natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Imports of raw milk and dairy products shall not be allowed when obtained either prior to the date of authorisation for exportation to the European Union of the third country or part thereof mentioned under I.7 and I.8, or during a period where restrictive measures have been adopted by the European Union against imports of raw milk and dairy products from this third country or part thereof.
Uvoz surovega mleka in mlečnih proizvodov se ne odobri pred datumom odobritve izvoza v Evropsko unijo iz tretje države ali njenega dela iz rubrik I.7 in I.8 ali v času, ko je Evropska unija sprejela omejevalne ukrepe za uvoz surovega mleka in mlečnih proizvodov iz te tretje države ali njenega dela.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 915/2011
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 915/2011
This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 September 2011.
Ta uredba začne veljati 14. septembra 2011.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 916/2011
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 916/2011
These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 913/2011 [4].
Navedene cene in dolžnosti so bile nazadnje spremenjene z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 913/2011 [4].
OJ L 236, 13.9.2011, p. 4.
UL L 236, 13.9.2011, str. 4.
Amended representative prices and additional import duties applicable to white sugar, raw sugar and products covered by CN code 17029095 from 14 September 2011
Spremenjene reprezentativne cene in dodatne uvozne dajatve za beli in surovi sladkor ter proizvode z oznako KN 17029095, ki se uporabljajo od 14. septembra 2011
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 917/2011
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz keramičnih ploščic s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 z dne 30. novembra 2009 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 9 Uredbe,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after having consulted the Advisory Committee,
ob upoštevanju predloga, ki ga je Evropska komisija predložila po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom,
The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 258/2011 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’).
Komisija je z Uredbo (EU) št. 258/2011 [2] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz keramičnih ploščic s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („Kitajska“).
A corrigendum [3] was published on 31 May 2011 in order to correct certain typographical errors, in particular the names of certain Chinese exporting producers that were misspelled in Annex I to the provisional Regulation.
31. maja 2011 je bil objavljen popravek [3], da bi se popravile nekatere tiskarske napake, zlasti imena nekaterih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so bila v Prilogi I k začasni uredbi napačno črkovana.
Following the verification of certain claims received after the publication of the corrigendum which were found to be warranted, it was noticed that certain other names were misspelled.
Po preverjanju nekaterih trditev, prejetih po objavi popravka, ki so se izkazale za upravičene, je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bila napačno črkovana tudi nekatera druga imena.
The correct names for all companies subject to the weighted average duty are listed in Annex I to this Regulation.
Pravilna imena vseh družb, za katere velja tehtana povprečna dajatev, so navedena v Prilogi I k tej uredbi.
It is recalled that the proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged by the European ceramic tiles manufacturer’s Association (CET) (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 30 % of the total Union production of ceramic tiles.
Opozoriti je treba, da se je postopek začel na podlagi pritožbe, ki jo je Evropska zveza proizvajalcev keramičnih ploščic (CET) („pritožnik“) vložila v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo glavni delež, v tem primeru več kot 30 % celotne proizvodnje keramičnih ploščic Unije.
As set out in recital 24 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 24 začasne uredbe, je preiskava dampinga in škode zajela obdobje od 1. aprila 2009 do 31. marca 2010 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
With respect to the trends relevant for the injury assessment, the Commission analysed data covering the period from 1 January 2007 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).
Komisija je v zvezi z gibanji, pomembnimi za oceno škode, analizirala podatke, ki so zajemali obdobje od 1. januarja 2007 do konca OP („obravnavano obdobje“).
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures (‘provisional disclosure’), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings.
Po razkritju bistvenih dejstev in premislekov, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločitev o uvedbi začasnih ukrepov („začasno razkritje“), je več zainteresiranih strani predložilo pisna stališča v zvezi z začasnimi ugotovitvami.
The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard and hearings with the Hearing officer were held upon request of two interested parties.
Strani, ki so to zahtevale, so imele možnost za zaslišanje, zaslišanja s pooblaščencem za zaslišanje pa so bila organizirana na zahtevo dveh zainteresiranih strani.
The Commission continued to seek information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
Komisija je nadaljevala z zbiranjem informacij, ki so bile po njenem mnenju potrebne za dokončne ugotovitve.
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty.
Vse strani so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravalo priporočiti uvedbo dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz keramičnih ploščic s poreklom iz Kitajske in dokončno pobiranje zneskov, zavarovanih z začasno dajatvijo.
They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
Določeno je bilo tudi obdobje, v katerem so strani lahko predložile svoja stališča po tem razkritju.
The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and taken into account where appropriate.
Ustne in pisne pripombe, ki so jih predložile zainteresirane strani, so bile preučene in po potrebi upoštevane.
When selecting the sample of exporting producers, an applicant ‘group’ of companies was included due to the fact that the combined export volume of the two producers included in the alleged group made them together the third largest exporter by volume to the Union market.
Pri izbiri vzorca proizvajalcev izvoznikov je bila vključena „skupina“ družb vložnic, ker sta proizvajalca, vključena v domnevno skupino, glede na njun skupni obseg izvoza skupaj predstavljala tretjega največjega izvoznika na trg Unije po obsegu.
These companies claimed a relationship based on Article 143(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code [4] which provides that parties shall be deemed to be related if ‘they are legally recognised partners in business’.
Ti družbi sta se sklicevali na povezavo na podlagi člena 143(1)(b) Uredbe Komisije (EGS) št. 2454/93 z dne 2. julija 1993 o določbah za izvajanje Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2913/92 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti [4], ki določa, da se strani štejeta za povezani, če „pravno nastopata kot družbenika“.
The investigation subsequently revealed that these companies were not related in this sense and, as mentioned in recital 35 of the provisional Regulation, these two producers were treated as separate entities.
V preiskavi je bilo naknadno ugotovljeno, da družbi nista povezani v tem smislu in sta bila proizvajalca, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 35 začasne uredbe, obravnavana kot ločeni pravni osebi.
Several exporting producers made submissions claiming that these companies should have been excluded from the sample for submitting false or misleading information.
Več proizvajalcev izvoznikov je predložilo stališča z zahtevo, da bi bilo treba ti družbi izključiti iz vzorca, ker sta predložili napačne ali zavajajoče informacije.
These producers further claimed that, consequently, the weighted average dumping margin should have been calculated without taking into account the two sampled companies.
Ti proizvajalci so trdili tudi, da bi bilo treba zaradi tega tehtano povprečno stopnjo dampinga izračunati brez upoštevanja teh dveh vzorčenih družb.
In this regard, it is noted that the information provided by these parties prior to the selection of the sample was considered sufficient to consider them as related and given their combined export sales volume to the Union market they were included in the sample.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da so informacije, ki sta jih ti strani predložili pred izbiro vzorca, zadostovale, da bi se obravnavali kot povezani, pri čemer sta bili vključeni v vzorec na podlagi njunega skupnega obsega izvoza na trg Unije.
Following the on-spot verification visits at the premises of these two companies, the issue of their relationship was examined in detail.
Po preveritvenih obiskih prostorov teh dveh družb na kraju samem je bilo vprašanje njune povezanosti podrobno preučeno.
The information provided by the companies in support of their claim to be related was verified but found to be insufficient for them to be regarded as related, contrary to the companies’ own view on this matter.
Informacije, ki sta jih družbi predložili v podporo svoji trditvi, da sta povezani, so bile preverjene, vendar v nasprotju z njunim mnenjem o tej zadevi niso zadostovale, da bi bili obravnavani kot povezani.
As a result, it was concluded that these companies could not be considered to be related in the sense of Article 143(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
Posledično je bilo sklenjeno, da se ti družbi ne moreta obravnavati kot povezani v smislu člena 143(1)(b) Uredbe (EGS) št. 2454/93.
As the companies cooperated in the investigation, including by providing information with regard to their alleged relationship, it is considered that there are no grounds to exclude them from the sample.
Ker sta družbi sodelovali v preiskavi, med drugim tudi s predložitvijo informacij v zvezi z njuno domnevno povezavo, velja, da ni razloga za njuno izključitev iz vzorca.
In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.
Zato se ta trditev zavrne.
Moreover, even assuming that selecting other companies into the sample during the investigation would have led to a considerably larger volume of exports towards the Union market during the IP being covered, it would have been difficult, within the time available, to investigate any newly selected companies.
Poleg tega bi bilo tudi ob predvidevanju, da bi vključitev drugih družb v vzorec med preiskavo prispevala k znatno večjemu obsegu izvoza na trg Unije med obravnavanim OP, v razpoložljivem času težko preiskati morebitne novoizbrane družbe.
Therefore, in spite of the fact that these companies have turned out not to be related, the sample continues to comply with the criteria foreseen in the basic Regulation.
Zato kljub dejstvu, da se je za ti družbi izkazalo, da nista povezani, vzorec še naprej izpolnjuje merila, predvidena v osnovni uredbi.
Finally it is pointed out that there was no evidence that the companies deliberately alleged being related in order to be included in the sample.
Nazadnje je treba poudariti, da ni bilo dokazov o tem, da sta družbi namerno trdili, da sta povezani, da bi bili vključeni v vzorec.
In the absence of any other comments, recitals 5 and 6 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb, se uvodni izjavi 5 in 6 začasne uredbe potrdita.
Following the imposition of the provisional measures, one party claimed that none of the Union producers supporting the complaint had provided sample responses and should therefore be regarded as not cooperating with the proceeding.
Ena stran je po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov trdila, da niti eden od proizvajalcev Unije, ki podpirajo pritožbo, ni predložil odgovorov v zvezi z vzorcem in da jih je zato treba obravnavati, kot da niso sodelovali v postopku.
This argument was maintained following final disclosure.
Ta argument se je po dokončnem razkritju ohranil.
With respect to the claim that the lack of sample responses would indicate that the Union producers supporting the complaint did not cooperate, it is recalled that CET was the legal representative of all complaining companies.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da bi nepredložitev odgovorov v zvezi z vzorcem pomenila, da proizvajalci Unije, ki podpirajo pritožbo, niso sodelovali, je treba opozoriti, da je bil CET zakonit predstavnik vseh družb pritožnic.
It follows that the complaining producers were fully cooperating since they provided all the necessary information at the complaint stage and the necessary updates as regards the IP data were provided on their behalf by their legal representative during the investigation.
Iz tega izhaja, da so proizvajalci pritožniki v celoti sodelovali, saj so zagotovili vse potrebne informacije v fazi pritožbe in ker je njihov zakoniti predstavnik med preiskavo v njihovem imenu ustrezno dopolnil podatke za OP.
One interested party claimed that the division of the Union industry into different segments and the geographical coverage of the sample meant that it was not statistically valid.
Ena od zainteresiranih strani je trdila, da vzorec zaradi razdelitve industrije Unije v različne segmente in zaradi njegove geografske pokritosti ni statistično veljaven.
In this respect it is recalled that the Union ceramic tiles industry is highly fragmented with over 500 producers.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je industrija keramičnih ploščic Unije zelo razdrobljena, saj vključuje več kot 500 proizvajalcev.
It was also found that the industry was represented in all three industry segments, i.e. large, medium and small companies.
Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi, da je bila industrija zastopana v vseh treh segmentih industrije, tj. v velikih, srednjih in malih družbah.
In order to ensure that the results of large companies did not dominate the injury analysis but that the situation of the small companies, collectively accounting for the biggest share of the Union production, was properly reflected, it was considered that all segments (i.e. small, medium-sized and large companies) should be represented in the sample.
Da bi se zagotovilo, da v analizi škode ne bi prevladovali rezultati velikih družb, ampak bi se primerno upošteval položaj malih družb, ki imajo skupno največji delež proizvodnje Unije, je veljalo, da morajo biti v vzorcu zastopani vsi segmenti (male, srednje in velike družbe).
Within each of the segments, the largest companies were chosen, provided that geographical representativeness could be assured.
V vsakem segmentu so bile izbrane največje družbe, če je bilo mogoče zagotoviti geografsko reprezentativnost.
One interested party also claimed that the Commission had failed to show that the sample remained representative after the withdrawal of the Polish producer and that it was in any event insufficiently representative in terms of sales volume in the Union market.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila tudi, da Komisija ni uspela dokazati, da je vzorec ostal reprezentativen po umiku poljskega proizvajalca, in da vzorec vsekakor ni zadostno reprezentativen v smislu obsega prodaje na trgu Unije.
It is correct that one Polish producer decided to cease cooperation and therefore had to be excluded from the sample.
Res je, da se je en poljski proizvajalec odločil prekiniti sodelovanje, zato ga je bilo treba izključiti iz vzorca.
However, it is not necessary for a sample to reflect the exact geographical spread and weight of the producing Member States in order to be representative.
Vendar ni potrebno, da vzorec odraža natančno geografsko porazdelitev in težo držav članic proizvajalk, da bi bil reprezentativen.
Given the fact that geographical spread is only one of the factors to take into account to ensure representativeness, such an approach would not have been administratively practicable.
Glede na to, da je geografska porazdelitev le eden od dejavnikov, ki jih je treba upoštevati za zagotovitev reprezentativnosti, tak pristop z upravnega vidika ne bi bil izvedljiv.
Rather, it is sufficient that the sample largely reflects proportions of the major manufacturing countries involved.
Nasprotno, zadostuje, če vzorec v veliki meri odraža deleže glavnih udeleženih držav proizvajalk.
Assessed against this criterion, it was found that the withdrawal of the Polish company did not affect the overall representativeness of the sample.
Na podlagi ocene tega merila je bilo ugotovljeno, da umik poljske družbe ni vplival na splošno reprezentativnost vzorca.
On this basis, it is confirmed that the sample of Union producers was sufficiently representative within the meaning of Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi tega je potrjeno, da je bil vzorec proizvajalcev Unije dovolj reprezentativen v smislu člena 17 osnovne uredbe.
As concerns the claim of the overall representativity of the sample, it is recalled that given the fact that the Union industry is highly fragmented, it is unavoidable that the companies in the sample cover a relatively small portion of the overall Union production.
Kar zadeva trditev v zvezi s splošno reprezentativnostjo vzorca, je treba opozoriti, da je glede na dejstvo, da je industrija Unije zelo razdrobljena, neizogibno, da družbe v vzorcu predstavljajo sorazmerno majhen delež celotne proizvodnje Unije.
In any event Article 17 of the basic Regulation sets out that investigations may be limited to samples which are either statistically valid, or which constitute the largest representative volume of production, sales, or exports which can be reasonably investigated, without, however, indicating any specific quantitative threshold as to the level of such representative volume.
Vsekakor pa člen 17 osnovne uredbe določa, da se lahko preiskave omejijo na vzorce, ki so statistično utemeljene ali predstavljajo največji reprezentativni obseg proizvodnje, prodaje ali izvoza, ki ga je mogoče dovolj dobro preiskati, vendar ne navaja posebne količinske mejne vrednosti, kar zadeva stopnjo takšnega reprezentativnega obsega.
In view of the above it is confirmed that the sample selected was representative within the meaning of Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi navedenega je potrjeno, da je bil izbrani vzorec reprezentativen v smislu člena 17 osnovne uredbe.
One interested party claimed that the Commission failed to include in the sample Union producers which offer low sales prices and which are located in countries like Poland and the Czech Republic; therefore, the sample so obtained would not be representative of the Union producers’ average sales prices.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da Komisija v vzorec ni vključila proizvajalcev Unije, ki ponujajo nizke prodajne cene in poslujejo v državah, kot sta Poljska in Češka, in da zato izbrani vzorec ni reprezentativen v smislu povprečnih prodajnih cen proizvajalcev Unije.
In response to the above claim, the Commission found that the average sales prices of the Union industry’s sample were in the same range as the average sales prices in the publicly available statistics.
Komisija je v odgovor na navedeno trditev ugotovila, da so bile povprečne prodajne cene vzorca industrije Unije enako visoke kot povprečne cene iz javno dostopnih statističnih podatkov.
In any event, and as explained in recital 125, the investigation has shown that even taking into consideration publicly available prices for those countries, the final findings would not change in any meaningful way.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 125, je preiskava vsekakor pokazala, da se tudi ob upoštevanju javno dostopnih cen za navedene države dokončne ugotovitve ne bi bistveno spremenile.
A number of parties made comments concerning the methodology used to select the Union industry sample as compared to the selection of the sample of Chinese exporters, which was solely based on export volume.
Številne strani so predložile pripombe v zvezi z metodologijo, uporabljeno za izbiro vzorca industrije Unije, v primerjavi z izbiro vzorca kitajskih izvoznikov, ki je temeljila izključno na obsegu izvoza.
As to the different methodologies used for selecting a sample of Union producers on the one hand and Chinese exporting producers on the other hand, it should be noted that the methodologies were used according to the objectives of the sampling exercise.
Kar zadeva različne metodologije za izbiro vzorca proizvajalcev Unije na eni in vzorca kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov na drugi strani, je treba opozoriti, da so bile metodologije uporabljene v skladu s cilji vzorčenja.
Concerning the Union industry, the Commission had to assess the situation of the whole industry and therefore the criteria that would ensure the most representative picture of the entire sector were chosen.
Komisija je morala v zvezi z industrijo Unije oceniti položaj celotne industrije in zato so bila izbrana merila, ki bi zagotovila največjo reprezentativnost celotnega sektorja.
As far as the Chinese exporters are concerned, it was considered appropriate to choose a sample based on the largest volume of exports of the product concerned and thus the largest exporters were sampled.
Kar zadeva kitajske izvoznike, je veljalo, da je primerno izbrati vzorec na podlagi največjega obsega izvoza zadevnega izdelka, zato so bili vzorčeni največji izvozniki.
It is also noted that there is no obligation in Article 17 of the basic Regulation for both samples to be selected on the basis of the same criteria.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da člen 17 osnovne uredbe ne zahteva, da sta oba vzorca izbrana na podlagi enakih meril.
Furthermore, in this case, before finalising the sample of Chinese exporting producers, the cooperating parties in China as well as the Chinese authorities were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed sample.
Poleg tega so v tem primeru sodelujoče kitajske strani in kitajski organi pred dokončanjem vzorca kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov imeli možnost predložitve pripomb v zvezi s predlaganim vzorcem.
Comments were received with regard to the composition of the sample but not with regard to its representativity.
Pripombe so bile prejete v zvezi s sestavo vzorca, ne pa v zvezi z njegovo reprezentativnostjo.
Following the final disclosure, an importers’ association claimed that Article 17 of the basic Regulation implied that samples of Union producers and of exporting producers should be made on the basis of the same criteria.
Eno od združenj uvoznikov je po dokončnem razkritju trdilo, da člen 17 osnovne uredbe pomeni, da je treba vzorec proizvajalcev Unije in proizvajalcev izvoznikov izbrati na podlagi enakih meril.
Several Chinese parties continued to claim following final disclosure that there was discrimination between the treatment of Chinese exporting producers and Union producers in choosing the respective samples.
Več kitajskih strani je po dokončnem razkritju še naprej trdilo, da je pri izbiri ustreznih vzorcev prišlo do različne obravnave kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov in proizvajalcev Unije.