natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission also notes that the verification visits lasted every day well beyond the normal working hours, and that it was the GOC that cancelled the afternoon session of the verification visit the first day as the representatives of the Ministry of Technology decided not to participate in the visit (see recital (122)).
Komisjon märgib veel, et kontrollkäigud kestsid iga päev tavapärasest tööajast kauem ja esimesel päeval tühistas just Hiina RV valitsus kontrollkäigu pärastlõunase osa, sest tehnoloogiaministeeriumi esindajad otsustasid kontrollkäigus mitte osaleda (vt põhjendus 122).
In fact, if the GOC had accepted all the repeated offers by the Commission officials to verify documents beyond the working hours, the visits would have lasted longer and it was because of the GOC failure to fully cooperate that this was not the case.
Kui Hiina RV valitsus oleks kasutanud ära komisjoni ametnike poolt korduvalt väljendatud valmisoleku kontrollida dokumente pärast tööaega, oleksid kontrollkäigud tegelikult kauem kestnud; Hiina RV valitsuse soovimatus täielikult koostööd teha oli põhjuseks, miks see nii ei toimunud.
The GOC further contested the Commission's practice not to accept new documents and evidence which require verification after the end of the verification session to which they belong.
Hiina RV valitsus vaidlustas ka komisjoni tava mitte aktsepteerida uusi dokumente ja tõendeid, mida tuleb kontrollida pärast asjaomast kontrollkohtumist.
In this respect it must be clarified that it is not and never was the intention of the Commission to disregard information provided in this way outright.
Sellega seoses tuleb selgitada, et komisjon ei kavatse ega ole kunagi kavatsenud selliselt esitatud teavet automaatselt arvesse võtmata jätta.
The Commission took account of all the information submitted, analysed its quality (e.g. the extract of audited financial statements is treated in different way from a simple excel table or word document with figures not supported by any official source) and attributed it the appropriate weight given the fact that it was unable to verify this information during the on-the-spot verification visit.
Komisjon võttis arvesse kogu esitatud teabe, analüüsis selle kvaliteeti (nt auditeeritud finantsaruannete väljavõtet käsitletakse erinevalt lihtsast Exceli tabelist või Wordi dokumendist, milles esitatud arvandmeid ei toeta ametlikud allikad) ja omistas sellele asjakohase kaalu, võttes arvesse fakti, et ta ei saanud seda teavet kohapealse kontrollkäigu ajal kontrollida.
Concerning the six documents [25] submitted by the GOC in the course of the investigation and the content of which the GOC refused to discuss during the on-the-spot verification visit, the GOC claimed that the Commission has no basis to apply facts available in line with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.
Seoses kuue dokumendiga, [25] mille Hiina RV valitsus uurimise käigus esitas ja mille sisu ta keeldus kohapealse kontrollkäigu ajal arutamast, väitis Hiina RV valitsus, et komisjonil puudub alus kohaldada kättesaadavaid fakte kooskõlas algmääruse artikliga 28.
It also claimed that the Commission failed to assist the GOC in understanding the requirement to provide these documents and to demonstrate that all the documents concerned were relevant despite that the GOC ‘had specifically invited the Commission before the start of the verification to assist the GOC in understanding the requirement to provide these documents and to demonstrate that that all the documents concerned were relevant’.
Veel väitis ta, et komisjon ei aidanud Hiina RV valitsusel aru saada nende dokumentide esitamise nõudest ega tõendanud, et kõik asjaomased dokumendid on olulised, kuigi Hiina RV valitsus „oli spetsiaalselt palunud komisjoni enne kontrollimise algust aidata Hiina RV valitsusel saada aru nende dokumentide esitamise nõudest ja tõendada, et kõik asjaomased dokumendid on olulised”.
In this respect, firstly, it is noted that all the documents directly pertain the industry concerned [26] and therefore their inclusion within the scope of verification was highly relevant.
Selle kohta tuleb esiteks märkida, et kõik need dokumendid on otseselt seotud asjaomase tootmisharuga [26] ja seepärast oli nende kaasamine kontrolli äärmiselt oluline.
Since all these documents directly concern the industry concerned and even particular subsidy schemes such as preferential lending or preferential tax schemes, as is obvious from their wording the Commission did not understand what could be added to demonstrate their relevance even more.
Kuna kõik need dokumendid puudutavad otseselt asjaomast tootmisharu ja isegi konkreetseid subsideerimiskavasid (nt sooduslaenude andmise või maksusoodustuste kavad), nagu ilmneb nende sõnastusest, ei saanud komisjon aru, mida saaks nende olulisuse tõendamiseks veel lisada.
It was surprising for the Commission that the GOC did not appear to have a problem with the relevance of these documents when they were submitted, but only when the Commission requested explanations.
Komisjoni jaoks oli üllatav, et Hiina RV valitsusel ei tundunud olevat probleemi nende dokumentide olulisusega nende esitamisel, vaid alles siis, kui komisjon nõudis selgitusi.
In its letter of 23 May 2013 the Commission stated that it was prevented from verifying most of the submitted information to original documentation and cross-checking it with the source data which were used to prepare the replies of the GOC in respect to the information on the financial market and financial institutions in the PRC.
Komisjon märkis 23. mai 2013. aasta kirjas, et tal ei lastud kontrollida enamikku esitatud teabest originaaldokumentide alusel ja võrrelda seda algandmetega, mida Hiina RV valitsus oli Hiina RV finantsturgu ja finantseerimisasutusi puudutava teabe kohta antud vastuste koostamisel kasutanud.
The GOC objected that given the ‘very general and unspecific quote’ the Commission has not provided the GOC an opportunity to meaningfully comment and therefore does not enable the GOC to exercise its right of defence in proper way.
Hiina RV valitsus väitis vastuseks, et võttes arvesse „väga üldist ja ebakonkreetset sõnastust”, ei andnud komisjon Hiina RV valitsusele võimalust esitada sisulisi märkusi ja seepärast ei saa Hiina RV valitsus kasutada nõuetekohaselt oma kaitseõigust.
This claim does not represent reality.
See väide ei vasta tõele.
In the questionnaire the Commission asked very specific questions and, in line with normal practice of many investigating authorities it attempted to verify the GOC answers during the on spot verification visit.
Komisjon esitas küsimustikus väga konkreetseid küsimusi ja püüdis kooskõlas paljude uurimisasutuste tavapärase tavaga kontrollida kohapealse kontrollkäigu ajal Hiina RV valitsuse antud vastuseid.
In particular, the GOC in its reply to the questionnaire stated that ‘the loans to the industry concerned account for very small portion of the total loans granted. For example, some banks have described in their appendix questionnaire that the loans granted to the industry concerned accounted for less than 1 % of total loans’.
Eelkõige märkis Hiina RV valitsus küsimustikule vastates, et „asjaomasele tootmisharule antud laenud moodustavad väga väikese osa laenude kogusummast. Osa panku on küsimustiku liites näiteks märkinud, et asjaomasele tootmisharule antud laenud moodustavad alla 1 % laenude kogusummast”.
During the verification the GOC was not able to support this statement with any evidence at all and simply referred the Commission to the banks.
Kontrollkäigu ajal ei suutnud Hiina RV valitsus esitada selle avalduse toetuseks ühtegi tõendit ja palus lihtsalt komisjonil pöörduda pankade poole.
The Commission also requested statistics on the loans to the industry concerned.
Komisjon küsis ka statistilisi andmeid asjaomasele tootmisharule antud laenude kohta.
The GOC claimed that it does not keep such records.
Hiina RV valitsuse väite kohaselt ei pea ta sellist arvestust.
When the Commission inquired whether the GOC attempted to compile such statistics and requested this information from the banks the CBRC (Banking regulatory authority in the PRC) official present during the verification replied that he did not know about this as another department in the CBRC would be responsible for statistics.
Kui komisjon küsis, kas Hiina RV valitsus püüab sellist statistikat koostada ja nõuab pankadelt seda teavet, vastas kontrollkäigus osalenud Hiina RV panganduskomisjoni (CBRC) ametnik, et ta ei tea seda, sest statistika eest vastutab panganduskomisjoni teine osakond.
No statistics as requested in the questionnaire and repeatedly in the deficiency process were submitted by the GOC.
Hiina RV valitsus ei esitanud mingeid statistilisi andmeid, mida küsiti küsimustikus ja seejärel korduvalt puuduste kõrvaldamise käigus.
The Commission indicated again in its pre-verification letter that this topic would be covered.
Komisjon märkis ka oma kontrollimiseelses teates, et seda teemat kavatsetakse käsitleda.
With regard to banks, the Commission also inquired during the verification visit about the risk and creditworthiness assessment, overall operating situation, management situation, credit level, financial usage, repayment ability, guarantee pattern and business cooperation between the banks and the borrowers, as the GOC made claims concerning these issues in its reply to the questionnaire.
Komisjon esitas kontrollkäigu ajal küsimusi pankade riski ja krediidikvaliteedi hindamise, üldise tööolukorra, juhtimisolukorra, krediiditaseme, rahastamise kasutamise, tagasimaksete tegemise suutlikkuse, garantiide ning pankade ja laenuvõtjate vahelise ärikoostöö kohta, sest Hiina RV valitsus esitas küsimustikule vastates väiteid nendel teemadel.
Again, despite the fact that these topics were indicated in the pre-verification letter the GOC was not able to provide any evidence supporting its own claims and referred the Commission to the banks.
Jällegi ei suutnud Hiina RV valitsus oma väiteid tõendada ja palus komisjonil pöörduda pankade poole, kuigi kontrollimiseelses teates oli neile teemadele viidatud.
In its reply to the deficiency letter the GOC submitted some information concerning the percentage of government ownership in some banks.
Puudustele viitavale kirjale antud vastuses esitas Hiina RV valitsus teavet valitsuse osaluse suuruse kohta teatavates pankades.
It is noted that initially the GOC in the questionnaire reply stated that it does not possess such information and that it only submitted information in this respect after the Commission pointed out that Article 24 of the Commercial Bank Law actually requires banks to report this information to the CBRC.
Tuleb öelda, et Hiina RV valitsus märkis esialgu küsimustikule antud vastuses, et tal puudub selline teave, ja ta esitas selle teabe alles pärast seda, kui komisjon viitas kommertspanganduse seaduse artiklile 24, milles tegelikult nõutakse pankadelt sellise teabe esitamist panganduskomisjonile.
When the Commission inquired during the verification visit what was the source of this information, the CBRC official present stated that he did not know as another department of the CBRC is responsible for the collection of such data.
Kui komisjon päris kontrollkäigu ajal selle teabe allika kohta, märkis kohalviibinud panganduskomisjoni ametnik, et ta ei tea seda, sest selliste andmete kogumise eest vastutab panganduskomisjoni teine osakond.
According to Article 2 of the Interim Regulations on the Boards of Supervisors in Key State-owned Financial Institutions (submitted by EXIM Bank in its reply to the deficiency letter) ‘the list of state-owned financial institutions to which the State Council dispatches boards of supervisors shall be recommended by the administrative organ for boards of supervisors in state-owned financial institutions’.
Peamiste riigiosalusega finantseerimisasutuste järelevalvenõukogu reguleerivate ajutiste eeskirjade (EXIM pank esitas selle oma vastuses puudustele viitavale kirjale) artiklis 2 on sätestatud järgmiselt: „riigiosalusega finantseerimisasutuste järelevalvenõukogude haldusorgan soovitab need riigiosalusega finantseerimisasutused, mille järelevalvenõukogu liikmed lähetab riiginõukogu”.
Since this legal provision refers to the administrative organ for boards of supervisors in state-owned financial institutions, it seems that the GOC is aware of which financial institutions it owns.
Kuna selles õigusnormis viidatakse riigiosalusega finantseerimisasutuste järelevalvenõukogude haldusorganile, siis tundub, et Hiina RV valitsus teadis, milliseid finantseerimisasutusi ta omab.
Nevertheless, the Commission was not able to verify this information or even to identify the source of the information because of the non-cooperation from the GOC.
Selles hoolimata ei saanud komisjon Hiina RV valitsuse koostöösoovimatuse tõttu seda teavet kontrollida või isegi selgitada välja selle teabe allikat.
The publicly available information suggests that there are also other state-owned banks (which provided loans to the sampled exporting producers) in addition to those reported by the GOC in its reply to the deficiency letter [27].
Avalikult kättesaadava teabe põhjal võib järeldada, et peale pankade, mida Hiina RV valitsus puudustele viitavale kirjale antud vastuses nimetas, on ka teisi riigiosalusega panku (mis annavad valimisse kaasatud eksportivatele tootjatele laenu) [27].
In its letter of 3 June 2013 the GOC claimed that the Commission did not either in its questionnaire or in the deficiency letter, ‘ask for the “supporting evidence or data source”’ and ‘now suddenly alleges lack of supporting evidence or data source’.
Hiina RV valitsus väitis 3. juuni 2013. aasta kirjas, et komisjon „ei küsinud” ei oma küsimustikus ega puudustele viitavas kirjas „tõendusmaterjali või andmeallika kohta” ja „nüüd järsku väidab tõendusmaterjali või andmeallika puudumist”.
To set the record straight the Commission, like any other investigating authority, verifies the data submitted by all parties in the proceeding and the GOC was aware of this as Commission pointed out already in its questionnaire and in the cover letter to the questionnaire that the replies could be subject to verification.
Selle küsimuse selgitamiseks tuleb märkida, et komisjon — nagu iga teine uurimisasutus — kontrollib menetluse ajal kõigi isikute esitatud andmeid ja Hiina RV valitsus oli sellest teadlik, sest komisjon juhtis juba oma küsimustikus ja selle saatekirjas tähelepanu sellele, et vastuseid kavatsetakse kontrollida.
Moreover, in its pre-verification letter the Commission included also this particular topic among the issues to be covered during the verification [28].
Pealegi lisas komisjon oma kontrollimiseelses teates selle konkreetse teema nende küsimuste alla, mida kontrollkäigu ajal kontrollitakse [28].
Therefore the fact that the Commission is asking for supporting evidence of the statements made by the GOC was certainly not a surprise for the GOC but the standard procedure followed but the Commission in each and every case.
Seetõttu ei olnud Hiina RV valitsuse jaoks kindlasti mitte üllatus, et komisjon küsib Hiina RV valitsuse esitatud avaldusi toetavat tõendusmaterjali, sest see on tavapärane kord, mida komisjon kõigi juhtumite puhul järgib.
When, during the verification, the Commission asked the GOC to submit a list of 10 biggest banks in the PRC and the share of the market they represent, the CBRC replied that it is able to submit such information but that it could not answer the question before it was submitted in a written format.
Kui komisjon palus kontrollkäigu ajal Hiina RV valitsusel esitada Hiina RV kümmet suurimat panka ja nende turuosa sisaldava loetelu, vastas panganduskomisjon, et ta saab selle teabe esitada, kuid ta ei saa küsimusele vastata, enne kui see on esitatud kirjalikult.
The Commission explained that a question asked during the verification visit orally has the same validity as any questions submitted in writing and pointed to the fact that for the other oral questions the GOC did not request their submission in writing before replying.
Komisjon selgitas, et kontrollkäigu ajal suuliselt esitatud küsimus on sama kaalukas nagu kirjalikult esitatud küsimus, ning juhtis tähelepanu sellele, et teiste suuliste küsimuste puhul ei nõudnud Hiina RV valitsus enne neile vastamist nende esitamist kirjalikult.
In spite of this clarification, the GOC still did not provide the information.
Selgitusest hoolimata ei esitanud Hiina RV valitsus siiski seda teavet.
In the questionnaire the Commission requested documents which were the basis for the establishment of the CBRC and provided it with the mandate.
Komisjon nõudis küsimustikus panganduskomisjoni asutamise ja volitamise aluseks olnud dokumentide esitamist.
The GOC submitted a document from the National People's Congress simply stating that the CBRC shall be created.
Hiina RV valitsus esitas Üleriigilise Rahvakongressi dokumendi, milles on lihtsalt märgitud, et asutatakse panganduskomisjon.
When the Commission inquired whether there are any other documents specifying the mandate and purpose of the CBRC, the CBRC official present stated that there are many other laws concerning the CBRC but that, if the Commission wanted to obtain these documents it should have requested them before the verification.
Kui komisjon päris teiste dokumentide kohta, milles on sätestatud panganduskomisjoni volitused ja eesmärk, märkis juuresviibinud panganduskomisjoni ametnik, et panganduskomisjoni tegevust reguleerivad paljud muud seadused, kuid komisjon oleks pidanud neid nõudma enne kontrollkäiku, kui ta tahab neid saada.
It is noted that in the questionnaire the Commission requested the GOC to ‘provide documents which were the basis for the establishment of this authority and provided it with the mandate’ and therefore, it had requested these documents before the verification.
Tuleb märkida, et komisjon palus küsimustikus Hiina RV valitsusel „esitada selle ametiasutuse asutamise ja volitamise aluseks olnud dokumendid” ja seega oli ta neid dokumente nõudnud enne kontrollkäiku.
When the Commission requested statistics and reports from the banks which provided loans to the sampled exporters for the IP it pointed to Article 33 of the Law of the PRC on Regulation of and Supervision over the Banking Industry [29] which suggests that the CBRC collects such statistics.
Kui komisjon palus esitada valimisse kaasatud eksportijatele laenu andvate pankade statistika ja aruanded uurimisperioodi kohta, viitas ta Hiina RV panganduse reguleerimise ja järelevalve seaduse [29] artiklile 33, millest võib järeldada, et panganduskomisjon kogub sellist statistikat.
The CBRC official present stated that he had to seek permission from the legal department first but he did not provide any information in this respect before the end of the verification.
Juuresviibinud panganduskomisjoni ametnik märkis, et ta peab küsima kõigepealt õigusosakonna luba, kuid ei esitanud enne kontrollkäigu lõppu selle kohta mingit teavet.
Again it must be noted that the Commission requested this information in the questionnaire and deficiency letter and it had indicated in its pre-verification letter that statistics would be a topic for the verification.
Taas kord tuleb märkida, et komisjon nõudis küsimustikus ja puudustele viitavas kirjas selle teabe esitamist ning kinnitas oma kontrollimiseelses teates, et kontrollkäigu ajal käsitletakse statistika küsimust.
The GOC further claimed that the allegations in the complaint concerning Chinese banks being public bodies are based merely on simple assertions of state shareholding which in turn are based on ‘illegal’ determinations in the Coated Fine Paper case.
Lisaks väitis Hiina RV valitsus, et kaebuses esitatud süüdistused, mille kohaselt Hiina pangad on avaliku sektori asutused, põhinevad lihtsalt riigi osaluse kohta esitatud väidetel, mis omakorda põhinevad kaetud kvaliteetpaberi juhtumis tehtud „ebaseaduslikel” otsustel.
This claim is a misinterpretation of facts in the complaint.
See väide kujutab endast kaebuses esitatud faktide ekslikku tõlgendamist.
In the complaint, the complainant, in addition to the state ownership, refers, inter alia, to the loans provided by banks based on political directives, to the government agencies directing financial institutions to increase credit and lending to enterprises for promoting new technologies and products (including the PV industry).
Kaebuse esitaja viitab kaebuses peale riigi osaluse muu hulgas ka pankade poolt poliitiliste juhiste alusel antavatele laenudele ja valitsusasutustele, kes annavad finantseerimisasutustele korralduse suurendada uue tehnoloogia ja uute toodete (sh fotoelektrisektor) edendamiseks ettevõtetele antavaid krediidiliine ja laene.
The Coated Fine Paper findings on Chinese banks being public bodies were based on more elements than merely ownership (e.g. government intervention and guidance of banks to direct preferential lending to the paper industry via Government plans) and these findings are fully in line with EU and WTO law.
Kaetud kvaliteetpaberi juhtumis tehtud järeldus, et Hiina pangad on avaliku sektori asutused, põhineb rohkemal kui lihtsalt omandisuhtel (nt valitsuse sekkumine ja pankadele juhiste andmine anda valitsuse kavade kaudu paberitööstusele otseseid sooduslaene) ja see järeldus on täielikult kooskõlas nii ELi kui ka WTO õigusnormidega.
In addition, the findings on the status of state-owned banks as public bodies were confirmed in Organic Coated Steel as well.
Järeldust, et riigiosalusega pangad on avaliku sektori asutused, kinnitati lisaks ka orgaanilise kattega terastoodete juhtumis.
The GOC also continued to claim that it was not in its practical ability to provide information on 3,800 banks and financial institutions which exist in the PRC and that, in any event the CBRC does not retain records concerning the percentage of government ownership in banks.
Veel väitis Hiina RV valitsus, et ta ei ole praktiliselt suuteline esitama teavet Hiina RV 3800 panga ja finantseerimisasutuse kohta ning CRBC ei säilita igal juhul andmeid valitsuse osaluse suuruse kohta pankades.
The Commission does not understand why the GOC is referring repeatedly to all banks in the PRC in connection with the GOC ownership in them when the information requested was explicitly limited to those banks ‘where the GOC has direct or indirect shareholdership’ [30].
Komisjon ei mõista, miks Hiina RV valitsus viitab Hiina RV valitsuse osalusega seoses korduvalt kõikidele Hiina RV pankadele, kui teavet nõuti üksnes selliste pankade kohta, „milles Hiina RV valitsusel on otsene või kaudne osalus” [30].
As explained in recital (127) above the claim of the GOC that the CBRC (or any other government authority) does not retain records on its ownership share of the banks seems to be in contradiction with several Chinese legal provisions.
Nagu põhjenduses 127 selgitatud, tundub Hiina RV valitsuse väide, et panganduskomisjon (või mõni teine valitsusasutus) ei säilita andmeid riigi osaluse kohta pankades, olevat vastuolus mitme Hiina õigusnormiga.
In its letter of 3 June 2013 the GOC repeated its claim that it does not have the authority to require ‘independent banks’ to produce confidential information and pointed to the letter that had allegedly been sent to the banks on this matter.
Hiina RV valitsus kordas 3. juuni 2013. aasta kirjas väidet, et tal puudub volitus nõuda „sõltumatutelt pankadelt” konfidentsiaalse teabe esitamist, ja viitas kirjale, mille ta oli pankadele selles küsimuses väidetavalt saatnud.
It is true that during the verification the GOC showed the original of the letter intended for the banks, but when the Commission requested the GOC to submit evidence to show to which banks and financial institutions this letter was sent the GOC was not able to provide such evidence.
Hiina RV valitsus näitas kontrollkäigu ajal tõepoolest pankadele ettenähtud kirja originaali, kuid kui komisjon palus Hiina RV valitsusel esitada tõendeid selle kohta, millistele pankadele ja finantseerimisasutustele see kiri saadeti, siis Hiina RV valitsus ei suutnud neid tõendeid esitada.
The GOC also alleged that some of the institutions indicated in Annex 7 to the deficiency letter were not banks.
Hiina RV valitsus väitis ka, et osa puudustele viitava kirja 7. lisas nimetatud asutusi ei ole pangad.