natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where a spatial data set or service has been made available pursuant to paragraph 1, the party who received it may not make the spatial data set or service available to any other party without the written consent of the original data or service provider.
Če se zbirka prostorskih podatkov ali storitev v zvezi s prostorskimi podatki da na voljo na podlagi odstavka 1, je njen prejemnik ne sme dati na voljo drugi osebi brez predhodnega pisnega soglasja prvotnega ponudnika podatkov ali storitve.
Conditions applicable to the Community institutions and bodies in compliance with this Regulation shall be expressed in metadata element 8.1, referred to in Part B of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1205/2008 [2].Article 6
Pogoji, ki se uporabljajo za institucije in organe Skupnosti v skladu s to uredbo, se navedejo v metapodatkovnem elementu 8.1 iz dela B Priloge k Uredbi Komisije (ES) št. 1205/2008 [2].Člen 6
Where an institution or body of the Community requests the provision of access to a spatial data set or service, the Member States shall also make available, upon request, information for evaluation and use, on the mechanisms for collecting, processing, producing, quality control and obtaining access to the spatial data sets and services, where that additional information is available and it is reasonable to extract and deliver it.
Če institucija ali organ Skupnosti zahteva dostop do zbirke prostorskih podatkov ali storitve v zvezi s prostorskimi podatki, dajo države članice na zahtevo za namene ocenjevanja in uporabe na voljo informacije o mehanizmih za zbiranje, obdelavo, ustvarjanje, kontrolo kakovosti zbirk prostorskih podatkov in storitev v zvezi s prostorskimi podatki ter o mehanizmih za dostop do njih, če so navedene dodatne informacije razpoložljive ter jih je smiselno izvleči in dostaviti.
Where requested, offers for the provision of access to spatial data sets and services to the Community institutions and bodies made by Member States shall include the basis for charges and the factors taken into account.
Na zahtevo vsebujejo ponudbe držav članic glede zagotavljanja dostopa do zbirk prostorskih podatkov in storitev v zvezi s prostorskimi podatki institucijam in organom Skupnosti tudi podlago za zaračunavanje pristojbin in upoštevane dejavnike.
Response Times
Odzivni časi
Member States shall provide access to spatial data sets and services without delay and at the latest within 20 days after receipt of a written request, unless otherwise agreed by mutual agreement between the Member State and the institution or body of the Community.
Države članice takoj zagotovijo dostop zbirk prostorskih podatkov in storitev, vendar najpozneje 20 dni po prejemu pisne zahteve, razen če se država članica in institucija ali organ Skupnosti ne dogovorita drugače.
Member States shall ensure that arrangements comply with this Regulation from eighteen months after its entry into force.
Države članice poskrbijo, da so navedeni dogovori skladni s to uredbo od osemnajstega meseca od začetka njene veljavnosti.
Where arrangements for the provision of spatial data sets and services are in place on the date of entry into force of this Regulation, Member States shall ensure that those arrangements comply with this Regulation as from renewal or expiry of those arrangements, but not later than three years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
Če dogovori o zagotavljanju zbirk prostorskih podatkov in storitev že obstajajo ob začetku veljavnosti te uredbe, države članice zagotovijo, da so navedeni dogovori v skladu s to uredbo od podaljšanja ali izteka navedenih dogovorov, vendar najpozneje tri leta od začetka veljavnosti te uredbe.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 269/2010
Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 269/2010
This Regulation shall enter into force on 30 March 2010.
Ta uredba začne veljati 30. marca 2010.
Implementing Regulation of the Council (EU) No 270/2010
Izvedbena Uredba Sveta (EU) št 270/2010
amending Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China
o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 452/2007 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz likalnih desk s poreklom med drugim iz Ljudske republike Kitajske
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 11(3) 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“), in zlasti člena 11(3) 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,
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 [2], imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating, inter alia, in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’).
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 452/2007 [2] uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz likalnih desk s poreklom med drugim iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“).
The measures consist of an ad valorem duty rate of 38,1 %, with the exception of five companies expressly mentioned which are subject to individual duty rates.
Ukrepi zajemajo stopnjo dajatve ad valorem v višini 38,1 %, razen za pet izrecno navedenih družb, za katere veljajo individualne stopnje dajatev.
In 2008, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation (‘interim review’).
Komisija je leta 2008 prejela zahtevek za delni vmesni pregled v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe („vmesni pregled“).
The request, limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was lodged by a Chinese exporting producer Guangzhou Power Team Houseware Co. Ltd., Guangzhou (‘Power Team’ or ‘the applicant’).
Zahtevek, po obsegu omejen na proučitev dampinga, je vložil kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik Guangzhou Power Team Houseware Co. Ltd., Guangzhou („Power Team“ ali „vložnik“).
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the applicant is 36,5 %.
Stopnja dokončne protidampinške dajatve, ki se uporablja za vložnika, je 36,5 %.
In its request, the applicant claimed that the circumstances on the basis of which measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature.
Vložnik je v svojem zahtevku trdil, da so se okoliščine, na podlagi katerih so bili uvedeni ukrepi, spremenile, in da so spremembe trajne.
The applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measure at its current level is no longer necessary to offset dumping.
Vložnik je predložil dokaze prima facie, da za izravnavo dampinga nadaljevanje ukrepov na sedanji ravni ni več potrebno.
In particular, the applicant has claimed that it now operates under market economy conditions, i.e. that it meets the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Vložnik je zlasti trdil, da zdaj deluje v razmerah tržnega gospodarstva, t.j. da izpolnjuje merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
The applicant therefore alleged that its normal value should be determined in accordance with Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Vložnik je zato trdil, da je treba normalno vrednost določiti v skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe.
A comparison of this normal value and its export prices to the European Union (‘EU’) indicated that the dumping margin appears to be substantially lower than the current level of the measure.
Primerjava normalne vrednosti z njegovimi izvoznimi cenami v Evropsko unijo (EU) je pokazala, da je stopnja dampinga bistveno nižja od sedanje ravni ukrepa.
Therefore, the applicant claimed that the continued imposition of measures at the existing level, which was based on the level of dumping previously established, was no longer necessary to offset dumping.
Zato je vložnik trdil, da nadaljevanje ukrepov na obstoječi ravni, ki temelji na prej vzpostavljeni stopnji dampinga, za izravnavo dampinga ni več potrebno.
Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an interim review, the Commission decided to initiate an interim review in accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the applicant [3].
Po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom je Komisija ugotovila, da obstaja dovolj dokazov, ki upravičujejo začetek vmesnega pregleda, zato je sklenila začeti vmesni pregled v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe, omejen na damping, ki se nanaša na vložnika [3].
The product concerned by the interim review is the same as that in the investigation that led to the imposition of the measures in force (‘original investigation’), i.e. 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 currently falling within CN codes ex39249000 [4], ex44219098, ex73239390, ex73239991, ex73239999, ex85167970 and ex85169000.
Izdelek, ki ga zadeva vmesni pregled, je isti kot izdelek iz preiskave, na podlagi katere so bili uvedeni trenutni ukrepi („prvotna preiskava“), tj. likalne deske, prostostoječe ali ne, s sistemom za vsrkavanje odvečne pare ali brez njega in/ali z ogrevalnim sistemom, vključno z rokavniki in njihovimi bistvenimi deli, tj. podnožje, prevleka in odlagalna površina za likalnik, s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, trenutno uvrščen v oznake KNex39249000 [4], ex44219098, ex73239390, ex73239991, ex73239999, ex85167970 in ex85169000.
The product produced and sold on the Chinese domestic market and that exported to the EU, as well as that produced and sold in Ukraine (used as analogue country) have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and uses and are therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Izdelek, proizveden in prodan na kitajskem domačem trgu, ter tisti, ki se izvaža v EU, kakor tudi tisti, ki se proizvaja in prodaja v Ukrajini (uporabljena kot primerljiva država), imajo enake osnovne fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti ter uporabo, zato se štejejo za podobne v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
The Commission officially advised the representative of the Union industry, the applicant and the representatives of the exporting country of the initiation of the review.
Komisija je predstavnike industrije Unije, vložnika in predstavnike države izvoznice uradno obvestila o začetku pregleda.
The Commission sent a market economy treatment (‘MET’) claim form and a questionnaire to the applicant and received a reply within the deadline set for that purpose.
Komisija je vložniku poslala obrazec zahtevka za tržnogospodarsko obravnavo („TGO“) in prejela odgovor v roku za ta namen.
The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the determination of dumping, and a verification visit was carried out at the premises of the applicant.
Komisija je zbrala in preverila vse informacije, ki so bile po njenem mnenju potrebne za določitev dampinga, ter opravila preveritveni obisk v prostorih vložnika.
The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
Preiskava dampinga je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2008 do 31. decembra 2008 („obdobje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom“ ali „OPP“).
It is recalled that the investigation period of the original investigation leading to the imposition of the measures was 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 (‘the original investigation period’).
Opozoriti je treba, da je obdobje preiskave prvotne preiskave, na podlagi katere so bili uvedeni ukrepi, trajalo od 1. januarja 2005 do 31. decembra 2005 („prvotna preiskava“).
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the Article 2 of the basic Regulation for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where it is shown that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe se normalna vrednost v protidampinških preiskavah v zvezi z uvozom iz LRK določi v skladu z odstavki 1 do 6 člena 2 osnovne uredbe za tiste proizvajalce, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da izpolnjujejo merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, tj. kadar se izkaže, da pri proizvodni in prodaji podobnega izdelka veljajo pogoji tržnega gospodarstva.
firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited in line with International Accounting Standards (‘IAS’) and applied for all purposes,
družbe imajo en jasen sklop osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki se neodvisno pregledujejo v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi („MRS“) in se uporabljajo za vse namene,
The investigation established that the applicant did not meet the MET criterion referred to in the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) (criterion 1) of the basic Regulation as regards costs of major inputs.
Preiskava je pokazala, da vložnik ni izpolnjeval merila za TGO iz prve alinee člena 2(7)(c) (merilo 1) osnovne uredbe glede stroškov za glavne vložke.
The imposition of export taxes decreased the incentive to export and thereby increased the volumes available domestically, leading in turn to lower prices.
Uvedba izvoznih dajatev je vplivala na zmanjšanje izvoza, s tem pa se je povečal obseg, ki je ostal na voljo na domačem trgu, kar je povzročilo nižje cene.
It was also found that a number of subsidy schemes were available for Chinese steel producers [5], as well as publicly available accounts of a number of steel producers confirm that the Chinese State is actively supporting the development of the steel sector in the PRC.
Ugotovljeno pa je bilo tudi, da so bile kitajskim proizvajalcem jekla [5] na voljo številne subvencijske sheme, javno dostopni računovodski podatki številnih proizvajalcev jekla pa potrjujejo, da kitajska država dejavno podpira razvoj jeklarskega sektorja v LRK.
As a consequence, domestic steel prices in the PRC were during the review investigation period far below prices on other sizeable world markets, notably steel prices in North America and North Europe [6], and these price differences cannot be explained by any competitive advantage in the production of steel.
Posledično so bile domače cene jekla v LRK med obdobjem preiskave v zvezi s pregledom mnogo nižje od cen na drugih večjih svetovnih trgih, zlasti cen jekla v Severni Ameriki in severni Evropi [6], te cenovne razlike pa se ne dajo razložiti z nobeno konkurenčno prednostjo v proizvodnji jekla.
Moreover, from the information on the file, it was found that the applicant was benefiting from these artificially low and distorted prices of steel, as it purchased its raw materials on the domestic Chinese market.
Poleg tega je bilo na podlagi informacij v dokumentih ugotovljeno, da je vložnik, ki je svoje surovine kupoval na domačem kitajskem trgu, imel koristi od umetno nizkih in izkrivljenih cen jekla.
It was thus concluded that major inputs of Power Team do not substantially reflect market values.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da stroški večjih vlaganj družbe Power Team v glavnem ne odražajo tržne vrednosti.
Consequently, it was concluded that the applicant has not shown that it fulfils all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and, thus, could not be granted MET.
Posledično je bilo sklenjeno, da vložnik ni dokazal izpolnjevanja vseh meril iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zato mu ni bilo možno odobriti TGO.
The applicant, the exporting country and the Union industry were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.
Vlagatelju, državi izvoznici in industriji Unije je bila dana možnost predložiti pripombe k navedenim ugotovitvam.
Comments were received from the applicant and the Union industry.
Vložnik in industrija Unije sta predložila pripombe.
The applicant put forward three main arguments within the deadline.
Vložnik je pravočasno predstavil tri glavne argumente.
Firstly, it stated that Power Team's raw material prices were still in line with domestic prices and that this finding was sufficient to fulfil criterion 1 in the original investigation.
Prvič je navedel, da so bile cene surovin družbe Power Team še vedno usklajene z domačimi cenami ter da je bila ta ugotovitev v prvotni raziskavi zadostna za izpolnitev merila 1.
As a consequence, the company considered it a breach of Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation to compare the prices on the Chinese domestic market with prices on other international steel markets.
Posledično je družba menila, da je primerjava cen na kitajskem domačem trgu s cenami na drugih mednarodnih trgih jekla kršitev člena 11(9) osnovne uredbe.
In this context, the company also questioned the relevance of the North European and North American steel market prices to which a comparison was made.
V tej zvezi je družba trdila, da je primerjava cen s cenami severnoevropskega in severnoameriškega trga jekla neustrezna.
The applicant stated that there would be also prices of other international markets such as the Turkish export prices that were lower than the domestic prices in the PRC.
Vložnik je navedel, da obstajajo tudi cene drugih mednarodnih trgov, kot na primer turške izvozne cene, ki so nižje od domačih cen v LRK.
It is indeed true that the applicant fulfilled criterion 1 in the original investigation, but failed criterion 2.
Vlagatelj je v prvotni preiskavi dejansko izpolnil merilo 1, merila 2 pa ne.
It is however considered that there is no breach of Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation as there is no change in methodology to assess whether the company operates under market economy conditions and notably whether it still fulfils criterion 1.
Šteje pa se, da člen 11(9) osnovne uredbe ni kršen, saj metodologija za oceno, ali družba deluje v razmerah tržnega gospodarstva ter zlasti ali še vedno izpolnjuje merilo 1, ni bila spremenjena.
In both investigations, the original investigation and the review investigation, the question of raw materials reflecting market values was assessed.
V obeh preiskavah, prvotni preiskavi in preiskavi v zvezi s pregledom, je bilo ocenjeno, kako surovine odražajo tržne vrednosti.
In both investigations one of the indicators examined was domestic steel prices, but in the original investigation there were no other significant factors that appeared to influence raw material prices.
Eden od proučenih kazalnikov v obeh preiskavah so bile domače cene jekla, prvotna preiskava pa ni pokazala drugih pomembnejših dejavnikov, ki bi vplivali na cene surovin.
Thus, the methodology remained the same, only the findings were different.
Metodologija je tako ostala ista, ugotovitve pa so bile različne.
The review investigation revealed that after the original investigation period, i.e. since 2006, the circumstances have changed as several measures were imposed by the Chinese State to discourage exports of steel plate, pipes and wire by introducing an export tax and by eliminating the export VAT refund.
S preiskavo v zvezi s pregledom je bilo ugotovljeno, da so se razmere po obdobju prvotne preiskave, tj. od leta 2006, spremenile, saj je kitajska država z uveljavitvijo izvozne dajatve in ukinitvijo povračila izvoznega DDV uvedla številne ukrepe za preprečevanje izvoza jeklenih plošč, cevi in žic.
This, together with the aforementioned subsidy schemes, had a distorting effect on the Chinese domestic steel prices because the price difference found between those prices and the domestic prices published for North America and North Europe, increased significantly to around 30 %.
To skupaj s prej navedenimi subvencijskimi shemami izkrivlja kitajske domače cene jekla, saj se je ugotovljena cenovna razlika med navedenimi cenami in domačimi cenami, objavljenimi za Severno Ameriko in severno Evropo, znatno povečala na okrog 30 %.
This price difference has not been challenged by the applicant following the disclosure of the MET findings.
Vložnik po razkritju ugotovitev TGO ni spodbijal te cenovne razlike.
As regards the argument that the domestic North American and North European steel prices are not the only internationally relevant prices, it is noted that both steel markets were selected for a comparison of prices as both markets have a high consumption of steel and are competitive markets with several active producers.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da domače severnoameriške in severnoevropske cene jekla niso edine ustrezne cene, pa je treba opozoriti, da sta bila oba trga jekla izbrana za primerjavo cen, ker je poraba jekla na obeh trgih visoka in sta s številnimi dejavnimi proizvajalci konkurenčna trga.
It could thus reasonably be assumed that those domestic prices were representative for competitive market prices.
Tako se lahko upravičeno domneva, da so bile navedene domače cene reprezentativne za konkurenčne tržne cene.
Moreover, the claim that Turkish export prices would be lower than Chinese domestic prices was not further substantiated at this stage, i.e. no concrete prices were submitted within the deadline.
Poleg tega trditev, da bi bile turške izvozne cene nižje od kitajskih domačih cen, na tej stopnji ni bila nadalje utemeljena, tj. dejanske cene v roku niso bile predložene.
Furthermore, no explanation as to why Turkish export prices, given the apparent relative small size of the Turkish export market compared to the domestic North American and North European markets, should be considered as more relevant.
Nadalje ni bilo pojasnjeno, zakaj bi bile turške izvozne cene ustreznejše, glede na očitno relativno majhen turški izvozni trg v primerjavi z domačim severnoameriškim in severnoevropskim trgom.
The company secondly claimed that it was discriminated in the application of EU law, as in a number of recent other cases in which steel constituted a major input, there were some Chinese steel companies fulfilling criterion 1.
Družba je drugič trdila, da je bila pri uporabi prava EU diskriminirana, saj so nekatere kitajske jeklarske družbe v številnih drugih nedavnih primerih, pri katerih je jeklo predstavljalo večji vložek, izpolnile merilo 1.
These cases were all examined and it was found that none of the companies involved in those cases was granted MET as they all failed to satisfy at least one other criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Vsi ti primeri so bili proučeni in ugotovljeno je bilo, da nobeni od družb, vpletenih v navedene primere, ni bila odobrena TGO, saj niso izpolnile vsaj enega od drugih meril člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Thus, for reasons of administrative economy, it was not necessary to expand on criterion 1 in great detail when it was clear that the company would fail for another reason.
Zaradi upravne učinkovitosti zato ni bilo treba podrobneje obravnavati merila 1, kadar je bilo jasno, da družba ne bi izpolnila drugih pogojev.
In any event, in none of those recent cases had the Commission concluded that there were no distortions on the Chinese domestic steel market, but on the contrary, in recent cases, MET was denied whenever raw material distortions could be identified [7].
V nobenem od navedenih primerov Komisija ni sklenila, da ni izkrivljanj na kitajskem domačem trgu jekla, nasprotno, v nedavnih primerih TGO ni bila odobrena, kadar je bilo ugotovljeno izkrivljanje surovin [7].
Lastly, the applicant argued that an adjustment of the normal value would be more appropriate than denying MET.
Nenazadnje je vložnik trdil, da bi bila prilagoditev normalne vrednosti ustreznejša od neodobritve TGO.
However, an adjustment to the normal value appears inappropriate given that one of the criteria to be granted MET is that costs of major inputs have to reflect market values.
Prilagoditev normalne vrednosti pa se ne zdi ustrezna, saj eno od meril za odobritev TGO zahteva, da stroški večjih vlaganj odražajo tržno vrednost.