natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
One interested party claimed that the market share of the Union industry for modules was already only 19 % in 2009 and that a decrease by 6 percentage points during the period considered cannot be considered as injury.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da je tržni delež industrije Unije za module že leta 2009 znašal samo 19 % in da zmanjšanja za 6 odstotnih točk v obravnavanem obdobju ni mogoče šteti za škodo.
The decrease in market share by 6 percentage points over the period considered has to be seen against the background of an increase of the Union consumption for modules by over 200 % over the same period.
Zmanjšanje tržnega deleža za 6 odstotnih točk v obravnavanem obdobju je treba obravnavati ob upoštevanju povečanja potrošnje modulov v Uniji za več kot 200 % v istem obdobju.
The Union industry could not benefit from the increased consumption; to the contrary, even under the scenario of an increased consumption it could not increase its sales volume accordingly and suffered losses in market share.
Industrija Unije ni mogla izkoristiti povečane potrošnje; nasprotno, tudi ob povečani potrošnji ni mogla ustrezno povečati svojega obsega prodaje in je utrpela izgubo tržnega deleža.
One party argued that the methodology used to collect sales data (mainly interviews and visits of production sites) did not allow for reliable results due to the confidential character of these data and as a consequence the reluctance of companies to disclose them.
Ena stran je trdila, da metodologija, s katero so se zbirali podatki o prodaji (predvsem intervjuji in obiski proizvodnih lokacij), ni zagotovila zanesljivih rezultatov zaradi zaupnega značaja teh podatkov in posledične nepripravljenosti podjetij, da jih razkrije.
Likewise, they cannot be considered as positive evidence within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation.
Podobno teh podatkov ni mogoče šteti za pozitiven dokaz v smislu člena 3(2) osnovne uredbe.
As mentioned above in recital (137) above the data collected by the consultant were cross checked with other sources wherever possible and it was found that the estimations were sufficiently reliable.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (137), so bili podatki, ki jih je zbral svetovalec, navzkrižno preverjeni z drugimi viri, kadar je bilo to mogoče, in ugotovljeno je bilo, da so bile ocene dovolj zanesljive.
It is therefore confirmed that the information on sales data provided by the consultant was considered as positive evidence within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je potrjeno, da so se informacije o podatkih o prodaji, ki jih je posredoval svetovalec, štele za pozitiven dokaz v smislu člena 3(2) osnovne uredbe.
In the absence of other comments on the Union industry's sales volume and its market shares, recitals (129) to (131) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb v zvezi z obsegom prodaje industrije Unije in njenimi tržnimi deleži, se uvodne izjave od (129) do (131) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Following final disclosure, one party claimed that the methodology to establish total employment in the Union during the period considered was incorrect.
Po dokončnem razkritju je ena stran trdila, da je bila metodologija za določitev skupnega števila zaposlenih v Uniji v obravnavanem obdobju napačna.
This party alleged that wherever the employment rate of a specific Union producer was not available, the average employment of those Union producers for which this information was available was taken into consideration instead.
Ta stran je trdila, da se je namesto tega povsod tam, kjer podatek o stopnji zaposlenosti pri določenem proizvajalcu Unije ni bil dostopen, upoštevalo povprečno število zaposlenih pri tistih proizvajalcih Unije, za katere so bile te informacije dostopne.
This had to be rejected as the methodology to establish total employment was different, i.e. in case employment data for a certain Union producer was not available, this figure was estimated on the basis of data of that same company from the previous year(s).
To je bilo treba zavrniti, saj je bila metodologija za določitev skupnega števila zaposlenih drugačna: tj. če podatki o številu zaposlenih za določenega proizvajalca Unije niso bili dostopni, se je ta podatek ocenil na podlagi podatkov istega podjetja za predhodna leta.
As mentioned above in recital (137) this methodology was verified and found reasonable.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (137), je bila ta metodologija preverjena in ugotovljeno je bilo, da je smiselna.
In the absence of any comments concerning the level of Union industry's employment and productivity, recitals (132) to (134) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih pripomb v zvezi s stopnjo zaposlenosti in produktivnosti industrije Unije, se uvodne izjave od (132) do (134) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
In the absence of any comments in this respect, recitals (135) to (136) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo pripomb v zvezi s tem, se uvodni izjavi (135) in (136) začasne uredbe potrdita.
One interested party contested the findings that the decrease of the average sales prices had a devastating effect on the profitability of the Union industry.
Ena zainteresirana stran je nasprotovala trditvi, da je imelo znižanje povprečnih prodajnih cen uničujoč učinek na dobičkonosnost industrije Unije.
It claimed that the average cost of the Union industry decreased equally and that therefore a decrease in price is natural.
Trdila je, da je bilo znižanje povprečnih stroškov industrije Unije enako in da je zato znižanje cen logično.
However, as described in recital (138) to the provisional Regulation, the investigation established that the Union industry sales price decreased even more than its average cost of production and therefore such decrease in costs was not reflected in the Union industry' profitability.
Vendar, kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi (138) začasne uredbe, je preiskava pokazala, da se je prodajna cena industrije Unije zmanjšala bolj kot povprečni stroški proizvodnje in da takšno znižanje stroškov torej ni bilo izraženo z dobičkonosnostjo industrije Unije.
It is therefore confirmed that the decrease in sales price of the Union industry had a devastating effect on the profitability of the Union industry and the claims in this regard were rejected.
Zato je potrjeno, da je imelo znižanje prodajnih cen industrije Unije uničujoč učinek na dobičkonosnost industrije Unije, in so trditve v zvezi s tem zavrnjene.
Another party contested the conclusion in recital (138) to the provisional Regulation that prices were at unsustainable levels in the IP, claiming that this would be for market forces to decide.
Druga stran je ugovarjala sklepu iz uvodne izjave (138) začasne uredbe, da so cene v OP padle na nevzdržno raven, in je trdila, da bodo odločitev o tem morale sprejeti tržne sile.
The same party also objected to the conclusion in the same recital that the Union industry was not able to benefit from cost decreases due to the price pressure of the dumped imports.
Ista stran je tudi ugovarjala sklepu iz iste uvodne izjave, da znižanja stroškov niso pomenila ugodnosti za industrijo Unije zaradi cenovnega pritiska dampinškega uvoza.
In this regard, the Institutions observe the following: ‘unsustainable level’ refers to the fact that the Union industry was selling at loss, and therefore could not survive in the long term.
Glede tega institucije ugotavljajo naslednje: „nevzdržna raven“ se nanaša na dejstvo, da je industrija Unije prodajala z izgubo, zato dolgoročno ni mogla preživeti.
The question whether the price level is sustainable is therefore only a question of the relationship between production costs and prices.
Vprašanje, ali je raven cen vzdržna, je torej vprašanje razmerja med stroški proizvodnje in cenami.
By ‘not being able to benefit from cost decreases’, it is referred to the fact that costs fell less quickly than prices.
To, da „znižanja stroškov niso pomenila ugodnosti“, pa se nanaša na dejstvo, da so se stroški zniževali počasneje od cen.
Both those statements are backed up with evidence in recital (138) to the provisional Regulation.
Obe izjavi sta podprti z dokazi v uvodni izjavi (138) začasne uredbe.
Therefore, this argument had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba to trditev zavrniti.
In absence of any further comments concerning the Union industry's average sales prices recitals (137) and (138) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb v zvezi s povprečno prodajno ceno industrije Unije, se uvodni izjavi (137) in (138) začasne uredbe potrdita.
The same interested party claimed that in contrast to what is stated in recital (140) to the provisional Regulation, there has not been any inflation during the period considered and that therefore the overall increase of labour costs could not have been caused by this factor.
Ista zainteresirana stran je trdila, da v nasprotju s tem, kar je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (140) začasne uredbe, v obravnavanem obdobju ni bilo nobene inflacije in da zato ta dejavnik ni mogel povzročiti splošnega povečanja stroškov dela.
In contrast to what was claimed by the party concerned, the investigation revealed that there has been inflation during the period considered and that the increase in labour cost, limited to modules, can be explained by inflation and increase in productivity.
Preiskava je v nasprotju s trditvijo zadevne strani pokazala, da je v obravnavanem obdobju prišlo do inflacije in da je povečanje stroškov dela veljalo samo za module, kar je mogoče pojasniti z inflacijo in povečanjem produktivnosti.
One interested party claimed that the injurious situation of the Union industry was caused by the increase in labour costs and the parallel decrease in productivity.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da je škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, povzročilo povečanje stroškov dela in vzporedno zmanjšanje produktivnosti.
However, first it should be noted that labour cost remained stable in case of cells, while productivity increased both for cells and modules.
Vendar je treba najprej opozoriti, da so stroški dela pri celicah ostali stabilni, medtem ko se je produktivnost povečala za celice in module.
Therefore, the increase of the latter can be explained by increased productivity.
Zato je povečanje stroškov dela mogoče pojasniti s povečanjem produktivnosti.
Moreover the investigation has shown that labour costs do not represent a significant part of the cost of production, as already cited in recital (203) to the provisional Regulation.
Poleg tega preiskava kaže, da stroški dela niso bistven sestavni del stroškov proizvodnje, kot je navedeno že v uvodni izjavi (203) začasne uredbe.
On this basis, the findings in recitals (139) and (140) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Na podlagi tega se ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav (139) in (140) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
One interested party claimed that, the increase in stock levels over the period considered, when expressed as a percentage of the total production, would be insignificant and cannot therefore be seen as evidence for injury.
Ena zainteresirana stran je trdila, da bi bilo povečanje ravni zalog v obravnavanem obdobju, izraženo v odstotkih celotne proizvodnje, zanemarljivo in ga zato ni mogoče obravnavati kot dokaz za škodo.
This party argued further that the presentation of the stock values in recital (141) to the provisional Regulation is misleading as stocks were expressed in kW rather than MW unlike the Union industry's production volume.
Ta stran je nadalje trdila, da so navedbe vrednosti zalog v uvodni izjavi (141) začasne uredbe zavajajoče, ker so zaloge za razliko od obsega proizvodnje industrije Unije izražene v kW namesto v MW.
In this respect, it is noted that recital (143) to the provisional Regulation shall be amended and should read ‘… the increase in stocks for the like product over the period considered is not a relevant factor in establishing if the Union industry suffered material injury’.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da se uvodna izjava (143) začasne uredbe spremeni, tako da se glasi „Zato povečanje zalog podobnega izdelka v obravnavanem obdobju ni pomemben dejavnik za presojo, ali je industrija Unije utrpela znatno škodo“.
The existence of a clerical error becomes clear from the preceding sentence which concludes that the Union producers tend to hold limited stocks as their production is based on orders.
Obstoj stvarne napake je razviden iz prejšnjega stavka začasne uredbe, v katerem se ugotavlja, da imajo proizvajalci Unije običajno omejene zaloge, saj njihova proizvodnja temelji na naročilih.
Finally, whether stocks are expressed in kW or in MW as such was considered irrelevant in the determination whether or not the Union industry suffered material injury.
Nazadnje pri ugotavljanju, ali je industrija Unije utrpela znatno škodo, ni pomembno, ali so zaloge izražene v kW ali MW.
After final disclosure, several parties claimed that stocks should have been determined for the whole Union industry and that the figures of only ten Union producers were not representative.
Po dokončnem razkritju je več strani trdilo, da bi bilo treba določiti zaloge za celotno industrijo Unije in da podatki samo desetih proizvajalcev Unije niso bili reprezentativni.
It is clarified that the stocks were considered as a microeconomic indicator and should therefore be established on the basis of the information collected on a per company basis, in this case from the sample of Union producers considered as representative for the whole Union industry.
Jasno je, da so se zaloge štele za makroekonomski kazalnik in da bi jih zato bilo treba določiti na podlagi informacij, zbranih za posamezna podjetja, v tem primeru iz vzorca proizvajalcev Unije, ki šteje za reprezentativnega za celotno industrijo Unije.
In absence of any other comments concerning inventories, recitals (141) to (143) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker v zvezi z zalogami ni bilo drugih pripomb, se uvodne izjave od (141) do (143) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments, ability to raise capital
Dobičkonosnost, denarni tok, naložbe, donosnost naložb in zmožnost zbiranja kapitala
Following a comment by an interested party it is clarified that the statement that cash flows followed a ‘progressively negative trend’ between 2009 and the IP in recital (148) to the provisional Regulation was wrong as cash flows for modules, while decreasing between 2009 and 2010, were in fact increasing in 2011 and decreasing again in the IP.
Po pripombi zainteresirane strani se pojasnjuje, da je bila trditev, da so denarni tokovi med letom 2009 in OP sledili „postopnemu negativnemu trendu“ iz uvodne izjave (148) začasne uredbe, napačna, saj so se denarni tokovi za module leta 2011 pravzaprav povečevali in se ponovno zmanjševali v OP, čeprav so se zmanjševali med letoma 2009 in 2010.
The same party alleged that investment figures as shown in recital (149) to the provisional Regulation were too low when compared to the production capacity of the Union industry as shown in recital (124) to the provisional Regulation.
Ista zainteresirana stran je trdila, da so bili podatki o naložbah iz uvodne izjave (149) začasne uredbe prenizki v primerjavi s proizvodno zmogljivostjo industrije Unije, kot je prikazana v uvodni izjavi (124) začasne uredbe.
In support of this claim the party submitted to be aware of the investment made by one Union producer in capacity increases which was at a much higher cost.
V podporo tej trditvi je stran potrdila, da je seznanjena z naložbo enega proizvajalca Unije v povečanje zmogljivosti, povezano s precej višjimi stroški.
The party concerned concluded that therefore the established production capacity of the Union industry must have been overestimated.
Zadevna stran je sklenila, da je ugotovljena proizvodna zmogljivost industrije Unije torej morala biti precenjena.
It is noted that this claim was not supported by any evidence, in particular as regards the investment made by the Union producer in question.
Treba je omeniti, da trditev ni bila podprta z nobenimi dokazi, zlasti v zvezi z naložbami zadevnega proizvajalca Unije.
In contrast, the investment figures in the provisional Regulation were based on actual and verified information from the sampled Union producers.
Nasprotno pa so podatki o naložbah v začasni uredbi temeljili na dejanskih in preverjenih informacijah vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije.
It should be noted that this claim was also based on the comparison between the total investments of the sampled Union producers and the total production capacity of the whole Union industry, which cannot be considered an appropriate basis for comparison as not the total investments of the whole Union industry were taken into consideration.
Treba je opozoriti, da je ta trditev temeljila tudi na primerjavi med skupnimi naložbami vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije in skupno proizvodno zmogljivostjo celotne industrije Unije, česar ni mogoče šteti za ustrezno podlago za primerjavo, saj pri tem niso bile upoštevane skupne naložbe celotne industrije Unije.
In absence of any other comments concerning profitability, cash flow, investments and return on investments, ability to raise capital recitals (144) to (152) to the provisional Regulation are confirmed.
Ker ni bilo drugih pripomb v zvezi z dobičkonosnostjo, denarnim tokom, naložbami, donosnostjo naložb in zmožnostjo zbiranja kapitala, se uvodne izjave od (144) do (152) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
In the light of the foregoing the conclusions set out in recitals (153) to (158) to the provisional Regulation, i.e. that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, are confirmed.
Glede na navedeno se ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav od (153) do (158) začasne uredbe, tj. da je industrija Unije utrpela znatno škodo v smislu člena 3(5) osnovne uredbe, potrdijo.
After the provisional disclosure, several interested parties claimed that the causation analysis conducted did not separate, distinguish and quantify the injurious effects of the dumped imports from the effects of other known factors which at the same time are injuring the Union industry.
Po začasnem razkritju je več zainteresiranih strani trdilo, da analiza vzročne zveze ni ločevala ali razlikovala med škodljivimi učinki dampinškega uvoza in učinki drugih znanih dejavnikov, ki istočasno škodijo industriji Unije, ter učinkov ni količinsko opredelila.
Moreover, it was claimed that the Commission failed to undertake a collective analysis of these other known factors.
Poleg tega so trdile, da Komisija ni opravila skupne analize teh drugih znanih dejavnikov.
In reply to this claim it should be noted that the Commission, as per established practice, first examined whether there is a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry and secondly examined whether any of the other known factors had broken the causal link established between the material injury suffered by the Union industry and the dumped imports.
V odgovor na to trditev je treba poudariti, da je Komisija v skladu z uveljavljeno prakso najprej proučila, ali obstaja vzročna zveza med dampinškim uvozom in škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, ter ali je kateri koli od drugih znanih dejavnikov prekinil vzročno zvezo med znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, in dampinškim uvozom.
In this analysis, the effects of the other known factors on the situation of the Union industry were assessed, distinguished and separated from the injurious effects of the dumped imports to ensure that injuries caused by these factors were not attributed to the dumped imports.
V tej analizi so bili učinki drugih znanih dejavnikov na položaj industrije Unije ocenjeni ločeno od škodljivih učinkov dampinškega uvoza in tako se je zagotovilo, da se škoda, ki so jo povzročili ti dejavniki, ni pripisala dampinškemu uvozu.
It was found that none of them had a significant impact, if any, on the situation of the industry that could reverse the fact that the material injury assessed must be attributed to the dumped imports.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da nobeden od teh dejavnikov ni imel znatnega vpliva, če ga je sploh imel, na položaj celotne industrije, ki bi lahko spremenil dejstvo, da je treba ocenjeno znatno škodo pripisati dampinškemu uvozu.
On these grounds the argument was dismissed.
Na podlagi tega je bila trditev zavrnjena.
Following the final disclosure, several interested parties reiterated the above arguments.
Po dokončnem razkritju je zgornje trditve ponovilo več zainteresiranih strani.
In this regard it was claimed that the Commission should establish explicitly, through a reasoned and adequate explanation, that the injury caused by factors other than the dumped imports is not attributed to these imports.
Glede tega so trdile, da bi Komisija morala v utemeljenem in ustreznem pojasnilu izrecno navesti, da se škoda, ki so jo povzročili drugi dejavniki razen dampinškega uvoza, takšnemu uvozu ne pripisuje.
In this investigation, it was concluded, after examining all the facts, that the dumped imports taken in isolation have caused material injury to the Union industry.
V tej preiskavi je bilo po proučitvi vseh dejstev sklenjeno, da je dampinški uvoz, ki se je preiskoval ločeno, povzročil znatno škodo industriji Unije.
In this respect, quantifying the effects of other known factors was not possible and therefore a qualitative assessment was carried out as set out in recitals (164) to (222) to the provisional Regulation.
V tej zvezi ni bilo mogoče natančno določiti učinka drugih znanih dejavnikov, zato je bila opravljena količinska ocena, določena v uvodnih izjavah od (164) do (222) začasne uredbe.
In conclusion, it was confirmed that the material injury of the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports.
Na koncu je bilo potrjeno, da je dampinški uvoz povzročil znatno škodo industriji Unije.
Indeed the effects of other factors on the Union's industry's negative development were considered to be limited.
Učinki drugih dejavnikov na negativni razvoj industrije Unije se dejansko štejejo za omejene.
It should be noted that, under Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, no obligation is imposed as to the form of the attribution and non attribution analyses which should be carried out.
Treba je opozoriti, da na podlagi člena 3(6) in člena (7) osnovne uredbe ni bila predpisana nikakršna obveznost glede oblike analiz pripisovanja in nepripisovanja, ki bi jih bilo treba izvajati.
On the contrary, under Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, those analyses must be carried out in such a way as to enable the injurious effects of the dumped imports to be separated and distinguished from the injurious effects caused by other factors.
Nasprotno je treba navedene analize na podlagi člena 3(6) in člena (7) osnovne uredbe izvajati tako, da se s tem omogoči ločitev in razlikovanje škodljivih učinkov dampinškega uvoza od škodljivih učinkov drugih dejavnikov.
The investigation did not reveal any evidence that all other known factors which may have contributed to the injury suffered, together or in isolation, broke the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury suffered by the Union industry.
Preiskava ni razkrila nobenih dokazov, da bi vsi drugi znani dejavniki, ki so skupaj ali ločeno lahko prispevali k škodi, prekinili vzročno zvezo med dampinškim uvozom in znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije.
Given the above analysis, it was confirmed that other known factors were not such as to reverse the finding that the material injury suffered by the Union industry must be attributed to the dumped imports.
Na podlagi navedene analize je bilo potrjeno, da drugi znani dejavniki niso mogli spremeniti ugotovitve, da je treba znatno škodo, ki jo je utrpela industrija Unije, pripisati dampinškemu uvozu.
On these grounds these arguments were dismissed.
Na podlagi tega so bile trditve zavrnjene.
After the provisional disclosure some interested parties objected to the finding in recital (160) to the provisional Regulation.
Po začasnem razkritju so nekatere zainteresirane strani ugovarjale ugotovitvi v uvodni izjavi (160) začasne uredbe.