natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The new information given was, however, not sufficiently supported by evidence.
Vendar nove informacije, ki jih je predložil, niso bile podprte z zadostnimi dokazi.
Overall, the information and evidence provided in this regard was unclear and in some instances contradictory and therefore in general cast doubts on the reliability of the information provided.
Na splošno so bile informacije in dokazi, predloženi v ta namen, nejasni in v nekaterih primerih protislovni ter so zato na splošno vzbujali dvome v zanesljivost zagotovljenih informacij.
By way of example, while the applicant originally stated that the president of Agronova was also the manager of the trading company in question, this statement was later qualified by explaining that the tasks carried out in the trading company by the president of Agronova did not include any control and decision-making functions.
Vložnik je na primer prvotno navedel, da je predsednik Agronove tudi direktor zadevne trgovinske družbe, nato pa tej navedbi dodal razlago, da naloge, ki jih je v trgovinski družbi opravljal predsednik Agronove, niso vključevale kakršnega koli nadzora in odločanja.
Likewise, while the evidence provided (annual accounts) showed that another person was an ‘officer’ in both companies, it was later claimed that the real functions of this person were those of a legal secretary.
Prav tako so predloženi dokazi (letni računovodski izkazi) pokazali, da je bila v obeh družbah „odgovorna oseba“ nekdo drug, pozneje pa se je trdilo, da je ta oseba opravljala funkcijo strokovnega sodelavca.
In conclusion, the applicant did not submit any sufficiently reliable information or evidence which could show that the roles and responsibilities of each actor were defined and exercised in a way which would have excluded the existence of a relationship.
Vložnik ni predložil nobenih zadostno zanesljivih informacij ali dokazov, ki bi lahko pokazali, da so bile vloge in odgovornost vsakega zaposlenega opredeljene in so se opravljale na način, ki bi izključil povezavo med podjetjema.
The applicant also contested that the trading company in question should be considered as a trading company since it was mainly involved in marketing rather than the sale of fertiliser products.
Vložnik je tudi nasprotoval trditvi, da bi bilo treba zadevno trgovinsko družbo šteti za trgovinsko družbo, saj se je bolj ukvarjala s trženjem kot pa s prodajo gnojil.
However, besides the fact that this statement was not supported by any evidence, the company also claimed at several instances to be indeed involved in the sale of fertiliser as a trader, but only for small quantities destined to markets other than Europe.
Vendar je družba poleg dejstva, da ta izjava ni bila podprta z nobenim dokazom, na več mestih navedla, da je dejansko prodajala gnojila kot trgovec, vendar le v manjših količinah, namenjenih za druge trge izven Evrope.
The company had therefore to be considered as a trader and this argument had to be rejected.
Zato se družbo štejeza trgovca in je to trditev treba zavrniti.
The Commission considered that the applicant impeded the investigation in the sense of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation by having provided relevant information only gradually upon request, and the information provided in most cases was subsequently corrected, modified or contradicted.
Komisija je menila, da je vložnik oviral preiskavo v smislu člena 18(1) osnovne uredbe, ker je ustrezne informacije predložil postopoma in na zahtevo, predložene informacije pa so bile večinoma naknadno popravljene, spremenjene ali protislovne.
In this regard, given Agronova’s unsatisfactory cooperation, a relationship of trust between the Commission and the company, which, as a general policy, is a necessary precondition for the acceptance of an undertaking, could not be established.
V tem smislu odnosa zaupanja med Komisijo in družbo zaradi nezadovoljivega sodelovanja Agronove, ki je splošni in nujni predpogoj za sprejetje zaveze, ni bilo mogoče vzpostaviti.
It is reminded that in the analysis of the risk of cross-compensation, the knowledge of different sales channels and the flow of products through these channels is indispensable information.
Opozarja se, da je v analizi tveganja navzkrižne kompenzacije poznavanje različnih prodajnih poti in toka izdelkov po teh poteh nujno potreben podatek.
Given the very close interpersonal and operational links between Agronova and the other trading company, it was concluded that the risk of cross-compensation and circumvention through different sales channels was too high and that therefore Agronova should not be included in the current undertaking.
Zaradi zelo razvitih medosebnih in operativnih povezav med Agronovo in drugo trgovinsko družbo je bilo ugotovljeno, da je tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije in izogibanje po različnih prodajnih kanalih preveliko in da zato Agronova ne bi smela biti vključena v sedanjo zavezo.
Subsequent to disclosure, the applicant claimed that there would be a risk of cross compensation only where companies are related by shares.
Po razkritju je vložnik trdil, da bi se tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije pojavilo le v primeru povezave med družbami preko delnic.
First, it should be noted that the risk of cross-compensation is not limited to situations where companies are related by shares, since there are various different ways of cross-compensation.
Najprej bi bilo treba opozoriti, da tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije ni omejeno na primere, kadar so družbe povezane preko delnic, saj lahko pride do navzkrižne kompenzacije na več načinov.
Thus, in this particular case and for reasons explained in the above recital, it was considered that there is a high risk of cross-compensation even if the applicant and Agronova are not related by shares.
Zato se je v tem primeru in zaradi razlogov iz zgornje uvodne izjave štelo, da obstaja visoko tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije tudi če vložnik in Agronova nista povezana preko delnic.
In addition, the applicant did not outline any legal or factual basis or present evidence to support its claim.
Poleg tega vložnik ni predstavil nobene pravne ali dejanske podlage ali predložil dokazov v podporo svoji trditvi.
Considerable risk of cross-compensation through the pricing of different products
Znatno tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije preko oblikovanja cen različnih izdelkov
The current undertaking not only covers ammonium nitrate but it also imposes a price regime for other products traded by the group in order to avoid the risk of cross-compensation.
Sedanja zaveza ne zajema samo amonijevega nitrata, ampak uvaja tudi režim cen za druge izdelke, s katerimi trguje ta skupina, da se izogne tveganju navzkrižne kompenzacije.
The applicant stated in its questionnaire reply that it intended to sell through Agronova, inter alia, products that are not included in this price regime and even fertiliser products produced by other producers, located in Russia as well as in other countries.
Vložnik je v izpolnjenem vprašalniku navedel, da je prek Agronove med drugim nameraval prodajati izdelke, ki niso vključeni v ta režim cen, in celo gnojila drugih proizvajalcev s sedežem v Rusiji in drugih državah.
Therefore, a risk of cross-compensation through exports of different products to the same customers was considered as high.
Zato se je štelo, da je tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije z izvozom različnih izdelkov istim strankam visoko.
Some of the products that Agronova intended to sell do not have a quoted market price that could serve as a benchmark for monitoring purposes.
Nekateri izdelki, ki jih je Agronova nameravala prodajati, nimajo kotirane tržne cene, ki bi lahko bila merilo za namene spremljanja.
For this reason the monitoring of the undertaking would also be impracticable.
Tudi zaradi tega bi bilo spremljanje zaveze neizvedljivo.
Following disclosure, the applicant claimed that the Commission disregarded the applicant’s offer to drop its business plans related to blending and other products in case the Commission found it necessary.
Po razkritju je vložnik trdil, da Komisija ni upoštevala njegove ponudbe, s katero bi opustil svoje poslovne načrte v zvezi z mešanicami in drugimi izdelki, če bi se Komisiji to zdelo potrebno.
In this respect it is noted that the Commission received those amended offers only later during the proceeding.
V zvezi s tem se opozarja, da je Komisija prejela te spremenjene ponudbe, vendar šele pozneje v postopku.
The Commission considered that the applicant’s continuous changing of its business plan to fit whatever it considered as the Commission’s expectations cast doubts on the credibility of the applicant’s offer.
Ker je vložnik neprenehoma spreminjal svoj poslovni načrt, da bi ustrezal tistemu, kar je menil, da ustreza pričakovanjem Komisije, je Komisija menila, da je zaradi tega verodostojnost vložnikove ponudbe dvomljiva.
In this regard, the Commission also considered the insufficient level of cooperation by Agronova in this investigation as an impediment to establishing a relationship of trust between the Commission and Agronova.
V tem smislu je Komisija tudi menila, da je nezadostna stopnja sodelovanja Agronove v tej preiskavi ovira za vzpostavitev odnosa zaupanja med Komisijo in Agronovo.
Therefore, the Commission was not satisfied that such commitment would indeed be respected.
Zato Komisija ni prepričana, da bi se ta zaveza dejansko spoštovala.
It was therefore concluded that the inclusion of Agronova in the sales channels of ‘Acron’ Holding Company would seriously increase the risks of cross-compensation and circumvention and affect the workability and the effective monitoring of the undertaking.
Zato je bilo ugotovljeno, da bi vključitev Agronove v prodajne poti holdinga Acron občutno povečala tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije in izogibanja ter vplivala na delovanje in učinkovito spremljanje zaveze.
During the investigation, the ‘Acron’ Holding Company established another trading company, namely Agronova Europe AG (‘Agronova Europe’) which it claimed would take over most of the trading with European clients and thereby gradually replace Agronova.
Med preiskavo je holdinška družba „Acron“ ustanovila drugo trgovinsko družbo, in sicer Agronova Europe AG („Agronova Europe“), za katero je trdila, da bo prevzela večino trgovanja z evropskimi strankami in tako postopoma nadomestila Agronovo.
At a certain stage of the proceeding, the applicant requested that this new trader also be included in the current review with a view to having the two traders included in the existing price undertaking or, alternatively, that a new review be initiated to include this new trader also in the sales channel of the undertaking.
Vložnik je v določeni fazi postopka zahteval, da se v sedanji pregled vključi tudi tega novega trgovca, da bosta oba trgovca vključena v obstoječo cenovno zavezo, ali da se začne nov pregled z vključitvijo tega novega trgovca tudi v prodajne poti zaveze.
This shows that the changed circumstances on the basis of which the present review was requested are not of a lasting nature.
To kaže, da spremenjene okoliščine, na podlagi katerih se je zahteval ta pregled, niso trajne narave.
Following disclosure, the applicant claimed that an analysis whether the changed circumstances on the basis of which the present review was initiated were of a lasting nature, would not be relevant in the context of the present interim review limited in scope to the form of measures.
Po razkritju je vložnik trdil, da analiza o tem, ali so spremenjene okoliščine, na podlagi katerih se je začel sedanji pregled, trajne narave, za sedanji delni pregled, ki je po obsegu omejen na oblike ukrepov, ne bi bila pomembna.
The applicant claimed that such analysis would only be required in case dumping and/or injury would be assessed.
Vložnik je trdil, da bi se taka analiza zahtevala le, če bi se ocenila damping in/ali škoda.
The applicant also claimed that it would no longer intend to channel sales of ammonium nitrate through Agronova Europe.
Vložnik je tudi trdil, da ne namerava več prodajati amonijevega nitrata prek družbe Agronova Europe.
With regard to the applicant’s argument that an analysis as to whether the changed circumstances were of a lasting nature would be irrelevant in the present review, the applicant did not provide any legal reasoning that would have supported this view.
V zvezi z argumentom vložnika, da bi bila analiza o tem, ali so spremenjene okoliščine trajne narave, za sedanji pregled nepomembna, vložnik ni predložil nobene pravne utemeljitve, ki bi potrdila njegovo stališče.
In the present review it was considered that the stability of the sales channel(s) was an important factor in deciding to accept the inclusion of a newly established trader in an undertaking given that with every new trader included in a price undertaking the risk of cross-compensation and circumvention increases.
V sedanjem pregledu se je štelo, da je stabilnost prodajnega(-ih) kanala(-ov) pomemben dejavnik pri odločanju o sprejetju vključitve novega trgovca v zavezo, ker tveganje navzkrižne kompenzacije in izogibanja z vsakim novim vključenim trgovcem naraste.
This also needs to be addressed through adequate monitoring activities.
V zvezi s tem je treba zagotoviti ustrezne aktivnosti spremljanja.
Therefore, it was concluded that the lasting nature of the changed circumstances was indeed a relevant factor and the argument of the applicant had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila trajna narava spremenjenih okoliščin dejansko pomemben dejavnik, in je bilo treba argument vložnika zavrniti.
As regards the applicant’s claim that Agronova Europe would not be used for sales of ammonium nitrate to the European Union market, this was provided at a very late stage of the investigation (after final disclosure) and contradicted the information submitted previously.
Vložnikova trditev, da bi se prodaja amonijevega nitrata na trg Evropske unije ne izvajala prek Agronova Europe, je bila predložena v zelo pozni fazi preiskave (po končnem razkritju) in je bila v protislovju s predhodno predloženimi informacijami.
The applicant could furthermore not give sufficient assurances as to the respect of this commitment.
Poleg tega vložnik ni mogel predložiti zadostnih zagotovil za spoštovanje te zaveze.
The Commission again considered that the applicant’s continuous changing of its business plan to fit whatever it considered as the Commission’s expectations cast doubts on the credibility of the applicant’s offer.
Ker je vložnik neprenehoma spreminjal svoj poslovni načrt, da bi ustrezal tistemu, kar je menil, da ustreza pričakovanjem Komisije, je Komisija ponovno menila, da je zaradi tega verodostojnost vložnikove ponudbe dvomljiva.
As outlined in recital 26, the Commission also considered Agronova’s behaviour in impeding the investigation as an impediment to the establishment of a relationship of trust between the parties to the undertaking.
Kot je poudarjeno v uvodni izjavi 26, je Komisija menila, da je Agronovino oviranje preiskave ovira za vzpostavitev odnosa zaupanja med stranmi zaveze.
In view of the conclusions reached with regards to the workability of the undertaking and the lasting nature of the changed circumstances, the investigation should be terminated without changing the existing undertaking of the applicant.
Glede na ugotovitve, sprejete v zvezi z delovanjem zaveze in trajno naravo spremenjenih okoliščin, bi bilo treba preiskavo zaključiti brez spremembe obstoječe zaveze vložnika.
The applicant and interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to terminate the investigation.
Vložnik in vse zainteresirane strani so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se namerava to preiskavo zaključiti.
The applicant stated that its rights of defence and to a fair hearing have been impaired in the proceeding.
Vložnik je navedel, da so bile njegove pravice do obrambe in pravičnega zaslišanja v postopku kršene.
The applicant was given and has indeed used numerous occasions to introduce submissions and was given sufficient time to provide information and evidence during the proceeding.
Vložnik je imel in uporabil številne priložnosti, da je podal predloge, ter imel na voljo dovolj časa, da je med postopkom podal informacije in dokaze.
The applicant was also given the possibility to request a hearing on several occasions.
Vložnik je imel tudi večkrat možnost, da je zahteval zaslišanje.
Therefore its claims in this respect are unwarranted,
Zato so njegove trditve v zvezi s tem neupravičene –
The partial interim review concerning imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, currently falling within CN codes 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059091 and originating in Russia produced by Joint Stock Company Acron and Joint Stock Company Dorogobuzh is hereby terminated without changing the form of the measure.
Delni vmesni pregled uvoza trdnih gnojil z deležem amonijevega nitrata, ki presega 80 mas. %, ki trenutno spadajo pod oznake KN 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 in ex31059091, s poreklom iz Rusije in proizvedenih v družbah Joint Stock Company Acron in Joint Stock Company Dorogobuzh, se zaključi brez sprememb oblike ukrepa.
OJ L 278, 23.10.2009, p. 1.
UL L 278, 23.10.2009, str. 1.
OJ C 152, 4.7.2009, p. 40.
UL C 152, 4.7.2009, str. 40.
The applicant alleged that the circumstances under which the price undertaking was granted changed, in particular that Agronova International Inc., a newly established trader in the USA, was incorporated into the ‘Acron’ Holding Company.
Vložnik je trdil, da so se okoliščine, v katerih je bila odobrena cenovna zaveza, spremenile in zlasti da je bila družba Agronova International Inc., novi trgovec v ZDA, vključen v holdinško družbo „Acron“.
The applicant further alleged that these changes were of a lasting nature.
Vložnik je tudi trdil, da so te spremembe trajne narave.
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010
Izvedbena Uredba Sveta (EU) št. 857/2010
imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates
o uvedbi dokončne izravnalne dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve na uvoz nekaterih vrst polietilen tereftalata s poreklom iz Irana, Pakistana in Združenih arabskih emiratov
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (the ‘basic Regulation’) [1], and in particular Article 15(1) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 597/2009 z dne 11. junija 2009 o zaščiti proti subvencioniranemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti („osnovna uredba“) [1], in zlasti člena 15(1) Uredbe,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission (‘the Commission’) after consulting the Advisory Committee,
ob upoštevanju predloga, ki ga je po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom predložila Evropska komisija („Komisija“),
The Commission, by Regulation (EU) No 473/2010 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’), imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates (‘the countries concerned’).
Komisija je z Uredbo (EU) št. 473/2010 [2] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno izravnalno dajatev na uvoz nekaterih vrst polietilen tereftalata s poreklom iz Irana, Pakistana in Združenih arabskih emiratov („zadevne države“).
The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged on 20 July 2009 by the Polyethylene Terephthalate Committee of Plastics Europe (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 50 %, of the total Union production of certain polyethylene terephthalate.
Postopek se je začel po pritožbi, ki jo je 20. julija 2009 vložil odbor za polietilen tereftalat Plastics Europe („pritožnik“) v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo večinski delež celotne proizvodnje nekaterih vrst polietilen tereftalata v Uniji, in sicer v tem primeru več kot 50 %.
As set out in recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (15) začasne uredbe, je preiskava subvencioniranja in škode zajela obdobje med 1. julijem 2008 in 30. junijem 2009 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2006 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).
Preučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2006 do konca OP („obravnavano obdobje“).
In the parallel anti-dumping proceeding, the Commission by Regulation (EU) No 472/2010 [3], imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran and the United Arab Emirates.
Komisija je v vzporednem protidampinškem postopku z Uredbo (EU) št. 472/2010 [3] uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih vrst polietilen tereftalata s poreklom iz Irana in Združenih arabskih emiratov.
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional countervailing measures (‘provisional disclosure’), several interested parties made written submissions making their views known on the provisional findings.
Po razkritju bistvenih dejstev in premislekov, na podlagi katerih je bila odločena uvedba začasnih izravnalnih ukrepov („začasno razkritje“), je več zainteresiranih strani v pisnih predlogih sporočilo svoja stališča glede začasnih ugotovitev.
The parties who so requested were also granted the opportunity to be heard.
Strani, ki so to zahtevale, so imele tudi možnost za zaslišanje.
The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
Komisija je še naprej iskala in preverjala vse informacije, za katere je menila, da so potrebne za njene dokončne ugotovitve.
The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties following the provisional disclosure were considered and, where appropriate, the provisional findings were modified accordingly.
Ustne in pisne pripombe, ki so jih zainteresirane strani predložile po začasnem razkritju, so bile obravnavane, začasne ugotovitve pa so bile, kjer je bilo to primerno, ustrezno spremenjene.
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 countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (‘final disclosure’).
Vse strani so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala priporočiti uvedba dokončne izravnalne dajatve na uvoz nekaterih vrst polietilen tereftalata s poreklom iz Irana, Pakistana in Združenih arabskih emiratov ter dokončnega pobiranja zneskov, zavarovanih z začasno dajatvijo („končno razkritje“).
They were also granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
Za strani se je določilo tudi obdobje, v katerem so lahko po tem razkritju navedle svoje pripombe.
The oral and written comments submitted by the interested parties were considered and, where appropriate, the findings were modified accordingly.
Ustne in pisne pripombe, ki so jih predložile zainteresirane strani, so bile obravnavane, ugotovitve pa so bile, kjer je bilo to primerno, ustrezno spremenjene.
Parties concerned by the proceeding
Strani, ki jih postopek zadeva
Some interested parties claimed that the sample of EU producers was not representative and inconsistent and that therefore the injury analysis was deficient.
Nekatere zainteresirane strani so trdile, da vzorec proizvajalcev EU ni bil reprezentativen in skladen ter da je bila zato analiza škode pomanjkljiva.