natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘ERA technical document ERA/TD/2012-04/INT version 1.2 of 18.1.2013 published on the Agency website (http://www.era.europa.eu)’.
„Tehnički dokument Agencije ERA/TD/2012/04/INT verzija 1.2 od 18.1.2013. objavljen na web-mjestu Agencije (http://www.era.europa.eu).”;
OJ L 264, 8.10.2011, p. 32.’;
SL L 264, 8.10.2011., str. 32.”
Only for two stage load brake (changeover command) and P10 (cast iron blocks with 10 ‰ phosphor)- or LL-brake blocks
Samo za teretne kočnice s dvije faze (komanda za mijenjanje) i P10 (blokovi od lijevanog željeza s 10 % fosfora)-ili kočni blokovi LL.
‘a’Speed km/h3,622STeSpeed km/h3,6, with Te = 2 sec.
„a”brzina km/h3,622STebrzina km/h3,6, uz Te = 2sec.
Distance calculation in accordance with EN 14531-1:2005 section 5.11
Izračun udaljenosti u skladu s EN 14531-1:2005 odjeljkom 5.11.
An ‘S1’ unit is a unit with empty/load device.
Jedinica „S1” jedinica je s mjenjačem sile kočenja.
The maximum load per axle is 22,5 t.
Najveće opterećenje po osovini iznosi 22,5 t.
An ‘S2’ unit is a unit with a variable load relay.
Jedinica „S2” jedinica je s relejem za varijabilni teret.
An ‘SS’ unit shall be equipped with a variable load relay.
Jedinica „SS” jedinica je s relejem za varijabilni teret.
The maximum mean retardation force allowed (for running speed at 100 km/h) is 18 0,9116,5 kN/axle.
Najveća dopuštena srednja sila smanjenja (pri brzini vožnje od 100 km/h) iznosi 18 0,9116,5 kN po osovini.
This value comes from the maximum braking energy input permitted on a clasp braked wheel with a nominal new diameter in the range of [920 mm; 1000 mm] during braking (the brake weight shall be limited to 18 tonnes/axle).
Ta se vrijednost dobiva iz najveće dopuštene energije kočenja na kotaču s disk kočnicama s nominalnim novim promjerom u rasponu [920 mm; 1000 mm]tijekom kočenja (kočna masa ograničuje se na 18 tona po osovini).
Usually a unit, with V max = 100 km/h and fitted with a variable relay is designed to obtain λ = 100 % up to 14,5 t/axle.
Jedinica s V max = 100 km/h i opremljena s varijabilnim relejem obično je konstruirana da primi λ = 100 % do 14,5 t po osovini.
The maximum mean retardation force allowed (for running speed at 120 km/h) is 18 0,8816 kN/axle.
Najveća dopuštena srednja sila smanjenja (pri brzini vožnje od 120 km/h) iznosi 18 0,8816 po osovini.
This value comes from the maximum braking energy input permitted on a clasp braked wheel with a nominal new diameter in the range of [920 mm; 1000 mm] during braking (the brake weight shall be limited to 18 tonnes).
Ta se vrijednost dobiva iz najveće dopuštene energije kočenja na kotaču s disk kočnicama s nominalnim novim promjerom u rasponu [920 mm; 1000 mm] tijekom kočenja (kočna masa ograničuje se na 18 tona).
The mass/axle is limited to 20 t/axle and the corresponding λ is 90 %.
Masa po osovini ograničuje se na 20 t po osovini, a odgovarajući λ iznosi 90 %.
If it is required that λ 걳 100 % with mass/axle 걳 18 t then it is necessary to consider another kind of brake.
Ako se zahtijeva da λ 걳 100 % s masom po osovini 걳 18, potrebna je druga vrsta kočnica.
λ must not exceed 125 %, considering for braking only on wheels (brake blocks), the maximum mean retardation force allowed of 16 kN/axle (for running speed at 120 km/h).
λ ne smije prelaziti 125 %, u odnosu na kočenje samo na kotačima (kočni blokovi), najveća dopuštena srednja sila smanjenja od 16 kN po osovini (pri brzini vožnje od 120 km/h).
Changeover in accordance with EN 15624:2008 + A1:2010
Mijenjanje u skladu s EN 15624:2008 + A1:2010.
Variable load relay in accordance with EN 15611:2008 + A1:2010 in combination with a variable load sensing device in accordance with EN 15625:2008 + A1:2010.’;
Relej za varijabilni teret u skladu s EN 15611:2008 + A1:2010 u kombinaciji s uređajem za otkrivanje varijabilnog tereta u skladu s EN 15625:2008 + A1:2010.
λmin = 65 %
λmin = 65 %
λmin = 100 %
λmin = 100 %
λmin = 55 %
λmin = 55 %
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1237/2013
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) br. 1237/2013
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013
Provedbena uredba Vijeća (EU) br. 1238/2013
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China
o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe na uvoz kristalnih silicijskih fotonaponskih modula i ključnih elemenata (tj. ćelija) podrijetlom ili poslanih iz Narodne Republike Kine
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) and 14(1) thereof,
uzimajući u obzir Uredbu Vijeća (EZ) br. 1225/2009 od 30. studenoga 2009. o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske zajednice [1] („Osnovna uredba”), a posebno njezin članak 9. stavak 4. i članak 14. stavak 1.,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, after consulting the Advisory Committee,
uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Europske komisije nakon savjetovanja sa Savjetodavnim odborom,
The European Commission (‘the Commission’) by Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’) 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 People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or the ‘country concerned’).
Europska komisija („Komisija”) uvela je Uredbom (EU) br. 513/2013 [2] („Privremena uredba”) privremene antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz kristalnih silicijskih fotonaponskih modula i ključnih elemenata (npr. ćelija i pločica) podrijetlom ili poslanih iz Narodne Republike Kine („NRK” ili „dotična država”).
The investigation was initiated following a complaint lodged on 25 July 2012 by EU ProSun (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of crystalline silicon photovoltaic (‘PV’) modules and key components.
Ispitni postupak pokrenut je nakon što je EU ProSun („podnositelj pritužbe”) 25. srpnja 2012. uložio pritužbu u ime proizvođača koji predstavljaju više od 25 % ukupne proizvodnje kristalnih silicijskih fotonaponskih („PV”) modula i ključnih elemenata u Uniji.
The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.
Pritužba je sadržavala dokaz prima facie dampinga navedenog proizvoda i materijalne štete koja je iz toga proizašla i koja se smatrala dostatnom za opravdanje pokretanja ispitnog postupka.
As mentioned in recital (3) to the provisional Regulation, following a request by the complainant supported by the required evidence the Commission adopted on 1 March 2013 Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 [3] making imports of crystalline silicon PV modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China subject to registration as of 6 March 2013.
Kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi (3) Privremene uredbe, nastavno na zahtjev podnositelja pritužbe koji je bio potkrijepljen potrebnim dokazima, Komisija je 1. ožujka 2013. donijela Uredbu (EU) br. 182/2013 [3] o uvjetovanju evidentiranjem od 6. ožujka 2013. uvoza kristalnih silicijskih fotonaponskih modula i ključnih elemenata (tj. ćelija i pločica) podrijetlom ili poslanih iz Republike Kine.
The provisional Regulation ceased the registration of imports for the purpose of the anti-dumping investigation in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation since a provisional anti-dumping duty provided protection against dumped imports.
Privremenom uredbom obustavljeno je evidentiranje uvoza za potrebe antidampinškog ispitnog postupka u skladu s člankom 14. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe jer je privremenom antidampinškom pristojbom postignuta zaštita od dampinškog uvoza.
Some interested parties claimed that the decision for registration of imports was unfounded, as the conditions were not met pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.
Neke zainteresirane stranke tvrdile su da je odluka o evidentiranju uvoza neosnovana jer nisu ispunjeni uvjeti prema članku 14. stavku 5. Osnovne uredbe.
However, these claims were not substantiated or based on factual evidence.
Međutim, te tvrdnje nisu potkrijepljene dokazima ili utemeljene na činjeničnim dokazima.
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.
U vrijeme donošenja odluke o obveznom evidentiranju uvoza Komisija je raspolagala dovoljnim dokazima prima facie koji opravdavaju potrebu za evidentiranjem uvoza, posebno nagli porast uvoza u apsolutnom iznosu kao i tržišnog udjela.
The claims in this regard had therefore to be rejected.
Stoga je tvrdnje u tom pogledu trebalo odbaciti.
Acceptance of an Undertaking with regards to provisional duties
Preuzimanje obveze u vezi s privremenim pristojbama
By Commission Decision 2013/423/EU [4], the Commission has accepted an undertaking offered by exporting producers together with the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (‘CCCME’).
Odlukom Komisije 2013/423/EU [4] Komisija je prihvatila preuzimanje obveze koje su ponudili proizvođači izvoznici zajedno s Kineskom trgovačkom komorom za uvoz i izvoz strojeva i elektroničkih proizvoda („CCCME”).
Subsequent Procedure
Daljnji postupak
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘the provisional disclosure’), the Government of China (‘GOC’) and several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings.
Nakon objave bitnih činjenica i razmatranja na temelju kojih je donesena odluka o primjeni privremenih antidampinških mjera („privremena objava”), kineska vlada i nekoliko zainteresiranih stranaka dostavilo je pisane podneske u kojima su iznijeli svoje stavove o privremenim nalazima.
The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard.
Strankama koje su to zatražile dana je mogućnost da budu saslušane.
The Association for Affordable Solar Energy (‘AFASE’), representing importers, downstream and upstream operators and one importer requested and were afforded hearings in the presence of the Hearing Officer of the Directorate-General for Trade.
Udruga za pristupačnu solarnu energiju („AFASE”), koji zastupa uvoznike te subjekte koji se nalaze više i one koji se nalaze niže u poslovnom lancu i jednog uvoznika zatražila je usmenu raspravu, što joj je i omogućeno u prisutnosti službenika Glavne uprave za trgovinu nadležnog za usmena saslušanja.
The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
Komisija je i dalje prikupljala i provjeravala sve informacije koje je smatrala potrebnima za svoje konačne nalaze.
The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.
Razmotrene su pisane i usmene primjedbe zainteresiranih stranaka te su, prema potrebi, u skladu s tim izmijenjeni privremeni nalazi.
In addition, verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:
Uz to su obavljeni i posjeti radi provjere u poslovnim prostorijama sljedećih trgovačkih društava:
Downstream operators
Subjekti koji se nalaze niže u poslovnom lancu
Sunedison Spain Construction, Madrid, Spain
Sunedison Spain Construction, Madrid, Španjolska
Independent consultant
Nezavisni savjetnik
Europressedienst, Bonn, Germany
Europressedienst, Bonn, Njemačka
AFASE questioned the legal basis for the visit carried out at the premises of Europressedienst, as it is not an interested party in this investigation and does therefore not fall under Article 16 of the basic Regulation.
Udruga AFASE dovela je u pitanje pravnu osnovu posjeta radi provjere obavljene u poslovnim prostorijama Europressedienstazbog toga što on nije zainteresirana stranka u ovom ispitnom postupku i stoga se na njega ne primjenjuje članak 16. Osnovne uredbe.
Europressedienst, as mentioned in recitals (99) and (120) to the provisional Regulation has provided information on macroeconomic indicators.
Europapressedienst je, kao što je navedeno u uvodnim izjavama (99) i (120) Privremene uredbe, dostavio informacije o makroekonomskim pokazateljima.
It is clarified that the Commission carried out an on-the-spot verification at the premises of Europressedienst for the sake of the principle of good administration to verify the reliability and correctness of data on which the Commission based its findings.
Razjašnjeno je da je Komisija provela izravne provjere u poslovnim prostorijama Europressediensta zbog načela dobre uprave kako bi se provjerila pouzdanost i točnost podataka na kojima je Komisija temeljila svoje nalaze.
The GOC reiterated the claim that its rights of defence in relation to access to the files open for inspection by interested parties were violated because (i) information was missing from the non-confidential files without ‘good cause’ being shown or providing sufficiently detailed summaries, or exceptionally, the reasons for the failure to provide the non-confidential summary, (ii) the non-confidential version of an entire questionnaire response of a Union producer was missing and (iii) the delays to make non-confidential versions of the Union producers' questionnaire responses available for interested parties were excessive.
Kineska vlada ponovila je tvrdnju da su povrijeđena njezina prava na obranu u pogledu pristupa spisima za zainteresirane strankezato što: i. su bez navođenja „opravdanog razloga” nedostajali podaci iz spisa koji nisu povjerljivi ili u spisima nisu osigurani dovoljno detaljni sažeci ili iznimno nisu navedeni razlozi zbog kojih nisu osigurani sažeci koji nisu povjerljivi, ii. je nedostajala cjelokupna verzija odgovora na upitnik proizvođača iz Unije koja nije povjerljiva i iii. su rokovi za stavljanje na raspolaganje zainteresiranim strankama verzija upitnika s odgovorima proizvođača iz Unije koje nisu povjerljive bili pretjerani.
As to the delays in making available the non-confidential replies of the questionnaires of the sampled Union producers, it had been explained to the party concerned that the questionnaires were only added to the non-confidential file after having been checked as to their completeness and reasonableness of the summaries.
U pogledu rokova za stavljanje na raspolaganje zainteresiranim strankama upitnika s odgovorima proizvođača iz Unije obuhvaćenih uzorkomi koji nisu povjerljivi, dotičnoj je stranci objašnjeno da su upitnici dodani u spis koji nije povjerljiv tek nakon provjere njihove potpunosti i osnovanosti sažetaka.
In any event, it is considered that this did in no way affect the interested parties' rights of defence.
U svakom slučaju, smatra se da to ni na koji način nije utjecalo na pravo na obranu zainteresiranih stranaka.
The Commission has given all the interested parties the opportunity to respond to the information included in the file open for inspection in time so that their comments could be taken into consideration, when substantiated and warranted before any conclusions were made in the investigation.
Komisija je svim zainteresiranim strankama omogućila da na vrijeme iznesu primjedbe na informacije iz otvorenog spisa tako da bi se njihove primjedbe, ukoliko su potkrijepljene dokazima i opravdane, mogle uzeti u obzir prije donošenja bilo kakvih zaključaka u ispitnom postupku.
The interested party had every opportunity to comment on the questionnaires from sampled Union producers also following the provisional and the final disclosure.
Zainteresirana stranka je i nakon privremene i konačne objave imala sve mogućnosti da iznese primjedbe o upitnicima koje su dostavili proizvođači iz Unije obuhvaćeniuzorkom.
Therefore, even if the disclosures and the access to the file open for inspection by interested parties are based on different legal provisions, it should be noted that there were ample opportunities for the interested parties to comment on all information made available by any party to the investigation.
Stoga valja napomenuti da su zainteresirane stranke, čak i ako su se objave i pristup otvorenom spisu temeljili na različitim pravnim odredbama, imale dovoljno prilika za iznošenje primjedbi o svim informacijama koje su dostavile stranke u ispitnom postupku.
Therefore, this claim had to be rejected.
Stoga se taj zahtjev morao odbaciti.
All interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of provisional duty (‘the final disclosure’).
Sve zainteresirane stranke obaviještene su o bitnim činjenicama i okolnostima na temelju kojih se namjeravalo preporučiti uvođenje konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz kristalnih silicijskih fotonaponskih modula i njihovih ključnih sastavnih dijelova (tj. ćelija) podrijetlom ili poslanih iz Narodne Republike Kine i konačnog prikupljanja iznosa osiguranih privremenom pristojbom („konačna objava”).
All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments on the final disclosure.
Svim je strankama dodijeljen rok unutar kojeg su mogle iznijeti primjedbe na konačnu objavu.
The comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.
Primjedbe koje su dostavile zainteresirane stranke razmotrene su i, prema potrebi, uzete u obzir.
Acceptance of an undertaking in view of definitive duties
Preuzimanje obveze u vezi s konačnim pristojbama
Following final disclosure, the Commission received an amended offer for an undertaking by exporting producers together with the CCCME, which covers also the parallel anti-subsidy investigation.
Nakon konačne objave Komisija je zaprimila izmijenjenu ponudu za preuzimanje obveze proizvođača izvoznika zajedno s CCCME-om, koja se odnosi i na usporedni antisubvencijski ispitni postupak.
By Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU [5] of 4 December 2013 confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures, the Commission has confirmed the acceptance of that undertaking.
Provedbenom odlukom Komisije 2013/707/EU [5] od 4. prosinca 2013. o potvrdi prihvaćanje preuzete obveze u vezi s antidampinškim i antisubvencijskim mjerama koje se odnose na uvoz kristalnih silicijskih fotonaponskih modula i ključnih elemenata (tj. ćelija) podrijetlom ili poslanih iz Narodne Republike Kine za vrijeme primjene konačnih mjera, Komisija je potvrdila to preuzimanje obveze.
Parties concerned by the proceeding
Stranke na koje se postupak odnosi
Following the imposition of provisional measures, some interested parties reiterated the argument that excessive use of confidentiality prevented them from commenting on the selection of the sample of Union producers and thus from the proper exercise of their rights of defence.
Nakon uvođenja privremenih mjera neke zainteresirane stranke ponovile su argument da ih je prekomjerna primjena klauzula o povjerljivosti onemogućila u dostavi primjedbe o odabiru uzorka proizvođača iz Unije i time u ostvarivanju njihovih prava na obranu na odgovarajući način.
The Commission already addressed this issue in recital (9) to the provisional Regulation.
Komisija je na to pitanje već odgovorila u uvodnoj izjavi (9) Privremene uredbe.
As no new information was provided in this respect, the conclusions in recital (9) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Budući da o tom pitanju nisu dostavljene nove informacije, potvrđuju se zaključci iz uvodne izjave (9) Privremene uredbe.
The GOC reiterated its claim that the use of confidentiality of the names of the complainants and sampled Union producers is not warranted.
Kineska vlada ponovila je svoju tvrdnju da primjena klauzula o povjerljivosti u vezi s imenima podnositelja pritužbi i proizvođača iz Unije obuhvaćenih uzorkom nije opravdana.
As already stated in recital (9) to the provisional Regulation, the Union producers requested that their names be kept confidential due to the risk of retaliation.
Kao što je već navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi (9) Privremene uredbe, proizvođači iz Unije zahtijevali su da njihovi nazivi budu povjerljivi zbog rizika od protumjera.
The Commission considered that these requests were sufficiently substantiated to be granted.
Komisija je smatrala da su ti zahtjevi bili dostatno potkrijepljeni te ih je odobrila.
The information that has been provided to the Commission in order to substantiate the risk of retaliation cannot be disclosed to third parties, as such disclosure would defeat the purpose of the request for confidentiality.
Informacije dostavljene Komisiji kako bi se potkrijepile tvrdnje o riziku od protumjera ne mogu se otkriti trećim strankama jer bi se takvom otkrivanjem poništila svrha zahtjeva za povjerljivošću.
Moreover, in a case, where, as reported by the GOC, a Union producer re-evaluated its position and revealed its identity by filing an application for a Court case against the provisional Regulation, there is no longer ground to disclose information on the basis of which anonymity was granted, as the identity has been revealed.
Osim toga, u slučaju u kojem je, prema navodima kineske vlade, proizvođač iz Unije preispitao svoj položaj i zahtjevom za pokretanje postupka pred Sudom protiv Privremene uredbe otkrio svoj identitet, više ne postoji osnova za otkrivanje podataka na temelju kojih je zajamčena anonimnost jer je njegov identitet otkriven.
Further to the provisional disclosure, one interested party reiterated that the information on which the selection of the sample was based was not reliable, without, however, providing any new evidence in this regard.
Nakon privremenog otkrivanja jedna zainteresirana stranka ponovila je da podaci na kojima se temeljio odabir uzorka nisu bili pouzdani, ali bez da je o tome dostavila bilo kakve nove dokaze.
This claim was therefore rejected.
Ta je tvrdnja stoga odbačena.
Following the final disclosure, the CCCME reiterated the arguments about the method used for the selection of the provisional sample of the Union producers.
Nakon konačnog otkrivanja, CCCME je ponovio svoje argumente o metodi kojom je izvršen odabir privremenog uzorka proizvođača iz Unije.
It claims in particular that the Institutions have not taken into account 120 producers.
CCCME osobito tvrdi da institucije nisu u obzir uzele 120 proizvođača.
Moreover, the Institutions have verified the activities of the companies provided on that list.
Osim toga, institucije su provjerile djelatnosti trgovačkih društava s popisa.
It turned out that that list mostly includes installers, distributors, related importers and exporting producer in China, Taiwan, and India.
Pokazalo se da su popisom obuhvaćeni montažeri, distributeri, povezani uvoznici i proizvođač izvoznik iz Kine, Tajvana i Indije.
It therefore was not apt to demonstrate that the Institutions had overlooked a significant number of Union producers.
Time se dakle nije moglo pokazati da su institucije previdjele znatan broj proizvođača iz Unije.