natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to ensure the continuity of exports of the fish eligible for preferential tariff treatment from Guatemala to the Union, the derogation should be granted with retroactive effect from 1 July 2013.
Da bi zagotovili neprekinjenost izvoza rib, upravičenega do preferencialnih tarif, iz Gvatemale v Unijo, je treba odstopanje odobriti z retroaktivnim učinkom od 1. julija 2013.
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1044/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly.
Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1044/2012 bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti.
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1044/2012 is amended as follows:
Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 1044/2012 se spremeni:
The derogation provided for in Article 1 shall apply to tuna loins exported from Guatemala and declared for release for free circulation in the Union during the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2013 or until the date of a provisional application of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Central America by Guatemala if this date is the earlier and up to the quantities set out in the Annex to this Regulation.’
Odstopanje, določeno v členu 1, se uporablja za filete tuna, ki se izvažajo iz Gvatemale in se deklarirajo za sprostitev v prosti promet v Uniji v obdobju od 1. januarja 2012 do 31. decembra 2013 ali do datuma začasne uporabe sporazuma o pridružitvi med Evropsko unijo in Srednjo Ameriko s strani Gvatemale, če je ta datum zgodnejši, in sicer do količin, ki so določene v Prilogi k tej uredbi.“;
The Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1044/2012 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.
Priloga k Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) št. 1044/2012 se nadomesti z besedilom iz Priloge k tej uredbi.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1044/2012 of 8 November 2012 on a derogation from Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 as regards the rules of origin used for the purposes of the scheme of generalised tariff preferences to take account of the special situation of Guatemala regarding exports of certain fisheries products to the Union (OJ L 310, 9.11.2012, p. 28).
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 1044/2012 z dne 8. novembra 2012 o odstopanju od Uredbe (EGS) št. 2454/93 glede pravil o poreklu, ki se uporabljajo za namene sheme splošnih tarifnih preferencialov, namenjenemu upoštevanju posebnega položaja Gvatemale glede izvoza nekaterih ribiških proizvodov v Unijo (UL L 310, 9.11.2012, str. 28).
Cooked, frozen and vacuum-packed tuna fillets known as “loins”
kuhani, zamrznjeni in vakuumsko pakirani fileti tuna, znani kot ‚loins‘
987,5 tonnes’
987,5 tone“
By letter dated 27 May 2013, Guatemala submitted a request for the extension of the derogation.
Z dopisom z dne 27. maja 2013 je Gvatemala zaprosila za podaljšanje obdobja odobrenega odstopanja.
The request is for the extension until 31 December 2013 with respect to 987,5 tonnes of cooked, frozen and vacuum-packed tuna fillets known as ‘loins’ (hereafter ‘tuna loins’) of CN code 16041416.
Zaprosila je za podaljšanje do 31. decembra 2013, in sicer za 987,5 tone kuhanih, zamrznjenih in vakuumsko pakiranih filetov tuna, znanih kot „loins“ (v nadaljnjem besedilu: fileti tuna) z oznako KN 16041416.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1103/2013
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 1103/2013
amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards recognising the equivalence of security standards of third countries
o spremembi Uredbe (EU) št. 185/2010 glede priznavanja enakovrednosti varnostnih standardov v tretjih državah
Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 [1], and in particular Article 4(3) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 300/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. marca 2008 o skupnih pravilih na področju varovanja civilnega letalstva in o razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 2320/2002 [1] ter zlasti člena 4(3) Uredbe,
In accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 of 2 April 2009 supplementing the common basic standards on civil aviation security laid down in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council [2], the Commission recognises the equivalence of aviation security standards of third countries under the condition that the criteria set out in that Regulation are met.
V skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 272/2009 z dne 2. aprila 2009 o dopolnitvi skupnih osnovnih standardov na področju varovanja v civilnem letalstvu iz Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 300/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [2] Komisija priznava enakovrednost varnostnih standardov na področju letalstva v tretjih državah pod pogojem, da se upoštevajo merila, ki so določena v navedeni uredbi.
The Commission has verified that Vagar airport in Faroe Islands and Kangerlussuaq airport in Greenland fulfil the criteria set out in Part E of the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 272/2009.
Komisija je preverila, da letališče Vagar na Ferskih otokih in letališče Kangerlussuaq na Grenlandiji izpolnjujeta merila, določena v delu E Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 272/2009.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 [3], lists in its Annex the third countries recognised as applying security standards equivalent to the common basic standards that Regulation (EC) No 272/2009 establishes.
V Prilogi Uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 185/2010 [3] so naštete tretje države, za katere je priznano, da uporabljajo varnostne standarde, enakovredne skupnim osnovnim standardom, ki jih določa navedena uredba (ES) št. 272/2009.
Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.
Uredbo (EU) št. 185/2010 je zato treba spremeniti.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of 4 March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security (OJ L 55, 5.3.2010, p. 1).
Uredba Komisije (EU) št. 185/2010 z dne 4. marca 2010 o določitvi podrobnih ukrepov za izvajanje skupnih osnovnih standardov za varnost letalstva (UL L 55, 5.3.2010, str. 1).
in Chapter 3, Attachment 3-B, the following entries are added:
v dodatku 3-B poglavja 3 se dodata naslednja vnosa:
‘Vagar airport in Faroe Islands
„letališče Vagar na Ferskih otokih
Kangerlussuaq airport in Greenland’
letališče Kangerlussuaq na Grenlandiji“.
in Chapter 4, Attachment 4-B, the following entries are added:
v dodatku 4-B poglavja 4 se dodata naslednja vnosa:
in Chapter 5, Attachment 5-A, the following entries are added:
v dodatku 5-A poglavja 5 se dodata naslednja vnosa:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1104/2013
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 1104/2013
entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (‘Basterdsuiker’/‘Basterdsuicker’/‘Basterdsuijcker’/‘Basterdsuijker’/‘Basterd’/‘Bastardsuiker’/‘Bastardsuicker’/‘Bastardsuijcker’/‘Bastardsuijker’/‘Bastard’/‘Bastert’/‘Bastertsuiker’ (TSG))
o vpisu imena v register zajamčenih tradicionalnih posebnosti [„Basterdsuiker“/„Basterdsuicker“/„Basterdsuijcker“/„Basterdsuijker“/„Basterd“/„Bastardsuiker“/„Bastardsuicker“/„Bastardsuijcker“/„Bastardsuijker“/„Bastard“/„Bastert“/„Bastertsuiker“ (ZTP)]
Pursuant to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006, the Netherlands’ application to register the name ‘Basterdsuiker’/‘Basterdsuicker’/‘Basterdsuijcker’/‘Basterdsuijker’/‘Basterd’/‘Bastardsuiker’/‘Bastardsuicker’/‘Bastardsuijcker’/‘Bastardsuijker’/‘Bastard’/‘Bastert’/‘Bastertsuiker’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3].
V skladu s členom 8(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 509/2006 je bila vloga za vpis imena „Basterdsuiker“/„Basterdsuicker“/„Basterdsuijcker“/„Basterdsuijker“/„Basterd“ / „Bastardsuiker“/„Bastardsuicker“/„Bastardsuijcker“ / „Bastardsuijker“/„Bastard“/„Bastert“/„Bastertsuiker“ v register, ki jo je vložila Nizozemska, objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3].
As no statement of objection under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Basterdsuiker’/‘Basterdsuicker’/‘Basterdsuijcker’/‘Basterdsuijker’/‘Basterd’/‘Bastardsuiker’/‘Bastardsuicker’/‘Bastardsuijcker’/‘Bastardsuijker’/‘Bastard’/‘Bastert’/‘Bastertsuiker’ should therefore be entered in the register,
Ker v skladu s členom 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 509/2006 Komisija ni prejela nobene izjave o ugovoru, bi bilo treba ime „Basterdsuiker“/„Basterdsuicker“/„Basterdsuijcker“/„Basterdsuijker“/„Basterd“/„Bastardsuiker“ / „Bastardsuicker“/„Bastardsuijcker“/„Bastardsuijker“ / „Bastard“/„Bastert“/„Bastertsuiker“ registrirati –
OJ C 363, 23.11.2012, p. 8.
UL C 363, 23.11.2012, str. 8.
Basterdsuiker/Basterdsuicker/Basterdsuijcker/Basterdsuijker/Basterd/Bastardsuiker/Bastardsuicker/Bastardsuijcker/Bastardsuijker/Bastard/Bastert/Bastertsuiker (TSG)
Basterdsuiker/Basterdsuicker/Basterdsuijcker/Basterdsuijker/Basterd/Bastardsuiker/Bastardsuicker/Bastardsuijcker/Bastardsuijker/Bastard/Bastert/Bastertsuiker (ZTP)
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2013
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 1105/2013
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013
Izvedbena uredba Sveta (EU) št. 1106/2013
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije
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 (‘the basic Regulation’) [1], and in particular Article 9 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 („osnovna uredba“) [1] in zlasti člena 9 Uredbe,
On 3 May 2013, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) imposed, by means of Regulation (EU) No 418/2013 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’), a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports into the European Union (‘the Union’) of certain stainless steel wires originating in India (‘the country concerned’).
Evropska komisija („Komisija“) je z Uredbo (EU) št. 418/2013 [2] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz v Evropsko unijo („Unija“) nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije („zadevna država“).
The investigation was initiated following a complaint lodged on 28 June 2012 by the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries (Eurofer) (‘the complainant’) on behalf of Union producers representing more than 50 % of the total Union production of certain stainless steel wires.
Preiskava je bila uvedena na podlagi pritožbe, ki jo je 28. junija 2012 vložila Evropska zveza za železo in jeklo (Eurofer) („pritožnik“) v imenu proizvajalcev Unije, ki predstavljajo več kot 50 % celotne proizvodnje nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla v Uniji.
In the parallel anti-subsidy investigation, the Commission imposed a provisional countervailing duty on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in the country concerned by means of Regulation (EU) No 419/2013 [3] and a definitive countervailing duty by means of Regulation (EU) No 861/2013 [4].
Komisija je v vzporedni protisubvencijski preiskavi z Uredbo (EU) št. 419/2013 [3] uvedla začasno izravnalno dajatev na uvoz nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz zadevne države, z Uredbo (EU) št. 861/2013 [4] pa je uvedla dokončno izravnalno dajatev.
At the provisional stage of the investigation, sampling was applied for the Indian exporting producers and the Union producers.
V začasni fazi preiskave se je za indijske proizvajalce izvoznike in proizvajalce Unije uporabilo vzorčenje.
At the provisional stage, sampling was envisaged also regarding unrelated importers.
V začasni fazi je bilo vzorčenje predvideno tudi za nepovezane uvoznike.
However, as two out of three importers chosen for the sample did not submit questionnaire replies, sampling for importers could not be applied.
Ker pa dva od treh uvoznikov, izbranih v vzorec, nista vrnila izpolnjenega vprašalnika, vzorčenja za uvoznike ni bilo mogoče izvesti.
Therefore, all available information pertaining to all cooperating importers was used to reach definitive findings; in particular as far the Union interest is concerned.
Da bi prišli do dokončnih ugotovitev, so bile zato uporabljene vse razpoložljive informacije, ki se nanašajo na vse sodelujoče uvoznike, zlasti v zvezi z interesom Unije.
One exporting producer alleged that since no sales from non-complainants were used for the determination of the injury suffered by the Union industry, the selected sample of Union producers could not be considered representative.
Eden od proizvajalcev izvoznikov je trdil, da izbranega vzorca proizvajalcev Unije ni mogoče šteti za reprezentativnega, ker pri določitvi škode, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, ni bila upoštevana prodaja proizvajalcev, ki niso med pritožniki.
That claim was rejected because the sample was selected on the basis of the replies received from all cooperating Union producers regardless their support for the complaint at the stage of determination of standing, and was made on the basis of production volumes.
Ta trditev je bila zavrnjena, ker je bil vzorec izbran na podlagi odgovorov, prejetih od vseh sodelujočih proizvajalcev Unije, ne glede na njihovo podporo pritožbi v fazi določanja reprezentativnosti, izbor pa je temeljil na obsegu proizvodnje.
One exporting producer, related to a Union producer, opposed the complaint, and requested individual examination, because it was not included in the sample of exporting producers, as a result of its low export volumes.
Proizvajalec izvoznik, ki je povezan z enim od proizvajalcev Unije, je nasprotoval pritožbi in zahteval individualno preiskavo, ker zaradi majhnega obsega izvoza ni bil vključen v vzorec proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The Union producer itself was also not included in the Union industry sample because of its low production volumes.
Zaradi majhnega obsega proizvodnje tudi proizvajalec Unije ni bil vključen v vzorec industrije Unije.
The individual examination was granted by the Commission, but the exporting producer withdrew its request.
Komisija je individualno preiskavo odobrila, vendar je proizvajalec izvoznik umaknil svoj zahtevek.
Two of them replied to the questionnaires and five did not.
Od teh sta na vprašalnik odgovorila samo dva.
Out of the two which replied to the questionnaire, one withdrew its individual examination request.
Eden od dveh proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki sta odgovorila na vprašalnik, je umaknil zahtevo za individualno preiskavo.
As a result, the Commission has examined the request of one Indian exporting producer outside the sample, namely:
Zato je Komisija proučila zahtevek indijskega proizvajalca izvoznika, ki ni bil vključen v vzorec:
At the provisional stage, none of the initially sampled exporting producers was found to have submitted sufficiently reliable information. Therefore Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied.
V začasni preiskavi je bilo ugotovljeno, da nobeden od prvotno vzorčenih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ni predložil dovolj zanesljivih informacij, zato je bil uporabljen člen 18 osnovne uredbe.
The Commission decided to extend the sample with three companies, based on their export volumes and their willingness to cooperate, as expressed following the initiation of the proceeding.
Komisija je sklenila razširiti vzorec na dodatne tri družbe na podlagi njihovega obsega izvoza in njihove pripravljenosti za sodelovanje, kakor so jo izrazile po začetku postopka.
As a result, the Commission has examined the questionnaire replies and carried out verification visits at the premises of the following Indian exporting producers:
Komisija je tako preučila odgovore na vprašalnik in opravila preveritvene obiske v prostorih naslednjih indijskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov:
Apart from the above, recitals 4 to 7 and 14 of the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Razen navedenega se uvodne izjave 4 do 7 in uvodna izjava 14 začasne uredbe potrdijo.
As set out in recital 20 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 20 začasne uredbe, je preiskava dampinga in škode zajela obdobje od 1. aprila 2011 do 31. marca 2012 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
Following the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping measures (‘provisional disclosure’), several interested parties, namely the 3 sampled exporting producers, the one exporting producer which withdrew its individual examination request, the complainant, and 11 users submitted comments.
Po razkritju bistvenih dejstev in okoliščin, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločitev o uvedbi začasnih protidampinških ukrepov („začasno razkritje“), je pripombe predložilo več zainteresiranih strani, tj. trije vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki, proizvajalec izvoznik, ki je umaknil zahtevek za individualno preiskavo, pritožnik in enajst uporabnikov.
The parties who so requested were granted a hearing.
Stranem, ki so to zahtevale, je bilo zaslišanje odobreno.
The Commission continued to seek information which it deemed necessary for the definitive findings.
Komisija je še naprej zbirala informacije, ki so bile po njenem mnenju potrebne za sprejetje dokončnih ugotovitev.
The Commission informed the interested parties of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in the country concerned and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty (‘final disclosure’).
Komisija je zainteresirane strani obvestila o bistvenih dejstvih in okoliščinah, na podlagi katerih je nameravala priporočiti uvedbo dokončne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz zadevne države in dokončno pobiranje zneskov, zavarovanih z začasno dajatvijo („dokončno razkritje“).
The parties were also granted a period within which they could comment on the final disclosure.
Določeno je bilo obdobje, v katerem so strani lahko predložile pripombe v zvezi z dokončnim razkritjem.
Following the comments received on the final disclosure, the Commission informed the interested parties of changes in the findings concerning the level of dumping of certain exporting producers.
Potem ko je prejela pripombe na dokončno razkritje, je Komisija zainteresirane strani obvestila o spremenjenih ugotovitvah v zvezi s stopnjo dampinga nekaterih proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
The parties were again granted a period within which they could comment on the additional disclosure.
Spet je bilo določeno obdobje, v katerem so zainteresirane strani lahko predložile pripombe v zvezi z dodatnim razkritjem.
One interested party, the complainant, criticised the fact that the findings concerning the level of dumping of certain exporting producers were altered on the basis of new data and comments received after the provisional disclosure and at the definitive stage of the investigation.
Ena od zainteresiranih strani, tj. pritožnik, se je pritožila nad dejstvom, da so bile ugotovitve v zvezi s stopnjo dampinga nekaterih proizvajalcev izvoznikov spremenjene na podlagi novih podatkov in pripomb, prejetih po začasnem razkritju in v dokončni fazi preiskave.
It also alleged that its procedural rights were infringed.
Prav tako je trdila, da so bile kršene njene procesne pravice.
The Commission, however, considered that it was to take into account the submissions received from the interested parties and, if necessary, alter the findings when the comments were justified.
Vendar je Komisija menila, da mora upoštevati pripombe zainteresiranih strani in, če so te upravičene, ustrezno spremeniti ugotovitve.
In none of these instances, new unverified data was used for the dumping determination.
V nobenem od teh primerov niso bili za določitev dampinga uporabljeni novi, nepreverjeni podatki.
Moreover, the procedural rights of all interested parties were respected as they were duly and timely informed and given the same deadlines within which to submit comments.
Poleg tega so bile procesne pravice vseh zainteresiranih strani spoštovane, saj so bile vse zainteresirane strani ustrezno in pravočasno obveščene ter so imele na voljo enak rok za predložitev pripomb.
2,5 % or more of nickel, other than wire containing by weight 28 % or more but not more than 31 % of nickel and 20 % or more but not more than 22 % of chromium,
2,5 mas. % ali več niklja, razen žice, ki vsebuje 28 mas. % ali več, vendar ne več kot 31 mas. % niklja in 20 mas. % ali več, vendar ne več kot 22 mas. % kroma,
currently falling within CN codes 72230019 and 72230099, originating in the country concerned.
trenutno uvrščene pod oznaki KN 72230019 in 72230099, s poreklom iz zadevne države.
There was a particular concern as to how a fair comparison among all types could be ensured in the investigation.
Zlasti so se pojavili pomisleki v zvezi z vprašanjem, kako v preiskavi zagotoviti pošteno primerjavo med vsemi vrstami.
As is the case in most investigations, the definition of the product concerned covers a wide variety of product types which share the same or similar basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics.
Kot v večini preiskav opredelitev zadevnega izdelka zajema veliko različnih vrst izdelka, ki imajo enake ali podobne osnovne fizikalne, tehnične in kemične značilnosti.
The fact that these characteristics can vary from product type to product type may indeed lead to cover a wide range of types.
Dejstvo, da so te značilnosti lahko pri vsaki posamezni vrsti izdelka različne, lahko dejansko privede do tega, da se zajame širok nabor vrst.
The number depended on the main characteristics of the product — in this case: the steel grade, the tensile strength, the coating, the surface, diameter, and shape.
Temeljila je na glavnih značilnostih izdelka, ki so v tem primeru vrsta jekla, natezna trdnost, premaz, površina, premer in oblika.
Therefore, the types of wires exported to the Union were compared on a PCN basis with the products produced and sold by the Union industry that have the same or similar characteristics.
Tako so bile vrste žic, izvožene v Unijo, na podlagi kontrolne številke izdelka primerjane z izdelki, ki jih proizvaja in prodaja industrija Unije ter imajo enake ali podobne značilnosti.
All these types fell within the definition of the product concerned and the like product in the notice of initiation [5] and in the provisional Regulation.
Vse te vrste so bile zajete v opredelitvi zadevnega izdelka in podobnega izdelka v obvestilu o začetku [5] ter v začasni uredbi.
One party reiterated its claim that the so-called ‘highly technical’ product types are different and not interchangeable with other types of the product concerned.
Ena od strani je ponovno zatrdila, da se tako imenovane vrste „visokotehnoloških“ izdelkov razlikujejo od drugih vrst zadevnega izdelka in z njimi niso zamenljive.
Hence, they should be excluded from the product definition.
Zato naj bi jih bilo treba izključiti iz opredelitve izdelka.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union [6], when determining whether products are alike so that they form part of the same product, an assessment as to whether they share the same technical and physical characteristics, and have the same basic end-uses and the same price-quality ratio, has to be carried out.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije [6] je treba pri določanju, ali sta si izdelka podobna in tako del istega izdelka, oceniti, ali imata enake tehnične in fizikalne značilnosti, enako osnovno končno uporabo in enako razmerje med ceno in kakovostjo.
In that regard, the interchangeability of, and competition between, those products should also be assessed.
V zvezi s tem bi bilo treba oceniti tudi zamenljivost in medsebojno konkurenčnost takih izdelkov.