natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
a Master Control Panel (MCP) or Master Set-up Unit (MSU) for the overview and for adjustment of several remote cameras;
glavne krmilne enote (MCP) ali glavne enote za nastavitve (MSU) za pregled in nastavitev več daljinsko vodenih kamer;
a box lens adaptation unit such as a Large Lens Adapter or SuperXpander that enables portable camera systems to be used with box-type lenses.
enote za nastavljanje leče „box“, kot sta na primer Large Lens Adapter ali SuperXpander, ki omogoča uporabo sistemov prenosnih kamer z lečami „box“,
imported either together or separately, and originating in Japan.
s poreklom z Japonske, ki se uvažajo skupaj ali ločeno.
The product covered by the original measures falls entirely within the above product definition.
Izdelek, ki ga zajemajo prvotni ukrepi, je v celoti zajet v zgornjo opredelitev izdelka.
Therefore, the Commission, by the same notice, also initiated in accordance to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation an interim review of Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000.
Komisija je zato v istem obvestilu v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe začela tudi vmesni pregled Uredbe (ES) št. 2042/2000.
The purpose of this interim review was to amend or repeal Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 should it be determined that measures are to be imposed on certain camera systems originating in Japan which would consequently also cover television camera systems subject to measures under Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000.
Namen tega vmesnega pregleda je bil spremeniti ali razveljaviti Uredbo (ES) št. 2042/2000, če se ugotovi, da je treba za nekatere sisteme kamer s poreklom z Japonske uvesti ukrepe, ki bi pozneje zajeli tudi sisteme televizijskih kamer, za katere veljajo ukrepi iz Uredbe (ES) št. 2042/2000.
In this case, the continued imposition of measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 would not be appropriate anymore and Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 would have to be amended accordingly.
V tem primeru nadaljevanje ukrepov, uvedenih z Uredbo (ES) št. 2042/2000, ne bi bilo več primerno in navedeno uredbo bi bilo treba ustrezno spremeniti.
Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 was due to expire on 29 December 2006.
Uredba (ES) št. 2042/2000 je prenehala veljati 29. decembra 2006.
Before this date and as mentioned in recital (2) above, the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping measures in force on imports of television camera systems by Regulation (EC) No 1910/2006 which entered into force on 22 December 2006.
Svet je pred tem datumom, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 2, z Uredbo (ES) št. 1910/2006, ki je začela veljati 22. decembra 2006, razširil dokončne protidampinške ukrepe, ki veljajo za uvoz sistemov televizijskih kamer.
The review initiated with regard to Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 was therefore automatically extended to Regulation (EC) No 1910/2006.
Pregled Uredbe (ES) št. 2042/2000 je bil zato samodejno razširjen na Uredbo (ES) št. 1910/2006.
The Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers and associations of importers or exporters known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country, users, suppliers of raw materials, and the complainant Community producer of the initiation of the investigation.
Komisija je o začetku postopka uradno obvestila proizvajalce izvoznike, uvoznike in združenja uvoznikov ali izvoznike, za katere je znano, da jih to zadeva, predstavnike države izvoznice, uporabnike, dobavitelje surovin in proizvajalca Skupnosti pritožnika.
WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT, TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDING AND REPEAL OF THE DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES IN FORCE
UMIK PRITOŽBE, ZAKLJUČEK POSTOPKA IN RAZVELJAVITEV VELJAVNIH DOKONČNIH PROTIDAMPINŠKIH UKREPOV
By a letter of 12 April 2007 to the Commission, Grass Valley Nederland B.V. formally withdrew its complaint.
Družba Grass Valley Nederland BV je s pismom Komisiji z dne 12. aprila 2007 uradno umaknila svojo pritožbo.
With the same letter, Grass Valley also withdrew its support of the original measures against imports of television camera systems originating in Japan imposed by Regulation (EC) No 1910/2006 further to an expiry review in accordance with Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation.
Z istim pismom je navedena družba umaknila tudi svojo podporo prvotnim ukrepom proti uvozu sistemov televizijskih kamer s poreklom z Japonske, uvedenih z Uredbo (ES) št. 1910/2006 po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe.
In accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Community interest.
V skladu s členom 9(1) osnovne uredbe se lahko v primeru umika pritožbe postopek zaključi, razen če tak zaključek ne bi bil v interesu Skupnosti.
In this regard, the Commission by Decision 2007/539/EC [5] terminated the proceeding concerning imports into the Community of certain camera systems originating in Japan since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such termination would not be in the Community interest.
Zato je Komisija s Sklepom 2007/539/ES [5] zaključila postopek v zvezi z uvozom nekaterih sistemov kamer s poreklom z Japonske v Skupnost, saj v preiskavi ni bilo ugotovljeno, da takšen zaključek in razveljavitev ne bi bila v interesu Skupnosti.
As mentioned in recital (8), definitive anti-dumping duties are also in force on imports of television camera systems originating in Japan which form part of the product scope of the proceeding concerning certain camera systems.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 8, veljajo dokončne protidampinške dajatve tudi za uvoz sistemov televizijskih kamer s poreklom z Japonske, ki spada v obseg izdelkov postopka v zvezi z nekaterimi sistemi kamer.
As mentioned in recital (12), the Community industry, by the abovementioned letter formally withdrew its support for these measures and requested their repeal.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 12, je industrija Skupnosti z zgoraj navedenim pismom uradno umaknila svojo podporo tem ukrepom in zahtevala njihovo razveljavitev.
It was therefore considered that the existing measures should be repealed, since the investigation had not brought to light any considerations showing that such repeal would not be in the Community interest.
Zato se šteje, da je treba obstoječe ukrepe razveljaviti, saj v preiskavi ni bilo ugotovljeno, da takšna razveljavitev ne bi bila v interesu Skupnosti.
No comments were received indicating that the termination of the interim review and the repeal of the anti-dumping measures in force would not be in the Community interest.
Komisija ni prejela nobene pripombe o tem, da zaključek vmesnega pregleda in razveljavitev veljavnih protidampinških ukrepov ne bi bili v interesu Skupnosti.
It is therefore concluded to terminate the present review and to repeal the definitive anti-dumping duties in force on imports of television camera systems in Japan,
Zato se sklene, da se sedanji pregled zaključi, dokončne protidampinške dajatve, ki veljajo za uvoz sistemov televizijskih kamer s poreklom z Japonske, pa razveljavijo –
The review of Regulation (EC) No 1910/2006 is hereby terminated and the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of television camera systems originating in Japan by Regulation (EC) No 1910/2006 are repealed.
Pregled Uredbe (ES) št. 1910/2006 se zaključi, dokončne protidampinške dajatve, uvedene z Uredbo (ES) št. 1910/2006 na uvoz sistemov televizijskih kamer s poreklom z Japonske, pa se razveljavijo.
OJ L 198, 31.7.2007, p. 32.
UL L 198, 31.7.2007, str. 32.
Council Regulation (EC) No 907/2007
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 907/2007
repealing the anti-dumping duty on imports of urea originating in Russia, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, and terminating the partial interim reviews pursuant to Article 11(3) of such imports originating in Russia
o razveljavitvi protidampinške dajatve na uvoz sečnine s poreklom iz Rusije po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov v skladu s členom 11(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 384/96 in o zaključku delnih vmesnih pregledov v zvezi z uvozom s poreklom iz Rusije v skladu s členom 11(3)
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(2) and (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(2) in 11(3) Uredbe,
In March 1995, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 477/95 [2], imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea originating in the Russian Federation (Russia).
Svet je marca 1995 z Uredbo (ES) št. 477/95 [2] uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz sečnine s poreklom iz Ruske federacije („Rusije“).
The amount of the duty imposed was the difference between ECU 115 per tonne and the net, free-at-Community frontier price, before duty, if the latter price was lower.
Znesek uvedene dajatve je razlika med 115 EUR na tono in neto ceno franko meja Skupnosti pred plačilom dajatve, če je slednja cena nižja.
The investigation that led to these measures will be referred to as ‘the original investigation’.
Preiskava, ki je privedla do teh ukrepov, bo v nadaljevanju imenovana „prvotna preiskava“.
Following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 901/2001 [3], decided that these measures should be maintained.
Po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe je Svet z Uredbo (ES) št. 901/2001 [3] sklenil, da je treba navedene ukrepe ohraniti.
The measures currently in force are in the form of a variable duty on the basis of a minimum import price (MIP) of EUR 115 per tonne (the existing measures).
Obstoječi ukrepi so spremenljive dajatve na podlagi najnižje uvozne cene („MIP“) v višini 115 EUR na tono („obstoječi ukrepi“).
The review investigation that led to the maintenance of the measures will be referred to as ‘the previous expiry review investigation’.
Preiskava v zvezi s pregledom, ki je privedla do uvedbe ukrepov, bo v nadaljevanju imenovana „prejšnja preiskava v zvezi s pregledom“.
In December 2003, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 2228/2003 [4], terminated a partial interim review initiated on the initiative of the Commission pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation in order to examine the appropriateness of the form of the measures in force, without any amendment to the existing measures.
Svet je decembra 2003 z Uredbo (ES) št. 2228/2003 [4] zaključil delni vmesni pregled, uveden na pobudo Komisije v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe, da bi proučil ustreznost oblike obstoječih ukrepov brez njihove spremembe.
In August 2005 [5], the Commission published a notice of impending expiry of the existing measures.
Komisija je avgusta 2005 objavila obvestilo o bližnjem izteku obstoječih ukrepov [5].
On 9 February 2006 the Commission received a request for an expiry review of these measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation and a request for a partial interim review limited to the form of the measures, pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je 9. februarja 2006 prejela zahtevek za pregled zaradi izteka zadevnih ukrepov v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe in zahtevek za delni vmesni pregled v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe, omejen na obliko ukrepov.
These requests were lodged by the European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA) (the applicant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Community production of urea.
Ta zahtevka je vložilo Evropsko združenje proizvajalcev umetnih gnojil (EFMA) („vložnik“) v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo glavni delež, v tem primeru več kot 50 % celotne proizvodnje sečnine v Skupnosti.
The applicant alleged and provided sufficient prima facie evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry with regard to imports of urea originating in Russia (the country concerned) and that the current form of the measures was not sufficient to counteract the injurious effects of dumping.
Vložnik je trdil in predložil zadostne prima facie dokaze, da bi iztek veljavnosti ukrepov verjetno povzročil nadaljevanje ali ponovitev dampinga in škodil industriji Skupnosti v zvezi z uvozom sečnine s poreklom iz Rusije („zadevna država“) ter da obstoječi ukrepi ne zadostujejo za odpravo škodljivih učinkov dampinga.
Furthermore, on 14 September 2006, a request for a partial interim review of Regulation (EC) No 901/2001 was received from Joint Stock Company, Mineral and Chemical Company EuroChem, (EuroChem), an exporting producer of urea in Russia subject to the anti-dumping measures in force.
Komisija je 14. septembra 2006 od družbe Joint Stock Company „Mineral and Chemical Company EuroChem“ („EuroChem“), proizvajalca izvoznika sečnine v Rusiji, za katerega veljajo protidampinški ukrepi, prejela zahtevek za delni vmesni pregled Uredbe (ES) št. 901/2002.
In the request pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, EuroChem provided prima facie evidence to support its claims that, as far as it was concerned, the circumstances on the basis of which measures were established had changed and that these changes were of a lasting nature.
V zahtevku v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe je družba EuroChem predložila zadostne prima facie dokaze v podporo svojim trditvam, da so se v njihovem primeru okoliščine, na podlagi katerih so bili uvedeni ukrepi, spremenile in da so te spremembe trajne.
EuroChem provided evidence showing that a comparison between its own costs and its export prices would lead to a reduction of dumping significantly below the level of the current measures.
Družba EuroChem je dokazala, da bi primerjava med njihovimi stroški in njihovimi izvoznimi cenami pokazala stopnjo dampinga znatno pod ravnjo obstoječih ukrepov.
Therefore, EuroChem claimed that the continued imposition of measures at the existing levels, which were based on the level of injury margin previously established, was no longer necessary to offset dumping.
Zato je družba EuroChem trdila, da nadaljevanje ukrepov na obstoječi ravni, ki je temeljila na prej določeni stopnji škode, za izravnanje dampinga ni več potrebno.
Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation and of two partial interim reviews pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated these three reviews by publishing notices of initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union [6].
Komisija je po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom ugotovila, da obstajajo zadostni dokazi za začetek pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepov v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe in dveh delnih vmesnih pregledov v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe, zato je z objavo obvestil v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [6] začela te tri preglede.
As regards the expiry review, the investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 (review investigation period or RIP).
Preiskava v zvezi s pregledom zaradi izteka ukrepov o nadaljevanju ali ponovitvi dampinga in škode je zajela obdobje od 1. aprila 2005 do 31. marca 2006 („obdobje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom“ ali „OPP“).
The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of a likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 2002 up to the end of the RIP (period considered).
Proučitev trendov, pomembnih za oceno verjetnosti nadaljevanja ali ponovnega pojava škode, je zajela obdobje od leta 2002 do konca OPP („obravnavano obdobje“).
The period used in the partial interim review for the investigation of the appropriateness of the form of the measures was the same as the period considered in the expiry review.
Obdobje, uporabljeno v okviru delnega vmesnega pregleda za preiskavo ustreznosti oblike ukrepov, je enako obdobju, uporabljenem v pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov.
The investigation period for the partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of dumping concerning EuroChem was the period from 1 October 2005 to 30 September 2006.
Obdobje preiskave za delni vmesni pregled, po obsegu omejen na preiskavo dampinga v zvezi z družbo EuroChem, je zajelo obdobje od 1. oktobra 2005 do 30. septembra 2006.
The Commission officially advised the exporting producers in Russia, importers and users known to be concerned and their associations, the representatives of the exporting country concerned, the applicant and known Community producers of the initiation of the two reviews.
Komisija je o začetku pregledov uradno obvestila proizvajalce izvoznike v Rusiji, uvoznike in uporabnike, za katere je znano, da jih to zadeva, ter njihova združenja, predstavnike zadevne države izvoznice, pritožnika in znane proizvajalce Skupnosti.
The Commission officially advised EuroChem, the representatives of Russia, as well as the applicant of the initiation of the partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of dumping.
Komisija je obvestila tudi EuroChem, vložnika, ki je zahteval delni vmesni pregled, po obsegu omejen na pregled dampinga, ter predstavnike Rusije.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.
Zainteresirane stranke so imele možnost pisno izraziti svoja stališča in zahtevati zaslišanje v roku, določenem v obvestilu o začetku.
With regard to the expiry review and to the partial interim review limited to the form of the measures, in view of the apparent large number of Community producers, importers in the Community and exporting producers in Russia, it was considered appropriate, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, to examine whether sampling should be used.
Pri pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov in delnem vmesnem pregledu, omejenim na obliko ukrepov, se je glede na zelo veliko število proizvajalcev Skupnosti, uvoznikov v Skupnosti in proizvajalcev izvoznikov v Rusiji zdelo primerno, da se v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe prouči, ali je treba uporabiti vzorčenje.
In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would indeed be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the above parties were requested, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the investigation and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the notice of initiation.
Da bi se Komisija lahko odločila, ali je vzorčenje resnično potrebno, in da bi v tem primeru izbrala vzorec, so se morale zadevne stranke v skladu s členom 17(2) osnovne uredbe javiti Komisiji v 15 dneh po začetku preiskave in ji posredovati informacije, zahtevane v obvestilu o začetku.
With regard to importers into the Community, only one importer provided the information requested in the notice of initiation and expressed its willingness to cooperate further with the Commission services.
Samo en uvoznik Skupnosti je predložil informacije, zahtevane v obvestilu o začetku, in izrazil svojo pripravljenost za nadaljnje sodelovanje s službami Komisije.
It was therefore decided that sampling was not necessary with regard to importers.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da v zvezi z uvozniki vzorčenje ni potrebno.
Nine Community producers properly completed the sampling form and formally agreed to cooperate further in the investigation.
Devet proizvajalcev Skupnosti je pravilno izpolnilo obrazec za vzorčenje in se uradno strinjalo, da bodo še naprej sodelovali v preiskavi.
Four out of these nine companies, which were found to be representative of the Community industry in terms of volume of production and sales of urea in the Community, were selected for the sample.
Štiri od teh devetih družb, za katere se je ugotovilo, da predstavljajo industrijo Skupnosti glede na obseg proizvodnje in prodaje sečnine v Skupnosti, je bilo izbranih v vzorec.
The four sampled Community producers accounted for around 50 % of the total production of the Community industry, as defined in recital (63), during the RIP, whilst the above nine Community producers represented around 60 % of production in the Community.
Štirje vzorčeni proizvajalci Skupnosti so med OPP predstavljali približno 50 % celotne proizvodnje industrije Skupnosti, kot je opredeljena v uvodni izjavi 63, devet zgoraj navedenih proizvajalcev Skupnosti pa približno 60 % celotne proizvodnje Skupnosti.
This sample constituted the largest representative volume of production and sales of urea in the Community which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Ta vzorec je predstavljal največji reprezentativni obseg proizvodnje in prodaje sečnine v Skupnosti, ki ju je bilo mogoče ustrezno preiskati v razpoložljivem času.
Five exporting producers properly completed the sampling form within the deadline and formally agreed to cooperate further in the investigation.
Pet proizvajalcev izvoznikov je obrazec za vzorčenje pravilno izpolnilo v roku in se uradno strinjalo, da bodo pri preiskavi še naprej sodelovali.
These five exporting producers accounted for 60 % of the total Russian exports to the Community during the RIP.
Teh pet proizvajalcev izvoznikov je predstavljalo 60 % skupnega ruskega izvoza v Skupnost med OPP.
A sample of three exporting producers which could reasonably be investigated within the time available was selected in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, based on the largest quantity of exports of urea made to the Community.
V skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe je bil na podlagi največjega izvoza sečnine v Skupnost izbran vzorec treh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki jih je bilo mogoče ustrezno preiskati v razpoložljivem času.
The three sampled exporting producers accounted for 50 % of the total Russian exports to the Community during the RIP.
Trije vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki so predstavljali 50 % celotnega ruskega izvoza v Skupnost med OPP.
In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the parties concerned were consulted on the samples chosen and raised no objection thereto.
Komisija se je v skladu s členom 17(2) osnovne uredbe posvetovala z zadevnimi strankami o izbranih vzorcih, vendar te niso imele pripomb.
As a result of additional information available, it was later established that one of the three sampled exporting producers actually was not amongst those having the largest quantity of exports to the Community.
Pozneje je bilo na podlagi dodatnih informacij ugotovljeno, da en od treh vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov dejansko ni med največjimi izvozniki v Skupnost.
This exporting producer was therefore excluded from the sample and substituted with the fourth ranking exporting producer.
Zato je bil ta proizvajalec izvoznik izključen iz vzorčenja in nadomeščen z naslednje uvrščenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom.
The sample so modified accounted for 48 % of the total Russian exports to the Community during the RIP.
Tako spremenjen vzorec je predstavljal 48 % celotnega ruskega izvoza v Skupnost med OPP.
Questionnaires were therefore sent to the four sampled Community producers, to the three sampled Russian exporting producers, as well as to all importers and users that had made themselves known.
Vprašalniki so bili poslani štirim vzorčenim proizvajalcem Skupnosti, trem vzorčenim ruskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom in vsem uvoznikom in uporabnikom, ki so se javili.
Replies to the questionnaire were received from the four sampled Community producers and three exporting producers in Russia, as well as from one unrelated importer and seven users in the Community.
Izpolnjene vprašalnike so predložili štirje vzorčeni proizvajalci Skupnosti in trije ruski proizvajalci izvozniki, en nepovezan uvoznik ter sedem uporabnikov v Skupnosti.
In addition, several importers and users and their associations submitted comments without replying to the questionnaire.
Poleg tega je svoje pripombe predložilo več uvoznikov in uporabnikov ter njihovih združenj ne da bi izpolnili vprašalnik.