natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the alternative, these parties held that should confidentiality nevertheless be warranted, full disclosure of the individual company figures should in such case be given.
Te stranke so menile, da bi morali biti v takem primeru kljub zagotovljeni zaupnosti razkriti celotni podatki posameznih družb.
In this context it is recalled that the production volume of the sample, broken down by countries, was made available for inspection to all interested parties.
V zvezi s tem se opozarja, da so lahko obseg proizvodnje vzorca, razčlenjenega po državah, pregledale vse zainteresirane stranke.
As concerns the argument that all information but for the identity of the company should be disclosed it should be noted that such disclosure could indirectly reveal the identity of the sampled company.
Glede trditve, da bi morale biti informacije o družbi razkrite, njena identiteta pa ne, je treba opozoriti, da bi takšno razkritje lahko neposredno odkrilo identiteto vzorčene družbe.
The usual practice of disclosure of non limited versions of the questionnaire responses was therefore maintained (i.e. containing indexed data) also in this case.
Običajna praksa razkritja neomejenih različic izpolnjenih vprašalnikov je bila zato ohranjena (tj. uporaba indeksiranih podatkov) tudi v tem primeru.
In view of the foregoing it must be concluded that the right of defence of parties was adequately preserved and the claim was therefore rejected.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba zaključiti, da je bila pravica strank do obrambe ustrezno ohranjena, zato je bila ta trditev zavrnjena.
Achten Beheer BV, Waalwijk, The Netherlands
Achten Beheer BV, Waalwijk, Nizozemska
Adidas AG, Herzogenaurach, Germany
Adidas AG, Herzogenaurach, Nemčija
C&J Clark's International Limited, Street, Somerset, United Kingdom
C&J Clark’s International Limited, Street, Somerset, Združeno kraljestvo
Footex International BV, Hazerswoude-dorp, The Netherlands
Footex International BV, Hazerswoude-dorp, Nizozemska
Nike European Operations BV, Laakdal, Belgium
Nike European Operations BV, Laakdal, Belgija
Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport, Herzogenaurach, Germany
Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport, Herzogenaurach, Nemčija
Timberland Europe BV, Enschede, The Netherlands
Timberland Europe BV, Enschede, Nizozemska
Producers in the analogue market
Proizvajalci na primerljivem trgu
Henrich & Cia Ltda, Dois Irmãos, Brazil
Henrich & Cia Ltda, Dois Irmãos, Brazilija
Werner Calçados Ltda, Três Coroas, Brazil
Werner Calçados Ltda, Très Coroas, Brazilija
Industria de Calçados West Coast Ltda, Ivoti, Brazil
Industria de Calçados West Coast Ltda, Ivoti, Brazilija
RIGHTS OF PARTIES
PRAVICE STRANK
Certain parties raised objections throughout the proceeding concerning alleged impairment of their rights of defence.
Nekatere stranke so med postopkom ugovarjale domnevnim omejitvam njihovih pravic do obrambe.
They claimed that, as regards the sampled Union producers, the information contained in the file open for inspection by interested parties was incomplete and not provided on time.
Trdile so, da so bile informacije v zvezi z vzorčenimi proizvajalci Unije, ki so bile v dokumentaciji, odprti za pregled zainteresiranih strank, nepopolne in nepravočasne.
In this respect it should be underlined that a version of a party's response for inspection by interested parties (an ‘open response’) was provided by all the sampled companies without undue delays and in line with the time limits accorded to other parties in the investigation.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da so različico odgovorov za pregled s strani zainteresiranih strank („odprt odgovor“) predložile vse vzorčene družbe brez nepotrebnega odlašanja in v skladu z roki, določenimi za druge stranke v preiskavi.
When an open response is submitted to the Commission, it may however only be inserted in the open file, once possible confidentiality issues have been resolved as provided for under Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Ko je Komisiji predložen odprt odgovor, je lahko vložen v odprto dokumentacijo šele po razrešitvi morebitnega vprašanja zaupnosti, kakor je določeno v členu 19 osnovne uredbe.
It has also to be noted that the Commission has a duty to insert information in the open file in good time for parties to exercise their rights.
Treba je tudi poudariti, da je dolžnost Komisije, da pravočasno vloži informacije v odprto dokumentacijo, kar omogoča strankam izvajanje njenih pravic.
This duty has been duly fulfilled in this case.
Ta dolžnost je bila v tem primeru ustrezno izpolnjena.
As regards the completeness of the open responses, it should be noted that it is a normal part of investigations that parties make additional submissions over time in which they provide additional information.
Glede popolnosti odprtih odgovorov je treba poudariti, da je povsem običajno, da stranke med preiskavami dodajajo predloge, v katerih predložijo dodatne informacije.
These are added to the non-confidential file as soon as any confidentiality issues are resolved.
Te se dodajo v dokumentacijo nezaupne narave, čim se razrešijo vprašanja zaupnosti.
This process, whereby the contributions made by all interested parties are progressively integrated into the body of evidence used to arrive at findings and into the non-confidential file, can not be confused with files being incomplete.
Postopka, pri katerim se prispevki vseh zainteresiranih strank postopno vključijo med dokaze, uporabljene za ugotovitve in vložene v dokumentacijo nezaupne narave, se ne sme razlagati kot nepopolnost dokumentacije.
Given the complexity of this case, parties’ access was facilitated as follows.
Glede na zapletenost tega primera je bil dostop strank zagotovljen, kot je opisano v nadaljevanju.
Firstly, electronic access was afforded to interested parties, whereby they could obtain upon request a full copy of all documents on file on a CD-ROM.
Najprej je bil zainteresiranim strankam omogočen elektronski dostop, s katerim so lahko na zahtevo pridobile celotno kopijo vseh dokumentov na zgoščenki.
In addition, the electronic documents were accompanied by a clear index allowing (i) for easy access to the many documents presented in this case and (ii) for a dated record of documents on file.
Poleg tega je bilo elektronskim dokumentom priloženo jasno kazalo, ki je omogočalo (i) enostaven dostop do številnih dokumentov iz tega primera in (ii) datirano evidenco dokumentov v dokumentaciji.
Furthermore, a series of notes for the file inserted into the open file responded to queries which might have an impact on the rights of defence of parties.
Poleg tega so številni zapiski za dokumentacijo, vstavljeni v odprto dokumentacijo, ustrezali poizvedbam, ki bi lahko vplivale na pravice strank do obrambe.
The foregoing allowed parties to have enhanced access and to make extensive comments throughout the investigation, which were then addressed by the Commission as appropriate.
Navedeno je strankam v času preiskave omogočalo izboljšan dostop in podajanje obširnih pripomb, ki jih je nato Komisija ustrezno obravnavala.
The claims as concerns the lack of completeness and timeliness of the open file made by the various parties must therefore be rejected.
Trditve različnih strank glede nepopolnosti in netočnosti odprte dokumentacije je treba zato zavrniti.
One interested party also claimed that the Commission had discriminated importers and exporters by offering more favourable treatment to the complaining Union producers in the investigation.
Ena zainteresirana stranka je tudi trdila, da je Komisija delala razlike med uvozniki in izvozniki s ponujanjem ugodnejše obravnave pritožnikom proizvajalcem Unije v preiskavi.
In particular it was claimed that importers and exporters, unlike producers were not afforded confidentiality.
Trdila je zlasti, da uvoznikom in izvoznikom za razliko od proizvajalcev ni bila zagotovljena zaupnost.
It was also claimed that the complainants were given more favourable treatment as they were not requested to submit sample forms at the initiation of the proceeding and that too much flexibility as concerned deadline and standard of responses were given to the complainant while an exporter in the same situation would have been assessed on the basis of best facts available under Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Prav tako je trdila, da so bili pritožniki deležni ugodnejše obravnave, saj jim ob začetku preiskave ni bilo treba predložiti obrazcev za vzorčenje, in da jim je bila omogočena prevelika prilagodljivost glede roka in standarda odgovorov, medtem ko je bil izvoznik v enakem položaju ocenjen na podlagi najboljših razpoložljivih dejstev po členu 18 osnovne uredbe.
In this context it should be noted that the granting of confidentiality to the identity of the Union producers supporting the complaint was based on a duly motivated request in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je zagotavljanje zaupnosti identitete proizvajalcev Unije, ki so podpirali pritožbo, temeljilo na upravičeni zahtevi v skladu s členom 19 osnovne uredbe.
No such request was submitted by exporters or by importers nor did any events occur or any information come to the fore in the course of the investigation suggesting that the interests of exporters or importers would be impaired as a consequence of the disclosure of their identity.
Uvozniki ali izvozniki niso vložili nobene takšne zahteve, prav tako pa med preiskavo ni bilo nobenega dogodka oziroma nobene informacije, ki bi kazala na to, da so interesi izvoznikov in uvoznikov prizadeti zaradi razkritja identitete.
Considering that the situation of the Union producers in this context was fundamentally different from that of the exporters and importers, the claim of discrimination cannot be sustained.
Glede na to, da se je položaj proizvajalcev Unije v tem smislu bistveno razlikoval od položaja uvoznikov in izvoznikov, trditve o diskriminaciji ni mogoče sprejeti.
As concerns the selection of the sample, it is referred to recital 19 above.
Izbira vzorca je pojasnjena v uvodni izjavi (19).
The situation for exporters and importers was quite different from that of the complaining producers, as no detailed information was on file regarding the former.
Položaj izvoznikov in uvoznikov se je precej razlikoval od položaja pritožnikov proizvajalcev, saj o slednjem v dokumentaciji ni bilo podrobnih informacij.
Therefore, the completion of the sample form was a necessity both in order to verify the parties’ willingness to cooperate but also in order to obtain the basic information needed for the selection of the sample.
Zato je bila izpolnitev obrazca za vzorčenje nujna tako, da se preveri pripravljenost strank na sodelovanje kot za pridobitev osnovnih informacij, potrebnih za izbiro vzorca.
Thus the claim of discrimination has to be rejected.
Zato je treba trditev o diskriminaciji zavrniti.
As concerns the flexibility afforded to Union producers in the context of information collected through questionnaires in the scope of the investigation and the use of Article 18 of the basic Regulation it should be noted that considering that the same approach was consistently used for exporters and importers as well as for Union producers, there could be no grounds for any claim of discrimination.
Glede prilagodljivosti, ki je bila omogočena proizvajalcem Unije v zvezi z informacijami, zbranimi z vprašalniki v okviru preiskave, in uporabe člena 18 osnovne uredbe je treba poudariti, da je bil enak pristop dosledno uporabljen za izvoznike in uvoznike, pa tudi proizvajalce Unije, zato ni podlage za trditev o diskriminaciji.
The unsubstantiated allegation is thus rejected.
Neutemeljena domneva je zato zavrnjena.
With regard to the choice of the analogue country, some parties submitted that short deadlines, timing and mode of transmission of the questionnaires discriminated Indian and Indonesian companies.
Glede izbire primerljive države so nekatere stranke trdile, da so kratki roki, čas in način prenosa vprašalnikov diskriminirali indijske in indonezijske družbe.
In this respect it is noted that the sending of questionnaires to India and Indonesia could only be completed at the end of December 2008, after the relevant addresses of producers were obtained.
V zvezi s tem se poudarja, da je bilo pošiljanje vprašalnikov v Indijo in Indonezijo lahko dokončano šele konec decembra 2008, po pridobitvi ustreznih naslovov proizvajalcev.
The Commission made sure that companies in these countries were given the same time for replying as the ones in Brazil.
Komisija se je prepričala, da so imele družbe v teh državah na voljo enako časa za odgovor kot tiste v Braziliji.
Regarding the actual transmission of the questionnaires, the Commission used registered mail in all cases, as well as e-mail whenever possible.
Glede dejanskega pošiljanja vprašalnikov je Komisija v vseh primerih uporabila priporočeno pošto, pa tudi elektronsko pošto, kadar je bilo to mogoče.
Therefore the above claims have to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba zgornje trditve zavrniti.
Some parties claimed that information regarding the analogue country was put on the open file with undue delays and that this constituted an impairment of their rights of defence.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da so bile informacije glede primerljive države v odprto dokumentacijo vložene z nepotrebnim odlašanjem in da je to vplivalo na omejitev njihovih pravic do obrambe.
The Commission notes that in the present investigation, most of the first non-confidential replies to the questionnaires by companies in the analogue country were found to be deficient, and therefore new, appropriate open versions had to be requested.
Komisija ugotavlja, da je bila v sedanji preiskavi večina prvih nezaupnih odgovorov na vprašalnike, ki so jih poslale družbe v primerljivi državi, pomanjkljivih, zato je bilo treba zahtevati nove, primerne odprte različice.
Once received, they were put on the open file without undue delays.
Ko so bile prejete, so bile vložene v odprto dokumentacijo brez nepotrebnega odlašanja.
In the meantime, the Commission included in the open file summary information on the companies consulted and the replies received.
Medtem je Komisija v odprto dokumentacijo vključila informacije o družbah, s katerimi se je posvetovala, in prejete odgovore.
These claims therefore have to be rejected.
Te trditve je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
The product concerned by this review is the same as the product defined in the original Regulation, i.e. certain footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather, excluding sports footwear, footwear involving special technology, slippers and other indoor footwear and footwear with a protective toe-cap, originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (‘the product concerned’), currently falling within CN Codes 64032000, ex64035105, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035905, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039105, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039905, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000.
Izdelek iz tega pregleda je isti kot izdelek, opredeljen v prvotni uredbi, tj. določena obutev z zgornjim delom iz usnja ali umetnega usnja, razen športne obutve, obutve s posebno tehnologijo, copat in druge hišne obutve ter obutve z zaščitno kapico s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske in Vietnama („zadevni izdelek“), trenutno uvrščen pod oznake KN 64032000, ex64035105, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035905, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039105, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039905, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 in ex64051000.
The definitions of Article 1(2) of the original Regulation apply in the present investigation.
Za to preiskavo veljajo opredelitve iz člena 1(2) prvotne uredbe.
According to those definitions:
Glede na te opredelitve
‘sports footwear’ shall mean footwear within the meaning of subheading note 1 to Chapter 64 of Annex I of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008;
„športna obutev“ pomeni obutev v smislu opombe 1 k tarifnim podštevilkam v poglavju 64 Priloge I Uredbe (ES) št. 1031/2008;
‘footwear involving special technology’ shall mean footwear having a CIF price per pair of not less than EUR 7.5, for use in sporting activities, with a single- or multi-layer moulded sole, not injected, manufactured from synthetic materials specially designed to absorb the impact of vertical or lateral movements and with technical features such as hermetic pads containing gas or fluid, mechanical components which absorb or neutralise impact, or materials such as low-density polymers and falling within CN codes ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998;
„obutev s posebno tehnologijo“ pomeni obutev s ceno CIF za par v višini najmanj 7,5 EUR, ki je namenjena športnim aktivnostim, z eno- ali večplastno oblikovanim podplatom, nebrizganim, izdelanim iz sintetičnih materialov, posebej oblikovanim, da se odpravi učinek vertikalnega ali vodoravnega gibanja, ter s tehničnimi značilnostmi, kakor so hermetične podloge, ki vsebujejo plin ali tekočino, mehanske komponente, ki odpravljajo ali nevtralizirajo učinek udarca, ali materiali, kakor so polimeri z nizko gostoto, ter ki je uvrščena pod oznake KN: ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998;
‘footwear with a protective toecap’ shall mean footwear incorporating a protective toecap with an impact resistance of at least 100 joules (1) and falling within CN codes: CN codes: ex64035105, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035905, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039105, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039905, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000;
„obutev z zaščitno kapico“ pomeni obutev, ki vsebuje zaščitno kapico z odpornostjo proti udarcem najmanj 100 joulov (1) in je uvrščena pod oznake KN: oznake KN: ex64035105, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035905, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039105, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039905, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 in ex64051000;
‘slippers and other indoor footwear’ shall mean such footwear falling within CN code ex64051000.
„copati in druga hišna obutev“ pomeni obutev, ki se uvršča pod oznako KN ex64051000.
The like product subject to the present expiry review is, as defined in the original investigation, certain footwear with uppers of leather, whether produced and sold on the domestic market, in the analogue market, and/or exported to the Union from the PRC and Vietnam.
Podobni izdelek, ki je predmet tega pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepov je, kakor je opredeljeno v prvotni preiskavi, določena vrsta obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja, ki je izdelana in prodana na domačem trgu, na primerljivem trgu in/ali jo v Unijo izvažata LRK in Vietnam.
Product comparability
Primerljivost izdelka
Certain parties argued that the like product sold in the Union was not comparable to the product concerned exported from the PRC and Vietnam.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da podobni izdelek, prodajan v Uniji, ni primerljiv z zadevnim izdelkom, izvoženim iz LRK in Vietnama.
It was found however that the product sold in the Union (in this review) was comparable to the product concerned exported from the countries concerned.
Vendar je bilo ugotovljeno, da je izdelek, prodajan v Uniji (v tem pregledu) primerljiv z zadevnim izdelkom, ki se izvaža iz zadevnih držav.
In particular, it was found that the physical and technical characteristics and uses, as well as the channels of distribution of the product concerned were similar and have not changed since the original investigation.
Zlasti je bilo ugotovljeno, da so fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti ter uporabe, pa tudi distribucijski kanali zadevnega izdelka podobni in se niso spremenili od prvotne preiskave.
Certain parties also argued that the system used to compare product types sold by the various co-operators in the investigation was inappropriate because it was not specific enough to guarantee a fair comparison.
Nekatere stranke so trdile tudi, da je bil sistem za primerjavo vrst izdelka, ki ga prodajajo različni sodelujoči v preiskavi, neprimeren, ker ni bil dovolj specifičen, da bi zagotavljal pošteno primerjavo.
However, the system used (PCN system) allowed for the comparison of up to 600 different categories or product types organised into five main criteria, namely style of footwear, type of consumer, type of footwear, material of outer sole and presence of lining.
Vendar pa je uporabljen sistem (sistem ŠOI) omogočal primerjavo do 600 različnih kategorij ali vrst izdelkov, organiziranih v pet glavnih meril, in sicer slog obutve, vrsta potrošnika, vrsta obutve, material zunanjega podplata in prisotnost podloge.
Moreover, this PCN system was already used in the previous investigation.
Poleg tega je bil ta sistem ŠOI uporabljen že v prejšnji preiskavi.
No substantiated reasons have been put forward to show why it should be amended.
Predloženi niso bili nobeni utemeljeni razlogi za njegovo spremembo.
Therefore the same PCN system that was used in the original investigation was applied in the present expiry review investigation.
Zato je bil sistem ŠOI, ki je bil uporabljen v prvotni preiskavi, uporabljen tudi v tej preiskavi zaradi izteka ukrepov.
Certain parties alleged that the Commission changed its methodology as compared to the original case by changing the definition of the product control numbers (PCN's) in the course of the investigation.
Nekatere stranke so trdile, da je Komisija spremenila svojo metodologijo glede na prvoten primer s spremembo opredelitve številčnih oznak izdelka (ŠOI) med preiskavo.
This allegation is however not correct.
Vendar ta trditev ni ustrezna.
Rather, in the course of the investigation, it became apparent that certain parties had wrongly interpreted and applied the PCN structure for certain product types.
Je pa med preiskavo postalo jasno, da so si nekatere stranke napačno razlagale strukturo ŠOI za določene vrste izdelka.
In order to ensure a consistent approach, the footwear models in question were therefore re-classified and attributed to the proper PCN heading wherever this was found necessary.
Za zagotovitev doslednega pristopa so bili zadevni modeli obutve ponovno razvrščeni in dodeljeni pravi ŠOI, kjer je bilo to potrebno.
Thus, wherever the Commission identified inaccurate information given by the parties concerned it had to rectify this.
Zato je morala Komisija vedno, kadar je ugotovila, da so zadevne stranke predložile netočne informacije, to popraviti.
Such rectification can therefore neither be considered as a change in methodology, nor as a change of content of the PCN.
Takšnih popravkov torej ni mogoče obravnavati kot spremembo metodologije niti kot spremembo vsebine ŠOI.
On the contrary, the need to respect the PCN methodology was the very reason why the rectification had to be carried out.
Ravno nasprotno, potreba po upoštevanju metodologije ŠOI je bila razlog za izvedbo popravkov.
Therefore the argument had to be rejected.
Argument je bilo zato treba zavrniti.
Requests for exclusions
Zahteve po izključitvi
Several interested parties made claims similar to those received in the original investigation.
Več zainteresiranih strank je vložilo zahtevke, podobne prejetim v prvotni preiskavi.