natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
These criteria were assessed in recitals (27) to (39) to the provisional Regulation, where it was found that a number of criteria are not relevant in the present case.
Ta merila so bila ocenjena v uvodnih izjavah od (27) do (39) začasne uredbe, kjer je bilo ugotovljeno, da številna merila niso ustrezna za zadevni primer.
In the Brosmann case the assessment whether different types of shoes belong to the ‘product concerned’ was also made on the basis of only three criteria which were found to be relevant.
Tudi v zadevi Brosmann je ocena, ali različne vrste čevljev pripadajo k „zadevnemu izdelku“, temeljila le na treh merilih, ki so bila ustrezna za ta primer.
As the interested parties did not provide any reasoning why an objective application of the criteria leads one to conclude that modules and cells are distinct products, the argument cannot be accepted.
Ker zainteresirane strani niso pojasnile, zakaj bi objektivna uporaba meril vodila k sklepu, da so moduli in celice različni izdelki, argumenta ni mogoče sprejeti.
In addition, it is recalled that cells and modules have the same basic end uses, i.e. they are sold for integration into PV solar systems.
Opozoriti je treba tudi, da imajo celice in moduli enake osnovne končne uporabe, in sicer se prodajajo za integracijo v solarne fotonapetostne sisteme.
The modules performance is directly linked to the performance of the cells, as indicated in recital (28) to the provisional Regulation.
Delovanje modulov je neposredno povezano z delovanjem celic, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (28) začasne uredbe.
One interested party argued that with the exclusion of wafers from the product scope, and due to the significant processing involved to make modules from cells, the argument that cells and modules have the same end uses also stands refuted.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da se z izključitvijo rezin iz obsega izdelkov in zaradi precejšnje predelave, ki je potrebna za proizvodnjo modulov iz celic, izpodbija argument, da imajo celice in moduli enake končne uporabe.
It is also argued that the assessment that modules and cells have the same end uses is based on the assumption that wafers, modules and cells have the same production process.
Trdilo se je tudi, da ocena glede enakih končnih uporab modulov in celic temelji na domnevi, da se za rezine, module in celice uporablja enak proizvodni proces.
Firstly, the conclusion that the assessment that modules and cells have the same end uses is based on the production process is wrong.
Sklep, da ocena glede enakih končnih uporab modulov in celic temelji na proizvodnem procesu, je napačen.
While both statements are indeed in the same recital (36) to the provisional Regulation, this does not mean that one conclusion is based on the other assumption.
Čeprav obe trditvi izhajata iz uvodne izjave (36) začasne uredbe, to ne pomeni, da en sklep temelji na drugi domnevi.
The word ‘moreover’ separating the two statements makes it clear that the second statement is not based on the first.
Besedna zveza „poleg tega“, ki loči obe trditvi, jasno kaže, da druga trditev ne temelji na prvi.
In addition, the two statements are made to address separate issues under the heading ‘End use and interchangeability’.
Prav tako naj bi navedeni trditvi obravnavali ločena vprašanja pod naslovom„Končna uporaba in medsebojna zamenljivost“.
The first statement concerning the production process addresses interchangeability, while the second statement addresses end use.
Prva trditev glede proizvodnega procesa obravnava zamenljivost, druga pa končno uporabo.
The underlying assumption that the assessment that modules and cells have the same end uses is based on the assumption that wafers, modules and cells have the same production process is therefore incorrect.
Osnovna domneva, da ocena glede enakih končnih uporab modulov in celic temelji na domnevi, da se za rezine, module in celice uporablja enak proizvodni proces, je zato napačna.
As to the actual end use of cells and modules, it is not disputed by interested parties that modules and cells are sold for integration into PV solar systems.
Glede dejanske končne uporabe celic in modulov zainteresirane strani ne oporekajo, da se moduli in celice prodajajo za integracijo v solarne fotonapetostne sisteme.
The conclusion that modules and cells have the same end use is therefore confirmed.
Sklep, da imajo moduli in celice enako končno uporabo, je zato potrjen.
Mono and multi-crystalline cells
Mono- in polikristalne celice
One interested party claimed that there was no production of mono crystalline cells in the Union, and that their exports of mono crystalline cells were not competing with the Union industry.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da se monokristalne celice v Uniji ne proizvajajo in da njen izvoz takšnih celic ne tekmuje z industrijo Unije.
The investigation showed however that there was indeed production of mono crystalline cells in the Union.
Vendar je preiskava pokazala, da se monokristalne celice v Uniji proizvajajo.
This argument was therefore rejected.
Ta trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.
In any event, the General Court held in Brosmann that the absence of Community production of a particular product type is not decisive.
V vsakem primeru je Splošno sodišče v zadevi Brosmann navedlo, da „odsotnost proizvodnje Skupnosti določene vrste izdelka ni odločilnega pomena“.
‘Consigned from’ clause
Stavek „ki so od tam poslani“
Interested parties argued that the extension of the scope of the investigation to products ‘consigned from’ the PRC was unjustified, as the investigation was initiated only against products originating in the PRC.
Zainteresirane strani so trdile, da razširitev obsega preiskave na izdelke, „ki so od tam poslani“ (iz LRK) ni bila utemeljena, ker je bila preiskava uvedena le proti izdelkom s poreklom iz LRK.
However, goods consigned from the PRC were already covered at the initiation stage.
Vendar pa je bilo blago, ki je poslano iz LRK, zajeto že v začetni fazi.
In point 5 of the Notice of Initiation [8] it is stated that ‘companies which ship the product concerned from the People's Republic of China but consider that part or even all of those exports do not have their customs origin in the People's Republic of China are invited to come forward in the investigation and to furnish all relevant information’.
V točki 5 obvestila o začetku [8] je navedeno, da „so družbe, ki dobavljajo zadevni izdelek iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, a so mnenja, da del ali celo celoten izvoz po carinskem poreklu ne izvira iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, pozvane, da se javijo v preiskavi in predložijo ustrezne informacije“.
It is therefore clear that all companies consigning goods from the PRC had the opportunity to co-operate in this investigation.
Zato je jasno, da so vse družbe, ki pošiljajo blago iz LRK, lahko sodelovale v tej preiskavi.
Furthermore, since the product under investigation frequently incorporates components and parts from different countries, it was also announced in point 5 of the Notice of Initiation that ‘special provisions may be adopted’ to address this issue.
Ker izdelek v preiskavi pogosto vključuje sestavne dele in dele iz različnih držav, je bilo v točki 5 obvestila o začetku določeno, da „se lahko sprejmejo posebne določbe“ za reševanje tega vprašanja.
It is therefore considered that all economic operators affected were duly informed of the possibility that special provisions in respect of goods consigned from the PRC may be adopted, if appropriate, and were invited to co-operate in the investigation.
Zato se šteje, da so bili vsi gospodarski subjekti, ki jih preiskava zadeva, ustrezno obveščeni o možnosti, da se sprejmejo posebne določbe v zvezi z blagom, ki se pošilja iz LRK, če je to primerno, in povabljeni k sodelovanju v preiskavi.
Thus the scope of the investigation was not extended to products ‘consigned from the PRC’, since these were covered from the outset.
Zato obseg preiskave ni bil razširjen na izdelke, „ki so poslani iz LRK“, saj so bili vključeni že od samega začetka.
Following disclosure, interested parties argued that irrespective of the provisions in the Notice of Initiation referred to in recital (51) above, the investigation was limited to goods originating in the PRC and did not assess the impact of goods consigned from the PRC.
Po razkritju so zainteresirane strani trdile, da je bila preiskava ne glede na določbe iz obvestila o začetku iz uvodne izjave (51) omejena na blago s poreklom iz LRK in ni ocenjevala vpliva blaga, poslanega iz LRK.
In this respect, it is noted that the following steps were taken to ensure that all goods consigned from the PRC were assessed during the investigation, and not only goods originating in the PRC:
V zvezi s tem je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bili za zagotovitev ocene med preiskavo vsega blaga, poslanega iz LRK, in ne le blaga s poreklom iz LRK, sprejeti naslednji ukrepi:
All companies which ship the product concerned from the PRC were invited to come forward in the investigation irrespective of the origin of the goods.
Vse družbe, ki pošiljajo zadevni izdelek iz LRK, so bile pozvane v preiskavi, naj se javijo, ne glede na poreklo blaga.
In Annex A of the Notice of initiation, exporters were asked to report information for all products manufactured by the company.
V Prilogi A obvestila o začetku so bili izvozniki pozvani, naj posredujejo informacije za vse izdelke, ki jih je družba proizvedla.
This information was not limited to goods originating in the PRC.
Te informacije niso bile omejene na blago s poreklom iz LRK.
On the basis of this information, which contained all exports to the EU irrespective of the origin of the goods, a representative sample was selected.
Na podlagi teh informacij, ki so vsebovale vse izvoze v EU, ne glede na poreklo blaga, je bil izbran reprezentativen vzorec.
The sampled producers received a questionnaire for ‘producers exporting to the European Union’, and the PRC was referred to as ‘country concerned’, not country of origin.
Vzorčeni proizvajalci so prejeli vprašalnik za „proizvajalce izvoznike v Evropsko unijo“, LRK pa se je navajala kot „zadevna država“ in ne država porekla.
It was therefore clear that all goods irrespective of the origin of the goods were investigated.
Zato je bilo jasno, da bo vse blago, ne glede na poreklo, preiskano.
On this basis, it is concluded that the investigation covered all goods originating in or consigned from the PRC, and that the findings of the investigation, including dumping and injury, cover all goods originating in or consigned from the PRC.
Na podlagi tega se sklene, da je preiskava zajela vse blago s poreklom iz LRK ali ki je od tam poslano, in da ugotovitve preiskave, vključno z dampingom in škodo zajemajo vse blago s poreklom iz LRK ali od tam poslano.
Following final disclosure, interested parties argued that the complaint contained only prima facie evidence concerning imports of solar panels originating in the PRC, not goods consigned from the PRC.
Po dokončnem razkritju so zainteresirane strani trdile, da je pritožba vsebovala le dokaze prima facie glede uvoza solarnih panelov s poreklom iz LRK in ne blaga, poslanega iz LRK.
In this respect, it needs to be clarified that the complaint indeed covered goods ‘from the PRC’, which can be seen from the cover page submitted by the applicant bearing the stamp.
V zvezi s tem je treba pojasniti, da je pritožba dejansko vsebovala blago „iz LRK“, kar je mogoče videti na naslovnici, ki jo predložil vlagatelj z žigom.
Before this page, there is another page on the file which indeed uses the wording ‘originating in the People's Republic of China’.
Pred to stranjo je še ena stran v dokumentaciji, ki res vsebuje besedilo „s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske“.
But this case was not part of the document submitted by the complainant, but added as a cover page by the Commission Services, using the name of the investigation rather than repeating the title of the complaint.
Vendar ta primer ni bil del dokumentacije, ki jo je predložil pritožnik, ampak so ga službe Komisije dodale kot naslovnico, na kateri niso ponovile naslova pritožbe, ampak so uporabile ime preiskave.
It is therefore considered that the complaint covered all goods from the PRC, whether originating in the PRC or not.
Zato se meni, da je pritožba zajela vse blago iz LRK, ne glede na to, ali je bilo s poreklom iz LRK ali ne.
Chinese exporting producers further argued that exporting producers in third countries cannot reasonably be expected to have known that their products could also be targeted by the investigation.
Kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki so še nadalje trdili, da ni mogoče pričakovati, da bi proizvajalci izvozniki iz tretjih držav vedeli, da bodo tudi njihovi izdelki lahko del preiskave.
In this respect it is noted that the measures do not apply to goods which are in transit in the sense of Article V GATT.
V zvezi s tem je bilo ugotovljeno, da se ukrepi ne uporabljajo za blago v tranzitu v smislu člena V GATT.
Therefore, exporting producers which have no operations in the PRC are not affected by the measures.
Zato ukrepi na proizvajalce izvoznike brez dejavnosti v LRK ne bodo vplivali.
Furthermore, no exporting producers in third countries came forward raising the issue that the products they export are subject to the anti-dumping duty.
Prav tako noben proizvajalec izvoznik v tretjih državah ni javil, da bi za izdelke, ki jih izvažajo, veljale protidampinške dajatve.
The same exporting producers argued that exporting producers in third countries were not asked to come forward, and not given the opportunity to show that their products are not dumped.
Isti proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili, da proizvajalci iz tretjih držav niso bili pozvani, naj se javijo in niso imeli priložnosti pokazati, da njihovi izdelki niso dampinški.
The Institutions consider that those exporting producers without any operations in the PRC are not affected by the measures, as their goods, if consigned from the PRC, will have been in transit.
Institucije menijo, da ukrepi na navedene proizvajalce izvoznike brez dejavnosti v LRK niso vplivali, saj bi bilo njihovo blago, če bi bilo poslano iz LRK, v tranzitu.
All other exporting producers were informed by the Notice of Initiation that their operations are part of the investigation.
Vsi drugi proizvajalci izvozniki so bili v obvestilu o začetku obveščeni, da so njihove dejavnosti del preiskave.
The GOC argued that while Article 1(3) of the basic Regulation allows deviating from the principle that the exporting country is the country of origin, this Article cannot be used in the present case.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da se ta člen v tej zadevi ne more uporabljati, čeprav člen 1(3) osnovne uredbe omogoča odstopanje od načela, da je država izvoznica država porekla.
In support of this claim they argue that no complete analysis whether the exporting country may be an intermediary country was made.
V podporo temu argumentu trdi, da ni bila narejena popolna analiza, ali je država izvoznica lahko država posrednica.
The Institutions disagree with this interpretation of Article 1 (3) of the basic Regulation.
Institucije se ne strinjajo s to razlago člena 1(3) osnovne uredbe.
No party contests that there is significant production in the PRC.
Nobena zainteresirana stran ne nasprotuje temu, da je v LRK proizvodnja velika.
Whether or not the PRC is the country of origin of the finished goods depends on several factors.
Ali je LRK država porekla končnih izdelkov, je odvisno od več dejavnikov.
The analysis of dumping, injury, causation and Union interest carried out by the Institutions refers to that production, irrespective of the question whether the finished exported good has its customs origin in the PRC.
Analiza dampinga, škode, vzročne zveze in interesa Unije, ki so jo izvedle institucije, kaže na to proizvodnjo, ne glede na vprašanje, ali ima končan izvožen izdelek carinsko poreklo v LRK.
As there were strong indications that not all products which were at least partially produced in the PRC would be considered to have their customs origin in the PRC, the Institutions decided that it was necessary to cover also products for which the PRC is only an intermediary country.
Ker je bilo veliko znakov, da se ne bi vsi izdelki, ki so bili vsaj deloma proizvedeni v LRK, obravnavali, kot da imajo carinsko poreklo v LRK, so se institucije odločile, da je bilo treba zajeti tudi izdelke, pri katerih je LRK le država posrednica.
The GOC further argued that since no Chinese exporter has been granted MET, there is no comparable price for solar panels in the PRC, and as a consequence the PRC cannot be used as an intermediate country.
Kitajska vlada je poleg tega trdila, da ni primerljive cene za solarne panele v LRK, saj nobenemu kitajskemu izvozniku ni bil dodeljen TGO, zato se LRK ne more uporabljati kot država posrednica.
However, in this respect it is noted that the three conditions of Article 1(3) of the basic Regulation are given as examples only, and not all conditions may be relevant in all cases.
Vendar v tej zadevi se opozarja, da so trije pogoji iz člena 1(3) osnovne uredbe navedeni le kot primeri in da vsi pogoji niso relevantni v vseh primerih.
In the present case, since no Chinese exporter has been granted MET, the comparable price had to be established in the analogue country — and this comparable price is the same irrespective of whether the PRC is considered the country of origin or the intermediate country.
V tej zadevi je bilo treba primerljivo ceno določiti v primerljivi državi, saj nobenemu kitajskemu izvozniku ni bil dodeljen TGO, ta primerljiva cena pa je enaka ne glede na to, ali se LRK obravnava kot država porekla ali država posrednica.
Therefore, the issue whether there is a comparable price ‘in that country’ is irrelevant, as in the present case the comparable price is not established ‘in that country’, but in the analogue country.
Zato je vprašanje, ali v „navedeni državi“ je primerljiva cena, nepomembna, saj v tej zadevi primerljiva cena ni bila določena v „navedeni državi“, temveč v primerljivi državi.
Solar chargers
Solarni napajalniki
Following the provisional disclosure, interested parties claimed that the definition of ‘solar chargers that consist of less than six cells’ is too narrow, and should be extended to products with a similar function which are not covered by this definition such as products with a similar size using a larger number of smaller cells.
Po začasnem razkritju so zainteresirane strani trdile, da je opredelitev „solarni napajalniki, ki so sestavljeni iz manj kot šestih celic“, preozka in jo je treba razširiti na izdelke s podobno funkcijo, ki v tej opredelitvi niso zajeti, kot so izdelki podobne velikosti, ki uporabljajo večje število manjših celic.
In addition, interested parties claimed that the definition of ‘silicon PV products that are permanently integrated into electrical goods’ is too narrow, as only the complete electrical good is excluded, while solar components for integration into the electrical goods are not necessarily excluded.
Poleg tega so zainteresirane strani trdile, da je opredelitev „fotonapetostni izdelki iz kristalnega silicija, ki so trajno vgrajeni v električne naprave“ prav tako preozka, saj izključuje samo popolne električne naprave, medtem ko solarni sestavni deli za integracijo v električne naprave niso nujno izključeni.
Indeed, an analysis of the above arguments showed that it is more appropriate to add to the exclusion of such products a criterion on the basis of a technical standard.
Analiza navedenih argumentov je res pokazala, da je glede izključitve takšnih izdelkov bolj primerno dodati merilo na podlagi tehničnega standarda.
In particular, it was established that the definitions of the following standard more appropriately define the products which should be excluded from the scope of the measures: international Standard IEC 61730-1, Application Classes, Class C: Limited Voltage, limited power applications (p. 13) [9].
Zlasti je bilo ugotovljeno, da opredelitve naslednjega standarda ustrezneje opredeljujejo izdelke, ki jih je treba izključiti iz področja uporabe ukrepov: mednarodni standard IEC 61730-1, razredi uporabe, razred C: Omejena napetost, omejena uporaba energije (str. 13) [9].
Following definitive disclosure, comments were received concerning the exclusion based on the international standard mentioned above.
Po dokončnem razkritju so bile prejete pripombe glede izključitve na podlagi zgoraj navedenega mednarodnega standarda.
It was argued that rather than referring to the standard, it would be more appropriate to define the exclusion on the basis of the output voltage and the power output as ‘modules or panels with a output voltage not exceeding 50 V DC and a power output not exceeding 50 W solely for direct use as battery chargers in systems with the same voltage and power characteristics’.
Trdilo se je, da bi bilo namesto sklicevanja na standard izključitev bolj primerno opredeliti na podlagi izhodne napetosti in izhodne moči, kot „module ali panele z najvišjo izhodno napetostjo 50 V DC in z najvišjo izhodno močjo 50 W z le neposredno uporabo kot polnilniki baterije v sistemih z enakimi lastnostmi napetosti in moči“.
This claim could be accepted, and the exclusion is finally determined according to this definition.
To trditev je mogoče sprejeti in izključitev je nazadnje določena v skladu s to opredelitvijo.
Roof-integrated solar modules
Strešno integrirani solarni moduli
Another interested party claimed that roof-integrated solar modules should be excluded from the product scope of the investigation, since they combine the functionality of a solar module with that of a roof tile or slate.
Druga zainteresirana stran je trdila, da je treba strešno integrirane solarne module izključiti iz obsega preiskave, saj združujejo funkcionalnost solarnega modula s funkcionalnostjo strešnika ali skrilavca.
Therefore, they would not be directly interchangeable with a standard solar module.
Zato niso neposredno zamenljivi s standardnimi solarnimi moduli.
The investigation, however, showed that both standard modules and the roof-integrated solar modules have to comply with the same electrical standards.
Vendar je preiskava pokazala, da morajo standardni moduli in strešno integrirani solarni moduli izpolnjevati iste standarde za električne naprave.
In addition while the roof-integrated solar module cannot be simply replaced with a standard module, it can be replaced by a standard module plus roof tiles or slate.
Poleg tega kljub temu, da strešno integriranih solarnih modulov ni mogoče enostavno nadomestiti s standardnimi moduli, jih je mogoče nadomestiti s kombinacijo standardnih modulov in strešnikov oziroma strešne kritine.
These products therefore have the same basic technical property of generating electricity from sunlight.
Zato imajo ti izdelki enako osnovno tehnično lastnost proizvajanja električne energije iz sončne svetlobe.
The added functionality (which is otherwise provided by roofing material) was not considered substantial and does not warrant an exclusion of roof-integrated solar modules from the product scope.
Dodana funkcionalnost (ki je sicer zagotovljena s strešnim materialom) se ni štela za bistveno in ne zadostuje za izločitev strešno integriranih solarnih modulov iz obsega izdelka.
Following definitive disclosure, the same interested party argued that the absence of dual-interchangeability between roof-integrated solar modules and standard solar modules is an indication that roof-integrated solar modules should be excluded from the scope of the measures, referring to the footware [10] case in general and special technology athletics footwear ‘STAF’ in particular.
Po dokončnem razkritju je ista zainteresirana stran trdila, da odsotnost dvojne zamenljivosti med strešno integriranimi solarnimi moduli in standardnimi solarnimi moduli pomeni, da je treba strešno integrirane solarne module izključiti iz obsega ukrepov, in se pri tem sklicevala na primer v zvezi z obutvijo [10] na splošno ter zlasti na obutev „STAF“.