natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I dommen henvises der også til nogle iboende begrænsninger i forbindelse med princippet om ret til forsvar.
The judgment also refers to some inherent limits of the principle of the right of defence.
Den eksporterende producent anmodede også om adgang til dokumentation vedrørende: Ruller, der anvendes i rotationspresser, og som er fremstillet af EU-producenterne, nærmere oplysninger om en repræsentativ EU-producents retlige status, aktiviteter og økonomiske oplysninger i forbindelse med udvalgte papirfabrikker, nærmere oplysninger i forbindelse med EU-erhvervsgrenens produktionsomkostninger og produktkontrolnumre på de repræsentative EU-producenters varer.
The exporting produceralso requested access to evidence concerning: rolls used in web-fed printing produced by the Union producers, detailed information about one representative Union producer's legal status, the activities and financial data of selected mills, detailed data related to the Union industry's cost of production and product control numbers of the products of representative Union producers.
Nogle af de ønskede oplysninger lå uden for undersøgelsen, da de vedrørte varer, der ikke var omfattet af EU-producenternes undersøgelse, eller aktivitet, som ikke involverer EU-producenternes fremstilling af coated finpapir.
Some of the requested information was outside the scope of the investigation as it related to products not covered by the investigation or the activity of Union producers that does not involve the production of CFP.
Vedrørende de andre oplysninger, der blev anmodet om, kunne Kommissionen ikke give adgang til dem, da det ville have medført en uautoriseret fremlæggelse af fortrolige forretningshemmeligheder, jf. grundforordningens artikel 19.
Concerning other information requested, the Commission was not in a position to grant access to it, since pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation this would have constituted an unauthorised disclosure of confidential business secrets.
Den eksporterende producent har også anmodet om fremlæggelse af navnene på de virksomheder, som gjorde indsigelse mod undersøgelsen, og som ikke anmodede om fortrolig behandling.
The exporting producer also requested the disclosure of the names of the companies which opposed the investigation and did not request confidential treatment.
En sådan fremlæggelse ville have afsløret navnene og stillingen på de producenter, som har anmodet om fortrolighed; det var derfor ikke muligt at give denne oplysning.
Such a disclosure would have revealed the identity and position of producers that requested confidentiality; therefore it was not possible to reveal this information.
Fremlæggelsen af de foreløbige konklusioner var så detaljeret som mulig, uden at der blev fremlagt fortrolige oplysninger, og den var således ikke et brud på den eksporterende producents grundlæggende rettigheder, dennes ret til forsvar eller princippet om god forvaltningsskik.
The provisional disclosure was as detailed as possible without disclosing confidential information and was thus not in breach of the exporting producer's fundamental rights, its rights of defence or of the principle of good administration.
Skadesanalysen i denne antidumpingundersøgelse er identisk med den parallelle antisubsidieundersøgelse, idet definitionen af EU-erhvervsgrenen, de repræsentative EU-producenter og undersøgelsesperioden er ens i begge undersøgelser.
The injury analyses performed in the present anti-dumping and the parallel anti-subsidy investigation are identical, since the definition of the Union industry, the representative Union producers and the investigation period are the same in both investigations.
Bemærkningerne om skadesaspekter i disse procedurer blev således taget i betragtning i begge sager.
For this reason, comments on injury aspects put forward in any of these proceedings were taken into account in both proceedings.
Der mindes om, at dumping- og skadesundersøgelsen omfattede perioden fra den 1. januar 2009 til den 31. december 2009 (»undersøgelsesperioden« eller »UP«) som omhandlet i betragtning 13 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
It is recalled that, as set out in recital (13) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Som følge af de midlertidige foranstaltninger indsendte den eksporterende producent og klageren yderligere bemærkninger om varedefinitionen.
Following provisional measures, the exporting producer and the complainant submitted further comments concerning the product definition.
Nogle af bemærkningerne var en gentagelse af bemærkninger, der allerede er blevet behandlet i forordningen om midlertidig told.
Some of these comments were a repetition of comments already addressed in the provisional Regulation.
Den eksporterende producent gentog, at der ikke er nogen væsentlig forskel med hensyn til de grundlæggende egenskaber mellem coated finpapir i ark og i ruller, der anvendes i fladtrykspresser (»den pågældende vare«), og ruller, der anvendes i rotationspresser, og at coated finpapir til rotationspresser derfor ikke burde være blevet udelukket fra varedækningen.
The exporting producer reiterated that there is no substantial difference concerning basic characteristics between CFP in sheets and rolls suitable for use in sheet-fed printing machines (‘the product concerned’) and rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses and that, therefore, CFP for web-fed printing should not have been excluded from the product scope.
Denne part anførte også, at Kommissionens konklusion om, at disse varer ikke er indbyrdes udskiftelige, ikke var underbygget.
The party also argued that the Commission's finding that these products are not interchangeable was not supported.
Der mindes om, at det blev fastslået i undersøgelsen, at coated finpapir, som anvendes i rotationspresser og i fladtrykspresser, er forskellige varegrupper og ikke er indbyrdes udskiftelige, jf. betragtning 18 og 20 i forordningen om midlertidige told.
It is recalled that the investigation found that CFP used in web-fed and sheet-fed printing processes are distinct product groups and are not interchangeable as described in recitals (18) and (20) of the provisional Regulation.
Den eksporterende producent erkendte også selv, at disse varer ikke helt er indbyrdes udskiftelige.
The exporting producer itself also acknowledged that these products are not fully interchangeable.
Det bør også bemærkes, at der i den betragtede periode ikke blev importeret ruller fra Kina, der anvendes i rotationspresser.
It should be noted as well that no rolls for use in web-fed presses were imported from the PRC during the period considered.
Det kan også anses for usandsynligt, at disse varer fremover vil blive importeret, da det økonomisk set ikke er holdbart at indkøbe disse varer så langt væk af de årsager, der er nævnt i betragtning 20 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
It may also be considered unlikely that these products would be imported in the future as sourcing these products from long distance is economically not viable for the reasons mentioned in recital (20) of the provisional Regulation.
Den eksporterende producent hævdede endvidere, at de kriterier, der er fastlagt i betragtning 16 i forordningen om midlertidig told, nemlig de tekniske egenskaber i forbindelse med rivefasthed, ikke var egnede til at skelne mellem coated finpapir, der anvendes til rotationspresser, og coated finpapir, der anvendes til fladtrykspresser.
It was further claimed by the exporting producer that the criteria defined in the provisional Regulation in recital (16), namely the technical characteristic of resistance to picking, was not appropriate to distinguish between CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing on the one hand and CFP used in sheet-fed printing on the other hand.
Desuden blev det hævdet, at udelukkelsen af ruller til rotationstryk skete på et vilkårligt grundlag, idet det blev anført, at ruller, der anvendes til rotationspresser, fremstillet af EU-producenterne, ikke opfylder kriterierne i betragtning 16 i forordningen om midlertidig told med hensyn til egenskaber i forbindelse med rivefasthed.
It further claimed that the exclusion of web rolls was made on an arbitrary basis alleging that web-fed rolls produced by Union producers do not meet the criteria set in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation as regards the characteristics of resistance to picking.
Den eksporterende producent gjorde også gældende, at Kommissionen ikke opfyldte sin forpligtelse til objektivt at undersøge den dokumentation, som den pågældende eksporterende producent havde forelagt for Kommissionens tjenestegrene inden vedtagelsen af forordningen om midlertidig told, nemlig resultaterne af de undersøgelser, der var blevet udført på producentens eget laboratorium, hvor rivefastheden for ruller til rotationstryk, fremstillet af EU-producenterne, var blevet målt.
The exporting producer also argued that the Commission fell short of its obligation to examine objectively the evidence presented by that exporting producer to the Commission's services before the provisional Regulation, namely the results of the testing conducted in its own laboratory measuring the resistance to picking of web rolls produced by the Union producers.
Testresultaterne, som den eksporterende producent havde forelagt, bestod af et resumé af de testresultater, producenten havde opnået i sit eget laboratorium.
The test results presented by the exporting producer consisted of a summary of the test results performed in its own laboratory.
Det afgørende er, at disse resultater ikke var tilgængelige for efterprøvning og bemærkninger fra andre interesserede parter, herunder EU-erhvervsgrenen, og den eksporterende producent indsendte heller ikke et anvendeligt ikke-fortroligt resumé deraf til trods for gentagne opfordringer.
Crucially, the results were not made available for inspection and comments by other interested parties, in particular, the Union industry, nor did the exporting producer submit a meaningful non-confidential summary thereof despite repeated reminders.
Der skal erindres, at på det foreløbige stade konkluderede Kommissionen, at testens objektivitet og troværdighed ikke var tilstrækkelig til at basere konklusioner derpå.
It is recalled that at the provisional stage the Commission concluded that the objectivity and reliability of the test was insufficient to base conclusions thereon.
Den eksporterende producent fremlagde ikke yderligere detaljerede oplysninger, som kunne bidrage til en yderligere vurdering af testens troværdighed.
No further detailed information was provided by the exporting producer which could help further assess the reliability of the test.
Da der ikke blev fremlagt en ikke-fortrolig udgave af denne test, kunne de virksomheder, hvis ruller til rotationstryk angiveligt var blevet testet, ikke reagere på testens konklusioner.
Since no non-confidential version of this test was provided, the companies whose web rolls were allegedly tested could not respond to the conclusions of the test.
Kommissionen kunne således ikke objektivt undersøge, om de indsendte testresultater var troværdige og korrekte og kunne anvendes som led i undersøgelsen.
The Commission thus could not objectively check whether the submitted test results were reliable and correct and could be relied upon for the purposes of the investigation.
På grundlag af de oplysninger, Kommissionen var i besiddelse af, kunne konklusionerne på det foreløbige stade om testens objektivitet og troværdighed ikke tages op til fornyet overvejelse, idet de indsendte fortrolige oplysninger ikke kunne krydstjekkes med andre pålidelige kilder.
On the basis of the facts available to the Commission, conclusions reached at provisional stage about the objectivity and reliability of the test could not be reconsidered since the information submitted under confidentiality could not be counterchecked by any reliable sources.
Efter indførelsen af de midlertidige foranstaltninger fremlagde den eksporterende producent resultaterne af endnu en test, der blev udført på dennes vegne af et eksternt laboratorium, og gentog, at coated finpapir til rotationspresser vilkårligt var blevet udelukket fra undersøgelsen.
After the imposition of the provisional measures, the exporting producer presented the results of a further test conducted on its behalf by an external test laboratory and reiterated that CFP used in web-fed printing has been arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation.
Det fremgik af testrapporterne, at rivefastheden var blevet målt på 25 stikprøver af ruller til rotationstryk, som den eksporterende producent leverede til og identificerede for laboratoriet som stikprøver af papir fremstillet af EU-producenterne.
The test reports stated that the resistance to picking has been measured on 25 samples of web-fed rolls provided and identified by the exporting producer to the laboratory as paper samples produced by Union producers.
Ifølge denne rapport opfyldte ingen af papirprøverne begge kriterier i betragtning 16 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
According to this report, none of the paper met both criteria set in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation.
Evalueringen af testrapporten viste, at rapporten, der var udarbejdet af det eksterne laboratorium, hovedsagelig vedrørte varer, for hvilke resultaterne var irrelevante, da de fleste undersøgte stikprøver viste sig ikke at være ruller til rotationstryk. For det andet omhandlede testrapporten varer, der ikke var tilstrækkeligt identificerede, da det ikke fremgik med sikkerhed af testrapporten, om det papir, der blev testet, var til rotationspresser eller til fladtrykspresser, idet det beskrevne papirmærke i rapporten fandtes i begge formater.
The assessment of the test report brought to light that, first of all, the test report by the external laboratory related mostly to products for which these results were irrelevant as most of the samples tested were not in fact web rolls; secondly, the test report related to products which were not sufficiently identified as it could not be ascertained from the test report whether the paper tested was for sheet-fed printing or web-fed printing as the paper brand described in the report existed in both formats.
Desuden gav testrapporten ingen sikkerhed for, om de stikprøveudtagne ruller virkelig var dem, der blev testet.
Furthermore the test report provided no assurance that the sampled rolls indicated were indeed the ones that were tested.
Som svar på testrapporten udarbejdet af det eksterne laboratorium indsendte klageren resultaterne af den test, der var blevet udført af en af EU-producenterne på de samme stikprøver af ruller til rotationstryk, som angiveligt var blevet testet af det eksterne laboratorium.
In response to the external laboratory's test report, the complainant provided the results of the testing performed by one of the Union producers on the same samples of web rolls that were allegedly tested by the external laboratory.
Den test viste andre resultater.
This test showed different results.
Klageren tilskrev forskellene eventuelt andre afprøvningsbetingelser og dermed en eventuel manglende overholdelse af ISO 3783:2006 standarden, dvs. den standard, i henhold til hvilken rivefastheden, der er nævnt i betragtning 16 i forordningen om midlertidig told, skal måles.
The complainant attributed the differences to possibly different test conditions and thus a potential non-compliance with the ISO 3783:2006 standard, i.e. the standard according to which resistance to picking set in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation should be measured.
Efter fremlæggelse af de endelige konklusioner rejste den eksporterende producent tvivl om Kommissionens objektivitet, idet denne havde afvist testresultatet fra det eksterne laboratorium.
After disclosing the definitive findings, the exporting producer questioned the Commission's objectivity in rejecting the test result of the external laboratory.
Det blev hævdet, at det var en blindtest udført af den uafhængige ekspert og i overensstemmelse med den relevante ISO-standard.
It claimed that the testing was carried out blindly by the independent expert and in accordance with the relevant ISO standard.
Producenten fremlagde en erklæring fra laboratoriets ledelse, der forklarer, hvordan stikprøverne til testen blev indsamlet med henblik på at bevise, at testen var udført uafhængigt, korrekt og på repræsentativ vis.
It provided an affidavit of its manager explaining the sourcing process of the samples used in the testing in order to prove the independence, correctness and representativeness of the testing.
For det første rejste Kommissionen aldrig tvivl om objektiviteten for så vidt angår det eksterne laboratoriums testrapport, og i den forbindelse er det irrelevant, at der er tale om en blindtest.
Firstly, the objectivity of the external laboratory test report was never questioned by the Commission and in this regard it is irrelevant that the testing was carried out blindly.
På den anden side blev der sået tvivl om de forklaringer, der var afgivet i forbindelse med udvælgelsen af stikprøverne og deres oprindelse, og ikke tvivl om selve testen.
On the other hand, doubts were raised as to the assurances on the selection and origin of the samples tested and not on the test itself.
Den eksporterende producents argumenter kunne ikke fjerne denne tvivl, da de ikke var velfunderede, og de var uklare på flere områder, f.eks. blev det hævdet, at inddragelsen af andre varer end ruller til rotationstryk skyldtes en administrativ fejl eller skyldtes fejl begået af leverandørerne, da de har afgivet eventuelt forkerte stikprøver.
The arguments of the exporting producer did not remove these doubts as these were not comprehensive and were unclear in several aspects, for example the inclusion of products other than web rolls were claimed to have been caused by administrative errors or were blamed on mistakes by the suppliers in providing possibly wrong samples.
Eftersom både kilden og stikprøverne på de angiveligt testede varer ikke fremgik klart, og resultaterne af testen udført af de forskellige parter var modsigende, var det opfattelsen, at den forelagte testrapport fra det eksterne laboratorium, som handler på vegne af den eksporterende producent, ikke entydigt påviste, at rivefasthed ikke var egnet til at skelne mellem coated finpapir til rotationspresser og coated finpapir til fladtrykspresser.
Since both the source as well as the samples of the allegedly tested products were not clear and the results of the testing by the different parties were contradictory, it was considered that the submitted test report of the external laboratory acting on behalf of the exporting producer did not conclusively demonstrate that the resistance to picking test was not appropriate to distinguish between CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing on the one hand and CFP used in sheet-fed printing on the other hand.
Det fremgik ikke af testrapporten, at coated finpapir til rotationspresser vilkårligt var blevet udelukket fra undersøgelsen.
Consequently, the test report did not demonstrate that CFP used in web-fed printing had been arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation.
For så vidt angår relevansen af rivefasthed som et kriterium til at skelne ruller til rotationspresser fra andre, skal det erindres, at der i varedefinitionen skelnes mellem to varegrupper bl.a. på grundlag af varernes anvendelsesformål, dvs. hvorvidt varen anvendes til rotationspresser eller til fladtrykspresser, hvilket afhænger bl.a. af kravene i forbindelse med de maskiner, som de anvendes på, som bl.a. afspejles i egenskaber som rivefasthed. Det skal desuden bemærkes, at rivefastheden blot er én af de egenskaber, der anvendes til at skelne mellem coated finpapir til rotationspresser og coated finpapir til fladtrykspresser.
As regards the relevance of the resistance to picking as a distinguishing criterion for rolls suitable for web-fed printing, it is recalled that in the product definition the two product groups are distinguished from each other based on, among other things, the use of the products, i.e. whether the product is suitable for use in web-fed or sheet-fed printing as determined by the requirements of the presses on which they are used which is reflected in, inter alia, the characteristic of resistance to picking.
Betragtning 16 og 18 i forordningen om midlertidig told indeholder yderligere kriterier, som ikke er blevet anfægtet af den eksporterende producent.
Furthermore it is noted that resistance to picking is only one of the characteristics that distinguish CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing from CFP used in sheet fed printing; Recitals (16) and (18) of the provisional Regulation set out additional criteria which have not been contested by the exporting producer.
Den eksporterende producent hævdede, at fugtighed, jf. betragtning 18 i forordningen om midlertidig told, ikke var en særskilt grundlæggende egenskab, der kan anvendes til at skelne mellem varerne.
The exporting producer claimed that humidity as defined in recital (18) of the provisional Regulation was not a distinct basic characteristic to distinguish products.
Der blev i den henseende imidlertid fremsat forskellige påstande af andre parter i løbet af undersøgelsen.
During the investigation however differing claims in this regard were made by other parties.
Under alle omstændigheder blev det konstateret, at stivhed og rivefasthed er de mest relevante faktorer.
In any event, it was found that stiffness and resistance to picking are the most relevant factors.
I sit svar erkendte klageren, at der kan være ruller, som ikke helt opfylder samtlige kriterier for rivefasthed i forordningen om midlertidig told, og som kan anvendes til rotationspresser.
In its responding submission the complainant acknowledged that there might be rolls that do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking set in the provisional Regulation which could still be used in web-fed printing.
Klageren fastholdt dog, at rivefasthed er den eneste test, der med sikkerhed kan afgøre, om en rulle er egnet til rotationspresser, dvs. hvis en rulle opfylder kriterierne til rivefasthed i betragtning 16 i forordningen om midlertidig told, er det med sikkerhed en rulle til rotationstryk.
However, it sustained its view that pick resistance is the only test that is able to identify with certainty that a roll is indeed suitable for web-fed printing, i.e. if a roll meets the picking resistance criteria in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation, it is certainly a web roll.
Til støtte for ovenstående påstande vedrørende rivefasthed henviste den eksporterende producent til argumenter, som var blevet fremført af én af de klagende EU-producenter i antidumping- og antisubsidieundersøgelser i USA, og i henhold til hvilke EU-producenten angiveligt erkendte, at ruller til rotationstryk ikke kan skelnes fra andre ud fra en rivefasthedstest eller andre målinger.
In support of the above claims concerning resistance to picking the exporting producer referred to arguments put forward by one of the complainant Union producers in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the USA in which the Union producer allegedly acknowledged that web rolls cannot be differentiated based on pick resistance test or by any other measurement.
Klageren anfægtede disse udtalelser fra den eksporterende producent og påstod i modsætning til det allerede fremførte, at undersøgelserne i USA viste, at der er en klar opdeling mellem ruller til rotationstryk og coated finpapir.
The complainant contested these statements of the exporting producer and claimed that contrary to what has been claimed, it follows from the proceedings in the USA that there is a clear dividing line distinguishing web rolls from CFP.
For det første skal det bemærkes, at de udtalelser, som den eksporterende producent henviser til, blev fremført i undersøgelser under en anden jurisdiktion og af andre parter end i den nuværende undersøgelse og er dermed ikke relevante.
Firstly, it should be noted that the statements referred to by the exporting producer were presented in investigations under other jurisdictions and by different parties than the ones in the current proceeding and thus are not relevant.