natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The applicant claims that authorised use of flusilazole on tea in Indonesia leads to residues exceeding the MRL in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and that a higher MRL is necessaryto avoid trade barriers for the importation of tea.
Vlagatelj trdi, da je zaradi odobrene uporabe flusilazola na čaju v Indoneziji vrednost ostankov višja kot MRL iz Uredbe (ES) št. 396/2005 ter da je višja MRL nujna, da se preprečijo trgovinske ovire pri uvozu čaja.
As regards imazapic, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for sugar cane from Central and South America (Costa Rica, Brazil, Guatemala).
Za imazapik je bila vložena vloga za povišanje trenutnih MRL za sladkorni trs iz Srednje in Južne Amerike (Kostarika, Brazilija, Gvatemala).
As regards fluopyram, such an application was made to raise the current MRLs for citrus, tree nuts, apple, stone fruits, strawberries, cane fruit, blueberries, bananas, potato, radish, garlic, onions, shallots, peppers, aubergines, okra, sweet corn, scarole, herbs, legume vegetables, pulses, oilseeds, cereals, hops, spices, and sugar beet from the United States.
Za fluopiram je bila vložena vloga za zvišanje trenutnih MRL za citruse, lupinarje, jabolka, koščičasto sadje, jagode, rozgato sadje, borovnice, banane, krompir, redkev, česen, čebulo, šalotko, papriko, jajčevce, bamijo, sladko koruzo, endivijo, zelišča, stročnice, sušene stročnice, seme oljnic, žita, hmelj, začimbe in sladkorno peso iz Združenih držav Amerike.
As regards malathion, such an application was made to raise the current MRL for camomille from Egypt.
Za malation je bila vložena vloga za zvišanje trenutnih MRL za kamilico iz Egipta.
In accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these applications were evaluated by the Member States concerned and the evaluation reports were forwarded to the Commission.
V skladu s členom 8 Uredbe (ES) št. 396/2005 so zadevne države članice ocenile te vloge in Komisiji poslale poročila o oceni.
The European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter "the Authority", assessed the applications and the evaluation reports, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave reasoned opinions on the proposed MRLs [2].
(7) Evropska agencija za varnost hrane (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Agencija) je preučila vloge in poročila o ocenah, zlasti glede tveganj za potrošnike in po potrebi za živali, ter predložila utemeljena mnenja o predlaganih MRL [2].
The Authority concluded in its reasoned opinions that, as regards use of bentazone on peas with and without pods, the MRLs were already fixed at the levels corresponding to the intended authorised uses.
Agencija je v svojih utemeljenih mnenjih sklenila, da so za uporabo bentazona na grahu v stroku in brez stroka MRL že določene na ravneh, ki ustrezajo nameravanim odobrenim uporabam.
As regards beans and lentils, the Authority proposed lower MRLs based on the assumption, that the current MRLs were no longer needed.
Za fižol in lečo je Agencija predlagala znižanje MRL na podlagi predvidevanja, da trenutne MRL niso več potrebne.
In the absence of information confirming that assumption the MRLs should be kept unmodified.
V odsotnosti informacij, ki bi potrdile navedeno predvidevanje, je treba MRL ohraniti nespremenjene.
As regards fluopyram, with the exception of tree nuts, pome fruit, cherries, strawberries, potato, onions, pulses, peanuts, rape seed, soya bean, maize, rye, sorghum, wheat and sugar beet, no evidence was submitted about the authorisation in the United States for the crops for which import tolerance were requested.
Z izjemo lupinarjev, pečkatega sadja, češenj, jagod, krompirja, čebule, sušenih stročnic, zemeljskih oreškov, semen oljne ogrščice, soje, koruze, rži, sirka, pšenice in sladkorne pese za fluopiram niso bili predloženi nobeni dokazi glede odobritve v ZDA za kmetijske rastline, za katere se je zahtevala uvozna toleranca.
Therefore the requirements set out in Article 14 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 were not fulfilled.
Zato zahteve iz člena 14(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 396/2005 niso bile izpolnjene.
As regards flusilazole the Authority concluded that, as regards use on tea the data were not adequate to support the MRL requested.
Agencija je sklenila, da podatki o uporabi flusilazola na čaju niso ustrezno podprli zahtevanih MRL.
As regards spinosad the Authority concluded that, as regards use on blackberries and raspberries the data were not adequate to support the MRLs requested.
Agencija je sklenila, da podatki o uporabi spinosada na borovnicah in malinah niso ustrezno podprli zahtevanih MRL.
EFSA scientific reports available on http://www.efsa.europa.eu:Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Modification of the existing MRLs for amidosulfuron in bovine fat, kidney, liver and milk.
Znanstvena poročila EFSA so na voljo na naslovu http://www.efsa.europa.eu:Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Spremembe obstoječih MRL za amidosulfuron v goveji maščobi, ledvicah, jetrih in mleku.
European Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(7):2325 [34 pp.].
Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(7):2325 [34 str.].
Published: 20 July 2011.Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Modification of the existing MRLs for azoxystrobin in various oilseedsEuropean Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(6):2283 [23 pp.].
Objavljeno: 20. julija 2011.Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Spremembe obstoječih MRL za azoksistrobin v različnih semenih oljnic.Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(6):2283 [23 str.].
Published: 29 June 2011.Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Modification of the existing MRLs for bentazone in legume vegetables and fresh herbs.
Objavljeno: 29. junija 2011.Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Spremembe obstoječih MRL za bentazon v stročnicah in svežih zeliščih.
European Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(5):2188 [29 pp.].
Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(5):2188 [29 str.].
Published: 26 May 2011.Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Setting of MRLs for bixafen in oil seed rape, linseed, mustard seed and poppy seed.
Objavljeno: 26. maja 2011.Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Določitev MRL za biksafen v semenu oljne ogrščice, lanenem semenu in makovem semenu.
European Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(7):2286 [31 pp.].
Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(7):2286 [31 str.].
Published: 5 July 2011.Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Modification of the existing MRL for cyproconazole in rape seed.
Objavljeno: 5. julija 2011.Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Spremembe obstoječih MRL za ciprokonazol v semenu oljne ogrščice.
European Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(5):2187 [30 pp.].
Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(5):2187 [30 str.].
Published: 26 May 2011.Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Setting of new MRLs and import tolerances for fluopyram in various cropsEuropean Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(9):2388 [68 pp.].
Objavljeno: 26. maja 2011.Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Določitev novih MRL in uvoznih toleranc za fluopiram v raznih kmetijskih rastlinah.Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(9):2388 [68 str.].
Published: 22 September 2011.Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Modification of the existing MRL for flusilazole in tea.
Objavljeno: 22. septembra 2011.Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Spremembe obstoječe MRL za flusilazol na čaju.
European Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(5):2195 [21 pp.].
Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(5):2195 [21 str.].
Published: 30 May 2011.Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Setting of a new MRL for imazapic in sugar cane.
Objavljeno: 30. maja 2011.Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Določitev nove MRL za imazapik v sladkornem trsu.
European Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(7):2295 [25 pp.].
Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(7):2295 [25 str.].
Published: 5 July 2011.Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Modification of the existing MRL for malathion in camomile.European Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(5):2194 [56 pp.].
Objavljeno: 5. julija 2011.Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Spremembe obstoječe MRL za malation na kamilici.Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(5):2194 [56 str.].
Published: 8 June 2011.Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Modification of the existing MRLs for spinosad in various crops.European Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(9):2352 [30 pp.].
Objavljeno: 8. junija 2011.Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Spremembe obstoječih MRL za spinosad v raznih kmetijskih rastlinah.Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(9):2352 [30 str.].
Published: 5 September 2011.
Objavljeno: 5. septembra 2011.
In Annex II, the columns for azoxystrobin, bentazone and and propiconazole are replaced by the following:
v Prilogi II se stolpci za azoksistrobin, bentazon in propikonazol nadomestijo z naslednjim:
Bentazone - code 1000000
Bentazon - oznaka 1000000
Bentazone’
bentazon“
The columns for amidosulfuron, bixafen, cyproconazole, malathion and spinosad are replaced by the following:
stolpci za amidosulfuron, biksafen, ciprokonazol, malation in spinosad se nadomestijo z naslednjim:
Amidosulfuron - code 1000000
Amidosulfuron - oznaka 1000000
sum of amidosulfuron and AEF101630, expressed as amidosulfuron
vsota amidosulfurona in AEF101630, izražena kot amidosulfuron
Bixafen- code 1000000
Biksafen - oznaka 1000000
sum of bixafen and desmethyl bixafen expressed as bixafen’
vsota biksafena in desmetil biksafena, izražena kot biksafen“
Malathion (sum of malathion and malaoxon expressed as malathion)
Malation (vsota malationa in malaoksona, izražena kot malation)
Spinosad: sum of spinosyn A and spinosyn D, expressed as spinosad (F)
Spinosad: vsota spinosina A in spinosina D, izražena kot spinosad (F)
The following columns for fluopyram and imazapic are added:
Za fluopiram in imazapik se dodata naslednja stolpca:
Fluopyram - code 1000000
Fluopiram - oznaka 1000000
sum fluopyram and fluopyram-benzamide (M25) expressed as fluopyram
vsota fluopirama in fluopiram-benzamida (M25), izražena kot fluopiram
(+) valid until end 2013 unless replaced by a Regulation
(+) velja do kona leta 2013, če se ne nadomesti z Uredbo.
Fennel’
Koromač“
In Part B the columns for azoxystrobin and bentazone are replaced by the following:
v delu B se stolpca za azoksistrobin in bentazon nadomestita z naslednjim:
As regards malathion on camomille, the Authority proposed two MRLs, one based on the data concerning residues since 2007 and a second one taking into account a possible change of the agricultural practice after 2007 in Egypt.
Za malation na kamilici je Agencija predlagala dve MRL, in sicer eno, ki temelji na podatkih o ostankih od leta 2007, ter drugo, ki upošteva morebitno spremembo kmetijske prakse v Egiptu po letu 2007.
Since there is no evidence of such a change it is appropriate to take the first proposal of the Authority.
Ker ni dokazov o taki spremembi, je primerno upoštevati prvi predlog Agencije.
Published: 30 May 2011.
Objavljeno: 30. maja 2011.
Reasoned opinion of EFSA: Modification of the existing MRL for propiconazole in rice.European Food Safety Authority EFSA Journal 2011; 9(6):2218 [30 pp.].
Utemeljeno mnenje EFSA: Spremembe obstoječe MRL za propikonazol v rižu.Evropska agencija za varnost hrane, EFSA Journal 2011: 9(6):2218 [30 str.].
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 271/2012
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 271/2012
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 272/2012
Delegirana uredba Komisije (EU) št. 272/2012
supplementing Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to fees charged by the European Securities and Markets Authority to credit rating agencies
o dopolnitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1060/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta v zvezi s pristojbinami in taksami, ki jih Evropski organ za vrednostne papirje in trge zaračunava bonitetnim agencijam
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies [1], and in particular Article 19(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1060/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. septembra 2009 o bonitetnih agencijah [1] ter zlasti člena 19(2) Uredbe,
Article 62 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) [2] provides that the revenues of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) should also consist of fees paid to ESMA in cases specified in Union legislation alongside contributions from national public authorities and a subsidy from the Union.
Člen 62 Uredbe (EU) št. 1095/2010 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 24. novembra 2010 o ustanovitvi Evropskega nadzornega organa (Evropski organ za vrednostne papirje in trge) [2] določa, da prihodki Evropskega organa za vrednostne papirje in trge (ESMA) poleg prispevkov nacionalnih javnih organov in subvencije Unije zajemajo tudi pristojbine, plačane ESMA v primerih, določenih v zakonodaji Unije.
To ensure an efficient use of ESMA’s budget and, at the same time, alleviate the financial burden for Member States and the Union, it is necessary to ensure that credit rating agencies pay at least all the costs related to their supervision.
Za zagotovitev učinkovite uporabe proračuna ESMA ter hkrati za zmanjšanje finančne obremenitve za države članice in Unijo je treba zagotoviti, da bonitetne agencije plačajo vsaj vse stroške v zvezi z njihovim nadzorom.
Any deficit that may occur during 1 financial year should be recovered from credit rating agencies in the following year.
Vsak primanjkljaj v posameznem finančnem letu morajo bonitetne agencije kriti v naslednjem letu.
An annual supervisory fee should be charged to credit rating agencies exceeding a certain threshold of turnover in order to provide for budgetary certainty for both ESMA and the credit rating agencies concerned.
Bonitetnim agencijam, katerih promet je presegel določen prag, je treba zaračunati letno takso za nadzor, da se ESMA in zadevnim bonitetnim agencijam zagotovi proračunska gotovost.
Annual supervisory fees should not become a burden for new entrants to the credit rating market.
Letne takse za nadzor ne smejo biti breme za nove bonitetne agencije, ki vstopajo na trg bonitetnega ocenjevanja.
Moreover, small credit rating agencies are expected to engender significantly less supervisory costs than larger ones.
Poleg tega se pričakuje, da bodo stroški nadzora malih bonitetnih agencij bistveno nižji od stroškov nadzora večjih bonitetnih agencij.
It would be therefore proportionate to fully exempt small credit rating agencies from paying the annual supervisory fee where the credit rating agency or the group of credit rating agencies to which it belong do not exceed a certain threshold of turnover.
Zato bi bilo sorazmerno, da so male bonitetne agencije v celoti oproščene plačila letnih taks za nadzor, kadar promet bonitetne agencije ali skupine bonitetnih agencij, v katero ta spada, ne presega določenega praga.
In order to ensure a fair and clear allocation of fees which, at the same time, reflects the actual administrative burden per supervised entity, the supervisory fee should be calculated according to the credit rating agencies’ turnover, generated from rating activities and ancillary services, since the cost of supervision is higher for larger credit rating agencies than for smaller ones.
Za zagotovitev pravične in jasne razporeditve taks, ki hkrati izraža dejansko upravno obremenitev po posameznih nadziranih subjektih, je treba takso za nadzor izračunati na podlagi prometa bonitetnih agencij iz naslova dejavnosti bonitetnega ocenjevanja in pomožnih storitev, saj so stroški nadzora večjih bonitetnih agencij višji od stroškov nadzora malih bonitetnih agencij.
Moreover, the provision of ancillary services requires additional supervisory effort as possible conflicts of interests resulting from the provision of ancillary services need monitoring.
Poleg tega je v primeru opravljanja pomožnih storitev potrebno dodatno nadzorno delo, ker je treba spremljati možna nasprotja interesov zaradi opravljanja pomožnih storitev.
Credit rating agencies should not circumvent the fair allocation of fees according to this Regulation by reallocating revenue to other entities within their group in order to reduce their fee contributions.
Bonitetne agencije se ne smejo izogibati pravični razporeditvi taks v skladu s to uredbo s prerazporeditvijo prihodkov drugim subjektom znotraj svoje skupine, da bi tako zmanjšale svoje prispevke.
ESMA should monitor and report any critical developments in this respect.
ESMA mora spremljati vse pomembne dogodke v zvezi s tem in o njih poročati.
A registration fee should be charged to credit rating agencies established in the Union to reflect ESMA’s costs for processing the application for registration.
Bonitetnim agencijam s sedežem v Uniji je treba zaračunati pristojbino za registracijo, ki zajema stroške ESMA za obdelavo vloge za registracijo.
The complexity of an application and costs associated to assessing the application increase where a credit rating agency applies for issuing ratings for structured finance instruments or plans to endorse ratings from third country agencies or has branches.
Zapletenost vloge in stroški, povezani z ocenjevanjem vloge, se povečajo, kadar bonitetna agencija predloži vlogo za izdajo ratingov za strukturirane finančne instrumente ali namerava odobravati bonitetne ocene agencij iz tretjih držav ali ima podružnice.
Therefore the registration fee should be calculated according to those factors.
Zato je treba pristojbino za registracijo izračunati na podlagi navedenih dejavnikov.
The processing costs also depend to a large extent on the size of the applicant credit rating agency.
Stroški obdelave so v veliki meri odvisni tudi od velikosti bonitetne agencije, ki predloži vlogo.
As the future turnover of a new credit rating agency would not be known at the moment of its application for registration, the number of employees should replace turnover as a common basis for calculation of all credit rating agencies.
Ker v času, ko nova bonitetna agencija predloži vlogo za registracijo, njen prihodnji promet ni znan, je treba kot skupno podlago pri izračunu za vse bonitetne agencije namesto prometa uporabiti število zaposlenih.
This Regulation should provide for fees to be charged to third country credit rating agencies that apply for certification in the Union according to Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 in order to cover their certification and annual supervisory costs.
Ta uredba mora omogočati, da se bonitetnim agencijam iz tretjih držav, ki v skladu s členom 5(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1060/2009 v Uniji predložijo vlogo za certificiranje, zaračunajo pristojbine in takse, da se krijejo stroški njihovega certificiranja in letni stroški nadzora.
In this regard, ESMA’s necessary expenditure relates to the certification of such third country credit rating agencies according to Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 which follows a similar procedure as the one applicable to the registration of credit rating agencies established in the Union, as well as ESMA’s expenditure necessary for the supervision of certified credit rating agencies.
V zvezi s tem so stroški ESMA povezani s certificiranjem takšne bonitetne agencije iz tretje države v skladu s členom 5(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1060/2009, ki se izvaja po podobnem postopku kot registracija bonitetnih agencij s sedežem v Uniji, ter s stroški ESMA v zvezi z nadzorom certificiranih bonitetnih agencij.
Credit rating agencies should be reimbursed a percentage of the fee initially charged for their registration or certification when withdrawing their application during the registration or certification process as ESMA’s costs for processing the application would be lower in such cases.
Bonitetnim agencijam je treba povrniti določen odstotek pristojbine, ki jim je bila prvotno zaračunana za njihovo registracijo ali certificiranje, kadar svojo vlogo umaknejo med postopkom registracije ali certificiranja, saj so stroški ESMA za obdelavo vloge v takšnih primerih nižji.
In view of possible future developments, it is appropriate for the thresholds for exempting credit rating agencies from paying annual supervisory fees and the amounts of registration and certification fees to be reviewed and updated as necessary.
Glede na morebiten prihodnji razvoj je primerno, da se pragovi za oprostitev bonitetnih agencij plačila letne takse za nadzor ter zneski pristojbin za registracijo in certificiranje preverjajo in dopolnjujejo po potrebi.
The Commission should assess the correct application of these measures within 4 years from the entry into force of this Regulation and report to the European Parliament and the Council on the possible need to review it.
Komisija bi morala v štirih letih po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe oceniti pravilno uporabo teh ukrepov ter Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu poročati o morebitni potrebi po njihovem pregledu.
National competent authorities incur costs when carrying out tasks delegated to them by ESMA in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 and when providing assistance to ESMA in the other cases specified in that Regulation.
Nacionalni pristojni organi imajo stroške pri izvajanju nalog, ki jih v skladu s členom 30 Uredbe (ES) št. 1060/2009 nanje prenese ESMA, in pri zagotavljanju pomoči ESMA v drugih primerih, določenih v navedeni uredbi.
The fees to be charged by ESMA to credit rating agencies should also cover those costs.
Pristojbine in takse, ki jih bo ESMA zaračunal bonitetnim agencijam, morajo kriti tudi te stroške.
In order to avoid that competent authorities incur loss or realise profit from carrying out delegated tasks or from assisting ESMA, ESMA should reimburse the actual costs incurred by that national competent authority.
Da pristojni organi ne bi ustvarili izgube ali dobička pri izvajanju prenesenih nalog ali zagotavljanju pomoči ESMA, mora ESMA povrniti dejanske stroške, ki jih je imel zadevni nacionalni pristojni organ.
This Regulation should form the basis for ESMA’s right to charge fees to credit rating agencies.
Ta uredba mora biti podlaga za pravico ESMA do zaračunavanja pristojbin in taks bonitetnim agencijam.
In order to immediately facilitate effective and efficient supervisory and enforcement activity, it should enter into force on the third day following its publication,
Da se takoj omogoči učinkovito in uspešno izvajanje dejavnosti nadzora in izvrševanja, mora začeti veljati tretji dan po objavi –
This Regulation lays down rules regarding the fees that the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) shall charge to credit rating agencies for supervision, registration and certification.
Ta uredba določa pravila o pristojbinah in taksah, ki jih Evropski organ za vrednostne papirje in trge (ESMA) zaračunava bonitetnim agencijam za nadzor, registracijo in certificiranje.
Recovery of supervisory costs in full
Celotno povračilo stroškov nadzora
The fees charged to credit rating agencies shall cover:
Pristojbine in takse, ki jih morajo plačati bonitetne agencije, krijejo:
all costs relating to the supervision of credit rating agencies by ESMA in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, including costs resulting from the registration and certification of credit rating agencies;
vse stroške v zvezi z nadzorom bonitetnih agencij, ki ga izvaja ESMA v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1060/2009, vključno s stroški registracije in certificiranja bonitetnih agencij;
all costs for the reimbursement of competent authorities to which ESMA has delegated tasks in accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009;
vse stroške, ki jih je treba povrniti pristojnim organom, na katere je ESMA prenesel naloge v skladu s členom 30 Uredbe (ES) št. 1060/2009;
all costs for the reimbursement of competent authorities that have provided assistance to ESMA in accordance to Article 23c(4) and Article 23d(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009.
vse stroške, ki jih je treba povrniti pristojnim organom, ki so zagotavljali pomoč ESMA v skladu s členoma 23c(4) in 23d(5) Uredbe (ES) št. 1060/2009.
Applicable turnover
Upošteven promet