natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, the MRP was not respected in a further 39 transactions as the company did not take into consideration that the MRP was calculated on ‘cash or equivalent basis’; i.e. when it agreed on the payment terms for a particular transaction it did not increase its re-sale price compared to the MRP with 1 % for each additional month granted for payment.
Poleg tega MRP ni bila spoštovana v nadaljnjih 39 transakcijah, saj družba ni upoštevala, da je bila MRP izračunana na osnovi „gotovinskega ali enakovrednega plačila“; tj. ko se je dogovorila o plačilnih pogojih za določeno transakcijo, ni zvišala cene pri nadaljnji prodaji za 1 % v primerjavi z MRP za vsak dodatni mesec odobrenega odloga plačila.
Therefore, the company failed to fulfil its obligation under section 3.10 of the undertaking.
Zato družba ni izpolnila svoje obveznosti iz oddelka 3.10 zaveze.
These transactions were on average 7 % below the MRP.
Te transakcije so bile povprečno 7 % pod MRP.
During the verification visit the company acknowledged that it was not aware of the fact that ‘cash or equivalent basis’ means maximum 10 days of payment terms.
Med preveritvenim obiskom je družba priznala, da se ni zavedala dejstva, da „gotovinsko ali enakovredno plačilo“ pomeni rok plačila največ 10 dni.
The company was erroneously considering it to be 30 days instead.
Družba je zmotno domnevala, da je ta rok 30 dni.
Reasons to withdraw the acceptance of the undertaking
Razlogi za umik sprejetja zaveze
The facts set out in recitals 9 and 11 led to the conclusion that the obligation of the company to respect the MRP for all re-sale transactions of the product covered was not met.
Dejstva iz uvodnih izjav 9 in 11 so privedla do sklepa, da obveznost družbe do upoštevanja MRP za vse transakcije nadaljnje prodaje zajetega izdelka ni bila izpolnjena.
For 13 transactions the company issued credit notes with no other economic justification but to lower the price shown on the invoice, which resulted in the re-sale price on average falling below the MRP by 10 %.
Za 13 transakcij je družba izdala dobropise brez druge gospodarske utemeljitve razen znižanja cene na fakturi, kar je povzročilo znižanje cene pri nadaljnji prodaji za 10 % pod MRP.
For a further 39 transactions, the MRP was not respected due to the company's failure to take due account of the calculation of the MRP on ‘cash or equivalent basis’.
Za nadaljnjih 39 transakcij MRP ni bila spoštovana, ker družba ni upoštevala izračuna MRP na osnovi „gotovinskega ali enakovrednega plačila“.
The average re-sale price of these transactions falls 7 % below the MRP.
Povprečna cena pri nadaljnji prodaji za te transakcije je 7 % nižja od MRP.
Complexity of the undertaking
Kompleksnost zaveze
The company acknowledged during the on-spot verification that it did not report all the re-sales transactions of the product covered, but only those for which the products were purchased from the related companies.
Družba je med preveritvijo na kraju samem priznala, da ni poročala o vseh transakcijah nadaljnje prodaje zajetega izdelka, temveč samo o tistih, za katere so bili izdelki kupljeni od povezanih družb.
The company argued in its written submission that certain reporting violations could occur because of the complexity of the undertaking text and because it did not receive any feedback on its reports from the Commission's services.
Družba je v pisnem stališču navedla, da je do nekaterih kršitev poročanja prišlo zaradi kompleksnosti besedila zaveze in ker od služb Komisije ni prejela nobene povratne informacije v zvezi s svojimi poročili.
In respect of the reporting problems, it is pointed out that the company received clear instructions on how to report.
Glede težav pri poročanju je treba poudariti, da je družba prejela jasna navodila o načinu poročanja.
Moreover, the Commission's services always answered the company's questions regarding the implementation of the undertaking in a timely manner.
Poleg tega so službe Komisije vedno pravočasno odgovorile na vprašanja družbe glede izvajanja zaveze.
It should be further noted that it is not customary for the Commission's services to send out feedback on the quarterly reports to the companies unless certain problems are identified during the desk-analyses of the reports.
Prav tako je treba navesti, da ni običajno, da bi službe Komisije družbam pošiljale povratne informacije o četrtletnih poročilih, razen če se med analizo poročil ugotovijo določene težave.
In this case, problems related to the MRP were first identified as a result of the quarterly report submitted on 15 April 2007 on which the company was consulted on 23 May 2007.
V tem primeru so bile težave v zvezi z MRP prvič ugotovljene po predložitvi četrtletnega poročila 15. aprila 2007, o čemer je bilo 23. maja 2007 opravljeno posvetovanje z družbo.
These issues were examined during the verification visit carried out on 2-3 July 2007.
Ta vprašanja so bila proučena med preveritvenim obiskom 2.–3. julija 2007.
During this verification visit, other reporting problems were also found which could only have been identified during an on-spot verification visit.
Med preveritvenim obiskom so bile ugotovljene tudi druge težave, ki jih je bilo mogoče ugotoviti samo med preveritvenim obiskom na kraju samem.
The company was briefed immediately on this issue.
Družba je bila o tem vprašanju takoj obveščena.
With regard to the price violations, the company admitted that a price violation occurred on 52 occasions, but it claimed that this would be a minor portion of the total number of transactions in the period considered and that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the undertaking should not be withdrawn.
Glede kršitev cenovne zaveze je družba priznala 52 primerov take kršitve, vendar je trdila, da to pomeni majhen delež celotnega števila transakcij v zadevnem obdobju in da zaveza v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti ne bi smela biti umaknjena.
In response to these arguments, it should be pointed out that, in accordance with the undertaking, the company undertook to ensure that the re-sale price of all transactions covered by the undertaking shall be at or above the MRP set out in the undertaking.
V zvezi s temi trditvami je treba poudariti, da se je družba v skladu z zavezo obvezala zagotoviti, da bo cena pri nadaljnji prodaji pri vseh z zavezo zajetih transakcijah enaka MRP iz zaveze ali višja od nje.
Moreover, regarding the issue of proportionality, the basic Regulation contains no direct or indirect requirement that a breach of an undertaking must relate to a minimum percentage of sales.
Osnovna uredba v zvezi z vprašanjem sorazmernosti prav tako ne vsebuje neposredne ali posredne zahteve, da mora biti kršitev zaveze povezana z najnižjim odstotkom prodaje.
This approach has also been confirmed by the jurisprudence of the Court of First Instance which has ruled that any breach of an undertaking is sufficient to justify the withdrawal of acceptance of an undertaking [4].
Ta pristop je potrdila tudi sodna praksa Sodišča prve stopnje, ki je odločilo, da kakršna koli kršitev zaveze zadostuje kot utemeljitev za umik sprejetja zaveze [4].
Accordingly, the arguments presented by the company with regard to proportionality do not alter the Commission's view that a breach of the undertaking occurred and that the acceptance of the undertaking should be withdrawn.
V skladu s tem trditve, ki jih je predložila družba v zvezi s sorazmernostjo, ne spremenijo stališča Komisije, da je bila zaveza kršena in da je sprejetje zaveze treba umakniti.
Precedent invoked by the company
Precedens, na katerega se družba sklicuje
The company also referred to a case where a new undertaking offer was accepted from a company from which the acceptance of its previous undertaking had been withdrawn as a consequence of violations [5].
Družba se je tudi sklicevala na zadevo, v kateri je bila sprejeta nova ponudba zaveze od družbe, od katere je bilo sprejetje prejšnje zaveze umaknjeno zaradi kršitev [5].
In the case invoked as a precedent the company breached its original undertaking by failing to submit its undertaking report in due time.
V zadevi, na katero se sklicuje kot na precedens, je družba prekršila svojo prvotno zavezo z nepravočasno predložitvijo svojega poročila o zavezi.
Later on, upon request of the company, an interim review was initiated and during the review the company could prove that it introduced new measures so that it could ensure that no further reporting breach of the undertaking would happen.
Pozneje je bil na zahtevo družbe uveden vmesni pregled, med katerim je družba dokazala, da je uvedla nove ukrepe, s katerimi je zagotovila, da ne bo prišlo do nadaljnjih kršitev poročanja na podlagi zaveze.
In this regard it has to be noted that the case the company is referring to as a precedent is not directly comparable as (i) the breach of the undertaking was formal in nature (i.e. late submission of the undertaking report); and (ii) the Commission withdrew the undertaking and only accepted a new undertaking in the framework of an interim review at a later stage.
Glede tega je treba omeniti, da zadeva, na katero se družba sklicuje kot na precedens, ni neposredno primerljiva, ker (i) je bila kršitev zaveze formalne narave (tj. prepozna predložitev poročila o zavezi); in je (ii) Komisija umaknila zavezo ter šele pozneje v okviru vmesnega pregleda sprejela novo zavezo.
The argument of the company is therefore dismissed.
Zato se utemeljitev družbe zavrne.
Undertaking related practices of the company
Prakse družbe v zvezi z zavezo
The company argued that during the verification visit, it voluntarily notified the Commission's officials that there were certain transactions which fell below the accepted MRP due to credit notes issued.
Družba je trdila, da je med preveritvenim obiskom prostovoljno obvestila uradnike Komisije o nekaterih transakcijah, pri katerih je bila zaradi izdanih dobropisov cena nižja od sprejete MRP.
However, firstly, this does not change the fact that violations occurred.
Vendar, prvič, to ne spremeni dejstva, da je do kršitev prišlo.
Secondly, this notification happened only after the Commission's services had analysed the quarterly report submitted on the 15 April 2007 and as a result of the analysis, requested further information and thus drew the company's attention to the problem.
Drugič, to obvestilo je bilo prejeto šele potem, ko so službe Komisije analizirale četrtletno poročilo, predloženo 15. aprila 2007, in po analizi zahtevale dodatne informacije ter tako družbo opozorile na težavo.
Therefore, it was the Commission's services that drew the company's attention to the problem following a desk analysis of the quarterly reports submitted.
Zato so bile službe Komisije tiste, ki so po analizi predloženih četrtletnih poročil opozorile družbo na težavo.
The company argued that at the time of submitting its regular reports to the Commission, the company felt that the reports were complete, exhaustive and correct in all particulars and that the company thought that the MRP was respected.
Družba je trdila, da je v času predložitve svojih rednih poročil Komisiji menila, da so poročila popolna, izčrpna in pravilna v vseh podrobnostih ter da je MRP spoštovana.
The company also emphasised that the management and the personnel responsible for reporting was not aware of the fact that the sales personnel issued credit notes which resulted in re-sales prices falling below the MRP.
Družba je tudi poudarila, da vodstvo in osebje, pristojno za poročanje, nista vedeli, da je prodajno osebje izdajalo dobropise, zaradi česar so cene pri nadaljnji prodaji padle pod MRP.
During the hearings and the written submissions, the company informed the Commission that one salesman was responsible for these actions and that this person is not working for the company any more.
Med zaslišanji in v pisnih stališčih je družba obvestila Komisijo, da je za ta dejanja odgovoren en prodajalec, ki ni več zaposlen v družbi.
Moreover, it was submitted that the company implemented changes in order to correct the mistakes: a restrictive policy concerning the issuing of credit notes was applied, the re-sales prices were increased and the company updated its computerised system.
Poleg tega je bilo navedeno, da družba izvaja spremembe, da bi popravila napake: uporabljena je bila restriktivna politika glede izdaje dobropisov, cene pri nadaljnji prodaji so bile zvišane, družba pa je posodobila tudi svoj računalniški sistem.
Furthermore, the sales personnel were informed about the details of the undertaking.
Prav tako je bilo osebje obveščeno o podrobnostih zaveze.
Referring to the recitals above it must be noted that the fact that the management was not aware of any possible price violations and/or the activities of the sales personnel related to the undertaking does not exempt the company from respecting the obligations of the undertaking.
V zvezi z gornjimi uvodnimi izjavami je treba omeniti, da zaradi dejstva, da vodstvo ni vedelo za morebitne kršitve cenovne zaveze in/ali dejavnosti prodajnega osebja v zvezi z zavezo, družba ni oproščena spoštovanja zaveze.
Furthermore, the actions initiated to remedy the situation were introduced only after the Commission's services have drawn the company's attention to the problems.
Ukrepi za izboljšanje stanja so bili uvedeni šele potem, ko so službe Komisije družbo opozorile na težave.
In light of the above, the repeated occurrence of the errors and the price violation caused by these activities warrants the withdrawal of the undertaking despite the actions taken after the on-spot verification visit.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno ponavljanje napak in kršitev cenovne zaveze zaradi teh dejavnosti utemeljujeta umik zaveze kljub ukrepom, sprejetim po preveritvenem obisku na kraju samem.
AMENDMENT OF DECISION 2006/109/EC
SPREMEMBA SKLEPA 2006/109/ES
In view of the above, the acceptance of the undertaking offered by the Benito Group, including Fundició Dúctil Benito (Spain), Benito France, S.A.R.L, Zibo Benito Metalwork Co. Ltd, Benito (Tianjin) Metals Products Co. Ltd, and Qingdao Benito Metals Products Co. Ltd, should be withdrawn and Article 1 of Decision 2006/109/EC should be amended.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba sprejetje zaveze, ponujene s strani skupine Benito, vključno s Fundició Dúctil Benito (Španija), Benito France, S.A.R.L, Zibo Benito Metalwork Co., Ltd, Benito (Tianjin) Metals Products Co., Ltd, in Qingdao Benito Metals Products Co. Ltd., umakniti in spremeniti člen 1 Sklepa 2006/109/ES.
Accordingly, the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1212/2005, under ‘All other companies’, should apply to the products manufactured by Zibo Benito Metalwork Co., Ltd, Benito (Tianjin) Metals Products Co. Ltd, and Qingdao Benito Metals Products Co. Ltd,
V skladu s tem je treba dokončno protidampinško dajatev, uvedeno s členom 1(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1212/2005 pod „Vse druge družbe“, uporabljati za izdelke, proizvedene v Zibo Benito Metalwork Co., Ltd, Benito (Tianjin) Metals Products Co., Ltd, in Qingdao Benito Metals Products Co. Ltd –
Acceptance of the undertaking in relation to re-sale of certain castings offered by the Benito Group, including Fundició Dúctil Benito (Spain), Benito France, S.A.R.L, Zibo Benito Metalwork Co. Ltd, Benito (Tianjin) Metals Products Co. Ltd, and Qingdao Benito Metals Products Co. Ltd, is hereby withdrawn.
Sprejetje zaveze v zvezi z nadaljnjo prodajo nekaterih ulitkov, ponujene s strani skupine Benito, vključno s Fundició Dúctil Benito (Španija), Benito France, S.A.R.L, Zibo Benito Metalwork Co., Ltd, Benito (Tianjin) Metals Products Co., Ltd, in Qingdao Benito Metals Products Co. Ltd, se umakne.
The table of Article 1 in Decision 2006/109/EC is replaced by the following table:
Preglednica iz člena 1 Sklepa 2006/109/ES se nadomesti z naslednjo preglednico:
and sold by its related sales company GB International Trading Shanghai Co. Ltd, B301-310 Yinhai Building, 250 Cao Xi Road, Shanghai
in prodaja z njo povezana prodajna družba GB International Trading Shanghai Co. Ltd, B301-310 Yinhai Building, 250 Cao Xi Road, Shanghai
Manufactured and sold by Hebei Shunda Foundry Co. Ltd, Qufu Road, Quyang, 073100
Proizvaja in prodaja Hebei Shunda Foundry Co., Ltd, Qufu Road, Quyang, 073100
, PRC or manufactured by Hebei Shunda Foundry Co. Ltd, Qufu Road, Quyang, 073100
, LRK ali proizvaja Hebei Shunda Foundry Co., Ltd, Qufu Road, Quyang, 073100
, PRC and sold by its related sales company Success Cast Tech Ltd, 603A Huimei Business Centre 83 Guangzhou Dadao(s), Guangzhou 510300
, LRK in prodaja z njo povezana prodajna družba Success Cast Tech-Ltd, 603A Huimei Business Centre 83 Guangzhou Dadao(s), Guangzhou 510300
Hong Guang Handan Cast Foundry Co. Ltd, Nankai District, Xiao Zhai Town, Handou City, Jize County, Hebei
Hong Guang Handan Cast Foundry Co., Ltd., Nankai District, Xiao Zhai Town, Handou City, Jize County, Hebei
Done at Brussels, 11 June 2008.
V Bruslju, 11. junija 2008
Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 426/2008 (OJ L 129, 17.5.2008, p. 1).
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 426/2008 (UL L 129, 17.5.2008, str. 1).
In this context, see case T-51/96 Miwon v Council (ECR 2000, p. II-1841) paragraph 52; case T-340/99 Arne Mathisen S v Council (ECR 2002, p. II-2905) paragraph 80.
V zvezi s tem glej zadevo T-51/96 Miwon proti Svetu (PSES 2000, str. II-1841) odstavek 52; zadeva T-340/99 Arne Mathisen AS proti Svetu (PSES 2002, str. II-2905) odstavek 80.
Gje-Vi AS; Council Regulation (EC) No 322/2002 (OJ L 51, 22.2.2002, p. 1).
Gje-VI AS; Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 322/2002 (UL L 51, 22.2.2002, str. 1).
Changsha Jinlong Foundry Industry Co., Ltd, 260, Jinchang Road, JinJing Town, Changsha, Hunan
Changsha Jinlong Foundry Industry Co., Ltd., 260, Jinchang Road, JinJing Town, Changsha, Hunan
on the conclusion of the Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union
o sklenitvi Protokola k Stabilizacijsko-pridružitvenemu sporazumu med Evropskimi skupnostmi in njihovimi državami članicami na eni strani ter Nekdanjo jugoslovansko republiko Makedonijo na drugi strani zaradi upoštevanja pristopa Republike Bolgarije in Romunije k Evropski uniji
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 310 in conjunction with the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti in zlasti člena 310 v povezavi z drugim stavkom prvega pododstavka člena 300(2) ter z drugim pododstavkom člena 300(3) Pogodbe,
Having regard to the Act of Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, and in particular Article 6(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Akta o pristopu Bolgarije in Romunije, in zlasti člena 6(2) Akta,
The Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, has been signed on behalf of the European Community and the Member States on 18 February 2008 in accordance with Council Decision 2008/273/EC [2].
Protokol k Stabilizacijsko-pridružitvenemu sporazumu med Evropskimi skupnostmi in njihovimi državami članicami na eni strani ter Nekdanjo jugoslovansko republiko Makedonijo na drugi strani, zaradi upoštevanja pristopa Republike Bolgarije in Romunije k Evropski uniji, je bil podpisan v imenu Evropske skupnosti in držav članic dne 18. februarja 2008 v skladu s Sklepom Sveta št. 2008/273/ES [2].
Pending its entry into force the Protocol has been applied on a provisional basis as from the date of accession.
Do njegovega začetka veljavnosti se Protokol začasno uporablja od dneva pristopa.
The Protocol should be concluded,
Zato bi bilo treba skleniti Protokol –
The Protocol to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union is hereby approved on behalf of the European Community, the European Atomic Energy Community and the Member States.
Protokol k Stabilizacijsko-pridružitvenemu sporazumu med Evropskimi skupnostmi in njihovimi državami članicami na eni strani ter Nekdanjo jugoslovansko republiko Makedonijo na drugi strani, zaradi upoštevanja pristopa Republike Bolgarije in Romunije k Evropski uniji, se s tem sklepom odobri v imenu Evropske skupnosti, Evropske skupnosti za atomsko energijo in držav članic.
The text of the Protocol is annexed to this Decision [3].Article 2
Besedilo Protokola je priloženo k temu sklepu [3].Člen 2
The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, deposit the instruments of approval provided for in Article 11 of the Protocol.
Predsednik Sveta v imenu Evropske skupnosti in njenih držav članic deponira listine o odobritvi iz člena 11 Protokola.
The President of the Commission shall simultaneously deposit the instrument of approval on behalf of the European Atomic Energy Community.
Predsednik Komisije hkrati deponira listine o odobritvi v imenu Evropske skupnosti za atomsko energijo.
Assent of 23 April 2008 (not yet published in the Official Journal).
Privolitev z dne 23. aprila 2008 (še ni objavljena v Uradnem listu).
OJ L 99, 10.4.2008, p. 1.
UL L 99, 10.4.2008, str. 1.
OJ L 99, 10.4.2008, p. 2.
UL L 99, 10.4.2008, str. 2.
amending Decision 2004/162/EC concerning dock dues in the French overseas departments
o spremembi Odločbe 2004/162/ES o pristaniških pristojbinah v francoskih čezmorskih departmajih
Having regard to Council Decision 2004/162/EC of 10 February 2004 concerning the dock dues in the French overseas departments and extending the period of validity of Decision 89/688/EEC [1], and in particular Article 3 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Odločbe Sveta 2004/162/ES z dne 10. februarja 2004 o pristaniških pristojbinah v francoskih čezmorskih departmajih ter o podaljšanju veljavnosti Odločbe 89/688/EGS [1] in zlasti člena 3 Odločbe,
Decision 2004/162/EC authorises the French authorities to apply exemptions or reductions to dock dues for products manufactured locally in the French overseas departments and listed in its Annex.
Odločba 2004/162/ES Franciji dovoljuje, da določi oprostitve ali zmanjšanja pristaniških pristojbin za izdelke iz njene Priloge, ki se proizvajajo lokalno v francoskih čezmorskih departmajih.
Depending on the products and on the overseas department in question the maximum permitted tax differential is 10, 20 or 30 percentage points.
Najvišja dovoljena razlika v obdavčitvi glede na zadevni izdelek in čezmorski departma znaša 10, 20 ali 30 odstotnih točk.
That Decision provides for the updating of the lists of products in the Annex thereto because of the emergence of new production in the French overseas departments and of the taking of urgent measures if local production is threatened by certain commercial practices.
Navedena odločba predvideva dopolnitev seznamov izdelkov, ki so navedeni v njeni Prilogi, zaradi novih proizvodenj v francoskih čezmorskih departmajih, ter sprejetje nujnih ukrepov, če je lokalna proizvodnja ogrožena z določenimi komercialnimi praksami.
The French authorities have submitted a request to the Commission to update the lists of products eligible for differential taxation through the addition of new products.
Francoski organi so Komisiji predložili prošnjo, da se seznami izdelkov, ki so upravičeni do različnih davčnih stopenj pristaniških pristojbin, posodobijo, in sicer tako, da se vanje dodajo novi izdelki.
For each of the products involved, the French authorities’ request has been examined in the light of the conditions set by Decision 2004/162/EC.
Prošnja francoskih organov je bila preučena za vsakega od zadevnih izdelkov glede na pogoje, določene z Odločbo 2004/162/ES.