natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 8 November 2012, the European Commission (the ‘Commission’) announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2] (‘Notice of Initiation’), the initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding with regard to imports into the Union of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’ or the ‘country concerned’).
Euroopa Komisjon (edaspidi „komisjon”) avaldas 8. novembril 2012Euroopa Liidu Teatajas teate [2] teatavate Hiina Rahvavabariigist (edaspidi „Hiina RV” või „asjaomane riik”) pärit kristalsest ränist fotoelektriliste moodulite ja nende põhikomponentide (elementide ja plaatide) ELi toimuva impordi suhtes subsiidiumivastase menetluse algatamise kohta (edaspidi „algatamisteade”).
The anti-subsidy proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 26 September 2012 by EU ProSun (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing in this case more than 25 % of the total Union production of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components.
Subsiidiumivastane menetlus algatati kaebuse põhjal, mille esitas 26. septembril 2012 EU ProSun (edaspidi „kaebuse esitaja”) tootjate nimel, kelle toodang moodustab üle 25 % kõigist liidus toodetavatest kristalsest ränist fotoelektrilistest moodulitest ja nende põhikomponentidest.
The complaint contained prima facie evidence of subsidisation of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.
Kaebus sisaldas esmapilgul usutavaid tõendeid kõnealuse toote subsideerimise ja sellest tuleneva olulise kahju kohta, mida peeti menetluse algatamiseks piisavaks.
Prior to the initiation of the proceeding and in accordance with Article 10(7) of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (‘the basic Regulation’), the Commission notified the Government of the PRC (‘the GOC’) that it had received a properly documented complaint alleging that subsidised imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the PRC were causing material injury to the Union industry.
Komisjon teavitas enne menetluse algatamist kooskõlas nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 597/2009 (edaspidi „algmäärus”) artikli 10 lõikega 7 Hiina RV valitsust sellest, et ta on saanud nõuetekohaselt dokumenteeritud kaebuse, milles väidetakse, et Hiina RVst pärit kristalsest ränist fotoelektriliste moodulite ja nende põhikomponentide subsideeritud import põhjustab liidu tootmisharule olulist kahju.
The GOC accepted the offer of consultations which were subsequently held.
Hiina RV valitsus nõustus osalema konsultatsioonidel, mis seejärel ka toimusid.
However, due note was taken of comments made by the GOC regarding the non-countervailability of the schemes listed in the complaint.
Siiski võeti nõuetekohaselt arvesse Hiina RV valitsuse seisukohti kaebuses nimetatud kavade tasakaalustamatuse kohta.
On 6 September 2012, the Commission had announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3], the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports into the Union of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in the PRC.
Euroopa Komisjon avaldas 6. septembril 2012Euroopa Liidu Teatajas teate [3] teatavate Hiina RVst pärit kristalsest ränist fotoelektriliste moodulite ja nende põhikomponentide (elementide ja plaatide) Euroopa Liitu toimuva impordi suhtes dumpinguvastase menetluse algatamise kohta.
On 6 June 2013, the Commission, by Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 [4], imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the PRC (‘Provisional anti-dumping Regulation’).
Komisjon määrusega (EL) nr 513/2013 [4] kehtestas komisjon 6. juunil 2013 Hiina RVst pärit või sealt saadetud kristalsest ränist fotoelektriliste moodulite ja nende põhikomponentide (elementide ja plaatide) impordi suhtes ajutise dumpinguvastase tollimaksu (edaspidi „ajutine dumpinguvastane määrus”).
The injury analyses performed in the present anti-subsidy and the parallel anti-dumping investigation are based on the same definition of the Union industry, the representative Union producers and the investigation period and led to identical conclusions unless otherwise specified.
Käesoleva subsiidiumivastase ja paralleelse dumpinguvastase uurimise käigus analüüsiti kahju sama liidu tootmisharu, esinduslike liidu tootjate ja uurimisperioodi määratluse alusel ning selle tulemusel tehti identsed järeldused, kui ei ole märgitud teisiti.
This was considered appropriate in order to streamline the injury analysis and to reach consistent findings in both proceedings.
Seda peeti asjakohaseks, et ühtlustada kahju analüüsimist ja tagada mõlemas menetluses tehtud järelduste kooskõla.
For this reason, comments on injury aspects put forward in any of these proceedings were taken into account in both proceedings.
Sel põhjusel võeti nende menetluste käigus kahju üksikasjade kohta esitatud märkusi arvesse mõlemas menetluses.
Following a request by the complainant supported by the required evidence the Commission adopted on 1 March 2013 Commission Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 [5] making imports of crystalline silicon PV modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the PRC subject to registration as of 6 March 2013.
Lähtudes kaebuse esitaja taotlusest, mis põhines nõutaval tõendusmaterjalil, võttis komisjon 1. märtsil 2013 vastu komisjoni määruse (EL) nr 182/2013 [5], millega kehtestati alates 6. märtsist 2013 registreerimisnõue Hiina RVst pärit või sealt saadetud kristalsest ränist fotoelektriliste moodulite ja nende põhikomponentide (elementide ja plaatide) impordi suhtes.
Some interested parties claimed that the decision for registration of imports was unfounded, as the conditions were not met pursuant to Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation.
Osa huvitatud isikuid väitsid, et impordi registreerimise otsus oli põhjendamatu, sest algmääruse artikli 24 lõike 5 tingimused ei olnud täidetud.
However, these claims were not substantiated or based on factual evidence.
Need väited ei olnud siiski põhjendatud ega põhinenud faktilisel tõendusmaterjalil.
At the time the decision was taken to register imports the Commission had sufficient prima facie evidence justifying the need to register imports, in particular a sharp increase both in terms of absolute imports and in terms of market share.
Komisjonil oli impordi registreerimist käsitleva otsuse tegemise ajal piisavalt esmapilgul usutavaid tõendeid, mis õigustasid impordi registreerimist, eelkõige impordi absoluutarvude ja turuosa järsk kasv.
The claims in this regard had therefore to be rejected.
Seepärast tuli sellekohased väited tagasi lükata.
The Commission officially advised the complainants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC, the PRC authorities and known importers of the initiation of the proceeding.
Komisjon teavitas kaebuse esitajat, teisi teadaolevaid liidu tootjaid, teadaolevaid Hiina RV eksportivaid tootjaid, Hiina RV ametiasutusi ja teadaolevaid importijaid ametlikult menetluse algatamisest.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the Notice of Initiation.
Huvitatud isikutele anti võimalus esitada oma seisukohad kirjalikult ja taotleda ärakuulamist algatamisteates ettenähtud tähtaja jooksul.
In view of the apparent high number of exporting producers, Union producers and unrelated importers, all known exporting producers and unrelated importers were asked to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide, as specified in the Notice of Initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned during the investigation period as defined in recital (38) below.
Eksportivate tootjate, liidu tootjate ja sõltumatute importijate ilmse arvukuse tõttu paluti kõigil teadaolevatel eksportivatel tootjatel ja sõltumatutel importijatel anda endast komisjonile teada ning esitada algatamisteates märgitud põhiandmed oma vaatlusaluse tootega seotud tegevuse kohta põhjenduses 38 täpsustatud uurimisperioodil.
This information was requested under Article 27 of the basic Regulation in order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and if so, to select samples.
Seda teavet nõuti algmääruse artikli 27 alusel, et komisjon saaks otsustada, kas väljavõtteline uuring on vajalik, ning vajaduse korral valimi moodustada.
The authorities of the PRC were also consulted.
Konsulteeriti ka Hiina RV asutustega.
Initially 121 Chinese exporting producers/groups of producers provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample.
Esialgu esitasid nõutud teabe ja nõustusid valimis osalema 121 Hiina eksportivat tootjat/ tootjate kontserni.
The cooperating companies represent more than 80 % of the total Chinese export volume.
Koostööd tegevate äriühingute osakaal Hiina ekspordi kogumahus on üle 80 %.
On the basis of the information received from the exporting producers and in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation the Commission initially proposed a sample of seven exporting producers/groups of exporting producers.
Eksportivatelt tootjatelt saadud teabe põhjal ja kooskõlas algmääruse artikliga 27 tegi komisjon esialgu ettepaneku kaasata valimisse seitse eksportivat tootjat/eksportivate tootjate kontserni.
The sample of these seven groups of exporting producers served as the basis to determine the level of subsidisation for those groups as well as the level of subsidisation for all cooperating exporting producers not included in the sample, as required by Articles 15(2) and 15(3) of the basic Regulation.
Neist seitsmest eksportivate tootjate kontsernist moodustatud valimi alusel määrati kindlaks asjaomaste kontsernide subsideerimise tase ning kõigi koostööd tegevate, kuid valimist välja jäänud eksportivate tootjate subsideerimise tase vastavalt algmääruse artikli 15 lõigetes 2 ja 3 sätestatud nõuetele.
As explained in recital (46) below, the Commission excluded wafers from the product scope in the definitive stage of the investigation.
Nagu põhjenduses 46 selgitatakse, jättis komisjon plaadid toote määratlusest uurimise lõppjärgus välja.
Certain companies were selected into the sample on the basis of their largest volumes of exports of wafers.
Teatavad äriühingud valiti valimisse selle põhjal, et nad olid suurimad plaatide eksportijad.
However, taking into account the fact that the Commission had already investigated these companies, verified the data submitted by them and also the fact that all of these companies had significant exports of modules and/or cells it was not deemed necessary to amend the sample.
Valimit ei peetud siiski vajalikuks muuta, sest komisjon oli neid äriühinguid juba uurinud ja nende esitatud andmeid kontrollinud ning kõik need äriühingud olid ühtlasi moodulite ja/või elementide suured eksportijad.
The number of sampled exporting producers was eventually deemed to be eight companies/groups.
Lõpuks koosnes eksportivate tootjate valim kaheksast äriühingust/kontsernist.
This is because, although it was initially reported that the Jinko Solar Co. Ltd and Renesola Jiangsu Ltd were related, it was subsequently established that they were not.
Seda seetõttu, et kuigi esialgu teatati, et Jinko Solar Co. Ltd ja Renesola Jiangsu Ltd on seotud äriühingud, tehti hiljem kindlaks, et nad ei ole seda.
All known Union producers and known producers' association were informed about the selection of the provisional sample of Union producers.
Liidu tootjate esialgse valimi moodustamisest anti teada kõigile teadaolevatele liidu tootjatele ja tootjate ühendustele.
This provisional sample consisted of nine Union producers out of the around 215 Union producers that were known prior to the initiation of the investigation to produce the like product, selected on the basis of the largest representative volume of production, taking into account the sales volume and the geographical location that could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Esialgsesse valimisse kuulus üheksa liidu tootjat ligikaudu 215 tootjast, kelle kohta oli enne uurimise algatamist teada, et nad toodavad samasugust toodet; tootjad valiti välja suurima esindusliku tootmismahu põhjal, võttes arvesse müügimahtu ja geograafilist asukohta, mida oli võimalik ettenähtud aja jooksul uurida.
Several interested parties raised the following objections concerning the provisional sample of Union producers:
Mitu huvitatud isikut esitas liidu tootjate esialgse valimi kohta järgmised vastuväited:
Some parties submitted that the limited information provided with regard to the provisionally selected sample was insufficient and prevented them from making any meaningful comments on the proposed sample.
osa isikuid teatas, et esialgse valimi kohta antud piiratud teave oli ebapiisav ega võimaldanud neil väljapakutud valimi kohta asjakohaseid märkusi teha.
In particular, they criticised that the identity of the Union producers was kept confidential and requested that the Member States where the sampled Union producers were located should be disclosed, as well as the selected Union producers' share of production in the total production volume of PV modules and cells and the percentage of production and sales represented by the sampled companies individually and by the sample as a whole.
Nad kritiseerisid eelkõige seda, et liidu tootjate andmed olid salastatud, ja taotlesid, et avaldataks teave selle kohta, millistes liikmesriikides väljavalitud tootjad asuvad, milline on nende toodangu osakaal fotoelektriliste moodulite ja elementide kogutoodangus ning kui suure protsendi toodangu- ja müügimahust annab iga väljavalitud äriühing eraldivõetuna ja kogu valim tervikuna;
The method used for the selection of the sample was contested on the grounds that it ‘confuses three different steps’, namely the support for the initiation of the investigation, definition of the Union industry and sampling.
valimi moodustamise meetod seati kahtluse alla põhjendusega, et selles „on aetud segamini kolm eri etappi”, nimelt uurimise algatamise toetuse kindlakstegemine, liidu tootmisharu määratlemine ja valimi moodustamine.
Without defining the Union industry at sampling stage, interested parties were prevented from verifying whether the provisional sample was representative, and thus whether on the basis of the sample, the situation of the Union industry during the investigation period as defined in recital (38) below could be correctly assessed.
Jättes liidu tootmisharu valimi moodustamise etapis määratlemata, ei antud huvitatud isikutele võimalust kontrollida, kas esialgne valim oli esinduslik, ja seega samuti, kas selle põhjal saab õigesti hinnata liidu tootmisharu olukorda põhjenduses 38 täpsustatud uurimisperioodil.
Furthermore, it was claimed that it was inappropriate to select the provisional sample on the basis of the replies of the Union producers to the examination of the support for the initiation of the investigation.
Lisaks väideti, et ei olnud korrektne moodustada esialgne valim vastuste põhjal, mille liidu tootjad olid andnud menetluse algatamise toetuse uurimise käigus;
It was also claimed that the provisional sample was selected merely on the basis of companies which have expressed their support to the present investigation.
samuti väideti, et esialgne valim moodustati üksnes uurimist toetanud äriühingute põhjal;
One party claimed that, since vertically integrated companies are included in the provisional sample, the production volume of cells may be double or triple counted which casts doubts on the overall representativity of the sample.
üks isik leidis, et kuna esialgsesse valimisse kuulub ka vertikaalselt integreeritud äriühinguid, võib elementide tootmismahtu olla arvestatud kahe- või kolmekordselt, mis seab valimi esinduslikkuse kahtluse alla.
It was requested that for vertically integrated producers only the production volume of modules should be counted, but not the volume of cells.
Ta nõudis, et vertikaalselt integreeritud tootjate puhul võetaks arvesse ainult moodulite, mitte aga elementide tootmismahtu;
The same party alleged that the data on which the selection of the sample was based were at least partly unreliable which could have an impact on the representativity of the provisional sample as a whole.
sama isik väitis, et valimi moodustamise aluseks olnud andmed olid vähemalt osaliselt ebausaldusväärsed ja see võis mõjutada esialgse valimi esinduslikkust tervikuna;
One party provided a list containing allegedly around 150 additional Union producers of the like product, claiming that they should have been taken into consideration for the purposes of selecting a sample of Union producers.
üks isik esitas nimekirja, mis sisaldas ligikaudu 150 väidetavalt samasugust toodet tootvat täiendavat liidu tootjat, keda tema väitel oleks tulnud liidu tootjate valimi moodustamisel arvesse võtta.
The arguments raised by the parties were addressed as follows: The Union producers requested that their names be kept confidential due to the risk of retaliation.
Huvitatud isikute väidetele vastati järgmiselt. Liidu tootjad taotlesid oma nime salastamist kättemaksu kartuses.
The Commission considered that these requests were sufficiently substantiated to be granted.
Komisjon leidis, et taotlused olid nende rahuldamiseks piisavalt tõendatud.
The disclosure of the location or share in production and sales of individual Union producers selected in the sample could easily reveal the identity of the producer concerned and the requests in this regard had to be rejected.
Kuna valimisse kaasatud liidu tootjate asukoha või toodangu- ja müügiprotsendi avaldamine võib kergesti nende isiku paljastada, tuli sellekohased taotlused tagasi lükata.
All available information concerning the Union producers, including information provided in the complaint and data collected from Union producers and other parties before the initiation of the investigation, was used in order to provisionally establish the total Union production for the investigation period, as defined in recital (38) below.
Et teha esialgselt kindlaks liidu kogutoodang põhjenduses 38 täpsustatud uurimisperioodil, kasutati kogu kättesaadavat teavet liidu tootjate kohta, sealhulgas kaebuses esitatud teavet ja enne uurimise algatamist liidu tootjatelt ja teistelt isikutelt kogutud andmeid.
All Union producers that replied to questions related to the support for the initiation of the investigation were considered for the sample, regardless of whether they supported, opposed or expressed no opinion on the investigation.
Valimi moodustamisel võeti arvesse kõiki liidu tootjaid, kes vastasid küsimustele uurimise algatamise toetamise kohta, olenemata sellest, kas nad toetasid uurimist, olid selle vastu või ei avaldanud mingit arvamust.
The question of double/triple counting has been considered when the provisional sample was selected.
Kahe- või kolmekordse arvestamise probleemi kaaluti esialgse valimi moodustamise ajal.
It appeared that excluding production and sales of cells of the vertically integrated Union producers would not take into consideration the part of the production of cells sold on the free market.
Ilmnes, et kui vertikaalselt integreeritud liidu tootjate elementide toodang ja müük välja jätta, jääb arvestusest välja see osa elementide toodangust, mis müüakse vabal turul.
It was therefore considered that excluding sales of cells from the total production volume would not necessarily lead to a more representative sample.
Seepärast leiti, et elementide müügimahu väljajätmine tootmise kogumahust ei pruugi valimit esinduslikumaks muuta.
Furthermore, the representativity of the sample was established not only on the basis of the production volume but also on the basis of the geographical spread and a balanced representation of vertically integrated and non-integrated producers.
Peale selle põhines valimi esinduslikkus mitte ainult tootmismahul, vaid ka geograafilisel ulatusel ning vertikaalselt integreeritud ja integreerimata tootjate tasakaalustatud esindatusel.
On this basis, it was considered that the methodology to select the provisional sample was reasonable and the sample is therefore considered representative for the Union industry of the product under investigation as a whole.
Seepärast leiti, et esialgse valimi moodustamise meetod oli mõistlik ja valim esindab seega uurimisalust toodet tootvat liidu tootmisharu tervikuna.
Therefore, this claim was rejected.
See väide lükati seetõttu tagasi.
As far as the reliability of data is concerned, the sample was selected on the basis of the information available at the time of the selection of the sample as provided for in Article 27 of the basic Regulation.
Andmete usaldusväärsuse kohta võib märkida, et valim moodustati valiku tegemise ajal kättesaadava teabe põhjal, nagu on ette nähtud algmääruse artikliga 27.
Concerning the list of around 150 additional Union producers, it should be noted that this information was submitted far outside the deadline set for interested parties to comment on the selection of the provisional sample and for Union producers to come forward and to request to be selected in the sample.
Ligikaudu 150 täiendavat liidu tootjat sisaldava nimekirja kohta tuleb märkida, et see teave edastati tunduvalt hiljem tähtajast, mis oli antud huvitatud isikutele esialgse valimi kohta märkuste tegemiseks ning liidu tootjatele endast teada andmiseks ja valimisse kaasamise taotlemiseks.
Moreover, about 30 of the Union producers contained in this list were in fact known to the Commission at the time of the selection of the sample.
Ka olid ligikaudu 30 nimekirjas esitatud liidu tootjat komisjonile valimi moodustamise ajal teada.
This revised sample consisted thus of ten companies, selected on the basis of the largest representative volume for each level of production, taking into account sales volume on the Union market and geographical location that could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Muudetud valimisse kuulus seega kümme äriühingut, mis olid välja valitud iga tootmisastme suurima esindusliku tootmismahu põhjal, võttes arvesse müügimahtu liidu turul ja geograafilist asukohta, mida oli võimalik ettenähtud aja jooksul uurida.
Further to the exclusion of wafers from the definition of the product concerned, and thus from the scope of this investigation (see recitals (42) — (46) — and (349) below), the sample consisted of eight companies.
Pärast plaatide väljajätmist vaatlusaluse toote määratlusest ja seega käesoleva uurimise alt (vt põhjendused 42–46 ja 349) kuulus valimisse kaheksa äriühingut.
As a result, the revised sample of Union producers accounted, expressed as a percentage of out of the total Union production, between 18 % and 21 % for modules and between 17 % and 24 % for cells and covered vertically integrated and non-integrated producers.
Liidu tootjate muudetud valim hõlmas selle tulemusel 18–21 % moodulite kogutoodangust ja 17–24 % elementide kogutoodangust liidus ning esindas nii vertikaalselt integreeritud kui ka integreerimata tootjaid.
Given that a precise percentage would allow calculating the production volume of the above mentioned additional Union producer and thus its identity could be determined, no such precise percentages could be disclosed.
Kuna täpsed protsendid võimaldaksid välja arvutada eespool nimetatud täiendava liidu tootja tootmismahu ja teha seega kindlaks selle tootja isiku, ei saanud neid protsente avalikustada.
The Union producers who supplied the Commission with information required for the selection of a sample in the present anti-subsidy proceeding coincide with the Union producers who supplied the relevant information in the parallel on-going anti-dumping investigation.
Liidu tootjad, kes esitasid komisjonile käesolevas subsiidiumivastases menetluses valimi moodustamiseks vajaliku teabe, on samad, kes esitasid asjaomase teabe paralleelselt toimuvas dumpinguvastases uurimismenetluses.