natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 7 of the basic Regulation states, inter alia, that provisional measures, if any, can be imposed within 9 months from the initiation of a case.
Člen 7 osnovne uredbe med drugim določa, da se morebitni začasni ukrepi lahko uvedejo v devetih mesecih od začetka postopka.
In the present proceeding the Commission conducted its investigation in line with the provisions of Article 6 of the basic Regulation and imposed provisional measures in line with the provisions of Article 7 of the basic Regulation while all interested parties that had requested so were heard and had the adequate opportunities to submit information and make comments.
V sedanjem postopku je Komisija izvedla preiskavo v skladu z določbami člena 6 osnovne uredbe in uvedla začasne ukrepe v skladu z določbami člena 7 osnovne uredbe, pri čemer so bile zaslišane vse zainteresirane strani, ki so to želele, in so imele ustrezne priložnosti za predložitev informacij in pripomb.
The Court of Justice has consistently held that ‘even if … the principle of the right to a hearing requires exporters to be informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to impose provisional duties, a failure to respect that right cannot in itself have the effect of vitiating the regulation imposing definitive duties where, in the course of the procedure for the adoption of the latter regulation, the defect vitiating the procedure for the adoption of the corresponding regulation imposing provisional duties was remedied [4]’.
Čeprav načelo pravice do zaslišanja zahteva, da so izvozniki obveščeni o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se namerava uvesti začasne dajatve, v skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča kršitev navedene pravice sama po sebi ne more zmanjšati učinkovitosti uredbe, ki uvaja dokončne dajatve, kadar je bila med postopkom za sprejetje slednje uredbe odpravljena napaka, ki zmanjšuje učinkovitost postopka za sprejetje ustrezne uredbe, ki uvaja začasne dajatve [4].
In the present case, the Commission fulfilled its obligations to disclosure under the basic Regulation and the right to a fair hearing of the exporting producer was respected during the procedure leading to the adoption of this Regulation.
V sedanjem primeru je Komisija izpolnila svojo obveznost razkritja v skladu z osnovno uredbo, pravica do pravičnega zaslišanja proizvajalca izvoznika pa se je spoštovala med postopkom sprejemanja sedanje uredbe.
The provisional nature of measures adopted pursuant to Article 7 of the basic Regulation is inter alia reflected in the maximum period of six months for which they may be imposed as well as the fact that any provisional duty is secured only by guarantee.
Na začasno naravo ukrepov, sprejetih v skladu s členom 7 osnovne uredbe, med drugim kažeta obdobje največ šestih mesecev, za katero se ukrepi lahko uvedejo, ter dejstvo, da je vsaka začasna dajatev zavarovana samo z jamstvom.
Furthermore, the Commission never prevented any party from coming forward with requests to hold more hearings prior to the 9 month deadline stipulated by law for the imposition of provisional measures should they have considered that there was a need to be heard further at that stage.
Komisija ni poleg tega nikoli nobeni strani preprečila predložitve zahtev po več zaslišanjih pred 9-mesečnim rokom, ki je predpisan z zakonom za uvedbo začasnih ukrepov, če so menili, da bi morali biti zaslišani v navedeni fazi.
The exporting producer requested access to data used from the sole company in the United States of America (USA) that provided information in line with the provisions of Article 2(7)(a) for the establishment of normal value.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je zaprosila za dostop do podatkov edine družbe iz Združenih držav Amerike (ZDA), ki je zagotovila informacije v skladu z določbami člena 2(7)(a) in katere podatki so bili uporabljeni za določitev normalne vrednosti.
It was claimed that otherwise the party was prevented from having access to the evidence on the basis of which provisional measures were imposed and that this both violated the party's rights of defence and was contrary to the principle of good administration.
Ta stran je trdila, da se ji je sicer preprečil dostop do dokazov, na podlagi katerih so bili uvedeni začasni ukrepi, ter da je oboje kršilo pravice strani do obrambe in je bilo v nasprotju z načelom dobrega upravljanja.
The same party claimed that disclosure of confidential data pertaining to specific parties could be made available to the legal representatives of the group of the exporting producer.
Ista stran je trdila, da bi razkritje zaupnih podatkov, ki se nanašajo na posamezne strani, lahko bilo na voljo zakonitim zastopnikom skupine sodelujočih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The legal representatives would undertake the obligation to guarantee the confidentiality of companies’ business secrets.
Zakoniti zastopniki bi prevzeli odgovornost za zagotovitev zaupnosti poslovnih skrivnosti družb.
These requests had to be rejected.
Te zahteve je bilo treba zavrniti.
The exporting producer's request referred to access of confidential data on prices provided by the aforesaid US company.
Zahteva proizvajalca izvoznika se je nanašala na dostop do zaupnih podatkov o cenah, ki jih je zagotovila navedena družba iz ZDA.
The Commission could not grant the access to such detailed confidential business information.
Komisija ni mogla odobriti dostopa do tako podrobnih zaupnih poslovnih informacij.
Giving access to such data would have been against Union law, notably Article 19 of the Basic Regulation since it would have led to an unauthorised disclosure of limited and sensitive business data of the US company.
Odobritev dostopa do takih podatkov bi bila v nasprotju s pravom Unije, zlasti členom 19 osnovne uredbe, ker bi pomenila nepooblaščeno razkritje omejenih in občutljivih poslovnih podatkov družbe iz ZDA.
As to the proposed methodology on disclosing company's business secrets to legal representatives of other interested parties, unlike in the USA and Canadian systems, no such process is provided for by the basic Regulation.
V zvezi s predlagano metodologijo o razkritju poslovnih skrivnosti družb zakonitim predstavnikom drugih zainteresiranih strani osnovna uredba v nasprotju s sistemoma v ZDA in Kanadi ne določa nobenega takega postopka.
It is thus clearly outside the established EU legal framework for anti-dumping proceedings.
Zato je očitno zunaj uveljavljenega pravnega okvira EU za protidampinške postopke.
In any event, the Court case cited above does not support any claim of access to confidential information.
V vsakem primeru navedena zadeva Sodišča ne podpira nobene trditve za dostop do zaupnih informacij.
The judgment also refers to some inherent limits of the principle of the right of defence.
Sodba se nanaša tudi na nekatere omejitve, ki so neločljivo povezane z načelom pravice do obrambe.
The exporting produceralso requested access to evidence concerning: rolls used in web-fed printing produced by the Union producers, detailed information about one representative Union producer's legal status, the activities and financial data of selected mills, detailed data related to the Union industry's cost of production and product control numbers of the products of representative Union producers.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je tudi zaprosil za dostop do dokazov v zvezi z: zvitki za uporabo pri rotacijskem tiskanju, ki so jih proizvedli proizvajalci Unije, podrobnimi informacijami o pravnem statusu enega reprezentativnega proizvajalca Unije, dejavnostmi in finančnimi podatki izbranih obratov, podrobnimi podatki o proizvodnih stroških industrije Unije ter kontrolnih številkah izdelkov reprezentativnih proizvajalcev Unije.
Some of the requested information was outside the scope of the investigation as it related to products not covered by the investigation or the activity of Union producers that does not involve the production of CFP.
Nekatere od zahtevanih informacij so bile zunaj obsega preiskave, ker so se nanašale na izdelke, ki jih preiskava ne zadeva, ali na dejavnost proizvajalcev Unije, ki ne vključuje proizvodnje PFP.
Concerning other information requested, the Commission was not in a position to grant access to it, since pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation this would have constituted an unauthorised disclosure of confidential business secrets.
V zvezi z drugimi zahtevanimi informacijami Komisija ni mogla odobriti dostopa do njih, ker bi v skladu s členom 19 osnovne uredbe to pomenilo nepooblaščeno razkritje zaupnih poslovnih skrivnosti.
The exporting producer also requested the disclosure of the names of the companies which opposed the investigation and did not request confidential treatment.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je zaprosil tudi za razkritje imen družb, ki so nasprotovale preiskavi in niso zaprosile za zaupno obravnavo.
Such a disclosure would have revealed the identity and position of producers that requested confidentiality; therefore it was not possible to reveal this information.
Tako razkritje bi razkrilo identiteto in položaj proizvajalcev, ki so zaprosili za zaupnost, zato ni bilo mogoče razkriti teh informacij.
The provisional disclosure was as detailed as possible without disclosing confidential information and was thus not in breach of the exporting producer's fundamental rights, its rights of defence or of the principle of good administration.
Začasno razkritje je bilo kar se da podrobno, ne da bi se pri tem razkrile zaupne informacije, zaradi česar to razkritje ni kršilo temeljnih pravic proizvajalcev izvoznikov, njihovih pravic do obrambe ali načela dobrega upravljanja.
The injury analyses performed in the present anti-dumping and the parallel anti-subsidy investigation are identical, since the definition of the Union industry, the representative Union producers and the investigation period are the same in both investigations.
Analizi škode, opravljeni v sedanji protidampinški in vzporedni protisubvencijski preiskavi, sta identični, saj so opredelitev industrije Unije, reprezentativni proizvajalci Unije in obdobje preiskave pri obeh preiskavah isti.
For this reason, comments on injury aspects put forward in any of these proceedings were taken into account in both proceedings.
Zato so bile pripombe glede vidikov škode, ki so se predložile k enemu od teh postopkov, upoštevane pri obeh postopkih.
It is recalled that, as set out in recital (13) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Opozoriti je treba, da je preiskava dampinga in škode, kakor je določeno v uvodni izjavi (13) začasne uredbe, zajemala obdobje od 1. januarja 2009 do 31. decembra 2009 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
Following provisional measures, the exporting producer and the complainant submitted further comments concerning the product definition.
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov sta proizvajalec izvoznik in pritožnik predložila nadaljnje pripombe glede opredelitve izdelka.
Some of these comments were a repetition of comments already addressed in the provisional Regulation.
Nekatere od teh pripomb so bile ponovljene pripombe, ki so se že obravnavale v začasni uredbi.
The exporting producer reiterated that there is no substantial difference concerning basic characteristics between CFP in sheets and rolls suitable for use in sheet-fed printing machines (‘the product concerned’) and rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses and that, therefore, CFP for web-fed printing should not have been excluded from the product scope.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je ponovno trdil, da ni znatne razlike med osnovnimi lastnostmi PFP v ploščah in zvitkih, primernih za uporabo v tiskarskih strojih za formatni tisk (zadevni izdelek), ter v zvitkih, primernih za uporabo na strojih za rotacijski tisk, ter da zato PFP za rotacijsko tiskanje ne bi smelo biti izključeno iz obsega izdelka.
The party also argued that the Commission's finding that these products are not interchangeable was not supported.
Stran je tudi trdila, da ugotovitev Komisije, in sicer da ti izdelki niso zamenljivi, ni bila podprta.
It is recalled that the investigation found that CFP used in web-fed and sheet-fed printing processes are distinct product groups and are not interchangeable as described in recitals (18) and (20) of the provisional Regulation.
Opozoriti je treba, da je preiskava ugotovila, da PFP, ki se uporablja pri rotacijskem tiskanju, in PFP, ki se uporablja pri formatnem tiskanju, predstavljata ločeni skupini izdelkov, ki nista zamenljivi, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah (18) in (20) začasne uredbe.
The exporting producer itself also acknowledged that these products are not fully interchangeable.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je tudi sam priznal, da ti izdelki niso popolnoma zamenljivi.
It should be noted as well that no rolls for use in web-fed presses were imported from the PRC during the period considered.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da med zadevnim obdobjem iz LRK niso bili uvoženi nobeni zvitki za uporabo na strojih za rotacijski tisk.
It may also be considered unlikely that these products would be imported in the future as sourcing these products from long distance is economically not viable for the reasons mentioned in recital (20) of the provisional Regulation.
Prav tako ni verjetno, da se bodo ti izdelki uvažali v prihodnosti, ker pridobivanje teh izdelkov s tako velike razdalje ni ekonomsko izvedljivo zaradi razlogov iz uvodne izjave (20) začasne uredbe.
It was further claimed by the exporting producer that the criteria defined in the provisional Regulation in recital (16), namely the technical characteristic of resistance to picking, was not appropriate to distinguish between CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing on the one hand and CFP used in sheet-fed printing on the other hand.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je nadalje trdil, da merilo, opredeljeno v uvodni izjavi (16) začasne uredbe, tj. tehnična lastnost odpornosti proti trganju, ni bilo primerno za ločevanje med PFP, primernim za uporabo pri rotacijskem tiskanju, ter PFP za uporabo pri formatnem tiskanju.
It further claimed that the exclusion of web rolls was made on an arbitrary basis alleging that web-fed rolls produced by Union producers do not meet the criteria set in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation as regards the characteristics of resistance to picking.
Trdila je tudi, da je bila izključitev zvitkov za rotacijsko tiskanje samovoljna ter da zvitki za rotacijsko tiskanje, ki jih proizvajajo proizvajalci Unije, ne izpolnjujejo meril, določenih v uvodni izjavi (16) začasne uredbe, glede lastnosti odpornosti proti trganju.
The exporting producer also argued that the Commission fell short of its obligation to examine objectively the evidence presented by that exporting producer to the Commission's services before the provisional Regulation, namely the results of the testing conducted in its own laboratory measuring the resistance to picking of web rolls produced by the Union producers.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je prav tako trdil, da Komisija ni izpolnila svoje dolžnosti, da objektivno prouči dokaze, ki jih je navedeni proizvajalec izvoznik predložil službam Komisije pred začasno uredbo, tj. rezultate preskusa, ki je bil opravljen v njegovem laboratoriju in ki je meril odpornost proti trganju zvitkov za rotacijsko tiskanje, ki so jih proizvedli proizvajalci Unije.
The test results presented by the exporting producer consisted of a summary of the test results performed in its own laboratory.
Rezultati preskusa, ki jih je predstavil proizvajalec izvoznik, so vsebovali povzetek rezultatov preskusa, ki ga je opravil v svojem laboratoriju.
Crucially, the results were not made available for inspection and comments by other interested parties, in particular, the Union industry, nor did the exporting producer submit a meaningful non-confidential summary thereof despite repeated reminders.
Bistveno pa je, da rezultati niso bili na voljo drugim zainteresiranim stranem, zlasti industriji Unije, za pregled in pripombe, niti ni proizvajalec izvoznik predložil tehtnega nezaupnega povzetka kljub večkratnim opozorilom.
It is recalled that at the provisional stage the Commission concluded that the objectivity and reliability of the test was insufficient to base conclusions thereon.
Opomniti je treba, da je Komisija v začetni fazi ugotovila, da objektivnost in zanesljivost preskusa nista zadoščali, da bi na njem utemeljevali sklepne ugotovitve.
No further detailed information was provided by the exporting producer which could help further assess the reliability of the test.
Proizvajalec izvoznik tudi ni zagotovil nobenih nadaljnjih podrobnih informacij, ki bi lahko nadalje pomagale pri oceni zanesljivosti preskusa.
Since no non-confidential version of this test was provided, the companies whose web rolls were allegedly tested could not respond to the conclusions of the test.
Ker ni bila zagotovljena nobena nezaupna različica tega preskusa, se družbe, katerih zvitki za rotacijsko tiskanje so bili domnevno preskušeni, niso mogle odzvati na sklepne ugotovitve preskusa.
The Commission thus could not objectively check whether the submitted test results were reliable and correct and could be relied upon for the purposes of the investigation.
Komisija zato ni mogla objektivno preveriti, ali so bili predloženi rezultati preskusa zanesljivi in pravilni ter bi se lahko zanesli nanje za namene preiskave.
On the basis of the facts available to the Commission, conclusions reached at provisional stage about the objectivity and reliability of the test could not be reconsidered since the information submitted under confidentiality could not be counterchecked by any reliable sources.
Na podlagi dejstev, ki so na voljo Komisiji, se sklepne ugotovitve iz začasne faze o objektivnosti in zanesljivosti preskusa niso mogle ponovno proučiti, ker se zaupno predložene informacije niso mogle dvojno preveriti z uporabo zanesljivih virov.
After the imposition of the provisional measures, the exporting producer presented the results of a further test conducted on its behalf by an external test laboratory and reiterated that CFP used in web-fed printing has been arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation.
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov je proizvajalec izvoznik predstavil rezultate nadaljnjega preskusa, ki ga je v njegovem imenu opravil zunanji preskusni laboratorij, ter ponovno trdil, da je bil PFP, ki se uporablja za rotacijsko tiskanje, samovoljno izključen iz obsega preiskave.
The test reports stated that the resistance to picking has been measured on 25 samples of web-fed rolls provided and identified by the exporting producer to the laboratory as paper samples produced by Union producers.
Poročila o preskusu navajajo, da je bila odpornost proti trganju izmerjena na 25 vzorcih zvitkov za rotacijsko tiskanje, ki jih je laboratoriju zagotovil proizvajalec izvoznik in jih opredelil kot vzorce papirja, ki so jih proizvedli proizvajalci Unije.
According to this report, none of the paper met both criteria set in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation.
V skladu s tem poročilom ni noben vzorec papirja izpolnil obeh meril iz uvodne izjave (16) začasne uredbe.
The assessment of the test report brought to light that, first of all, the test report by the external laboratory related mostly to products for which these results were irrelevant as most of the samples tested were not in fact web rolls; secondly, the test report related to products which were not sufficiently identified as it could not be ascertained from the test report whether the paper tested was for sheet-fed printing or web-fed printing as the paper brand described in the report existed in both formats.
Ocena poročila o preskusu je pokazala: prvič, da se je poročilo zunanjega laboratorija o preskusu nanašalo predvsem na izdelke, za katere so bili ti rezultati nepomembni, saj večina preskušenih vzorcev dejansko niso bili zvitki za rotacijsko tiskanje, in drugič, da se je poročilo o preskusu nanašalo na izdelke, ki niso bili ustrezno opredeljeni, saj iz poročila o preskusu ni bilo mogoče preveriti, ali je bil preskušani papir za formatno ali rotacijsko tiskanje, saj je blagovna znamka papirja, ki je bila opisana v poročilu o preskusu, obstajala v obeh oblikah.
Furthermore the test report provided no assurance that the sampled rolls indicated were indeed the ones that were tested.
Poleg tega ni poročilo o preskusu dalo nobenega zagotovila, da so bili predstavljeni vzorci zvitkov dejansko tisti, ki so bili preskušeni.
In response to the external laboratory's test report, the complainant provided the results of the testing performed by one of the Union producers on the same samples of web rolls that were allegedly tested by the external laboratory.
V odziv na poročilo zunanjega laboratorija o preskusu je pritožnik zagotovil rezultate preskusa, ki ga je opravil en proizvajalec Unije na istih vzorcih zvitkov za rotacijsko tiskanje, ki jih je domnevno preskusil zunanji laboratorij.
This test showed different results.
Rezultati tega preskusa so bili drugačni.
The complainant attributed the differences to possibly different test conditions and thus a potential non-compliance with the ISO 3783:2006 standard, i.e. the standard according to which resistance to picking set in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation should be measured.
Pritožnik je razlike pripisal morebitnim različnim preskusnim pogojem in tako morebitnemu neupoštevanju standarda ISO 3783:2006, tj. standarda, v skladu s katerim je treba meriti odpornost proti trganju iz uvodne izjave (16) osnovne uredbe.
After disclosing the definitive findings, the exporting producer questioned the Commission's objectivity in rejecting the test result of the external laboratory.
Po razkritju dokončnih ugotovitev je proizvajalec izvoznik dvomil v objektivnost Komisije, ko je zavrnila rezultate preskusa zunanjega laboratorija.
It claimed that the testing was carried out blindly by the independent expert and in accordance with the relevant ISO standard.
Trdil je, da je neodvisni strokovnjak opravil slepi preskus v skladu z zadevnim standardom ISO.
It provided an affidavit of its manager explaining the sourcing process of the samples used in the testing in order to prove the independence, correctness and representativeness of the testing.
Zagotovil je pisno zapriseženo izjavo njegovega direktorja, v kateri je bil pojasnjen postopek pridobivanja vzorcev, uporabljenih v preskusu, da bi dokazal neodvisnost, pravilnost in reprezentativnost preskusa.
Firstly, the objectivity of the external laboratory test report was never questioned by the Commission and in this regard it is irrelevant that the testing was carried out blindly.
Prvič, Komisija ni nikoli dvomila v objektivnost poročila zunanjega laboratorija o preskusu in zato ni pomembno, ali je bil opravljen slepi preskus.
On the other hand, doubts were raised as to the assurances on the selection and origin of the samples tested and not on the test itself.
Po drugi strani pa so bili izraženi pomisleki glede zagotovil o izboru in poreklu preskušenih vzorcev in ne o samem preskusu.
The arguments of the exporting producer did not remove these doubts as these were not comprehensive and were unclear in several aspects, for example the inclusion of products other than web rolls were claimed to have been caused by administrative errors or were blamed on mistakes by the suppliers in providing possibly wrong samples.
Utemeljitve proizvajalca izvoznika niso odpravile teh pomislekov, saj niso bile celovite in so bile nejasne z več vidikov, vključitev izdelkov, ki niso bili zvitki za rotacijsko tiskanje, naj bi na primer nastala zaradi administrativnih napak ali zaradi napak dobaviteljev, ki so zagotovili morebiti napačne vzorce.