natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The institutions had recalculated the duty without using zeroing already at an earlier stage, following a ruling of the WTO Appellate body, and found that no dumping had occurred, and therefore terminated the investigation without imposing measures (i.e. effectively setting the new duty at zero) (Council Regulation (EC) No 160/2002 of 28 January 2002 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan, and terminating the proceeding with regard to imports originating in Pakistan (OJ L 26, 30.1.2002, p. 2)).
Institucije su već u ranijoj fazi ponovno izračunale pristojbu ne primjenjujući postavljanje na nulu, u skladu s presudom Žalbenog tijela WTO-a, i utvrdile da nije došlo do dampinga te su stoga prekinule ispitni postupak bez uvođenja mjera (tj. stvarno postavivši novu pristojbu na nulu) (Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 160/2002 od 28. siječnja 2002. o izmjeni Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 2398/97 o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz pamučne posteljine podrijetlom iz Egipta, Indije i Pakistana i o prekidu postupka u pogledu uvoza podrijetlom iz Pakistana (SL L 26, 30.1.2002., str. 2.)).
In case T-498/04 Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group v Council (Case T-498/04 Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group v Council [2009] ECR I-1969), the Council filed an appeal.
U predmetu T-498/04 Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group protiv Vijeća (predmet T-498/04 Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group protiv Vijeća [2009.] ECR I-1969) Vijeće je uložilo žalbu.
Therefore, the annulment only took effect on the date at which the Court of Justice handed down its judgment on appeal (Case C-337/09 P Council v Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group [2012] ECR I-0000), which was on 19 July 2012.
Stoga je poništenje počelo imati učinak tek na datum kad je Sud dostavio svoju presudu povodom žalbe (predmet C-337/09 P Vijeće protiv Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group [2012.] ECR I-0000), odnosno 19. srpnja 2012.
In that judgment, the General Court, confirmed by the Court of Justice, found that the Commission and the Council were obliged to grant market-economy treatment to the applicant, which was the only Chinese company that had exported the product concerned during the investigation period.
U toj je presudi Opći sud, kako je potvrdio Sud, utvrdio da su Komisija i Vijeće podnositelju zahtjeva, odnosno jedinom kineskom društvu koje je izvozilo predmetni proizvod tijekom razdoblja ispitnog postupka, morali odobriti tretman tržišnoga gospodarstva.
In that case, contrary to the present case, the Commission and the Council had actually carried out the analysis of the market economy treatment claim and had rejected that request as unfounded.
U tom su predmetu, za razliku od ovog predmeta, Komisija i Vijeće zapravo proveli analizu zahtjeva za primjenu tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva te su taj zahtjev odbili kao neosnovan.
The Union Courts held that — contrary to the view expressed by the Commission and the Council — the claim actually was founded, and therefore normal value had to be calculated on the basis of the data provided by Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group.
Sudovi Unije smatrali su, za razliku od stajališta Komisije i Vijeća, da je zahtjev zapravo osnovan te da je stoga uobičajenu vrijednost trebalo izračunati na temelju podataka koje je dostavilo društvo Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group.
The Commission would normally have resumed the procedure, in order to propose to the Council to impose a duty for the future.
Komisija bi u uobičajenim uvjetima nastavila postupak kako bi Vijeću predložila da uvede pristojbu za budućnost.
However, in the case at hand, the Commission (Commission Decision 2009/383/EC of 14 May 2009 suspending the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1683/2004 on imports of glyphosate originating in the People's Republic of China, OJ L 120, 15.5.2009, p. 20) and the Council (Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 126/2010 of 11 February 2010 extending the suspension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1683/2004 on imports of glyphosate originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 40, 13.2.2010, p. 1)) had decided in 2009 and 2010 to suspend the anti-dumping duty for the period until the end of its applicability on 30 September 2010, considering that injury was unlikely to resume due to the high profit levels of the Union industry.
Međutim, u ovom su predmetu Komisija (Odluka Komisije 2009/383/EZ od 14. svibnja 2009. o suspenziji konačnih antidampinških pristojba uvedenih Uredbom Vijeća (EZ) br. 1683/2004 na uvoz glifosata podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine (SL L 120, 15.5.2009., str. 20.)) i Vijeće (Provedbena uredba Vijeća (EU) br. 126/2010 od 11. veljače 2010. o proširenju suspenzije konačne antidampinške pristojbe uvedene Uredbom (EZ) br. 1683/2004 na uvoz glifosata podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine (SL L 40, 13.2.2010., str. 1.)) 2009. i 2010. odlučili suspendirati antidampinšku pristojbu u razdoblju do kraja njezine primjene 30. rujna 2010., smatrajući da se šteta vjerojatno neće nastaviti zbog visokih razina dobiti industrije Unije.
Hence, there was no need to resume the procedure in view of the imposition of a duty for the future.
Stoga nije bilo potrebno nastaviti postupak u cilju uvođenja pristojbe za buduće razdoblje.
There was also no scope to resume the procedure in view of a reimposition for the past: Contrary to the present case, there was no sampling.
Osim toga, nije se mogao nastaviti postupak u cilju ponovnog uvođenja pristojbe za prethodno razdoblje: za razliku od ovog predmeta, nije bilo odabira uzorka.
Indeed, Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group was the only exporting producer that had sales to the Union market in the investigation period.
Društvo Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group bilo je jedini proizvođač izvoznik koji je u razdoblju ispitnog postupka prodavao na tržištu Unije.
As the Commission and the Council would have been obliged to grant Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group market economy treatment, the Union Courts had annulled the finding of dumping.
Budući da su Komisija i Vijeće bili obvezni društvu Zheijiang Xinan Chemical Group odobriti tretman tržišnoga natjecanja, sudovi Unije poništili su nalaz o dampingu.
Case T-348/05 JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky v Council (Case T-348/05 JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky v Council [2008] ECR II-159) is a very peculiar case.
Predmet T-348/05 JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky protiv Vijeća (predmet T-348/05 JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky protiv Vijeća [2008.] ECR II-159) poseban je slučaj.
The Commission had initiated a partial interim review at the request of the Union industry, and had at that occasion broadened the scope of the products concerned, by including a different product.
Komisija je na zahtjev industrije Unije pokrenula djelomičnu privremenu reviziju te je tom prilikom proširila područje primjene predmetnog proizvoda uključivanjem drugog proizvoda.
The General Court held that it was not possible to proceed in that manner, but that it was necessary to launch a separate investigation into the product that had been added.
Opći sud smatrao je da se nije moglo nastaviti na taj način nego da je potrebno pokrenuti zasebni ispitni postupak u pogledu dodanog proizvoda.
On the basis of the general principle of Union law of res iudicata, there was no scope for the institutions to resume the partial interim review following the annulment.
Na temelju općeg načela pravomoćne presude u sklopu prava Unije, institucije nisu mogle nakon poništenja nastaviti djelomičnu privremenu reviziju.
As mentioned in the preceding recital, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer. In any event, the exporting producers concerned have not contested the assessment of their MET/IT claims by the Commission, and they have not identified which documents or which people they have no longer been able to rely upon.
Kako je navedeno u prethodnoj uvodnoj izjavi, Komisija može temeljiti svoju ocjenu na podacima koje dostavi proizvođač izvoznik, U svakom slučaju, predmetni proizvođači izvoznici nisu osporili ocjenu svojih zahtjeva za MET/IT od strane Komisije, ali nisu utvrdili ni dokumente niti zaposlenike na koje više ne mogu računati.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/1396
Uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1396
amending certain Annexes to Regulation (No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
o izmjeni određenih priloga Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o utvrđivanju pravila za sprečavanje, kontrolu i iskorjenjivanje određenih transmisivnih spongiformnih encefalopatija
Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in bovine, ovine and caprine animals.
Uredbom (EZ) br. 999/2001 utvrđuju se pravila za sprečavanje, kontrolu i iskorjenjivanje transmisivnih spongiformnih encefalopatija (TSE-ovi) u goveda, ovaca i koza.
It applies to the production and placing on the market of live animals and products of animal origin and in certain specific cases to exports thereof.
Uredba se primjenjuje na proizvodnju i stavljanje na tržište živih životinja i proizvoda životinjskog podrijetla te, u nekim posebnim slučajevima, na njihov izvoz.
Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lays down the criteria based on which the BSE status of countries or regions shall be determined in accordance with Article 5(2) of that Regulation.
Prilogom II. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 utvrđuju se kriteriji na temelju kojih se određuje GSE status država ili regija u skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 2. te Uredbe.
Those criteria are based on the conditions set out in the chapter on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE).
Ti se kriteriji temelje na uvjetima utvrđenima u poglavlju o goveđoj spongiformnoj encefalopatiji (GSE) Kodeksa o zdravlju kopnenih životinja Svjetske organizacije za zdravlje životinja (OIE).
Annexes III, V and VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 contain a number of references to Council Directive 64/433/EEC [3], Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council [4] and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 [5].
Prilozi III., V. i VII. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 sadržavaju niz upućivanja na Direktivu Vijeća 64/433/EEZ [3], Uredbu (EZ) br. 1774/2002 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća [4] te Uredbu Komisije (EZ) br. 1974/2006.
As those three acts have been repealed, references in the Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should be updated.
S obzirom na to da su ta tri akta stavljena izvan snage, trebalo bi ažurirati upućivanja u prilozima Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001.
The specific requirements set out in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, concerning to the removal of specified risk material for bovine animals whose origin is in Member States with a negligible BSE risk, was amended by Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1162 [6].
Posebni zahtjevi navedeni u Prilogu V. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 o odstranjivanju specificiranog rizičnog materijala u goveda koja potječu iz država članica sa zanemarivim rizikom od GSE-a izmijenjeni su Uredbom Komisije (EU) 2015/1162 [6].
As a consequence of this amendment, certain provisions relating to the removal of specified risk material set out in Annex V and in Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should also be amended, as developed below.
Zbog te bi izmjene trebalo izmijeniti i određene odredbe koje se odnose na odstranjivanje specificiranog rizičnog materijala iz Priloga V. i Priloga IX. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001, kako je opisano u nastavku.
First, in accordance with the amendment made to the specific requirements for Member States with a negligible BSE risk status set out in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, by Regulation (EU) 2015/1162, tonsils are no longer defined as specified risk material for bovine animals whose origin is in Member States with negligible BSE risk.
Prvo, u skladu s izmjenom posebnih zahtjeva za države članice sa statusom zanemarivog rizika od GSE-a iz Priloga V. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 iz Uredbe (EU) 2015/1162 tonzile više nisu definirane kao specificirani rizični materijal za goveda koja potječu iz država članica sa zanemarivim rizikom od GSE-a.
The transverse cut rostral to the lingual process of the basihyoid bone for tongues of bovine animals, required in accordance with point 7 of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, should therefore only apply to bovine animals whose origin is in Member States with controlled or undetermined BSE risk.
Stoga bi se poprečni rez rostralno od jezičnog nastavka bazihioidne kosti za jezike goveda, koji se zahtijeva u skladu s točkom 7. Priloga V. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001, trebao primjenjivati samo na goveda koja potječu iz država članica s kontroliranim ili neutvrđenim rizikom od GSE-a.
Point 7 of that Annex V should therefore be amended accordingly.
Točku 7. tog Priloga V. trebalo bi stoga na odgovarajući način izmijeniti.
Second, in accordance with the amendment made to Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, by Regulation (EU) 2015/1162, the vertebral column is defined as specified risk material only for a minority of bovine animals in the Union.
Drugo, u skladu s izmjenom Priloga V. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 iz Uredbe (EU) 2015/1162 kralježnica se definira kao specificirani rizični materijal samo za manji dio goveda u Uniji.
Taking into account the evolution of the epidemiological situation in the Union and the need to reduce administrative burden on operators, the requirement set out in point 11.3.(a) of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, to provide information on the label of the carcasses as regards the removal of the vertebral column, should be modified as follows: while so far a blue stripe must be indicated on the label of the carcasses or wholesale cuts of carcasses of bovine animals containing vertebral column when the removal of the vertebral column is not required, after a transitional period, a red stripe should be indicated on the label of the carcases or wholesale cuts of carcasses of bovine animals containing vertebral column when the removal of the vertebral column is required.
Uzimajući u obzir razvoj epidemiološke situacije u Uniji i potrebu za smanjenjem administrativnog opterećenja subjekata, zahtjev iz točke 11.3.(a) Priloga V. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 o pružanju informacija na etiketi trupova u pogledu uklanjanja kralježnice trebalo bi izmijeniti kako slijedi: dok se dosad na etiketi goveđih trupova ili veleprodajnih komada trupova s kralježnicom plavom crtom označavalo da se ne zahtijeva uklanjanje kralježnice, nakon prijelaznog razdoblja trebalo bi crvenom crtom na etiketi goveđih trupova ili veleprodajnih komada trupova s kralježnicom označiti da se zahtijeva uklanjanje kralježnice.
The same modification from a requirement to indicate a blue stripe when the removal of the vertebral column is not required to a requirement to indicate a red stripe when the removal of the vertebral column is required, should apply for products of bovine origin imported into the Union.
Ista bi se promjena zahtjeva za označavanje plavom crtom ako se ne zahtijeva uklanjanje kralježnice u zahtjev za označavanje crvenom crtom ako se zahtijeva uklanjanje kralježnice trebala primjenjivati za proizvode podrijetlom od goveda koji su uvezeni u Uniju.
Point 3 of Section C and point 3 of Section D of Chapter C of Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should therefore be amended accordingly.
Poglavlje C. odjeljak C. točku 3. i odjeljak D. točku 3. Priloga IX. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 trebalo bi stoga na odgovarajući način izmijeniti.
In order to give economic operators and competent authorities inside and outside the Union the necessary time to adjust to this new regime of red stripe required when the removal of the vertebral column is required, this provision should enter into force after a transitional period until 30 June 2017.
Kako bi se gospodarskim subjektima i nadležnim tijelima unutar i izvan Unije omogućilo vrijeme potrebno za prilagodbu tom novom načinu označivanja crvenom crtom ako se zahtijeva uklanjanje kralježnice, ta odredba trebala bi stupiti na snagu nakon prijelaznog razdoblja do 30. lipnja 2017.
Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 prohibits the practice, in Member States or regions thereof, with a controlled or undetermined BSE risk, of lacerating, after stunning, central nervous tissues by means of an elongated rod-shaped instrument introduced into the cranial cavity, or by means of gas injection into the cranial cavity, of bovine, ovine and caprine animals whose meat is intended for human or animal consumption.
Člankom 8. stavkom 3. Uredbe (EZ) br. 999/2001 u državama članicama ili njihovim regijama s kontroliranim ili neutvrđenim rizikom od GSE-a zabranjuje se primjena laceracije tkiva središnjeg živčanog sustava nakon omamljivanja uvođenjem instrumenta u obliku dugačke šipke u kranijalnu šupljinu ili ubrizgavanjem plina u kranijalnu šupljinu na govedima, ovcama i kozama čije je meso namijenjeno za prehranu ljudi ili životinja.
Point 6 of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 extends that prohibition to Member States with a negligible BSE risk, until all Member States are classified as countries with negligible BSE risk.
Točkom 6. Priloga V. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 ta se zabrana proširuje na države članice sa zanemarivim rizikom od GSE-a dok sve države članice ne budu svrstane kao zemlje sa zanemarivim rizikom od GSE-a.
Since atypical BSE is considered a spontaneous disease which occurs at a low prevalence also in countries with a negligible BSE risk, that prohibition should remain applicable after all Member States have been classified as countries with a negligible BSE risk.
S obzirom na to da se atipični GSE smatra spontanom bolešću s niskom učestalošću i u zemljama sa zanemarivim rizikom od GSE-a, ta zabrana trebala bi ostati na snazi nakon što sve države članice budu svrstane kao zemlje sa zanemarivim rizikom od GSE-a.
Point 6 of Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 should therefore be amended to remove this time limitation.
Točku 6. Priloga V. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 trebalo bi stoga izmijeniti kako bi se uklonilo to vremensko ograničenje.
Point 2 of Section A of Chapter A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 sets out the rules relating to the approval of the negligible risk status for classical scrapie of Member States or zones of a Member State.
U poglavlju A. odjeljku A. točki 2. Priloga VIII. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 utvrđuju se pravila kojima se uređuje odobrenje statusa zanemarivog rizika od klasičnoga grebeža za države članice ili područja država članica.
On 25 June 2014 and 24 August 2014, Finland and Sweden respectively submitted an application to the Commission to be recognised as having a negligible risk status for classical scrapie.
Finska i Švedska podnijele su 25. lipnja 2014. odnosno 24. kolovoza 2014. zahtjev Komisiji za priznavanje statusa zemlje sa zanemarivim rizikom od klasičnoga grebeža.
On 13 January 2015, the Commission requested the scientific and technical assistance of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to evaluate whether Finland and Sweden, in their respective applications, demonstrated compliance with point 2.1.(c) and point 2.2 of Section A of Chapter A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.
Komisija je 13. siječnja 2015. zatražila znanstvenu i tehničku pomoć Europske agencije za sigurnost hrane (EFSA) pri ocijeni jesu li Finska i Švedska u svojim zahtjevima dokazale usklađenost s poglavljem A. odjeljkom A. točkama 2.1.(c) i 2.2. Priloga VIII. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001.
On 19 November 2015, the EFSA published two scientific reports in response to the Commission's request [7] (‘the EFSA reports’).
EFSA je kao odgovor na zahtjev Komisije 19. studenoga 2015. objavila dva znanstvena izvješća [7] („izvješća EFSA-e”).
The EFSA reports conclude that, based on the testing sensitivity provided by the past evaluations of screening diagnostic tests by the EFSA and the Joint Research Centre Institute for Reference Materials and Measurement (IRMM), Sweden demonstrated compliance with point 2.1.(c) of Section A of Chapter A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 for each of the preceding seven years, and Finland demonstrated such compliance for each of the preceding seven years, except for 2010, a year during which the level of confidence of detecting classical scrapie at a prevalence rate exceeding 0,1 per cent was 94,73 per cent.
U izvješćima EFSA-e zaključuje se, na temelju osjetljivosti ispitivanja iz prethodnih ocjena dijagnostičkih testova probira EFSA-e i Instituta za referentne materijale i mjerenja (IRMM) Zajedničkog istraživačkog centra, da je Švedska dokazala usklađenost s poglavljem A. odjeljkom A. točkom 2.1.(c) Priloga VIII. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 za svaku od prethodnih sedam godina, a Finska je takvu usklađenost dokazala za svaku od prethodnih sedam godina osim 2010., tijekom koje je razina sigurnosti otkrivanja klasičnoga grebeža sa stopom prevalencije iznad 0,1 posto iznosila 94,73 posto.
As the difference between a level of confidence of 94,73 per cent and of 95 per cent is negligible when it comes to the risk of missing a case of classical scrapie, and as the criterion of point 2.1.(c) of Section A of Chapter A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 was fulfilled in all six other years, the criterion can be considered as fulfilled for the past 7 years.
S obzirom na to da je razlika između razine sigurnosti od 94,73 posto i 95 posto zanemariva u pogledu rizika od neotkrivanja slučaja klasičnoga grebeža te da je kriterij iz poglavlja A. odjeljka A. točke 2.1.(c) Priloga VIII. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 ispunjen za svih ostalih šest godina, kriterij se može smatrati ispunjenim za prethodnih sedam godina.
The EFSA reports also conclude that, based on the testing sensitivity provided by the past evaluations of screening diagnostic tests by the EFSA and the IRMM, Sweden and Finland's intentions concerning surveillance of classical scrapie in the future would comply with point 2.2 of Section A of Chapter A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001.
U izvješćima EFSA-e zaključuje se i da bi, na temelju osjetljivosti ispitivanja iz prethodnih ocjena dijagnostičkih testova probira EFSA-e i IRMM-a, namjere Švedske i Finske u pogledu nadzora klasičnoga grebeža u budućnosti bile u skladu s poglavljem A. odjeljkom A. točkom 2.2. Priloga VIII. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001.
Taking into account the EFSA reports and the favourable outcome of the Commission assessment of those applications with the other criteria set out in point 2.1 of Section A of Chapter A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001, Finland and Sweden should be listed as Member States with a negligible risk of classical scrapie.
Uzimajući u obzir izvješća EFSA-e i povoljne rezultate Komisijine procjene tih zahtjeva s ostalim kriterijima iz poglavlja A. odjeljka A. točke 2.1. Priloga VIII. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001, Finska i Švedska trebale bi biti uvrštene u popis država članica sa zanemarivim rizikom od klasičnoga grebeža.
Point 3.2 of Section A of Chapter A of Annex VIII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 lists the Member States with an approved national control programme for classical scrapie.
U poglavlju A. odjeljku A. točki 3.2. Priloga VIII. Uredbi (EZ) br. 999/2001 navode se države članice s odobrenim nacionalnim programom kontrole klasičnoga grebeža.
As Finland and Sweden should now be listed in point 2.3 of that Section as Member States with a negligible risk of classical scrapie, they should be deleted from the list of Member States with an approved national control programme for classical scrapie in point 3.2 of that Section, as that status offers guarantees exceeding those provided by an approved national control programme.
S obzirom na to da bi Finska i Švedska sada trebale biti navedene u točki 2.3. tog odjeljka kao države članice sa zanemarivim rizikom od klasičnoga grebeža, trebalo bi ih izbrisati s popisa država članica s odobrenim nacionalnim programom kontrole klasičnoga grebeža u točki 3.2. tog odjeljka jer se tim statusom pružaju veća jamstva od onih koja se pružaju odobrenim nacionalnim programom kontrole.