natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The minimum quantity of skimmed milk powder for which a tender may be submitted shall be 20 tonnes.
Najmanja količina obranog mlijeka u prahu za koju se može podnijeti ponuda za nadmetanje jest 20 tona.
The proposed price shall be the price per 100 kg of product.
Predložena cijena odnosi se na 100 kg proizvoda.
Security
Jamstvo
When submitting a tender for the sale of skimmed milk powder, a security of EUR 50/tonne shall be lodged to the paying agency where the tender is submitted.
Pri podnošenju ponude za nadmetanje za prodaju obranog mlijeka u prahu u agenciji za plaćanje kojoj se podnosi ponuda polaže se jamstvo u iznosu od 50 EUR po toni.
The notification provided for in Article 31(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1240 shall be made in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 792/2009 by 16.00 (Brussels time) on the days referred to in Article 2 of this Regulation.
Obavijest iz članka 31. stavka 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1240 dostavlja se u skladu s Uredbom (EZ) br. 792/2009 do 16.00 (po briselskom vremenu) na dane navedene u članku 2. ove Uredbe.
OJ L 206, 30.7.2016, p. 71.
SL L 206, 30.7.2016., str. 71.
The addresses of the paying agencies are available on the European Commission website http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/milk/policy-instruments/index_en.htm
Adrese agencija za plaćanja dostupne su na internetskoj stranici Europske komisije http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/milk/policy-instruments/index_en.htm.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2081
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/2081
of 28 November 2016
оd 28. studenoga 2016.
re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd
o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe uvedene na uvoz oksalne kiseline koja je podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i koju proizvodi društvo Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals 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], 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], posebice članak 9. stavak 4. te Uredbe,
On 18 April 2012, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 325/2012 [2] (‘the contested regulation’), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of oxalic acid originating in India and the People's Republic of China in the range of 14,6 % to 52,2 % following an anti-dumping investigation under Article 5 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 [3].
Vijeće je, 18. travnja 2012., Provedbenom uredbom Vijeća (EU) br. 325/2012 [2] („Sporna uredba”), uvelo konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu u rasponu od 14,6 % do 52,2 % na uvoz oksalne kiseline podrijetlom iz Indije i Narodne Republike Kine nakon antidampinške istrage prema članku 5. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1225/2009 [3].
By judgment of 20 May 2015 [4], the General Court annulled the contested regulation, in so far as Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd, a cooperating Chinese exporting producer, is concerned.
Presudom Općeg suda od 20. svibnja 2015. [4], poništena je Sporna uredba što se tiče društva Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd., proizvođača izvoznika koji surađuje iz Kine.
The General Court ruled that the Council's reasoning concerning two matters on the determination of the injury elimination level did not comply with Article 296 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.
Opći je sud presudio da objašnjenje Vijeća u pogledu dvaju pitanja kojima se utvrđuje razina uklanjanja štete nije u skladu s člankom 296. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije.
Following the General Court's judgment, the Commission published a Notice informing that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping investigation concerning oxalic acid for the purposes of implementing the judgment in regard to Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd
Nakon odluke Općeg suda Komisija je izdala obavijest o ponovnom pokretanju antidampinške istrage u pogledu oksalne kiseline za svrhe provedbe odluke povezane s društvom Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd.
B. IMPLEMENTATION
B. PROVEDBA
Customs duty for the calculation of the injury elimination level (injury margin)
Carinska pristojba za izračun razine uklanjanja štete (marže štete)
As stated in recitals 66 and 83 of the contested regulation, Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd had claimed that the Commission had failed to include fully an allowance of 6,5 % corresponding to the normal customs duty in the injury margin calculation.
Kako je navedeno u uvodnim izjavama 66. i 83. Sporne uredbe, društvo Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd tvrdilo je da Komisija nije u potpunosti uključila prilagodbu od 6,5 % koja odgovara uobičajenoj carinskoj pristojbi u izračunu marže štete.
The Commission had found in the original investigation that the claim was warranted and it had revised the calculations with regard to the injury margin as follows: the final weighted average import price was calculated by adding, to the weighted average CIF Union border export price of Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd, for the two types of oxalic acid (refined and unrefined) first, 6,5 % for customs duties, and then, a fixed amount of 10 EUR/tonne for post-importation costs.
Komisija je izvornom istragom utvrdila da je tvrdnja opravdana te je revidirala izračune u pogledu marže štete kako je navedeno u nastavku: konačni ponderirani prosjek cijene uvoza izračunan je dodavanjem za dvije vrste oksalne kiseline (refinirane i nerefinirane) prvo 6,5 % za carinske pristojbe, a zatim fiksnog iznosa od 10 EUR po toni za troškove nakon uvoza, ponderiranom prosjeku izvozne cijene CIF na granici Unije društva Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd.
The result was a reduction of the Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd's injury margin to 18,7 %.
To je rezultiralo smanjenjem marže štete društva Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd na 18,7 %.
However, as already indicated in recitals 83 and 87 of the contested regulation, the reduced injury margin remained above the dumping margin established for Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd (14,6 %), which is the basis for the anti-dumping duty imposed.
Međutim, kako je već navedeno u uvodnim izjavama 83. i 87. Sporne uredbe, smanjena marža štete ostala je viša od dampinške marže utvrđene za društvo Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals Co. Ltd (14,6 %) što je osnova za uvođenje antidampinške pristojbe.
Profit margin for the calculation of the injury elimination level (injury margin)
Marža dobiti za izračun razine uklanjanja štete (marže štete)
As stated in recitals 142 and 143 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1043/2011 [5] imposing provisional measures in the case at hand, and as confirmed by the contested regulation, the profit used for the calculation of the injury elimination level was 8 % of turnover, which was considered being the profit that the Union industry could reasonably have expected to achieve under normal conditions of competition in the absence of injurious dumping.
Kako je navedeno u uvodnim izjavama 142. i 143. Uredbe Komisije (EU) br. 1043/2011 [5] o uvođenju privremenih mjera u ovom slučaju te kako je potvrđeno Spornom uredbom, dobit koja se primijenila za izračun razine uklanjanja štete iznosila je 8 % prometa, za što se smatralo da predstavlja dobit koju je industrija u Uniji mogla realno očekivati da će dostići u normalnim uvjetima konkurencije u odsutnosti štetnog dampinga.
The considerations for the use of this figure are discussed as follows.
Razmatranja o primjeni ove brojke navedena su u nastavku.
In the investigation leading to the contested regulation it was established that during the period considered the Union industry was either loss-making or making a very limited profit.
Tijekom istrage koja je dovela do osporavanja uredbe utvrđeno je da je tijekom razmatranog razdoblja industrija u Uniji stvarala gubitak ili je ostvarivala vrlo ograničenu dobit.
That level of profits was insufficient to maintain the production in the medium term.
Ta razina dobiti bila je nedovoljna za održavanje srednjoročne proizvodnje.
In addition, during the period considered in the original investigation there were significant amounts of imports, at price levels that on average were lower than the prices found to be dumped in the original investigation period.
Uz to je tijekom razmatranog razdoblja izvorne istrage došlo do znatnih količina uvoza pri cjenovnoj razini koja je prosječno bila niža od cijena za koje je utvrđeno da su bile dampinške tijekom razdoblja izvorne istrage.
These low priced imports had a negative impact on the economic performance of the Union industry.
Ti uvozi po niskoj cijeni negativno su utjecali na gospodarske rezultate industrije u Uniji.
Therefore, the levels of profit actually realised by the Union industry during the period considered could not be considered as a profit that the Union industry could reasonably expect to achieve under normal conditions of competition.
Stoga se razine dobiti koje je industrija u Uniji zaista ostvarila tijekom razmatranog razdoblja ne mogu smatrati dobiti koju je industrija u Uniji realno mogla očekivati da će ostvariti u normalnim uvjetima konkurencije.
Furthermore, during the original investigation, the Commission did not collect any data regarding Union industry's profit for a period before the period considered.
Nadalje, tijekom izvorne istrage Komisija nije prikupila nikakve podatke o dobiti industrije u Uniji za razdoblje prije razmatranog razdoblja.
Consequently, no profit data relating to the Union industry for a period immediately before the period considered, that could be used as a reasonable profit margin for the calculation of the injury margin, was available.
Posljedično, nisu bili dostupni podaci u pogledu industrije u Uniji za razdoblje neposredno prije razmatranog razdoblja koji su se mogli primijeniti kao realna marža dobiti za izračun marže štete.
Following disclosure, Yuanping argued that the Commission services should have used information falling outside the period considered in order to make a proper assessment for establishing the target profit.
Društvo Yuanping je nakon objave tvrdilo da su službe Komisije trebale primijeniti informacije izvan razmatranog razdoblja kako bi prikladno izradile procjenu za utvrđivanje ciljne dobiti.
This claim was not accepted.
Ta tvrdnja nije prihvaćena.
The EU Courts have recognised the Commission a wide discretion as regards the period to be taken into account for the purpose of determining injury [6].
Sudovi EU-a priznali su široku diskrecijsku ovlast Komisije u pogledu razdoblja koje treba uzeti u obzir u svrhu utvrđivanja štete [6].
The Commission, at the beginning of the original investigation, set out a period to collect data for the assessment of injury, i.e. the period considered, (1 January 2007 to 31 December 2010), and it did not collect data falling outside that period.
Komisija je na početku izvorne istrage utvrdila razdoblje za prikupljanje podataka prije procjene štete, tj. razdoblje razmatranja (od 1. siječnja 2007. do 31. prosinca 2010.) te nije prikupljala podatke izvan tog razdoblja.
Furthermore, as explained in recital 23 below, within the scope of this resumption of the investigation, the Commission has to rely only on the information that was available during the original investigation.
Nadalje, kako je objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi 23. u nastavku, unutar područja primjene ovog ponovnog pokretanja istrage Komisija se mora osloniti na informacije koje su bile dostupne tijekom izvorne istrage.
The Commission therefore analysed the target profit proposed by the complainant in the investigation leading to the contested regulation.
Komisija je stoga analizirala ciljanu dobit koju je predložio podnositelj prigovora u istrazi koja je dovela do osporavanja Uredbe.
In the complaint, a target profit margin of 10 % for the calculation of the injury margin was proposed.
U prigovoru je predložena ciljana marža dobiti od 10 % za izračun marže štete.
In this respect, the Commission noted that the profit margin used by the Council in a previous investigation concerning imports of oxalic acid from India and the People's Republic of China in 1991 was 10 % [7].
U tom je pogledu Komisija napomenula da je marža dobiti koju je Vijeće primijenilo u prethodnoj istrazi u pogledu uvoza oksalne kiseline iz Indije i Narodne Republike Kine 1991. iznosila 10 % [7].
The complainant justified the figure by arguing that such a level of profitability could be achieved if it produced at full capacity utilisation.
Podnositelj prigovora pravdao je brojku tvrdeći da bi takva razina profitabilnosti mogla biti ostvarena da proizvodi iskorištavanjem punog kapaciteta.
However, the profit margin proposed by the complainant does not relate to actual data on profit achieved in the absence of dumped imports under normal conditions of competition, but to a theoretical situation of full capacity utilisation.
Međutim, marža dobiti koju je predložio podnositelj prigovora nije povezana sa stvarnim podacima o ostvarenoj dobiti u odsutnosti dampinških uvoza u normalnim uvjetima konkurencije, nego s teoretskom situacijom iskorištavanja punog kapaciteta.
Given that the complainant did not demonstrate that the full capacity utilisation on which it based the proposed target profit was, or could be, achieved under normal market conditions in the absence of the dumped imports the claimed target profit could not be used for this reason.
Budući da podnositelj prigovora nije dokazao da je iskorištavanje punog kapaciteta, na kojem je temeljio ciljanu dobit, bilo ostvareno ili da bi moglo biti ostvareno u normalnim tržišnim uvjetima u odsutnosti dampinških uvoza, navedena ciljana dobit nije se zbog toga mogla primijeniti.
Under these circumstances the Commission examined the profit margin established in other investigations concerning the chemical sector, which are as well capital intensive industries like the oxalic acid industry and having similar a production process.
U ovim je okolnostima Komisija istražila maržu dobiti utvrđenu u drugim istragama u pogledu kemijskog sektora, koje su također povezane s kapitalno intenzivnim industrijama kao što je industrija oksalne kiseline te imaju slične proizvodne procese.
In regard to profit margins used in previous investigations in the chemical sector [8] (including the profit margin used in the previous investigation on oxalic acid) it was found that, on average, a profit margin of around 8 % had been considered constituting a reasonable profit that the Union industry could achieve under normal market conditions in the absence of injurious dumping.
U pogledu marža dobiti koje su primijenjene u prethodnim istragama u kemijskom sektoru [8] (uključujući maržu dobiti primijenjenu u prethodnoj istrazi o oksalnoj kiselini) utvrđeno je da se smatralo kako je prosječna marža dobiti od približno 8 % realna dobit koju je industrija u Uniji mogla dosegnuti u normalnim tržišnim uvjetima u odsutnosti štetnog dampinga.
In addition, the Commission examined the profit margin used in investigations concerning other sectors which, like the chemical sector, are capital intensive.
Uz to je Komisija ispitala maržu dobiti koja je primijenjena u istragama provedenima u drugim sektorima koji su, kao i kemijski sektor, kapitalno intenzivni.
In this regard, the Commission found that the profit margin used in those investigations [9], were consistent with the average profit margin found for the chemical sector, including oxalic acid.
U tom je smislu Komisija utvrdila da je marža dobiti primijenjena u tim istragama [9] bila u skladu s prosječnom maržom dobiti koja je utvrđena za kemijski sektor, uključujući oksalnu kiselinu.
On the basis of the considerations referred to above, and absent actual data on profitability levels that could be achieved by the Union industry during the investigation period under normal conditions, and in the absence of injurious dumping, the Commission found it appropriate to establish such reasonable profit margin on the basis of the average profit margin established in anti-dumping investigations for other chemical industries, and other industries with similar characteristics, such as being capital intensive.
Na temelju prethodno navedenih razmatranja i nedostatka stvarnih podataka o razinama profitabilnosti koje bi industrija u Uniji mogla ostvariti tijekom razdoblja istrage u normalnim uvjetima te u odsutnosti štetnog dampinga, Komisija smatra da je prikladno utvrditi takvu realnu maržu dobiti na temelju prosječne marže dobiti utvrđene antidampinškim istragama za druge kemijske industrije te druge industrije sličnih svojstava kao što je kapitalna intenzivnost.
On this basis, the Commission concluded that 8 % was a profit margin that the Union industry could reasonably expect to realise under normal conditions of competition, namely in the absence of dumped imports, and this profit margin should therefore be used for the calculation of the injury elimination level.
Na temelju toga Komisija je zaključila da je marža dobiti od 8 % marža koju je industrija u Uniji realno mogla očekivati da će ostvariti u normalnim uvjetima konkurencije, to jest u odsutnosti dampinškog uvoza, te se stoga ova marža dobiti treba primjenjivati za izračun razine uklanjanja štete.
Comments were received within the prescribed deadlines and were duly taken into consideration.
Komentari su zaprimljeni u predviđenom roku te su uzeti u razmatranje.
In addition, on 11 August 2016 a hearing was held between the Commission services and Yuanping.
Uz to je 11. kolovoza 2016. održano saslušanje između službi Komisije i društva Yuanping.
Following disclosure, Oxaquim claimed that it was unclear whether Yuanping's claim referred to in recital 4 above had been fully or only partially warranted.
Nakon objavljivanja društvo Oxaquim tvrdilo je da nije jasno je li tvrdnja društva Yuanping, navedena u prethodnoj uvodnoj izjavi 4., u potpunosti ili samo djelomično opravdana.
In this respect, the Commission confirmed that the claim had been warranted in full.
U tom je pogledu Komisija potvrdila da je tvrdnja u potpunosti opravdana.
In fact, as explained in detail in recitals 5 and 6 above, the revised calculation performed by the Commission in the original investigation fully reflected the comments made by Yuanping at the time of the original investigation.
Ustvari, kako je detaljno objašnjeno u prethodno navedenim uvodnim izjavama 5. i 6., revidirani izračuni koje je provela Komisija u izvornoj istrazi u potpunosti su odražavali komentare društva Yuanping u vrijeme izvorne istrage.
For its part, Yuanping alleged that in implementing the Court judgment, the Commission conducted a post hoc analysis in order to justify the findings of the original investigation.
Što se tiče društva Yuanping, ono je tvrdilo da je u provedbi sudske odluke Komisija provela post hoc analizu kako bi opravdala nalaze izvorne istrage.
According to Yuanping this was evidenced by the fact that the Commission relied on Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 [10], which was published after the assessment of the target profit in the current proceeding.
Prema tvrdnji Yuanping, to je moguće dokazati činjenicom da se Komisija oslonila na Provedbenu uredbu Vijeća (EU) br. 1138/2011 [10], koja je objavljena nakon procjene ciljane dobiti u trenutačnom postupku.
Yuanping claimed that such a post hoc analysis could not be used to justify the original findings.
Društvo Yuanping tvrdilo je da se takva post hoc analiza ne može upotrijebiti za opravdanje izvornih nalaza.
This claim was not correct and it was rejected for the following reasons.
Ta tvrdnja nije bila točna te je odbijena zbog razloga navedenih u nastavku.
Firstly, with regard to the cases relied on for the assessment of the target profit (out of which only a few of them have been referenced in the regulation), Yuanping claim is factually incorrect.
Prvo, u pogledu slučajeva razmotrenih tijekom procjene ciljane dobiti (od kojih je tek nekoliko navedeno u toj uredbi), tvrdnja društva Yuanping činjenično je netočna.
The target profit in all these cases, including the regulation referred to above by Yuanping, had been either provisionally or definitively established prior to the determination of the target profit in the original investigation.
Ciljana dobit u svim tim slučajevima, uključujući uredbu koju je prethodno navelo društvo Yuanping, bila je ili privremeno ili konačno utvrđena prije utvrđivanja ciljane dobiti u izvornoj istrazi.
Secondly, in order to implement the judgment of the Court in accordance with Article 266 TFEU, the Commission must provide with a statement of reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFEU, for those findings made in the original investigation and for which the Court found that the statement of reasons was insufficient.
Drugo, kako bi provela odluku suda u skladu s člankom 266. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije, Komisija mora navesti obrazloženja, u skladu s člankom 296. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije, za one nalaze navedene u izvornoj istrazi za koje je sud utvrdio da obrazloženje nije dovoljno.
In doing so, the Commission has to rely on the information that was available at the time of the original investigation.
Time se Komisija mora osloniti na informacije koje su bile dostupne u vrijeme izvorne istrage.
Accordingly, the Commission motivated those findings, e.g. the use of 8 % as target profit, using only information that it had previously relied upon during the original investigation.
U skladu s time, Komisija je temeljila te nalaze, npr. primjenu 8 % kao ciljane dobiti, samo na informacijama na koje se prije oslonila tijekom izvorne istrage.
In addition, all the information presented by the Commission in this regulation was already in the case file of the original investigation and/or was publicly available at that time.
Usto, sve informacije koje je Komisija predstavila u ovoj Uredbi već su bile dio slučaja izvorne istrage i/ili javno dostupne u to vrijeme.
Such information was provided to Yuanping in the context of this investigation again, showing that the Commission did not use any new evidence in its improved statement of reasons.
Takve su informacije ponovno omogućene društvu Yuanping u kontekstu ove istrage, što pokazuje da Komisija nije upotrijebila nikakve nove dokaze u svojem poboljšanom obrazloženju.
Yuanping further argued that an administrative procedure is not sufficient in order to correct the errors found by the Court.
Društvo Yuanping, nadalje, tvrdilo je da administrativni postupak nije dovoljan za ispravku pogrešaka koje je utvrdio sud.
This argument was rejected.
Taj je argument odbačen.
The Court did not establish that the findings of the Commission were factually or substantially wrong.
Sud nije utvrdio da su nalazi Komisije činjenično ili sadržajno pogrešni.
Rather, the Court established that in some instances, the contested regulation lacked sufficient reasoning.
Umjesto toga, sud je utvrdio da u nekim slučajevima osporenoj Uredbi nedostaju dovoljna obrazloženja.
Providing an enhanced statement of reasons in this regulation, in accordance with Article 296 TFEU, is the appropriate means to comply with the Court judgment.
Navođenje poboljšanog obrazloženja u ovoj Uredbi, u skladu s člankom 296. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije, prikladan je način usklađivanja s odlukom suda.
Lastly, Yuanping claimed that the figure used by the Commission for post-importation costs, i.e. 10 EUR/tonne, was too low.
Konačno, društvo Yuanping tvrdilo je da je brojka koju je Komisija upotrijebila za troškove nakon uvoza, tj. 10 EUR po toni, preniska.
To support this claim, Yuanping provided the Commission with evidence in the form of several invoices from 2016, where the post-importation costs were allegedly higher.
Kako bi potkrijepilo ove tvrdnje, društvo Yuanping Komisiji je dostavilo kao dokaz nekoliko računa iz 2016. godine na kojima su troškovi nakon uvoza navodno bili viši.