natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The apparatus Hennessy Grading Probe shall be equipped with a probe of 5,95 mm diameter with an abutting blade of 6,3 mm containing a photodiode (Siemens LED of the type LYU 260-EO and photo detector of the type 58 MR) and having an operational distance between 0 and 120 mm.
Naprava Hennessy Grading Probe je opremljena s sondo s premerom 5,95 mm, ki ima na koncu koničasto rezilo 6,3 mm, ki vsebuje fotodiodo (Siemens LED tipa LYU 260-EO in fotodetektor tipa 58 MR) in ima operativno razdaljo med 0 in 120 mm.
where:
Pri čemer je:
S1 the thickness of back fat (including rind) in millimetres measured at 8 cm off the midline of the carcass behind the last rib (between the 14th rib and the 1st lumbar vertebra);
S1 debelina hrbtnega maščobnega tkiva (vključno s kožo) v milimetrih, merjena 8 cm od vzdolžne osi trupa za zadnjim rebrom (med 14. rebrom in prvim ledvičnim vretencem);
S2 the thickness of back fat (including rind) in millimetres measured at 6 cm off the midline of the carcass between the 3rd and 4th ribs;
S2 debelina hrbtnega maščobnega tkiva (vključno s kožo) v milimetrih, merjena 6 cm od vzdolžne osi trupa med tretjim in četrtim zadnjim rebrom;
M the thickness of muscle in millimetres measured at 6 cm off the midline of the carcass between the 3rd and 4th ribs.
M debelina mišice v milimetrih, merjena 6 cm od vzdolžne osi trupa med tretjim in četrtim rebrom.
The formula shall be valid for carcasses weighing between 50 and 120 kg.
Ta enačba velja za trupe, ki tehtajo med 50 in 120 kilogrami.
The rules provided for in this Part shall apply when the grading of pig carcasses is carried out by means of the apparatus termed ‘AutoFOM III’ (fully automatic ultrasonic carcass grading).
Pravila iz tega dela se uporabljajo, kadar se razvrščanje prašičjih trupov opravi z napravo, imenovano „AutoFOM III“ (fully automatic ultrasonic carcass grading).
The apparatus shall be equipped with 16 transducers embedded in a stainless steel array.
Naprava je opremljena s 16 pretvorniki, vgrajenimi v sklop iz nerjavečega jekla.
The measurements used for the models shall be an overall size assessment and properties derived from two selected cross-sections.
Meritve, ki se uporabljajo za modele, so celovita ocena velikosti in lastnosti, ki izhajajo iz dveh izbranih prerezov.
The two selected cross-sections shall be at the minimum fat in the loin and at the loin to ham intersection.
Izbrana prereza sta pri najmanjši maščobi v ledjih in sečišču ledij in šunke.
The apparatus shall transmit sound waves through the tissues.
Naprava oddaja zvočne valove v tkivo.
The echoes emitted by the bones, muscles and fat shall be converted into an image of the interior.
Odboji od kosti, mišic in maščobe se pretvorijo v sliko notranjosti.
Based on the image a digital image and data analysis shall be performed.
Na podlagi slike se opravita digitalna slika in analiza podatkov.
R2P1 the average thickness of the skin.
R2P1 povprečna debelina kože;
R2P5 the skin at the selected P2 position in mm.
R2P5 koža na izbranem mestu P2 v mm;
R2P10 minimum fat of the cross-section in mm.
R2P10 najmanjša maščoba prereza v mm;
R3P3 the meat measured at the selected MFT point in mm.
R3P3 meso, merjeno na izbranem mestu minimalne debeline maščobnega tkiva v mm;
R3P5 the maximum meat measured in mm.
R3P5 največja izmerjena količina mesa v mm.
The formula shall be valid for carcasses weighing between 50 and 120 kilograms.
Enačba velja za trupe, ki tehtajo med 50 in 120 kilogrami.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/175
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2016/175
of 8 February 2016
z dne 8. februarja 2016
on a measure taken by Spain pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market of a type of pressure washer
o ukrepu Španije za prepoved dajanja v promet tipa visokotlačnega čistilnika v skladu z Direktivo 2006/42/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
(notified under document C(2016) 670)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2016) 670)
Having regard to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC [1], and in particular Article 11(3) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Direktive 2006/42/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. maja 2006 o strojih in spremembah Direktive 95/16/ES [1], ter zlasti člena 11(3) Direktive,
In accordance with the procedure set out in Article 11(2) of Directive 2006/42/EC, Spain informed the Commission of a measure to prohibit the placing on the market of a pressure washer of type Parkside PHD 100 B2 manufactured by Grizzly Gartengeräte GmbH & Co.
Španija je v skladu s postopkom iz člena 11(2) Direktive 2006/42/ES obvestila Komisijo o ukrepu za prepoved dajanja v promet visokotlačnega čistilnika tipa Parkside PHD 100 B2 proizvajalca Grizzly Gartengeräte GmbH & Co.
KG Germany and distributed by LIDL Supermercados, S.A.U. Spain.
KG, Nemčija, in distributerja LIDL Supermercados, S.A.U., Španija.
The reason for taking the measure was the non-conformity of the pressure washer with the essential health and safety requirements set out in Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC.
Razlog za ukrep je bila neskladnost visokotlačnega čistilnika z bistvenimi zdravstvenimi in varnostnimi zahtevami iz Priloge I k Direktivi 2006/42/ES.
Section 1.5.1 (‘Electricity supply’) of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC requires that machinery which has an electricity supply must be designed, constructed and equipped in such a way that all hazards of an electrical nature can be prevented.
V oddelku 1.5.1 (Električno napajanje) Priloge I k Direktivi 2006/42/EC je zahtevano, da morajo biti stroji z električnim napajanjem načrtovani, izdelani in opremljeni tako, da je vse nevarnosti električnega značaja mogoče preprečiti.
Section 1.5.2 (‘Static Electricity’) of the same Annex I requires that machinery must be designed and constructed to prevent or limit the build-up of potentially dangerous electrostatic charges and/or be fitted with a discharging system.
V oddelku 1.5.2 (Statična elektrika) navedene priloge I je zahtevano, da morajo biti stroji načrtovani in izdelani tako, da je preprečeno ali omejeno kopičenje potencialno nevarnih elektrostatičnih nabojev, in/ali opremljeni s sistemom za praznjenje.
The EC Declaration of Conformity issued by the manufacturer for the pressure washer made reference, among others, to the harmonised standard EN 60335-2-67:2009 ‘Household and similar electrical appliances — Safety — Part 2-67: Particular requirements for floor treatment and floor cleaning machines for commercial use (IEC 60335-2-67:2002 (Modified) + A1:2005 (Modified))’.
ES-izjava o skladnosti, ki jo je izdal proizvajalec za visokotlačni čistilnik, je med drugim vsebovala sklic na harmonizirani standard EN 60335-2-67:2009 „Gospodinjski in podobni električni aparati – Varnost – 2-67. del: Posebne zahteve za stroje za nego in čiščenje tal za komercialno uporabo (IEC 60335-2-67:2002 (spremenjen) + A1:2005 (spremenjen))“.
According to the Spanish authorities, the pressure washer presented the following shortcomings:
Po mnenju španskih organov je imel visokotlačni čistilnik naslednje pomanjkljivosti:
the protection grade against harmful ingress of water was lower than the level IPX7 requested for hand-held appliances, with the consequent risk of electrocution.
stopnja zaščite pred škodljivim vdorom vode je bila nižja od stopnje IPX7, ki se zahteva za ročne naprave, zaradi česar je obstajalo tveganje električnega udara.
This was not in accordance with Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC, nor with paragraph 6.2 of harmonised standard EN 60335-2-67:2009 with regard to hand-held appliances;
To ni bilo v skladu z oddelkoma 1.5.1 in 1.5.2 Priloge I k Direktivi 2006/42/ES ter odstavkom 6.2 harmoniziranega standarda EN 60335-2- 67: 2009 v zvezi z ročnimi napravami,
the length of the electric cable was less than 15 m, with the consequent risk of electrocution.
električni kabel je bil krajši od 15 m, zaradi česar je obstajalo tveganje električnega udara.
This was not in accordance with Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC, nor with paragraph 25.7 of harmonised standard EN 60335-2-67:2009 with regard to hand-held appliances;
To ni bilo v skladu z oddelkoma 1.5.1 in 1.5.2 Priloge I k Direktivi 2006/42/ES ter odstavkom 25.7 harmoniziranega standarda EN 60335-2- 67: 2009 v zvezi z ročnimi napravami,
the pressure washer had an opening at less than 60 mm from the floor that could admit liquid to live parts, with the consequent risk of electrocution.
visokotlačni čistilnik je imel manj kot 60 mm nad tlemi odprtino, skozi katero bi lahko tekočina dosegla aktivne dele, zaradi česar je obstajalo tveganje električnega udara.
This was not in accordance with Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 of Annex I to Directive 2006/42/EC, nor with paragraph 22.101 of harmonised standard EN 60335-2-67:2009.
To ni bilo v skladu z oddelkoma 1.5.1 in 1.5.2 Priloge I k Direktivi 2006/42/ES ter odstavkom 22.101 harmoniziranega standarda EN 60335-2- 67: 2009.
The Commission invited the manufacturer, Grizzly Gartengeräte GmbH & Co.
Komisija je proizvajalca Grizzly Gartengeräte GmbH & Co.
KG, and the distributor, LIDL Supermercados, S.A.U., to present their observations on the measure taken by Spain.
KG in distributerja LIDL Supermercados, S.A.U pozvala, naj predložita svoje pripombe k ukrepu, ki ga je sprejela Španija.
No reply from the manufacturer was received.
Odgovora proizvajalca ni prejela.
The distributor, in the reply received from his representative, considered that the machinery is a portable appliance and that lower technical requirements, protection grade and length of the electric cable were in line with what is requested in case of portable appliances, while the shortcomings remarked by the Spanish authorities were referred to requirements for hand-held appliances.
Distributer je bil na podlagi odgovora, ki ga je prejel od svojega zastopnika, mnenja, da gre pri stroju za prenosno napravo ter da so manj stroge tehnične zahteve, stopnja zaščite in dolžina električnega kabla v skladu s predpisi za prenosne naprave, pomanjkljivosti, ki so jih navedli španski organi, pa se nanašajo na zahteve za ročne naprave.
Concerning the opening, the distributor considered that the requirement had been fulfilled as there were no active parts in the high pressure washer at a distance of less than 60 mm to the ground.
Glede odprtine je distributer menil, da je zahteva izpolnjena, saj v visokotlačnem čistilniku ni aktivnih delov, ki bi bili od tal oddaljeni manj kot 60 mm.
According to the available documents, the different level of technical safety requirements taken into account by the Spanish authorities and by the distributor were directly connected to whether the pressure washer should be classified as a hand-held appliance or as a portable appliance as defined by the harmonised standard EN 60335-1 ‘Household and similar electrical appliances — Safety — Part 1: General requirements’.
Na podlagi razpoložljive dokumentacije je bila različna raven tehničnih varnostnih zahtev, ki so jo upoštevali španski organi oziroma distributer, neposredno povezana z vprašanjem, ali naj se visokotlačni čistilnik razvrsti kot ročna naprava ali prenosna naprava, kot je opredeljeno v harmoniziranem standardu EN 60335-1 „Gospodinjski in podobni električni aparati – Varnost – 1. del: Splošne zahteve“.
Furthermore, standard EN 60335-2-67 has to be used in conjunction with EN 60335-1.
Poleg tega je treba standard EN 60335-2-67 uporabljati v povezavi s standardom EN 60335-1.
The analysis of the evidence provided by the Spanish authorities and of the documents delivered by the distributor led to the conclusion that the pressure washer is of a dual use, this is to say, it can be used not only as portable appliance, as declared by the distributor, but also as hand-held appliance, as remarked by the Spanish authorities.
Analiza dokazil, ki so jih predložili španski organi, in dokumentov, ki jih je predložil distributer, je privedla do ugotovitve, da gre pri visokotlačnem čistilniku za napravo z dvojno rabo, tj. lahko se uporablja ne samo kot prenosna naprava, kot je navedel distributer, temveč tudi kot ročna naprava, kot so navedli španski organi.
Consequently, the pressure washer of type Parkside PHD 100 B2 manufactured by Grizzly Gartengeräte GmbH & Co.
Neskladnost povzroča resna tveganja za poškodbe uporabnikov.
KG Germany and distributed by LIDL Supermercados, S.A.U.
Zato je ukrep, ki ga je sprejela Španija, ustrezno obravnavati kot utemeljen –
Spain, fails to comply with the essential health and safety requirements referred to in Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2006/42/EC.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
The non-conformity gives rise to serious risks of injury to users.
Člen 1
It is therefore appropriate to consider the measure taken by Spain as justified,
Ukrep Španije za prepoved dajanja v promet visokotlačnega čistilnika tipa Parkside PHD 100 B2 proizvajalca Grizzly Gartengeräte GmbH & Co.
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
KG, Nemčija, in distributerja LIDL Supermercados, S.A.U., Španija, je utemeljen.
The measure taken by Spain to prohibit the placing on the market of a pressure washer of type Parkside PHD 100 B2 manufactured by Grizzly Gartengeräte GmbH & Co.
Ta sklep je naslovljen na države članice.
KG Germany and distributed by LIDL Supermercados, S.A.U. Spain, is justified.
V Bruslju, 8. februarja 2016
Done at Brussels, 8 February 2016.
UL L 157, 9.6.2006, str. 24.
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/176
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2016/176
terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of tartaric acid originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
o ustavitvi protidampinškega postopka za uvoz vinske kisline s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, ki jo proizvaja Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
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 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 [1] in zlasti člena 9 Uredbe,
Following an anti-dumping investigation under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (‘the basic Regulation’) concerning imports of tartaric acid originating in the People's Republic of China (‘the PRC’ or ‘the country concerned’), anti-dumping measures were imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 130/2006 [2] (‘the original investigation’).
Po protidampinški preiskavi na podlagi člena 5 Uredbe (ES) št. 1225/2009 („osnovna uredba“), v zvezi z uvozom vinske kisline s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“ ali „zadevna država“) so bili z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 130/2006 [2] („prvotna preiskava“) uvedeni protidampinški ukrepi.
The measures applied to all exporting producers of tartaric acid originating in the PRC, with the exception of Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
Ukrepi so se uporabljali za vse proizvajalce izvoznike vinske kisline s poreklom iz LRK, razen za družbo Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
Ltd, for which a zero duty rate was applied.
Ltd, za katero se je uporabljala stopnja dajatve nič.
In line with the WTO Appellate Body report in case Mexico — Definitive Anti-dumping Measures on Beef and Rice (‘the WTO Appellate Body report’) [3], by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 332/2012 [4] the Chinese exporting producer Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
V skladu s poročilom pritožbenega organa STO v zadevi Mehika – dokončni protidampinški ukrepi za govedino in riž („poročilo pritožbenega organa STO“) [3] je bil z Izvedbeno uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 332/2012 [4] kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
Ltd was excluded from subsequent reviews of the measures as imposed by Regulation (EC) No 130/2006.
Ltd izključen iz poznejših pregledov ukrepov, uvedenih z Uredbo (ES) št. 130/2006.
The original measures were subsequently subject to different review investigations [5].
Prvotni ukrepi so bili pozneje predmet različnih preiskav v zvezi s pregledom [5].
As a result, the measures in force are a countrywide duty of 34,9 % and two individual duty rates for two individual Chinese exporting producers of 4,7 % and 10,1 %, respectively [6].
Posledično so veljavni ukrepi stopnja dajatve na ravni države v višini 34,9 % in individualni stopnji dajatve za posamezna kitajska proizvajalca izvoznika v višini 4,7 % oziroma 10,1 % [6].
An earlier investigation limited to Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
Prejšnja preiskava, omejena na Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
Ltd was initiated on 29 July 2011 [7].
Ltd, se je začela 29. julija 2011 [7].
Following a withdrawal of the complaint, the proceeding was terminated by Commission decision of 4 June 2012 [8] without imposing measures.
Po umiku pritožbe je bil postopek s Sklepom Komisije z dne 4. junija 2012 [8] ustavljen brez uvedbe ukrepov.
INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
ZAČETEK PREISKAVE
On 4 December 2014, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports into the Union of tartaric acid originating in the PRC, limited to Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
Evropska komisija („Komisija“) je 4. decembra 2014 na podlagi člena 5 osnovne uredbe začela protidampinško preiskavo v zvezi z uvozom vinske kisline s poreklom iz LRK v Unijo, omejeno na družbo Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co.
Ltd (‘Bioking’ or ‘the exporting producer’) on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation.
Ltd („Bioking“ ali „proizvajalec izvoznik“).
It published a Notice of Initiation in the Official Journal of the European Union [9] (‘the Notice of Initiation’).
Obvestilo o začetku je objavila v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [9] („obvestilo o začetku“).
The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 21 October 2014 by four Union producers of tartaric acid, Distillerie Bonollo S.r.l., Caviro Distillerie S.r.l., Industria Chimica Valenzana S.p.a. and Distilleries Mazzari S.p.a.
Komisija je preiskavo začela na podlagi pritožbe, ki so jo 21. oktobra 2014 vložili štirje proizvajalci vinske kisline v Uniji, in sicer Distillerie Bonollo S.r.l., Caviro Distillerie S.r.l., Industria Chimica Valenzana S.p.a. in Distilleries Mazzari S.p.a.
(‘the complainants’), representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of tartaric acid.
(„pritožniki“), ki predstavljajo več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje vinske kisline v Uniji.
After the initiation, the exporting producer requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.
Po začetku postopka so proizvajalci izvozniki zaprosili za zaslišanje pred pooblaščencem za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih.
The exporting producer claimed that the Commission violated the general principle enshrined in GATT Article VI and the Article 5.8 of WTO Anti-dumping Agreement (WTO ADA) [10] by initiating a new anti-dumping investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation against a single company, as anti-dumping investigations should be carried out against third countries as a whole.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da je Komisija z začetkom nove protidampinške preiskave na podlagi člena 5 osnovne uredbe zoper samo eno družbo kršila splošno načelo, zapisano v členu VI Splošnega sporazuma o tarifah in trgovini („GATT“) in členu 5.8 Protidampinškega sporazuma STO [10], saj se morajo protidampinške preiskave izvajati zoper tretje države kot celote.
In particular, it argued that the current investigation had the effect of an interim review and would thus be contrary to the WTO Appellate Body report referred to in recital 2 above.
Zlasti je trdil, da je imela sedanja preiskava učinek vmesnega pregleda in bi zato bila v nasprotju s poročilom pritožbenega organa STO iz uvodne izjave 2.
Indeed, trade defence investigations are carried out against third countries as a whole rather than against single companies.
Dejansko se preiskave trgovinske zaščite izvajajo zoper tretje države kot celote in ne zoper posamezne družbe.
The present case is exceptionally initiated against a single company, under Article 5 of the basic Regulation and not under Article 11(3) of that Regulation, in conformity with the WTO Appellate Body report and not contrary to it.
Ta zadeva se je izjemoma začela zoper posamezno družbo na podlagi člena 5 osnovne uredbe in ne člena 11(3) navedene uredbe, v skladu s poročilom pritožbenega organa STO in ne v nasprotju z njim.
The Appellate Body report clarified that an exporting producer not found to be dumping in an original investigation was to be excluded from the scope of the definitive measures imposed as a result of such an investigation and could not be subject to subsequent reviews of the initial measures.
Pritožbeni organ je pojasnil, da mora biti proizvajalec izvoznik, za katerega v prvotni preiskavi ni bilo ugotovljeno, da izvaja damping, izključen iz obsega dokončnih ukrepov, uvedenih kot posledica take preiskave, in ne more biti predmet poznejših pregledov prvotnih ukrepov.
It does not follow from this report that such an exporting producer and its imports could not be investigated anew for the purposes of protection against dumped imports and measures imposed when the conditions for imposition are met.
Iz tega poročila ne izhaja, da takega proizvajalca izvoznika in njegovega uvoza ni možno znova preiskati za namene zaščite proti dampinškemu uvozu, in proti njemu uvesti ukrepov, ko so izpolnjeni pogoji za njihovo uvedbo.
Union legislation must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with international law, in particular where the provisions at issue are intended to give effect to an international agreement concluded by the Union.
Zakonodajo Unije je treba, če je le mogoče, razlagati na način, ki je v skladu z mednarodnim pravom, zlasti kadar so zadevne določbe namenjene izvajanju mednarodnega sporazuma, ki ga je sklenila Unija.
Since the WTO ADA on the one hand allows imposition of measures to counteract injurious dumping, but on the other hand has been interpreted by the Appellate Body as not allowing reviews of companies found not to be dumping during an original investigation, the basic Regulation must necessarily be interpreted as allowing the Union to open an investigation based on Article 5 of the basic Regulation in a case like the present one when there is prima facie evidence for injurious dumping.
Ker Protidampinški sporazum STO po eni strani dovoljuje uvedbo ukrepov za preprečevanje škodljivega dampinga, po drugi strani pa glede na razlago pritožbenega organa ne omogoča pregleda družb, za katere se je v prvotni preiskavi ugotovilo, da ne izvajajo dampinga, je treba osnovno uredbo nujno razlagati, kot da Uniji v primeru, kot je ta, dovoljuje začetek preiskave na podlagi člena 5 osnovne uredbe, ko obstajajo dokazi prima facie o škodljivem dampingu.
In any event, the case-law of the Union courts confirms that none of the provisions of the basic Regulation prevents a new anti-dumping proceeding under Article 5 of the basic Regulation limited to one company found not dumping in another proceeding but for which there is currently prima facie evidence for injurious dumping [11].
V vsakem primeru sodna praksa sodišč Unije potrjuje, da nobena določba osnovne uredbe ne preprečuje novega protidampinškega postopka na podlagi člena 5 osnovne uredbe, omejenega na eno družbo, za katero se je v drugem postopku ugotovilo, da ne izvaja dampinga, toda za katero zdaj obstajajo dokazi prima facie o škodljivem dampingu [11].
Therefore, the claims of the exporting producer were rejected.
Zato so bile trditve proizvajalca izvoznika zavrnjene.