natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den samme interesserede part hævdede, at i modsætning til, hvad der er anført i betragtning 140 i forordningen om midlertidig told, har der ikke været nogen inflation i den betragtede periode, og at den samlede stigning i arbejdskraftomkostningerne derfor ikke kunne være blevet forårsaget af denne faktor.
The same interested party claimed that in contrast to what is stated in recital (140) to the provisional Regulation, there has not been any inflation during the period considered and that therefore the overall increase of labour costs could not have been caused by this factor.
I modsætning til, hvad den berørte part hævdede, viste undersøgelsen, at der var inflation i den betragtede periode, og at stigningen i arbejdskraftomkostninger, der er begrænset til moduler, kan forklares ved inflation og produktivitetsstigning.
In contrast to what was claimed by the party concerned, the investigation revealed that there has been inflation during the period considered and that the increase in labour cost, limited to modules, can be explained by inflation and increase in productivity.
En interesseret part hævdede, at den skadelige situation for EU-erhvervsgrenen skyldtes stigningen i arbejdskraftomkostningerne og det samtidige fald i produktiviteten.
One interested party claimed that the injurious situation of the Union industry was caused by the increase in labour costs and the parallel decrease in productivity.
Det bør imidlertid for det første bemærkes, at arbejdskraftomkostningerne forblev stabile, for så vidt angår celler, hvorimod produktiviteten steg for både celler og moduler.
However, first it should be noted that labour cost remained stable in case of cells, while productivity increased both for cells and modules.
Stigningen i sidstnævnte kan derfor forklares ved øget produktivitet.
Therefore, the increase of the latter can be explained by increased productivity.
Desuden har undersøgelsen vist, at arbejdskraftomkostningerne ikke udgør en væsentlig del af produktionsomkostningerne, som allerede nævnt i betragtning 203 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
Moreover the investigation has shown that labour costs do not represent a significant part of the cost of production, as already cited in recital (203) to the provisional Regulation.
På den baggrund bekræftes konklusionerne i betragtning 139-140 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
On this basis, the findings in recitals (139) and (140) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
En interesseret part hævdede, at stigningen i lagerbeholdningerne i den betragtede periode, udtrykt som en procentdel af den samlede produktion, ville være ubetydelig og derfor ikke kan betragtes som bevis for skade.
One interested party claimed that, the increase in stock levels over the period considered, when expressed as a percentage of the total production, would be insignificant and cannot therefore be seen as evidence for injury.
Denne part hævdede også, at fremlæggelsen af lagerværdier i betragtning 141 i forordningen om midlertidig told er misvisende, fordi lagerbeholdningerne blev udtrykt i kW snarere end i MW i modsætning til EU-erhvervsgrenens produktionsmængde.
This party argued further that the presentation of the stock values in recital (141) to the provisional Regulation is misleading as stocks were expressed in kW rather than MW unlike the Union industry's production volume.
I den forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at betragtning 143 i forordningen om midlertidig told ændres og affattes »Stigningen lagerbeholdningerne for samme vare i den betragtede periode er derfor ikke en relevant faktor for at fastslå EU-erhvervsgrenens væsentlige skade«.
In this respect, it is noted that recital (143) to the provisional Regulation shall be amended and should read ‘… the increase in stocks for the like product over the period considered is not a relevant factor in establishing if the Union industry suffered material injury’.
At der er tale om en skrivefejl fremgår af foregående punktum, hvori det konkluderes, at EU-producenterne vil have tendens til at have begrænsede lagre, da deres produktion baseres på ordrer.
The existence of a clerical error becomes clear from the preceding sentence which concludes that the Union producers tend to hold limited stocks as their production is based on orders.
Endelig blev det betragtet som irrelevant for afgørelsen om, hvorvidt EU-erhvervsgrenen har lidt væsentlig skade, om lagrene udtrykkes i kW eller i MW som sådan.
Finally, whether stocks are expressed in kW or in MW as such was considered irrelevant in the determination whether or not the Union industry suffered material injury.
Efter den endelige fremlæggelse af oplysninger hævdede flere parter, at lagrene burde være blevet fastlagt for EU-erhvervsgrenen som helhed, og at tal for kun ti EU-producenter ikke var repræsentative.
After final disclosure, several parties claimed that stocks should have been determined for the whole Union industry and that the figures of only ten Union producers were not representative.
Det præciseres, at lagrene blev betragtet som en mikroøkonomisk indikator og derfor burde fastlægges ud fra de oplysninger, der er indsamlet på virksomhedsniveau, i dette tilfælde ud fra stikprøven af EU-producenter, som anses for at være repræsentativ for EU-erhvervsgrenen som helhed.
It is clarified that the stocks were considered as a microeconomic indicator and should therefore be established on the basis of the information collected on a per company basis, in this case from the sample of Union producers considered as representative for the whole Union industry.
Da der ikke blev fremsat andre bemærkninger vedrørende lagerbeholdninger, bekræftes konklusionerne i betragtning 141-143 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In absence of any other comments concerning inventories, recitals (141) to (143) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Efter en bemærkning fra en interesseret part præciseres det, at erklæringen om, at likviditeten fulgte en »gradvis negativ tendens« mellem 2009 og UP, i betragtning 148 i forordningen om midlertidig told, var forkert, fordi likviditeten for moduler ganske vist var faldende mellem 2009 og 2010, men faktisk var stigende i 2011 og faldende igen i UP.
Following a comment by an interested party it is clarified that the statement that cash flows followed a ‘progressively negative trend’ between 2009 and the IP in recital (148) to the provisional Regulation was wrong as cash flows for modules, while decreasing between 2009 and 2010, were in fact increasing in 2011 and decreasing again in the IP.
Den samme part hævdede, at investeringstallene, jf. betragtning 149 i forordningen om midlertidig told, var for lave i forhold til EU-erhvervsgrenens produktionskapacitet, jf. betragtning 124 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
The same party alleged that investment figures as shown in recital (149) to the provisional Regulation were too low when compared to the production capacity of the Union industry as shown in recital (124) to the provisional Regulation.
Til støtte for sin påstand hævdede denne part at være bekendt med en EU-producents investering i kapacitetsforøgelser til meget højere omkostninger.
In support of this claim the party submitted to be aware of the investment made by one Union producer in capacity increases which was at a much higher cost.
Den berørte part konkluderede derfor, at EU-erhvervsgrenens fastlagte produktionskapacitet måtte have været overvurderet.
The party concerned concluded that therefore the established production capacity of the Union industry must have been overestimated.
Det skal bemærkes, at denne påstand ikke blev underbygget med beviser, især for så vidt angår den investering, som den pågældende EU-producent havde foretaget.
It is noted that this claim was not supported by any evidence, in particular as regards the investment made by the Union producer in question.
I modsætning hertil byggede investeringstallene i forordningen om midlertidig told på faktiske og efterprøvede oplysninger fra EU-producenterne i stikprøven.
In contrast, the investment figures in the provisional Regulation were based on actual and verified information from the sampled Union producers.
Det bør bemærkes, at denne påstand også byggede på en sammenligning mellem de stikprøveudtagne EU-producenters samlede investeringer og den samlede produktionskapacitet for EU-erhvervsgrenen som helhed, hvilket ikke kan betragtes som et passende sammenligningsgrundlag, da det ikke var de samlede investeringer for EU-erhvervsgrenen som helhed, der blev taget i betragtning.
It should be noted that this claim was also based on the comparison between the total investments of the sampled Union producers and the total production capacity of the whole Union industry, which cannot be considered an appropriate basis for comparison as not the total investments of the whole Union industry were taken into consideration.
Da der ikke blev fremsat andre bemærkninger vedrørende rentabilitet, likviditet, investeringer og investeringsafkast, evne til at tilvejebringe kapital, bekræftes konklusionerne i betragtning 144-152 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In absence of any other comments concerning profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments, ability to raise capital recitals (144) to (152) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
I lyset af ovenstående bekræftes konklusionerne i betragtning 153-158 i forordningen om midlertidig told, nemlig at EU-erhvervsgrenen led væsentlig skade, jf. grundforordningens artikel 3, stk. 5.
In the light of the foregoing the conclusions set out in recitals (153) to (158) to the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, are confirmed.
Efter den foreløbige fremlæggelse af oplysninger hævdede en række interesserede parter, at den analyse af årsagssammenhæng, der var blevet foretaget, ikke adskilte, sondrede imellem og kvantificerede de skadelige virkninger af dumpingimporten i forhold til virkningerne af andre kendte faktorer, som samtidig skader EU-erhvervsgrenen.
After the provisional disclosure, several interested parties claimed that the causation analysis conducted did not separate, distinguish and quantify the injurious effects of the dumped imports from the effects of other known factors which at the same time are injuring the Union industry.
Det blev endvidere hævdet, at Kommissionen har undladt at foretage en kollektiv analyse af disse andre kendte faktorer.
Moreover, it was claimed that the Commission failed to undertake a collective analysis of these other known factors.
Som reaktion på denne påstand bør det bemærkes, at Kommissionen i overensstemmelse med etableret praksis først undersøgte, om der er en årsagssammenhæng mellem dumpingimporten og den skade, EU-erhvervsgrenen har lidt, og dernæst undersøgte, om nogen af de andre kendte faktorer havde brudt årsagssammenhængen mellem den væsentlige skade, som EU-erhvervsgrenen har lidt, og dumpingimporten.
In reply to this claim it should be noted that the Commission, as per established practice, first examined whether there is a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry and secondly examined whether any of the other known factors had broken the causal link established between the material injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports.
I forbindelse med denne analyse blev virkningerne af andre kendte faktorer på EU-erhvervsgrenens situation vurderet, og der blev sondret mellem dem og dumpingimportens skadelige virkninger for at sikre, at skade forvoldt af sådanne faktorer ikke blev tilskrevet dumpingimporten.
In this analysis, the effects of the other known factors on the situation of the Union industry were assessed, distinguished and separated from the injurious effects of the dumped imports to ensure that injuries caused by these factors were not attributed to the dumped imports.
Det blev konstateret, at ingen af dem havde en betydelig indvirkning, hvis nogen overhovedet, på erhvervsgrenens situation, der kunne ændre ved det forhold, at den væsentlige skade må tilskrives dumpingimporten.
It was found that none of them had a significant impact, if any, on the situation of the industry that could reverse the fact that the material injury assessed must be attributed to the dumped imports.
Af disse grunde blev argumentet afvist.
On these grounds the argument was dismissed.
Efter den endelige fremlæggelse af oplysninger genfremsatte en række interesserede parter ovennævnte argumenter.
Following the final disclosure, several interested parties reiterated the above arguments.
Det blev i den forbindelse hævdet, at Kommissionen udtrykkeligt og med en velbegrundet og passende forklaring burde fastslå, at den skade, der skyldes andre faktorer end dumpingimporten, ikke bør tilskrives denne import.
In this regard it was claimed that the Commission should establish explicitly, through a reasoned and adequate explanation, that the injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports is not attributed to these imports.
Det blev i forbindelse med denne undersøgelse efter en gennemgang af alle kendsgerninger konkluderet, at dumpingimporten isoleret set har forvoldt EU-erhvervsgrenen væsentlig skade.
In this investigation, it was concluded, after examining all the facts, that the dumped imports taken in isolation have caused material injury to the Union industry.
I den forbindelse var det ikke muligt at opgøre virkningerne af andre kendte faktorer, og der blev derfor foretaget en kvalitativ vurdering, jf. betragtning 164-222 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In this respect, quantifying the effects of other known factors was not possible and therefore a qualitative assessment was carried out as set out in recitals (164) to (222) to the provisional Regulation.
Konklusionen var, at det blev bekræftet, at EU-erhvervsgrenens væsentlige skade skyldtes dumpingimporten.
In conclusion, it was confirmed that the material injury of the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports.
Indvirkningerne af andre faktorer på EU-erhvervsgrenens negative udvikling blev rent faktisk anset for at være begrænsede.
Indeed the effects of other factors on the Union's industry's negative development were considered to be limited.
Det bør bemærkes, at grundforordningens artikel 3, stk. 6 og 7, ikke indeholder nogen forpligtelse med hensyn til, hvordan den analyse, som bør gennemføres af, hvad skaden kan og ikke kan tilskrives, skal udformes.
It should be noted that, under Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, no obligation is imposed as to the form of the attribution and non attribution analyses which should be carried out.
Derimod fastsættes i grundforordningens artikel 3, stk. 6 og 7, at disse analyser skal foretages sådan, at det er muligt at udskille og adskille dumpingimportens skadevirkninger fra andre faktorers skadevirkninger.
On the contrary, under Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, those analyses must be carried out in such a way as to enable the injurious effects of the dumped imports to be separated and distinguished from the injurious effects caused by other factors.
Undersøgelsen afslørede ikke noget bevis på, at alle andre kendte faktorer, der kan have bidraget til den forvoldte skade, samlet eller isoleret set, brød årsagssammenhængen mellem dumpingimporten og den væsentlige skade, som EU-erhvervsgrenen har lidt.
The investigation did not reveal any evidence that all other known factors which may have contributed to the injury suffered, together or in isolation, broke the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
På baggrund af ovenstående analyse blev det bekræftet, at andre kendte faktorer ikke var af en sådan art, at de kunne omstøde konklusionen om, at den væsentlige skade, der er påført EU-erhvervsgrenen, må tilskrives dumpingimporten.
Given the above analysis, it was confirmed that other known factors were not such as to reverse the finding that the material injury suffered by the Union industry must be attributed to the dumped imports.
På denne baggrund blev disse argumenter afvist.
On these grounds these arguments were dismissed.
Efter den foreløbige fremlæggelse af oplysninger gjorde en række interesserede parter indsigelse mod konklusionen i betragtning 160 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
After the provisional disclosure some interested parties objected to the finding in recital (160) to the provisional Regulation.
De gentog, at markedsvilkårene for den undersøgte vare er forskellige i de enkelte medlemsstater, og at analysen af årsagssammenhæng derfor burde foretages for hver enkelt medlemsstat særskilt.
They reiterated that market conditions of the product under investigation differ per Member State and that therefore the causation analysis should be made at the level of each Member State separately.
Desuden hævdede disse parter, at de nationale støtteordninger, soleksponeringen og elpriserne (herunder regulerede afgifter) varierer medlemsstaterne imellem, og at der desuden er forskellige markedssegmenter på hvert marked (boliganlæg på under 40 kW, handels- og industrianlæg på mellem 40 kW og 1 MW og anlæg til forsyningsmarkedsegmentet på mellem 1 MW og 10 MW).
In addition, these parties argued that the national support schemes, the sun exposure and the electricity prices (including regulatory charges) differ per Member State and that furthermore there are different market segments in each market (the residential- installations of less than 40 kW, commercial and industrial- installations between 40 kW and 1MW and the utility market segment- installations between 1 MW and 10 MW).
På den baggrund hævdede de, at analysen af årsagssammenhæng bør foretages særskilt for hver medlemsstat på den ene side og for segmenter i stor skala og boligsegmenter på den anden side.
In view of this they claimed that the causation analysis should be conducted separately for each Member State on the one hand and for the large-scale and the residential segments on the other hand.
Efter den endelige fremlæggelse af oplysninger genfremsatte nogle interesserede parter deres påstand om, at analysen af årsagssammenhæng burde foretages for hver medlemsstat særskilt, uden dog at fremlægge yderligere argumenter eller nye beviser i den forbindelse.
After the final disclosure some interested parties reiterated their claim that the causation analysis should be conducted on a per Member State basis, without however providing further arguments or new evidence in this respect.
Undersøgelsen har vist, at salgs- og importpriser er ensartede i hele Unionen.
The investigation has shown that sales and import prices are similar across the Union.
Det kan derfor konkluderes, at der rent faktisk findes ét marked for den undersøgte vare.
It can therefore be considered that there is indeed one market for the product under investigation.
Undersøgelsen afslørede heller ikke, at producenterne i den enkelte medlemsstat eller region koncentrerede deres aktiviteter på dette specifikke marked, eller at dumpingimporten var koncentreret i en medlemsstat eller region.
The investigation did also not reveal that producers in each Member State or region concentrated their activities in this specific market or that the dumped imports concentrated in one Member State or region.
Desuden hævdede ingen af de interesserede parter, at dumping og skade bør analyseres for hver medlemsstat særskilt, hvilket imidlertid ville være en forudsætning for at foretage en særskilt analyse af årsagssammenhængen pr. medlemsstat.
Moreover, none of the interested parties argued that dumping and injury should be analysed on a per Member States basis which would however be a pre-condition for conducting a separate causation analysis per Member State.
Der blev i forbindelse med undersøgelsen ikke fundet beviser for, at dette ville have været en hensigtsmæssig tilgang, navnlig da der var ensartede priser i hele Unionen på den undersøgte vare på EU-plan.
The investigation did not reveal any evidence that this would have been an appropriate approach, in particular given that there were similar prices across the Union of the product under consideration at Union level.
Det skal desuden bemærkes, at soleksponeringen kan være forskellig i forskellige regioner i de samme medlemsstater, f.eks. har Sydfrankrig mere soleksponering end Nordfrankrig, eller at forskellige regioner i én medlemsstat kan have forskellige støtteordninger (f.eks. i Belgien), og at disse faktorers indvirkning på efterspørgslen kan variere fra den ene region til den anden inden for samme medlemsstat.
Moreover, it is noted that the sun exposure can be different in different regions of the same Member States, e.g. Southern France has more sun exposure than Northern France, or different regions within one Member State can have different support schemes (e.g. Belgium) and that therefore the impact of these factors on the demand may vary from one region to another within the same Member State.
De forskellige regelsæt i de enkelte medlemsstater og/eller regioner og de forskellige betingelser såsom soleksponering berettiger imidlertid ikke en særskilt analyse af årsagssammenhængen og dermed en særskilt skades- og dumpinganalyse.
However, the differences in the regulatory framework of each Member State and/or region and the differences in conditions such as sun exposure do not warrant a separate causation analysis, and thus separate injury and dumping analysis.
Disse påstande måtte derfor afvises.
Therefore, these arguments had to be rejected.
En anden interesseret part fremførte, at selv om andre faktorer er relevante, er de nationale støtteordninger fortsat den vigtigste faktor til at fastslå efterspørgslen.
Another interested party argued that while other factors are relevant, the national support schemes remain the main factor in determining the demand.
Denne part fremlagde dog ikke dokumentation for ovennævnte påstande.
This party however did not provide any supporting evidence for the above allegations.
Under alle omstændigheder bekræfter ovennævnte argumenter, at situationen med hensyn til nationale støtteordninger samt netparitet i et vist omfang kan være forskellig medlemsstaterne imellem.
In any event the above arguments confirm that the situation with regard to national support schemes as well as grid parity may be different to a certain extent between Member States.
Ingen af de indsendte oplysninger var imidlertid af en sådan art, at de kan godtgøre, at en særskilt analyse for hver medlemsstat ville være berettiget.
However, none of the information submitted was of such a nature as to show that an analysis separately per Member State would be warranted.
Efter den endelige fremlæggelse af oplysninger genfremsatte den samme interesserede part sin påstand og fremlagde en række oplysninger, som angiveligt viste de forskellige markedsvilkår pr. medlemsstat og pr. segment.
Following the final disclosure, the same interested party reiterated the claim and provided some information allegedly showing the different market conditions per Member State and per segment.
De fremlagte oplysninger kunne dog ikke betragtes som afgørende, da de bestod af en powerpoint-præsentation uden dokumentation og derfor ikke viste, at en særskilt analyse for hver medlemsstat ville være berettiget.
However, the information submitted could not be considered as conclusive as it consisted of a power point presentation without any supporting evidence, and therefore, did not show that an analysis separately per Member State would be warranted.
Denne parts påstand blev derfor afvist.
The claim of this party was therefore rejected.
På dette grundlag blev det konkluderet, at en analyse af årsagssammenhængen pr. medlemsstat og/eller region og pr. segment ikke ville svare til markedsrealiteterne.
On this basis, it was concluded that an analysis of the causation per Member State and/or region and per segment would not correspond to market reality.
Da der ikke blev fremsat andre bemærkninger i denne henseende, bekræftes konklusionerne i betragtning 159-160 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In absence of any other comment in this regard the findings made in recitals (159) and (160) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.