natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Age at which person started to receive an individual retirement pension
Starost, pri kateri je oseba začela prejemati individualno starostno pokojnino
Does not receive an individual retirement pension even though is entitled to
Ne prejema individualne starostne pokojnine, čeprav je do nje upravičena
Is not/not yet entitled to an individual retirement pension
Ni/še ni upravičena do individualne starostne pokojnine
Person receives an individual pension or individual benefits, other than a retirement pension and unemployment benefits, such as a disability pension, a sick pension or an early retirement scheme allowance
Oseba prejema individualno pokojnino ali individualne dajatve, razen starostne pokojnine in dajatev za brezposelnost, kot so invalidska pokojnina, pokojnina za primer bolezni ali nadomestilo iz sistema za predčasno upokojitev
Yes, a disability pension or a sick pension
Da, invalidska pokojnina ali pokojnina za primer bolezni
Yes, an early retirement scheme allowance
Da, nadomestilo iz sistema za predčasno upokojitev
Yes, another individual benefit not elsewhere classified
Da, drugi individualni prejemek, ki ni uvrščen drugje
Yes, combination of codes 1, 2 or 3
Da, kombinacija šifer 1, 2 ali 3
Main financial incentive to stay at work
Glavna finančna spodbuda za daljše delo
Everybody aged 50-69 and C24 = 1, 2 and C248/249 < 98
Vsi, ki so stari 50–69, in C24 = 1, 2 ter C248/249 < 98
To increase retirement pension entitlements
Za povečanje upravičenosti do starostne pokojnine
To provide sufficient household income
Za zagotovitev zadostnega dohodka gospodinjstva
No financial incentive
Ni finančne spodbude
Number of years spent working for pay or profit (during working life)
Število let, porabljenih za plačano delo ali delo v pridobitniške namene (med delovnim življenjem)
Weighting factor for the LFS module 2006 (optional)
Ponderirani faktor za modul za raziskavo delovne sile za leto 2006 (neobvezno)
Columns 254-257 contain whole numbers
Stolpci 254–257 vsebujejo cele številke
Columns 258-259 contain decimal places
Stolpci 258–259 vsebujejo decimalne številke
Commission Regulation (EC) No 389/2005
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 389/2005
laying down derogations from Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 and Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 as regards certain sugars used in certain products processed from fruit and vegetables exported to third countries other than Switzerland and Liechtenstein
o določitvi odstopanj od uredb Sveta (ES) št. 2201/96 in (ES) št. 800/1999 glede nekaterih sladkorjev, ki se uporabljajo v nekaterih proizvodih iz sadja in zelenjave in se izvažajo v tretje države, razen v Švico in Lihtenštajn
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the markets in processed fruit and vegetable products [1], and in particular Article 18(7) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2201/96 z dne 28. oktobra 1996 o skupni ureditvi trga za predelano sadje in zelenjavo [1] in zlasti člena 18(7) Uredbe,
Articles 16 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products [2] apply as regards exports of certain sugars used in certain products processed from fruit and vegetables.
Člena 16 in 18 Uredbe (ES) št. 2201/96 in Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 800/1999 z dne 15. aprila 1999 o skupnih podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za kmetijske proizvode [2] se uporabljata v zvezi z izvozom nekaterih sladkorjev, ki se uporabljajo v nekaterih proizvodih iz sadja in zelenjave.
Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 provides that, in the case of a differentiated refund, the refund shall be paid upon proof that the products have reached the destination indicated on the licence or another destination for which the refund was fixed.
Člen 18(6) Uredbe (ES) št. 2201/96 določa, da se v primeru diferenciranih nadomestil nadomestilo izplača ob predložitvi dokazila, da so proizvodi dosegli namembni kraj, naveden na dovoljenju, ali drugi namembni kraj, za katerega je bilo določeno nadomestilo.
It provides also that exceptions may be made to this rule, provided conditions are laid down which offer equivalent guarantees.
Določa tudi, da se lahko naredijo izjeme od tega pravila, če so določeni pogoji, ki nudijo enakovredna jamstva.
Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 provides that entitlement to the export refund is acquired on importation into a specific third country when a differentiated refund applies for that third country.
Člen 3 Uredbe (ES) št. 800/1999 določa, da se pravica do izvoznega nadomestila pridobi pri uvozu v določeno tretjo državo, če se za to tretjo državo uporablja diferencirano nadomestilo.
Articles 14, 15 and 16 of that Regulation lay down the conditions for the payment of the differentiated refund, in particular the documents to be supplied as proof of the arrival of the good at destination.
Členi 14, 15 in 16 navedene uredbe določajo pogoje za plačilo diferenciranega nadomestila, zlasti dokumente, ki jih je treba predložiti kot dokazilo o prispetju blaga v namembni kraj.
In the case of a differentiated refund, Article 18(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 provides that part of the refund, calculated using the lowest refund rate, is paid on application by the exporter once proof is furnished that the product has left the customs territory of the Community.
V primeru diferenciranega nadomestila določa člen 18(1) in (2) Uredbe (ES) št. 800/1999, da se del nadomestila, izračunan na podlagi najnižje stopnje nadomestila, plača na zahtevo izvoznika, ko predloži dokaz, da je proizvod zapustil carinsko območje Skupnosti.
The Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972 as regards the provisions applicable to processed agricultural products [3], which was signed in October 2004, is provisionally applicable from 1 February 2005 by virtue of Council Decision 2005/45/EC [4] concerning the conclusion and the provisional application of that Agreement.
Sporazum med Evropsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo o spremembi Sporazuma med Evropsko gospodarsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo z dne 22. julija 1972 glede določb, ki se uporabljajo za predelane kmetijske proizvode [3], ki je bil podpisan oktobra 2004, se začasno uporablja od 1. februarja 2005 na podlagi Sklepa Sveta 2005/45/ES [4] o sklenitvi in začasni uporabi navedenega sporazuma.
Pursuant to Decision 2005/45/EC, sugar (HS headings 1701, 1702 and 1703) used in the manufacture of certain processed agricultural goods exported to Switzerland and Liechtenstein is, from 1 February 2005, no longer eligible for export refunds.
V skladu s Sklepom 2005/45/ES sladkor (številke HS 1701, 1702 in 1703), ki se uporablja pri proizvodnji nekaterega predelanega kmetijskega blaga, ki se izvaža v Švico in Lihtenštajn, od 1. februarja 2005 ni več upravičen do izvoznih nadomestil.
The Agreement approved by Decision 2005/45/EC introduces special provisions on administrative cooperation aimed at combating irregularities and fraud in customs and export refund related matters.
Sporazum, odobren s Sklepom 2005/45/ES, uvaja posebne določbe v zvezi z upravnim sodelovanjem, namenjenim boju proti nepravilnostim in goljufiji v zadevah, povezanih s carino in izvoznimi nadomestili.
In the light of those provisions and in order to avoid the imposition of unnecessary costs on operators in their commercial trade with other third countries, it is appropriate to derogate from Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 and Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 in so far as it requires proof of import in the case of differentiated refunds.
Ob upoštevanju navedenih določb in da bi se izognili nastanku nepotrebnih stroškov za izvajalce pri trgovinski menjavi z drugimi tretjimi državami, je odstopanje od Uredbe (ES) št. 2201/96 in Uredbe (ES) št. 800/1999 ustrezno, kolikor ta zahteva dokazilo o uvozu v primeru diferenciranih nadomestil.
Since the measures laid down in the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation, approved by Decision 2005/45/EC, will apply from 1 February 2005, this Regulation should apply from the same date.
Ker se bodo ukrepi, določeni v Sporazumu med Evropsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo, odobrenem s Sklepom 2005/45/ES, uporabljali od 1. februarja 2005, se mora ta uredba uporabljati od istega datuma.
By way of derogation from Article 18(6) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999, where the differentiation of the refund is the result solely of a refund not having been fixed for Switzerland or Liechtenstein, proof that the customs import formalities have been completed shall not be a condition for payment of the refund in respect of certain sugars used in certain products processed from fruit and vegetables, covered by Regulation (EC) No 2201/96, and listed in Tables I and II to Protocol 2 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972.
Z odstopanjem od člena 18(6) Uredbe (ES) št. 2201/96 in člena 16 Uredbe (ES) št. 800/1999, kadar je diferenciranje nadomestila izključno posledica tega, da nadomestilo za Švico ali Lihtenštajn ni bilo določeno, dokazilo o izpolnjenih carinskih uvoznih formalnostih ne sme biti pogoj za plačilo nadomestila za nekatere sladkorje, ki se uporabljajo v nekaterih proizvodih iz sadja in zelenjave, ki so zajeti v Uredbi (ES) št. 2201/96 in našteti v tabelah I in II Protokola 2 k Sporazumu med Evropsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo z dne 22. julija 1972.
The fact that no export refund has been fixed in respect of the export to Switzerland or Liechtenstein of certain sugars used in certain products processed from fruit and vegetables, covered by Regulation (EC) No 2201/96, and listed in Tables I and II to Protocol 2 to the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation of 22 July 1972, shall not be taken into account in determining the lowest rate of refund within the meaning of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 800/1999.
Dejstvo, da izvozno nadomestilo ni bilo določeno za izvoz nekaterih sladkorjev, ki se uporabljajo v nekaterih proizvodih iz sadja in zelenjave, ki so zajeti v Uredbi (ES) št. 2201/96 in našteti v tabelah I in II Protokola 2 k Sporazumu med Evropsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo z dne 22. julija 1972, v Švico ali Lihtenštajn, se ne bo upoštevalo pri določanju najnižje stopnje nadomestila v smislu člena 18(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 800/1999.
Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 386/2004 (OJ L 64, 2.3.2004, p. 25)
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 386/2004 (UL L 64, 2.3.2004, str. 25).
Council Regulation (EC) No 390/2005
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 390/2005
terminating the partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India
o zaključku delnega vmesnega pregleda protidampinških ukrepov za uvoz folije iz polietilen tereftalata (PET) s poreklom, med drugim, iz Indije
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] („osnovna uredba“) in zlasti člena 11(3) Uredbe,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
ob upoštevanju predloga Komisije, po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom,
Previous procedure and existing measures
Prejšnji postopek in obstoječi ukrepi
Following an investigation initiated in May 2000 (the original investigation), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties in August 2001, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1676/2001 [2], on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating, inter alia, in India.
Po preiskavi začeti maja 2000 („prvotna preiskava“), je Svet avgusta 2001 na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1676/2001 [2] uvedel avgusta 2001 dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz folije iz polietilen tereftalata (PET) s poreklom, med drugim, iz Indije.
The duties ranged from 0 % to 62,6 % on imports of PET film originating in India.
Dajatve na uvoz PET folije iz PET s poreklom iz Indije so se gibale od 0 % do 62,6 %.
The existing anti-dumping duty applicable to imports from Jindal Poly Films Limited, previously Jindal Polyester Limited (notice of change of name published on 2 December 2004 [3]), is 0 %.
Obstoječa protidampinška dajatev, ki se uporablja za uvoz od Jindal Poly Films Limited, prej Jindal Polyester Limited (obvestilo o spremembi imena objavljeno 2. decembra 2004 [3]), je 0 %.
Imports of PET film from the company are also subject to a countervailing duty of 7 %, which was imposed in 1999 by Council Regulation (EC) No 2597/1999 [4].
Za uvoz folije iz PET od družbe velja tudi izravnalna dajatev v višini 7 %, ki je bila uvedena leta 1999 z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 2597/1999 [4].
A request for a partial interim review limited to dumping in respect of Jindal Poly Films Limited was lodged by the following Community producers: Du Pont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH and Nuroll SpA (the applicants).
Zahtevo za delni vmesni pregled, omejen na damping v zvezi z Jindal Poly Films Limited, so vložili naslednji proizvajalci Skupnosti: Du Pont Teijin Films, Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH in Nuroll SpA („vlagatelji“).
The applicants represent a major proportion of the Community production of PET film.
Vlagatelji predstavljajo večji delež proizvodnje folije iz PET Skupnosti.
Toray Plastics Europe indicated its support for the request although it was not a formal applicant.
Toray Plastics Europe je izrazila svojo podporo zahtevi, čeprav ni bila formalni vlagatelj.
The applicants alleged that the dumping margin of Jindal Poly Films Limited had changed and was higher than in the original investigation leading to the imposition of the existing measures.
Vlagatelji so domnevali, da se je stopnja dampinga družbe Jindal Poly Films Limited spremenila in je višja kot v prvotni preiskavi, ki je pripeljala do uvedbe obstoječih ukrepov.
Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the request contained sufficient prima facie evidence, the Commission announced on 19 February 2004 the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union [5].
Po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom je Komisija ugotovila, da je zahteva vsebovala zadostne prima facie dokaze, in 19. februarja 2004 z obvestilom („obvestilo o začetku“), objavljenem v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [5], naznanila začetek delnega vmesnega pregleda v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe.
The review was limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of Jindal Poly Films Limited.
Pregled je bil po obsegu omejen na preučitev dampinga v zvezi z Jindal Poly Films Limited.
The investigation period was from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003.
Obdobje preiskave („OP“) je trajalo od 1. januarja 2003 do 31. decembra 2003.
The Commission officially informed Jindal Poly Films Limited, the representatives of the exporting country and the Community producers about the initiation of the review.
Komisija je uradno obvestila Jindal Poly Films Limited, predstavnike države izvoznice in proizvajalce Skupnosti o začetku pregleda.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.
Zainteresiranim strankam je bila dana možnost, da pisno izrazijo svoja stališča in zaprosijo Komisijo za zaslišanje v roku, navedenem v obvestilu o začetku.
In order to obtain the information deemed necessary for its investigation, the Commission sent a questionnaire to Jindal Poly Films Limited, the exporting producer concerned, which cooperated by replying to the questionnaire.
Za pridobitev informacij, za katere Komisija meni, da so potrebne za njeno preiskavo, je poslala vprašalnike družbi Jindal Poly Films Limited, zadevnemu proizvajalcu – izvozniku, ki je sodeloval in odgovoril na vprašalnik.
A verification visit was carried out at the premises of the company in New Delhi to ensure the integrity of the information submitted.
Obisk zaradi preveritve je bil opravljen v prostorih družbe v New Delhiju, z namenom zagotoviti celovitost posredovanih informacij.
The product concerned is, as defined in the original investigation, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film originating in India, normally declared under CN codes ex39206219 and ex39206290.
Zadevni izdelek je, kot je bilo določeno v prvotni preiskavi, folija iz polietilen tereftalata (PET) s poreklom iz Indije, ki je navadno deklarirana pod oznakami KN ex39206219 in ex39206290.
As in the original investigation, it was found that PET film produced and sold on the domestic market in India and PET film exported to the Community from India, as well as PET film produced and sold by the Community industry on the Community market, have the same physical and technical characteristics and uses.
Kot v prvotni preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da imajo folija iz PET, proizvedena in prodana na domačem trgu v Indiji, in folija iz PET, izvožena v Skupnost iz Indije, kot tudi folija iz PET, ki jo je industrija Skupnosti proizvedla in prodala na trgu Skupnosti, enake fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti ter enake uporabe.
Therefore, they are like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zato se v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe štejejo za podobne izdelke.
In order to establish normal value, it was first verified that the total domestic sales of the exporting producer were representative in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, i.e. that they accounted for 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the product concerned exported to the Community.
Da bi določili normalno vrednost, se je najprej preverilo, da je bila celotna domača prodaja proizvajalca – izvoznika reprezentativna v skladu s členom 2(2) osnovne uredbe, tj. da je predstavljala 5 % ali več celotnega obsega prodaje zadevnega izdelka, izvoženega v Skupnost.
It was then ascertained whether total domestic sales of each product type constituted 5 % or more of the sales volume of the same type exported to the Community.
Potem se je ugotovilo, ali je celotna domača prodaja posamezne vrste izdelka predstavljala 5 % ali več obsega prodaje iste vrste, izvožene v Skupnost.
For those product types where domestic sales constituted 5 % or more of the sales volume of the same type exported to the Community, it was then examined whether sufficient sales had been made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic Regulation.
Za tiste vrste izdelka, kjer je domača prodaja predstavljala 5 % ali več obsega prodaje iste vrste, izvožene v Skupnost, se je potem preverilo, ali je bila zadostna količina prodana v običajnem poteku trgovine v skladu s členom 2(4) osnovne uredbe.
For each product type where the volume of domestic sales made above the cost of production represented at least 80 % of sales, normal value was established on the basis of the weighted average price actually paid for all domestic sales.
Za vsako vrsto izdelka, kjer je obseg domače prodaje, ki je bila višja od stroškov proizvodnje, predstavljal vsaj 80 % prodaje, je bila normalna vrednost določena na podlagi tehtanega povprečja dejansko plačane cene za celotno domačo prodajo.
For those product types where the volume of profitable transactions was equal to or lower than 80 %, but not lower than 10 % of sales, normal value was based on the weighted average price actually paid for the profitable domestic sales only.
Za tiste vrste izdelka, kjer je bil obseg dobičkonosnih poslov enak ali nižji od 80 %, vendar ne nižji od 10 % prodaje, je normalna vrednost temeljila na tehtanem povprečju dejansko plačane cene za zgolj dobičkonosno domačo prodajo.
For the product types where domestic prices of the exporting producer could not be used to establish normal value owing to insufficient representativity or to a lack of sales in the ordinary course of trade, normal value was constructed on the basis of the manufacturing costs incurred by the exporting producer concerned plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs (SG&A costs) and for profits, in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.
Za vrste izdelka, pri katerih domačih cen proizvajalca – izvoznika ni bilo mogoče uporabiti za določitev normalne vrednosti zaradi nezadostne reprezentativnosti ali pomanjkanja prodaje v običajnem poteku trgovine, je bila normalna vrednost konstruirana na podlagi stroškov izdelave, ki jih je imel zadevni proizvajalec – izvoznik, skupaj z razumnim zneskom za prodajne, splošne in administrativne stroške („PSA stroški“) in za dobiček, v skladu s členom 2(3) in (6) osnovne uredbe.
The SG&A costs were based on such costs incurred by the exporting producer with regard to its domestic sales of the product concerned, which were found to be representative.
PSA stroški so temeljili na stroških, nastalih proizvajalcu – izvozniku v zvezi z njegovo domačo prodajo zadevnega izdelka, za katero je bilo ugotovljeno, da je reprezentativna.
The profit margin was calculated on the basis of the weighted average profit margin of the company for those product types sold on the domestic market in sufficient quantities in the ordinary course of trade.
Stopnja dobička je bila izračunana na podlagi tehtanega povprečja stopnje dobička družbe za tiste vrste izdelka, ki so bile prodane na domačem trgu v zadostnih količinah v običajnem poteku trgovine.
The exporting producer reported sales (one consignment) made to a related company in the Community.
Proizvajalec – izvoznik je prijavil prodajo (ene pošiljke) povezani družbi v Skupnosti.
Given that the quantity involved was negligible, these sales were disregarded.
Glede na to, da je bila zadevna količina zanemarljiva, se ta prodaja ni upoštevala.
The other export sales of the product concerned to the Community during the investigation period had been made to independent customers.
Druga izvozna prodaja zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost med obdobjem preiskave je bila opravljena neodvisnim strankam.
Therefore, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation on the basis of export price actually paid or payable.
Izvozna cena je bila torej v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe določena na podlagi dejansko plačane ali plačljive izvozne cene.
The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis.
Normalna vrednost in izvozna cena sta se primerjali na podlagi cene izdelka franko tovarna.
For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Za zagotavljanje poštene primerjave so bile narejene ustrezne prilagoditve za razlike, ki so vplivale na primerljivost cen v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe.
Accordingly, adjustments were made for differences in discounts, rebates, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing, credit and commissions, where applicable and supported by verified evidence.
Kjer je bilo ustrezno in podprto s preverjenimi dokazi, so bila odobrena nadomestila za razlike v popustih, rabatih, stroških transporta, zavarovanja, manipuliranja, natovarjanja in drugih tozadevnih stroških, stroških pakiranja, v posojilih ter provizijah.
Import charges
Uvozne dajatve
Jindal Poly Films Limited claimed an adjustment to the normal value for the import duty not collected under the Advance Licence Scheme (ALS) on imports of raw material used in the manufacture of goods for export.
Jindal Poly Films Limited je zahteval prilagoditev normalne vrednosti za uvozno dajatev, ki ni bila pobrana v okviru Sheme vnaprejšnjih dovoljenj (ALS) za uvoz surovin, ki se uporabljajo pri proizvodnji blaga za izvoz.