natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan, [1] and in particular Articles 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) [2] thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 881/2002 z dne 27. maja 2002 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z Osama bin Ladnom, mrežo Al-Kaida in talibani, in o razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 467/2001 o prepovedi izvoza nekaterega blaga in storitev v Afganistan, o poostritvi prepovedi poletov in podaljšanju zamrznitve sredstev in drugih finančnih virov talibanov iz Afganistana [1], ter zlasti člena 7(1)(a) in člena 7a(5) [2] Uredbe,
On 4 June 2010 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.
Odbor za sankcije Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov je 4. junija 2010 sklenil črtati eno fizično osebo s seznama oseb, skupin in subjektov, za katere velja zamrznitev sredstev in gospodarskih virov.
Article 7a was inserted by Council Regulation (EU) No 1286/2009 (OJ L 346, 23.12.2009, p. 42).
Člen 7a je bil vstavljen z Uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 1286/2009 (UL L 346, 23.12.2009, str. 42).
Address: via Puglia 22, Gallarate (Varese), Italy
Naslov: via Puglia 22, Gallarate (Varese) Italija
Other information: (a) fiscal code: LMH MMD 64P24 Z330F, (b) sentenced on 3.12.2004 by Milan’s first instance Court to 1 year and 4 months imprisonment with suspended sentence following “Abbreviated trial procedure”.
Drugi podatki: (a) davčna številka: LMH MMD 64P24 Z330F, (b) dne 3.12.2004 ga je prvostopenjsko sodišče v Milanu obsodilo na 1 leto in 4 mesece zapora, čemur je po ‚skrajšanem sodnem postopku‘ sledila pogojna kazen.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 508/2010
Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 508/2010
prohibiting fishing activities for purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in Spain, fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic ocean, east of longitude of 45° W, and in the Mediterranean sea
o prepovedi ribolovnih aktivnosti za ribiška plovila z zapornimi plavaricami, ki plujejo pod zastavo Španije ali so registrirana v Španiji, v zvezi z ribolovom na modroplavutega tuna v Atlantskem oceanu vzhodno od zemljepisne dolžine 45° Z in v Sredozemskem morju
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy [1], and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 z dne 20. novembra 2009 o vzpostavitvi nadzornega sistema Skupnosti za zagotavljanje skladnosti s pravili skupne ribiške politike [1] ter zlasti člena 36(2) Uredbe,
Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 of 14 January 2010 fixing for 2010 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in Community waters and for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required [2], lays down quotas for 2010.
Uredba Sveta (EU) št. 53/2010 z dne 14. januarja 2010 o določitvi ribolovnih možnosti za leto 2010 za nekatere staleže rib in skupine staležev rib, ki se uporabljajo v vodah EU, in za plovila EU v vodah, kjer so potrebne omejitve ulova [2], določa kvote za leto 2010.
According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated to them for 2010.
Po podatkih, ki jih je prejela Komisija, se je z ulovi staleža iz Priloge k tej uredbi z ribiškimi plovili z zapornimi plavaricami, ki plujejo pod zastavo države članice iz Priloge ali so v njej registrirana, izčrpala dodeljena kvota za leto 2010.
It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock carried out by purse seiners flying the flag of, or registered in, that Member State,
Zato je za ta stalež treba prepovedati ribolovne aktivnosti za ribiška plovila z zapornimi plavaricami, ki plujejo pod zastavo te države članice ali so v njej registrirana –
The fishing quota allocated to the purse seiners of the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2010 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.
Ribolovna kvota za stalež iz Priloge k tej uredbi, ki je bila za leto 2010 dodeljena ribiškim plovilom z zapornimi plavaricami države članice iz Priloge, velja od datuma iz navedene priloge za izčrpano.
Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by purse seiners flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex.
Ribolovne aktivnosti na stalež iz Priloge k tej uredbi z ribiškimi plovili z zapornimi plavaricami, ki plujejo pod zastavo države članice iz Priloge ali so v njej registrirana, so prepovedane od datuma iz navedene priloge.
In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, place in cages for fattening or farming, tranship, transfer or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.
Od tega datuma naprej je zlasti prepovedano obdržati na krovu, dajati v mrežaste kletke za pitanje ali gojenje, pretovarjati, prenašati ali iztovarjati navedeni stalež, ki ga ulovijo navedena plovila.
Done at Brussels, 14 June 2010
V Bruslju, 14. junija 2010
Purse seiners (PS)
Ribiška plovila z zapornimi plavaricami
Commission Regulation (EU) No 509/2010
Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 509/2010
This Regulation shall enter into force on 15 June 2010.
Ta uredba začne veljati 15. junija 2010.
Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 510/2010
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 510/2010
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain cargo scanning systems originating in the People’s Republic of China
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in o dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih sistemov za preglede tovora 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] repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [2], (‘the basic Regulation’) and in particular Article 9 thereof,
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], ki razveljavlja Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [2] („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 9 Uredbe,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (‘the Commission’) after having consulted the Advisory Committee,
ob upoštevanju predloga, ki ga je po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom predložila Evropska komisija („Komisija“),
The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 1242/2009 [3] (‘the provisional Regulation’) imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain cargo scanning systems originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’).
Komisija je z Uredbo (EU) št. 1242/2009 [3] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih sistemov za preglede tovora s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“).
The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 2 February 2009 by Smiths Detection Group Limited (‘the complainant’) on behalf of a producer representing more than 80 % of the total Union production of certain cargo scanning systems.
Postopek se je začel na podlagi pritožbe, ki jo je 2. februarja 2009 vložila družba Smiths Detection Group Limited („pritožnik“) v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo več kot 80 % celotne proizvodnje nekaterih sistemov za preglede tovora v Uniji.
The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.
Pritožba je vsebovala dokaze o dampingu in znatni škodi, ki je zaradi tega nastala, kar je zadostovalo za upravičenost začetka postopka.
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping 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 za uvedbo začasnih protidampinških 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.
Stranem se je na zahtevo omogočilo tudi zaslišanje.
In particular, the Commission continued its investigation with respect to EU consumption aspects.
Komisija je nadaljevala preiskavo zlasti v zvezi z vidiki interesa Unije.
In this respect, the Commission contacted interested parties, notably users as well as producers of the product concerned, with a view to verify claims made by the parties with respect to a series of transactions.
V zvezi s tem je vzpostavila stik z zainteresiranimi stranmi, zlasti uporabniki in proizvajalci zadevnega izdelka, da bi preverila trditve strani glede nekaterih transakcij.
It is recalled that, as set out in recital (9) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2008 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (9) začasne uredbe, je preiskava dampinga in škode zajela obdobje od 1. julija 2007 do 31. decembra 2008 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2004 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’).
Proučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2004 do konca obdobja preiskave („obravnavano obdobje“).
The sole cooperating Chinese exporting producer (the ‘Chinese producer’) argued that there is no justification for the use of an IP of 18 months instead of the 12 months normally used in anti-dumping investigations.
Edini sodelujoči kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik („kitajski proizvajalec“) je trdil, da uporaba 18-mesečnega OP namesto 12-mesečnega obdobja, ki je običajno v protidampinških preiskavah, ni upravičena.
According to the Chinese producer, the IP should have simply covered the 2008 calendar year.
Kitajska družba navaja, da bi moralo OP vključevati le koledarsko leto 2008.
At the outset it should be noted that the Chinese producer had not disputed the use of an IP of 18 months during the provisional stage of the investigation.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da kitajski proizvajalec uporabi 18-mesečnega OP v začasni fazi preiskave ni nasprotoval.
The claim was only made after the adoption of provisional measures.
Nasprotovanje je bilo predloženo šele po sprejetju začasnih ukrepov.
However, the IP was already announced in the notice of initiation of the proceeding and in the questionnaires, i.e. at the very beginning of the investigation.
Vendar je bilo OP objavljeno že v obvestilu o začetku postopka in vprašalnikih, tj. takoj na začetku preiskave.
The specific reasons for selecting an IP of 18 months have been explained in recital (9) of the provisional Regulation.
Posebni razlogi za izbiro 18-mesečnega OP so pojasnjeni v uvodni izjavi (9) začasne uredbe.
The party did not provide any arguments that put into question the justification concerning the existence of relatively few transactions in this market.
Ta stran ni navedla nobenega razloga, s katerim bi lahko izpodbijala to utemeljitev.
In order to ensure full comparability of the figures relating to the IP with those relating to previous years, any figures given in the parts on injury and causation given for the IP have been annualised.
Vendar so bili za zagotovitev popolne primerljivosti podatkov v zvezi z OP s tistimi za prejšnja leta vsi podatki, navedeni za OP v oddelkih o škodi in vzročni zvezi, prilagojeni na letno raven.
The Chinese producer also claimed that the selection of the IP was made in order to manipulate injury factors.
Kitajski proizvajalec je še trdil, da je bila izbira OP namenjena prirejanju dejavnikov škode.
The allegation has to be rejected.
To trditev je treba zavrniti.
The Commission was not and could not have been aware at the starting point of the investigation of the complex set of data and figures related to injury indicators at the beginning of the investigation.
Preiskovalni organ na začetku preiskave ni bil niti ni mogel biti seznanjen z obsežnim sklopom podatkov in vrednosti v zvezi s kazalniki škode na začetku preiskave.
These data were only established in the course of the investigation.
Ti podatki so bili pridobljeni šele med preiskavo.
It should finally be noted that it is not the first time that an IP is set for a period longer than 12 months (e.g. the 16 months IP on calcium metal originating in the PRC and Russia set by Commission Regulation (EC) No 892/94 [4] or the 18 month IP on disodium carbonate originating in the USA set by Commission Regulation (EC) No 823/95 [5]).
Nazadnje je treba poudariti, da ta preiskava ni prva, v kateri je bilo izbrano OP daljše od 12 mesecev (na primer 16-mesečno OP za kovinski kalcij s poreklom iz LRK in Rusije v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 892/94 [4] ali 18-mesečno OP za dinatrijev karbonat s poreklom iz ZDA v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 823/95 [5].
The date of signature of the contract was used only in order to have sufficiently clear knowledge of the material elements of the sales as well as to have a well defined date in order to distinguish what should be part of the IP and the preceding periods respectively and what should be left out.
Datum podpisa pogodbe se je uporabil le za zagotovitev dovolj jasne podlage v zvezi z bistvenimi elementi prodaje in hkrati ustrezno določenega datuma za opredelitev, kaj je treba zajeti v OP oziroma prejšnja obdobja in kaj je treba izključiti.
In the absence of any other comments concerning the IP, recital (9) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker drugih pripomb glede OP ni bilo, se potrdi uvodna izjava (9) začasne uredbe.
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 certain cargo systems originating in the PRC 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 nameravala priporočiti uvedba dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih sistemov za preglede tovora s poreklom iz LRK 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.
Odobren jim je bil tudi rok, v katerem so lahko po tem razkritju predložile svoja stališča.
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 ustrezno obravnavane in upoštevane.
Following provisional measures, the product definition was revisited in light of the comments by the Chinese producer and a detailed examination of the claims made by the Union industry.
Opredelitev izdelka se je po začasnih ukrepih znova obravnavala ob upoštevanju pripomb kitajskega proizvajalca izvoznika in podrobne proučitve trditev industrije Unije.
This process has led to the conclusion that no alpha or beta technology product can be used for cargo scanning.
Ta postopek je pripeljal do ugotovitve, da za preglede tovora ni mogoče uporabiti nobenega izdelka tehnologije alfa ali beta.
Therefore, it is considered warranted to exclude these two types of technologies from the product scope.
Zato se šteje, da sta ti vrsti tehnologije upravičeno izključeni iz obsega izdelka.
In view of the above, it is concluded that all types of systems for scanning of cargo, based on the use of neutron technology or based on the use of X-rays with an X-ray source of 250 KeV or more or based on the use of gamma radiations, currently falling within CN codes ex90221900, ex90222900, ex90278017 and ex90301000 and motor vehicles equipped with such systems currently falling within CN code ex87059090 share the same basic physical and technical characteristics, have the same basic end-uses and compete with one another on the Union market.
Glede na navedeno se ugotavlja, da imajo vse vrste sistemov za preglede tovora z uporabo nevtronske tehnologije ali rentgenskih žarkov z virom rentgenskega sevanja najmanj 250 KeV ali z uporabo gama žarkov, ki trenutno spadajo pod oznake KN ex90221900, ex90222900, ex90278017 in ex90301000, ter motorna vozila, opremljena s takimi sistemi, ki trenutno spadajo pod oznako KN ex87059090, enake osnovne fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti in osnovno končno uporabo ter si na trgu Unije medsebojno konkurirajo.
On this basis, the conclusions in recitals (10) to (15) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed to the extent they do not refer to alpha and beta radiation technologies.
Na podlagi tega se ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav od (10) do (15) začasne uredbe potrdijo, če se ne nanašajo na tehnologije z alfa in beta žarki.
In the absence of any other comments concerning the like product, recital (16) of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker drugih pripomb glede podobnega izdelka ni bilo, se potrdi uvodna izjava (16) začasne uredbe.
In view of the above, it is definitively concluded that all types of cargo scanning systems as defined above are alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Glede na navedeno se dokončno sklene, da so vse vrste sistemov za preglede tovora, kot so opredeljene zgoraj, podobne v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
The Chinese producer did not claim market economy treatment (‘MET’) and only requested individual treatment (‘IT’).
Kitajski proizvajalec iz LRK ni vložil zahtevka za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo („TGO“), ampak je zaprosil samo za individualno obravnavo („IO“).
In the absence of any comments, recitals (19) and (20) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker drugih pripomb ni bilo, se uvodni izjavi (19) in (20) začasne uredbe potrdita.
In the absence of any comments on IT, recitals (21) to (25) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb glede IO, se uvodne izjave od (21) do (25) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
No party disputed the selection of the United States of America (USA) as an analogue country.
Nobena stran ni nasprotovala izbiri Združenih držav Amerike (ZDA) za primerljivo državo.
The Chinese producer reiterated its comments on the non-cooperation of one company, established in the United States of America (‘US’), related to the complainant.
Kitajski proizvajalec je ponovil svoje pripombe glede nesodelovanja družbe s sedežem v Združenih državah Amerike (ZDA), ki je povezana s pritožnikom.
It argued that the complainant used data relating to its related company in the US to compute the normal value in the complaint, whereas during the investigation the complainant submitted that its related US company was not a producer of the like product.
Trdil je, da je pritožnik v pritožbi za izračun normalne vrednosti uporabil podatke v zvezi s svojo povezano ameriško družbo, hkrati pa je trdil, da ta družba ne proizvaja podobnega izdelka.
The Chinese exporting producer submitted that the US related party of the complainant should have been obliged to cooperate with the investigation and failure to do so should be considered as a reason to treat the complainant as non-cooperator and thus terminate the proceeding.
Kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da bi morala stran, povezana s pritožnikom v ZDA, obvezno sodelovati pri preiskavi, pri čemer je treba zaradi njenega nesodelovanja pritožnika opredeliti za nesodelujočega in na tej podlagi prekiniti postopek.
It was also argued that the Commission should have clarified and verified whether the US company is a producer of the like product.
Prav tako je bilo navedeno, da mora Komisija pojasniti, ali družba v ZDA proizvaja podobni izdelek.
Finally, the Chinese exporting producer disputed the use of the EU’s non preferential rules of origin as an indicator of whether an economic operator could be considered as a producer of a product.
Nazadnje je kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik nasprotoval uporabi nepreferencialnega pravila EU o poreklu kot kazalnika, ali je mogoče gospodarski subjekt obravnavati kot proizvajalca izdelka.
With respect to the comments relating to the use in the complaint of data derived from the complainant’s related US company, it is noted that information on normal value in the complaint was based on general US prices which were publicly available on the US Government’s GSA Advantages website.
Kar zadeva pripombe v zvezi z uporabo podatkov, pridobljenih od povezane družbe pritožnika v ZDA, v pritožbi, se ugotavlja, da so informacije o normalni vrednosti v pritožbi temeljile na splošnih cenah ZDA, ki so bile objavljene na spletni strani ameriške vlade GSA Advantages.
For two product types of the like product there were no such publicly available prices and the normal value had therefore to be constructed by the complainant on the basis of information from its production costs in the EU adjusted to a US level based on the complainant’s knowledge of the US market.
Za dve vrsti podobnega izdelka take javno dostopne cene niso bile na voljo, zato je pritožnik normalno vrednost izračunal na podlagi informacij iz svojih proizvodnih stroškov v EU, prilagojenih na raven ZDA.
Furthermore, the Chinese producer did not provide any evidence that could put into question the findings stated in recital (32) of the provisional Regulation.
Poleg tega kitajski proizvajalec ni predložil nobenih dokazov, s katerimi bi bilo mogoče izpodbijati ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave (32) začasne uredbe.
EU anti-dumping law does not, in any event, contain a rule that a proceeding should be terminated because a producer in the analogue country has decided not to cooperate in the investigation.
Protidampinška zakonodaja EU nikakor ne vsebuje pravila, da je treba postopek zaključiti, ker se je proizvajalec v primerljivi državi odločil, da v preiskavi ne bo sodeloval.
The fact that the producer is related to the complainant does not alter this conclusion.
Dejstvo, da je proizvajalec povezan s pritožnikom, te ugotovitve ne spremeni.
Moreover, the court case relied on by the Chinese producer, i.e. T-249/06 (Interpipe), is irrelevant in this context because in that case, the question at issue was to what extent a subsidiary of the Community producer was obliged to cooperate for the purposes of the injury determination.
Poleg tega tu prav tako ni pomembna sodba Sodišča, na katero se je skliceval kitajski proizvajalec, tj. T-249/06 (Interpipe), saj se je v tej zadevi obravnavalo vprašanje, v kakšnem obsegu mora hčerinska družba proizvajalca Skupnosti sodelovati za namene določitve škode.
This is different to the submission of data in order to establish normal value in the analogue country.
To ni enako kot predložitev podatkov za določitev normalne vrednosti v primerljivi državi.