natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission should rely on the European Maritime Safety Agency established by Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2] for the publication on a public website of the list of companies with a low or very low performance.
Komisija bi morala objavo seznama podpovprečno uspešnih ali neuspešnih družb na javni spletni strani zaupati Evropski agenciji za pomorsko varnost (European Maritime Safety Agency - EMSA), ki je bila ustanovljena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1406/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [2].
The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships,
Ukrepi, predvideni s to uredbo, so v skladu z mnenjem Odbora za varnost na morju in preprečevanje onesnaževanja z ladij –
Identification of companies
Identifikacija družb
Member States shall ensure that the company as defined in Article 2(18) of Directive 2009/16/EC is identified through the IMO number where the ship has to comply with the International Safety Management Code (ISM Code) as referred to in Chapter IX of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention).
Države članice zagotovijo, da se družba, kot je opredeljena v členu 2(18) Direktive 2009/16/EC identificira na podlagi številke IMO, pri čemer mora ladja upoštevati Mednarodni kodeks o varnem upravljanju ladij (Kodeks ISM), kakor je navedeno v poglavju IX Mednarodne konvencije o varstvu človeškega življenja na morju (Konvencije SOLAS).
Criteria for assessing the company performance
Merila za ocenjevanje uspešnosti družb
With a view to assessing the company performance referred to in point (e) of Part I.1 of Annex I to Directive 2009/16/EC, the criteria set out in the Annex to this Regulation shall be used.
Za presojo uspešnosti družbe iz točke (e), dela I.1, Priloge 1 k Direktivi 2009/16/ES, se uporabljajo merila opisana v Prilogi k tej uredbi.
The level of company performance shall be updated daily and calculated on the basis of the 36 months preceding the assessment.
Raven uspešnosti družb se posodablja dnevno in izračunava na podlagi 36 mesecev pred presojo.
The companies shall be ranked as having a very low, low, medium or high performance as listed in point 3 of the Annex.
Družbe se razvrstijo kot neuspešne, podpovprečno uspešne, srednje uspešne ali zelo uspešne, kot je navedeno v točki 3 Priloge.
Publication of lists of companies with a low and very low performance
Objava seznamov podpovprečno uspešnih in neuspešnih družb
The Commission shall be assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) with a view to the regular publication on a public website of information on companies with a low and very low performance in accordance with Article 27 of Directive 2009/16/EC.
Komisiji pri rednem objavljanju informacij o podpovprečno uspešnih in neuspešnih družbah na javni spletni strani v skladu s členom 27 Direktive 2009/16/ES pomaga Evropska agencija za pomorsko varnost (EMSA).
EMSA shall publish and update on a daily basis on its public website the following information:
EMSA na svoji javni spletni strani objavlja in dnevno posodablja naslednje informacije:
the list of companies whose performance during the previous 36 months has been very low, for a period of at least 3 months on a continuous basis;
seznam družb, ki so bile v preteklih 36 mesecih neuspešne, neprekinjeno v obdobju najmanj treh mesecev;
the list of companies whose performance during the previous 36 months has been low or very low, for a period of at least 3 months on a continuous basis;
seznam družb, ki so bile v preteklih 36 mesecih izmenično podpovprečno uspešne in neuspešne, neprekinjeno v obdobju najmanj treh mesecev;
the list of companies whose performance during the previous 36 months has been low for a period of at least 6 months on a continuous basis.
seznam družb, ki so bile v preteklih 36 mesecih podpovprečno uspešne, neprekinjeno v obdobju najmanj šestih mesecev.
COMPANY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
MERILA USPEŠNOSTI DRUŽB
(referred to in Article 10(3) of Directive 2009/16/EC)
(iz člena 10(3) Direktive 2009/16/ES)
Detention index of a company
Indeks zadržanja
The detention index is the ratio of the number of detentions of all ships in a company’s fleet to the number of inspections of all the ships in the company’s fleet within the previous 36 months, compared with the average detention ratio for all ships inspected in the region covered by the Paris MoU over the previous 36 months.
Indeks zadržanja je koeficient števila zadržanj vseh ladij v floti družbe glede na število inšpekcijskih pregledov vseh ladij v floti družbe v prejšnjih 36 mesecih v primerjavi s povprečnim koeficientom zadržanja za vse ladje, pregledane v območju, ki ga pokriva Pariški memorandum v prejšnjih 36 mesecih.
The detention index shall be considered average if it is within a margin of 2 percentage points above or below the average detention ratio for all ships inspected in the region covered by the Paris MoU during the previous 36 months.
Indeks zadržanja je povprečen, če je koeficient do 2 odstotni točki višji ali nižji od povprečnega koeficienta zadržanj vseh ladij, ki so bile pregledane v območju, ki ga pokriva Pariški memorandum v prejšnjih 36 mesecih.
The detention index shall be considered above average if it is more than 2 percentage points above the average detention ratio for all ships inspected in the region covered by the Paris MoU during the previous 36 months.
Indeks zadržanja je nadpovprečen, če je koeficient več kot 2 odstotni točki višji od povprečnega koeficienta zadržanj vseh ladij, ki so bile pregledane v območju, ki ga pokriva Pariški memorandum v prejšnjih 36 mesecih.
The detention index shall be considered below average if it is more than 2 percentage points below the average detention ratio for all ships inspected in the region covered by the Paris MoU during the previous 36 months.
Indeks zadržanja je podpovprečen, če je koeficient 2 odstotni točki nižji od povprečnega koeficienta zadržanj vseh ladij, ki so bile pregledane v območju, ki ga pokriva Pariški memorandum v prejšnjih 36 mesecih.
The detention index of a company shall be considered above average irrespective of all other inspection results if a refusal of access order in accordance with Directive 2009/16/EC is issued within the previous 36 months to any ship in the fleet of that company.
Ne glede na vse druge rezultate inšpekcijskih pregledov je indeks zadržanja družbe nadpovprečen, če se v zadnjih 36 mesecih za kateri koli ladjo v floti družbe izda odločitev o zavrnitvi vstopa v skladu z Direktivo 2009/16/ES.
Deficiency index of a company
Indeks pomanjkljivosti družbe
The deficiency index is the ratio of the total points of all deficiencies of all ships in a company’s fleet to the number of inspections of all ships in the company’s fleet during the previous 36 months, compared with the average deficiency ratio for all ships inspected in the region covered by the Paris MoU over the previous 36 months.
Indeks pomanjkljivosti je koeficient skupnega števila točk za vse pomanjkljivosti vseh ladij v floti družbe glede na število inšpekcijskih pregledov vseh ladij v floti družbe v prejšnjih 36 mesecih v primerjavi s povprečnim koeficientom pomanjkljivosti za vse ladje, pregledane v območju, ki ga pokriva Pariški memorandum v prejšnjih 36 mesecih.
For the purposes of the first subparagraph ISM Code related deficiencies shall be weighted at 5 points while any other deficiencies shall be weighted at 1 point.
Za potrebe prvega odstavka se pomanjkljivosti, povezane s Kodeksom ISM, ponderirajo po stopnji 5 točk, vse ostale pomanjkljivosti pa po stopnji 1 točke.
The average deficiency ratio within the region covered by the Paris MoU shall be weighted taking into account the average occurrence of ISM Code related deficiencies and any other deficiencies per inspection.
Povprečni koeficient pomanjkljivosti v območju, ki ga pokriva Pariški memorandum, se ponderira ob upoštevanju povprečnega pojavljanja pomanjkljivosti, povezanih z ISM Kodeksom in vseh drugih pomanjkljivosti pri posameznem inšpekcijskem pregledu.
The deficiency index shall be considered average if it is within a margin of 2 percentage points above or below the weighted average of deficiencies in the region covered by the Paris MoU during the previous 36 months.
Indeks pomanjkljivosti je povprečen, če je koeficient do 2 odstotni točki višji ali nižji od ponderiranega povprečja pomanjkljivosti v območju, ki ga pokriva Pariški memorandum v prejšnjih 36 mesecih.
The deficiency index shall be considered above average if it is more than 2 percentage points above the weighted average of deficiencies in the region covered by the Paris MoU during the previous 36 months.
Indeks pomanjkljivosti je nadpovprečen, če je koeficient več kot 2 odstotni točki višji od ponderiranega povprečja pomanjkljivosti v območju, ki ga pokriva Pariški memorandum v prejšnjih 36 mesecih.
The deficiency index shall be considered below average if it is more than 2 percentage points below the weighted average of deficiencies in the region covered by the Paris MoU during the previous 36 months.
Indeks pomanjkljivosti je podpovprečen, če je koeficient več kot 2 odstotni točki nižji od ponderiranega povprečja pomanjkljivosti v območju, ki ga pokriva Pariški memorandum v prejšnjih 36 mesecih.
Company performance matrix
Matrika uspešnosti družb
Company performance shall be ranked as follows:
Uspešnost družbe se razvršča v skladu s spodnjo tabelo:
Detention index
Indeks zadržanja
Deficiency index
Indeks pomanjkljivosti
Company performance
Uspešnost družbe
above average
nadpovprečen
very low
neuspešna
average
povprečen
low
podpovprečno uspešna
below average
podpovprečen
medium
srednje uspešna
high
zelo uspešna
However, if a company has no previous records of inspections carried on its fleet or is not required to have an IMO number, it shall be considered as having medium performance.
Vendar, če na floti družbe še niso bili opravljeni inšpekcijski pregledi ali če se od družbe ne zahteva IMO številka, se šteje, da je družba srednje uspešna.
For that purpose the calculation shall be made on the basis of data collected from 17 June 2009.
V ta namen se izračun naredi na podlagi podatkov zbranih od 17. junija 2009.
Where less than 36 months have elapsed since 17 June 2009, the calculation shall be made on the basis of the available data.
Če je od 17. junija 2009 minilo manj kot 36 mesecev, se izračun opravi na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 803/2010
Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 803/2010
This Regulation shall enter into force on 14 September 2010.
Ta uredba začne veljati 14. septembra 2010.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 804/2010
Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 804/2010
These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 800/2010 [4].
Navedene cene in dolžnosti so bile nazadnje spremenjene z Uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 800/2010 [4].
OJ L 240, 11.9.2010, p. 3.
UL L 240, 11.9.2010, str. 3.
Amended representative prices and additional import duties applicable to white sugar, raw sugar and products covered by CN code 17029095 from 14 September 2010
Spremenjene reprezentativne cene in dodatne uvozne dajatve za beli in surovi sladkor ter proizvode z oznako KN 17029095, ki se uporabljajo od 14. septembra 2010
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 805/2010
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 805/2010
re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China, manufactured by Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd, Foshan
o ponovni uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz likalnih desk s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jih proizvaja družba Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd., Foshan
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 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] („osnovna uredba“), zlasti člena 9 Uredbe,
Having regard to the proposal submitted by the European Commission after consulting the Advisory Committee,
ob upoštevanju predloga, ki ga je po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom predložila Evropska komisija,
By Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 [2] (‘the contested Regulation’), the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 9,9 % to 38,1 % on imports of ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) and Ukraine.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 452/2007 [2] („izpodbijana uredba“) uvedel dokončne protidampinške dajatve v višini od 9,9 % do 38,1 % na uvoz likalnih desk, prostostoječih ali ne, z ali brez sistema za vsrkavanje odvečne pare oziroma ogrevalnega sistema oziroma sistema za pihanje zraka, vključno z rokavniki in njihovimi bistvenimi deli, torej podnožjem, prevleko in odlagalno površino za likalnik, s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“) in Ukrajine.
On 12 June 2007, one cooperating Chinese exporting producer, namely Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd (‘Foshan Shunde’), lodged an application at the General Court (‘the Court of First Instance’ before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty) seeking the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in so far as it applies to the appellant [3].
En sodelujoči kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik in sicer družba Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd. („Foshan Shunde“), je 12. junija 2007 vložil tožbo pri Splošnem sodišču („Sodišče prve stopnje“ pred začetkom veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe) z namenom doseči razglasitev ničnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 452/2007 v delu, ki se uporablja za pritožbeno stranko [3].
On 29 January 2008, the General Court rejected the application of Foshan Shunde.
Splošno sodišče je 29. januarja 2008 zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek družbe Foshan Shunde.
On 3 April 2008, Foshan Shunde lodged an appeal at the Court of Justice asking it to set aside the judgment of the General Court and seeking the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 in so far as it concerns the appellant.
Družba Foshan Shunde se je 3. aprila 2008 pritožila pri Sodišču z namenom doseči razveljavitev sodbe Splošnega sodišča in razglasitev ničnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 452/2007 v delu, ki zadeva pritožbeno stranko.
Therefore, the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation in so far as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards manufactured by Foshan Shunde.
Zato je Sodišče razglasilo izpodbijano uredbo za nično v delu, ki uvaja protidampinško dajatev na uvoz likalnih desk proizvajalca Foshan Shunde.
The General Court in case T-2/95 [4] (the ‘IPS case’) has recognised that, in cases where a proceeding consists of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding.
Splošno sodišče je v zadevi T-2/95 [4] („zadeva IPS“) ugotovilo, da razglasitev ničnosti enega dela postopka v postopkih, sestavljenih iz več upravnih delov, ne pomeni, da je celotni postopek ničen.
The anti-dumping proceeding is an example of such a multi-step proceeding.
Protidampinški postopek je primer postopka, ki ima več delov.
Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation in relation to one party does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation.
Zato razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe v delu, ki se nanaša na eno stranko, ne pomeni, da je ničen celotni postopek, ki je potekal pred sprejetjem zadevne uredbe.
It should be noted that apart from the finding of an infringement of Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation, all other findings made in the contested Regulation remain automatically valid to the extent that the Court of Justice rejected all claims made in this respect.
Treba je opozoriti, da je Sodišče razen ugotovljene kršitve člena 20(5) osnovne uredbe vse ostale zahtevke zavrnilo in zato ostale ugotovitve o izpodbijani uredbi ostanejo veljavne.
Following the Court of Justice judgment of 1 October 2009, a notice [6] was published concerning the partial reopening of the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in PRC.
Po sodbi Sodišča z dne 1. oktobra 2009 je bilo objavljeno obvestilo [6] o delni ponovni uvedbi protidampinške preiskave v zvezi z uvozom likalnih desk s poreklom, med drugim, iz LRK.
The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the Court of Justice judgment in so far as Foshan Shunde is concerned.
Ponovna preiskava je bila omejena na izvršitev sodbe Sodišča, ki zadeva družbo Foshan Shunde.
The Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting country and the Union industry of the partial reopening of the investigation.
Komisija je o delni ponovni uvedbi preiskave uradno obvestila proizvajalce izvoznike, uvoznike in uporabnike, za katere je bilo znano, da jih to zadeva, predstavnike države izvoznice in industrijo Unije.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time-limit set out in the notice.
Zainteresirane strani so imele možnost, da pisno izrazijo svoja stališča in zaprosijo Komisijo za zaslišanje v roku iz obvestila.
All parties who so requested within the above time-limit and who demonstrated that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted the opportunity to be heard.
Vsem zainteresiranim stranem, ki so zahtevale zaslišanje in dokazale, da zanj obstajajo posebni razlogi, je bilo zaslišanje odobreno.
Representations were received from two exporting producers in the PRC (one being the party directly concerned, i.e. Foshan Shunde), the Union industry and two unrelated importers.
Dva proizvajalca izvoznika iz LRK (eden od njiju je stranka, ki jo to neposredno zadeva, torej družba Foshan Shunde), industrija Unije in dva nepovezana uvoznika so predložili pripombe.
All parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on Foshan Shunde.
Vse zadevne strani so bile obveščene o pomembnih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih se je nameravala priporočiti uvedba dokončnih protidampinških dajatev za družbo Foshan Shunde.
They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure.
Po razkritju so imele na voljo obdobje za predložitev pripomb.
The comments of the parties were considered and, where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.
Pripombe zainteresiranih strani so bile preučene, ugotovitve pa so bile po potrebi ustrezno spremenjene.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE JUDGMENT
IZVAJANJE SODBE SODIŠČA
It is recalled that the reason for the annulment of the contested Regulation was that the Commission sent its proposal to impose a definitive anti-dumping duty to the Council before the end of the 10-day mandatory deadline as set out by Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation for receiving comments following the sending to interested parties of a definitive disclosure document.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bila ničnost izpodbijane uredbe razglašena, ker je Komisija svoj predlog za uvedbo dokončne protidampinške dajatve predložila Svetu pred iztekom obveznega 10-dnevnega roka iz člena 20(5) osnovne uredbe za prejem pripomb po tem, ko se zainteresiranim stranem pošlje dokument o dokončnem razkritju.
Comments of interested parties
Pripombe zainteresiranih strani
Foshan Shunde argued that the Court of Justice judgment requires no implementing measures.
Družba Foshan Shunde je trdila, da se s sodbo Sodišča ne zahtevajo nobeni izvedbeni ukrepi.
According to the company the re-opening is illegal because there is no specific provision in the basic Regulation allowing for such an approach and because such re-opening would be in conflict with the 15-month statutory deadline for the completion of an investigation as set by Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation and the 18-month deadline as set out by Article 5.10 of the WTO anti-dumping agreement.
Po mnenju družbe je ponovna uvedba preiskave nezakonita, ker v osnovni uredbi ni nobene posebne določbe, ki bi to dovoljevala in ker je v nasprotju z zakonskim 15 mesečnim rokom za zaključitev preiskave iz člena 6(9) osnovne uredbe in 18 mesečnim rokom iz člena 5.10 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
Foshan Shunde submitted that the IPS case could not serve as a precedent because it was based on Council Regulation (EЕC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Economic Community [7] (‘the old basic Regulation’), under which mandatory deadlines did not apply yet.
Družba Foshan Shunde je navedla, da se zadeva IPS ne more uporabljati kot precedenčni primer, ker je temeljila na Uredbi Sveta (EGS) št. 2423/88 z dne 11. julija 1988 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu ali podpiranemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske gospodarske skupnosti [7] („prejšnja osnovna uredba“), v skladu s katero še ni bilo treba uporabljati obveznih rokov.
Foshan Shunde also argued that if the Commission decided to proceed with the implementation of the Court of Justice judgment, this should be done on the basis of the Commission’s definitive disclosure document dated 20 February 2007, where the party was attributed Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’) and no dumping was found for this company and not on the basis of the revised definitive disclosure document of 23 March 2007, where the Commission confirmed its provisional findings for Foshan Shunde of no MET and a 18,1 % dumping margin.
Družba Foshan Shunde je trdila tudi, da če bi se Komisija odločila nadaljevati izvajanje sodbe Sodišča, bi to morala storiti na podlagi dokumenta Komisije o dokončnem razkritju z dne 20. februarja 2007 (v katerem je bila strani odobrena tržnogospodarska obravnava („TGO“) in zanjo ni bil ugotovljen damping) in ne na podlagi revidiranega dokumenta o dokončnem razkritju z dne 23. marca 2007, v katerem je Komisija potrdila začasne ugotovitve za družbo Foshan Shunde o neodobritvi TGO in stopnjo dampinga v višini 18,1 %.
The other Chinese exporting producer – Zheijiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd (‘Zheijiang Harmonic’) submitted a number of arguments that were essentially identical with those made by Foshan Shunde, i.e. that there is no legal basis for the re-opening of the proceeding, and that no re-imposition of anti-dumping duties is by law possible beyond the time-limits set by the basic Regulation and WTO anti-dumping agreement.
Drugi kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik, torej družba Zheijiang Harmonic Hardware Products Co. Ltd. („Zheijiang Harmonic“), je predložil številne pripombe, ki so bile v osnovi enake pripombam družbe Foshan Shunde, torej da za ponovni začetek postopka ni pravne podlage ter da zakon ne dovoljuje ponovne uvedbe protidampinških dajatev po preteku rokov iz osnovne uredbe in Protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
It also argued that reissuing a revised disclosure and granting a period to reply in line with Article 20(5) of the basic Regulation cannot correct the violation of Zheijiang Harmonic’s rights of defence and the unlawful imposition of duties.
Trdil je tudi, da ponovna izdaja revidiranega dokumenta o razkritju in odobritev roka za odgovor v skladu s členom 20(5) osnovne uredbe ne more popraviti kršitve pravice družbe Zheijiang Harmonic do obrambe in nezakonite uvedbe dajatev.