natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The minimum and maximum percentage for the concentration of the active substance in the biocidal product family referred to in Article 1, as referred to in Article 22(2)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, shall be expressed by considering the active substance as it was approved, which includes the main constituent of the active substance and any additives or impurities.
Uredbe (EU) br. 528/2012 temeljile su se na aktivnoj tvari zajedno s njezinim nečistoćama, a u samom odobrenju te tvari utvrđena je minimalna razina čistoće koju moraju zadovoljiti svi izvori aktivne tvari.
Under the terms and conditions set out in paragraph 1, the biocidal product family referred to in Article 1 meets the conditions laid down in Article 19(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.
Stoga se navođenje sadržaja aktivne tvari u spornoj skupini proizvoda ne bi smjelo odnositi samo na koncentraciju osnovnog sastojka aktivne tvari bez nečistoća.
Article 3
Komisija je 30. travnja 2018. omogućila podnositelju zahtjeva da dostavi pismene primjedbe u skladu s člankom 36. stavkom 2.
This Decision is addressed to the Member States.
Uredbe (EU) br. 528/2012.
Done at Brussels, 26 September 2018.
Komisija je uzela u obzir primjedbe koje je dostavio podnositelj zahtjeva.
For the Commission
Mjere predviđene ovom Odlukom u skladu su s mišljenjem Stalnog odbora za biocidne proizvode,
OJ L 167, 27.6.2012, p. 1.
Članak 1.
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).
Ova se Odluka primjenjuje na skupinu biocidnih proizvoda s identifikacijskim brojem SE-0017809-0000 u registru biocidnih proizvoda.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1306
Provedbena odluka Komisije (EU) 2018/1306
of 27 September 2018
оd 27. rujna 2018.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 266 thereof,
uzimajući u obzir Ugovor o funkcioniranju Europske unije, a posebno njegov članak 266.,
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,
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,
In 2013, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 (‘the contested Regulation’) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India (‘the original measures’) following an investigation pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
Provedbenom uredbom (EU) br. 1106/2013 („sporna uredba”) Vijeće je 2013. uvelo konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu na uvoz određenih žica od nehrđajućeg čelika podrijetlom iz Indije („početne mjere”) nakon ispitnog postupka u skladu s člankom 5.
By Notice of 1 April 2015, the Commission published a name and location change of the company Viraj Profiles Vpl.
Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1225/2009.
Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra into Viraj Profiles Limited, Palghar, Maharashtra and Mumbai, Maharashtra.
U okviru obavijesti od 1. travnja 2015.
In September 2015, the original measures were amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1483 following an absorption re-investigation.
Komisija je objavila promjenu naziva i lokacije društva Viraj Profiles Vpl.
In February 2017, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/220 the original measures were amended following a partial interim review under Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.
Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra u Viraj Profiles Limited, Palghar, Maharashtra i Mumbai, Maharashtra.
By corrigenda published in May and October 2017 respectively, the duty rate for non-cooperating exporting producers was reduced from 16,2 % to 12,5 % and the duty rate for the cooperating non-sampled companies was set at 5 % instead of 8,4 %.
Početne su mjere u rujnu 2015. izmijenjene Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2015/1483 nakon ponovljenog ispitnog postupka u pogledu apsorpcije.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union
U veljači 2017.
On 1 February 2014, Viraj Profiles Limited (‘Viraj’), an Indian exporting producer of various stainless steel products, in particular stainless steel wires, 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 applied to it.
Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2017/220 početne su mjere izmijenjene nakon djelomične privremene revizije na temelju članka 11. stavka 3.
In its judgment of 11 July 2017 (‘the judgment’) in case T-67/14 Viraj Profiles Ltd v Council, the General Court annulled the contested Regulation to the extent that it applies to Viraj.
Uredbe (EU) 2016/1036.
In particular, the General Court, in paragraph 144 of its judgment, ruled that the institutions infringed their obligation to state reasons by failing to provide detailed and relevant explanations to Viraj despite its repeated requests during the administrative proceeding.
Ispravcima objavljenima u svibnju odnosno listopadu 2017. stopa pristojbe za proizvođače izvoznike koji ne surađuju smanjena je sa 16,2 % na 12,5 %, a stopa pristojbe za društva izvan uzorka koja surađuju utvrđena je na 5 % umjesto 8,4 %.
The institutions thus infringed their obligation to state reasons for their decision to adjust upwards the costs provided by Viraj.
Presuda Općeg suda Europske unije
The General Court also examined whether the institutions committed a manifest error of assessment in making such an adjustment.
Društvo Viraj Profiles Limited („Viraj”), indijski proizvođač izvoznik različitih proizvoda od nehrđajućeg čelika, posebno žica od nehrđajućeg čelika, podnijelo je 1. veljače 2014. zahtjev Općem sudu Europske unije („Opći sud”) kojim je zatražilo poništenje sporne uredbe u dijelu u kojem se odnosi na to društvo.
It concluded, in paragraph 154 of its judgment, that it did not have all the information necessary in order to confirm that no manifest error of assessment was made by the institutions when determining the rate of adjustment.
U presudi od 11. srpnja 2017. („presuda”) u predmetu T-67/14, Viraj Profiles Limited protiv Vijeća, Opći sud poništio je spornu uredbu u mjeri u kojoj se primjenjuje na društvo Viraj.
Consequences of the judgment
Konkretno, Opći sud u točki 144. svoje presude presudio je da su institucije prekršile obvezu obrazlaganja tako što društvu Viraj nisu dostavile detaljna i relevantna objašnjenja unatoč ponovljenim zahtjevima tog društva tijekom administrativnog postupka.
In accordance with Article 266 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions must take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment.
Institucije su stoga prekršile obvezu obrazlaganja u pogledu svoje odluke da troškove koje je dostavilo društvo Viraj prilagode naviše.
In cases where proceedings consist of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding.
Opći sud ispitao je i jesu li institucije pri takvoj prilagodbi napravile očitu pogrešku u ocjeni.
The anti-dumping investigation is an example of such a multi-step proceeding.
U točki 154. svoje presude Opći sud zaključio je da nije imao sve informacije potrebne kako bi potvrdio da institucije pri određivanju stope prilagodbe nisu napravile očitu pogrešku u ocjeni.
Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation, in so far as it concerns Viraj, does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation.
Posljedice presude
Accordingly, in complying with the judgment, the Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the proceeding which led to the annulment, while leaving unchanged those parts which are not affected by the judgment.
U skladu s člankom 266.
It should be pointed out that apart from the finding that the institutions failed to provide detailed and relevant explanations for their decision to adjust upwards the costs provided by Viraj and the conclusion that the Court could not rule on whether a manifest error of assessment was made by the institutions when determining the rate of adjustment, all other findings reached in the contested Regulation which were not contested within the time-limits for a challenge or which were contested but rejected by the judgment or not examined by the General Court and therefore did not lead to the annulment of the contested Regulation, remain valid.
Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije institucije Unije dužne su poduzeti potrebne mjere za postupanje u skladu s presudom.
Therefore, the failure to state reasons should be re-examined in the light of the particular circumstances relating to Viraj.
U predmetima u kojima se postupci sastoje od nekoliko administrativnih koraka, poništenjem jednog od tih koraka ne poništava se cijeli postupak.
PROCEDURE
Antidampinški ispitni postupak primjer je postupka koji se sastoji od više koraka.
Following the judgment, the Commission published a Notice concerning the reopening of the anti-dumping investigation that led to the adoption of the contested Regulation.
Stoga se poništenjem sporne uredbe, u mjeri u kojoj se odnosi na društvo Viraj, ne podrazumijeva poništenje cijelog postupka provedenog prije donošenja te uredbe.
The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment with regard to Viraj.
Postupajući u skladu s presudom Komisija stoga može ispraviti aspekte postupka koji su doveli do poništenja te ostaviti nepromijenjenima dijelove na koje presuda ne utječe.
The Commission officially informed Viraj, the representatives of India and the Union industry of the reopening of the investigation.
Trebalo bi istaknuti da, osim nalaza da institucije nisu navele detaljna i relevantna objašnjenja svoje odluke da troškove koje je dostavilo društvo Viraj prilagode naviše i zaključka da Sud nije mogao odlučiti jesu li institucije pri određivanju stope prilagodbe napravile očitu pogrešku u ocjeni, 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.
Viraj and the Union industry were given the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing within the time-limit set out in the notice.
Stoga bi izostanak obrazloženja trebalo ponovno ispitati s obzirom na konkretne okolnosti koje se odnose na društvo Viraj.
Following the initial comments received, all other interested parties known to be concerned at the time of the original investigation were contacted and given the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing.
POSTUPAK
All interested parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard by the Commission services and/or the Hearing officer.
Komisija je nakon presude objavila Obavijest o ponovnom pokretanju antidampinškog ispitnog postupka koji je doveo do donošenja sporne uredbe.
The Commission received submissions on various aspects of the reopening from Viraj and from the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries (Eurofer).
Ponovno pokretanje postupka bilo je ograničeno na provedbu presude u pogledu društva Viraj.
Viraj claimed that the General Court annulled the entire contested Regulation as far as it was concerned, as opposed to only annulling the contested Regulation in part.
Komisija je o ponovnom pokretanju ispitnog postupka službeno obavijestila društvo Viraj te predstavnike Indije i industrije Unije.
It claimed that the illegality committed by the Union Institutions which led to the annulment of the contested Regulation could not be cured and that therefore no re-opening of the investigation was warranted.
Društvo Viraj i predstavnici industrije Unije dobili su mogućnost da dostave primjedbe i zatraže saslušanje u roku određenom u obavijesti.
Viraj further claimed that if, however, the Union institutions nevertheless pursued the decision to re-open the investigation, such re-examination should not be limited to the obligation to state reasons but should entail a complete re-verification and assessment of the adjustments made by the Commission to its costs of production.
Nakon što su primljene početne primjedbe, obaviještene su sve druge zainteresirane strane za koje se u vrijeme početnog ispitnog postupka znalo da se postupak na njih odnosi i koje su dobile priliku da iznesu primjedbe i zatraže saslušanje.
As stated in recital 9, the Court of First Instance in the Industrie des poudres sphériques 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.
Svim zainteresiranim stranama koje su to zatražile odobreno je saslušanje pred službama Komisije i/ili službenikom za saslušanje.
Since the Union institutions are obliged to comply with the judgment, this implies the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the uncontested parts.
Komisija je od društva Viraj i Europske konfederacije industrije željeza i čelika (Eurofer) primila podneske o različitim aspektima ponovnog pokretanja postupka.
Both claims were therefore rejected.
Društvo Viraj tvrdilo je da je Opći sud poništio cijelu spornu uredbu u mjeri koja se odnosi na to društvo umjesto da je poništio samo dio sporne uredbe.
The complainant in the original investigation, Eurofer, submitted that the most appropriate action for the Commission would be to expand its reasoning on the specific points identified by the General Court in the judgment and re-impose the definitive anti-dumping duty.
Društvo Viraj tvrdilo je da se nezakonitost koju su počinile institucije Unije i koja je dovela do poništenja sporne uredbe ne može ispraviti te da ponovno pokretanje ispitnog postupka stoga nije opravdano.
ASSESSMENT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT
Međutim, društvo Viraj tvrdilo je da, ako institucije Unije ipak odluče ponovno pokrenuti ispitni postupak, takvo ponovno ispitivanje ne bi trebalo biti ograničeno na obvezu obrazloženja, nego bi trebalo uključivati potpunu ponovljenu provjeru i ocjenu prilagodbi koje je Komisija primijenila na svoje troškove proizvodnje.
Preliminary remarks
Kako je prethodno navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 9., Prvostupanjski je sud u predmetu Industrie des poudres sphériques 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.
In its first plea before the General Court, Viraj alleged manifest errors in the calculation of its costs of production and a breach of the obligation to state reasons.
Budući da su institucije Unije obvezne pridržavati se presude, one mogu ispraviti aspekte sporne uredbe koji su doveli do njezina poništenja, ne mijenjajući pritom nesporne dijelove.
The judgment rejected both the second and the third plea, respectively alleging errors made in the assessment of the causal link and alleging that the complaint did not contain the required evidence.
Obje su tvrdnje stoga odbačene.
The arguments relating to the first plea were divided in two parts.
Podnositelj pritužbe u početnom ispitnom postupku, Eurofer, naveo je da bi najprimjerenija radnja za Komisiju bila proširiti svoje obrazloženje o određenim točkama koje je utvrdio Opći sud u presudi i ponovno uvesti konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu.
In the first part, Viraj claimed that the Union institutions erred while applying an upward adjustment to the costs of production.
PROCJENA NAKON PRESUDE
In the second part, it claimed that certain selling, general and administrative (‘SGA’) costs were incorrectly taken into account or double-counted.
Uvodne napomene
The General Court upheld the first part of the first plea in that the institutions infringed their obligation to state reasons.
Kao prvi tužbeni razlog pred Općim sudom društvo Viraj navelo je očite pogreške u izračunu njegovih troškova proizvodnje i kršenje obveze obrazlaganja.
The second part of the first plea was rejected.
U presudi su odbijeni drugi tužbeni razlog, u kojem se navode pogreške u ocjeni uzročno-posljedične veze, i treći tužbeni razlog, u kojem se navodi da pritužba nije sadržavala potrebne dokaze.
As a consequence, for the purpose of complying with Article 266 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European, the Commission addressed the first part of the first plea, namely the lack of reasoning regarding the assessment of costs of production.
Argumenti koji se odnose na prvi tužbeni razlog podijeljeni su na dva dijela.
Evidence of dumping
U prvom je dijelu društvo Viraj tvrdilo da su institucije Unije pogriješile u prilagodbi troškova proizvodnje naviše.
The methodology used for the determination of cost of production
U drugom je dijelu tvrdilo da su određeni troškovi prodaje te opći i administrativni troškovi pogrešno uzeti u obzir ili da su uračunani dvaput.
The Commission, in line with Viraj's cost accounting methodology, established the manufacturing costs of production following a 3-step approach, corresponding to the steps in the production process of stainless steel wire.
Opći sud potvrdio je prvi dio prvog tužbenog razloga u kojem se navodi da su institucije prekršile obvezu obrazlaganja.
The first step consisted of the determination of the manufacturing cost of production of stainless steel billets.
Drugi dio prvog tužbenog razloga odbijen je.
In the Profit and Loss account of Viraj's published annual accounts, the cost of materials consumed, which consists of stainless steel scrap, nickel, ferro-chrome, silicon and other materials for producing billets from steel scrap, indicated an average cost that was found to be in line with the average raw material cost reported in the questionnaire reply, which was therefore considered reliable.
Zbog toga se Komisija radi postupanja u skladu s člankom 266.
To the raw material costs of stainless steel billets, the following processing costs were added: auxiliary materials, direct labour, energy, depreciation and other costs; in order to determine the total stainless steel billet manufacturing cost per tonne.
Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije osvrnula na prvi dio prvog tužbenog razloga, odnosno nedostatak obrazloženja u pogledu ocjene troškova proizvodnje.
In the second step, costs were added to transform the stainless steel billet into stainless steel wire rod, and the average raw material cost, mainly consisting of the cost of stainless steel billets already accounted for, was determined.
Dokazi o dampingu
To this raw material cost of wire rod, the same type of processing costs were added (auxiliary materials, direct labour, energy, depreciation and other costs) establishing the total cost of wire rod per tonne.
Metodologija za utvrđivanje ukupnih troškova proizvodnje
Taking the processing cost involved into account, the average cost of stainless steel wire was determined at a level comparable to the FIFO valuation in the annual accounts.
Prvi se korak sastojao od određivanja troškova proizvodnje poluga od nehrđajućeg čelika.
This further cross-checking of the reported costs with the data contained in the published annual accounts confirmed that the data reported for manufacturing costs were reliable and that the additional explanatory reconciliations between the questionnaire reply and the internal accounting data given in this respect by Viraj based on annexes submitted during the on-site investigation could be accepted.
U računu dobiti i gubitka objavljenih godišnjih financijskih izvještaja društva Viraj trošak potrošenih materijala, koji se sastoje od otpada od nehrđajućeg čelika, nikla, ferokroma, silicija i drugih materijala koji se upotrebljavaju za proizvodnju poluga od čeličnog otpada, upućuje se na prosječan trošak za koji je utvrđeno da je u skladu s prosječnim troškom sirovina navedenim u odgovoru na upitnik, koji se stoga smatrao pouzdanim.
Therefore, at the definitive stage of the investigation, the Commission considered that the reported manufacturing costs could be accepted.
Trošku sirovina za poluge od nehrđajućeg čelika dodani su sljedeći troškovi prerade: troškovi pomoćnih materijala, izravni troškovi rada, troškovi energije, deprecijacije i drugi troškovi kako bi se odredio ukupan trošak proizvodnje poluga od nehrđajućeg čelika po toni.
However, the SGA reported by Viraj in the questionnaire reply were found to be underreported in comparison to the corresponding costs found in the annual accounts.
U drugom su koraku dodani troškovi prerade poluga od nehrđajućeg čelika u žičane šipke od nehrđajućeg čelika i utvrđen je prosječan trošak sirovine, koji se uglavnom sastoji od troška poluga od nehrđajućeg čelika, koji je već uračunan.
It was therefore considered appropriate to allocate SGA as reported in the annual accounts to the product concerned based on turnover, in accordance with Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
Tom trošku sirovine za žičane šipke dodani su isti troškovi prerade (troškovi pomoćnih materijala, izravni troškovi rada, troškovi energije, deprecijacije i drugi troškovi) i utvrđen je ukupan trošak žičane šipke po toni.
Subsequently, the manufacturing cost was adjusted by taking into account the elements of SGA mentioned in the annual accounts but not included in the manufacturing cost reported by Viraj.
Tom daljnjom unakrsnom provjerom prijavljenih troškova i podataka iz objavljenih godišnjih financijskih izvještaja potvrđeno je da su podaci koji su prijavljeni za troškove proizvodnje pouzdani i da se mogu prihvatiti dodatna objašnjenja u obliku poravnanja odgovora na upitnik i internih računovodstvenih podataka koje je u tom pogledu dostavilo društvo Viraj na temelju priloga podnesenih tijekom istraživanja na licu mjesta.
In order to achieve that, adjustments were made, expressed in terms of turnover of 8,27 % composed of 6,27 % for finance costs and 2 % for other SGA costs.
Stoga je Komisija smatrala da se u konačnoj fazi ispitnog postupka mogu prihvatiti prijavljeni troškovi proizvodnje.
The equivalent adjustment of the manufacturing cost amounted to 11,17 %, consisting of 8,47 % for finance costs and 2,70 % for other SGA costs.
Međutim, utvrđeno je da su troškovi prodaje te opći i administrativni troškovi koje je društvo Viraj prijavilo u odgovoru na upitnik veći od odgovarajućih troškova utvrđenih u godišnjim financijskim izvještajima.
The manufacturing cost was compared to the manufacturing cost reported by Viraj, after deduction of the packaging material cost.
Stoga se smatralo da je troškove prodaje te opće i administrativne troškove kako su prijavljeni u godišnjim financijskim izvještajima primjereno raspodijeliti predmetnom proizvodu na temelju prometa, u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 5.
On that basis, an adjustment factor was determined and was applied to the manufacturing cost per product type reported by Viraj.
Uredbe (EZ) br. 1225/2009.
Claims before the General Court
Trošak proizvodnje naknadno je prilagođen na način da su se u obzir uzeli elementi troškova prodaje te općih i administrativnih troškova koji su spomenuti u godišnjim financijskim izvještajima, ali koje društvo Viraj nije prijavilo kao troškove proizvodnje.
Viraj claimed that the Union institutions should have consistently used the average cost as reported in its questionnaire reply, either excluding material packaging costs and packing labour or including all packaging costs.
Kako bi se to postiglo, provedene su prilagodbe, izražene kao postotak prometa od 8,27 %, koji se sastoji od 6,27 % za financijske troškove i 2 % za druge troškove prodaje te opće i administrativne troškove.