natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Employment remained at almost unchanged level between 2016 and the investigation period.
Zaposlenost je u razdoblju od 2016. do razdoblja ispitnog postupka ostala na gotovo nepromijenjenoj razini.
Finally, the Commission disagreed with the claim that the low profit margin of the Union Industry in 2014 could only be its commercial fault since the complainant had admitted that imports from the PRC did not start to grow and become competitive until 2016.
Konačno, Komisija se nije složila s tvrdnjom da bi niska profitna marža industrije Unije u 2014. mogla biti samo posljedica njezine poslovne pogreške jer je podnositelj pritužbe priznao da je uvoz iz NRK-a počeo rasti i postao konkurentan tek 2016.
The Commission assessed that that claim was based on an inaccurate reading of the complaint and, in any case, that it was contradicted by the investigation's findings which showed that imports from the PRC had a significant market share of 18 % in 2014 and had already doubled in volume by 2016.
Komisija je ocijenila da se ta tvrdnja temelji na netočnom tumačenju pritužbe i da je, u svakom slučaju, suprotna nalazima ispitnog postupka koji su pokazali da je uvoz iz NRK-a u 2014. imao znatan tržišni udio od 18 % i da se do 2016. njegov obujam već udvostručio.
As shown in Table 6 above, production capacity increased by 300000 pieces between 2015 and 2016.
Kako je prikazano u prethodnoj tablici 6., proizvodni kapacitet povećao se za 300000 komada od 2015. do 2016.
This was fully in line with the growth in consumption between 2015 and 2016, which was equally 300000 pieces as shown in table 13 above.
To je bilo potpuno u skladu s rastom potrošnje od 2015. do 2016., koja je isto porasla za 300000 komada, kako je prikazano u prethodnoj tablici 13.
It submitted that the target profit should not be the average profit from the Union industry but the average profit from the companies not injured by Chinese imports in 2015.
Naveo je da ciljna dobit ne bi trebala biti prosječna dobit industrije Unije, nego prosječna dobit trgovačkih društava koja nisu pretrpjela štetu zbog kineskog uvoza u 2015.
The complainant argued since the target profit is the reasonable profit that the Union producers could achieve in the absence of injury caused by subsidised imports, the Commission could not by definition take as reference point the profitability of Union producers already materially injured by subsidised imports.
Podnositelj pritužbe tvrdio je da, budući da je ciljna dobit razumna dobit koju bi proizvođači iz Unije mogli ostvariti kad ne bi bilo štete prouzročene subvencioniranim uvozom, Komisija nije smjela kao referentnu točku uzeti profitabilnost proizvođača iz Unije koji su već pretrpjeli materijalnu štetu zbog subvencioniranog uvoza.
Fitch Rates Shougang's USD Senior Notes Final ‘A-’ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFit982112, (accessed on 21 October 2017).
Fitch Rates Shougang's USD Senior Notes Final ‘A-’ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFit982112, (pristupljeno 21. listopada 2017.).
Wuxi Shengda Bicycles Co., Ltd and Wuxi Shengda Vehicle Technology Co.,Ltd
Wuxi Shengda Bicycles Co., Ltd and Wuxi Shengda Vehicle Technology Co., Ltd
For a concrete example, see Reuters. (2016).
Za konkretan primjer vidjeti Reuters (2016).
Livingston, M. Poon, W.P.H. and Zhou, L. (2017). Are Chinese Credit Ratings Relevant?
Livingston, M. Poon, W.P.H. i Zhou, L. (2017.) Are Chinese Credit Ratings Relevant?
Lin, L.W. and Milhaupt, C.J. (2016). Bonded to the State: A Network Perspective on China's Corporate Debt Market.
Lin, L.W. i Milhaupt, C.J., (2016).
Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 543, p. 20; Livingstone, M. Poon, W.P.H. and Zhou, L. (2017). Are Chinese Credit Ratings Relevant?
Bonded to the State: A Network Perspective on China's Corporate Debt Market. radni dokument br. 543 Columbia Law and Economics, str. 20; Livingstone, M. Poon, W.P.H. i Zhou, L., 2017., Are Chinese Credit Ratings Relevant?
As regards the claim that the Commission should have chosen a benchmark based on Taiwan or Hong Kong appear to be based on premises that US was chosen as the benchmark for the interest rates. This is not correct.
Kad je riječ o tvrdnji da je Komisija trebala odabrati referentnu vrijednost na temelju Tajvana ili Hong Konga, čini se da se ona temelji na pretpostavci da je SAD odabran kao referentna vrijednost za kamatne stope, što nije točno.
See, amongst others, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 452/2011, OJ L 128, 14.5.2011, p. 18 (Coated fine paper), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 215/2013, OJ L 73, 15.3.2013, p. 16 (Organic coated steel), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366, OJ L 56, 3.3.2017, p. 1, (Solar panels), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1379/2014, OJ L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 22.
Vidjeti, među ostalim, Provedbenu uredbu Vijeća (EU) br. 452/2011, SL L 128, 14.5.2011., str. 18. (premazani fini papir), Provedbenu uredbu Vijeća (EU) br. 215/2013, SL L 73, 15.3.2013, str. 16. (organski prevučeni proizvodi od čelika), Provedbenu uredbu Komisije (EU) 2017/366, SL L 56, 3.3.2017., str. 1. (solarne ploče), Provedbenu uredbu Komisije (EU) br. 1379/2014, SL L 367, 23.12.2014., str. 22.
(Filament glass fibre), Commission Implementing Decision 2014/918, OJ L 360, 16.12.2014, p. 65 (Polyester Staple Fibers).
(beskonačna staklena vlakna), Provedbenu odluku Komisije 2014/918, SL L 360, 16.12.2014., str. 65. (poliesterska rezana vlakna).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2019/73
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China
o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe uvedene na uvoz električnih bicikala podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine
On 20 October 2017, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports into the European Union (‘the Union’) of cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor (‘electric bicycles’) originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’) on the basis of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘the basic Regulation’).
Europska komisija („Komisija”) pokrenula je 20. listopada 2017. antidampinški ispitni postupak u vezi s uvozom bicikala i sličnih vozila na pogon pedalama s pomoćnim električnim motorom („električni bicikli”) podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine („NRK”) u Europsku uniju („Unija”) na temelju članka 5. Uredbe (EU) 2016/1036 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća („osnovna uredba”).
The Commission published a Notice of initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘the Notice of initiation’).
Komisija je objavila Obavijest o pokretanju postupka u Službenom listu Europske unije („Obavijest o pokretanju postupka”).
On 21 December 2017, the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy investigation with regard to imports into the Union of electric bicycles originating in the PRC and started a separate investigation.
Komisija je 21. prosinca 2017. pokrenula antisubvencijski ispitni postupak u vezi s uvozom u Uniju električnih bicikala podrijetlom iz NRK-a te je započela zasebni ispitni postupak.
It published a Notice of initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Obavijest o pokretanju postupka objavila je u Službenom listu Europske unije.
On 31 January 2018, the complainant submitted a request for registration of imports of electric bicycles from the PRC under Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation.
Podnositelj pritužbe podnio je 31. siječnja 2018. zahtjev za evidentiranje uvoza električnih bicikala iz NRK-a na temelju članka 14. stavka 5. Osnovne uredbe.
Provisional measures
1.3. Privremene mjere
On 18 July 2018, the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of electric bicycles originating in the PRC by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1012 (‘the provisional Regulation’).
Komisija je 18. srpnja 2018. Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2018/1012 („privremena uredba”) uvela privremenu antidampinšku pristojbu na uvoz u Uniju električnih bicikala podrijetlom iz NRK-a.
As stated in recital (7) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2016 to 30 September 2017 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’) and the examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2014 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).
Kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 7. privremene uredbe, ispitnim postupkom o dampingu i šteti obuhvaćeno je razdoblje od 1. listopada 2016. do 30. rujna 2017. („razdoblje ispitnog postupka” ili „RIP”), a ispitivanjem kretanja koja su važna za procjenu štete obuhvaćeno je razdoblje od 1. siječnja 2014. do kraja razdoblja ispitnog postupka („razmatrano razdoblje”).
Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which a provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed (‘provisional disclosure’), the complainants, the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (‘the CCCME’), the Collective of European Importers of Electric Bicycles (‘CEIEB’), individual unrelated importers, and individual Chinese exporting producers made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings.
Nakon objave bitnih činjenica i razmatranja na temelju kojih je uvedena privremena antidampinška pristojba („privremena objava”), podnositelji pritužbe, Kineska gospodarska komora za uvoz i izvoz strojeva i elektroničkih proizvoda („CCCME”), Zajednica europskih uvoznika električnih bicikala („CEIEB”), pojedinačni nepovezani uvoznici te pojedinačni kineski proizvođači izvoznici dostavili su pisane podneske u kojima su iznijeli svoja stajališta o privremenim nalazima.
Hearings took place with the complainants, the CEIEB, unrelated importers, and one individual Chinese exporting producer.
Održana su saslušanja s podnositeljima pritužbe, CEIEB-om, nepovezanim uvoznicima i jednim kineskim proizvođačem izvoznikom.
One hearing with the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings was held with that Chinese exporting producer.
Pred službenikom za saslušanje u trgovinskim postupcima održano je jedno saslušanje s tim kineskim proizvođačem izvoznikom.
The Commission considered the comments submitted by interested parties and addressed them as detailed in this Regulation.
Komisija je razmotrila primjedbe zainteresiranih strana i na njih odgovorila kako je opisano u ovoj Uredbi.
The Commission continued seeking and verifying all information it deemed necessary for its final findings.
Komisija je nastavila prikupljati i provjeravati sve informacije koje je smatrala potrebnima za svoje konačne nalaze.
(Vitoria, Spain);
(Vitoria, Španjolska),
BIZBIKE BVBA (Wielsbeke, Belgium);
BIZBIKE BVBA (Wielsbeke, Belgija);
NEOMOUV SAS (La Flèche, France).
NEOMOUV SAS (La Flèche, Francuska).
The Commission informed all interested parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of electric bicycles originating in the PRC (‘final disclosure’).
Komisija je obavijestila sve zainteresirane strane o bitnim činjenicama i razmatranjima na temelju kojih je namjeravala uvesti konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu na uvoz električnih bicikala podrijetlom iz NRK-a u Uniju („konačna objava”).
The list of Chinese exporting producers included in the Annex 1 to this Regulation was modified to take account of the change of name of one Chinese exporting producer to Easy Electricity Technology Co., Ltd. and another exporting producer Wuxi Shengda Vehicle Technology Co., Ltd. was added to the Annex 1.
Popis kineskih proizvođača izvoznika uvrštenih u Prilog 1. ovoj Uredbi izmijenjen je kako bi se uzela u obzir promjena naziva jednog kineskog proizvođača izvoznika u Easy Electricity Technology Co., Ltd. te je Prilogu 1. dodan još jedan proizvođač izvoznik – Wuxi Shengda Vehicle Technology Co., Ltd.
Three of those companies were groups of companies with a total of six related traders.
Od tih proizvođača izvoznika tri su bili skupine društava s ukupno šest povezanih trgovaca.
Furthermore, two of the companies that formally requested individual examination also requested market economy treatment.
Nadalje, dva društva koja su službeno zatražila pojedinačno ispitivanje zatražila su i primjenu tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva.
Following provisional disclosure four of those companies reiterated their requests for individual examination.
Nakon privremene objave četiri su društva ponovila svoj zahtjev za pojedinačno ispitivanje.
As explained in recital (47) of the provisional Regulation, the examination of such a high number of requests would have been unduly burdensome and would not have allowed the completion of the investigation within the time period established in the basic Regulation.
Kako je objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi 47. privremene uredbe, ispitivanje tako velikog broja zahtjeva bilo bi preveliko opterećenje te ne bi omogućilo dovršenje ispitnog postupka u roku utvrđenom osnovnom uredbom.
Furthermore, the additional period of time between the provisional and definitive phases was not sufficient to allow the Commission to consider this large number of requests.
Nadalje, dodatno razdoblje od privremene do konačne faze nije bilo dovoljno dugo da bi Komisiji omogućilo razmatranje tako velikog broja zahtjeva.
The Commission therefore confirmed its decision not to grant any requests for individual examination.
Komisija je stoga potvrdila svoju odluku da ne odobri nijedan zahtjev za pojedinačno ispitivanje.
The CCCME, Bodo Vehicle, Suzhou Rununion and Jinhua Vision reiterated their claim that since subparagraph (a)(ii) of section 15 of the Protocol of Accession of the PRC to the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) had lapsed after 11 December 2016, the existence of dumping should be established on the basis of the domestic prices and costs of the Chinese exporting producers.
CCCME, Bodo Vehicle, Suzhou Rununion i Jinhua Vision ponovili su svoju tvrdnju da bi postojanje dampinga trebalo utvrditi na temelju domaćih cijena i troškova kineskih proizvođača izvoznika budući da je točka (a) podtočka ii. odjeljka 15. Protokola o pristupanju NRK-a Svjetskoj trgovinskoj organizaciji („WTO”) istekao nakon 11. prosinca 2016.
The Commission addressed that claim as explained in section 3.1.1 of the provisional Regulation.
Komisija je na tu tvrdnju odgovorila kako je objašnjeno u odjeljku 3.1.1. privremene uredbe.
The Commission applied the legislation in force and applicable to this investigation, namely Article 2(7)(a) and (b) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je primijenila zakonodavstvo koje je na snazi i primjenjivo na ovaj ispitni postupak, tj. članak 2. stavak 7. točke (a) i (b) osnovne uredbe.
Giant Electric Vehicle ‘Giant’ responded to the provisional disclosure, restating its claims that the Commission should have granted Giant MET as, in Giant's view, it fulfilled the MET criteria in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, notably criteria 1 and 3.
Giant Electric Vehicle („Giant”) odgovorio je na privremenu objavu i ponovio svoje tvrdnje da je Komisija društvu Giant trebala odobriti primjenu tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva budući da je, prema njegovu mišljenju, ispunjavalo kriterije za primjenu tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva iz članka 2. stavka 7. točke (c) osnovne uredbe, točnije prvi i treći kriterij.
In particular, Giant challenged the Commission's interpretation of State interference, submitting that the possibility of State interference was not sufficient to reject an MET claim.
Točnije, Giant je osporio Komisijino tumačenje uplitanja države tako što je tvrdio da mogućnost uplitanja države nije dovoljan razlog za odbijanje zahtjeva za primjenu tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva.
In addition, it restated its arguments that the impact of the distortions on the price of aluminium was not significant.
Osim toga, ponovio je svoje argumente da utjecaj poremećaja na cijenu aluminija nije bio značajan.
Concerning criterion 1, the Commission found significant State interference in relation to the aluminium market as described in detail in the MET disclosure document dated 3 May 2018, the letter of 29 May replying to Giant's comments on the MET disclosure and the provisional Regulation, in particular recitals (88) and (89).
Kad je riječ o prvom kriteriju, Komisija je utvrdila značajno uplitanje države u odnosu na tržište aluminija, kako je podrobno opisano u dokumentu o objavi tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva od 3. svibnja 2018., dopisu od 29. svibnja u kojem se odgovara na primjedbe društva Giant na objavu tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva i u privremenoj uredbi, a posebno u uvodnim izjavama 88. i 89.
The Commission found that the Chinese government can exercise complete control over the aluminium market and regulates the aluminium market with the objective to prevent arbitrage in the economic sense.
Komisija je utvrdila da kineska vlada može imati potpunu kontrolu nad tržištem aluminija i da upravlja tržištem aluminija s ciljem sprečavanja arbitraže u gospodarskom smislu.
The Commission found that that situation results in a distorted aluminium market the PRC and constitutes significant State interference by the Chinese government.
Komisija je utvrdila da takvo stanje dovodi do narušavanja tržišta aluminija u NRK-u i čini značajno uplitanje države koje vrši kineska vlada.
The distortion in the aluminium market is so strong that there is no arbitrage, lack of which per se constitutes significant distortion.
Poremećaj tržišta aluminija toliko je velik da nema nikakve arbitraže, što samo po sebi čini značajan poremećaj.
Giant never challenged the Commission's findings of significant State interference in the PRC's aluminium market and of the Chinese government's complete control over it.
Giant nikada nije osporio Komisijine nalaze o značajnom uplitanju države u tržište aluminija NRK-a i o potpunoj kontroli kineske vlade nad tim tržištem.
It merely claimed that the effect of this State interference was not significant in value terms during the investigation period.
Samo je tvrdio da učinak uplitanja države tijekom razdoblja ispitnog postupka nije bio značajan u smislu vrijednosti.
The Commission cannot accept the proposed interpretation, which is not supported by the case-law cited by Giant.
Komisija ne može prihvatiti predloženo tumačenje koje nije potkrijepljeno sudskom praksom koju je Giant naveo.
In fact, according to case-law, criterion 1 precludes the granting of MET where the State has significantly interfered with the operation of market forces.
Štoviše, prema sudskoj praksi, prvim se kriterijem onemogućuje odobravanje primjene tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva ako se država znatno uplitala u djelovanje tržišnih mehanizama.
The significant State interference in that regard would not support the conclusion that market economy conditions prevail for a producer operating in such market.
Značajno uplitanje države u tom pogledu ne bi išlo u prilog zaključku da za proizvođača koji posluje na takvom tržištu prevladavaju uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva.
Thus, the Commission's finding regarding criterion 1 in the provisional Regulation was confirmed.
Stoga je potvrđen nalaz Komisije iz privremene uredbe u pogledu prvog kriterija.
Concerning criterion 3, Giant claimed that the Commission did not address its claims that the financial incentives were insignificant and not carried over from the former non-market economy system but an expression of legitimate industrial policy.
Kad je riječ o trećem kriteriju, Giant je tvrdio da Komisija nije uzela u obzir njegove tvrdnje da financijski poticaji nisu bili značajni i da nisu preneseni iz prethodnog netržišnoga gospodarskog sustava, već su odraz legitimne industrijske politike.
In addition, Giant resubmitted that the Commission should have considered the significance of the land-use rights being granted basically for free over their life of 50 years.
Osim toga, Giant je ponovno naveo da je Komisija trebala razmotriti značaj činjenice da su prava korištenja zemljištem dodijeljena praktično besplatno na razdoblje od 50 godina.
The Commission notes that the claim regarding financial incentives as well as the methodology applied in relation to the land-use rights, was not only already extensively dealt with in the MET disclosure document, but were also addressed in the letter of 29 May 2018 replying to Giant's comments.
Komisija napominje da su tvrdnja o financijskim poticajima te metodologija primijenjena s obzirom na prava korištenja zemljištem već podrobno obrađene u dokumentu o objavi tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva, ali i u dopisu od 29. svibnja 2018. u kojem se odgovara na primjedbe društva Giant.
In addition, the Commission's reasoning is also described in the provisional Regulation, in particular in recitals (91) and (92).
Osim toga, obrazloženje Komisije opisano je i u privremenoj uredbi, a osobito u uvodnim izjavama 91. i 92.
Based on the reasoning described in those documents, the Commission concluded that the preferential tax rate was a financial incentive of a quasi-permanent open-ended character which could also serve the purpose of attracting capital at discounted rates, thereby significantly distorting competition over a long period of time.
Na temelju obrazloženja opisanog u tim dokumentima Komisija je zaključila da je povlaštena stopa poreza bila financijski poticaj koji se može praktički stalno prilagođavati te je mogao služiti i za privlačenje kapitala po sniženim stopama, čime se tijekom duljeg razdoblja znatno narušava tržišno natjecanje.
The Commission also concluded that the tax deduction for R&D expenses was recurrent and not limited in time and therefore would have similar effect.
Komisija je zaključila i da je porezni odbitak za troškove istraživanja i razvoja bio periodičan i da nije bio vremenski ograničen te bi stoga imao sličan učinak.
Finally, the Commission recalls that the Giant effectively did not pay for its land-use rights (see recital (21)).
Naposljetku, Komisija podsjeća da Giant nije stvarno plaćao svoja prava korištenja zemljištem (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 21.).
Giant did not present any new argument.
Giant nije predočio nijedan novi argument.
Thus, criterion 3, that is, the requirement that there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system, remains not fulfilled.
Stoga treći kriterij, tj. zahtjev da ne postoje bitni poremećaji preneseni iz prethodnog netržišnoga gospodarskog sustava, i dalje nije ispunjen.
The CEIEB claimed that the denial of MET to a Chinese exporting producer was discriminatory, as the Union industry purchases aluminium frames from the PRC and therefore also benefits from the distortions in the aluminium market in the PRC.
CEIEB je tvrdio da je odbijanje primjene tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva na kineskog proizvođača izvoznika diskriminirajuće jer industrija Unije kupuje aluminijske okvire iz NRK-a te stoga i ona ostvaruje korist od narušavanja tržišta aluminija u NRK-u.
The CEIEB also raised the issue of imports of aluminium frames from the PRC by the Union industry under a duty suspension scheme.
CEIEB je isto tako postavio pitanje aluminijskih okvira koje industrija Unije uvozi iz NRK-a u okviru sustava odgode plaćanja trošarine.
Those claims were rejected.
Te su tvrdnje odbačene.
Purchases by the Union industry are irrelevant for the analysis under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation which aims at examining whether an exporting producer is entitled to MET for the determination of the normal value.
Kupnje koje obavlja industrija Unije nisu relevantne za analizu na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točke (c) osnovne uredbe čiji je cilj ispitati ima li proizvođač izvoznik pravo na primjenu tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva pri utvrđivanju uobičajene vrijednosti.
As a result, the Commission did not consider it relevant for the MET determination.
Stoga Komisija to nije smatrala relevantnim za utvrđivanje tretmana tržišnoga gospodarstva.