natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Because investment projects may continue over several years, the three-year period is calculated from the start of works on each project.
Ker lahko naložbeni projekti trajajo več let, se triletno obdobje računa od začetka del pri vsakem projektu.
The German authorities provided additional information explaining the difference between the laboratory testing in the Marlboro plant and the industrial processes tested in Sovello1.
Nemški organi so zagotovili dodatne informacije o razliki med laboratorijskim preskušanjem v obratu Marlboro in industrijskimi procesi, ki so se preskušali v obratu Sovello1.
The production in Marlboro was based on Evergreen String-Ribbon technology, the modules were produced manually, and the end products were modules of the Cedar Line type.
Proizvodnja v Marlboru je temeljila na tehnologiji string-ribbon družbe Evergreen, moduli so se izdelovali ročno, končni proizvodi pa so bili moduli tipa Cedar Line.
According to the German authorities, […].
Glede na navedbe nemških organov […].
Evergreen annual report 2008.
Letno poročilo družbe Evergreen za leto 2008.
For a project located in an area eligible under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.
Za projekt, ki se izvaja na območju, upravičenem v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES.
‘Capacity and market potential for grid-connected systems by 2010’, by EPIA, Frankfurt, December 2005.
„Capacity and market potential for grid-connected systems by 2010“ (Zmogljivosti in tržne možnosti za osno povezane sisteme do leta 2010), EPIA, Frankfurt, december 2005.
Decision of 26 April 2006 in case N 17/06 — Aid to First Solar (MSF 2002) (OJ C 259, 26.4.2006, p. 13).
Odločitev z dne 26. aprila 2006 v zadevi N 17/06 – Pomoč za First Solar (Večsektorski okvir 2002) (UL C 259, 26.4.2006, str. 13).
Decision of 19 July 2006 in case N 335/06 — Aid to CSG Solar (OJ C 232, 27.9.2006, p. 2).
Odločitev z dne 19. julija 2006 v zadevi N 335/2006 – Pomoč za CSG Solar (UL C 232, 27.9.2006, str. 2).
Case N 17/06 First Solar (MSF 2002) (OJ C 259, 26.4.2006, p. 13); case N 409/06 HighSi GmbH (MSF 2002) (OJ C 77, 5.4.2007, p. 4); case N 863/06 Avancis (MSF 2002) (OJ C 227, 27.9.2007, p. 1); case N 199/08 Intico Solar (OJ C 195, 1.8.2008, p. 2); case N 545/08 Masdar (OJ C 9, 14.1.2009, p. 8); case N 453/08 Sunfilm (OJ C 106, 8.5.2009, p. 7); case N 538/08 ersol Thin Film (OJ C 63, 18.3.2009, p. 16).
Zadeva N 17/2006, First Solar (Večsektorski okvir 2002) (UL C 259, 26.4.2006, str. 13); zadeva N 409/06, HighSi GmbH (Večsektorski okvir 2002) (UL C 77, 5.4.2007, str. 4); zadeva N 863/06, Avancis (Večsektorski okvir 2002) (UL C 227, 27.9.2007, str. 1); zadeva N 199/08, Intico Solar (UL C 195, 1.8.2008, str. 2); zadeva N 545/08, Masdar (UL C 9, 14.1.2009, str. 8); zadeva N 453/08, Sunfilm (UL C 106, 8.5.2009, str. 7); zadeva N 538/08, ersol Thin Film (UL C 63, 18.3.2009, str. 16).
See also State aid case N 409/06 — Aid to HighSi GmbH (MSF 2002) (OJ C 77, 5.4.2007, p. 4).
Odločitev Komisije z dne 26. aprila 2006 v zadevi N 409/06 – Pomoč za HighSi GmbH (Večsektorski okvir 2002) (UL C 77, 5.4.2007, str. 4).
Decision of 27 March 2001 in case No COMP/M.2367 — Siemens/E.ON/Shell/SSG and Decision of 18 April 2001 in case No COMP/M.2712 — Electrabel/Totalfinalelf/photovoltech.
Odločba Komisije z dne 27. marca 2001 v zadevi COMP/M.2367 – Siemens/E.ON/Shell/SSG in odločba z dne 18. aprila 2001 v zadevi COMP/M.2712 – Electrabel/Totalfinalelf/photovoltech.
They are considered independent as they were not commissioned by the aid beneficiary nor were they written for the sole purpose of this assessment.
Štejejo se za neodvisne, ker jih ni naročil upravičenec do pomoči in niso bile napisane samo za to presojo.
‘Capacity and market potential for grid-connected systems by 2010’, by EPIA, Frankfurt, December 2005; ‘Branchenanalyse Photovoltaik 2006’, by Landesbanken Baden-Wurttemburg, Stuttgart, 21 March 2006; ‘Sun Screen II’, by CLSA, July 2005; ‘PV status report 2006’, European Commission/Joint Research centre and Institute for Environment and Sustainability, August 2006; and ‘Solar Generation’, by Greenpeace and EPIA, September 2006; ‘Photovoltaik-Marktmodell — Version 2.1’, by Landesbanken Baden-Württemberg LBBW, 22 August 2007.
„Capacity and market potential for grid-connected systems by 2010“ (Zmogljivosti in tržne možnosti za osno povezane sisteme do leta 2010), EPIA, Frankfurt, december 2005; „Branchenanalyse Photovoltaik 2006“ (Analiza fotovoltaičnega sektorja 2006), Landesbanken Baden-Wurttemburg, Stuttgart, 21. marec 2006; „Sun Screen II“, CLSA, julij 2005; „PV status report 2006“ (Poročilo o stanju v fotovoltaičnem sektorju 2006), Evropska komisija/Skupno raziskovalno središče in Inštitut za okolje in trajnost, avgust 2006, in „Solar Generation“ (Sončna generacija), Greenpeace in EPIA, september 2006; „Photovoltaik-Marktmodell – Version 2.1“ (Tržni model fotovoltaike – Različica 2.1), Landesbanken Baden-Württemberg LBBW, 22. avgust 2007.
These studies were all submitted by the German authorities with the notification.
Vse te študije so nemški organi predložili skupaj s priglasitvijo.
Decision of 27 March 2001 in case COMP/M.2367 — Siemens/E.ON/Shell/SSG, and Decision of 18 April 2001 in case COMP/M.2712 — Electrabel/Totalfinaelf/Photovoltech.
Odločba Komisije z dne 27. marca 2001 v zadevi COMP/M.2367 – Siemens/E.ON/Shell/SSG, in odločba z dne 18. aprila 2001 v zadevi COMP/M.2712 – Electrabel/Totalfinaelf/Photovoltech.
Case N 17/06 First Solar (MSF 2002) (OJ C 259, 26.4.2006, p. 13); case N 409/06 HighSi GmbH (MSF 2002) (OJ C 77, 5.4.2007, p. 4); case N 863/06 Avancis (MSF 2002) (OJ C 227, 27.9.2007, p. 1); case N 850/06 Q-Cells (OJ C 270, 13.11.2007, p. 5); case N 199/08 Intico Solar (OJ C 195, 1.8.2008, p. 2); case N 545/08 Masdar (OJ C 9, 14.1.2009, p. 8); case N 453/08 Sunfilm (OJ C 106, 8.5.2009, p. 7); case N 538/08 ersol Thin Film (OJ C 63, 18.3.2009, p. 16).
Zadeva N 17/06, First Solar (Večsektorski okvir 2002) (UL C 259, 26.4.2006, str. 13); zadeva N 409/06, HighSi GmbH (Večsektorski okvir 2002) (UL C 77, 5.4.2007, str. 4); zadeva N 863/06, Avancis (Večsektorski okvir 2002) (UL C 227, 27.9.2007, str. 1); zadeva N 850/06, Q-Cells (UL C 270, 13.11.2007, str. 5); zadeva N 199/08, Intico Solar (UL C 195, 1.8.2008, str. 2); zadeva N 545/2008, Masdar (UL C 9, 14.1.2009, str. 8); zadeva N 453/08, Sunfilm (UL C 106, 8.5.2009, str. 7); zadeva N 538/08, ersol Thin Film (UL C 63, 18.3.2009, str. 16).
See footnote 47.
Glej opombo 47.
The Commission considers that the figures for demanded capacity (solar energy systems) can give an indication of the sales for the solar modules market.
Komisija meni, da so vrednosti za zahtevano zmogljivost (sistemi sončne energije) lahko kazalnik za prodajo na trgu solarnih modulov.
The same view was taken in Commission decision N 850/06, aid to Q-Cells.
Enako stališče je bilo sprejeto v odločitvi Komisije v zadevi N 850/06, pomoč za Q-Cells.
The Evergreen annual report 2008 announces that as from 2009, Sovello will gradually commercialise its products independently.
V letnem poročilu podjetja Evergreen za leto 2008 je objavljeno, da bo Sovello od leta 2009 postopoma začel neodvisno tržiti svojo proizvodnjo.
Internet site of the ‘International Energy Agency Photovoltaics Power Systems Programme’ (IEA PVPS): www.iea-pvps.org
Spletna stran „International Energy Agency Photovoltaics Power Systems Programme“ (IEA PVPS): www.iea-pvps.org
REC is among the world’s largest producers of silicon materials for the photovoltaic industry.
REC je eden največjih svetovnih proizvajalcev silicijevih materialov za fotovoltaično industrijo.
REC also produces solar wafers, cells and modules through its subsidiaries.
REC prek hčerinskih podjetij proizvaja tudi sončne rezine, sončne celice in module.
The notified aid refers to a new investment project, called Sovello2.
Priglašena pomoč se nanaša na nov naložbeni projekt, imenovan Sovello2.
It concerns the construction of a new plant for the integrated large scale production of solar modules using the validated String-Ribbon technology on land adjacent to the Sovello1 site in Thalheim.
Zadeva gradnjo novega obrata za integrirano množično proizvodnjo solarnih modulov z uporabo preverjene tehnologije string-ribbon na zemljišču, ki meji na zemljišče obrata Sovello1 v Thalheimu.
According to the updated information submitted by the German authorities on 16 and 24 April 2009, Sovello financed the project using EUR 87313015 of own resources and bank loans (not covered by a public guarantee), in addition to the aid applied for (EUR 31105765).
Glede na posodobljene podatke, ki so jih nemški organi predložili 16. in 24. aprila 2009, je Sovello financiral projekt z lastnimi sredstvi in bančnimi posojili v višini 87313015 EUR (ki niso bila krita z javnim jamstvom), poleg pomoči, za katero je zaprosil (31105765 EUR).
It follows that Sovello makes an own contribution of at least 25 % of the total eligible expenditure which will be free of any public support.
Iz tega sledi, da lastni prispevek podjetja Sovello znaša najmanj 25 % skupnih upravičenih izdatkov, ki ne bodo deležni javne podpore.
Point 25 of the MSF 2002 stipulates that ‘the maximum allowable aid intensity (…) may be increased by multiplying it by the factor 1,15 if the project is co-financed from structural funds resources as a major project within the meaning of Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 [ [17] ] (…)’.
Točka 25 Večsektorskega okvira 2002 določa, da je „največjo dovoljeno intenzivnost pomoči […] mogoče povečati, tako da se pomnoži s faktorjem 1,15, če se projekt sofinancira s sredstvi strukturnih skladov kot velik projekt v smislu člena 25 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1260/1999 [17] […]“.
However, the rate of Community co-financing must be at least 25 % of the total public expenditure in a region eligible for regional aid pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty, and the maximum aid intensity resulting from the application of the cohesion bonus must not exceed 75 % of the applicable regional aid ceiling (points 25 and 26 of the MSF 2002).
Vendar mora biti stopnja sofinanciranja Skupnosti vsaj 25 % skupnih javnih izdatkov v regiji, ki je upravičena do regionalne pomoči v skladu s členom 87(3)(a) Pogodbe ES, največja intenzivnost pomoči, ki izhaja iz uporabe kohezijskega bonusa, pa ne sme presegati 75 % veljavne zgornje meje regionalne pomoči (točki 25 in 26 Večsektorskega okvira 2002).
According to Germany, the fact that the beneficiary from the start envisaged to commercialise the output of Sovello1 should not be decisive for its classification as a single investment project or not, since the Commission did not develop this view in its Qimonda decision either.
Kot navaja Nemčija, dejstvo, da je upravičenec že na začetku načrtoval komercializacijo proizvodnje obrata Sovello1, ne bi smelo odločilno vplivati na opredelitev, ali je to enoten naložbeni projekt ali ne, saj Komisija ni razvila tega stališča niti v odločitvi Qimonda.
The German authorities claim that there is no difference in aims and approach between the Qimonda pilot project and the investment in Sovello1.
Nemški organi trdijo, da se cilji in pristop pilotnega projekta Qimonda in naložbe v Sovello1 ne razlikujejo.
According to the German authorities, the judgment of the European Court of First Instance in case T-184/97 would not contradict the assessment of considering Sovello1 as a pilot project.
Kot navajajo nemški organi, sodba Evropskega sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T 184-97 ni v nasprotju s presojo, da se Sovello1 šteje za pilotni projekt.
This judgment would also not be relevant in the Sovello case since it does not comment on the single investment project issue.
Ta sodba tudi ne bi bila ustrezna za primer Sovello, ker ne komentira vprašanja enotnega naložbenega projekta.
They could be sold separately without any physical changes in the production process [31] of each plant.
Prodati ju je mogoče posebej brez kakršne koli fizične spremembe proizvodnega postopka [31] v posameznem obratu.
It is true that the pilot project Sovello1 was a necessary step to build up the Sovello2 full-scale project.
Drži, da je bil pilotni projekt Sovello1 potreben za vzpostavitev projekta Sovello2.
On the other hand, each project can be sold separately and there is no indication that the pilot project Sovello1 is not economically divisible from the Sovello2 investment project.
Po drugi strani pa je vsak projekt mogoče prodati posebej, in nič ne kaže, da pilotnega projekta Sovello1 ne bi bilo mogoče ekonomsko ločiti od naložbenega projekta Sovello2.
Frascati Manual — Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development.
Frascatijev priročnik – Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development (Predlog stalne standardne prakse za študije o razvoju raziskav in poskusov).
The German authorities calculated an advantage of only approximately EUR 10 million of extra aid for the setting-up of two separate investments Sovello1 and Sovello2, compared to reduced aid for a single investment project Sovello1 + 2.
Nemški organi so izračunali, da je vzpostavitev ločenih naložb za Sovello1 in Sovello2 prinesla samo prednost v višini približno 10 milijonov EUR dodatne pomoči, če bi jo primerjali z znižano pomočjo za enotni naložbeni projekt Sovello1 + 2.
This advantage has to be balanced against EUR […] of extra costs.
To prednost je treba primerjati s […] EUR dodatnih stroškov.
The Commission recalls, however, that this only indicates that Sovello1 and Sovello2 were not separated with the intention to circumvent the State aid rules. It does not mean that, if a project has to be split in any event for economic reasons, as was the case here, there might not be an advantage in presenting them as not building a single investment project, in order to benefit from higher aid intensities.
Komisija vseeno opozarja, da to samo kaže, da Sovello1 in Sovello2 nista bila ločena z namenom izogibanja pravilom glede državne pomoči, ne pomeni pa, da če je treba projekt vseeno razdeliti iz ekonomskih razlogov, kar se je zgodilo v tem primeru, dejstvo, da ga ne bi predstavili kot enoten naložbeni projekt, ne bi prineslo prednosti in možnosti za višje intenzivnosti pomoči.
of 4 September 2009
z dne 4. septembra 2009
terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless originating in Belarus, Turkey and Ukraine
o ustavitvi protidampinškega postopka glede uvoza varjenih cevi in votlih profilov s kvadratnim ali pravokotnim prerezom iz železa, razen litega železa ali jekla, razen nerjavnega jekla, s poreklom iz Belorusije, Turčije in Ukrajine
On 13 November 2008, pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation, the Commission initiated by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2] (‘notice of initiation’), the anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless (‘hollow section’), originating in Belarus, Turkey and Ukraine (‘the countries concerned’).
Komisija je 13. novembra 2008 v skladu s členom 5 osnovne uredba z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [2] („obvestilo o začetku“), začela postopek proti dampinškemu uvozu v Skupnost varjenih cevi in votlih profilov s kvadratnim ali pravokotnim prerezom iz železa, razen litega železa ali jekla, razen nerjavnega jekla („votli profil“), s poreklom iz Belorusije, Turčije in Ukrajine („zadevne države“).
The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 29 September 2008 by the Defence Committee of the Welded Steel Tubes Industry of the European Union (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 %, of the total Community production of hollow section.
Postopek se je začel na podlagi pritožbe, ki jo je 29. septembra 2008 vložil Odbor za zaščito industrije varjenih jeklenih cevi Evropske unije („pritožnik“) v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo večino, v tem primeru več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje votlih profilov.
The complaint contained prima facie evidence of dumping of hollow section originating in the countries concerned and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.
Pritožba je vsebovala prima facie dokaze o dampingu v zvezi z votlim profilom s poreklom iz zadevnih držav ter o znatni škodi, ki je nastala zaradi tega, kar je zadostovalo za upravičenost začetka postopka.
The Commission officially advised the complainant, all known Community producers, importer/traders and users known to be concerned, the exporting producers, their associations and the authorities of the countries concerned and known producers of the like product in the envisaged analogue country (the USA) of the initiation of the proceeding.
Komisija je pritožnika, vse znane proizvajalce Skupnosti, uvoznike/trgovce in uporabnike, za katere je znano, da jih to zadeva, proizvajalce izvoznike, njihova združenja, organe zadevnih držav in znane proizvajalce podobnega izdelka v načrtovani primerljivi državi (ZDA) uradno seznanila z začetkom postopka.
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.
Zainteresirane stranke so imele možnost, da predstavijo svoja stališča v pisni obliki in zahtevajo zaslišanje v roku iz obvestila o začetku.
In order to allow exporting producers in Belarus to submit a claim for individual treatment (‘IT’), if they so wished, the Commission sent claim forms to the exporting producers known to be concerned as well as to the authorities of Belarus.
Da bi se proizvajalcem izvoznikom v Belorusiji omogočila predložitev zahtevka za individualno obravnavo („IO“), če tako želijo, je Komisija proizvajalcem izvoznikom, za katere je znano, da jih to zadeva, in organom Belorusije poslala obrazce za zahtevek.
Two groups of companies in Belarus claimed IT pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Dve skupini družb v Belorusiji sta zahtevali IO v skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in Turkey and Ukraine, Community producers and importers involved in this investigation, sampling was envisaged in the notice of initiation, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Zaradi očitnega velikega števila proizvajalcev izvoznikov v Turčiji in Ukrajini, proizvajalcev Skupnosti in uvoznikov, ki so bili vključeni v to preiskavo, je bilo v obvestilu o začetku predvideno vzorčenje v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe.
In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, exporting producers in Turkey and Ukraine, Community producers, and importers and representatives acting on their behalf were requested to make themselves known and to provide, as specified in the notice of initiation, basic information on their activities related to the product concerned within 15 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation.
Da bi se Komisija lahko odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in če bi bilo, izbrala vzorec, so bili proizvajalci izvozniki v Turčiji in Ukrajini, proizvajalci Skupnosti, uvozniki in pooblaščeni predstavniki pozvani, da se javijo Komisiji in predložijo osnovne informacije o svojih dejavnostih v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom v 15 dneh od objave obvestila o začetku, kakor je določeno v obvestilu o začetku.
For Turkey, out of the 13 companies or company groups which had replied to the sampling questions, a sample of four companies or company groups was selected.
V Turčiji je bil izmed 13 družb ali skupin družb, ki so izpolnile vprašalnik, izbran vzorec štirih družb ali skupin družb.
However, one of the sampled companies did not provide information concerning the existence of two related Turkish producers within the sampling exercise but came forward with this information at a very late stage.
Vendar ena izmed vzorčenih družb med vzorčenjem ni predložila informacij v zvezi z obstojem dveh povezanih turških proizvajalcev in je te informacije predložila v zelo pozni fazi vzorčenja.
Nevertheless, the two related companies were given an additional opportunity to submit a full questionnaire response.
Kljub temu sta obe povezani družbi dobili še eno možnost, da predložita v celoti izpolnjen vprašalnik.
However, the information submitted by the related companies was incomplete to an extent that made it impossible to perform a dumping calculation.
Informacije, ki sta jih predložili povezani družbi, niso bile dovolj popolne, da bi bilo mogoče izračunati damping.
Consequently, the company was excluded from the sample.
Zato je bila ta družba izključena iz vzorca.
Another Turkish producer had not been included in the original sample but had requested individual examination in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation and submitted a full questionnaire within the time limits.
Drugi turški proizvajalec ni bil vključen v prvotni vzorec, vendar je zahteval individualno preiskavo v skladu s členom 17(3) osnovne uredbe in predložil v celoti izpolnjen vprašalnik v časovnem roku.
It was then included in the sample.
Zatem je bil vključen v vzorec.
In terms of export volume the four sampled companies represent 63 % of the total exports of hollow section from Turkey to the Community during the investigation period.
Glede na obseg izvoza štiri vzorčene družbe predstavljajo 63 % celotnega izvoza votlih profilov iz Turčije v Skupnost med obdobjem preiskave.
As concerns Ukraine, two Ukrainian groups of companies and a third company replied to the sampling questions and indicated their willingness to cooperate in the investigation.
Dve ukrajinski skupini družb in ena tretja družba so odgovorile na vprašanja o vzorčenju in pokazale pripravljenost na sodelovanje v preiskavi.
These companies' exports to the Community accounted, during the investigation period, for approximately 30 % of the imports of hollow section from Ukraine as reported in the Eurostat database.
Izvoz teh družb v Skupnost je po podatkih iz Eurostatove zbirke podatkov v obdobju preiskave predstavljal približno 30 % uvoza votlega profila iz Ukrajine.
In view of the limited number of cooperating companies, it was decided that the three cooperating exporting producers would be fully investigated and that, consequently, sampling would not be applied.
Glede na omejeno število sodelujočih družb je bila sprejeta odločitev, da se bo za tri sodelujoče proizvajalce izvoznike opravila celotna preiskava in se zato vzorčenje zanje ne bo uporabilo.
As concerns the importers of hollow section, the Commission requested all known importers to provide information concerning imports and sales of the product concerned.
Komisija je zaprosila vse znane uvoznike votlega profila iz nerjavnega jekla, da zagotovijo informacije o uvozu in prodaji zadevnega izdelka.
As eight importers offered to cooperate, sampling was not applied.
Ker je osem izvoznikov ponudilo sodelovanje, se vzorčenje ni uporabilo.
With regard to the Community producers, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample was selected based on the largest representative volume of production and EC sales of hollow section in the Community, which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
V skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe je bil za proizvajalce Skupnosti vzorec izbran na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega proizvodnje in prodaje ES votlega profila v Skupnosti, ki ga je bilo mogoče ustrezno preiskati v razpoložljivem času.
On the basis of the information received from the producers in the Community, the Commission selected four company groups having the largest volume of production and sales in the Community.
Komisija je na podlagi informacij, ki so jih predložili proizvajalci v Skupnosti, izbrala štiri skupine družb z največjim obsegom proizvodnje in prodaje v Skupnosti.