that responsibility. The Security Branch\n(Security) Chief is responsible for Headquarters security and the Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99\nCOOP. The Procurement and Facilities Branch\xe2\x80\x99s (PFB) Management and\nProgram Analyst is responsible for maintaining all other plans.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nThe objective of this audit was to evaluate the NLRB\xe2\x80\x99s COOP plans to determine\nwhether they meet Federal guidelines and have been tested.\n\nWe reviewed FPC 65, updated on June 15, 2004, by the Department of\nHomeland Security; Presidential Decision Directive 67, Enduring Constitutional\nGovernment and Continuity of Government Operations, issued October 21,\n1998; National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51, National Continuity\nPolicy, dated May 9, 2007; and National Communications System Directive 3-\n10, Minimum Requirements for Continuity Communications Capabilities, dated\nJuly 25, 2007, to determine the requirements for Federal Executive Branch\ndepartments and agencies for use in developing contingency plans and\nprograms for COOP.\n\nWe reviewed Agency guidance including Administrative Policies and Procedures\nManual (APPM) Chapter REC-6, Vital Records Program, dated March 23, 2006;\nAPPM Chapter IT-1, Computer Security Program Information Systems Security\nPolicy, dated April 2, 2003; NLRB 2006 Disaster Recovery Plan and Procedures,\ndated October 30, 2006; Division of Operations-Management (Operations-\nManagement) memorandums; and union agreements. We reviewed the NLRA\nand NLRB Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedures to identify\nfunctions that should be classified as essential. We also reviewed position\ndescriptions to determine responsibility for COOP.\n\nWe reviewed the COOP plans for Headquarters, field, and satellite offices to\ndetermine whether the plans contained all the required elements and whether\nthey were sufficient to perform essential functions in an emergency or situation\nthat may disrupt normal operations. We also interviewed staff in Operations-\nManagement, Regional Offices, Division of Administration, and Office of the\nChief Information Officer (OCIO) to identify policy and clarify procedures\nperformed. We interviewed the Department of Labor\xe2\x80\x99s Regional Solicitor to\nconfirm the alternate location for one field office. Also, we reviewed other\nagencies experience regarding telework.\n\nWe reviewed Agency actions taken in response to the September 11, 2001,\nterrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Hurricane Katrina in August\n2005. Our analysis focused on whether current COOP plans applied\nexperiences from those events.\n\nThis audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards during the period February 2007 through August 2007. We\nconducted this audit at NLRB Headquarters in Washington, DC.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c FINDINGS\n\nThe Agency did not apply experiences from previous disasters into its COOP\nplans. Also, the Agency did not effectively coordinate COOP activities within\nthe Division of Administration.\n\nThe Agency\xe2\x80\x99s COOP plans do not meet the requirements of FPC 65, the most\nimportant of which is the proper identification of essential functions. Not all\nCOOP plans identified essential functions. For the plans that did, the essential\nfunctions were only generally identified as case handling, payroll, and\nprotection of employees and property. This general description does not meet\nthe criteria established by FPC 65. Because the essential functions were not\nproperly identified the remaining elements of COOP plans would not support\nthe Agency\xe2\x80\x99s essential functions in an emergency.\n\n\nNLRB DISASTER EXPERIENCES\n\nAgency operations were affected by two disasters: the terrorist attack at the\nWorld Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina which\nmade landfall on August 29, 2005. Although COOP plans were not in place at\nthe time of the attack on the World Trade Center, they were in place for\nHurricane Katrina.\n\nThe COOP plan for Region 15 was not adequate to enable continued operations\nof the Region after Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the Gulf Coast. Despite\nthis, Agency mangers responded quickly and provided services in a relatively\nshort period of time. The effective actions taken were not, however,\nincorporated into COOP plans that have since been updated.\n\nThe COOP plan for Region 15 called for initiating a telephone tree in the event\nof an emergency situation, and if telephone service was not available, the\nmanagers were to meet at a predetermined location. As a result of the\nwidespread destruction by Hurricane Katrina, the planned use of the telephone\ntree was hampered because employees were not able to remain in their homes\nand land lines in the area were not operational. Also, the Region was unable to\nuse its alternate operating facility. The Agency communicated with employees\nby posting information on NLRB\xe2\x80\x99s Web site.\n\nAn action that appears to have enhanced the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s COOP abilities after the\nterrorist attack at the World Trade Center and Hurricane Katrina was the\nassignment of at least one other field office to provide support for essential\nfunctions. Also, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Agency used the\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cCase Activity Tracking System (CATS) to retrieve case information related to\nessential functions.\n\nThe use of the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s Web site to communicate with employees, identification\nof other offices prior to a COOP event, and the utilization of CATS to retrieve\ncase information were important for ensuring the continuation of essential\nfunctions. Despite reviewing COOP plans after Hurricane Katrina, the use of\nthe Agency\xe2\x80\x99s Web site to communicate with employees was only included in 22\nfield office COOP plans. Only 17 field office COOP plans contained language\nthat other field offices could perform essential functions and only 6 of these\nspecified which offices would assume responsibility. None of the field office\nCOOP plans addressed the use of CATS.\n\n\nCOORDINATION OF COOP RESPONSIBILITIES\n\nEach agency is responsible for appointing a senior Federal government\nexecutive as an emergency coordinator to serve as program manager and\nagency point of contact for coordinating COOP activities. This includes\nplanning, programming, and budgeting for a viable and executable COOP\nprogram that conforms to FPC 65.\n\nThe Agency did not effectively coordinate its COOP program. Two offices within\nthe Division of Administration performed similar duties and were not aware of\nthe other\xe2\x80\x99s involvement. Both the Security Chief and Management and\nProgram Analyst in PFB were maintaining COOP plans for field and satellite\noffices. The majority of copies maintained by Security were outdated compared\nto the plans retained by PFB. After we brought this to the Security Chief\xe2\x80\x99s\nattention, he stated that he is now making copies of the COOP plans\nmaintained by PFB and that he will obtain updates from now on.\n\n\nFPC 65 REQUIREMENTS\n\nEssential Functions\n\nThe identification and prioritization of essential functions is at the core of the\nCOOP planning process because it establishes the parameters and priorities\nthat drive the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s efforts in all other planning and preparedness areas.\nEssential functions, as identified by FPC 65, are those that enable agencies to\nprovide vital services, exercise civil authority, maintain the safety and well-\nbeing of the general populace, and sustain the industrial/economic base in\nan emergency.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cTo properly identify essential functions, plans must:\n\n 1. Determine which functions must be continued under all circumstances.\n 2. Prioritize these functions based on the criticality and time sensitivity of\n the function.\n 3. Establish staffing, resource requirements, and other supporting\n activities needed to perform these functions within 12 hours, or less, of\n COOP activation and until normal business activities can resume, which\n may be up to 30 days.\n 4. Identify mission critical data needed to perform essential functions.\n 5. Identify consumable office supplies needed to perform essential\n functions.\n 6. Include a statement that indicates all functions deemed not essential\n will be deferred.\n\nNot all COOP plans identified essential functions. For the plans that did, such\nas Headquarters, the essential functions were only generally identified as case\nhandling, payroll, and protection of employees and property. This general\ndescription does not meet the criteria established by FPC 65 as outlined above.\nBy including all case handling as an essential function, the COOP plans\nprovide no guidance or direction in prioritizing the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s resources and\nefforts in an emergency.\n\nUnder the criteria established by FPC 65, Agency managers should review the\nAgency\xe2\x80\x99s case handling process and determine which functions are vital,\nexercise the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s civil authority, maintain the well-being of the general\npublic, and are needed to sustain the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s industrial and economic base in\nan emergency. Some of the factors that the Agency should consider are the\nstatutory priority under the NLRA for certain types of allegations, the\nrequirement that allegations of unfair labor practice violations must be filed\nand served within 6 months of the allegation, and need to ensure the industrial\npeace during an emergency. To some extent, the COOP planning process may\nalso benefit from the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s experience with Impact Analysis.\n\nPayroll is not an essential function because the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s system automatically\ndefaults to pay employees if time and attendance information is not entered in\nthe system and corrections can and are made for time and attendance errors.\nThere are, however, important administrative functions that do not have an\nautomatic feature to them that should be considered for inclusion in COOP\nplans. For example, the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s contracting function may be essential to\nreplace supplies and equipment needed for the continued operation of the\nAgency. Likewise, limited facilities and budget functions may be essential to\nthose activities as well. The absence of those types of essential Agency\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cfunctions from the planning process could severely hamper the ability of the\nAgency to have continued operations in an emergency. The Director of\nAdministration said that the Agency will re-evaluate the identification of\nessential functions.\n\nDelegation of Authority\n\nFPC 65 states that to ensure a rapid response to any emergency situation\nrequiring COOP plan implementation, agencies should pre-delegate authorities\nfor making policy determinations and decisions at Headquarters, Regional,\nfield, satellite, and other agency locations, as appropriate. To ensure legal\nsufficiency and clarity, FPC 65 requires that these delegations contain specific\ninformation for officials to make key policy decisions during a COOP situation.\nSome delegation requirements include delineating the limits of authority,\nauthority to re-delegate, circumstances under which the authorities would be\nexercised, and when they would terminate.\n\nPrior to the COOP planning process, the Board and General Counsel delegated\ncertain case handling and administrative responsibilities to Regional Directors\nand staff at Headquarters. Those delegations have been promulgated through\nthe Federal Register process and COOP plans note these delegations. The\nplans, however, do not address any further delegation of authority that may be\nnecessary in a COOP situation. For example, the Headquarters COOP plan\ndoes not provide for the delegation of administrative functions outside of\nofficials located at Headquarters. In the event that those officials are not\navailable, it is not clear how the Agency could perform essential functions\nwithout administrative support.\n\nOrders of Succession\n\nOrders of succession provide for the assumption of senior agency offices during\nan emergency in the event that any of those officials are unavailable to execute\ntheir legal duties. According to FPC 65, agencies are responsible for\nestablishing, promulgating, and maintaining orders of succession to key\npositions, including to the agency head and other key agency leadership\npositions. COOP plans are required to establish rules and procedures that\ndesignated officials must follow when facing a succession to office and include\nthe conditions under which the succession will take place, method of\nnotification, and any limitations on the authority delegated. Also, NSPD 51\nstates that emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership,\nstaff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain\nuninterrupted Government functions.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cTen field and satellite office COOP plans did not contain orders of succession\nand three field offices included lines of succession that were not clear. For\nexample, two field offices stated that the Regional Director\'s duties were to be\nshared between the Regional Attorney and the Assistant to the Regional\nDirector, but did not specify which duties each individual would be responsible\nfor performing. Another field office stated that the Regional Attorney or the\nAssistant to the Regional Director would succeed the Regional Director, but it\ndid not indicate the order for succession. One of the 14 Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 lines of\nsuccession contained a nonexistent position, and others were not of sufficient\ndepth to ensure succession.\n\nThe COOP plans did not establish the rules and procedures that designated\nofficials must follow when facing the issue of succession to office. They also\ndid not identify the method of notification and any temporal, geographical, or\norganizational limitations, if any, of authorities.\n\nThe line of succession for the Agency head is not geographically dispersed. At\na minimum, the COOP plan must establish an order of succession to Agency\nhead and have geographic dispersion to ensure that leadership roles and\nresponsibilities are transferred in all contingencies. This requirement would\nalso apply to the General Counsel because of his specific statutory authority\nunder the NLRA. For Regional Directors, the lines of succession should also be\ngeographically dispersed.\n\nAlternate Operating Facilities\n\nAll agencies must identify and prepare alternate operating facilities as part of\ntheir COOP plans. FPC 65 states that agencies should take maximum\nadvantage of existing field infrastructures and give consideration to other\noptions, such as telework, virtual offices, and joint or shared facilities.\n\nHeadquarters and most field and satellite office COOP plans identified an\nalternate operating facility. Four field office COOP plans did not identify an\nalternate location and one plan for a Resident Office identified two different\nalternate locations, but not which one should be utilized first.\n\nThe NLRB does not have an Agency-wide policy regarding telework. However,\nmost field office COOP plans provide that employees can be directed to work\nfrom home or from an alternate location. The Agency\xe2\x80\x99s telework guidance is\ncontained in union agreements; however, those agreements do not cover all\nemployees. Also, these agreements generally set limits on telework and do not\nprovide instructions that would be useful in an emergency, such as how to\naccess files.\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cWithout an Agency telework policy, the efforts to use telework in a COOP\nsituation would be hampered because employees would not have the necessary\ndirection and resources to successfully telework. A lesson that could be\nlearned from other agencies is that a telework policy enhances a COOP\nprogram and can help to ensure that essential functions are continued.\n\nDevolution of Control and Direction\n\nDevolution is the capability to transfer statutory authority and responsibility\nfor essential functions from an agency\'s primary operating staff and facilities to\nother employees and facilities, and to sustain that operations capability for an\nextended period. This would be needed if an office was unavailable to or\nincapable of supporting the execution of its essential functions from either its\nprimary or alternate location.\n\nThe Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 COOP plan did not identify a devolution site or develop a\ndevolution plan to ensure the continuation of the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s mission-essential\nfunctions if Headquarters or its alternate facility were rendered unavailable.\nThe Security Chief stated that if the alternate facility was not available, the\nAgency would use another field office. This is a reactive solution and is not a\nsubstitute for a well thought-out plan.\n\nA majority of field and satellite office COOP plans did not designate a\ndevolution site. Additionally, the field and satellite office COOP plans did not\naddress the devolution of control and direction requirements. Of the 22 field\nand satellite offices that did designate devolution sites, only 11 identified the\nlikely triggers that would initiate or activate the devolution plan. As our\nexperience shows, it is too late to establish the devolution process after the\ndisaster occurs. Proper planning would alleviate these difficulties.\n\nInteroperable Communications\n\nThe ability of an agency to execute its essential functions at its alternate\noperating facilities is dependent upon the identification, availability, and\nredundancy of critical communications and information technology (IT)\nsystems to support connectivity between key government leadership, internal\nelements, other agencies, critical customers, and the public during crisis,\ndisasters, or wartime conditions. All necessary and required communications\nand IT capabilities must be operational as soon as possible following COOP\nplan activation, but in all cases within 12 hours of notification. A viable\ninteroperable communications program must include access to data, systems,\nand services necessary to conduct essential functions and support activities.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cNational Communications System Directive 3-10 requires the Agency to have a\nsecure and non-secure telephone and facsimile, unclassified and secret data\nnetworks, a high frequency automatic link establishment radio, secure satellite\ntelephone, certain mobile in-transit communications capabilities, and priority\naccess and restoration. An executive department or agency may request an\nexemption from one or more of the minimum communications requirements by\nsubmitting a request by letter to the Manager of the National Communications\nSystem. Lack of funds is not considered a valid justification for an exemption.\n\nPlans included provisions for contacting Agency personnel through the use of a\ntelephone tree. However, as experienced after Hurricane Katrina, the telephone\ntree may not be an effective means of communication in all circumstances.\nAdditionally, the telephone tree does not meet the requirements of FPC 65 and\nDirective 3-10. The Director of Administration stated that she believes the\nAgency will be requesting an exemption to Directive 3-10 requirements.\n\nVital Files, Records, and Databases\n\nThe identification, protection, and ready availability of electronic and hardcopy\ndocuments, references, records, and information systems needed to support\nessential functions during a COOP situation is a critical element of a viable\nCOOP plan. Agency personnel must have access to and be able to use these\nrecords and systems in conducting their essential functions. The COOP plan\nmust account for the identification and protection of the vital records, systems,\nand data management software and equipment necessary to perform essential\nfunctions, and to reconstitute normal agency operations after the emergency.\nTo the extent possible, agencies should pre-position and update on a regular\nbasis duplicate records or back-up electronic files.\n\nThe COOP plans did not address the vital files, records, and database\nrequirements. Despite this fact, the Agency is making progress on the use of\nelectronic case files in Regional Offices. On May 11, 2005, Operations-\nManagement issued a memorandum setting forth a standardized system for\nnaming and storing electronic documents. The OCIO is currently working on a\nproject to consolidate all Regional Office servers in two different locations.\nOperations-Management issued a memorandum on April 20, 2007, instructing\nRegions to fully implement standardized storage conventions within two\nmonths of switching over to the new servers. Electronic files would be useful in\na COOP situation in that they would be available remotely and their use should\nbe addressed in all Agency COOP plans.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cTest, Training, and Exercise Program\n\nAll agencies must plan, conduct, and document periodic tests, training, and\nexercises to demonstrate the COOP plan\xe2\x80\x99s viability and identify deficiencies.\nThis includes developing a multi-year plan that addresses requirements,\nresources to support these activities, and a planning calendar. Deficiencies\nand actions taken to correct them must be documented. Also, the agency\ntraining program must include annual COOP awareness briefing for the entire\nworkforce and annual team training for COOP personnel.\n\nThe former Deputy Director of Administration and Security Chief participated\nin the Federal Emergency Management Agency\xe2\x80\x99s Forward Challenge, a table top\nexercise, in June 2006. This exercise, however, is not sufficient to satisfy the\ntest, training, and exercise requirements in FPC 65. The Agency failed to\nprovide annual COOP awareness briefing for the entire workforce, annual team\ntraining for COOP personnel, and an annual exercise that incorporates the\ndeliberate and pre-planned movement of the COOP personnel to an alternate\noperating facility. The Security Chief stated that the Agency does not have the\nfunding for an annual exercise that incorporates the deliberate and pre-\nplanned movement of COOP personnel to an alternate operating facility.\n\nNone of the COOP plans contained provisions for a test, training, and exercise\nprogram. Also, the Agency does not have a multi-year test, training, and\nexercise plan. Without an effective program, the NLRB has no assurance that\nit is capable of supporting the continued execution of the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s mission-\nessential functions during a COOP situation.\n\nReconstitution\n\nReconstitution is the last phase of a COOP event and is the process by which\nsurviving and/or replacement agency personnel resume normal agency\noperations from the original or replacement primary operating facility.\nAgencies must identify and outline a plan to return to normal operations once\nagency heads or their successors determine reconstitution operations can\nbegin to resume normal operations. The Agency must have an executable plan\nto transition from COOP status to normal operations once the threat or\ndisruption has passed. This includes pre-planning options for reconstitution of\nan agency regardless of the level of disruption and must include movement\nfrom the COOP or devolution location to the originating operating facility or a\nnew operating site if necessary.\n\nThe COOP plans are not sufficient for the Agency to have a smooth transition\nfrom a relocation site to a new or restored facility. The Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 COOP\nplan only contained provisions for the notification of employees. Only 36 field\nand satellite office COOP plans contained information on reconstitution and\n\n\n 10\n\x0cnone of them contained information for the coordination and pre-planning of\noptions or outlined procedures necessary to affect a smooth transition from a\nrelocation site.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATIONS\n\nWe recommend that the Director of Administration:\n\n1. Work with Agency management to identify essential functions.\n\n2. Ensure that all Agency offices have a COOP plan that complies with FPC\n 65 requirements.\n\n3. Develop and implement an Agency policy for telework and incorporate\n the use of telework in all Agency COOP plans.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c'


text:
 22.11.2008
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 C 301/66
 Recours introduit le 3 octobre 2008 — Ackerman e.a./BEI
 (Affaire F-79/08)
 (2008/C 301/129)
 Langue de procédure: le français
 Parties
 Parties requérantes: Lucie Ackerman (Strasbourg, France) et autres (représentant: L. Lévi, avocat)
 Partie défenderesse: Banque européenne d'investissement
 Objet et description du litige
 L'annulation des bulletins de pension des requérants du mois de février 2008, en ce que ces bulletins n'appliquent un ajustement annuel des pensions pour l'année 2007 que rétroactivement à compter du 1er janvier 2008 et non du 1er juillet 2007 et, par conséquent, la condamnation de la BEI au paiement du solde de pension correspondant à l'application de l'ajustement annuel pour 2007, du solde de pension correspondant aux conséquences de l'application de l'ajustement annuel pour 2007 sur le montant des pensions qui seront payées à compter de janvier 2009 et d'intérêts moratoires sur les soldes de pensions dus jusqu'à complet paiement des sommes dues.
 Conclusions des parties requérantes
 —
 Annuler les bulletins de pension des requérants du mois de février 2008, en ce que ces bulletins n'appliquent un ajustement annuel des pensions pour l'année 2007 que rétroactivement à compter du 1er janvier 2008 et non du 1er juillet 2007 et, pour autant que de besoin, annuler une note que la partie défenderesse a adressée aux requérants et qui est datée du 13 février 2008;
 —
 condamner la partie défenderesse au paiement (i) du solde de pension correspondant à l'application de l'ajustement annuel pour 2007, soit une augmentation de 2,2 %, pour la période du 1er juillet 2007 au 31 décembre 2007; (ii) du solde de pension correspondant aux conséquences de l'application de l'ajustement annuel pour 2007 sur le montant des pensions qui seront payées à compter de janvier 2009; (iii) d'intérêts moratoires sur les soldes de pensions dus jusqu'à complet paiement des sommes dues; le taux d'intérêts moratoires à appliquer doit être calculé sur la base du taux fixé par la Banque centrale européenne pour les opérations principales de refinancement, applicable pendant la période concernée, majoré de trois points;
 —
 condamner la Banque européenne d'investissement aux dépens.


type: wikipedia

text:
 Biografia
 Figlio del pittore Antonio González Velázquez, iniziò la sua formazione artistica presso la Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando, diretta da suo padre, e fu allievo di Mariano Salvador Maella.
 Realizzò vari affreschi con scene allegoriche e mitologiche nelle stanze del Palazzo Reale di El Pardo e del Palazzo Reale di Madrid, e quadri di soggetto religioso per vari committenti, come la cattedrale di Jaén, la cattedrale di Toledo, l'Oratorio de Caballero de Gracia di Madrid. Per la Fabbrica Reale di Tapices realizzò cartoni per affreschi con scene marine da bozzetti del Maella. Dal 1828 fu nominato direttore dell'Accademia.
 Zacarías continuò quindi la tradizione di famiglia, affrescando le cupole, ed eseguendo grandi composizioni; inoltre fu un apprezzato ritrattista e ci ha lasciato ottimi saggi.
 Opere
 Decorazioni di diverse stanze del Casino de la Reina, del Palacio del Pardo, del Palazzo Reale di Aranjuez e del Palazzo Reale di Madrid, la maggior parte con scene mitologiche;
 Pittore di cartoni per arazzi nella Real Fabbrica di Arazzi di Santa Bárbara;
 Pittore di scene religiose per le chiese di Madrid:
 Ciclo di vita di San Francisco de Asís che fu dipinto per la Basilica di San Francisco el Grande a Madrid;
 Autoritratto (Accademia Reale di Belle Arti di San Fernando );
 Cristo crocifisso (Accademia Reale di Belle Arti di San Fernando );
 Manuela González Velázquez che suona il pianoforte (Museo Lázaro Galdiano);
 Ritratto della regina Isabella di Braganza (Museo del Romanticismo);
 Ritratto di doña María Luisa de Parma, regina di Spagna (Museo di Storia di Madrid).
 Note
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni