natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission also notes that the verification visits lasted every day well beyond the normal working hours, and that it was the GOC that cancelled the afternoon session of the verification visit the first day as the representatives of the Ministry of Technology decided not to participate in the visit (see recital (122)).
Komisija tudi ugotavlja, da so obiski zaradi preveritve vsak dan trajali precej dlje od rednega delovnega časa, in da je bila kitajska vlada tista, ki je prvi dan odpovedala popoldansko izmeno preveritvenega obiska, saj so se predstavniki ministrstva za tehnologijo odločili, da ne bodo sodelovali pri obisku (glej uvodno izjavo (122)).
In fact, if the GOC had accepted all the repeated offers by the Commission officials to verify documents beyond the working hours, the visits would have lasted longer and it was because of the GOC failure to fully cooperate that this was not the case.
Če bi kitajska vlada dejansko sprejela vse večkratne ponudbe uradnikov Komisije, da preverijo dokumente zunaj delovnega časa, bi obiski trajali dlje, to pa se ni zgodilo, saj kitajska vlada ni v celoti sodelovala.
The GOC further contested the Commission's practice not to accept new documents and evidence which require verification after the end of the verification session to which they belong.
Kitajska vlada je nadalje ugovarjala praksi Komisije, da ne sprejema novih dokumentov in dokazil, ki bi jih bilo treba preveriti po izvedenem preverjanju, v okviru katerega bi sicer morali biti preverjeni.
In this respect it must be clarified that it is not and never was the intention of the Commission to disregard information provided in this way outright.
V zvezi s tem je treba pojasniti, da ni in nikoli ni bil namen Komisije, da bi v celoti zanemarila informacije, zagotovljene na ta način.
The Commission took account of all the information submitted, analysed its quality (e.g. the extract of audited financial statements is treated in different way from a simple excel table or word document with figures not supported by any official source) and attributed it the appropriate weight given the fact that it was unable to verify this information during the on-the-spot verification visit.
Komisija je upoštevala vse predložene informacije, proučila njihovo kakovost (npr. izpisek revidiranih računovodskih izkazov je obravnavan na drugačen način kot enostavna tabela v Excelu ali Wordov dokument z zneski, ki niso podprti z nobenim uradnim virom) in jim določila ustrezen pomen glede na to, da teh informacij ni mogla preveriti med preveritvenim obiskom na kraju samem.
Concerning the six documents [25] submitted by the GOC in the course of the investigation and the content of which the GOC refused to discuss during the on-the-spot verification visit, the GOC claimed that the Commission has no basis to apply facts available in line with Article 28 of the basic Regulation.
Glede šestih dokumentov [25], ki jih je kitajska vlada predložila med preiskavo, in vsebine, o kateri ni želela razpravljati med preveritvenim obiskom na kraju samem, je kitajska vlada trdila, da Komisija nima podlage za uporabo razpoložljivih dejstev v skladu s členom 28 osnovne uredbe.
It also claimed that the Commission failed to assist the GOC in understanding the requirement to provide these documents and to demonstrate that all the documents concerned were relevant despite that the GOC ‘had specifically invited the Commission before the start of the verification to assist the GOC in understanding the requirement to provide these documents and to demonstrate that that all the documents concerned were relevant’.
Trdila je tudi, da ji Komisija ni pomagala pri razumevanju zahteve za predložitev teh dokumentov in ni dokazala, da so vsi zadevni dokumenti pomembni, kljub temu, da je kitajska vlada „pred začetkom preverjanja izrecno pozvala Komisijo, naj kitajski vladi pomaga pri razumevanju zahteve po predložitvi teh dokumentov ter dokaže, da so vsi zadevni dokumenti pomembni“.
In this respect, firstly, it is noted that all the documents directly pertain the industry concerned [26] and therefore their inclusion within the scope of verification was highly relevant.
V zvezi s tem se najprej ugotovi, da se vsi dokumenti neposredno nanašajo na zadevno industrijo [26], zato je bila njihova vključitev v obseg preveritve zelo pomembna.
Since all these documents directly concern the industry concerned and even particular subsidy schemes such as preferential lending or preferential tax schemes, as is obvious from their wording the Commission did not understand what could be added to demonstrate their relevance even more.
Ker vsi ti dokumenti neposredno zadevajo zadevno industrijo in celo posebne subvencijske sheme, kot so preferenčna posojila ali preferenčne davčne sheme, kot je razvidno iz njihove formulacije, Komisija ni razumela, kaj bi se lahko dodalo, da bi se še bolj dokazal njihov pomen.
It was surprising for the Commission that the GOC did not appear to have a problem with the relevance of these documents when they were submitted, but only when the Commission requested explanations.
Za Komisijo je bilo presenetljivo, da kitajska vlada dozdevno ni imela pomislekov glede pomena teh dokumentov ob njihovi predložitvi, ampak jo je zmotilo šele, ko je Komisija zahtevala pojasnila.
In its letter of 23 May 2013 the Commission stated that it was prevented from verifying most of the submitted information to original documentation and cross-checking it with the source data which were used to prepare the replies of the GOC in respect to the information on the financial market and financial institutions in the PRC.
Komisija je v dopisu z dne 23. maja 2013 navedla, da ji je bilo preprečeno preverjanje večine predloženih informacij v prvotni dokumentaciji in navzkrižno preverjanje teh informacij z virom podatkov, ki so bili uporabljeni pri pripravi odgovorov kitajske vlade v zvezi z informacijami o finančnem trgu in finančnih institucijah v LRK.
The GOC objected that given the ‘very general and unspecific quote’ the Commission has not provided the GOC an opportunity to meaningfully comment and therefore does not enable the GOC to exercise its right of defence in proper way.
Kitajska vlada je ugovarjala, da ji glede na „zelo splošen in nespecifičen navedek“ Komisija ni zagotovila možnosti, da bi podala smiselne pripombe, zaradi česar kitajska vlada ne more ustrezno uveljavljati svoje pravice do obrambe.
This claim does not represent reality.
Ta trditev ne predstavlja dejanskega stanja.
In the questionnaire the Commission asked very specific questions and, in line with normal practice of many investigating authorities it attempted to verify the GOC answers during the on spot verification visit.
Komisija je v vprašalniku zastavila zelo specifična vprašanja in v skladu z običajno prakso številnih preiskovalnih organov poskusila preveriti odgovore kitajske vlade med preveritvenim obiskom na kraju samem.
In particular, the GOC in its reply to the questionnaire stated that ‘the loans to the industry concerned account for very small portion of the total loans granted. For example, some banks have described in their appendix questionnaire that the loans granted to the industry concerned accounted for less than 1 % of total loans’.
Kitajska vlada je v izpolnjenem vprašalniku zlasti navedla, da „posojila zadevni industriji obsegajo zelo majhen delež vseh odobrenih posojil. Nekatere banke so na primer v svojih dodatkih k vprašalniku navedle, da so posojila, odobrena zadevni industriji, obsegala manj kot 1 % vseh posojil“.
During the verification the GOC was not able to support this statement with any evidence at all and simply referred the Commission to the banks.
Kitajska vlada med preverjanjem te izjave ni mogla podpreti z nobenimi dokazi in je Komisijo preprosto usmerila k bankam.
The Commission also requested statistics on the loans to the industry concerned.
Komisija je zahtevala tudi statistične podatke o posojilih zadevni industriji.
The GOC claimed that it does not keep such records.
Kitajska vlada je trdila, da ne vodi take evidence.
When the Commission inquired whether the GOC attempted to compile such statistics and requested this information from the banks the CBRC (Banking regulatory authority in the PRC) official present during the verification replied that he did not know about this as another department in the CBRC would be responsible for statistics.
Ko je Komisijo zanimalo, ali je kitajska vlada poskušala zbrati take statistične podatke in te informacije zahtevala od bank, je uradnik Komisije bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske (bančni regulativni organ v LRK), ki je bil prisoten pri preverjanju, odgovoril, da tega podatka nima, saj je za statistiko odgovoren drug oddelek Komisije bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske.
No statistics as requested in the questionnaire and repeatedly in the deficiency process were submitted by the GOC.
Kitajska vlada ni predložila nobenih statističnih podatkov, ki so bili zahtevani v vprašalniku in nato še večkrat v postopku dopolnitve.
The Commission indicated again in its pre-verification letter that this topic would be covered.
Komisija je v svojem predpreveritvenem pismu ponovno navedla, da bo ta tema obravnavana.
With regard to banks, the Commission also inquired during the verification visit about the risk and creditworthiness assessment, overall operating situation, management situation, credit level, financial usage, repayment ability, guarantee pattern and business cooperation between the banks and the borrowers, as the GOC made claims concerning these issues in its reply to the questionnaire.
Kar zadeva banke, je Komisijo med preveritvenim obiskom zanimalo tudi tveganje in ocena kreditne sposobnosti, splošno stanje poslovanja, stanje upravljanja, višina kreditov, uporaba instrumentov financiranja, vračilna sposobnost, vzorec jamstva ter poslovno sodelovanje med bankami in posojilojemalci, saj je kitajska vlada v izpolnjenem vprašalniku navedla trditve v zvezi s temi vprašanji.
Again, despite the fact that these topics were indicated in the pre-verification letter the GOC was not able to provide any evidence supporting its own claims and referred the Commission to the banks.
Kitajska vlada kljub dejstvu, da so bile te teme navedene v predpreveritvenem pismu, svojih trditev ponovno ni mogla podpreti z nobenimi dokazi in je Komisijo usmerila k bankam.
In its reply to the deficiency letter the GOC submitted some information concerning the percentage of government ownership in some banks.
V svojem odgovoru na poziv k dopolnitvi je kitajska vlada predložila nekatere informacije glede odstotka vladnega lastništva v nekaterih bankah.
It is noted that initially the GOC in the questionnaire reply stated that it does not possess such information and that it only submitted information in this respect after the Commission pointed out that Article 24 of the Commercial Bank Law actually requires banks to report this information to the CBRC.
Opozoriti je treba, da je kitajska vlada v izpolnjenem vprašalniku prvotno navedla, da nima takih informacij, in da je informacije v zvezi s tem predložila šele, ko je Komisija poudarila, da člen 24 Zakona o komercialnih bankah od bank dejansko zahteva, da te informacije sporočajo Komisiji bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske.
When the Commission inquired during the verification visit what was the source of this information, the CBRC official present stated that he did not know as another department of the CBRC is responsible for the collection of such data.
Ko je Komisijo med preveritvenim obiskom zanimalo, od kod izvirajo te informacije, je prisotni uradnik Komisije bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske dejal, da tega podatka nima, saj je za zbiranje takih podatkov odgovoren drug oddelek Komisije bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske.
According to Article 2 of the Interim Regulations on the Boards of Supervisors in Key State-owned Financial Institutions (submitted by EXIM Bank in its reply to the deficiency letter) ‘the list of state-owned financial institutions to which the State Council dispatches boards of supervisors shall be recommended by the administrative organ for boards of supervisors in state-owned financial institutions’.
V skladu s členom 2 Začasnih določb o nadzornih odborih v ključnih državnih finančnih institucijah (ki jih je predložila Kitajska izvozno-uvozna banka v odgovoru na poziv k dopolnitvi) „seznam državnih finančnih institucij, v katere državni svet razpošlje nadzorne odbore, priporoči upravni organ za nadzorne svete v državnih finančnih institucijah“.
Since this legal provision refers to the administrative organ for boards of supervisors in state-owned financial institutions, it seems that the GOC is aware of which financial institutions it owns.
Ker se ta pravna določba nanaša na upravni organ za nadzorne odbore v državnih finančnih institucijah, se zdi, da je kitajska vlada seznanjena, katere finančne institucije so v njeni lasti.
Nevertheless, the Commission was not able to verify this information or even to identify the source of the information because of the non-cooperation from the GOC.
Vendar Komisija zaradi nesodelovanja kitajske vlade teh informacij ni mogla preveriti niti ni mogla ugotoviti vira informacij.
The publicly available information suggests that there are also other state-owned banks (which provided loans to the sampled exporting producers) in addition to those reported by the GOC in its reply to the deficiency letter [27].
V skladu z javno razpoložljivimi informacijami naj bi obstajale tudi druge državne banke (ki so odobrile posojila vzorčenim proizvajalcem izvoznikom) poleg tistih, o katerih je poročala kitajska vlada v svojem odgovoru na poziv k dopolnitvi [27].
In its letter of 3 June 2013 the GOC claimed that the Commission did not either in its questionnaire or in the deficiency letter, ‘ask for the “supporting evidence or data source”’ and ‘now suddenly alleges lack of supporting evidence or data source’.
Kitajska vlada je v svojem dopisu z dne 3. junija 2013 trdila, da Komisija niti v svojem vprašalniku niti v pozivu k dopolnitvi ni „zahtevala podpornih dokazov ali vira podatkov“ in „zdaj nenadoma očita, da podporni dokazi ali vir podatkov niso bili predloženi“.
To set the record straight the Commission, like any other investigating authority, verifies the data submitted by all parties in the proceeding and the GOC was aware of this as Commission pointed out already in its questionnaire and in the cover letter to the questionnaire that the replies could be subject to verification.
Komisija, tako kot vsi preiskovalni organi, zadeve razjasni tako, da preveri vse podatke, ki so jih poslale strani v postopku; s tem je bila kitajska vlada seznanjena, saj je Komisija že v svojem vprašalniku in v spremnem dopisu k vprašalniku poudarila, da se bodo odgovori preverjali.
Moreover, in its pre-verification letter the Commission included also this particular topic among the issues to be covered during the verification [28].
Poleg tega je Komisija v svoje predpreveritveno pismo poleg vprašanj, ki se bodo obravnavala med preverjanjem, vključila tudi to temo [28].
Therefore the fact that the Commission is asking for supporting evidence of the statements made by the GOC was certainly not a surprise for the GOC but the standard procedure followed but the Commission in each and every case.
Zato dejstvo, da Komisija želi podporne dokaze za izjave kitajske vlade, za slednjo nikakor ni bilo presenečenje, vendar je Komisija v vsakem posameznem primeru sledila standardnemu postopku.
When, during the verification, the Commission asked the GOC to submit a list of 10 biggest banks in the PRC and the share of the market they represent, the CBRC replied that it is able to submit such information but that it could not answer the question before it was submitted in a written format.
Ko je Komisija med preverjanjem pozvala kitajsko vlado, naj predloži seznam desetih največjih bank v LRK in tržni delež, ki ga predstavljajo, je Komisija bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske odgovorila, da lahko predloži take informacije, vendar pa na vprašanje ne more odgovoriti, dokler ni predloženo v pisni obliki.
The Commission explained that a question asked during the verification visit orally has the same validity as any questions submitted in writing and pointed to the fact that for the other oral questions the GOC did not request their submission in writing before replying.
Komisija je pojasnila, da ima vprašanje, ki je ustno zastavljeno med preveritvenim obiskom, enako vrednost kot vsa pisno zastavljena vprašanja, in poudarila dejstvo, da za druga ustna vprašanja kitajska vlada pred odgovorom ni zahtevala, da se predložijo v pisni obliki.
In spite of this clarification, the GOC still did not provide the information.
Kljub temu pojasnilu kitajska vlada še vedno ni predložila informacij.
In the questionnaire the Commission requested documents which were the basis for the establishment of the CBRC and provided it with the mandate.
V vprašalniku je Komisija zahtevala dokumente, ki so bili podlaga za ustanovitev Komisije bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske in s katerimi ji je bil zagotovljen mandat.
The GOC submitted a document from the National People's Congress simply stating that the CBRC shall be created.
Kitajska vlada je predložila dokument Nacionalnega ljudskega kongresa, ki navaja samo, da bo ustanovljena Komisija bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske.
When the Commission inquired whether there are any other documents specifying the mandate and purpose of the CBRC, the CBRC official present stated that there are many other laws concerning the CBRC but that, if the Commission wanted to obtain these documents it should have requested them before the verification.
Ko je Komisijo zanimalo, ali obstajajo še kaki drugi dokumenti s podrobnimi podatki o mandatu in namenu Komisije bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske, je prisotni uradnik navedene komisije navedel, da obstajajo številni drugi zakoni o njej, vendar bi jih Komisija morala zahtevati že pred preverjanjem.
It is noted that in the questionnaire the Commission requested the GOC to ‘provide documents which were the basis for the establishment of this authority and provided it with the mandate’ and therefore, it had requested these documents before the verification.
Opozoriti je treba, da je Komisija v vprašalniku od kitajske vlade zahtevala, naj „zagotovi dokumente, ki so podlaga za ustanovitev tega organa in s katerimi mu je bil zagotovljen mandat“, torej je zahtevala te dokumente pred preverjanjem.
When the Commission requested statistics and reports from the banks which provided loans to the sampled exporters for the IP it pointed to Article 33 of the Law of the PRC on Regulation of and Supervision over the Banking Industry [29] which suggests that the CBRC collects such statistics.
Ko je Komisija zahtevala statistične podatke in poročila bank, ki so odobrile posojila vzorčenim izvoznikom za OP, je navedla člen 33 Zakona LRK o regulaciji in nadzoru bančne industrije [29], po katerem Komisija bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske zbira take statistične podatke.
The CBRC official present stated that he had to seek permission from the legal department first but he did not provide any information in this respect before the end of the verification.
Prisotni uradnik iz Komisije bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske je navedel, da je moral najprej pridobiti dovoljenje pravne službe, vendar v zvezi s tem pred koncem preverjanja ni predložil nobenih informacij.
Again it must be noted that the Commission requested this information in the questionnaire and deficiency letter and it had indicated in its pre-verification letter that statistics would be a topic for the verification.
Spet je treba opozoriti, da je Komisija zahtevala te informacije v vprašalniku in pozivu k dopolnitvi ter je v svojem predpreveritvenem pismu navedla, da se bodo preverjali tudi statistični podatki.
The GOC further claimed that the allegations in the complaint concerning Chinese banks being public bodies are based merely on simple assertions of state shareholding which in turn are based on ‘illegal’ determinations in the Coated Fine Paper case.
Kitajska vlada je nadalje trdila, da so trditve v pritožbi, po katerih naj bi bile kitajske banke javni organi, osnovane zgolj na preprostih trditvah o državnem deležu, ki pa temeljijo na „nezakonitih“ določitvah v zadevi o premazanem finem papirju.
This claim is a misinterpretation of facts in the complaint.
Pri tej trditvi gre za napačno razlago dejstev v pritožbi.
In the complaint, the complainant, in addition to the state ownership, refers, inter alia, to the loans provided by banks based on political directives, to the government agencies directing financial institutions to increase credit and lending to enterprises for promoting new technologies and products (including the PV industry).
V pritožbi se pritožnik poleg državnega lastništva med drugim sklicuje na posojila, ki so jih zagotovile banke na podlagi političnih smernic, ter na vladne agencije, ki so finančnim institucijam odredile, da morajo povečati kredite in posojila podjetjem za spodbujanje novih tehnologij in izdelkov (vključno s fotonapetostno industrijo).
The Coated Fine Paper findings on Chinese banks being public bodies were based on more elements than merely ownership (e.g. government intervention and guidance of banks to direct preferential lending to the paper industry via Government plans) and these findings are fully in line with EU and WTO law.
Ugotovitve v zvezi s premazanim finim papirjem glede kitajskih bank, ki so javni organi, so temeljile na več elementih kot zgolj na lastništvu (npr. vladno posredovanje in usmerjanje bank k neposrednim preferenčnim posojilom papirni industriji prek vladnih načrtov), pri čemer so te ugotovitve v celoti v skladu s pravom EU in STO.
In addition, the findings on the status of state-owned banks as public bodies were confirmed in Organic Coated Steel as well.
Poleg tega so bile ugotovitve o statusu državnih bank kot javnih organov potrjene tudi v primeru v zvezi z jeklom, prevlečenim z organskimi premazi.
The GOC also continued to claim that it was not in its practical ability to provide information on 3,800 banks and financial institutions which exist in the PRC and that, in any event the CBRC does not retain records concerning the percentage of government ownership in banks.
Kitajska vlada je tudi še naprej trdila, da ni zmožna zagotoviti informacij o 3800 bankah in finančnih institucijah, ki obstajajo v LRK, in da Komisija bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske v nobenem primeru ne hrani evidence glede odstotka vladnega lastništva v bankah.
The Commission does not understand why the GOC is referring repeatedly to all banks in the PRC in connection with the GOC ownership in them when the information requested was explicitly limited to those banks ‘where the GOC has direct or indirect shareholdership’ [30].
Komisija ne razume, zakaj se kitajska vlada kar naprej sklicuje na vse banke v LRK v zvezi z lastništvom kitajske vlade v njih, ko pa so bile zahtevane informacije izrecno omejene na tiste banke, „v katerih ima kitajska vlada neposredni ali posredni lastniški delež“ [30].
As explained in recital (127) above the claim of the GOC that the CBRC (or any other government authority) does not retain records on its ownership share of the banks seems to be in contradiction with several Chinese legal provisions.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi (127), se zdi, da je trditev kitajske vlade, da Komisija bančnih regulatorjev Kitajske (ali kateri koli drug vladni organ) ne hrani evidence o njenem lastniškem deležu v bankah, v nasprotju s številnimi kitajskimi pravnimi določbami.
In its letter of 3 June 2013 the GOC repeated its claim that it does not have the authority to require ‘independent banks’ to produce confidential information and pointed to the letter that had allegedly been sent to the banks on this matter.
Kitajska vlada je v svojem dopisu z dne 3. junija 2013 ponovno trdila, da nima pristojnosti, da bi od „neodvisnih bank“ zahtevala, naj zagotovijo zaupne informacije, in opozorila na dopis, ki je bil domnevno poslan bankam v zvezi s to zadevo.