natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dette hang hovedsagelig sammen med betydelige forøgelser af kapaciteten.
This was mainly linked to the significant additions of capacity.
I den samme periode foretog EU-erhvervsgrenen dog en nedskæring på 78 % i sine investeringer for celler; de foretagne investeringer hang navnlig sammen med FoU og havde til formål at forbedre og vedligeholde produktionsteknologien og -processen for at øge effektiviteten.
However, during the same period, the Union industry decreased its investments by 78 % for cells; the investments made were mainly linked to R&D as well as improving and maintaining production technology and process in order to improve efficiency.
Da EU-erhvervsgrenen ikke kunne foretage supplerende investeringer for celler i den betragtede periode, var investeringsniveauet i UP forholdsvis lavt.
Since the Union industry could not afford making additional investments for cells during the period considered, the level of investments during the IP was rather low.
For celler faldt investeringsafkastet betydeligt i 2011 og nåede negative niveauer, selv om der var en stigning i 2009 og 2010.
For cells, while there was an increase in 2009 and 2010, ROI decreased significantly in 2011 reaching negative levels.
Alt i alt faldt det i den betragtede periode til -17 % i UP for celler, dvs. et faldt på 1 %, men var dog stadig på et betydeligt negativt niveau, nemlig -19 %.
Overall, it decreased during the period considered reaching -17 % in the IP for cells, i.e. by 1 %, however still remaining at significant negative levels, i.e. -19 %.
En interesseret part påstod, at investeringstallene ovenfor var for lave i forhold til EU-erhvervsgrenens produktionskapacitet, jf. betragtning 538.
One interested party alleged that investment figures as shown above were too low when compared to the production capacity of the Union industry as shown in recital (538).
Til støtte for sin påstand hævede parten at være bekendt med en EU-producents investeringer i kapacitetsforøgelser, som havde 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 pågældende part konkluderede derfor, at den fastlagte produktionskapacitet for EU-erhvervsgrenen måtte være 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 hvad angår den investering, som den pågældende EU-producent skulle have 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.
Derimod var investeringstallene i forordningen om midlertidig antidumpingtold baseret på faktiske og verificerede oplysninger fra EU-producenterne i stikprøven.
In contrast, the investment figures in the provisional anti-dumping Regulation were based on actual and verified information from the sampled Union producers.
Det bør bemærkes, at denne påstand også var baseret på en sammenligning mellem de stikprøveudvalgte EU-producenters samlede investeringer og den samlede produktionskapacitet for hele EU-erhvervsgrenen, som ikke kan anses for at være et passende sammenligningsgrundlag, da man ikke tog de samlede investeringer for hele EU-erhvervsgrenen 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 was taken into consideration.
Analysen af EU-erhvervsgrenens situation viste en tydelig nedadgående tendens for alle de vigtigste skadesindikatorer.
The analysis of the situation of the Union industry showed a clear downward trend of the main injury indicators.
Selv om salgsmængderne steg, faldt EU-erhvervsgrenens markedsandel i UP på grund af en højere stigning i forbruget i den betragtede periode.
Although the volume of sales increased, the market share of the Union industry shrank in the IP due to the higher increase of the consumption during the period considered.
Samtidig faldt importpriserne konstant og underbød markant EU-erhvervsgrenens gennemsnitlige priser på EU-markedet.
At the same time, import prices continuously decreased, undercutting significantly the Union industry's average price on the Union market.
Det blev påstået, at udviklingen i visse skadesindikatorer, nemlig produktionsmængde, produktionskapacitet, salg og beskæftigelse og endda rentabiliteten hos visse producenter i stikprøven, var opadgående og ikke udviste væsentlig skade.
It was claimed that the evolution of certain injury indicators, namely production volume, production capacity, sales and employment but even in some sampled producers' profitability, were increasing and would not show material injury.
Ud fra ovenstående bekræftede undersøgelsen navnlig, at salgspriserne ligger under produktionsomkostningerne og dermed har en negativ virkning på EU-erhvervsgrenens rentabilitet og nåede negative niveauer i UP.
In view of the above, the investigation confirmed in particular the fact that the sales prices are below the production costs, thus having a negative effect on the Union industry's profitability, reaching negative levels during the IP.
Det konkluderes, at EU-erhvervsgrenens tab sandsynligvis vil føre til permanent indstilling af enhver EU-produktion af en vis størrelse af samme vare, hvis den subsidierede import fortsat kommer ind på EU-markedet.
It is concluded that should subsidised imports continue to enter the Union market, the losses of the Union industry would be likely to lead to the permanent discontinuation of any sizeable Union production of the like product.
På baggrund af ovenstående konkluderes det foreløbigt, at EU-erhvervsgrenen har lidt væsentlig skade, jf. grundforordningens artikel 8, stk. 4.
In the light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 8(4) of the basic Regulation.
I overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 8, stk. 5 og 6, blev det undersøgt, om den betydelige skade, som EU-erhvervsgrenen havde lidt, skyldtes den subsidierede import fra det pågældende land.
In accordance with Article 8(5) and (6) of the basic Regulation it was examined whether the material injury suffered by the Union industry was caused by the subsidised imports from the country concerned.
Andre kendte faktorer end den subsidierede import, som kan have forvoldt EU-erhvervsgrenen skade, blev også undersøgt for at sikre, at den skade, der kan tilskrives disse faktorer, ikke blev tillagt den subsidierede import.
Furthermore, known factors other than subsidised imports, which might have injured the Union industry, were examined to ensure that any injury caused by those factors was not attributed to subsidised imports.
Visse interesserede parter påstod, at markedsvilkårene for den pågældende vare er forskellige i de enkelte medlemsstater, og at analysen af årsagssammenhæng derfor burde foretages for hver enkelt medlemsstat separat.
Some interested parties claimed that market conditions of the product concerned differ per Member State and that therefore the causality analysis should be made at the level of each Member State separately.
Nationale støtteordninger afgør i et vist omfang størrelsen af medlemsstaternes markeder.
National support schemes determine to a certain extent the size of the Member States' markets.
Afhængigt af den geografiske placering (solindstråling) og elektricitetsprisen på et bestemt sted har solpaneler tilsyneladende nået eller været tæt på netparitet (dvs., når omkostningerne til generation af solenergi svarer til omkostningerne ved generation af konventionel energi), hvilket betyder, at visse investeringer kan foretages uafhængigt af støtteordningerne.
Depending on geographical location (sun exposure) and the electricity price at a given location, solar panels appear to have reached, or were at least close to, grid parity (i.e. when the cost to produce solar energy equals the cost to produce conventional energy), which means that certain investments take place independently of support schemes.
Flere interesserede parter hævdede, at analysen af årsagssammenhæng ikke adskilte, identificerede og kvantificerede de skadelige virkninger af den subsidierede import fra virkningerne af andre kendte faktorer, som samtidig skader EU-erhvervsgrenen.
Several interested parties claimed that the causation analysis conducted did not separate, distinguish and quantify the injurious effects of the subsidised imports from the effects of other known factors which at the same time are injuring the Union industry.
Det blev endvidere påstået, at Kommissionen har undladt at foretage en samlet 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 svar på denne påstand bør det bemærkes, at Kommissionen i overensstemmelse med etableret praksis, først undersøgte, om der er en årsagssammenhæng mellem den subsidierede import og EU-erhvervsgrenens skade, og dernæst undersøgte, om andre kendte faktorer havde brudt årsagssammenhængen mellem den væsentlige skade, som EU-erhvervsgrenen har lidt, og den subsidierede import.
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 subsidised 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 subsidised imports.
I denne analyse vurderedes virkningerne af andre kendte faktorer for situationen i EU-erhvervsgrenen adskilt fra de skadelige virkninger af den subsidierede import, for at sikre, at skade forvoldt af sådanne faktorer ikke blev tilskrevet den subsidierede import.
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 subsidised imports to ensure that injuries caused by these factors were not attributed to the subsidized imports.
Det blev konstateret, at ingen af dem havde en betydelig indvirkning, om nogen, på erhvervsgrenens situation, der kunne ændre det forhold, at den væsentlige skade må tilskrives den subsidierede import.
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 subsidised imports.
Argumentet blev derfor afvist.
On these grounds the argument was dismissed.
Efter den endelige fremlæggelse af oplysninger gentog en række interesserede parter ovennævnte påstande.
Following the final disclosure, several interested parties reiterated the above arguments.
Det blev i den forbindelse påstået, at Kommissionen udtrykkeligt og med en begrundet og hensigtsmæssig forklaring burde fastslå, at den skade, der skyldtes andre faktorer end den subsidierede import, ikke blev tilskrevet 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 subsidised imports is not attributed to these imports.
Efter en undersøgelse af alle faktiske oplysninger blev det i denne undersøgelse konkluderet, at den subsidierede import isoleret set har forvoldt EU-erhvervsgrenen væsentlig skade.
In this investigation, it was concluded, after examining all the facts, that the subsidised imports taken in isolation have caused material injury to the Union industry.
I denne forbindelse var det ikke muligt at opgøre de kvantitative virkninger af andre kendte faktorer, og der blev derfor foretaget en kvalitativ vurdering som anført i betragtning 164-222 i forordningen om midlertidig antidumpingtold.
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 anti-dumping Regulation.
Som konklusion bekræftes det, at EU-erhvervsgrenens væsentlige skade skyldtes den subsidierede import.
In conclusion, it was confirmed that the material injury of the Union industry was caused by the subsidised imports.
Virkningerne af andre faktorer for EU-erhvervsgrenens negative udvikling blev nemlig 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 skal bemærkes, at grundforordningens artikel 8, stk. 5 og 6, ikke indeholder nogen forpligtelse med hensyn til formen for gennemførelsen af analysen af, hvad skaden kan og ikke kan tilskrives.
It should be noted that, under Article 8(5) and (6) of the basic Regulation, no obligation is imposed as to the form of the attribution and non-attribution analyses which should be carried out.
Denne analyse skal derimod, jf. grundforordningens artikel 8, stk. 5 og 6, gennemføres med henblik på at udskille de skadevoldende virkninger af den subsidierede import og adskille dem fra de skadevoldende virkninger af andre kendte faktorer.
On the contrary, under Article 8(5) and (6) of the basic Regulation, those analyses must be carried out in such a way as to enable the injurious effects of the subsidised imports to be separated and distinguished from the injurious effects caused by other factors.
Undersøgelsen fandt ikke noget bevis på, at alle andre kendte faktorer, der kan have bidraget til den forvoldte skade, sammen eller isoleret, brød årsagssammenhængen mellem den subsidierede import 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 subsidised 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 den subsidierede import.
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 subsidised imports.
Disse påstande blev derfor afvist.
On these grounds these arguments were dismissed.
Visse interesserede parter hævdede, at de nationale støtteordninger, soleksponering og elpriserne (herunder regulerede afgifter) er forskellige alt efter medlemsstat, og at der desuden er forskellige markedssegmenter på hvert marked (boliganlæg på mindre end 40 kW, handels- og industrianlæg mellem 40 kW og 1 MW og anlæg i forsyningsmarkedssegmentet mellem 1 MW og 10 MW).
Some interested parties claimed 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 denne baggrund hævdede de, at analysen af årsagssammenhængen bør foretages særskilt for hver medlemsstat på den ene side og for segmenterne for store anlæg og boliganlæg 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 gentog nogle af de interesserede parter deres påstand om, at analysen af årsagssammenhængen bør foretages for hver medlemsstat, uden dog at fremlægge yderligere argumenter eller nye beviser i denne 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 importpriserne er mere eller mindre de samme i hele Unionen.
The investigation has shown that sales and import prices are similar across the Union.
Det kan derfor konkluderes, at der findes ét marked for den undersøgte vare.
It can therefore be considered that there is indeed one market for the product under investigation.
Undersøgelsen påviste heller ikke, at producenterne i en bestemt medlemsstat eller region koncentrerede deres aktiviteter om det specifikke marked, eller at den subsidierede import er 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 subsidised imports concentrated in one Member State or region.
Desuden fremførte ingen af de interesserede parter, at subsidiering og skade bør analyseres for hver medlemsstat, hvilket imidlertid ville være en forudsætning for at foretage en særskilt analyse af årsagssammenhængen pr. medlemsstat.
Moreover, none of the interested parties argued that subsidization 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 heller ikke fundet beviser for, at dette ville have været en hensigtsmæssig metode, navnlig da priserne for den pågældende vare var næsten ens i hele EU.
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 det sydlige Frankrig mere soleksponering end det nordlige Frankrig, eller forskellige regioner i én medlemsstat kan have forskellige støtteordninger (f.eks. i Belgien), og at disse faktorers indvirkning på efterspørgslen kan variere fra en region til en 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 for hver medlemsstat og/eller region og forskellene i betingelserne såsom soleksponering berettiger ikke en separat analyse af årsagssammenhængen og dermed en separat skades- og subsidieringsanalyse.
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 subsidization analysis.
Påstandene 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 for efterspørgslen.
Another interested party argued that while other factors are relevant, the national support schemes remain the main factor in determining the demand.
Den samme part anfægtede ligeledes, at man nåede netparitet, i hvert fald i nogle områder, og påstod, at priserne på moduler er steget siden undersøgelsesperioden, mens elpriserne er faldet.
The same party also contested that grid parity was reached at least in some locations arguing that prices of modules increased since the IP while electricity prices decreased.
Det blev endvidere påstået, at de retlige, økonomiske og tekniske forhold i visse medlemsstater ikke muliggør tilslutning til el-nettet, og for disse medlemsstater var det derfor irrelevant, hvorvidt der blev nået netparitet.
It further argued that, in any event, at least in certain Member States, the regulatory, economic and technical conditions do not allow for the connection to the grid and for those Member States it was therefore irrelevant whether or not grid parity was reached.
Påstandene ovenfor bekræfter under alle omstændigheder, at situationen med hensyn til nationale støtteordninger og netparitet i et vist omfang kan variere mellem medlemsstaterne.
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.
Derudover var ingen af de afgivne oplysninger af en sådan art, at det kunne berettige en separat analyse for hver enkelt medlemsstat.
Moreover, none of the information submitted was of such a nature to show that an analysis separately per Member State would be warranted.
Påstandene blev derfor afvist.
The arguments were therefore rejected.
Efter den endelige fremlæggelse af oplysninger gentog 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 separat analyse for hver enkelt 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.
Partens 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 de reelle markedsforhold.
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.
Den kinesiske regering påstod, at Kommissionen har gennemført analysen af årsagssammenhængen på en inkonsekvent måde, idet skadesanalysen blev foretaget separat for moduler og celler, mens analysen af årsagssammenhængen ikke skelnede mellem de forskellige varetyper.
The GOC claimed that the Commission has conducted the causation analysis in an inconsistent manner as the injury analysis was done separately for modules and cells, while the causation analysis did not separate between product types.
I denne henseende skal det bemærkes, at selv om skadesindikatorerne ganske vist blev anført særskilt for hver varetype, vedrører konklusionerne for hver indikator den undersøgte vare som helhed.
In this respect, it is noted that while the injury indicators were indeed shown separately for each product type, the conclusions reached for each indicator refer to the product under investigation as a whole.
Det skal desuden erindres, at moduler og celler er en og samme vare, og at analysen af årsagssammenhængen derfor blev foretaget på dette grundlag.
It is also recalled that modules and cells are one single product and therefore the causation analysis was conducted on this basis.