natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Council Regulation (EC) No 27/2005 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required [3], lays down quotas for 2005.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 27/2005 z dne 22. decembra 2004 o določitvi ribolovnih možnosti za leto 2005 in s tem povezanih pogojev za nekatere staleže rib in skupine staležev rib, ki se uporabljajo v vodah Skupnosti in za plovila Skupnosti v vodah, kjer so potrebne omejitve ulova [3], določa kvote za leto 2005.
Fishing for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex.
Ribolov staleža iz Priloge k tej uredbi s plovili, ki plujejo pod zastavo v Prilogi navedene države članice ali so v njej registrirana, se prepove z datumom, ki ga določa navedena priloga.
Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 (OJ L 128, 21.5.2005, p. 1)
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 768/2005 (UL L 128, 21.5.2005, str. 1).
24 August 2005
avgust 2005
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1486/2005
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1486/2005
establishing a prohibition of fishing for Greenland halibut in NAFO zone 3LMNO by vessels flying the flag of Spain
o prepovedi ribolova na grenlandsko morsko ploščo na območju NAFO 3LMNO za plovila, ki plujejo pod špansko zastavo
According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2005.
Po podatkih, ki jih je prejela Komisija, so ulovi staleža iz Priloge k tej uredbi s plovili, ki plujejo pod zastavo v Prilogi navedene države članice ali so v njej registrirana, izčrpali odobreno kvoto za leto 2005.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1487/2005
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1487/2005
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih dokončanih tkanin iz poliestrskih filamentov s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske
On 15 March 2005, the Commission imposed, by Regulation (EC) No 426/2005 [2] (the provisional Regulation), a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
marca 2005 je Komisija z Uredbo (ES) št. 426/2005 [2] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih dokončanih tkanin iz poliestrskih filamentov s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“).
It is recalled that the investigation period of dumping and injury (IP) covered the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004.
Treba je opozoriti, da je obdobje preiskave dampinga in škode („OP“) obsegalo obdobje od 1. aprila 2003 do 31. marca 2004.
The examination of trends relevant for the injury analysis covered the period from 1 January 2000 to the end of the IP (period considered).
Preučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je pokrilo obdobje od 1. januarja 2000 do konca OP („obravnavano obdobje“).
Following the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain finished polyester filament fabrics from the PRC, all parties received a disclosure of the facts and considerations on which the provisional Regulation was based.
Po uvedbi začasne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih dokončanih tkanin iz poliestrskih filamentov iz LRK so vse stranke prejele obvestilo o razkritih dejstvih in premislekih, na katerih je temeljila začasna uredba.
All parties were granted a period within which they could make representations in relation to these disclosures.
Vsem strankam je bilo odobreno obdobje, v katerem naj podajo stališča glede tega razkritja dejstev.
Those parties who so requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard orally.
Tem strankam je bila na zahtevo dana tudi možnost za ustno zaslišanje.
The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary.
Komisija je iskala in preverila vse podatke, ki so bili po njenem mnenju potrebni.
The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were examined, and, where considered appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.
Po preučitvi ustnih in pisnih pripomb, ki so jih predložile stranke, so bile ugotovitve po potrebi ustrezno spremenjene.
The Commission further disclosed all the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of the provisional duty.
Nadalje je Komisija razkrila vsa bistvena dejstva in premisleke, na podlagi katerih je nameravala priporočiti uvedbo dokončnih protidampinških dajatev in dokončnega pobiranja zneskov, zavarovanih z začasno dajatvijo.
The interested parties were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
Zainteresiranim strankam je bilo odobreno obdobje, v katerem so lahko podale svoja stališča v zvezi s tem razkritjem.
The oral and written comments submitted by the parties were considered and, where appropriate, the proposal for a definitive anti-dumping duty has been modified accordingly.
Po preučitvi ustnih in pisnih pripomb, ki so jih predložile stranke, je bil predlog za dokončno protidampinško dajatev po potrebi ustrezno spremenjen.
It is recalled that, in recital (11) of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned was defined as finished polyester filament apparel fabrics, which are woven fabric of synthetic filament yarn containing 85 % or more by weight of textured and/or non-textured polyester filaments, dyed or printed.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bil v uvodni izjavi (11) začasne uredbe zadevni izdelek opredeljen kot dokončna tkanina za oblačila iz poliestrskih filamentov, ki so tkanine iz preje iz umetnih filamentov, ki vsebujejo 85 masnih % ali več teksturiranih in/ali neteksturiranih poliestrskih filamentov, barvanih ali tiskanih.
It is hereby clarified that even if the product concerned is normally used for apparel applications, i.e., inter alia, for making lining for clothing and for making anoraks, sports wear, ski wear, underwear and fashion items, it can also be used, although to a lesser extent, for other applications.
S tem se razjasni, da je lahko kljub običajni uporabi zadevnega izdelka za oblačila, tj. med drugim za podloge oblek in za izdelavo vetrovk s kapuco tipa anorak, športnih oblačil, smučarskih oblačil, spodnjega perila in modnih izdelkov, izdelek namenjen drugačni uporabi, čeprav v manjši meri.
Therefore, all finished polyester filament fabrics as described above are covered by the product definition, regardless of their final use.
Zato zajema opredelitev izdelka vse dokončane tkanine iz poliestrskih filamentov, kakor je opisano zgoraj, ne glede na njihovo končno uporabo.
Whether the product concerned is used for one or another application, its basic physical technical and chemical characteristics remain identical and therefore the difference in use does not affect the definition of the product concerned.
Njihove osnovne fizikalne in kemijske lastnosti ostajajo enake ne glede na to, za katero uporabo je izdelek namenjen, in zato razlika v uporabi ne vpliva na opredelitev zadevnega izdelka.
It is also confirmed that fabrics dyed white also fall within the scope of the product definition.
Potrjeno je tudi, da tkanine, obarvane v belo, prav tako spadajo v obseg opredelitve izdelka.
Those fabrics are however to be distinguished from unbleached woven fabric of synthetic filament yarn (also called grey fabrics) that is a product formed after weaving but before dyeing, and which forms the raw material for the product concerned.
Vendar je treba navedene tkanine razlikovati od nebeljenih tkanin iz preje iz umetnih filamentov (imenovane tudi sive tkanine), izdelka, ki nastane po tkanju, a pred barvanjem, in ki predstavlja surovino za zadevni izdelek.
The latter is therefore not covered by the scope of the product definition.
Slednje zato ni zajeto v obseg opredelitve izdelka.
As dyed white woven fabrics as defined above fall within CN codes ex54075100, ex54076110, and ex54076910, these CN codes had to be added to the operational part of this Regulation.
Tkanine, obarvane v belo, kakor so opisane zgoraj, spadajo pod oznake KN ex54075100, ex54076110 in ex54076910, te oznake KN je bilo treba dodati izvedbenemu delu te uredbe.
Finally, it is also confirmed that the product concerned should be distinguished from woven polyester filament fabrics of yarns of different colours, for which pre-dyed yarn is woven into cloth, and the design is created by weaving the pattern.
Potrjeno je tudi, da je treba zadevni izdelek razlikovati tudi od tkanin iz filamentov iz raznobarvne preje, za katere je predbarvana preja stkana v tkanino, oblika pa se ustvari s tkanjem vzorca.
The latter product has different basic physical and chemical characteristics, since the raw material used (pre-dyed yarn) is different, and the design is obtained through weaving and not printing or dyeing.
Omenjeni izdelek ima drugačne osnovne fizikalne in kemijske lastnosti, saj se zanj uporablja drugačna surovina (predbarvana preja), oblika pa se ustvari s tkanjem, ne s tiskanjem ali barvanjem.
In addition, such type of finished fabric is normally used for soft furnishing applications, whereas the product concerned is almost exclusively used for making clothing.
Poleg tega se takšna vrsta dokončanih tkanin ponavadi uporablja za oblazinjeno pohištvo, medtem ko se zadevni izdelek uporablja skoraj izključno za izdelavo oblačil.
Several interested parties claimed that finished polyester filament fabrics (FPFF), which are used for furniture or home decoration, should not be included in the anti-dumping measures.
Več zainteresiranih strank je trdilo, da dokončane tkanine iz poliestrskih filamentov („FPFF“), ki se uporabljajo za pohištvo ali notranjo dekoracijo, ne smejo biti vključene v protidampinške ukrepe.
One interested party, importing polyester fabrics for umbrellas, argued also that the use of the textile they import is different and not suitable for the clothing industry, due to a difference in weight.
Ena zainteresirana stranka, ki uvaža poliestrske materiale za dežnike, je trdila tudi, da je uporaba tekstila, ki ga uvažajo, drugačna in neprimerna za oblačilno industrijo zaradi razlik v masi.
Indeed, it was confirmed in the investigation that a certain part of product concerned, although to a lesser extent, is used for furniture and home decoration purposes.
V preiskavi je bilo v resnici potrjeno, da se določeni del zadevnega izdelka uporablja za pohištvo in notranjo dekoracijo, čeprav v manjši meri.
However, these fabrics have, despite differences in a variety of factors such as colour, size of the yarns and finish, the same basic technical, physical and chemical characteristics as the fabrics for apparel use.
Vendar imajo te tkanine, kljub razlikam v vrsti dejavnikov, kot so barva, velikost prej in končna obdelava, enake osnovne tehnične, fizikalne in kemijske lastnosti kot tkanine, ki se uporabljajo za oblačila.
It is, therefore, concluded that they should not be excluded from the product definition.
Zato se sklene, da se ne smejo izključiti iz opredelitve izdelka.
One interested party argued that depending on the use of the product, e.g. as lining for low-end garments or as fabric material for high-end garments the price and the quality is significantly different and that these products should not be seen as one product concerned.
Ena zainteresirana stranka je trdila, da sta glede na uporabo izdelka, npr. kot podloga za nizko kakovostna oblačila ali kot tkanina za visoko kakovostna oblačila, cena in kakovost bistveno drugačni in da se ti izdelki ne smejo šteti za en zadevni izdelek.
It should be recalled in this respect that differences in type and in price have been accounted for by the product control numbers (PCN) codes established for the investigation, which ensure that different product types are compared like with like.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da so bile razlike v vrsti in ceni obračunane s številčno oznako izdelka (oznako PCN) uvedeno za namen preiskave, ki zagotavlja, da so lahko različne vrste izdelkov primerljive.
In recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, it was stated that the Commission had found that FPFF produced by the Community industry and sold on the Community market as well as FPFF produced in the countries concerned and exported to the Community were like products, since no differences in the basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses of the existing different types had been found.
V uvodni izjavi (15) začasne uredbe je bilo navedeno, da je Komisija ugotovila, da sta FPFF, ki ga proizvaja industrija Skupnosti in se prodaja na trgu Skupnosti, in FPFF, ki ga proizvajajo zadevne države in izvažajo v Skupnost, podobna izdelka, ker niso bile ugotovljene nobene razlike v fizikalnih in kemijskih lastnostih in v uporabi obstoječih različnih vrst.
In the absence of any further comments regarding the product definition and the like product, the contents and provisional conclusions of recitals (11) to (16) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Če ni nadaljnjih pripomb glede opredelitve zadevnega izdelka in podobnega izdelka, se potrdijo vsebina in začasne ugotovitve uvodnih izjav (11) do (16) začasne uredbe.
PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING
STRANKE V POSTOPKU
One interested party requested that the details of the cooperating Community producers should be published in order to make it possible for interested parties to assess whether the standing requirements are satisfied.
Ena zainteresirana stranka je zahtevala, da se objavijo podrobnosti sodelujočih proizvajalcev Skupnosti in se tako zainteresiranim strankam omogoči, da ocenijo, ali so zadevne zahteve izpolnjene.
As stated in recital (8)(a) of the provisional Regulation, the Community producers requested in terms of Article 19 of the basic Regulation that their details should not be published, as to do so would have a significantly adverse effect upon them.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (8)(a) začasne uredbe, so sodelujoči proizvajalci v skladu s členom 19 osnovne uredbe zahtevali, da se njihovi podrobni podatki ne objavijo, saj bi imela objava zanje zelo škodljiv učinek.
As some of them buy polyester yarns (their main raw materials) from Chinese suppliers, there is a risk of retaliation.
Ker nekateri od kitajskih dobaviteljev kupujejo poliestrske preje (njihovo glavno surovino), obstaja nevarnost povračilnih ukrepov.
Their request was found to be sufficiently substantiated and was, therefore, granted.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je njihov zahtevek dovolj utemeljen in je bil zato odobren.
It is recalled that in the present investigation, 49 exporting producers in the PRC made themselves known and requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Treba je opozoriti, da se je v sedanji preiskavi 49 proizvajalcev izvoznikov v LRK javilo in zahtevalo TGO v skladu s členom 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Each single MET application was analysed against the five criteria laid down in that Article.
Vsak zahtevek za TGO je bil posebej preučen na podlagi petih meril, določenih v tem členu.
On this basis, as set out in recital (23) of the provisional Regulation, 25 companies could successfully demonstrate that they met the five relevant MET criteria.
Na podlagi dejstev, določenih v uvodni izjavi (23) začasne uredbe, je lahko 25 družb uspešno dokazalo, da so izpolnile pet ustreznih meril za TGO.
MET could not be granted to the remaining companies: 10 of them did not sufficiently cooperate in the investigation by not submitting the necessary information requested, and the 14 others were found not to meet the criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, for the reasons summarised in the table below:
TGO ni bil odobren preostalim družbam: 10 jih pri preiskavi ni sodelovalo v zadostni meri, saj niso predložile zahtevanih potrebnih podatkov, pri ostalih 14 družbah pa je bilo ugotovljeno, da niso izpolnile meril iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe zaradi razlogov, povzetih v spodnji tabeli:
Source: verified questionnaire replies of cooperating Chinese exporters.
Vir: Preverjeni odgovori sodelujočih kitajskih izvoznikov na vprašalnik.
Article 2(7)(c) first indent
Prva alinea člena 2(7)(c)
Article 2(7)(c) second indent
Druga alinea člena 2(7)(c)
Article 2(7)(c) third indent
Tretja alinea člena 2(7)(c)
Article 2(7)(c) fourth indent
Četrta alinea člena 2(7)(c)
Article 2(7)(c) fifth indent
Peta alinea člena 2(7)(c)
The companies concerned and the complainant were given the opportunity to comment on the above findings.
Zadevnim družbam in pritožniku je bilo omogočeno, da podajo svoje pripombe na zgornje ugotovitve.
The results of the analysis of the comments received by the various interested parties are addressed below.
Rezultati analize pripomb, ki so jih predložile zainteresirane stranke, bodo obravnavani v nadaljevanju.
As a general remark, it should be recalled that in accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation the burden of proof is on the exporting producers claiming MET, since this Article provides that it is up to the companies to supply sufficient evidence that they operate under market economy conditions.
Na splošno je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu s členom 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe dokazno breme na proizvajalcih izvoznikih, ki zahtevajo TGO, saj ta člen določa, da morajo družbe priskrbeti dovolj dokazov, da poslujejo pod pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
If doubts remain, for example because the company/ies concerned did not, or was/were not able to provide the necessary information, or that this information was insufficient, MET cannot be granted.
Če ostajajo dvomi, denimo, da zadevna družba(-e) ni(-so) ali ni(-so) mogle zagotoviti potrebnih podatkov ali ti niso zadostovali, TGO ne more biti odobren.
It is further noted that each one of all five criteria listed under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation needs to be fully met in order for MET to be granted to a company.
Omeniti je treba tudi, da mora biti vsako od petih meril, navedenih v členu 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, za odobritev TGO družbi v celoti izpolnjeno.
In other words, MET cannot be granted if one criterion is only partly fulfilled.
Povedano drugače, TGO ne more biti odobren, če je eno merilo izpolnjeno le delno.
Likewise, it is the EC Institutions’ consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies as a whole fulfils the conditions for MET, which means that each related company producing and/or selling the product concerned should demonstrate it fulfils the MET criteria.
Prav tako je običajna praksa institucij ES, da preučijo, ali skupina povezanih družb kot celota izpolnjuje pogoje za TGO, kar pomeni, da mora vsaka povezana družba, ki proizvaja in/ali prodaja zadevni izdelek, dokazati, da izpolnjuje merila za TGO.
In this context, Companies 4, 5, 9 and 14 claimed that the assessment on whether a company should be granted MET has to be made on an overall basis and, since the Commission found that only certain aspects for the relevant criteria were not fulfilled, MET should be granted to them.
V tem smislu so družbe 4, 5, 9 in 14 zahtevale, da mora biti ocena o tem, ali se družbi odobri TGO, narejena na splošni osnovi in jim mora biti TGO odobren, saj je Komisija ugotovila, da le nekateri vidiki, pomembni za merilo, niso bili izpolnjeni.
Those claims were rejected on the grounds mentioned in recital (20).
Te zahteve so bile zavrnjene zaradi razlogov, omenjenih v uvodni izjavi (20).
Companies 4 and 5 also claimed that the findings of the Commission were insufficient to conclude that they did not fulfil the first criterion.
Družbi 4 in 5 sta tudi trdili, da ugotovitve Komisije niso zadostovale za sklep, da nista izpolnili prvega merila.
In this respect, it should be noted that in the case of both companies, the verification visit revealed that either misleading information was submitted by the companies in their MET claim form or important information was simply omitted.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je v primeru obeh družb obisk zaradi preveritve pokazal, da sta družbi bodisi predložili zavajajoče podatke v njunih obrazcih zahtevka za TGO ali pa so bili pomembni podatki preprosto izpuščeni.
For one company, a significant supplier of raw material was reported to be a private company, but later found to be State-owned during the on-spot investigation.
Za eno družbo, ki je pomemben dobavitelj surovin, je bilo sporočeno, da je družba v zasebni lasti, vendar je bilo kasneje ugotovljeno, da je bila med preiskavo na kraju samem v lasti države.
The argument made by the company that it cannot be expected to know the details concerning ownership of its suppliers could not be accepted since the company explicitly reported in the MET claim form that this supplier was private-owned, which was also expressly confirmed by the company during the verification visit.
Utemeljitev, ki jo je navedla družba, in sicer, da ni pričakovati, da ta pozna podrobnosti v zvezi z lastništvom svojih dobaviteljev, ni mogla biti sprejeta, saj je družba v obrazcu zahtevka za TGO izrecno navedla, da je ta dobavitelj v zasebni lasti, kar je tudi izrecno potrdila družba med obiskom zaradi preveritve.
As to the second company, it was found during the verification visit that, although specifically requested in the MET claim form, the company omitted to report its purchases of the main raw material, thus no information was given as to the details of the relevant suppliers.
V zvezi z drugo družbo je bilo med obiskom zaradi preveritve ugotovljeno, da je družba, čeprav je bilo v obrazcu zahtevka za TGO posebej zahtevano, izpustila navedbo o njenem nakupu glavnih surovin, torej ni bilo nobenih podatkov glede podrobnosti o ustreznih dobaviteljih.
Under those conditions, the verification was strongly impeded and it could not be verified whether the corresponding costs were made in response to market signals and without State interference.
Pod temi pogoji je bilo preverjanje zelo ovirano in ni bilo mogoče preveriti, ali so bili ustrezni stroški izračunani kot odziv na tržne razmere in brez vmešavanja države.
The claims made by the companies were therefore rejected.
Zahtevki družb so bili zato zavrnjeni.
Companies 3, 9 and 14 claimed that the mere fact that the auditors issued a qualified opinion on their annual accounts is not sufficient to consider that the second criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is not fulfilled.
Družbe 3, 9 in 14 so trdile, da samo dejstvo, da so revizorji izdali mnenje s pridržkom glede zaključnega računa, ne zadošča za ugotovitev, da drugo merilo člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe ni izpolnjeno.
Company 2 challenged the Commission’s conclusions that this company does not have one clear set of independently audited accounting records used for all purposes.
Družba 2 je izpodbijala sklepe Komisije, da ta družba nima enotne jasne neodvisno revidirane računovodske evidence, ki se uporablja za vse namene.
Finally, Companies 4 and 5 claimed that since they have a clear set of accounts independently audited, the second criterion should be considered fulfilled.
Nazadnje sta družbi 4 in 5 zahtevali, da se drugo merilo šteje za izpolnjeno, saj imata enotno jasno neodvisno revidirano računovodsko evidenco.