natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, it is not the case that the evidence presented with regard to each element of each subsidy programme has to be examined in isolation.
Vendar ne gre za to, da je treba dokaze, predložene v zvezi s posameznim elementom vsakega subvencijskega programa, preiskati ločeno.
For instance, evidence of the existence of specificity for one programme could be highly relevant for the determination of specificity with regard to another programme, inter alia, depending on how much information is publicly available on the programmes in question, as well as the extent to which the programmes are closely connected and depend upon the same legislation.
Dokazi o obstoju specifičnosti enega programa bi lahko bili na primer zelo pomembni za ugotavljanje specifičnosti v zvezi z drugim programom, kar je med drugim odvisno od tega, koliko informacij o zadevnih programih je javno dostopnih ter v kolikšnem obsegu so programi tesno povezani in temeljijo na isti zakonodaji.
The GOC argued that there must be evidence of the (above de minimis) amount of subsidy during the IP for each programme and that there must be sufficient evidence of current subsidization for each subsidy, not of "potential" or "likely" benefits.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da morajo obstajati dokazi o (nad stopnjo de minimis) znesku subvencije v OP za vsak program ter da morajo obstajati zadostni dokazi o sedanjem subvencioniranju za vsako subvencijo, in ne o „potencialnih“ ali „verjetnih“ ugodnostih.
On this point, the Commission does not agree with the GOC, since there is no requirement in the basic Regulation or WTO SCM Agreement to show that subsidies for a particular programme are above de minimis.
Na tej točki se Komisija ne strinja s kitajsko vlado, ker v osnovni uredbi ali Sporazumu o subvencijah in izravnalnih ukrepih Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (SIU STO) ni nobene zahteve za prikaz, da so subvencije za določen program nad stopnjo de minimis.
There is no dispute that a subsidy must confer a benefit during the IP in order to be countervailed and that the complainants should endeavour to produce such evidence.
Povsem nesporno je, da mora subvencija prinašati ugodnosti v OP, da se zanjo uvedejo izravnalni ukrepi, in da bi si pritožniki morali prizadevati za zagotovitev dokazov o tem.
However, Article 11.2 of ASCM requires "sufficient evidence" of subsidization on the basis of information "reasonably available" to the complainant.
Vendar člen 11.2 Sporazuma SIU zahteva „zadostne dokaze“ o subvencioniranju na podlagi informacij, ki so „v razumni meri“ na voljo pritožniku.
Since much information on subsidy benefits (e.g. tax exemptions, grants, provision of goods) is not publicly available, it is often impossible for complainants to establish with certainty that the subsidy has conferred a benefit to producers of the product concerned.
Ker veliko informacij o ugodnostih subvencij (npr. davčne oprostitve, nepovratna sredstva, zagotavljanje blaga) ni javno dostopnih, je pogosto nemogoče, da bi pritožniki z gotovostjo ugotovili, ali je subvencija proizvajalcem zadevnega izdelka prinesla ugodnosti.
In such situations, the complainant is required to provide the best available evidence showing that, for example, producers of the product concerned are eligible for the subsidy and that the programme is still in force or providing benefits.
V takih primerih mora pritožnik zagotoviti najboljše razpoložljive dokaze, ki na primer pokažejo, da so proizvajalci zadevnega izdelka upravičeni do subvencije in da je program še vedno veljaven ali zagotavlja ugodnosti.
The level of evidence required will depend on the facts of the case in question and on how much information is reasonably available to the complainant.
Vrsta zahtevanih dokazov bo odvisna od dejstev zadevnega primera in tega, koliko informacij je v razumni meri na voljo pritožniku.
The GOC claimed that the Notice of Initiation is in violation of Article 22.2 (iii) of the ASCM, arguing that it cannot be considered that the simple repetition of the names assigned to the various programs constitutes a "description" thereof.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da obvestilo o začetku krši člen 22.2 (iii) Sporazuma SIU, kar je utemeljila s tem, da preprostega ponavljanja imen, dodeljenih različnim programom, ni mogoče šteti za sestavne dele „opisa“ zadevnega obvestila.
The Commission considers that subsidy practices to be investigated have been adequately described in the Notice of Initiation by specifying the schemes concerned and therefore the Notice does not violate Article 22.2(iii) of ASCM.
Komisija meni, da je bil opis subvencijskih praks, ki jih je treba preiskati, z navedbo zadevnih shem v obvestilu o začetku ustrezen, zato obvestilo ne krši člena 22.2 (iii) Sporazuma SIU.
The GOC argued that the Commission has wrongly initiated on a number of subsidy programmes because it has looked at the complaint "holistically" or "in its totality" rather than examining each programme;
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da je Komisija neupravičeno začela številne subvencijske programe, ker je na pritožbo gledala „holistično“ ali „v celoti“, namesto da bi pregledala vsak program;
GOC also stated that the findings of other investigating authorities on various programmes are not by themselves sufficient evidence for initiation.
kitajska vlada je tudi izjavila, da ugotovitve drugih preiskovalnih organov glede različnih programov same po sebi niso zadosten dokaz za začetek.
As explained above (recital (400), the Commission services have examined each programme. The extent, to which findings of other authorities on a particular programme can constitute sufficient evidence for initiation, is a case by case issue and depends to some extent on what other information is reasonably available to the complainant.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj (uvodna izjava (400), so službe Komisije pregledale vsak program. V kolikšnem obsegu lahko ugotovitve drugih organov glede določenega programa pomenijo zadosten dokaz za začetek, je odvisno od primera do primera, in delno temelji na tem, katere druge informacije so v razumni meri na voljo pritožniku.
The GOC (quoting a US submission in the GOES case [92]) claimed that the "encouraged" status of OCS producers in government planning documents may have been used in "blanket fashion" to show specificity.
Kitajska vlada (s citiranjem predložitve ZDA v primeru GOES [92]) je trdila, da bi se lahko „spodbujan“ položaj proizvajalcev jeklenih izdelkov, prevlečenih z organskimi premazi, uporabil kot „popoln način“ za prikaz specifičnosti.
This does not represent reality.
To ne predstavlja dejanskega stanja.
The legislation classifying OCS producers as "encouraged" [93] (and the consequences which flow from this) is not (as GOC submits) "general information about government policy, with no direct connection to the programme at issue".
Zakonodaja, ki proizvajalce jeklenih izdelkov, prevlečenih z organskimi premazi, uvršča med „spodbujane“ [93] (in posledice tega), ne pomeni (kot je predložila kitajska vlada) „splošnih informacij o vladni politiki brez vsake neposredne povezave z zadevnim programom“.
Given that it explicitly limits access to programmes to certain enterprises (or gives preferential benefits), such legislation obviously has a very direct connection to the programme in question.
Ker taka zakonodaja izrecno omejuje dostop do programov nekaterim družbam (ali daje preferenčne ugodnosti), je jasno, da je zelo neposredno povezana z zadevnim programom.
However, for the purposes of initiation, evidence of use of a programme in a reasonably recent period can be highly relevant, for instance if there is no publicly available information that the programme has been terminated or modified.
Vendar so lahko za namene začetka dokazi o uporabi programa v razumno nedavnem obdobju zelo pomembni, če na primer ni javno dostopnih informacij, da je bil program prekinjen ali spremenjen.
The reference of the GOES panel [94] by GOC (to Paragraph 7.72 of the panel report) is inconclusive, because this refers to situations where it is "clear" that there is no present subsidization, which is not the case here.
Sklicevanje kitajske vlade na odbor GOES [94] (v odstavku 7.72 poročila odbora) ni prepričljivo, ker se to nanaša na okoliščine, ko je „jasno“, da v sedanjem obdobju ni subvencioniranja, kar pa tukaj ne drži.
The GOC claimed that there must be evidence that some producers of the product concerned have actually received a benefit from a programme, in order for initiation to take place.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da morajo obstajati dokazi, da so nekateri proizvajalci zadevnega izdelka dejansko prejeli ugodnost iz programa, preden se izvede začetek.
There is no requirement in the basic Regulation nor it is a requirement of Article 11.2 of the ASCM, which requires "sufficient evidence of the existence of a subsidy…", or explicit evidence of actual utilisation by certain producers.
V osnovni uredbi ali členu 11.2 Sporazuma SIU ni nobene zahteve za „zadostne dokaze o obstoju subvencije …“ ali za izrecne dokaze o dejanskem koriščenju določenih proizvajalcev.
Imposing such a requirement on complainants would effectively favour non-transparent systems over more transparent ones granting the same type of subsidy.
Določitev take zahteve za pritožnike bi učinkovala tako, da bi spodbujala nepregledne sisteme na račun preglednejših sistemov, pri čemer bi se dodelila enaka vrsta subvencije.
The GOC argued that the Commission did not provide a "reasonable period" for the GOC to submit the necessary information under Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da ji Komisija ni zagotovila „razumnega obdobja“ za predložitev potrebnih informacij v skladu s členom 12.7 Sporazuma SIU.
The GOC also claimed that the Commission did not grant to the GOC "ample opportunity" to present in writing all relevant evidence concerning the investigation in accordance with Article 12.1 of the SCM Agreement.
Kitajska vlada je tudi trdila, da ji Komisija ni dala „zadostne možnosti“, da v pisni obliki predstavi vse ustrezne dokaze, ki zadevajo preiskavo v skladu s členom 12.1 Sporazuma SIU.
These arguments must be rejected as the Commission granted a reasonable period and ample opportunity for the GOC to submit the relevant information in accordance with the relevant provisions of the WTO and of the basic Regulation.
Ti argumenti se zavrnejo, saj je Komisija kitajski vladi zagotovila razumno obdobje in zadostno možnost, da predloži ustrezne informacije v skladu z ustreznimi določbami STO in osnovne uredbe.
The Commission notes that it granted exceptionally generous extensions to the deadline for the original questionnaire reply, bringing the total period for the reply from 37 days to almost 2 months.
Komisija poudarja, da je izjemno velikodušno podaljšala rok za izpolnitev prvotnega vprašalnika, pri čemer je skupno obdobje za odgovor s 37 dni podaljšala na skoraj 2 meseca.
Considering also the deficiency process, the GOC had more than 3 months since the initiation to provide the requested information.
Če se upošteva tudi postopek dopolnitve, je kitajska vlada od začetka imela več kot 3 mesece časa, da zagotovi zahtevane informacije.
The GOC was also offered the opportunity to provide missing information until the time of the verification visit.
Kitajski vladi je bila tudi ponujena možnost, da do preveritvenega obiska zagotovi manjkajoče informacije.
The Commission also notes that 'reasonable period' must be seen in the procedural context whereby the Commission is mandated by the basic anti-subsidy Regulation to conclude the investigation within a period of 13 months.
Komisija tudi pojasnjuje, da je treba „razumno obdobje“ razumeti v proceduralnem okviru, pri čemer osnovna protisubvencijska uredba Komisiji predpisuje, da preiskavo zaključi v obdobju 13 mesecev.
Granting even longer deadlines as requested by the GOC would inevitably have negatively affected the possibility for the Commission to proceed expeditiously in order to comply with the relevant legal deadlines.
Odobritev še daljših rokov, kot je želela kitajska vlada, bi vsekakor negativno vplivala na možnost, da Komisija kar najhitreje in v skladu z ustreznimi pravnimi roki nadaljuje delo.
The GOC also referred to its request for assistance to the Commission in preparing the questionnaire reply, which in the GOC view was denied by the Commission.
Po mnenju kitajske vlade je Komisija njeno prošnjo za pomoč Komisije pri izpolnjevanju vprašalnika, zavrnila.
This does not correspond to reality because the GOC request for assistance was so broad and open-ended (i.e. it covered each question in the questionnaire and the appendices) that the Commission was only able to offer the GOC assistance with respect to the specific problems the GOC was encountering in the replies, rather than the individual questions.
To ni v skladu z realnostjo, saj je bila prošnja kitajske vlade za pomoč tako splošna in nedoločena (tj. zajemala je vsako vprašanje iz vprašalnika in prilog), da je Komisija kitajski vladi lahko ponudila le pomoč v zvezi z določenimi težavami, s katerimi se je srečala pri odgovorih, in ne za posamezna vprašanja.
The GOC decided not to take up this offer for assistance further.
Kitajska vlada se je odločila, da te ponudbe pomoči ne bo sprejela.
The Commission also notes that Article 12.11 ASCM states that the assistance requested must be "practicable", which is not the case with respect to broad, open-ended requests imposing an impossibly high burden on the investigating authority, particular when the questionnaire is self-explanatory.
Komisija tudi poudarja, da člen 12.11 Sporazuma SIU navaja, da mora biti pomoč, za katero se zaprosi, „izvedljiva“, kar ne velja za splošne in nedoločene prošnje, ki pomenijo preveliko breme za preiskovalni organ, zlasti kadar je vprašalnik dovolj razumljiv.
The Commission notes that the GOC is highly experienced in anti-subsidy investigation and uses the services of outside lawyers.
Komisija poudarja, da je kitajska vlada zelo izkušena v zvezi s protisubvencijskimi raziskavami in uporablja storitve zunanjih odvetnikov.
With respect to the subsidy programmes contained in the complaint that were not used by the sample exporters, the GOC argued that it would be unable to provide the requested information on all these programmes in the time allotted by the Commission because of the fragmentation of the steel industry.
Kitajska vlada je v zvezi s subvencijskimi programi, ki jih vsebuje pritožba in jih niso uporabili vzorčeni izvozniki, trdila, da zaradi razdrobljenosti industrije jekla ne bi mogla zagotoviti zahtevanih informacij za vse te programe v času, ki ga je določila Komisija.
The GOC also claimed that it did not understand from the Commission until late in the proceeding the potential consequences from the failure to provide the requested information on these programmes given that they concerned non-sampled companies.
Kitajska vlada je tudi trdila, da je šele proti koncu postopka razumela Komisijo glede potencialnih posledic nezmožnosti zagotoviti zahtevane informacije o teh programih, če so zadevale nevzorčene družbe.
The Commission at the outset notes an inconsistency in the position of the GOC, as its claim that it did not have sufficient time to provide replies in the time allotted appears to conflict with its deliberate choice of not replying to all the programmes not used by the sampled exporters because it allegedly did not understand the purpose of the Commission's request and the consequences for the refusal to provide the requested information.
Komisija že na začetku opaža neskladnost v stališču kitajske vlade, ki trdi, da ni imela dovolj časa za zagotovitev odgovorov do določenega roka, kar se zdi v nasprotju z njeno namerno odločitvijo, da ne bo predložila odgovorov za vse programe, ki jih ne uporabljajo vzorčeni izvozniki, ker domnevno ni razumela namena zahteve Komisije in posledic, če se zagotovitev zahtevanih informacij zavrne.
In any event, as specified above (recital (407)) the Commission granted several deadline extensions to the GOC in order to enable it to submit the requested information concerning on all of the programmes.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj (uvodna izjava (407)) je Komisija kitajski vladi vseeno večkrat odobrila podaljšanje roka, da bi ta imela možnost predložiti zahtevane informacije o vseh programih.
Therefore the total time allotted (i.e. more than 3 months considering the deficiency process) was more than sufficient to provide the requested information.
Torej je bilo skupno določenega časa (tj. več kot 3 mesece ob upoštevanju postopka dopolnitve) več kot dovolj za zagotovitev zahtevanih informacij.
The GOC itself explicitly acknowledges in its comments that it is true that it took this position that it should not have been required to submit the information on these other programmes, and this is also shown by the fact that it did not even try to submit a partial or incomplete reply to show its willingness to cooperate but simply did not submit any information at all in this respect.
Kitajska vlada v svojih pripombah izrecno priznava svoje stališče, da se od nje ne bi smela zahtevati preložitev informacij o teh drugih programih, kar potrjuje tudi dejstvo, da ni poskušala predložiti niti delnega ali nepopolnega odgovora ter s tem pokazati pripravljenost na sodelovanje, temveč preprosto ni predložila nobenih informacij v zvezi s tem.
The Commission also cannot accept the GOC argument that it did not understand the consequences for failure to provide the requested information on the programmes not used by the sampled exporters.
Komisija prav tako ne more sprejeti trditve kitajske vlade, da ni razumela posledic, če se zahtevane informacije o programih, ki jih ne uporabljajo vzorčeni izvozniki, ne zagotovijo.
As a matter of fact, the Commission clarified these consequences in several instances since the beginning of the proceeding.
V bistvu je Komisija te posledice večkrat pojasnila, odkar se je začel postopek.
More specifically, the consequences for non-cooperation are explicitly indicated with reference to the relevant provisions of the basic Regulation in the Notice of Initiation and in the cover page of the questionnaire.
Natančneje, posledice nesodelovanja so izrecno navedene v obvestilu o začetku in na naslovnici vprašalnika s sklicevanjem na ustrezne določbe osnovne uredbe.
Fundamentally, the GOC appears to have ignored that, as the grantor of the alleged subsidy schemes, it was required to cooperate and provide information with respect to all subsidy schemes alleged to be available for the product under investigation.
Zdi se, da je kitajska vlada v bistvu prezrla zahtevo, da mora kot koncedent domnevnih subvencijskih shem sodelovati in zagotoviti informacije o vseh subvencijskih shemah, ki so domnevno na voljo za izdelek, ki je predmet preiskave.
The GOC also made a number of arguments with regard to the verification process and the verification visit itself.
Kitajska vlada je prav tako predložila več argumentov glede preveritvenega postopka in samega preveritvenega obiska.
The GOC objected that from the Commission's pre-verification letter it could not discern the extent of the verification of the relevant information and complains about an alleged refusal by the Commission to provide a more specific outline for the verification.
Kitajska vlada je ugovarjala, da iz predpreveritvenega pisma Komisije ni mogla razbrati obsega preveritve ustreznih informacij, in se pritožuje nad domnevno zavrnitvijo Komisije, da zagotovi natančnejšo zasnovo za preveritev.
The GOC added that it was entitled at a minimum to some "narrowing down" of the possible scope of the verification (e.g. by means of an advance written list of all questions that the Commission officials would ask) [95] which in the GOC view could not have been exhaustive given short duration of the visit.
Kitajska vlada je dodala, da je imela pravico do vsaj delnega „zožanja“ mogočega obsega preveritve (npr. z vnaprej napisanim seznamom vseh vprašanj, ki jih bodo postavili uradniki Komisije) [95], za katero je menila, da ne more biti izčrpna glede na kratkotrajnost obiska.
With respect to this latter argument, the Commission rejects the GOC argument as there is no legal basis in either the WTO ASCM or the EU basic anti-subsidy Regulation granting a purported right to this narrowing-down of the scope of the visit.
Komisija ta zadnji argument kitajske vlade zavrača, ker niti v Sporazumu SIU STO niti v osnovni protisubvencijski zakonodaji EU ni pravne podlage, ki bi omogočala domnevno pravico do take zožitve obsega obiska.
Nor is there any ruling by the WTO even suggesting that such an entitlement would have to be interpreted as to exist.
Prav tako se nobena odločitev s strani STO ne more niti približno interpretirati, kot da navaja možnost obstoja take upravičenosti.
With regard to the other GOC arguments, the Commission notes that it sent a detailed pre-verification letter on 7 June 2012 clearly indicating (i) a proposed schedule previously agreed informally with the GOC, (ii) the purpose of the verification visit, (iii) the scope, content and object of the visit, and (iv) the possible resort to facts available for the programmes not used by the sampled exporters (see above).
V zvezi z drugimi argumenti kitajske vlade Komisija ugotavlja, da je 7. junija 2012 poslala podrobno predpreveritveno pismo, v katerem je jasno navedla (i) predlagan urnik, o katerem je bilo pred tem sprejeto neuradno soglasje s kitajsko vlado; (ii) namen preveritvenega obiska;
In order to limit the need for the presence of the relevant GOC officials, it also indicated on which day each programme would be addressed.
obseg, vsebino in predmet obiska in (iv) možnost uporabe razpoložljivih dejstev za programe, ki jih ne uporabljajo vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki (glej zgoraj).
The Commission went even further than that in order to accommodate the requests for further details on the verification visits by the GOC in the spirit of full cooperation, as it met the representatives of the GOC at a very short notice to provide the requested clarifications on the details of the verification visits.
Da bi zmanjšala potrebo po navzočnosti ustreznih uradnikov kitajske vlade, je tudi navedla datume za obravnavo posameznega programa. Komisija si je v duhu polnega sodelovanja še bolj prizadevala, da bi upoštevala zahteve kitajske vlade po podrobnejših informacijah o preveritvenih obiskih, saj se je v zelo kratkem času srečala s predstavniki kitajske vlade, da bi zagotovila zahtevana pojasnila o podrobnostih preveritvenih obiskov.
The Commission then followed-up in writing to this meeting by answering further requests for clarifications by the GOC in a number of emails exchanged with the GOC.
Komisija je po tem srečanju pisno odgovorila na dodatne zahteve kitajske vlade po pojasnilih in si je s kitajsko vlado izmenjala veliko elektronskih sporočil.
Therefore the Commission did everything it possibly could to ensure a successful verification visit, but nevertheless the GOC seems to have ignored all these efforts.
Komisija je torej storila vse, kar je bilo v njeni moči, da bi zagotovila uspešen preveritveni obisk, vendar se zdi, da je kitajska vlada vsa ta prizadevanja kljub temu prezrla.
Provision of HRS and CRS for less than adequate remuneration
Zagotavljanje vroče in hladno valjanega jekla (VVJ in HVJ) za manj kot ustrezno nadomestilo
GOC claimed that the Commission should have made a "threshold" determination of the existence f a public body before requesting transaction-specific information in Appendix B to the GOC questionnaire.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da bi morala Komisija sprejeti odločitev o pragu glede obstoja javnega organa, preden je v Prilogi B vprašalnika za kitajsko vlado zahtevala informacije, specifične za posamezen posel.
This claim could not be accepted as it would be impractical to separate the investigation into two stages in this way, as the Commission would have to make two separate requests for information and carry out two separate verification visits to China.
Te trditve ni bilo mogoče sprejeti, ker bi bila razdelitev preiskave na dva dela na ta način nepraktična, saj bi tako morala Komisija predložiti dve ločeni zahtevi po informacijah in opraviti dva ločena preveritvena obiska Kitajske.