natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pizzoccheri della Valtellina (PGI)]
o upisu naziva u registar zaštićenih oznaka izvornosti i zaštićenih oznaka zemljopisnog podrijetla (Pizzoccheri della Valtellina (ZOZP))
Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy's application to register the name ‘Pizzoccheri della Valtellina’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2].
U skladu s člankom 50. stavkom 2. točkom (a) Uredbe (EU) br. 1151/2012, zahtjev Italije za upis naziva „Pizzoccheri della Valtellina” u registar objavljen je u Službenom listu Europske unije [2].
As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Pizzoccheri della Valtellina’ should therefore be entered in the register,
Budući da Komisiji nije dostavljen ni jedan prigovor u smislu članka 51. Uredbe (EU) br. 1151/2012, naziv „Pizzoccheri della Valtellina” potrebno je upisati u registar,
The name ‘Pizzoccheri della Valtellina’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
Naziv „Pizzoccheri della Valtellina” (ZOZP) upisuje se u registar.
OJ C 185, 24.5.2016, p. 7.
SL C 185, 24.5.2016., str. 7.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1731
reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by General Footwear Ltd (China), Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14
o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe uvedene na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i Vijetnama koju proizvode trgovačka društva General Footwear Ltd (Kina), Diamond Vietnam Co Ltd i Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd te o provedbi presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 and 14 thereof,
uzimajući u obzir Uredbu (EU) 2016/1036 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 8. lipnja 2016. o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske unije („Osnovna uredba”), a posebno njezine članke 9. i 14.,
On 23 March 2006, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 imposing provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather (‘footwear’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’ or ‘China’) and Vietnam (‘the provisional Regulation’).
Komisija je 23. ožujka 2006. donijela Uredbu (EZ) br. 553/2006 o uvođenju privremenih antidampinških mjera na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože („obuća”) podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine („NRK” ili „Kina”) i Vijetnama („Privremena uredba”).
By Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 9,7 % to 16,5 % on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather, originating in Vietnam and in the PRC for two years (‘Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006’ or ‘the contested Regulation’).
Vijeće je Uredbom (EZ) br. 1472/2006 uvelo konačne antidampinške pristojbe u rasponu od 9,7 % do 16,5 % na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Vijetnama i NRK-a na dvije godine („Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006” ili „Sporna uredba”).
By Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with upper leather originating in the PRC to imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region (‘SAR’), whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not.
Vijeće je Uredbom (EZ) br. 388/2008 proširilo konačne antidampinške mjere na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz NRK-a na uvoz koji se otprema iz Posebnog upravnog područja Makaa, bez obzira na to je li prijavljena kao proizvod podrijetlom iz Posebnog upravnog područja Makaa ili nije.
Further to an expiry review initiated on 3 October 2008, the Council further extended the anti-dumping measures for 15 months by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, i.e. until 31 March 2011, when the measures expired (‘Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009’).
Vijeće je nastavno na reviziju zbog predstojećeg isteka mjera pokrenutu 3. listopada 2008. dodatno produžilo te antidampinške mjere za 15 mjeseci Provedbenom uredbom (EU) br. 1294/2009, tj. do 31. ožujka 2011., kad su mjere istekle („Provedbena uredba (EU) br. 1294/2009”).
In its judgments of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P Brosmann et al and of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (‘the Brosmann and Aokang judgments’), the Court of Justice set aside those judgments.
U svojim presudama od 2. veljače 2012. u predmetu C-249/10 P Brosmann i dr. i od 15. studenoga 2012. u predmetu C-247/10 P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd („presude Brosmann i Aokang”) Sud je ukinuo te presude.
It held that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was not required to examine requests for market economy treatment (‘MET’) under Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic Regulation from non-sampled traders (paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 29 and 32 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Smatrao je da je Opći sud povrijedio pravo tako što je smatrao da Komisija ne treba ispitati zahtjeve za primjenu tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva („MET”) prema članku 2. stavku 7. točkama (b) i (c) Osnovne uredbe primljene od trgovaca koji nisu u uzorku (točka 36. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točke 29. i 32. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
The Court of Justice then gave judgment itself in the matter.
Sud je zatim dao vlastitu presudu u pogledu tog pitanja.
It held: ‘[…] the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation. It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16,5 % duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation. It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9,7 % was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET. As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate’ (paragraph 42 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Smatrao je sljedeće: […] Komisija je trebala ispitati potkrijepljene zahtjeve koje su joj dostavili žalitelji na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točaka (b) i (c) Osnovne uredbe za potrebe zahtijevanja MET-a u kontekstu antidampinškog postupka [koji je] predmet Sporne uredbe. Zatim se mora utvrditi da se ne može isključiti mogućnost da bi posljedica takvog ispitivanja bilo uvođenje konačne antidampinške pristojbe na žalitelje različite od pristojbe od 16,5 % koja se na njih primjenjuje na temelju članka 1. stavka 3. Sporne uredbe. Iz te je odredbe očito da je konačna antidampinška pristojba od 9,7 % uvedena za jedinog kineskog trgovca u uzorku kojem je dodijeljen MET. Kako je iz prethodne točke 38. očito da je Komisija utvrdila da su uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva vrijedili i za žalitelje, i žalitelji su trebali ostvariti korist od te iste stope ako izračun pojedinačne dampinške marže nije bio moguć (točka 42. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točka 36. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
In October 2013, the Commission by means of notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 and invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.
U listopadu 2013. Komisija je u obavijesti objavljenoj u Službenom listu Europske unije najavila da je odlučila nastaviti antidampinški postupak upravo u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti i ispitati jesu li za podnositelje zahtjeva u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005. prevladavali uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva te je zainteresirane strane pozvala da se jave i iznesu svoje stavove.
In March 2014, the Council, by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Vijeće je u ožujku 2014. Provedbenom odlukom Vijeća 2014/149/EU odbilo prijedlog Komisije o donošenju Provedbene uredbe Vijeća o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe na određenu obuću s gornjištima od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine te koju su proizveli Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd i Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd i prekinulo postupak u pogledu tih proizvođača.
The Council took the view that importers having bought shoes from those exporting producers, to whom the relevant customs duties had been reimbursed by the competent national authorities on the basis of Article 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (‘the Community Customs Code’), had acquired legitimate expectations on the basis of Article 1(4) of the contested Regulation, which had rendered the provisions of the Community Customs Code, and in particular its Article 221, applicable to the collection of the duties.
Stajalište Vijeća bilo je da su uvoznici koji su kupili cipele od tih proizvođača izvoznika, kojima su nadležna nacionalna tijela nadoknadila relevantne carinske pristojbe na temelju članka 236. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2913/92 („Carinski zakonik Zajednice”), imali legitimna očekivanja na temelju članka 1. stavka 4. Sporne uredbe, zbog koje su odredbe Carinskog zakonika Zajednice, a posebno njegov članak 221., postale primjenjive na naplatu pristojbi.
Three importers of the product concerned, C & J Clark International Ltd (‘Clark’), Puma SE (‘Puma’) and Timberland Europe BV (‘Timberland’) (‘the importers concerned’) challenged the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear from China and Vietnam invoking the jurisprudence mentioned in recitals (5) to (7) before their national Courts, which referred the matters to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Tri su uvoznika predmetnog proizvoda, C&J Clark International Ltd („Clark”), Puma SE („Puma”) i Timberland Europe B.V. („Timberland”) („predmetni uvoznici”), osporavala antidampinške mjere na uvoz određene obuće iz Kine i Vijetnama pozivajući se na nadležnost navedenu u uvodnim izjavama 5. do 7. pred svojim nacionalnim sudovima, koji su predmete uputili Sudu na odluku o prethodnom pitanju.
In the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the Court of Justice declared Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 invalid in so far as the European Commission did not examine the MET and individual treatment (‘IT’) claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled (‘the judgments’), contrary to the requirements laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.
U spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE Sud je Uredbu (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i Provedbenu uredbu (EU) br. 1294/2009 proglasio nevaljanima u dijelu u kojem Komisija nije ispitala zahtjeve za MET i individualni tretman („IT”) koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici iz NRK-a i Vijetnama koji nisu uključeni u uzorak („presude”), što je protivno zahtjevima utvrđenima u članku 2. stavku 7. točki (b) i članku 9. stavku 5. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 384/96.
Regarding the third case C-571/14, Timberland Europe BV against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, the Court of Justice decided on 11 April 2016 to remove the case from the register at the request of the referring national court.
U pogledu trećeg predmeta C-571/14, Timberland Europe B.V. protiv Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond, Sud je 11. travnja 2016. odlučio obrisati taj predmet iz registra na zahtjev nacionalnog suda koji mu ga je uputio.
In case of annulment of an act adopted by the Institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping, compliance with the Court's judgment consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated.
Ako se poništi akt koji su institucije donijele u okviru administrativnog postupka, kao što je antidampinški, u skladu s presudom suda poništeni se akt zamjenjuje novim aktom, iz kojeg je izbačena nezakonitost koju je utvrdio Sud.
According to the case-law of the Court, the procedure for replacing the annulled act may be resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred.
Prema sudskoj praksi Suda postupak za zamjenu poništenog akta može se nastaviti u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti.
That implies in particular that in a situation where an act concluding an administrative procedure is annulled, that annulment does not necessarily affect the preparatory acts, such as the initiation of the anti-dumping procedure.
Pod time se posebno razumijeva da, ako se poništi akt kojim se zaključuje neki administrativni postupak, to poništenje ne utječe nužno na pripremne akte kao što je pokretanje antidampinškog postupka.
In a situation where a Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order, except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
Ako se uredba kojom se uvode konačne antidampinške mjere poništi, to znači da je nakon poništenja taj antidampinški postupak i dalje otvoren jer akt kojim se taj antidampinški postupak zaključuje više nije dio pravnog poretka Unije, osim ako je do nezakonitosti došlo u fazi pokretanja postupka.
Apart from the fact that the Institutions did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, all other findings made in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
Osim činjenice da institucije nisu ispitale zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici iz NRK-a i Vijetnama koji nisu uključeni u uzorak, svi ostali nalazi iz Uredbe (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1294/2009 i dalje su valjani.
Hence, the Commission decided to resume the present anti-dumping proceeding that was still open following the judgments at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, which was the investigation period in the investigation that led to the imposition of definitive duties mentioned in recitals (1) and (2) (‘the original investigation’).
Stoga je Komisija odlučila nastaviti trenutačni antidampinški postupak koji je još bio otvoren nakon donošenja presuda u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti i ispitati jesu li za predmetne proizvođače izvoznike u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005., a to je bilo razdoblje ispitnog postupka u ispitnom postupku koji je rezultirao uvođenjem konačnih pristojbi iz uvodnih izjava (1) i (2) („početni ispitni postupak”), prevladavali uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva.
The Commission also examined, where appropriate, whether the exporting producers concerned qualified for IT in accordance with 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’).
Komisija je isto tako, prema potrebi, ispitala ispunjavaju li predmetni proizvođači izvoznici uvjete za IT u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1225/2009 („Osnovna uredba prije izmjena”).
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395, the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark and Puma of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC and produced by thirteen Chinese exporting producers that submitted MET and IT claims in the investigation that lead to the imposition of definitive duties (the ‘original investigation’) but that had not been sampled during that investigation.
Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2016/1395 Komisija je ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno prikupila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz društava Clark i Puma određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz NRK-a Narodne Republike Kine koju je proizvelo trinaest kineskih proizvođača izvoznika koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT u ispitnom postupku koji je rezultirao uvođenjem konačnih pristojbi („početni ispitni postupak”), ali koji nisu bili uključeni u uzorak tijekom tog ispitnog postupka.
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647, the Commission reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark, Puma and Timberland of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by certain Vietnamese exporting producers that submitted MET and IT claims in the original investigation, but had not been sampled during that investigation.
Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2016/1647 Komisija je ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno naplatila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz društava Clark, Puma i Timberland određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Vijetnama koju su proizveli određeni vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT u početnom ispitnom postupku, ali koji nisu bili uključeni u uzorak tijekom tog ispitnog postupka.
Subsequently, two additional suppliers of Puma in Vietnam, Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd (‘Ty Hung Co. Ltd’) were identified that provided MET/IT claim forms during the original investigation.
Naknadno su utvrđena još dva dobavljača društva Puma u Vijetnamu, Diamond Vietnam Co Ltd i Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd („Ty Hung Co Ltd”), koji su dostavili obrasce zahtjeva za MET/IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
Concerning Ty Hung Co. Ltd it is noted that in Puma's file before the national Court, one of the Vietnamese suppliers was identified as ‘Lac Hung Co. Ltd’, while the information available pointed to a possible name change between the original investigation and the application before the national Court.
S obzirom na društvo Ty Hung Co Ltd, napominje se da je u spisu društva Puma za predmet pred nacionalnim sudom jedan od vijetnamskih dobavljača utvrđen kao „Lac Hung Co. Ltd”, a dostupne informacije upućuju na moguću promjenu naziva u vremenu između početnog ispitnog postupka i prijavi pred nacionalnim sudom.
It appeared that the company at stake was formerly named ‘Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd’ (‘Ty Hung Co. Ltd’).
Čini se da se društvo u pitanju ranije zvalo „Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd” („Ty Hung Co Ltd”).
Regarding imports of Timberland one of the two Chinese suppliers identified in the case C-571/14, General Shoes Ltd was in fact established in Vietnam and assessed as such.
U pogledu uvoza društva Timberland, jedan od dva kineska dobavljača utvrđena u predmetu C-571/14, General Shoes Ltd, zapravo ima poslovni nastan u Vijetnamu i kao takav je ocijenjen.
Findings with regard to this company were published by the abovementioned Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 (recital (19)).
Nalazi u pogledu tog društva objavljeni su u navedenoj Provedbenoj uredbi (EU) 2016/1647 (uvodna izjava 19.).
This was contested by the Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (‘FESI’) that claimed that General Shoes Ltd was in fact a Chinese supplier.
To je osporavala Federacija europskih proizvođača sportske robe („FESI”), koja je tvrdila da je društvo General Shoes Ltd zapravo kineski dobavljač.
FESI claimed that the MET/IT request of the Chinese company General Footwear Ltd should also be assessed. The Commission notes that although the relevant MET/IT claim form was ambiguous as to whether the company at stake is in fact Chinese or Vietnamese, for the sake of completeness the MET/IT claim form of General Footwear Ltd was now also assessed.
FESI je tvrdio da je trebalo ocijeniti i zahtjev za MET/IT kineskog društva General Footwear Ltd Komisija napominje da je radi cjelovitosti sada ocijenjen i obrazac zahtjeva za MET/IT društva General Footwear Ltd, iako iz tog obrasca zahtjeva za MET/IT nije jasno je li predmetno poduzeće zapravo kinesko ili vijetnamsko.
For imports of Puma and Timberland from China and Vietnam the Commission assessed the MET and IT claims provided by the relevant abovementioned non-sampled exporting producers that submitted these claims in the original investigation.
Za uvoz društava Puma i Timberland iz Kine i Vijetnama Komisija je ocijenila zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su dostavili relevantni navedeni proizvođači izvoznici koji nisu uključeni u uzorak, a koji su podnijeli te zahtjeve u početnom ispitnom postupku.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM VIETNAM AND THE PRC
B. PROVEDBA PRESUDA SUDA U SPOJENIM PREDMETIMA C-659/13 I C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ VIJETNAMA I NRK-a
The present Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the contested Regulation found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the declaration of invalidity in so far as certain exporting producers from Vietnam and the PRC are concerned.
Cilj je ove Uredbe ispraviti aspekte Sporne uredbe koji nisu u skladu s Osnovnom uredbom i koji su stoga doveli do njezina proglašenja nevaljanom u dijelu u kojem se odnosi na određene proizvođače izvoznike iz Vijetnama i NRK-a.
All other findings made in the contested Regulation, which were not declared invalid by the Court of Justice, remain valid and are herewith incorporated into the present Regulation.
Svi ostali nalazi utvrđeni u Spornoj uredbi koje Sud nije proglasio nevaljanima i dalje su važeći i postaju dio ove Uredbe.
The Commission has examined whether MET and IT prevailed for the three exporting producers, suppliers of Puma and Timberland, mentioned above in recitals (20) and (21) which submitted MET/IT requests in the original investigation, during the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
Komisija je ispitala jesu li za tri proizvođača izvoznika, dobavljače društva Puma i Timberland, navedena u uvodnim izjavama 20. i 21., koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET/IT u početnom ispitnom postupku, MET i IT prevladavali u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005.