natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On no occasion was the ‘non-availability of verification’ the sole reason for not accepting such information in full.
Nemogućnost provjere u tom smislu nikad nije bio jedini razlog za neprihvaćanje tih informacija u cijelosti.
However, when other information on the file was contradicting it and at the same time the GOC was not able to support it with any sort of evidence, such information could not be accepted at its face value.
Međutim, kad su druge informacije u spisu bile proturječne, a kineska vlada u isto vrijeme nije mogla ponuditi nikakav dokaz, takve informacije nisu se mogle prihvatiti u njihovoj nominalnoj vrijednosti.
According to the GOC, the Commission in paragraph 85 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated above in recital (117)) ‘acknowledged’ that the GOC does not control banking and financial institutions and cannot compel them to provide information.
Prema mišljenju kineske vlade Komisija je u stavku 85. dokumenta o konačnoj objavi (ponovljenom u uvodnoj izjavi (117)) „potvrdila” da kineska vlada ne kontrolira bankarske i financijske institucije te da ih ne može prisiliti da dostave informacije.
It is noted that the Commission is not aware of such statement and after reviewing the text of the recital it does not seem to be the case.
Napominje se da Komisija ne zna za takvu izjavu te na temelju uvida u tekst uvodne izjave tvrdi da to nije slučaj.
The GOC claimed that the Commission seemed to concur with the GOC that the national laws cannot be superseded in the case of an investigation by the requirements of the EU's basic Regulation or the SCM Agreement.
Kineska vlada tvrdila je da se Komisija s njom složila u tome da u slučaju ispitnog postupka zahtjevi Osnovne uredbe EU-a o antidampinškim mjerama ili Sporazuma o subvencijama i kompenzacijskim mjerama nemaju prednost pred nacionalnim pravom.
The link the GOC made to the non-provision of allegedly confidential information is missing the point.
Promašena je tvrdnja kineske vlade o povezanosti s nedostavljanjem navodno povjerljivih informacija.
The Commission however argued (recital (117) above) that the provisions of municipal law or internal rules of the WTO Member cannot absolve it from its WTO obligations to cooperate with the investigations and in case of conflict it is up to the GOC to suggest the ways in which access can be afforded to information so that it can be adequately verified.
Međutim, Komisija je tvrdila (uvodna izjava (117)) da odredbe nacionalnih zakona ili unutarnja pravila ne oslobađaju državu članicu WTO-a od poštovanja obveza WTO-a na suradnju u ispitnim postupcima te da u slučaju sukoba kineska vlada mora predložiti način pristupa informacijama kako bi se one mogle primjereno provjeriti.
The GOC referred to the situation when one bank official provided one credit risk assessment for a sampled company as an example of suggesting a way to verify allegedly limited information and stated that ‘the Commission was still not satisfied’.
Kineska vlada navela je da je predložila način provjere navodno ograničenih informacija u slučaju kad je jedan bankarski službenik dostavio procjenu kreditnog rizika za poduzeće u uzorku te izjavila da „Komisija ni tim nije bila zadovoljna”.
On the contrary, as is clear from the wording of recital (148) above), the Commission did not take an issue with the verification of this particular document and took this information fully into account in its findings.
Naprotiv, kako je jasno iz uvodne izjave (148), Komisija nije zanemarila provjeru tog dokumenta te je u svojim nalazima te informacije u cijelosti uzela u obzir.
However, this was an exceptional situation and unfortunately was not replicated for most of the information of similar nature requested in this proceeding.
Međutim, to je bila iznimna situacija i isto se nažalost nije dogodilo s većinom sličnih informacija zatraženih u ovom postupku.
In this regard, the GOC continued to claim that ‘sensitive internal documents’ of banks were envisaged to be relevant information under the SCM Agreement, and their non-production could not lead to the application of facts available.
S tim u vezi kineska vlada i dalje je tvrdila da se u skladu sa Sporazumom o subvencijama i bankarskim mjerama bankarski „osjetljivi interni dokumenti” smatraju relevantnim informacijama i da njihovo nedostavljanje ne može ukazivati na primjenu dostupnih činjenica.
The Commission finds this statement much too sweeping and does not see how proper verification (carried out with due confidentiality procedures in place) could be undertaken in all cases if such documents (including those involving transactions with clients) are simply withheld.
Komisija tu tvrdnju smatra preopćenitom i ne vidi kako se točna provjera (uz dužnu diskreciju) može izvršiti u svim slučajevima ako se takvi dokumenti (uključujući dokumente koje uključuju transakcije s klijentima) uskraćuju.
In the absence of verifications, facts available may have to be used to fill gaps in fact-gathering.
U nedostatku provjere za popunjavanje praznina pri prikupljanju činjenica može biti potrebno koristiti se dostupnim činjenicama.
The GOC repeatedly claimed that the pre-verification letter did not contain specific questions concerning verification and referred to the Commission letter of 23 May 2013 which used this wording.
Kineska vlada u više je navrata tvrdila da pismo najave posjeta nije sadržavalo konkretna pitanja o provjeri te se pozvala na dopis Komisije od 23. svibnja 2013. u kojemu je upotrijebljen taj tekst.
The Commission, however, in paragraph 86 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated as recital (118) above) stated that the pre-verification letter of 25 March 2013 contained a very specific and detailed list of issues and documents which would be addressed during the verification, fully in line with the Article 26(3) of the basic Regulation and the WTO requirements.
Međutim, Komisija je u stavku 86. dokumenta o konačnoj objavi (ponovljenom u uvodnoj izjavi (118)) izjavila da je pismo najave posjeta od 25. svibnja 2013. sadržavalo vrlo konkretan i detaljan popis problema i dokumenata koji će se u cijelosti provjeravati u skladu s člankom 26. stavkom 3. Osnove uredbe i zahtjevima WTO-a.
The absence of a list of specific questions, provision of which has no basis in the basic Regulation or WTO rules, is not an excuse for the GOC being unable to fully cooperate during the verification.
Nepostojanje popisa konkretnih pitanja, čija se dostava ne temelji na Osnovnoj uredbi ili pravilima WTO-a, nije izgovor za kinesku vladu da tijekom provjere u cijelosti ne surađuje.
The GOC claimed that the Commission showed a complete absence of flexibility during the verification.
Kineska vlada tvrdila je da tijekom provjere Komisija nije bila nimalo fleksibilna.
This is a misinterpretation of facts and situation before and during the verification visit.
Tu je riječ o pogrešnom tumačenju činjenica i stanja prije i tijekom posjeta radi provjere.
As already explained in paragraphs 88 — 90 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated as recitals (120) — (122) above) the degree of flexibility shown by the Commission was full and unconditional.
Kako je već objašnjeno u stavcima 88. do 90. dokumenta o konačnoj objavi (ponovljenima u uvodnim izjavama od (120) do (122)) Komisija je pokazala punu i bezuvjetnu fleksibilnost.
Unfortunately, attempts by the GOC to provide information which there was no possibility to verify within the schedule of the on-site visits meant that such information could not be cross-checked and given the weight of a verified document.
Nažalost, pokušaji kineske vlade da dostavi informacije koje se nikako nisu mogle provjeriti u skladu s rasporedom posjeta na licu mjesta značili su da se te informacije ne mogu unakrsno provjeriti te da se ne mogu smatrati provjerenim dokumentima.
The GOC also reminded the Commission of WTO case law from the EC-Salmon panel that whether documents are ‘verifiable’ is not always determined only by the possibility of on-the-spot investigations and claimed that the Commission cannot reject information simply because it is not available at verification visits.
Kineska vlada podsjetila je Komisiju i na sudsku praksu WTO-a i to na Skupinu u predmetu EZ – losos prema kojoj se „provjerljivost” dokumenta ne utvrđuje uvijek samo na temelju mogućnosti ispitivanja na licu mjesta te je tvrdila da Komisija ne može odbaciti informacije samo zbog toga jer nisu dostupne tijekom posjeta radi provjere.
The Commission notes that such information, not being susceptible to on-spot verification to test is reliability and accuracy, may be given less weight that if it had been properly verified and that this sometimes happened in the present case.
Komisija napominje da se takve informacije, čija se pouzdanost i točnost ne mogu potvrditi tijekom provjere na licu mjesta, mogu smatrati manje pouzdanima u odnosu na mogućnost njihove primjerene provjere i da se to u ovom predmetu povremeno događalo.
The GOC contests the Commission's alleged practice not to accept new documents and evidence which require verification after the end of the verification session to which they belong.
Kineska vlada osporava navodnu praksu Komisije da ne prihvaća nove dokumente i dokaze koje je potrebno provjeravati po završetku postupka provjere, a koji se na taj postupak odnose.
As already explained in the paragraph 89 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated in recital (121) above) this is not and never was the case.
Kako je već objašnjeno u stavku 89. dokumenta o konačnoj objavi (ponovljenom u uvodnoj izjavi (121)) to nije i nikad nije ni bio slučaj.
It is true that the Commission cannot normally accept documents as verification exhibits once the verification session is over and it is not practically possible to verify such documents, but nothing prevents the GOC from submitting such documents in writing which in fact happened in this case as well.
Istina je da Komisija po završetku postupka provjere obično ne može prihvaćati dokumente na provjeru te takve dokumente nije u praksi moguće provjeriti, ali kinesku vladu ništa ne sprječava da te dokumente dostavi u pisanom obliku, što je u ovom predmetu i učinila.
The GOC claimed that the Commission did not explain the reason for requesting the six documents referred to in recital (122) above and on this basis their verification was not permitted.
Kineska vlada tvrdila je da Komisija nije objasnila zašto je zatražila šest dokumenata spomenutih u uvodnoj izjavi (122) zbog čega nije dopustila njihovu provjeru.
Therefore it is obvious from their names and content that they were relevant for the investigation.
Stoga je iz njihovih naziva i sadržaja očito da su važni u ispitnom postupku.
However the GOC simply refused to answer any questions in this respect during the verification, citing the alleged irrelevance of the document for the proceeding as the only reason.
Međutim, s tim u vezi kineska vlada tijekom provjere jednostavno je odbila odgovoriti na sva pitanja te kao jedini razlog navela da dokument navodno nije bitan.
The GOC claimed that it could not provide the supporting evidence for the information it provided in the questionnaire reply concerning percentage of loans granted to the industry concerned as this information was held by the banks which are independent entities and not GOC departments and that the Commission should verify the figures at the banks.
Kineska vlada tvrdila je da ne može podastrijeti dodatne dokaze za informacije koje je dostavila u odgovoru na upitnik, a u vezi s postotkom zajmova danih dotičnoj industriji jer se te informacije čuvaju u bankama koje su neovisna tijela, a ne dio kineske vlade i da bi Komisija brojke trebala provjeriti u bankama.
GOC referred to the provisions of the Commercial Banking Law which stipulates that the banks shall carry out their business in accordance with the law (Article 4) and there shall be no interference by local governments or government departments at various levels, public organisations or individuals in the business operation of the banks (Article 5).
Kineska vlada pozvala se na odredbe Zakona o poslovnim bankama kojim se predviđa da banke posluju u skladu sa zakonom (članak 4.), a da se lokalna uprava ili odjeli vlade na raznim razinama, javne organizacije ili pojedinci ne smiju uplitati u njihovo poslovanje (članak 5).
The fact is that the GOC made a statement in the questionnaire reply and it was not able to support it all.
Činjenica je da je kineska vlada u odgovoru na upitnik dala izjavu koju nije mogla potkrijepiti.
The banks which the Commission attempted to verify were also not able to support this information with any information whatsoever.
Ni banke koje je Komisija pokušala provjeriti nisu mogle te informacije poduprijeti nekim drugim informacijama.
If this is to be considered as acceptable practice, the investigated party could simply make any statement which supports its case and the investigated authority would have to accept it without having a chance to verify whether it represents reality.
Ako se to treba smatrati prihvatljivom praksom, ispitana stranka može jednostavno dati bilo kakvu izjavu sebi u prilog, a ispitno tijelo trebalo bi to prihvatiti bez mogućnosti provjere točnosti.
This is even more important taking into account that this particular information is in contradiction with other information on the file.
To je još važnije kad se uzme u obzir da su upravo te informacije u proturječnosti s ostalim informacijama u spisu.
There are also other articles in the Commercial Banking Law which oblige the banks to carry out their loan business upon the needs of national economy and the social development and with the spirit of the state industrial policies (Article 34).
I drugi članci Zakona o poslovnim bankama obvezuju banke da djelatnost davanja zajmova obavljaju na temelju potreba nacionalnog gospodarstva i društvenog razvoja te u duhu državnih industrijskih politika (članak 34.).
As correctly pointed out by the GOC in its comments, the banks shall carry out their business activities in accordance with law, i.e. also with the said provisions of Article 34 of the Commercial Banking Law.
U skladu s točnom primjedbom kineske vlade, banke svoju poslovnu djelatnost obavljaju u skladu sa zakonom, tj. i u skladu s navedenim člankom 34.
Therefore, this supposed bright line between the government and the banks was not borne out by the facts.
Zakona o poslovnim bankama. Stoga činjenice ne potvrđuju navodnu jasnu distinkciju između vlade i banaka.
The GOC claimed that it provided all the information in respect to the ownership of the banks that it possesses.
Kineska vlada tvrdila je da je dala sve informacije u vezi s vlasništvom banaka koje posjeduje.
It also claimed that the reported figures concerning bank ownership are the official figures of CBRC and therefore there was no reason to believe that the information provided by the GOC is false or misleading and apply provisions of Article 28 of the basic Regulation.
Tvrdila je i da su dostavljene podatke o vlasništvu nad bankama službene brojke CBRC-a te stoga nije bilo razloga sumnjati da su informacije koje je dostavila kineska vlada lažne ili obmanjujuće i primijeniti odredbe članka 28. Osnovne uredbe.
Further the GOC stated that it was not aware what the source for the Commission statement in paragraph 95 (replicated in recital (127) above) of the definitive disclosure document was (‘The publicly available information suggests that there are also other state-owned banks which provided loans to the sampled exporting producers’), i.e. in addition to those reported by the GOC as being state-owned in its reply to the deficiency letter.
Kineska vlada izjavila je i da nije znala izvor izjave Komisije u stavku 95. (ponovljenom u uvodnoj izjavi (127)) dokumenta o konačnoj objavi („Javno dostupne informacije ukazuju na to da su u državnom vlasništvu i druge banke koje su proizvođačima izvoznicima u uzorku davale zajmove”), tj. pored banaka za koje je kineska vlada u svojem odgovoru na pismo za dopunu podataka izjavila da su u državnom vlasništvu.
These claims could not be accepted.
Te tvrdnje nisu mogle biti prihvaćene.
It is noted that the GOC initially claimed in its questionnaire reply that it does not possess any information concerning its ownership in the banks.
Napominje se da je kineska vlada u početku u odgovoru na upitnik tvrdila da ne posjeduje informacije o svojem vlasništvu u bankama.
Only after the Commission pointed out in the deficiency letter that, according to the Chinese legislation, the GOC must collect such information, did the GOC provide some information in this respect.
Kineska vlada dostavila je neke od tih informacija tek nakon što je Komisija u pismu za dopunu podataka istaknula da, u skladu s kineskim zakonodavstvom, kineska vlada mora prikupiti te informacije.
During the verification the CBRC official refused to support the figures on bank ownership with any evidence, refused to provide the source of the information and did not explain where it comes from.
Tijekom provjere jedan je službenik CBRC-a odbio podastrijeti dokaze za brojke o vlasništvu nad bankama i otkriti izvor informacija te nije objasnio njihovo podrijetlo.
It is also noted that the GOC did not contest the fact that at least 5 other banks named by the Commission in the definitive disclosure document (see footnote in recital (127)) are state-owned.
Napominje se i da kineska vlada nije osporila činjenicu da je najmanje 5 drugih banaka koje je Komisija navela u dokumentu o konačnoj objavi (vidi bilješku u uvodnoj izjavi (127)) u državnom vlasništvu.
The GOC disagreed with the statement in the paragraph 97 of the definitive disclosure document (replicated in the recital (129) above) that CBRC refused to answer the question concerning the 10 biggest banks in China because it was not submitted in writing and claimed that the Commission misinterpreted the facts, because the main reason for not replying was that since this question was not in the pre-verification letter they needed time to prepare for it.
Kineska vlada nije se složila s izjavom iz stavka 97. dokumenta o konačnoj objavi (ponovljenog u uvodnoj izjavi (129)) da je CBRC odbio odgovoriti na pitanje o 10 najvećih banaka u Kini jer pitanje nije dostavljeno u pisanom obliku te je tvrdila da je Komisija pogrešno protumačila činjenice i da je glavni razlog uskraćivanja odgovora na pitanje koje nije bilo navedeno u pismu najave posjeta taj što nisu imali dovoljno vremena da se pripreme.
In fact it is the GOC which misinterprets the facts concerning this issue.
Međutim, činjenica je da je u vezi s navedenim kineska vlada pogrešno protumačila činjenice.
The Commission did not insist on immediate answer, but the CBRC refused to even look at the question on the pretext that it was not provided in advance in writing.
Komisija nije odmah zahtijevala odgovor, već je CBRC odbio uopće pogledati pitanje pod izgovorom da ono nije unaprijed dostavljeno u pisanom obliku.
If the reason was insufficient time to prepare the answer the GOC could have submitted the reply later during the verification or by email (although without possibility for the Commission to verify it) as it has done with several other documents.
Ako je razlog bio nedostatak vremena za pripremu odgovora, kineska vlada mogla je odgovor dostaviti kasnije tijekom provjere ili elektroničkom poštom (iako ga tad Komisija ne bi mogla provjeriti) kao što je učinila i s nekim drugim dokumentima.
However the GOC did not do this.
Međutim, kineska vlada to nije učinila.
GOC claimed that it provided all the documents concerning the establishment and the mandate of the CBRC which the Commission requested in the questionnaire, and that since the Commission did not raise any issues with this in the deficiency letter and did not ask for this documents in the ‘list of documents to be provided before the start of verification visit’ in Annex 2 to the pre-verification letter the GOC did not feel obliged to provide any other documents.
Kineska vlada tvrdila je da je dostavila dokumente o osnivanju i dužnostima CBRC-a koje je Komisija zatražila u upitniku i da, s obzirom na to da Komisija nije u pismu za dopunu podataka postavila nikakva pitanja u vezi s njima i da ih nije zatražila u „popisu dokumenta koje treba dostaviti prije početka posjete radi provjere” iz Priloga 2. pisma najave posjeta, kineska vlada nije smatrala obveznim dostaviti druge dokumente.
This is not true.
To nije točno.
The Commission requested all documents which were basis for the establishment and the mandate of the CBRC but the GOC provided only some of them.
Komisija je zatražila sve dokumente na temelju kojih je osnovan CBRC i utvrđene njegove dužnosti, ali kineska vlada dostavila je samo neke od njih.
It was only on the basis of the statement of the CBRC official that the Commission learned that there are also other documents in this respect.
Komisija je tek na temelju izjave službenika CBRC-a saznala da s tim u vezi postoje i drugi dokumenti.
In fact the reply of the GOC in the questionnaire in this respect was incomplete and misleading as the GOC (CBRC) clearly knew about the existence of such additional documents as was admitted by the CBRC during on-the-spot verification.
Zapravo, odgovori kineske vlade na upitnik u vezi s navedenim bili su nepotpuni i obmanjujući jer je kineska vlada (CBRC) očito znala da postoje dodatni dokumenti, što je tijekom provjere na licu mjesta priznao službenik CBRC-a.
The GOC claimed that during the verification the Commission did not actually request the statistics and reports from the banks which provided loans to the sampled exporters for the IP.
Kineska vlada tvrdila je da tijekom provjere Komisija nije zapravo zatražila statistike i izvještaje banaka koje su tijekom RIP-a davale zajmove izvoznicima u uzorku.
They claimed that the Commission only requested the 2012 statistical report submitted to the CBRC by the Bank of China and for this the CBRC official had to check with the legal services involved due to the confidentiality obligations.
Tvrdila je da je Komisija zatražila samo statističko izvješće za 2012. koje je Kineska banka podnijela CBRC-u i da je zbog toga i zbog obveze tajnosti službenik CBRC-a morao to provjeriti s odgovarajućom pravnom službom.
During the verification the Commission repeated its request from the questionnaire and deficiency letter for the statistics from all banks which provided loans to sampled exporters to be provided [87].
Komisija je tijekom provjere ponovila svoj zahtjev iz upitnika i pisma za dopunu podataka da joj se dostave statistike svih banaka koje su dale zajmove izvoznicima u uzorku [87].
The GOC further claimed that the reference of the complainant in the complaint to the Coated Fine Paper case in which the Commission found ‘on the basis of adverse inferences’ that the SOCBs were acting as public bodies is an ‘unsubstantiated assertion lacking context with regard to the nature and existence of a subsidy granted to the exporting producers of the product concerned and cannot therefore be considered as a sufficient evidence’ of the existence of financial contribution by a government or public body within the meaning of Article 11.2 of the SCM Agreement.
Kineska vlada tvrdila je i da je upućivanje na podnositelja pritužbe u predmetu o premazanom finom papiru, u kojem je Komisija „na temelju nepovoljnih zaključaka” ustanovila da su poslovne banke u državnom vlasništvu djelovale kao javna tijela, „neutemeljena tvrdnja bez konteksta s obzirom na prirodu i postojanje subvencija danih proizvođačima izvoznicima dotičnog proizvoda te se stoga ne može smatrati dovoljnim dokazom” postojanja financijskog doprinosa vlade ili javnog tijela u smislu članka 11.2. Sporazuma o subvencijama i kompenzacijskim mjerama.