natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endo-1,4-beta-glucanase/EC 3.2.1.4/Endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase/EC 3.2.1.6 and endo-1,4-beta-xylanase/EC 3.2.1.8 produced by Trichoderma longibrachiatum (ATCC 74 252)
Endo-1,4-beta-glukanaza/EC 3.2.1.4/endo-1,3(4)-beta-glukanaza/EC 3.2.1.6 i endo-1,4-beta-ksilanaza/EC 3.2.1.8 dobivena od Trichoderma longibrachiatum (ATCC 74252)
Endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase/EC 3.2.1.6/Endo-1,4-beta-xylanase/EC 3.2.1.8 produced by Penicillium funiculosum (IMI SD 101)
Endo-1,3(4)-beta-glukanaza/EC 3.2.1.6/endo-1,4-beta-ksilanaza/EC 3.2.1.8 dobivena od Penicillium funiculosum (IMI SD 101)
Piglets (weaned); Ducks for fattening
Prasad (odbijena); patke za tov
Endo-1,4-beta-xylanase/EC 3.2.1.8 produced by Trichoderma longibrachiatum (ATCC 2105)/and subtilisin/EC 3.4.21.62 produced by Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 2107)
Endo-1,4-beta-ksilanaza/EC 3.2.1.8 dobivena od Trichoderma longibrachiatum (ATCC 2105)/i subtilizin/EC 3.4.21.62 dobiven od Bacillus subtilis (ATCC 2107)
Endo-1,4-beta-xylanase/EC 3.2.1.8 produced by Bacillus subtilis (LMG S-15136)
Endo-1,4-beta-ksilanaza/EC 3.2.1.8 dobivena od Bacillus subtilis (LMG S-15136)
Endo-1,4-beta-xylanase/EC 3.2.1.8 produced by Trichoderma longibrachiatum (ATCC 2105)and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase/EC 3.2.1.6 produced by Trichoderma longibrachiatum (ATCC 2106)
Endo-1,4-beta-ksilanaza/EC 3.2.1.8 dobivena od Trichoderma longibrachiatum (ATCC 2105) i endo-1,3(4)-beta-glukanaza/EC 3.2.1.6 dobivena od Trichoderma longibrachiatum (ATCC 2106)
Endo-1,4-beta-xylanase/EC 3.2.1.8 produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 529.94) and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase/EC 3.2.1.6 produced by Trichoderma reesei (CBS 526.94)
Endo-1,4-beta-ksilanaza/EC 3.2.1.8 dobivena od Trichoderma reesei (CBS 529.94) i endo-1,3(4)-beta-glukanaza/EC 3.2.1.6 dobivena od Trichoderma reesei (CBS 526.94)
Turkeys for fattening; Chickens for fattening
Pure za tov; pilići za tov
Endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase/EC 3.2.1.6 produced by Aspergillus aculeatus (CBS 589.94) and endo-1,4-beta-xylanase/EC 3.2.1.8 produced by Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 10287)
Endo-1,3(4)-beta-glukanaza/EC 3.2.1.6 dobivena od Aspergillus aculeatus (CBS 589.94) i endo-1,4-beta-ksilanaza/EC 3.2.1.8 dobivena od Aspergillus oryzae (DSM 10287)
Chickens for fattening; Piglets (weaned)
Pilići za tov; prasad (odbijena)
Cats, Dogs
Mačke, psi
Halofuginone hydrobromide 6g/kg (Stenorol)
Halofuginon hidrobromid 6 g/kg (stenorol)
Salinomycin sodium 120 g/kg (Sacox 120) (holder of the authorisation Huvepharma NV)
Salinomicin natrij 120 g/kg (Sacox 120) (nositelj odobrenja Huvepharma NV)
Rabbits for fattening
Kunići za tov
Salinomycin sodium 120 g/kg (Salinomax 120G) (holder of the authorisation Zoetis Belgium SA)
Salinomicin natrij 120 g/kg (Salinomax 120G) (nositelj odobrenja Zoetis Belgium SA)
Pantothenic acid.
Pantotenska kiselina.
All forms with the exception of Calcium-D-pantothenate and D-panthenol
Svi oblici osim kalcij-D-pantotenata i D-pantenola
E 161g
E 161 g
E 160e
E 160c
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1146
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2017/1146
re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China, manufactured by Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd
o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz lijevanog pribora za cijevi s navojem, od temperiranog lijevanog željeza, podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine, koji proizvodi društvo Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd.
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union [1] (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) 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 [1] („osnovna uredba”), a posebno njezin članak 9. stavak 4.,
By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 430/2013 [2] (‘the contested Regulation’), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty at rates ranging from 14,9 % to 57,8 % on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, currently falling within CN code ex73071910 (TARIC code 7307191010) and originating in the People's Republic of China and Thailand.
Provedbenom uredbom (EU) br. 430/2013 [2] („sporna uredba”) Vijeće je uvelo konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu po stopama od 14,9 % do 57,8 % na uvoz lijevanog pribora za cijevi s navojem, od temperiranog lijevanog željeza, trenutačno razvrstanog u oznaku KN ex73071910 (oznaka TARIC 7307191010), podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i Tajlanda.
Bodies of compression fittings using ISO DIN 13 metric thread and malleable iron threaded circular junction boxes without having a lid are not covered by the duty.
Pristojba se ne primjenjuje na tijela kompresijskog pribora s metričkim navojem ISO DIN 13 i kružne spojne ormariće s navojima od temperiranog željeza bez poklopca.
The Judgement of the General Court of the European Union
Presuda Općeg suda Europske unije
On 12 June 2013, one cooperating Chinese exporting producer, Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd (‘Jinan Meide or the applicant’), lodged an application at the General Court of the European Union (‘the General Court’) seeking the annulment of the contested Regulation in so far as it applies to the applicant [3].
Društvo Jinan Meide Castings Co., Ltd. („Jinan Meide ili podnositelj zahtjeva”), kineski proizvođač izvoznik koji surađuje, podnijelo je 12. lipnja 2013. zahtjev Općem sudu Europske unije („Opći sud”) kojom je zatražilo poništenje sporne uredbe u dijelu u kojem se odnosi na podnositelja zahtjeva [3].
On 30 June 2016, the General Court in its judgment found that the rights of defence of Jinan Meide were breached by the rejection of its request for disclosure of normal value calculations using confidential data of an analogue country producer.
Opći je sud 30. lipnja 2016. u svojoj presudi utvrdio da su prava na obranu društva Jinan Meide bila prekršena time što je odbijen njegov zahtjev za objavu izračunâ uobičajene vrijednosti uporabom povjerljivih podataka proizvođača iz analogne zemlje.
Jinan Meide had obtained an exclusive authorisation from the analogue country producer waving the confidentiality of its data.
Jinan Meide je od proizvođača iz analogne zemlje dobio isključivo odobrenje kojim se odriče povjerljivosti svojih podataka.
In particular, the General Court found that the Commission was wrong to rely on the need to comply with the principle of equal treatment in order to reject this request for disclosure.
Konkretno, Opći je sud utvrdio da se pri odbijanju zahtjeva za objavu Komisija nije trebala oslanjati na potrebu poštovanja načela jednakog postupanja.
The General Court held that it could not be ruled out that if the request had been accepted, the outcome of the investigation could have been different.
Opći sud izrazio je mišljenje da se ne može isključiti mogućnost da je ishod ispitnog postupka mogao biti drukčiji da je zahtjev bio prihvaćen.
Therefore, the Court annulled the contested Regulation in so far as it imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, manufactured by Jinan Meide.
Stoga je Sud poništio spornu uredbu u dijelu u kojem se uvode antidampinške pristojbe na uvoz lijevanog pribora za cijevi s navojem, od temperiranog lijevanog željeza, koji proizvodi Jinan Meide.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GENERAL COURT'S JUDGMENT
PROVEDBA PRESUDE OPĆEG SUDA
According to Article 266 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the Court's judgment of 30 June 2016.
U skladu s člankom 266. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije institucije Unije dužne su pridržavati se presude Suda od 30. lipnja 2016.
In its judgment in case T-2/95 [4] (the ‘IPS case’), the Court of First Instance recognised that, in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding.
Prvostupanjski je sud u svojoj presudi u predmetu T-2/95 [4] („predmet IPS”) utvrdio da, u predmetima u kojima se postupak sastoji od nekoliko administrativnih koraka, poništavanjem jednog koraka ne poništava se cijeli postupak.
The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding.
Antidampinški postupak primjer je takvog postupka koji se sastoji od više koraka.
Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation.
Stoga se poništenjem sporne uredbe u odnosu na jednu stranu ne podrazumijeva poništenje cijelog postupka koji je pokrenut prije donošenja te Uredbe.
The EU institutions have the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts which are not affected by the Court judgment — as was held by the Court of Justice in case C-458/98 P [5].
Institucije Europske unije mogu ispraviti aspekte sporne uredbe koji su doveli do njezina poništenja, ne mijenjajući pritom nesporne dijelove na koje presuda Suda ne utječe – kako je Sud Europske unije utvrdio u predmetu C-458/98 P [5].
It should be noted that apart from the finding that the Commission was wrong to rely on the need to comply with the principle of equal treatment in order to reject Jinan Meide's request for disclosure, all other findings made in the contested Regulation which were not contested within the time-limits for a challenge or which were contested but rejected by the General Court's judgment or not examined by the General Court and therefore did not lead to the annulment of the contested Regulation, remain valid.
Valja napomenuti da osim nalaza da se pri odbijanju zahtjeva za objavu društva Jinan Meide Komisija nije trebala oslanjati na potrebu poštovanja načela jednakog postupanja, ostaju na snazi svi drugi nalazi utvrđeni u spornoj uredbi koji nisu osporeni u za to predviđenom roku ili koji su bili osporeni, ali je to odbačeno presudom Općeg suda ili ih Opći sud nije ispitao, te stoga nisu doveli do poništenja sporne uredbe.
Following the Court's judgment of 30 June 2016, the Commission published a notice [6] concerning the partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron, originating in the People's Republic of China.
Nakon presude Suda od 30. lipnja 2016. Komisija je objavila obavijest [6] o djelomičnom ponovnom pokretanju antidampinškog ispitnog postupka u pogledu uvoza lijevanog pribora za cijevi s navojem, od temperiranog lijevanog željeza, podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine.
The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment of the General Court with regard to Jinan Meide.
Ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka ograničeno je na provedbu presude Općeg suda u pogledu društva Jinan Meide.
The Commission officially advised Jinan Meide, the representatives of the exporting country and the Union industry of the partial reopening of the investigation.
Komisija je o djelomičnom ponovnom pokretanju ispitnog postupka službeno obavijestila društvo Jinan Meide, predstavnike zemlje izvoznice i industrije Unije.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set out in the notice.
Zainteresirane strane dobile su priliku da iznesu svoja stajališta u pisanom obliku i da zatraže saslušanje u roku određenom u obavijesti.
Following the initial comments received, all other interested parties known to be concerned from the original investigation were contacted and given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing.
Nakon što su primljene početne primjedbe, obaviještene su sve druge zainteresirane strane poznate iz početnog ispitnog postupka, koje su dobile priliku da izraze svoje stavove u pisanom obliku i zatraže saslušanje.
All interested parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard by the Commission services and/or the Hearing officer.
Svim zainteresiranim stranama koje su to tražile odobreno je saslušanje pred službama Komisije i/ili službenikom za saslušanje.
The Commission received submissions on various aspects of the investigation from Jinan Meide, other Chinese exporting producers, one Thai exporting producer, five Union producers and eight unrelated importers.
Komisija je primila podneske o različitim aspektima ispitnog postupka od društva Jinan Meide, drugih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika, jednog tajlandskog proizvođača izvoznika, pet proizvođača iz Unije i osam nepovezanih uvoznika.
Comments on the reopening
Primjedbe o ponovnom pokretanju ispitnog postupka
Jinan Meide argued that the illegality committed by the Union Institutions which led to the annulment of contested Regulation cannot be cured and the proceeding should be terminated without re-imposing any anti-dumping duty on Jinan Meide.
Društvo Jinan Meide tvrdilo je da se nezakonitost koju su počinile institucije Unije i koja je dovela do poništenja sporne uredbe ne može ispraviti te da bi postupak trebalo prekinuti bez ponovnog uvođenja antidampinških pristojbi primjenjivih na Jinan Meide.
As stated above in recital 4, the Court of First Instance in the IPS case recognised that, in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, such as in an anti-dumping proceeding, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding.
Kako je prethodno navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi (4), Prvostupanjski je sud u predmetu IPS utvrdio da se u predmetima u kojima se postupak sastoji od nekoliko administrativnih koraka, kao što je slučaj s antidampinškim postupkom, poništenjem jednog koraka ne poništava cijeli postupak.
Since the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the Court's judgment, this implies the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts.
Budući da su institucije Unije obvezne pridržavati se presude Suda, one mogu ispraviti aspekte sporne uredbe koji su doveli do njezina poništenja, ne mijenjajući pritom nesporne dijelove.
One unrelated importer claimed that it is procedurally not possible to reopen an investigation which has previously been concluded, as substantive failures would consequently occur, like accepting new information after the closure of a case, discrimination against all other parties to the investigation whose dumping margins would be different if Jinan Meide's dumping margin was amended and a breach of EU and WTO law in the sense that anti-dumping measures cannot be applied retroactively.
Jedan nepovezani uvoznik tvrdio je da postupovno nije moguće ponovno pokrenuti ispitni postupak koji je prethodno zaključen jer bi u tom slučaju došlo do znatnih propusta, primjerice prihvaćanja novih informacija nakon zaključivanja predmeta, diskriminacije svih drugih strana u ispitnom postupku čije bi dampinške marže bile drukčije kad bi se izmijenila dampinška marža društva Jinan Meide te kršenja propisa EU-a i WTO-a u pogledu nemogućnosti retroaktivne primjene antidampinških mjera.
This importer also claimed that a reopening does not appear to be permitted under the terms of the basic Regulation.
Taj je uvoznik također tvrdio da osnovna uredba ne dopušta ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka.
The same party also stated that the Commission is not authorised to take action to implement a Court judgment in respect of a Council Regulation as the Commission was not the defendant in Case T-424/13.
Ista je strana navela da Komisija nije ovlaštena provesti presudu Suda u odnosu na Uredbu Vijeća jer Komisija nije bila tuženik u predmetu T-424/13.
It claimed that the Commission needs to receive formal instructions from the Council to launch a reopening.
Također je tvrdila da bi Komisija trebala od Vijeća dobiti formalnu uputu o ponovnom pokretanju ispitnog postupka.
It is clear from the judgment of joined cases C-283/14 and C-284/14 [7] that the EU Institutions may reopen an anti-dumping investigation to amend irregularities found by the European Courts even though this is not expressly provided for in the basic Regulation.
Iz presude u spojenim predmetima C-283/14 i C-284/14 [7] jasno je da institucije EU-a mogu ponovno pokrenuti antidampinški ispitni postupak kako bi ispravile nepravilnosti koje su utvrdili sudovi Europske unije iako to nije izričito predviđeno osnovnom uredbom.
The EU Institutions are in fact required to take the necessary measures to remedy illegalities.
Štoviše, institucije EU-a dužne su poduzeti potrebne mjere kako bi se ispravile nezakonitosti.
In this case, as the investigating authority, the Commission reopened the investigation in order to implement the Court's judgement.
U ovom je slučaju Komisija kao tijelo koje provodi ispitni postupak ponovno pokrenula ispitni postupak kako bi provela presudu Suda.
The reopening of this investigation follows the legal procedures required by the basic Regulation, which provide for adoption by the Commission after consulting the Member States under the examination procedure referred to in Article 15(3) of the basic Regulation.
Ponovno pokretanje tog ispitnog postupka uređeno je pravnim postupcima propisanima osnovnom uredbom, kojima je predviđeno da akt donosi Komisija nakon savjetovanja s državama članicama u skladu s postupkom ispitivanja iz članka 15. stavka 3. osnovne uredbe.
One importer stated that it was not clear to what extent a reopening can be carried on under the provisions of the current basic Regulation, as it is apparent the Commission intended to pursue the investigation as if it were put back in time when Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 [8] was still in force.
Jedan je uvoznik naveo da nije jasno u kojoj se mjeri ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka može provesti prema odredbama sadašnje osnovne uredbe jer je Komisija očito namjeravala provesti ispitni postupak kao da je još uvijek na snazi prethodna Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 1225/2009 [8].
The law applicable to this reinvestigation is Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, which was the substantive law at the time of the adoption of the regulation annulled by the Court.
Na taj se ponovni ispitni postupak primjenjuje Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 1225/2009 kao materijalno pravo primjenjivo u trenutku donošenja uredbe koju je Sud poništio.
In any event, Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is a codification of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and its amendments.
U svakom slučaju Uredba (EU) 2016/1036 kodifikacija je Uredbe (EZ) br. 1225/2009 i njezinih izmjena.
The argument was therefore rejected.
Stoga je taj argument odbijen.
An exporting producer from Thailand argued that the Commission must re-impose the duty of 40,8 % on Jinan Meide without modification, as the General Court did not find fault with any substantive findings, only a procedural irregularity.
Proizvođač izvoznik iz Tajlanda tvrdio je da bi Komisija trebala ponovno uvesti pristojbu od 40,8 % primjenjivu na društvo Jinan Meide bez izmjene jer Opći sud nije kritizirao nijedan materijalni nalaz, nego isključivo postupovnu nepravilnost.
It also claimed that any substantive reconsideration can only address the normal value calculation for Jinan Meide and all other findings in the contested Regulation should remain valid, as there was no indication in the General Court's judgment that remedying the procedural irregularity should result in any substantive changes to the normal value calculation for Jinan Meide.
Također je tvrdio da svako znatno preispitivanje može obuhvaćati isključivo izračun uobičajene vrijednosti za Jinan Meide, dok bi svi ostali nalazi sporne uredbe trebali ostati na snazi jer se iz presude Općeg suda ne može protumačiti da ispravljanje postupovne nepravilnosti podrazumijeva materijalne promjene u izračunu uobičajene vrijednosti za Jinan Meide.
In the judgment leading to the present reopening, the General Court held that it could not be ruled out that if the request for disclosure of confidential data of the analogue country producer had been accepted, the outcome of the investigation could have been different.
U presudi koja je dovela do ponovnog pokretanja ispitnog postupka Opći je sud utvrdio da se ne može isključiti mogućnost da je ishod ispitnog postupka mogao biti drukčiji da je zahtjev za objavu povjerljivih podataka proizvođača iz analogne zemlje bio prihvaćen.
The reopening has therefore to examine possible impact on substance of the investigation.
Ponovnim se pokretanjem ispitnog postupka stoga treba ispitati mogući utjecaj na glavni predmet ispitnog postupka.
One unrelated importer argued that as the Union industry did not submit any comments concerning the reopening, which allegedly meant that there is no Union interest to conduct this reopened investigation.
Jedan nepovezani uvoznik tvrdio je da činjenica da industrija Unije nije podnijela nikakve primjedbe povezane s ponovnim pokretanjem ispitnog postupka navodno znači da ponovno pokretanje postupka nije u interesu Unije.
The lack of submission by a certain type of operator cannot per se lead to any conclusion on substance in an investigation.
Ako neki subjekt ne dostavi svoje podneske, to ne može samo po sebi utjecati na zaključke o predmetu ispitnog postupka.
In any case, five Union producers requested the Commission to re-impose the anti-dumping duty on Jinan Meide urgently and even to register imports for potential retroactive imposition of duties, in order to limit the damage the current situation causes to the Union producers.
U svakom je slučaju pet proizvođača iz Unije od Komisije zatražilo hitno ponovno uvođenje antidampinške pristojbe za društvo Jinan Meide, pa čak i evidentiranje uvoza radi eventualnog retroaktivnog uvođenja pristojbi, kako bi se ograničila šteta koju trenutačna situacija uzrokuje za proizvođače iz Unije.
Comments on the calculation of normal value
Primjedbe na izračun uobičajene vrijednosti
Jinan Meide claimed that it should get comprehensive access to all information submitted by the analogue country producer and abundant time to lodge comments.
Društvo Jinan Meide tvrdilo je da bi trebalo dobiti potpuni pristup svim informacijama koje je dostavio proizvođač iz analogne zemlje i dovoljno vremena za podnošenje primjedaba.
All such information was made available to Jinan Meide, and Jinan Meide had time to lodge comments beyond the time-frame foreseen in the basic Regulation, including several hearings with the case team and with the Hearing Officer.
Sve te informacije stavljene su na raspolaganje društvu Jinan Meide te je ono imalo više vremena za podnošenje primjedaba nego što je bilo predviđeno osnovnom uredbom, uključujući nekoliko saslušanja s timom zaduženim za predmet i službenikom za saslušanje.
Following disclosure of the confidential information and the dumping calculations, Jinan Meide also made submissions outside of deadlines set for that purpose, which were nevertheless considered.
Nakon objave povjerljivih informacija i izračuna dampinga, društvo Jinan Meide dostavilo je dodatne podneske izvan predviđenih rokova, koji su unatoč tomu uzeti u obzir.
Jinan Meide claimed that an ordinary course of trade test should not be carried out, since the analogue country producer was not able to provide a reliable cost of production by type of the like product.
Društvo Jinan Meide tvrdilo je da ne treba provesti test za utvrđivanje uobičajenog tijeka trgovine jer proizvođač iz analogne zemlje nije mogao pouzdano utvrditi trošak proizvodnje po vrsti istovjetnog proizvoda.
One importer supported this argument, since a cost allocation based on turnover assumes that the same profit margin is generated for all product types, which is allegedly unreliable.
Jedan je uvoznik podržao taj argument jer se raspodjelom troškova na temelju prometa pretpostavlja da je ista profitna marža ostvarena za sve vrste proizvoda, što je navodno nepouzdano.
However, the Commission consistently carries out the ordinary course of trade test in its investigations.
No Komisija u svojim ispitnim postupcima dosljedno provodi test za utvrđivanje uobičajenog tijeka trgovine.