natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
establishing a prohibition of fishing for blue ling in Union and international waters of Vb, VI, VII by vessels flying the flag of Ireland
o prepovedi ribolova na modrega lenga v vodah Unije in mednarodnih vodah območij Vb, VI in VII s plovili, ki plujejo pod zastavo Irske
Commission Regulation (EU) No 997/2014
Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 997/2014
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 z dne 20. novembra 2009 o vzpostavitvi nadzornega sistema Skupnosti za zagotavljanje skladnosti s pravili skupne ribiške politike [1] in zlasti člena 36(2) Uredbe,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy [1], and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,
Uredba Sveta (EU) št. 43/2014 [2] določa kvote za leto 2014.
Whereas:
Po podatkih, ki jih je prejela Komisija, se je z ulovi staleža iz Priloge k tej uredbi s plovili, ki plujejo pod zastavo države članice iz Priloge ali so v njej registrirana, izčrpala dodeljena kvota za leto 2014.
Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 [2], lays down quotas for 2014.
Zato je treba za navedeni stalež prepovedati ribolovne dejavnosti –
According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2014.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,
Člen 1
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Izčrpanje kvote
Article 1
Ribolovna kvota za stalež iz Priloge k tej uredbi, ki je bila za leto 2014 dodeljena državi članici iz navedene priloge, velja za izčrpano od datuma iz navedene priloge.
Quota exhaustion
Člen 2
The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.
Prepovedi
Article 2
Ribolovne dejavnosti s plovili, ki plujejo pod zastavo države članice iz Priloge k tej uredbi ali so v njej registrirana, so od datuma iz navedene priloge prepovedane za stalež iz navedene priloge.
Prohibitions
Po tem datumu je zlasti prepovedano obdržati na krovu, premeščati, pretovarjati ali iztovarjati ribe iz navedenega staleža, ki jih ulovijo navedena plovila.
Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex.
Člen 3
In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.
Začetek veljavnosti
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
V Bruslju, 19. septembra 2014
Done at Brussels, 19 September 2014.
V imenu predsednika
For the Commission,
Generalna direktorica za pomorske zadeve in ribištvo
On behalf of the President,
UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 1.
Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
Uredba Sveta (EU) št. 43/2014 z dne 20. januarja 2014 o določitvi ribolovnih možnosti za leto 2014 za nekatere staleže rib in skupine staležev rib, ki veljajo za vode Unije in za plovila Unije v nekaterih vodah zunaj Unije (UL L 24, 28.1.2014, str. 1).
OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
PRILOGA
ANNEX
Irska
Member State
Stalež
Ireland
Vrsta
Stock
Datum zaprtja
Species
o prepovedi ribolova na rdečega okuna v vodah Unije in mednarodnih vodah območja V ter mednarodnih vodah območij XII in XIV s plovili, ki plujejo pod zastavo Irske
Closing date
rdeči okun (Sebastes spp.)
Commission Regulation (EU) No 998/2014
Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 998/2014
establishing a prohibition of fishing for plaice in areas VIIf and VIIg by vessels flying the flag of Ireland
o prepovedi ribolova na morsko ploščo v območjih VIIf in VIIg s plovili, ki plujejo pod zastavo Irske
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 999/2014
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 999/2014
of 23 September 2014
z dne 23. septembra 2014
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom iz Rusije po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa v skladu s členom 11(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] and in particular Articles 9(4) and 11(2) and (5) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 z dne 30. novembra 2009 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1], in zlasti člena 9(4) ter člena 11(2) in (5) Uredbe,
By Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 [2], the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ammonium nitrate currently falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090 and originating in Russia.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 2022/95 [2] uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom iz Rusije, trenutno uvrščenega pod oznaki KN 31023090 in 31024090.
Pursuant to a further investigation, which established that the duty was being absorbed, the measures were amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 663/98 [3].
Na podlagi nadaljnje preiskave, v kateri je bilo ugotovljeno, da se dajatev absorbira, so bili ukrepi spremenjeni z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 663/98 [3].
Following a first expiry review and a first interim review pursuant to Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the basic Regulation) the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 658/2002 [4], imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of EUR 47,07 per tonne on imports of ammonium nitrate falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090 and originating in Russia.
Svet je po prvem pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa in prvem vmesnem pregledu v skladu s členom 11(2) in (3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1225/2009 (osnovna uredba) z Uredbo (ES) št. 658/2002 [4] uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev v višini 47,07 EUR na tono na uvoz amonijevega nitrata s poreklom iz Rusije, ki spada pod oznaki KN 31023090 in 31024090.
Subsequently, a product scope interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was carried out and, by Council Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 [5], a definitive anti-dumping duty ranging between EUR 41,42 per tonne and EUR 47,07 per tonne was imposed on imports of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, currently falling within CN codes 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059020 originating in Russia.
Zato je bil opravljen vmesni pregled obsega izdelka v skladu s členom 11(3) osnovne uredbe, z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 945/2005 [5] pa je bila uvedena dokončna protidampinška dajatev v višini med 41,42 EUR na tono in 47,07 EUR na tono za uvoz trdnih gnojil z vsebnostjo amonijevega nitrata, ki presega 80 mas. %, trenutno uvrščenih pod oznake KN 31023090, 31024090, ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 in ex31059020 ter s poreklom iz Rusije.
Following a second expiry review and a second partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(2) and (3) of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 [6], maintained the measures in force.
Svet je po drugem pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepa in drugem vmesnem pregledu v skladu s členom 11(2) in (3) osnovne uredbe z Uredbo (ES) št. 661/2008 [6] ohranil veljavne ukrepe.
The duty was left unchanged, except for the EuroChem group [7], for which the fixed amount of duty ranged between EUR 28,88 and EUR 32,82 per tonne.
Dajatev je ostala nespremenjena, razen za skupino EuroChem [7], za katero je fiksen znesek dajatve znašal med 28,88 EUR in 32,82 EUR na tono.
The European Commission (the Commission), by Decision 2008/577/EC [8], accepted the undertakings' offers with a quantitative ceiling from the Russian producers JSC Acron and JSC Dorogobuzh, members of Acron Holding Company (referred to jointly as Acron), and from EuroChem group.
Evropska komisija (Komisija) je s Sklepom 2008/577/ES [8] sprejela ponudbe zavez s količinsko zgornjo mejo ruskih proizvajalcev JSC Acron in JSC Dorogobutz, članov holdinga „Acron“ Holding Company (v nadaljnjem besedilu skupaj imenovani „Acron“), in skupine EuroChem.
By Decision 2012/629/EU [9], the Commission withdrew its acceptance of the undertaking offered by the EuroChem Group because of the impracticability of the undertaking.
Komisija je s Sklepom 2012/629/EU [9] umaknila svoje sprejetje zaveze, ki jo je ponudila skupina EuroChem, in sicer zaradi nezmožnosti zaveze družbe.
By judgment of 10 September 2008 [10], interpreted by judgment of 9 July 2009 [11], the General Court annulled Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 in so far as it concerned JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo), part of OJSC UCC UralChem (UralChem).
S sodbo z dne 10. septembra 2008 [10], ki je bila razložena s sodbo z dne 9. julija 2009 [11], je Splošno sodišče razveljavilo Uredbo (ES) št. 945/2005 v delu, ki se nanaša na družbo JSC Kirovo-Chepetsky Khimichesky Kombinat (Kirovo), ki je del družbe OJSC UCC UralChem (UralChem).
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 989/2009 [12], amended Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 accordingly.
V skladu s sodbo je Svet z Uredbo (ES) št. 989/2009 [12] spremenil Uredbo (ES) št. 661/2008.
Consequently, for the company Kirovo the anti-dumping duty (EUR 47,07 per tonne) applies only to imports of ammonium nitrate currently falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090.
Posledično za družbo Kirovo protidampinška dajatev (47,07 EUR na tono) velja le za uvoz amonijevega nitrata, trenutno uvrščenega pod oznaki KN 31023090 in 31024090.
Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry [13] of the anti-dumping measures in force, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an expiry review of those measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.
Po objavi obvestila o bližnjem izteku veljavnosti [13] protidampinških ukrepov je Komisija prejela zahtevek za začetek pregleda zaradi izteka teh ukrepov v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe.
The request was lodged on 28 March 2013 by a Union association of manufacturers of fertilisers, ‘Fertilisers Europe’ (the applicant) on behalf of Union producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of the product concerned.
Zahtevek je 28. marca 2013 vložilo združenje proizvajalcev gnojil Unije Fertilizers Europe (vložnik) v imenu proizvajalcev Unije, ki predstavljajo več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje zadevnega izdelka v Uniji.
The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures would likely result in continuation and recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry.
Zahtevek je temeljil na izhodišču, da bi iztek veljavnosti ukrepov verjetno povzročil nadaljevanje in ponovitev dampinga in škode industriji Unije.
Following disclosure, the Russian Fertilisers Producers Association (RFPA) claimed that the request for the review was only supported by a certain proportion of Union producers of fertiliser grade ammonium nitrate (FGAN) and that the Union producers of all grades of ammonium nitrate and of other ammonium nitrate fertilisers represent a volume three times bigger than the applicant.
Po razkritju je Rusko združenje proizvajalcev gnojil (RFPA) trdilo, da je zahtevek za pregled podpiral le določen del proizvajalcev Unije kategorije amonijevega nitrata, ki se uporablja za gnojilo (FGAN), in da je proizvajalcem Unije vseh kategorij amonijevega nitrata in drugih gnojil z amonijevim nitratom mogoče pripisati količino, ki je trikrat večja od količine vložnika.
This claim is however unfounded since the applicant and the supporters of the request are producers of FGAN as well as of other products covered by this expiry review.
Vendar je ta trditev neutemeljena, saj so vložnik in podporniki zahtevka proizvajalci FGAN ter drugih izdelkov, ki jih zajema ta pregled zaradi izteka ukrepa.
Therefore, the request was not supported only by FGAN producers, but also by producers of other types of the product concerned and the quantitative threshold for initiating a review was met.
Zato zahtevka niso podpirali le proizvajalci FGAN, temveč tudi proizvajalci drugih vrst zadevnega izdelka, s čimer je bil količinski prag za začetek pregleda izpolnjen.
Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced, on 12 July 2013, by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union, (notice of initiation) [14] the initiation of an expiry review under Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je po posvetovanju s svetovalnim odborom ugotovila, da obstajajo zadostni dokazi za utemeljitev začetka pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa, in je 12. julija 2013 z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije (obvestilo o začetku) [14], napovedala začetek pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe.
RFPA submitted comments concerning the measures in force and challenged their legality prior to the initiation of the investigation.
Pred začetkom preiskave je združenje RFPA predložilo pripombe o veljavnih ukrepih in izrazilo dvom o njihovi zakonitosti.
The same party also claimed that there were no grounds for the initiation of an expiry review based on the elements sent before the initiation to the Commission on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury should measures expire.
Ista stran je tudi trdila, da ni bilo razlogov za začetek pregleda zaradi izteka ukrepa na podlagi elementov, ki so bili Komisiji poslani pred začetkom pregleda, in sicer o verjetnosti nadaljevanja ali ponovitve dampinga ali škode, če bi ukrepi prenehali veljati.
The Commission services replied to that interested party that it examines in detail the views expressed by parties other than the applicants only after the initiation of the investigation.
Službe Komisije so zainteresirani strani odgovorile, da stališča strani, ki niso vložniki, podrobno proučijo šele po začetku preiskave.
The same interested party also requested access to the expiry review request in its version lodged on 28 March 2013, as referred to in the notice of initiation as well as to the deficiency letter issued by the Commission services to the applicants concerning their request for an expiry review in order to be able to better exercise its rights of defence.
Ista zainteresirana stran je zahtevala tudi dostop do zahtevka za pregled zaradi izteka ukrepa, in sicer do njegove različice z dne 28. marca 2013, kot je navedena v obvestilu o začetku, ter poziva k dopolnitvi, ki so ga službe Komisije predložile vložnikom v zvezi z njihovim zahtevkom za pregled zaradi izteka ukrepa, da se jim omogoči boljše uveljavljanje pravice do obrambe.
The Commission services informed the interested party that the decision to initiate an investigation was only based on the consolidated version of the request integrating the reply to the deficiency letter.
Službe Komisije so zainteresirano stran obvestile, da je sklep o začetku preiskave temeljil le na konsolidirani različici zahtevka, ki je vključeval odgovor na poziv k dopolnitvi.
Early versions and drafts are of no relevance.
Starejše različice in osnutki niso pomembni.
Therefore, not providing access to the initial version and the letter would not be in breach of the party's rights of defence.
Zato se ne kršijo pravice strani do obrambe, če se ji ne omogoči dostop do prvotne različice in poziva.
The party asked the Hearing Officer for DG Trade to intervene on this alleged breach of rights of defence.
Stran je prosila pooblaščenca za zaslišanje za Generalni direktorat za trgovino, da posreduje pri tej domnevni kršitvi pravice do obrambe.
The Hearing Officer upheld the position of the Commission services on 4 March 2014.
Pooblaščenec za zaslišanje je 4. marca 2014 potrdil stališče služb Komisije.
The interested party also requested access to expiry review requests relating to two other different proceedings.
Zainteresirana stran je zahtevala tudi dostop do zahtevkov za pregled zaradi izteka ukrepa, ki se nanašajo na dva druga postopka.
The party claimed that these requests where rejected as unsubstantiated and that access to those documents would enable it to compare the circumstances of the two cases with the pending review, understand the Commission's analysis of the sufficiency of the request in each case and thus adequately exercise its rights of defence.
Stran je trdila, da so bili ti zahtevki zavrnjeni kot neutemeljeni in da bi ji dostop do njih omogočil, da bi primerjala okoliščine v teh dveh zadevah z okoliščinami trenutnega pregleda, razumela analizo ustreznosti zahtevka Komisije v vsakem primeru in tako ustrezno uveljavljala svojo pravico do obrambe.
The party received all clarifications from the Commission Services and the Hearing Officer upheld the position of the Commission services on 4 March 2014.
Stran je prejela vsa pojasnila služb Komisije, pooblaščenec za zaslišanje pa je 4. marca 2014 potrdil stališče služb Komisije.
The investigation of a continuation and recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2013 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
Preiskava v zvezi z nadaljevanjem in ponovitvijo dampinga je zajela obdobje od 1. julija 2012 do 30. junija 2013 („obdobje preiskave v zvezi s pregledom“ ali „OPP“).
The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2013 (the period considered).
Proučitev trendov, pomembnih za oceno verjetnosti ponovitve škode, je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2010 do 30. junija 2013 (obravnavano obdobje).
Following disclosure, RFPA claimed that compared to the previous expiry review leading to Regulation (EC) No 661/2008 there had been an unjustified change in methodology since the period considered in that review was longer.
Po razkritju je združenje RFPA trdilo, da se je metodologija v primerjavi s predhodnim pregledom zaradi izteka ukrepa, na podlagi katerega je bila sprejeta Uredba (ES) št. 661/2008, neutemeljeno spremenila, saj je bilo obravnavano obdobje v predhodnem pregledu daljše.
The Commission considers that the circumstances alleged by RFPA do not qualify as a change in methodology for the purpose of Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija meni, da se okoliščine, ki jih navaja združenje RFPA, ne morejo obravnavati kot sprememba metodologije v smislu člena 11(9) osnovne uredbe.
In any event, the following should be noted.
V vsakem primeru je treba upoštevati naslednje.
The Commission practice is that the period considered normally covers the RIP and the three preceding calendar years, unless the RIP itself covers a considerable part of the previous calendar year.
Praksa Komisije je, da obravnavano obdobje običajno zajema OPP in tri predhodna koledarska leta, razen če OPP zajema večji del predhodnega koledarskega leta.
In the latter situation, four calendar years may exceptionally be taken into account.
V tem primeru se lahko izjemoma upoštevajo štiri koledarska leta.
This was the case in the previous expiry review.
To je veljalo za predhodni pregled zaradi izteka ukrepa.
The claim is therefore dismissed.
Zato je bila ta trditev zavrnjena.
In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicants, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the authorities of Russia (country concerned), known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.
Poleg tega je Komisija posebej obvestila vložnike, druge znane proizvajalce Unije, znane proizvajalce izvoznike in organe Rusije (zadevna država), znane uvoznike, dobavitelje in uporabnike, trgovce ter združenja, za katere je znano, da jih začetek preiskave zadeva, in jih povabila k sodelovanju.
Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer for Directorate-General for Trade.
Zainteresirane strani so imele priložnost, da predložijo pripombe o začetku preiskave in zahtevajo zaslišanje pred Komisijo in/ali pooblaščencem za zaslišanje za Generalni direktorat za trgovino.
In the notice of initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je v obvestilu o začetku navedla, da bo morda izbrala vzorec zainteresiranih strani v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe.
In the notice of initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers.
Komisija je v obvestilu o začetku navedla, da je začasno izbrala vzorec proizvajalcev Unije.
The Commission selected the sample on the basis of production in the Union and sales volumes on the Union market of the like product during the RIP.
Komisija je izbrala vzorec na podlagi proizvodnje v Uniji in obsega prodaje na trgu podobnega izdelka v Uniji med OPP.
This sample consisted of four Union producers located in France, Lithuania, Poland and the United Kingdom [15], representing around 42 % of the Union production and 41 % of the Union sales.
Vzorec so sestavljali štirje proizvajalci Unije iz Francije, Litve, Poljske in Združenega kraljestva [15], ki predstavljajo približno 42 % proizvodnje Unije in 41 % prodaje v Uniji.
The Commission invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane strani, da predložijo pripombe o začasnem vzorcu.
An interested party claimed that the provisionally selected sample of Union producers should only include producers of ammonium nitrate currently falling within CN codes 31023090 and 31024090 as originally provided by Regulation (EC) No 2022/95, and not also producers of solid fertilisers with an ammonium nitrate content exceeding 80 % by weight, currently falling within CN codes ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 and ex31059020, as provided by Regulation (EC) No 945/2005.
Zainteresirana stran je trdila, da bi moral začasno izbrani vzorec proizvajalcev Unije vključevati le proizvajalce amonijevega nitrata, trenutno uvrščenega pod oznaki KN 31023090 in 31024090, kakor prvotno določa Uredba (ES) št. 2022/95, ne pa tudi proizvajalcev trdnih gnojil z vsebnostjo amonijevega nitrata, ki presega 80 mas. %, trenutno uvrščenih pod oznake KN ex31022900, ex31026000, ex31029000, ex31051000, ex31052010, ex31055100, ex31055900 in ex31059020, kakor določa Uredba (ES) št. 945/2005.
The reason for this claim was that the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case T-348/05, referred to in recital 4, annulled Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 which expanded the product scope compared to the initial investigation.
Razlog za to trditev je bil, da je bila s sodbo Splošnega sodišča v zadevi T-348/05, ki je navedena v uvodni izjavi 4, razveljavljena Uredba (ES) št. 945/2005, ki je razširila obsega izdelka v primerjavi s prvotno preiskavo.
This claim is unfounded.
Ta trditev je neutemeljena.
The judgment in question annulled Regulation (EC) No 945/2005 only in so far as it concerned one Russian exporting producer.
S sodbo v tej zadevi je bila razveljavljena Uredba (ES) št. 945/2005 le v delu, ki se je nanašal na enega ruskega proizvajalca izvoznika.
For all the other Russian producers the applicable product scope remains the one specified in Regulation (EC) No 945/2005.
Za vse druge ruske proizvajalce je veljavni obseg izdelka ostal tisti obseg izdelka, ki je določen v Uredbi (ES) št. 945/2005.