natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Birds’ eggs, fresh preserved or cooked, shelled eggs and egg yolks fresh, dried, cooked by steaming or boiling in water, moulded, frozen or otherwise preserved whether or not containing added sugar or sweetening matter
Ptičja jajca, sveža ali kuhana jajca brez lupine in jajčni rumenjaki, sveži, sušeni, kuhani v vodi ali sopari, oblikovani, zamrznjeni ali kako drugače konzervirani, z ali brez dodatka sladkorja ali sladil
Honey (royal jelly, pollen)
Med (Matični mleček, cvetni prah)
Amphibians and reptiles (frog legs, crocodiles)
Dvoživke in plazilci (Žabji kraki, krokodili)
MRL applicable until 31 December 2012, after that date 0,02 will be applicable unless modified by a Regulation.’
Mejna vrednost ostanka (MRL) velja do 31. decembra 2012, po tem datumu bo veljala 0,02, razen če je uredba ne spremeni.“
Published 11 October 2010.
Objavljen: 11. oktobra 2010.
Adopted 8 October 2010.
Sprejet: oktobra 2010.
Hazelnuts (filbert)
Lešniki (Lešniki iz rodu Corylus)
Head cabbage (pointed head cabbage, red cabbage, savoy cabbage, white cabbage)
Glavnato zelje (Koničasto zelje, rdeče zelje, belo zelje)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 461/2011
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 461/2011
amending Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 fixing the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year
o spremembi Uredbe (EU) št. 397/2010 o določitvi količinske omejitve za izvoz izvenkvotnega sladkorja in izvenkvotne izoglukoze do konca tržnega leta 2010/2011
According to Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, the sugar produced during a marketing year in excess of the quota referred to in Article 56 of that Regulation may be exported only within the quantitative limit to be fixed.
V skladu s točko (d) prvega odstavka člena 61 Uredbe (ES) št. 1234/2007 se lahko sladkor, katerega proizvodnja v tržnem letu presega kvoto iz člena 56 navedene uredbe, izvozi le v okviru količinske omejitve, ki jo je treba določiti.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 of 7 May 2010 fixing the quantitative limit for exports of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose until the end of the 2010/2011 marketing year [3] fixed the quantitative limit for the exports of out-of-quota sugar at 650000 tonnes.
Z Uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 397/2010 z dne 7. maja 2010 o določitvi količinske omejitve za izvoz izvenkvotnega sladkorja in izvenkvotne izoglukoze do konca tržnega leta 2010/2011 [3] je bila količinska omejitev izvoza izvenkvotnega sladkorja določena na 650000 ton.
This quantity was quickly used.
Ta količina se je hitro porabila.
This measure will provide additional business opportunities for the Union sugar sector, including prospective opportunities for growers in relation to present sowings, and should further stabilise the market.
Ta ukrep bo odprl dodatne poslovne priložnosti za sektor sladkorja Unije, vključno s potencialnimi priložnostmi za pridelovalce v povezavi s sedanjimi posevki, in dodatno stabiliziral trg.
In order to enable economic actors to do the necessary planning of their operations, applications for export licences should be allowed as from the first week of July.
Da bodo lahko tržni akterji načrtovali svoje dejavnosti, bo vlaganje zahtevkov za izvozna dovoljenja mogoče od prvega tedna v juliju.
It is appropriate to set the period of validity for these licences from 1 September 2011 to 31 December 2011 for this measure to cover only sugar produced under the new, September harvest.
Primerno je določiti obdobje veljavnosti teh dovoljenj od 1. septembra 2011 do 31. decembra 2011, da bo ta ukrep zajemal samo sladkor, proizveden v okviru novega septembrskega pridelka.
Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 should be amended accordingly.
Uredbo (EU) št. 397/2010 je zato treba ustrezno spremeniti.
Regulation (EU) No 397/2010 is amended as follows:
Uredba (EU) št. 397/2010 se spremeni:
in Article 1, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
odstavek 1 člena 1 se nadomesti z naslednjim:
For the 2010/2011 marketing year, running from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011, the quantitative limit referred to in Article 61, first paragraph, point (d) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 shall be 1350000 tonnes for exports without refund of out-of-quota white sugar falling within CN code 170199.’;
Za tržno leto 2010/2011, ki traja od 1. oktobra 2010 do 30. septembra 2011, znaša količinska omejitev iz točke (d) prvega odstavka člena 61 Uredbe (ES) št. 1234/2007 za izvoz brez nadomestila izvenkvotnega belega sladkorja, ki spada pod oznako KN 170199, 1350000 ton.“;
By way of derogation from Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 951/2006, the export licences issued as of 4 July 2011 for the quantities fixed by Article 1 shall be valid from 1 September 2011 until 31 December 2011.’
Ne glede na člen 8a Uredbe (ES) št. 951/2006 izvozna dovoljenja, izdana po 4. juliju 2011 za količine iz člena 1, veljajo od 1. septembra 2011 do 31. decembra 2011.“
It shall apply from 4 July 2011.
Uporablja se od 4. julija 2011.
Current high sugar prices provide an incentive for growers to sow additional areas of sugar beet in 2011.
Trenutne visoke cene sladkorja pridelovalce spodbujajo, da v letu 2011 posejejo dodatne površine s sladkorno peso.
Taking into account that the WTO ceiling for exports in the 2010/2011 marketing year has not been fully used, it is appropriate to increase the export quantitative limit by 700000 tonnes, to exploit all possible outlet for the product available.
Glede na to, da zgornja meja STO za izvoz v tržnem letu 2010/2011 ni bila v celoti izkoriščena, je primerno povečati količinsko omejitev za izvoz za 700000 ton, da se lahko izkoristijo vse razpoložljive prodajne možnosti za proizvod.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 462/2011
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 462/2011
This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 May 2011.
Ta uredba začne veljati 13. maja 2011.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 463/2011
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 463/2011
These prices and duties have been last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 456/2011 [4].
Navedene cene in dolžnosti so bile nazadnje spremenjene z Uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 456/2011 [4].
OJ L 123, 12.5.2011, p. 70.
UL L 123, 12.5.2011, str. 70.
Amended representative prices and additional import duties applicable to white sugar, raw sugar and products covered by CN code 17029095 from 13 May 2011
Spremenjene reprezentativne cene in dodatne uvozne dajatve za beli in surovi sladkor ter proizvode z oznako KN 17029095, ki se uporabljajo od 13. maja 2011
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 464/2011
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 464/2011
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz zeolita A v prahu s poreklom iz Bosne in Hercegovine
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] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: 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 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Komisija),
By Regulation (EU) No 1036/2010 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’), the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina (‘BiH’).
Z Uredbo (EU) št. 1036/2010 [2] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: začasna uredba) je Komisija uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz zeolita A v prahu s poreklom iz Bosne in Hercegovine (v nadaljnjem besedilu: BiH).
The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 4 January 2010 by Industrias Quimicas del Ebro SA, MAL Magyar Aluminium, PQ Silicas BV, Silkem d.o.o. and Zeolite Mira Srl Unipersonale (the ‘complainants’), representing a major proportion, in this case more than 25 % of the total Union production of zeolite A powder.
Postopek se je začel zaradi pritožbe, ki so jo 4. januarja 2010 vložile družbe Industrias Quimicas del Ebro SA, MAL Magyar Aluminium, PQ Silicas BV, Silkem d.o.o. in Zeolite Mira Srl Unipersonale (v nadaljnjem besedilu: pritožniki), ki predstavljajo glavni delež, v tem primeru več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje zeolita A v prahu 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 upravičen začetek 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 vidikov, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločitev o uvedbi začasnih protidampinških ukrepov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: začasno razkritje), je več zainteresiranih strani predložilo pisna stališča v zvezi z začasnimi ugotovitvami.
The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Preiskava dampinga in škode je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2009 do 31. decembra 2009 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obdobje preiskave ali OP).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2005 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’).
Proučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajemala obdobje od 1. januarja 2005 do konca obdobja preiskave (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obravnavano obdobje).
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the Commission intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of zeolite A powder originating in the BiH and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty.
Vse strani so bile obveščene o bistvenih dejstvih in vidikih, na podlagi katerih je Komisija nameravala priporočiti uvedbo dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz zeolita A v prahu s poreklom iz BiH in dokončno pobiranje zneskov, zavarovanih z začasno dajatvijo.
They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations.
Določen je bil tudi rok, v katerem so lahko predložile svoja stališča.
In the absence of any comments on these issues, recitals 12 to 15 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih pripomb v zvezi s temi vprašanji, se uvodne izjave 12 do 15 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
In view of the above, it is definitively concluded that all types of zeolite A powder 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 zeolita A v prahu, kot so opredeljene zgoraj, podobne v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
The Bosnian exporting producer group (‘Birac’) returned to its claim made at the provisional stage of the investigation that a non-sampled Union producer (Silkem d.o.o. or ‘Silkem’) should have been fully consolidated into the reply to the questionnaire of a sampled Union producer (MAL Magyar Aluminium or ‘MAL’) because the two companies are related.
Skupina bosanskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Birac) je ponovila svojo trditev, ki jo je izrazila v začetni fazi preiskave, in sicer da bi moral biti nevzorčeni proizvajalec Unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: „Silkem d.o.o.“ ali „Silkem“) v celoti vključen v odgovor na vprašalnik vzorčenega proizvajalca Unije (MAL Magyar Aluminium ali v nadaljnjem besedilu: MAL), ker sta družbi povezani.
It was claimed that if that omission were accepted it would amount to discrimination between Union producers and exporters as in cases where there are related exporting producers located in countries subject to an anti-dumping investigation they are all required to submit replies to questionnaires.
Trdila je, da bi sprejetje te opustitve pomenilo diskriminacijo med proizvajalci Unije in izvozniki, kot v primerih, kadar so povezani proizvajalci izvozniki s sedežem v državah, ki so predmet protidampinških preiskav, vsi dolžni predložiti odgovore na vprašalnike.
Further, Birac claimed that both MAL and Silkem should be declared to be non-cooperating.
Poleg tega je Birac trdil, da bi bilo treba MAL in Silkem razglasiti kot nesodelujoči družbi.
Those claims cannot be accepted.
Teh trditev ni mogoče sprejeti.
For the reasons explained at recital 19 of the provisional Regulation both MAL and Silkem have fully cooperated with the investigation.
Zaradi razlogov, pojasnjenih v uvodni izjavi 19 začasne uredbe, sta MAL in Silkem v celoti sodelovala v preiskavi.
It is recalled that Silkem provided information in the reply to the sampling form and account was taken of Silkem in the macro data indicators.
Spomniti je treba, da je Silkem zagotovil informacije v odgovoru na obrazec za vzorčenje ter da je bil Silkem upoštevan pri kazalnikih za makropodatke.
However, the company was not included in the list of sampled companies on account of its small size.
Vendar družba ni bila vključena na seznam vzorčenih družb zaradi svoje majhnosti.
Therefore, Silkem did not need to submit so-called micro data and a fortiori those have not been verified.
Zato družbi Silkem ni bilo treba predložiti tako imenovanih mikropodatkov, ki seveda posledično tudi niso bili preverjeni.
Moreover, since their sales of the product concerned are relatively small in comparison to those of MAL, there is no indication that consolidating Silkem’s data into MAL’s data would have made any difference.
Ker je poleg tega njihova prodaja zadevnega izdelka razmeroma majhna v primerjavi s prodajo MAL, nič ne kaže na to, da bi vključitev podatkov Silkem v podatke MAL kaj spremenila.
Furthermore, the allegation of discrimination between exporting producers and Union producers is clearly unfounded because the situations are different.
Nadalje je obtožba diskriminacije med proizvajalci izvozniki in proizvajalci Unije očitno neutemeljena, ker so okoliščine različne.
On the one hand, the investigation into the existence of dumping is the one that is normally conducted at company level for which the Commisson services need to calculate a company-specific dumping margin.
Po eni strani se preiskava o obstoju dampinga običajno opravi na ravni družb, za kar morajo službe Komisije izračunati stopnjo dampinga za posamezno družbo.
Furthermore, a group of exporting producers has to be looked at in its totality since otherwise there is a risk that exports would be channelled through the part of the group with the lowest duty level.
Skupino proizvajalcev izvoznikov je treba obravnavati v celoti, ker sicer obstaja tveganje, da bi se izvoz usmeril skozi tisti del skupine, ki ima najnižjo stopnjo dajatve.
On the other hand, the injury investigation aims at examining whether the Union industry as a whole suffers material injury.
Po drugi strani pa je namen preiskave škode proučiti, ali je celotna industrija Unije utrpela znatno škodo.
In this case, the sampled Union producers in this investigation were considered to represent the entire Union production in respect of certain injury indicators (micro indicators).
V tem primeru so se vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije v tej preiskavi šteli za predstavnike celotne proizvodnje Unije glede nekaterih kazalnikov škode (mikrokazalniki).
Birac also claimed that a Bosnian mining company, related to MAL, which supplies to this particular Union producer a pre-raw material (i.e. bauxite) should also have cooperated with the investigation.
Birac je tudi trdil, da bi moralo tudi bosansko rudarsko podjetje, povezano z MAL, ki temu konkretnemu proizvajalcu Unije dobavlja surovine (tj. boksit), sodelovati v preiskavi.
In this respect it is noted that the mining company was listed in MAL’s questionnaire response.
V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da je bilo rudarsko podjetje navedeno v izpolnjenem vprašalniku MAL.
Also, the costs associated with the sourcing of bauxite, and its conversion into aluminium trihydrate, were fully reported in MAL’s cost of production.
Prav tako je MAL v svojih stroških proizvodnje izčrpno poročal o stroških, povezanih s pridobivanjem boksita in njegovo pretvorbo v aluminijev trihidrat.
Therefore, the MAL Group fully complied with the reporting requirements set out by the Commission services.
Zato je skupina MAL v celoti upoštevala zahteve za poročanje, ki so jih določile službe Komisije.
In the absence of any other comments on these issues, recitals 16 to 20 of the provisional Regulation are hereby definitively confirmed.
Ker v zvezi s temi vprašanji ni bilo drugih pripomb, se uvodne izjave 16 do 20 začasne uredbe dokončno potrdijo.
It is recalled that in the absence of representative domestic sales, normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
Opozoriti je treba, da je bila zaradi odsotnosti reprezentativne domače prodaje normalna vrednost izračunana v skladu s členom 2(3) osnovne uredbe.
To construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, the selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses incurred and the weighted average profit realised by each of the cooperating exporting producers on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period, were added to their own average cost of production during the investigation period.
Za oblikovanje normalne vrednosti v skladu s členom 2(3) osnovne uredbe so se nastali prodajni, splošni in administrativni (PSA) stroški ter tehtani povprečni dobiček, ki ga je s prodajo na notranjem trgu podobnega izdelka v običajnem poteku trgovanja v obdobju preiskave ustvaril vsak izmed sodelujočih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, prišteli k njihovim povprečnim stroškom proizvodnje v obdobju preiskave.
Since there are no separate types of the product concerned or like product, a weighted average profit was used.
Ker ni ločenih vrst zadevnega izdelka ali podobnega izdelka, se je uporabil tehtani povprečni dobiček.
Where necessary, the costs of production and SG&A expenses were adjusted, before being used in the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing normal values.
Kjer je bilo potrebno, so bili proizvodni stroški ter prodajni, splošni in administrativni stroški prilagojeni, preden so bili uporabljeni v preskusu običajnega poteka trgovanja in pri oblikovanju normalnih vrednosti.
Further to the provisional disclosure Birac submitted comments regarding the determination of the profit margin used for constructing normal value.
V zvezi z začasnim razkritjem je Birac predložil pripombe glede določitve stopnje dobička, uporabljene za izračun normalne vrednosti.
According to Birac, the methodology applied violates Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation because in this specific case the result of using the profit margin of the non-representative domestic sales to construct normal value is exactly the same as if the prices of the non-representative domestic sales had been used.
Po mnenju Birac, uporabljena metodologija krši člen 2(3) osnovne uredbe, ker je v tem konkretnem primeru rezultat uporabe stopnje dobička nereprezentativne domače prodaje za izračun normalne vrednosti popolnoma enak, kot če bi uporabili cene nereprezentativne domače prodaje.
It claimed that such an incoherent approach cannot have been intended by a combined reading of Article 2(3) and 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
Trdil je, da tak neskladen pristop gotovo ni bil namen istočasne obravnave člena 2(3) in 2(6) osnovne uredbe.
It also considered that the profit margin used is unreasonable and disproportionate, in particular in comparison to the target profit used for the underselling calculations.
Prav tako je menil, da je uporabljena stopnja dobička nerazumna in nesorazmerna, zlasti v primerjavi s ciljnim dobičkom, ki je bil uporabljen za izračun nelojalnega nižanja cen.
Furthermore, Birac claimed that the domestic sales, due to their nature, should not be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade and should thus not be used to establish normal value.
Poleg tega je Birac trdil, da se domača prodaja zaradi svoje narave ne sme šteti kot prodaja v običajnem poteku trgovanja in se zato ne sme uporabiti za določitev normalne vrednosti.
Regarding the first claim, it is noted that the method applied is in line with the provisions of the basic Regulation and the jurisprudence stemming from WTO rulings, according to which when constructing the normal value, the profit of the domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade has to be used, even if these sales were not representative.
V zvezi s prvo trditvijo je treba opozoriti, da je uporabljena metoda v skladu z določbami osnovne uredbe in sodno prakso, ki izhaja iz odločb STO, v skladu s katerimi se mora pri določanju normalne vrednosti uporabiti dobiček domače prodaje v običajnem poteku trgovanja, čeprav ta prodaja ni bila reprezentativna.
In this specific case it is noted that since all domestic sales were profitable, constructing the normal value indeed gave the same result as if the normal value had been based on domestic sales prices.
Opozoriti je treba, da je bila v tem konkretnem primeru vsa domača prodaja dobičkonosna, zato je določitev normalne vrednosti res dala enak rezultat, kot če bi normalna vrednost temeljila na domačih prodajnih cenah.
It should first be noted that the profit and SG&A data were based on the company’s own domestic sales which were considered to be in the ordinary course of trade.
Najprej je treba opomniti, da so podatki o dobičku ter prodajnih, splošnih in administrativnih stroških temeljili na domači prodaji družbe, za katero se šteje, da je bila opravljena v običajnem poteku trgovanja.
It is further noted that ‘reasonableness’ cannot be measured against the target profit used for the underselling calculations, since that profit reflects the situation on the EU market in the absence of dumped imports and cannot therefore constitute a proper benchmark for determining the profit to be used in the context of constructing normal value.The claim should therefore be rejected.
Nadalje je treba opozoriti, da „razumnosti“ ni mogoče meriti glede na ciljni dobiček, ki je bil uporabljen za izračun nelojalnega nižanja cen, ker navedeni dobiček kaže na razmere na trgu EU brez dampinškega uvoza in zato ne more šteti kot ustrezno merilo za določanje dobička, ki naj se uporabi pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti. Trditev bi se zato morala zavrniti.
As regards the claim that the domestic sales should not be considered as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, the investigation established that the data and evidence provided by Birac constituted a reliable basis for determining the normal value.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da se domača prodaja ne sme obravnavati, kot da je nastala v običajnem poteku trgovanja, je preiskava ugotovila, da so podatki in dokazi, ki jih je zagotovil Birac, zanesljiva osnova za določanje normalne vrednosti.
Therefore this claim was not considered warranted and was therefore rejected.
Ta trditev se zato ni štela za utemeljeno in je bila zato zavrnjena.
In the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of normal value, the method described in recitals 21 to 26 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ob odsotnosti drugih pripomb glede določitve normalne vrednosti se potrdi metodologija, opisana v uvodnih izjavah 21 do 26 začasne uredbe.
In the absence of any comments regarding the export price, recitals 27 and 28 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo pripomb v zvezi z izvozno ceno, se uvodni izjavi 27 in 28 začasne uredbe potrdita.