natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Council Regulation (EC) No 1515/2001 of 23 July 2001 on the measures that may be taken by the Community following a report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning anti-dumping and anti-subsidy matters (OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 10), recital 6 of the preamble.
Uredba Vijeća (EZ) 1515/2001 od 23. srpnja 2001. o mjerama koje Zajednica može poduzeti slijedom izvješća koje je donijelo Tijelo za rješavanje sporova WTO-a u pogledu antidampinških pitanja i pitanja o zaštiti od subvencioniranog uvoza (SL L 201, 26.7.2001., str. 10.), uvodna izjava 6. preambule.
Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2014 amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the procedures for the adoption of certain measures (OJ L 18, 21.1.2014, p. 1).
Uredba (EU) br. 37/2014 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 15. siječnja 2014. o izmjeni određenih uredbi koje se odnose na zajedničku trgovinsku politiku s obzirom na postupke za donošenje određenih mjera (SL L 18, 21.1.2014., str. 1.).
See for example Case T-221/05 Huvis v Council [2008] ECR II-124 and Case T-249/06 Interpipe Nikopolsky v Council [2009] ECR II-303.
Vidjeti, na primjer, predmet T-221/05 Huvis protiv Vijeća [2008.] ECR II-124 i predmet T-249/06 Interpipe Nikopolsky protiv Vijeća [2009.] ECR II-303.
For the sake of completeness, the following explanations appear useful: In case T-107/08 ENRC v Council, the General Court found that there was no dumping, or, at the very least, that the dumping margin established would have been lower than that calculated in the contested regulation, and therefore annulled the contested Council Regulation in its entirety (Case T-107/08 ENRC v Council [2011] ECR II-8051, paragraphs 67 to 70).
Radi potpunosti, sljedeća se objašnjenja čine korisnima: u predmetu T-107/08 ENRC protiv Vijeća Opći sud utvrdio je da nije bilo dampinga ili barem da bi utvrđena dampinška marža bila niža od marže izračunane u Spornoj uredbi te je stoga u cijelosti poništio spornu Uredbu Vijeća (predmet T-107/08 ENRC protiv Vijeća [2011.] ECR II-8051, točke 67. do 70.).
In the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-351/04 Ikea (Case C-351/04 Ikea [2007] ECR I-7723), the Court of Justice had partially declared invalid the Council Regulation, namely to the extent that the duty had been calculated by relying on the technique of so-called ‘zeroing’.
U presudi Suda u predmetu C-351/04 Ikea (predmet C-351/04 Ikea [2007.] ECR I-7723) Sud je Uredbu Vijeća proglasio djelomično nevaljanom, odnosno u mjeri u kojoj je pristojba izračunana primjenom tehnike tzv. „postavljanja na nulu”.
The institutions had re-calculated 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.).
The Commission would normally have resumed the procedure, in order to propose to the Council to impose a duty for the future.
Komisija bi inače nastavila postupak kako bi Vijeću predložila da uvede pristojbu za buduće razdoblje.
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 primjenjivosti 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 potrebe da se u pogledu uvođenja pristojbe za buduće razdoblje postupak nastavi.
There was also no scope to resume the procedure in view of a re-imposition for the past: Contrary to the present case, there was no sampling.
Nije bilo mogućnosti ni za to da se postupak nastavi u pogledu ponovnog uvođenja pristojbe za prethodno razdoblje: za razliku od ovog predmeta, nije bilo odabira uzorka.
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 reviziju tijekom važenja mjere 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.
Stajalište Općeg suda bilo je da se ne može nastaviti na taj način nego da je za dodani proizvod potrebno pokrenuti zasebni ispitni postupak.
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 načela pravomoćne presude (res iudicata), koje je jedno od općih načela prava Unije, institucije nisu mogle nakon poništenja nastaviti djelomičnu reviziju tijekom važenja mjere.
See for example Council Regulation (EC) No 412/2009 of 18 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan, OJ L 125, 25.1.2009, p. 1 (compliance with Huvis); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2012 of 21 June 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine, OJ L 165, 26.6.2012, p. 1 (compliance with Interpipe Nikopolsky).
Vidjeti, na primjer, Uredbu Vijeća (EZ) br. 412/2009 od 18. svibnja 2009. o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 428/2005 o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz rezanih vlakana od poliestera podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i Saudijske Arabije, o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2852/2000 o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz rezanih vlakana od poliestera podrijetlom iz Republike Koreje i prekidu antidampinškog postupka u pogledu takvog uvoza podrijetlom iz Tajvana, SL L 125, 25.1.2009., str. 1. (usklađenost s presudom Huvis); Provedbena uredba Vijeća (EU) br. 540/2012 od 21. lipnja 2012. o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 954/2006 o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz određenih bešavnih cijevi od željeza ili čelika podrijetlom iz Hrvatske, Rumunjske, Rusije i Ukrajine, SL L 165, 26.6.2012., str. 1.(usklađenost s presudom Interpipe Nikopolsky).
See for example Case C-338/10 Gruenwald Logistik Services [2012] ECR I-0000 and the re-imposition of duties by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 158/2013 of 18 February 2013 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 49, 22.2.2013, p. 29).
Vidjeti, na primjer, predmet C-338/10 Gruenwald Logistik Services [2012.] ECR I-0000 i ponovno uvođenje pristojbi Provedbenom uredbom Vijeća (EU) br. 158/2013 od 18. veljače 2013. o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz pripremljenih ili konzerviranih agruma (mandarina itd.) podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine (SL L 49, 22.2.2013., str. 29.).
Pursuant to the general principle of Union law of res judicata, the Commission and the Council are bound by the findings of the Union Courts, where those can, on the basis of the facts in front of them, come to a definitive conclusion on dumping, injury, causal link and Union interest.
Na temelju načela pravomoćne presude (res iudicata), koje je jedno od općih načela prava Unije, Komisija i Vijeće obvezni su poštovati nalaze sudova Unije ako oni, na temelju činjenica koje su im na raspolaganju, mogu donijeti konačan zaključak o dampingu, šteti, uzročno-posljedičnoj vezi i interesu Unije.
In such a situation, the investigation is closed by virtue of the judgment of the Union Courts, which come to the definitive conclusion that the complaint of the Union industry is unfounded in law.
U toj se situaciji ispitni postupak zatvara presudom sudova Unije koji donose konačan zaključak da je pritužba industrije Unije pravno neutemeljena.
Following those two judgments, there was therefore no scope for the Commission and the Council to resume an investigation, which is why no further steps were taken following those judgments.
Nakon te dvije presude Komisija i Vijeće nisu mogli nastaviti ispitni postupak zbog čega nakon tih presuda nisu poduzete daljnje mjere.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 of 17 February 2016 establishing a procedure for assessing certain market economy treatment and individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 41, 18.2.2016, p. 3).
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/223 od 17. veljače 2016. o uspostavljanju postupka za ocjenu određenih zahtjeva za tretman tržišnoga gospodarstva te zahtjeva za pojedinačni tretman koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici iz Kine i Vijetnama te o provedbi presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 (SL L 41, 18.2.2016., str. 3.).
By virtue of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 301, 31.10.2006, p. 1) this CN code is replaced on 1 January 2007 by CN codes ex64035105, ex64035905, ex64039105 and ex64039905.
Na temelju Uredbe Komisije (EZ) br. 1549/2006 od 17. listopada 2006. o izmjeni Priloga I. Uredbi Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2658/87 o tarifnoj i statističkoj nomenklaturi i o Zajedničkoj carinskoj tarifi (SL L 301, 31.10.2006., str. 1.), ova je oznaka KN 1. siječnja 2007. zamijenjena oznakama KN ex64035105, ex64035905, ex64039105 i ex64039905.
See footnote 43.
Vidjeti bilješku 43.
TARIC codes for footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather as defined in Article 1
Oznake TARIC za obuću s gornjim dijelom od kože ili umjetne kože kako je definirana u članku 1.
From 7 October 2006:
Od 7. listopada 2006.:
From 1 January 2007:
Od 1. siječnja 2007.:
From 7 September 2007:
Od 7. rujna 2007.:
List of exporting producers:
Popis proizvođača izvoznika:
Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co., Ltd
Freetrend Industrial Ltd. i njegovo povezano trgovačko društvo Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co., Ltd
Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd
Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd.
General Shoes Ltd
General Shoes Ltd.
Golden Star Co., Ltd
Golden Star Co., Ltd.
Golden Top Company Co., Ltd
Golden Top Company Co., Ltd.
Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd
Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd.
On the basis of the illegality identified by the Court, there is no legal ground for completely exempting the products produced by the exporting producers concerned from paying any anti-dumping duty.
Na temelju nezakonitosti koju je Sud utvrdio ne postoji pravni temelj za potpuno izuzeće proizvoda koje proizvode predmetni proizvođači izvoznici od plaćanja bilo kakve antidampinške pristojbe.
First, Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 (the so-called ‘Fasteners amendment’ dealing with IT) provided in its Article 2 that ‘it shall apply to all investigations initiated pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 following the entry into force of this Regulation’.
Kao prvo, u članku 2. Uredbe (EU) br. 765/2012 (tzv. „Izmjena koja se odnosi na elemente za pričvršćivanje” koja se tiče IT-a) predviđeno je da se „primjenjuje na sve ispitne postupke pokrenute u skladu s Uredbom (EZ) br. 1225/2009 nakon stupanja ove Uredbe na snagu”.
As the present investigation was initiated prior to that date, the amendments of that Regulation to the basic Regulation do not apply in the present case.
Budući da je trenutačni ispitni postupak započet prije tog datuma, izmjene te Uredbe na Osnovnu uredbu ne primjenjuju se u ovom predmetu.
Second, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 (the so-called ‘Brosmann amendment’ dealing with MET) provided in its Article 2 that ‘this Regulation shall apply to all new and to all pending investigations as from 15 December 2012’.
Kao drugo, u članku 2. Uredbe (EU) br. 1168/2012 (tzv. „Izmjena koja se odnosi na predmet Brosmann” koja se tiče MET-a) predviđeno je da se „ova Uredba primjenjuje na sve nove i tekuće ispitne postupke od 15. prosinca 2012.”.
Therefore, if the Commission had adopted a strict approach, it would not even have been necessary to assess the MET claims of the non-sampled companies any more, as they had lost the right to an MET assessment on 15 December 2012.
Stoga, da je Komisija usvojila strogi pristup, ne bi više ni bilo potrebno ocjenjivati zahtjeve za MET društava koja nisu u uzorku jer su ona izgubila pravo na ocjenu MET-a dana 15. prosinca 2012.
It follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Iz toga proizlazi da nije bilo potrebno slijediti postupak na temelju članka 18. stavka 4. Osnovne uredbe.
The procedure under Article 18(4) is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
Postupak iz članka 18. stavka 4. slijedi se u slučajevima kada Komisija namjerava odbaciti određene informacije koje je dostavila zainteresirana strana i umjesto toga koristiti se dostupnim činjenicama.
As from 1 May 2016, Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (‘UCC’) replacing the CCC, entered into force; ( OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, p. 1).
Uredba (EU) br. 952/2013 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 9. listopada 2013. o Carinskom zakoniku Unije stupila je na snagu 1. svibnja 2016., zamjenjujući Carinski zakonik Zajednice; (SL L 269, 10.10.2013., str. 1.).
The substantial provisions at stake here have remained the same.
Odredbe koje su bitne za ovaj predmet ostale su iste.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1648
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1648
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1649
Delegirana uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/1649
supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility
o dopuni Uredbe (EU) br. 1316/2013 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o uspostavi Instrumenta za povezivanje Europe
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 67/2010 [1], and in particular Article 21 thereof,
uzimajući u obzir Uredbu (EU) br. 1316/2013 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 11. prosinca 2013. o uspostavi Instrumenta za povezivanje Europe, izmjeni Uredbe (EU) br. 913/2010 i stavljanju izvan snage uredaba (EZ) br. 680/2007 i (EZ) br. 67/2010 [1], a posebno njezin članak 21.,
On 7 January 2014 the Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 [2] establishing transport funding priorities for the purpose of the multiannual and annual work programmes.
Komisija je 7. siječnja 2014. donijela Delegiranu uredbu (EU) br. 275/2014 [2] u kojoj su utvrđeni prioriteti financiranja u prometu za višegodišnje i godišnje programe rada.
By its judgement of 17 March 2016 in Case C-286/14 European Parliament v Commission the Court of Justice of the European Union annulled Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 and ordered that the effects of that Regulation be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, which may not exceed six months from the date of delivery of the judgment, of a new act intended to replace it.
U presudi od 17. ožujka 2016. u predmetu C-286/14, Europski parlament protiv Komisije, Sud Europske unije poništio je Delegiranu uredbu (EU) br. 275/2014 i naredio zadržavanje učinaka te Uredbe do stupanja na snagu novog akta koji će je zamijeniti, u razumnom roku koji ne smije biti dulji od šest mjeseci od datuma donošenja te presude.
According to Article 21(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013, the transport funding priorities should take into account the eligible actions contributing to projects of common interest in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [3] listed under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013.
U skladu s člankom 21. stavkom 3. Uredbe (EU) br. 1316/2013 pri utvrđivanju prioriteta financiranja u prometu potrebno je uzeti u obzir prihvatljive mjere koje doprinose projektima od zajedničkog interesa u skladu s Uredbom (EU) br. 1315/2013 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća [3], navedene u članku 7. stavku 2. Uredbe (EU) br. 1316/2013.
The eligible actions listed in Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 are further detailed in Articles 10 and 11 of that Regulation providing the maximum applicable funding rates for those actions.
Prihvatljive mjere navedene u članku 7. stavku 2. Uredbe (EU) br. 1316/2013 detaljnije su opisane u člancima 10. i 11. te Uredbe kojima se utvrđuju najviše primjenjive stope financiranja tih mjera.
It is therefore appropriate to refer to the actions as listed in those Articles in order to detail the transport funding priorities.
Prikladno je stoga upućivati na mjere navedene u tim člancima kako bi se detaljnije opisali prioriteti financiranja u prometu.
Projects of common interest as listed in Part I of Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 are eligible to the multiannual work programmes referred to in Article 17(3) of that Regulation.
Projekti od zajedničkog interesa iz dijela I. Priloga I. Uredbi (EU) br. 1316/2013 prihvatljivi su za višegodišnje programe rada iz članka 17. stavka 3. te Uredbe.
Projects not listed in Part I of Annex I but eligible as per Article 7(2) of that Regulation are eligible to the annual work programmes.
Projekti koji nisu navedeni u dijelu I. Priloga I., ali su prihvatljivi prema članku 7. stavku 2. te Uredbe, prihvatljivi su za godišnje programe rada.
Pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 laying down the specific transport sectoral objectives, and considering that Article 21(3) of that Regulation empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance with its Article 26 detailing, for the transport sector, the funding priorities to be reflected in the work programmes, this Delegated Regulation sets out such priorities to be reflected in multi-annual or annual work programmes in accordance with Article 17(3) of the said Regulation.
U skladu s člankom 4. stavkom 2. Uredbe (EU) br. 1316/2013 u kojem se utvrđuju posebni ciljevi u sektoru prometa i imajući u vidu da je člankom 21. stavkom 3. te Uredbe Komisija ovlaštena donositi delegirane akte u skladu s člankom 26. kojim se utvrđuju prioriteti financiranja u sektoru prometa koji se trebaju odražavati u programima rada, ovom se Delegiranom uredbom utvrđuju ti prioriteti koji se trebaju odražavati u višegodišnjim i godišnjim programima rada u skladu člankom 17. stavkom 3. navedene Uredbe.
Considering that financial instruments are to receive Union contribution under the annual work programmes, it is appropriate to include hereby a corresponding priority.
Uzimajući u obzir da se doprinos Unije za financijske instrumente dodjeljuje u skladu s godišnjim radnim programima, prikladno je uključiti odgovarajući prioritet.
Programmes support actions listed in Article 5(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013, consisting of technical and administrative assistance expenses incurred by the Commission for the management of the Connecting Europe Facility and capped at 1 % of the financial envelope, will not be covered by the work programmes.
Mjere za potporu programa navedene u članku 5. stavku 2. točki (b) Uredbe (EU) br. 1316/2013 koje obuhvaćaju troškove Komisije za tehničku i administrativnu pomoć u okviru upravljanja Instrumentom za povezivanje Europe i koje su ograničene na 1 % financijske omotnice, neće biti obuhvaćene programima rada.
However the programme support actions contributing to projects of common interest as provided for in Article 7(2) and referred to in Article 5(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 will be covered by the work programmes and are included hereby with a corresponding priority.
No mjere za potporu programa koje doprinose projektima od zajedničkog interesa, kako je predviđeno člankom 7. stavkom 2. i navedeno u članku 5. stavku 2. točki (a) Uredbe (EU) br. 1316/2013, bit će obuhvaćene programima rada te su uključene s odgovarajućim prioritetom.
All resources referred in Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013, including the resources transferred from the Cohesion Fund will be covered under the same work programmes.
Sva sredstva iz članka 5. stavka 1. točke (a) Uredbe (EU) br. 1316/2013 uključujući sredstva prenesena iz Kohezijskog fonda bit će obuhvaćena istim programima rada.
According to Article 11 of that Regulation, the resources transferred from the Cohesion Fund will be subject to specific calls for proposals.
U skladu s člankom 11. te Uredbe, sredstva prenesena iz Kohezijskog fonda podliježu posebnim pozivima na podnošenje prijedloga.
In order to allow for the timely adoption of the implementing acts provided for in Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 to ensure legal continuity of the Connecting Europe Facility — Transport sector — programme, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,
Kako bi se omogućilo pravodobno donošenje provedbenih akata navedenih u članku 17. stavku 3. Uredbe (EU) br. 1316/2013, čime će se osigurati pravni kontinuitet programa u sektoru prometa u okviru Instrumenta za povezivanje Europe, ova bi Uredba trebala stupiti na snagu dan nakon objave u Službenom listu Europske unije,