natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By way of derogation from Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 431/2008, applications for import rights for the import tariff quota period starting on 1 July 2013 shall be submitted from 24 June to 5 July, and in any case no later than 13.00, Brussels time, on 5 July 2013.
Z odstopanjem od člena 5(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 431/2008 se zahtevki za uvozne pravice za obdobje uvozne tarifne kvote, ki se začne 1. julija 2013, vložijo med 24. junijem in 5. julijem, v nobenem primeru pa ne pozneje kot 5. julija 2013 ob 13.00 po bruseljskem času.
By way of derogation from Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 431/2008, for the import tariff quota starting on 1 July 2013 Member States shall notify the Commission of the total quantities covered by applications for import rights, no later than 13.00, Brussels time, on 12 July 2013.
Z odstopanjem od člena 5(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 431/2008 države članice v zvezi z uvoznimi tarifnimi kvotami, ki se začnejo 1. julija 2013, obvestijo Komisijo o skupnih količinah, za katere je bil vložen zahtevek za uvozne pravice, in sicer najpozneje 12. julija 2013 do 13. ure po bruseljskem času.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 458/2013
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 458/2013
correcting Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs
o popravku Uredbe (ES) št. 589/2008 o podrobnih pravilih za izvajanje Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 glede tržnih standardov za jajca
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) [1] and in particular Article 121(d) in conjunction with Article 4 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 z dne 22. oktobra 2007 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov in o posebnih določbah za nekatere kmetijske proizvode („Uredba o enotni SUT“) [1] ter zlasti člena 121(d) v povezavi s členom 4 Uredbe,
Commission Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 [2] lays down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 589/2008 [2] določa podrobna pravila za izvajanje Uredbe (ES) št. 1234/2007 glede tržnih standardov za jajca.
The wording of the definition of ‘batch’ in Article 1 of that Regulation should be clarified so that it does not give rise to diverging interpretations and thereby to different practices in the Member States.
Besedilo opredelitve pojma „serija“ iz člena 1 navedene uredbe bi bilo treba pojasniti, da ne bi prihajalo do različne razlage in posledično različnih praks v državah članicah.
Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 should therefore be corrected accordingly.
Uredbo (ES) št. 589/2008 bi bilo zato treba ustrezno popraviti.
In the second subparagraph of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 589/2008 point (i) is replaced by the following:
V drugem pododstavku člena 1 Uredbe (ES) št. 589/2008 se točka (i) nadomesti z naslednjim:
“batch” means the eggs in packs or loose from one and the same production site or packing centre, situated in one place, with one and the same laying date or date of minimum durability or packing date, the same farming method and, in case of graded eggs, the same quality and weight grading;’.
‚serija‘ pomeni jajca v pakiranjih ali v razsutem stanju iz iste proizvodne enote ali pakirnega centra, zbrana na istem mestu, z istim datumom znesitve ali datumom minimalnega roka trajanja ali datumom pakiranja, istega načina reje ter v primeru razvrščenih jajc enake razvrstitve po kakovosti in masi;“.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 459/2013
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 459/2013
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 460/2013
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 460/2013
on the minimum customs duty for sugar to be fixed in response to the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2013
o določanju najnižje stopnje carinskih dajatev za sladkor kot odgovor na tretji delni javni razpis v okviru razpisnega postopka, odprtega z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 36/2013
On the basis of the tenders received for the third partial invitation to tender, a minimum customs duty should be fixed for sugar falling within CN codes 17011410 and 17019910.
Na podlagi ponudb, prejetih na tretji delni javni razpis, se najmanjša carinska dajatev določi za sladkor z oznakama KN 17011410 in 17019910.
For the third partial invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2013, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 15 May 2013, a minimum customs duty has been fixed as set out in the Annex to this Regulation for sugar falling within CN codes 17011410 and 17019910.
Za tretji delni javni razpis v okviru razpisnega postopka, odprtega z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 36/2013, se ob upoštevanju časovnega roka za predložitev ponudb, ki je potekel 15. maja 2013, določi najmanjša carinska dajatev v skladu s Prilogo k tej uredbi za sladkor z oznakama KN 17011410 in 17019910
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 461/2013
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 461/2013
imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 597/2009
o uvedbi dokončne izravnalne dajatve na uvoz nekaterih vrst polietilen tereftalata (PET) s poreklom iz Indije po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa v skladu s členom 18 Uredbe (ES) št. 597/2009
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] ('the basic Regulation') and in particular Article 18 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 597/2009 z dne 11. junija 2009 o zaščiti proti subvencioniranemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: osnovna uredba), in zlasti člena 18 Uredbe,
By Regulation (EC) No 2603/2000 [2], the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of polyethylene terephthalate ('PET') originating, inter alia, in India.
Z Uredbo (ES) št. 2603/2000 [2] je Svet uvedel dokončno izravnalno dajatev na uvoz nekaterih vrst polietilen tereftalata (v nadaljnjem besedilu: PET) s poreklom, med drugim, iz Indije.
By Regulation (EC) No 1645/2005 [3], the Council amended the level of countervailing measures in force against imports of PET from India.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 1645/2005 [3] spremenil raven veljavnih izravnalnih ukrepov proti uvozu PET iz Indije.
The amendments were a result of an accelerated review initiated pursuant to Article 20 of the basic Regulation.
Spremembe so bile rezultat pospešenega pregleda, začetega v skladu s členom 20 osnovne uredbe.
Following an expiry review, the Council by Regulation (EC) No 193/2007 [4] imposed a definitive countervailing duty for a further period of five years.
Svet je po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa z Uredbo (ES) št. 193/2007 [4] uvedel dokončno izravnalno dajatev za nadaljnjih pet let.
The countervailing measures were subsequently amended by Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 [5] and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 906/2011 [6], following partial interim reviews.
Izravnalni ukrepi so bili nato po delnih vmesnih pregledih spremenjeni z Uredbo (ES) št. 1286/2008 [5] in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 906/2011 [6].
A later partial interim review was terminated without amending the measures in force by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 559/2012 [7].
Poznejši delni vmesni pregled se je zaključil brez spremembe veljavnih ukrepov z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 559/2012 [7].
By Decision 2000/745/EC [8] the Commission accepted undertakings setting a minimum import price offered by three exporting producers in India.
Komisija je s Sklepom 2000/745/ES [8] sprejela ponudbe o zavezi treh proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz Indije, v katerih je bila določena minimalna uvozna cena.
The countervailing measures consist of a specific duty.
Ti izravnalni ukrepi vključujejo posebno dajatev.
The rate of the duty is between 0 and 106,5 EUR per tonne for individually named Indian producers with a residual rate of 69,4 EUR per tonne imposed on imports from all other producers.
Stopnja dajatve je od 0 EUR do 106,5 EUR/tono za poimensko navedene indijske proizvajalce s stopnjo preostale dajatve 69,4 EUR/tono, uvedene na uvoz vseh drugih proizvajalcev.
By Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 [9], the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET originating, inter alia, in India.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 2604/2000 [9] uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz PET s poreklom, med drugim, iz Indije.
Following an expiry review, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 192/2007 [10], imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years.
Svet je po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa z Uredbo (ES) št. 192/2007 [10] uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev za nadaljnjih pet let.
Following the publication of a Notice of impending expiry [11] of the definitive countervailing measures in force, the Commission, on 25 November 2011, received a request for the initiation of the review, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation ('the expiry review').
Po objavi obvestila o bližnjem izteku [11] veljavnih dokončnih izravnalnih ukrepov je Komisija 25. novembra 2011 prejela zahtevek za začetek pregleda v skladu s členom 18 osnovne uredbe (v nadaljnjem besedilu: pregled zaradi izteka ukrepa).
The request was lodged by the Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate Manufacturers in Europe ('the applicant') on behalf of producers representing nearly 95 % of the Union production of certain polyethylene terephthalate.
Zahtevek je vložil odbor proizvajalcev polietilen tereftalata v Evropi (v nadaljnjem besedilu: vložnik) v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo skoraj 95 % proizvodnje nekaterih vrst polietilen tereftalata v Uniji.
Prior to the initiation of the expiry review, and in accordance with Articles 22(1) and 10(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission notified the Government of India ('GOI') that it had received a properly documented review request and invited the GOI for consultations with the aim of clarifying the situation as regards the contents of the review request and arriving at a mutually agreed solution.
Komisija je pred začetkom pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa in v skladu s členoma 22(1) in 10(7) osnovne uredbe uradno obvestila indijsko vlado, da je prejela ustrezno dokumentiran zahtevek za pregled, ter jo povabila k posvetovanju, da se razjasni položaj glede vsebine zahtevka za pregled in doseže sporazumna rešitev.
However, the Commission did not receive any answer from the GOI regarding its offer for consultations.
Vendar Komisija v zvezi s povabilom na posvetovanje od indijske vlade ni prejela odgovora.
Having determined, after having consulted the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 24 February 2012, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union [12] ('the notice of initiation'), the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom ugotovila, da obstajajo zadostni dokazi za začetek pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa, zato je 24. februarja 2012 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [12] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obvestilo o začetku), napovedala pregled zaradi izteka ukrepa v skladu s členom 18 osnovne uredbe.
On 24 February 2012, the Commission also opened a review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of PET originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand [13].
Komisija je 24. februarja 2012 začela tudi pregled v skladu s členom 11(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1225/2009 o veljavnih protidampinških ukrepih za uvoz PET s poreklom iz Indije, Indonezije, Malezije, Tajvana in Tajske [13].
The investigation of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation covered the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 (the 'review investigation period' or 'RIP').
Preiskava v zvezi z verjetnostjo nadaljevanja ali ponovitve subvencioniranja je zajemala obdobje od 1. januarja 2011 do 31. decembra 2011 (v nadaljnjem besedilu:obdobje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom ali OPP).
The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the RIP (hereinafter referred to as the 'period considered').
Proučitev trendov, pomembnih za oceno verjetnosti nadaljevanja ali ponovitve škode, je zajemala obdobje od 1. januarja 2008 do konca OPP (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obravnavano obdobje).
The Commission officially advised the applicant, the exporting producers in the country concerned, the importers, the users known to be concerned, and the representatives of the country concerned of the initiation of the expiry review.
Komisija je o začetku pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa uradno obvestila vložnika, proizvajalce izvoznike v zadevni državi, uvoznike, uporabnike, za katere je znano, da jih to zadeva, in predstavnike zadevne države.
In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers in India as well as Union producers and importers it was considered appropriate to examine whether sampling should be used in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.
Glede na veliko število proizvajalcev izvoznikov v Indiji ter proizvajalcev in uvoznikov v Uniji se je zdelo primerno, da se v skladu s členom 27 osnovne uredbe prouči, ali naj se uporabi vzorčenje.
In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the exporting producers and unrelated importers were requested to make themselves known within 15 days of the initiation of the review and to provide the Commission with the information requested in the Notice of initiation.
Da bi se Komisija lahko odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in bi v tem primeru izbrala vzorec, so bili proizvajalci izvozniki in nepovezani uvozniki pozvani, naj se v 15 dneh po začetku pregleda javijo Komisiji in ji predložijo informacije, zahtevane v obvestilu o začetku.
Seven exporting producers responded to the sampling exercise and indicated a willingness to cooperate with the review investigation.
Na vzorčenje se je odzvalo sedem proizvajalcev izvoznikov in izrazilo pripravljenost za sodelovanje pri preiskavi v zvezi s pregledom.
On this basis, a sample of three exporting producers was selected based on the volume of exports to the Union.
Na podlagi tega je bil izbran vzorec treh proizvajalcev izvoznikov glede na obseg izvoza v Unijo.
No objections were made to this sample either by the sampled producers themselves, non-sampled producers or the relevant authorities in India.
Temu vzorcu ni nihče ugovarjal, niti vzorčeni niti nevzorčeni proizvajalci in tudi ne pristojni organi v Indiji.
The three sampled exporting producers were duly sent questionnaires to complete and replies were received from them all.
Trem vzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom so bili ustrezno poslani vprašalniki in vsi trije so jih izpolnili in poslali odgovore.
However the questionnaire reply of one Indian sampled producer revealed that it only exported insignificant volumes of the product concerned during the RIP and therefore it was not relevant to calculate subsidy rates for that company.
Ker pa je bilo iz izpolnjenega vprašalnika enega vzorčenega indijskega proizvajalca razvidno, da je v OPP izvažal samo neznatne količine zadevnega izdelka, ni bilo primerno izračunati stopenj subvencioniranja za to družbo.
Verification visits were eventually completed in the two remaining exporting producers which together represented 99 % of total imports in volume from India to the Union during the RIP.
Preveritveni obiski so bili na koncu opravljeni pri preostalih dveh proizvajalcih izvoznikih, ki sta skupaj predstavljala 99 % celotnega obsega uvoza iz Indije v Unijo v OPP.
Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations ('disclosure'), one Indian cooperating producer requested a calculation of a subsidy margin.
Po razkritju bistvenih dejstev in premislekov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: razkritje) je sodelujoči indijski proizvajalec zahteval izračun subvencijske stopnje.
In this respect it was reconfirmed that the exports from this company were insignificant and consequently had no impact on the determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of subsidisation in the present expiry review.
V zvezi s tem je bilo ponovno potrjeno, da je bil izvoz te družbe neznaten in zato ni imel učinka na ugotovitev verjetnosti nadaljevanja ali ponovitve subvencioniranja v sedanjem pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa.
Therefore, this request was rejected.
Ta zahtevek je bil zato zavrnjen.
This sample consisted of four companies, out of the thirteen Union producers that were known prior to the initiation of the investigation, selected on the basis of the largest representative volume of production and sales that can reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Ta vzorec je vključeval štiri družbe med trinajstimi proizvajalci Unije, ki so bili znani pred začetkom preiskave, izbran pa je bil na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega proizvodnje in prodaje, ki ga je mogoče v razpoložljivem času ustrezno preiskati.
Certain interested parties raised objections concerning the sampling of Union producers.
Nekatere zainteresirane strani so izrazile ugovore glede vzorčenja proizvajalcev Unije.
They claimed that: (i) the Commission should not resort to sampling, in particular, since no sampling was used in the previous investigation; (ii) the method used for the selection of the sample was contested on the grounds that it 'confuses three different steps', namely, standing exercise, definition of the Union industry and sampling exercise; (iii) the provisional sample was set up on the basis of incorrect and incomplete information; (iv) selected provisional sample is not representative because it includes entities rather than groups; it was also claimed that including companies that in one case went through a recent divestment or in another case have related sales diminishes the representativity of the sample.
Trdile so, da: (i) Komisija ne bi smela uporabiti vzorčenja, predvsem zaradi tega, ker se vzorčenje ni uporabilo v prejšnji preiskavi; (ii) se je uporabljeni metodi za izbiro vzorca nasprotovalo z utemeljitvijo, da „zamenjuje tri različne korake“, in sicer preverjanje reprezentativnosti, opredelitev industrije Unije in vzorčenje; (iii) je bil začasni vzorec oblikovan na podlagi napačnih in nepopolnih informacij; (iv) izbran začasni vzorec ni reprezentativen, ker vključuje subjekte namesto skupin; trdile so tudi, da vključitev družb, od katerih je ena nedavno izvedla odprodajo sredstev, v drugem primeru pa je šlo za povezano prodajo, zmanjšuje reprezentativnost vzorca.
The arguments raised by the parties were addressed as follows:
Argumenti strani so se obravnavali na naslednje načine:
The decision to use a sample of Union producers is made for each investigation independently depending on the particular circumstances of each case and Article 22(6) of the basic Regulation does not govern the use of such a sample for the determination of injury in the context of an expiry review.
Odločitev o uporabi vzorca proizvajalcev Unije se sprejme za vsako preiskavo posebej na podlagi posebnih okoliščin posameznega primera, člen 22(6) osnovne uredbe pa ne ureja uporabe takega vzorca za določitev škode v okviru pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa.
Unlike the previous investigations, where the investigation of all companies that came forward and cooperated was feasible, the Commission considered in the current review that, in view of their large number, not all Union producers could be reasonably investigated in the time available and that the conditions of Article 27 were therefore met.
Za razliko od prejšnjih preiskav, ko je bila preiskava vseh družb, ki so se javile in sodelovale, izvedljiva, je Komisija pri sedanjem pregledu menila, da zaradi velikega števila proizvajalcev Unije v razpoložljivem času ne bi bilo mogoče vseh ustrezno preiskati in so pogoji iz člena 27 zato bili izpolnjeni.
The Commission did not 'confuse' the determination of the standing, the determination of the Union industry and the selection of the provisional sample as these steps remained independent from each other and were decided upon separately.
Komisija ni „pomešala“ ugotavljanja reprezentativnosti, določanja industrije Unije in izbire začasnega vzorca, saj so bili ti koraki vseskozi neodvisni drug od drugega in se je o njih odločalo posebej.
It was not demonstrated to what extent the use of the production and sales data provided by the Union producers in the context of the standing exercise had affected the representativity of the sample.
Ni bilo dokazano, v kolikšni meri je uporaba podatkov o proizvodnji in prodaji, ki so jih zagotovili proizvajalci Unije v okviru ugotavljanja reprezentativnosti, vplivala na reprezentativnost vzorca.
The sample was set up on the basis of the information available at the time of selection in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.
Vzorec je bil oblikovan na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij v času izbire v skladu s členom 27 osnovne uredbe.
The representativity of the sample was reviewed following the comments of the parties concerning specific company data.
Po pripombah strani glede posebnih podatkov družb je bila pregledana reprezentativnost vzorca.
None of the comments made were considered founded.
Nobena pripomba se ni upoštevala kot utemeljena.
As required by Article 27 of the basic Regulation the sample was established to represent the largest representative volume of production and sales that can be reasonably investigated within the time available.
Vzorec je bil izbran tako, da predstavlja največji reprezentativni obseg proizvodnje in prodaje, ki se lahko ustrezno preišče v razpoložljivem času, kot zahteva člen 27 osnovne uredbe.
The entities belonging to larger groups that were found to operate independently from other subsidiaries of the same group were considered representative of the Union industry and there was therefore no need to investigate the entire group on a consolidated basis.
Subjekti, ki pripadajo večjim skupinam in za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da delujejo neodvisno od drugih hčerinskih družb iste skupine, se štejejo za reprezentativne za industrijo Unije, zato ni bilo treba preiskati celotne skupine na konsolidirani osnovi.
At the same time, the companies were sampled as economic entities, ensuring that all relevant data could be verified.
Obenem so se družbe vzorčile kot gospodarski subjekti, pri čemer se je zagotovilo preverjanje vseh ustreznih podatkov.
Moreover, the divestments and existence of related sales were part of the characteristics of the sector in the period considered and therefore none of these elements was considered to diminish the representativity of the sample.
Poleg tega so odprodaje in povezane prodaje v obravnavanem obdobju sodile med značilnosti zadevnega sektorja, zato se šteje, da nobeden od navedenih elementov ni zmanjšal reprezentativnosti vzorca.
Following the disclosure the parties reiterated the above-mentioned arguments which have already been addressed.
Po razkritju so strani ponovile zgoraj navedene argumente, ki so že bili obravnavani.
Sampling for unrelated importers was foreseen in the notice of initiation.
V obvestilu o začetku je bilo predvideno vzorčenje za nepovezane uvoznike.
None of the twenty four contacted unrelated importers cooperated in the present investigation.
Nobeden od štiriindvajsetih pozvanih nepovezanih uvoznikov ni sodeloval v sedanji preiskavi.
All five known suppliers of raw material were contacted upon the initiation and received relevant questionnaire.
Po začetku postopka je bil vzpostavljen stik z vsemi petimi znanimi dobavitelji surovin, ki so prejeli ustrezen vprašalnik.
Two suppliers came forward and replied to the questionnaire.
Javila sta se dva dobavitelja, ki sta izpolnila vprašalnik.