natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Indholdet skal angives som fastsat i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 1999/45/EF [12] for kemikalier og på hensigtsmæssig vis for mikroorganismer (antallet af aktive enheder pr. volumen- eller vægtenhed eller på enhver anden måde, der er relevant for mikroorganismen).iii) Hjælpestoffer skal, hvor det er muligt, identificeres ved deres internationale kemiske identifikation (International Chemical Identification) som anført i bilag VI til forordning (EF) nr. 1272/2008 eller, hvis det ikke er medtaget i forordningen, i henhold til både IUPAC- og CA-nomenklatur.
The contents shall be expressed in terms as provided for in Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [12] for chemicals and appropriate terms for micro-organisms (number of active units per volume or weight or any other manner that is relevant to the micro-organism).(iii) Co-formulants must where possible, be identified either by their International Chemical Identification as given in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No1272/2008, or, if not included in that Regulation, in accordance with both IUPAC and CA nomenclature.
Identifikation af kontaminerende mikroorganismer og andre bestanddele hidrørende fra fremstillingsprocessen.
Identification of contaminating micro-organisms and other components derived from production process. Contaminating micro-organisms must be identified as outlined in point 1.3 of Part B of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 283/2013.
Rådets gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 285/2013
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 285/2013
om afslutning af den delvist genoptagne antidumpingundersøgelse vedrørende importen af ethanolamin med oprindelse i Amerikas Forenede Stater og om afslutning af udløbsundersøgelsen i henhold til artikel 11, stk. 2, og den delvise interimsundersøgelse i henhold til artikel 11, stk. 3, i forordning (EF) nr. 1225/2009
terminating the partial reopening of anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ethanolamines originating in the United States of America and terminating the expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) and the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1225/2009 af 30. november 2009 om beskyttelse mod dumpingimport fra lande, der ikke er medlemmer af Det Europæiske Fællesskab [1] (»grundforordningen«), særlig artikel 9, stk. 2, og artikel 11, stk. 2 og 3,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(2) and Article 11(2) and (3) thereof,
Den 23. oktober 2006 og efter den anden udløbsundersøgelse blev disse foranstaltninger forlænget med fem år ved Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1583/2006 [4] (»den anden udløbsundersøgelsesforordning«).
On 23 October 2006, following the second expiry review investigation, the measures were extended for five more years by Council Regulation (EC) No 1583/2006 [4] (the ‘second expiry review Regulation’).
Den 19. januar 2010 og efter en tredje udløbsundersøgelse blev antidumpingtolden på importen af ethanolamin med oprindelse i USA forlænget i endnu to år ved Rådets gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 54/2010 [5] (»den tredje udløbsundersøgelsesforordning«).
On 19 January 2010 and following a third expiry review investigation, the anti-dumping duties on imports of ethanolamines originating in the USA were imposed for two more years by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010 [5] (the ‘third expiry review Regulation’).
Den 9. april 2010 anmodede Dow Chemical Company (»Dow Chemical«) om delvis annullation af gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 54/2010.
On 9 April 2010, The Dow Chemical Company (‘Dow Chemical’) filed an application for partial annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2010.
Den 12. marts 2011 offentliggjorde Europa-Kommissionen (»Kommissionen«) en meddelelse om det forestående udløb af foranstaltningerne i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende [6].
On 12 March 2011, the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) published a Notice of impending expiry in the Official Journal [6].
Efter en anmodning indgivet af BASF AG, Ineos Europe AG og Sasol Germany GmbH (»EU-erhvervsgrenen«) indledte Kommissionen en udløbsundersøgelse den 21. januar 2012 (»den fjerde udløbsundersøgelse«) [7].
Following a request lodged by BASF AG, Ineos Europe AG, and Sasol Germany GmbH (the ‘Union industry’), the Commission initiated an expiry review on 21 January 2012 (the ‘fourth expiry review’) [7].
En delvis interimsundersøgelse, der er begrænset til dumping for så vidt angår Dow Chemical, blev indledt den 11. april 2012 [8].
A partial interim review limited to dumping as regards Dow Chemical was initiated on 11 April 2012 [8].
Som følge af en ansøgning indgivet den 9. april 2010 [9] annullerede Retten ved sin dom af 8. maj 2012 i sag T-158/10 [10] (»dommen«) den tredje udløbsundersøgelsesforordning for så vidt angår Dow Chemical.
Following an application lodged [9] on 9 April 2010, the General Court annulled by its judgment of 8 May 2012 in Case T-158/10 [10] (the ‘Judgment’), the third expiry review Regulation in so far as it concerns Dow Chemical.
Efter dommen blev der offentliggjort en meddelelse [11] om delvis genoptagelse af den tredje antidumpingundersøgelse vedrørende importen af ethanolamin med oprindelse i USA.
Following the Judgment, a notice [11] was published concerning the partial reopening of the third expiry review investigation concerning imports of ethanolamines originating in the USA.
Genoptagelsen af undersøgelsen var begrænset til at omfatte gennemførelsen af dommen for så vidt angår fastsættelse af sandsynligheden for fortsat eller fornyet dumping i den fornyede undersøgelsesperiode (»NUP«), herunder den ledige produktionskapacitet for ethanolamin i USA.
The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the Judgment as far as the determination of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping during the review investigation period (the ‘RIP’), including the spare production capacity of ethanolamines in the USA, is concerned.
I meddelelsen blev parterne underrettet om, at importen til Unionen af ethanolamin fremstillet af Dow Chemical i lyset af dommen ikke længere er pålagt den antidumpingtold, der blev indført ved den tredje udløbsundersøgelsesforordning, og at der bør indrømmes godtgørelse eller fritagelse for den endelige antidumpingtold, der er betalt i henhold til den forordning på importen af ethanolamin, i overensstemmelse med den gældende toldforordning.
In that notice, parties were informed that, in view of the Judgment, imports into the European Union of ethanolamines manufactured by Dow Chemical are no longer subject to the anti-dumping duties imposed by the third expiry review Regulation and that definitive anti-dumping duties paid pursuant to that Regulation on imports of ethanolamines should be repaid or remitted in accordance with the applicable customs regulation.
Kommissionen underrettede officielt de eksporterende producenter, importører og brugere, som den vidste var berørt af sagen, samt EU-erhvervsgrenen om den delvise genoptagelse af undersøgelsen.
The Commission officially advised the exporting producers, the importers and users known to be concerned and the Union industry of the partial reopening of the investigation.
Alle parter, som anmodede om det inden for denne frist, og som påviste, at der var særlige grunde til, at de burde høres, fik lejlighed til at blive hørt.
All parties who so requested within that time limit, and who demonstrated that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted the opportunity to be heard.
Der blev modtaget bemærkninger fra to eksporterende producenter, tre EU-producenter og en bruger af den pågældende vare.
Representations were received from two exporting producers, three Union producers and a user of the product concerned.
Det erindres, at årsagen til annullering af den anfægtede forordning var Rettens konstatering af, at den tredje udløbsundersøgelsesforordning indeholdt to fejl:
It is recalled that the reason for the annulment of the contested Regulation was the General Court’s finding that the third expiry review Regulation contained two errors of assessment:
EU-erhvervsgrenen erkendte, at dommen satte spørgsmålstegn ved de metoder, der anvendes af institutionerne til at kvantificere den uudnyttede produktionskapacitet i USA.
The Union industry acknowledged that the Judgment questioned the methodologies employed by the Institutions to quantify the spare capacity production in the USA.
Imidlertid fastholdt EU-erhvervsgrenen, at det er overdrevent forsigtigt at vurdere den faktiske produktionskapacitet til 90 % af den nominelle kapacitet, som institutionerne har gjort, da det er almindelig og accepteret praksis, at virksomhedernes produktion overstiger den nominelle kapacitet.
However, the Union industry maintained its position that basing the actual production capacity on 90 % of the nameplate capacity, as the institutions had done, is overly conservative as it is common and accepted for companies to exceed the nameplate capacity.
På basis af offentliggjorte data, der angiveligt kommer fra PCI Xylenes & Polyesters (»PCI«) konkluderede de, at der var en uudnyttet kapacitet i 2008 og fremover.
Basing themselves on published market data allegedly sourced from PCI Xylenes & Polyesters (‘PCI’), they concluded that there was indeed spare capacity in 2008 and onwards.
Desuden fandt EU-erhvervsgrenen ikke, at markedsvilkårene havde ændret sig væsentligt siden offentliggørelsen af den tredje udløbsundersøgelsesforordning, og den havde fundet adskillige grunde til at konkludere, at der er sandsynlighed for fornyet dumping.
Moreover, the Union industry considered that market conditions had not changed materially since the publication of the third expiry review Regulation and found several reasons to conclude that there is a likelihood of a recurrence of dumping. In this respect, it invoked the continuation of the US production capacity over domestic demand since the RIP;
I denne forbindelse henviste EU-erhvervsgrenen til den amerikanske produktionskapacitet, som fortsat oversteg den indenlandske efterspørgsel efter NUP, de væsentlige kapacitetsudvidelser i tredjelande efter 2009, som angiveligt har gjort amerikanske eksportmarkeder mere og mere selvforsynende, de antidumpingforanstaltninger, der er indført, eller som sandsynligvis snart vil blive indført i tredjelande, forhøjelsen af produktionskapaciteten for MEG (monoethylenglykol) fra 2009, og forslaget i USA om at opføre nogle af ethanolaminerne på listen over produkter med potentielt skadelige virkninger for sundheden, der i sidste ende kunne have en indvirkning på det indenlandske forbrug.
the material capacity expansions in third countries after 2009 which would have made US export markets increasingly self-sufficient; the existence of anti-dumping measures imposed or likely to be imposed soon in third countries; the increase of MEG (monoethylene glycol) capacity production from 2009 onwards; and the proposal in the USA to include some of the ethanolamines in the list of products with potential harmful effects to health which could ultimately have an impact in domestic consumption.
Dow Chemical udtrykte tvivl om lovligheden af genåbningen af undersøgelsen med henvisning til, at der ikke findes nogen specifik bestemmelse i grundforordningen, der giver mulighed for dette.
Dow Chemical expressed its doubts about the legality of the re-opening of the investigation, arguing that there is no specific provision in the basic Regulation allowing for that.
Denne eksporterende producent fremførte også, at genåbningen ville være i strid med den foreskrevne frist på 15 måneder for afslutning af fornyede undersøgelser, der er fastsat i grundforordningens artikel 11, stk. 5.
This exporting producer also alleged that the re-opening would be in conflict with the 15-month statutory deadline set out in Article 11(5) of the basic Regulation for the completion of review investigations.
Dow Chemical hævdede endvidere, at dommen ikke kræver gennemførelsesforanstaltninger, og at Kommissionen ikke lovligt kan afhjælpe de relevante aspekter i den anfægtede forordning, da hver af de væsentlige grunde, der førte til vedtagelsen af forordningen, enten blev annulleret af Retten eller bestrides.
Dow Chemical further claimed that the Judgment would not require any implementing measure and that the Commission could not legally remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation since each of the substantive grounds that led to the adoption of the Regulation was either annulled by the General Court or contested.
Dow Chemical fandt derfor, at disse aspekter af den tredje udløbsundersøgelsesforordning udelukkende kan afhjælpes gennem ophævelse af de gældende foranstaltninger.
Dow Chemical therefore considered that the only legal way to remedy those aspects of the third expiry review Regulation would be to repeal the existing measures.
Desuden understregede Stepan, at institutionerne, såfremt begrebet fortsat dumping fortolkes for hvert enkelt selskab, burde have konkluderet, at der ikke var tale om fortsat dumping for så vidt angår Dow Chemical, idet virksomheden ifølge Domstolen tegnede sig for mere end 85 % af den samlede import fra USA, og at de derfor burde have undersøgt, om der var sandsynlighed for fornyet dumping fra Dow Chemical.
Moreover, Stepan stressed that, would the notion of continuation of dumping be interpreted on an individual company basis, the institutions should have concluded that there was no continuation of dumping for Dow Chemical as, according to the Court, the company represented more than 85 % of all imports from the USA, and therefore they should have considered whether dumping by Dow Chemical was likely to recur.
For de øvrige eksporterende virksomheder blev det fastslået, at der var tale om dumping, og at institutionerne derfor burde have undersøgt, om der var sandsynlighed for fortsat dumping.
For the other exporting companies, it was established that there had been dumping and therefore the institutions should have established whether dumping was likely to continue.
Analysen vedrørende sandsynligheden for fortsat dumping byggede ifølge Stepan hovedsageligt på, at der i USA fandtes en landsdækkende ledig kapacitet på 60000 tons.
The likelihood of continuation of dumping analysis was mainly based, according to Stepan, on a country–wide spare capacity in the USA of 60000 tonnes.
I betragtning af Rettens konstatering af, at institutionerne begik en fejl ved vurderingen af ledig kapacitet i USA, og i betragtning af, at den ledige kapacitet ifølge Stepan lå tættere på højst 8000 tons, var det ikke længere muligt at fastholde, at der var sandsynlighed for fortsat dumping fra de øvrige eksporterende selskabers side.
Given the Court’s finding that the institutions erred in assessing the spare capacity in the USA and given that, according to Stepan, the spare capacity was closer to at the most 8000 tonnes, it was no longer possible to sustain that the other exporting companies were likely to continue dumping.
Institutionerne skulle have analyseret og vurderet sandsynligheden for fornyet dumping.
The institutions would have needed to also analyse and establish the likelihood of recurrence of dumping.
Huntsman baserede også sin analyse på den antagelse, at dommen bekræftede, at der ikke var ledig kapacitet i USA i NUP, og at det derfor ikke var sandsynligt, at en øget mængde ethanolamin ville blive eksporteret til Unionen på dette grundlag.
Hunstman also based its analysis on the assumption that the Judgment confirmed that there was no spare capacity in the USA during the RIP and that it was therefore unlikely that an increased amount of ethanolamines would be exported into the Union on that basis.
De hævdede derfor, at det ikke var nødvendigt at undersøge andre faktorer som f.eks. virkningerne af handelsbeskyttende foranstaltninger i tredjelande, den mulige udvikling af efterspørgslen i USA og på andre markeder eller trykket på priserne.
They claimed that it was therefore also not necessary to analyse other factors such as the impact of trade defence measures in third countries, the possible development of demand in the USA and in other markets or the downward pressure of prices.
Desuden hævdede Huntsman, at det i lyset af Rettens konstatering af, at der ikke var ledig kapacitet i USA i NUP, ikke længere var muligt for Kommissionen på ny at analysere sandsynligheden for fornyet dumping og skade og i forbindelse med denne delvise genoptagelse af undersøgelsen at konkludere, at der var sandsynlighed for fornyet skadevoldende dumping.
Moreover, Huntsman argued that, in the light of the Court’s finding of the lack of spare capacity in the USA during the RIP, it was no longer possible for the Commission to re-analyse the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and of injury and to conclude in the framework of this partial re-opening that there was a likelihood of recurrence of injurious dumping.
Hvis Kommissionen alligevel var i stand til på ny at se på sandsynligheden for fornyet dumping og skade, mente Huntsman ikke, at der ville være nogen dokumentation for, at kravene i grundforordningens artikel 11, stk. 2, er opfyldt.
Yet, were the Commission able to revisit the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and of injury, Huntsman considered that there would be no evidence to demonstrate that the requirements of Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation would be met.
For så vidt angår sandsynligheden for fornyet dumping, var Huntsman af den opfattelse, at der på grundlag af den konstatering, at der i løbet af NUP ikke var nogen dumping for Dow Chemical, som er langt den største eksportør, ikke ville være sandsynlighed for fornyet dumping på landsdækkende plan efter NUP, hvis antidumpingtolden blev trukket tilbage.
As regards the likelihood of recurrence of dumping, Huntsman opined that, on the basis of the finding that during the RIP there was no dumping for Dow Chemical, the biggest exporter by far, there was no likelihood of recurrence of dumping on a country-wide basis after the RIP if the anti-dumping duties would be withdrawn.
Ifølge Huntsman ville fornyet skade være usandsynlig i betragtning af mangelen på ledig produktionskapacitet, hvilket resulterer i få muligheder for at øge eksporten til Unionen i NUP.
According to Huntsman, the recurrence of injury would be unlikely in view of the absence of unused production capacity which results in very little leeway for increasing exports to the Union after the RIP.
Huntsman fastholdt, at denne konklusion underbygges af den kendsgerning, at den forventede vækst i forbruget i USA ifølge SRI-rapporten [12] ikke afviger væsentligt fra væksten på andre markeder.
Huntsman maintained that such conclusion is corroborated by the fact that, according to the SRI report [12], the expected growth of consumption in the USA does not differ significantly from that of the other markets.
Huntsman fremførte, at hvis EU-erhvervsgrenen havde lidt nogen skade, burde denne tilskrives virkningerne af den økonomiske krise og ikke importen fra USA.
Huntsman raised that if the Union industry would have suffered from any injury, this would have been attributed to the effects of the economic crisis and not to imports from the USA.
En forværring af de negative virkninger af krisen gennem import var ikke grundlag for en konklusion om sandsynlighed for fornyet skade som følge af nævnte import.
The mere exacerbation of the negative impact of the crisis through imports could not permit a finding of a likely recurrence of injury caused by the mentioned imports.
Med hensyn til den påståede ulovlighed af genåbningen (betragtning 17-18) skal det påpeges, at Retten i sag C-458/98 P (»IPS-dommen«) anerkendte, at i tilfælde, hvor en procedure omfatter flere administrative faser, indebærer annullering af en af disse faser ikke nødvendigvis annullering af hele proceduren.
In respect of the alleged illegality of the reopening (recitals 17-18), it is recalled that in case C-458/98 P (the ‘IPS judgment’), the Court of Justice recognised that in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding.
Følgelig indebærer annulleringen af ændringsforordningen, for så vidt angår en af parterne, ikke annullering af hele den procedure, der gik forud for vedtagelsen af nævnte forordning [13].
Consequently, the annulment of the amending Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation [13].
I henhold til artikel 266 i traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde (TEUF) er EU-institutionerne desuden forpligtet til at efterkomme dommen.
Moreover, according to Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union institutions are required to comply with the judgment.
I lyset af ovenstående må påstanden om, at der ikke er noget retsgrundlag for den delvise genoptagelse af en fornyet undersøgelse anses for at være ubegrundet.
In the light of the above, the claim that there is no legal basis for the partial reopening of a review investigation was found to be unwarranted.
Påstanden om, at indførelsen af frister for afslutning af antidumpingundersøgelser forhindrer Kommissionen i at udvide undersøgelsen ud over den lovbestemte frist på 15 måneder (betragtning 17 ovenfor) blev ligeledes anset for at være ubegrundet.
The claim that the introduction of deadlines to conclude anti-dumping investigations prevents the Commission from extending the investigation beyond the 15-months statutory limit (recital 17 above) was also found to be unwarranted.
Det konkluderes, at denne frist er irrelevant for gennemførelsen af en dom afsagt af Domstolen.
It is considered that this deadline is not relevant for the implementation of a Court judgment.
Konsekvensen af at acceptere en sådan påstand ville gøre det umuligt for institutionerne at tage højde for Rettens afgørelser (som krævet i artikel 266 i TEUF).
The consequence of accepting such claim would make it impossible for the institutions to take account of the General Court’s findings (as Article 266 TFEU requires).
Rettens dom vil altid være afsagt på et tidspunkt, hvor fristen for undersøgelsen er udløbet.
Indeed, the General Court’s judgment will always be handed down at a time when the deadline for the investigation has expired.
Det skal desuden bemærkes, at enhver anden fortolkning f.eks. ville indebære, at en retssag vundet af en part ville være uden praktisk betydning for den pågældende part, hvis udløbet af fristen for at afslutte den oprindelige undersøgelse udelukker gennemførelse af en dom afsagt af Retten.
Furthermore, it is noted that any other interpretation would mean that, for example, a successful legal action brought by one party would be without any practical effect for that party if the expiry of the time limit to conclude the original investigation would not permit the implementation of a judgment of the General Court.
Hvad angår påstanden om, at Kommissionen ikke lovligt ville kunne afhjælpe de fejl, der er konstateret indeholdt i den anfægtede forordning, og at det eneste middel til at gennemføre dommen er at ophæve de gældende foranstaltninger (betragtning 18 ovenfor), skal følgende bemærkes.
Concerning the claim that the Commission would not be able to legally remedy the errors of assessment found to be contained in the contested Regulation and that the only mean to implement the judgment is to repeal the existing measures (recital 18 above), the following should be noted.
Domstolen har allerede fastslået, at annullation af en forordning også indebærer mulighed for at afhjælpe de aspekter af ændringsforordningen, som førte til dens annullation, og lade de dele, som ikke anfægtes, og som ikke berøres af dommen, stå uændrede — som fastslået i IPS-dommen.
The Court has already established that the annulment of a Regulation also implies the possibility of remedying the aspects of the amending Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the judgment — as was held in the IPS judgment.