natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, the following entry is deleted:
U Prilogu III. Uredbi (EZ) br. 1210/2003 briše se sljedeći unos:
Address: Basra, Iraq.’
Adresa: Basra, Irak.”
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1643
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1643
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1644
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1644
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Φάβα Φενεού (Fava Feneou) (PGI))
o upisu naziva u registar zaštićenih oznaka izvornosti i zaštićenih oznaka zemljopisnog podrijetla (Φάβα Φενεού (Fava Feneou) (ZOZP))
Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Greece's application to register the name ‘Φάβα Φενεού’ (Fava Feneou) 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 Grčke za upis naziva „Φάβα Φενεού” (Fava Feneou) 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 ‘Φάβα Φενεού’ (Fava Feneou) 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 „Φάβα Φενεού” (Fava Feneou) potrebno je upisati u registar,
The name ‘Φάβα Φενεού’ (Fava Feneou) (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
Naziv „Φάβα Φενεού” (Fava Feneou) (ZOZP) upisuje se u registar.
OJ C 164, 5.5.2016, p. 7.
SL C 164, 5.5.2016., str. 7.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1645
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1645
A product in the form of irregular, flat, brown, hard fragments (about 2 mm thick) or flakes, manufactured of (% by weight):
Proizvod u obliku nepravilnih, plosnatih, smeđih, tvrdih fragmenata (debljine približno 2 mm) ili pahuljica, proizveden od:
pine resin (also called tall oil rosin or rosin)
borove smole (koja se naziva i smola talovog ulja ili kolofonij)
approx. 58-69,
s masenim udjelom otprilike 58–69 %,
maleic acid anhydride
anhidrida maleinske kiseline
approx. 1-4,
s masenim udjelom otprilike 1–4 %
various phenols
raznih fenola
approx. 11-24,
s masenim udjelom otprilike 11–24 %
formaldehyde
formaldehida
approx. 5,5-9,
s masenim udjelom otprilike 5,5–9 % i
pentaerythritol
pentaeritritola
approx. 7-12.
s masenim udjelom otprilike 7–12 %
The product results from a multi-step process starting with rosin and maleic anhydride being transformed into a rosin adduct.
Proizvod je dobiven u višefaznom postupku koji započinje pretvaranjem kolofonija i anhidrida maleinske kiseline u kolofonijski adukt.
After the addition of magnesium oxide (as a catalyst for the subsequent reactions), phenols and formaldehyde a polymerised resin is formed.
Nakon dodavanja magnezijeva oksida (kao katalizatora za daljnje reakcije), fenola i formaldehida stvara se polimerizirana smola.
Finally, free acid groups of the resin are esterified after the addition of pentaerythritol.
Konačno, nakon dodavanja pentaeritritola esterificiraju se skupine slobodnih masnih kiselina u smoli.
The product at issue is used in the printing industry as an adhesive.
Predmetni proizvod upotrebljava se u tiskarskoj industriji kao sredstvo za lijepljenje.
Classification is determined by general rules 1, 3(a) and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) and the wording of CN codes 3909 and 39094000.
Razvrstavanje se utvrđuje u skladu s općim pravilima 1, 3(a) i 6 za tumačenje kombinirane nomenklature i nazivima oznaka KN 3909 i 39094000.
Classification under heading 3506 as adhesives based on polymers of headings 3901 to 3913 is excluded by application of general rule 3(a) as the product is described more specifically in heading 3909.
Razvrstavanje u tarifni broj 3506 kao sredstva za lijepljenje na osnovi polimera iz tarifnih brojeva 3901 do 3913 isključeno je primjenom općeg pravila 3(a) jer je proizvod detaljnije opisan u tarifnom broju 3909.
In the manufacture of a rosin derivative, the rosin adduct is esterified with ethylene glycol, glycerol or another polyhydric alcohol (see also the Harmonized System Explanatory Notes to heading 3806 (D)(I)(7)).
U proizvodnji derivata kolofonija, kolofinijski adukt esterificiran je etilen-glikolom, glicerolom ili nekim drugim višehidroksilnim alkoholom (vidjeti i napomene s objašnjenjem harmoniziranog sustava uz tarifni broj 3806 (D)(I)(7)).
However, in the case of the product in question, before esterification with a polyhydric alcohol (pentaerythritol, in this case), a polymerisation reaction with phenol and formaldehyde takes place.
Međutim, u slučaju dotičnog proizvoda, prije esterifikacije višehidroksilnim alkoholom (u ovom slučaju pentaeritritolom) dolazi do polimerizacijske reakcije s fenolom i formaldehidom.
Classification under heading 3806 as a derivative of rosin is therefore excluded.
Razvrstavanje u tarifni broj 3806 kao derivata kolofonija stoga je isključeno.
The molecules of the polymerised intermediary product have a molecular weight of around 5000-30000 g/mol.
Molekule polimeriziranog poluproizvoda imaju molekularnu masu od oko 5000–30000 g/mol.
Subsequently, the free acid groups are esterified through the addition of pentaerythritol and a cross-linking follows with an increase of molecular mass to about 100000 g/mol.
Potom se dodavanjem pentaeritritola esterificiraju skupine slobodnih masnih kiselina i slijedi unakrsno vezivanje uz povećanje molekularne mase na otprilike 100000 g/mol.
Consequently, the obtained product is a polymer of Chapter 39, which differs from the adducts and derivatives of the rosin of heading 3806 due to its high molecular mass.
Stoga je dobiveni proizvod polimer iz poglavlja 39., koji se zbog velike molekularne mase razlikuje od adukata i derivata kolofonija iz tarifnog broja 3806.
The product is therefore to be classified in CN code 39094000 as phenolic resins.
Proizvod se stoga razvrstava u oznaku KN 39094000 kao fenolne smole.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1647
of 13 September 2016
оd 13. rujna 2016.
Re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty 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 Vijetnama koju proizvode trgovačka društva Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd. i njegovo povezano trgovačko društvo Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd., Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd., Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, i 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’) [1], 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”) [1], a posebno njezine članke 9. i 14.,
On 23 March 2006, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 [2] imposing provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather (‘footwear’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘PRC’) and Vietnam (‘the provisional Regulation’).
Komisija je 23. ožujka 2006. donijela Uredbu Komisije (EZ) br. 553/2006 [2] („Privremena uredba”).
By Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 [3] 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 (‘Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006’ or ‘the contested Regulation’).
Vijeće je Uredbom (EZ) br. 1472/2006 [3] 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 [4] 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 [4] 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 [5], the Council further extended the anti-dumping measures for 15 months by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 [6], 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. [5] dodatno produžilo te antidampinške mjere za 15 mjeseci Provedbenom uredbom (EU) br. 1294/2009 [6], tj. do 31. ožujka 2011., kad su mjere istekle („Provedbena uredba (EU) br. 1294/2009”).
Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd as well as Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (‘the applicants’) challenged the contested Regulation in the Court of First Instance (now: the General Court).
Društva Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd i Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd te Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd („podnositelji zahtjeva”) osporila su Spornu uredbu na Prvostupanjskom sudu (sada: Opći sud).
By judgments of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council [2010] ECR II-671 and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council [2010] ECR II-747, the General Court rejected those challenges.
Opći sud odbacio je ta osporavanja presudama od 4. ožujka 2010. u predmetu T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) i ostali protiv Vijeća [2010.] ECR II-671 i od 4. ožujka 2010. u spojenim predmetima T-407/06 i T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes i Wenzhou Taima Shoes protiv Vijeća [2010.] ECR II-747.
The applicants appealed those judgments.
Podnositelji zahtjeva uložili su žalbe na te presude.
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-249/10P Brosmann i dr. i od 15. studenoga 2012. u predmetu C-247/10P 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).
Ustanovio je da je Opći sud povrijedio pravo kada je utvrdio 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 i sam dao presudu u pogledu ovog 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).
Ustanovio 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 takvo ispitivanje dovelo do uvođenja konačne antidampinške pristojbe za 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 očito iz prethodne točke 38., da je Komisija utvrdila da su uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva vrijedili i za žalitelje, ta je ista stopa trebala biti osigurana i žaliteljima 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).
As a consequence, it annulled the contested Regulation, in so far as it relates to the applicants concerned.
Stoga je Sud poništio Spornu uredbu u dijelu u kojem se odnosi na predmetne podnositelje zahtjeva.
In October 2013, the Commission by means of notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union [7] 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 [7] 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 Council Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU [8], rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation re-imposing 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 [8] 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 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code [9] (‘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 [10], 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 [9] („Carinski zakonik Zajednice”), imali legitimna očekivanja na temelju članka 1. stavka 4. Sporne uredbe, zbog koje su odredbe Carinskog zakonika Zajednice [10], a posebno njegov članak 221., postale primjenjive na naplatu pristojbi.
(‘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.
(„Timberland”) („predmetni uvoznici”), osporavala antidampinške mjere na uvoz određene obuće iz Kine i Vijetnama, pri čemu su se pred svojim nacionalnim sudovima pozivali na sudsku praksu iz uvodnih izjava 5. do 7., a ti su sudovi predmete uputili Sudu na donošenje prethodne odluke.
In the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the Court of Justice declared Regulations (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 [11].
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 zato što Europska 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 [11].
Regarding the third case C-571/14, Timberland Europe B.V. 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 da se taj predmet obriše iz registra na zahtjev nacionalnog suda koji mu ga je uputio.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the Institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
U članku 266. UFEU-a propisuje se da institucije moraju poduzeti mjere koje su potrebne kako bi se uskladile s presudama Suda.
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. [12]
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 [12].
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 [13].
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.
Time se posebno podrazumijeva 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 [14], 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 [14], 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 Council Regulations (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 the basic Regulation in its form prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council [15] (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’) [16].
Komisija je isto tako, prema potrebi, ispitala ispunjavaju li predmetni proizvođači izvoznici uvjete za IT u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe kakva je bila prije stupanja na snagu Uredbe (EU) br. 765/2012 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća [15] („Osnovna uredba prije izmjena”) [16].