natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission received 5 oppositions pursuant to Article 7(1) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 [5].
Ker dogovor ni bil dosežen, bi morala Komisija sprejeti odločitev v skladu s postopkom iz člena 52(3)(b) Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012.
The first one was received on 14 December 2012 from the Swiss Company NECTRA FOOD SA.
Vložniki ugovorov trdijo, da geografsko območje, nastalo na osnovi spremembe, ni enovito, ker del geografskega območja, ki ga zajema vloga za spremembo, nima enakih edinstvenih mikroklimatskih značilnosti kot sedanje območje ZOP; da so kemijske in organoleptične značilnosti ter zato kakovost oljčnega olja, proizvedenega na spremenjenem območju, slabše od navedenih značilnosti oljčnega olja, proizvedenega na sedanjem območju ZOP; da bi to znižanje kakovosti pomenilo poslabšanje podobe in slovesa proizvoda; da bi razširitev območja zavajala potrošnike, ker se olje ne proizvaja več v pokrajini Kalamata, temveč na območju regije Mesinija in se lahko celo ustekleniči zunaj navedene regije; da novo geografsko območje ni zamejeno glede na povezavo; da odsotnost geografske omejitve glede ustekleničenja rahlja povezavo med proizvodom in območjem, ustvari težave v zvezi s sledljivostjo ter proizvod izpostavi možnim goljufijam in poslabšanju kakovosti; da sta statistična pomembnost in reprezentativnost podatkov, predloženih v podporo vlogi za spremembo, vprašljivi; da spletna povezava v objavljenem enotnem dokumentu, ki vodi do spremenjene specifikacije proizvoda, ni ustrezno delovala.
The second one was received on 17 December 2012 from the Egyptian Company FAR TRADING CO.
Kljub navedenim trditvam, ki jih je predložil vložnik ugovora, je primerno odobriti spremembo specifikacije proizvoda ZOP „Καλαμάτα“ (Kalamata) iz naslednjih razlogov.
The third one was received on 17 December 2012 from the Norwegian Company Oluf Lorentzen AS.
Enovitost naravnih in človeških dejavnikov znotraj območja Mesinija je izčrpno opisana v vlogi za spremembo, v enotnem dokumentu in specifikaciji proizvoda.
The fourth one was received on 20 December 2012 from the United Kingdom.
Vložnik ugovora ni predložil dokazov, da se talne in podnebne razmere na delu geografskega območja, ki ga dodatno zajema vloga za spremembo, bistveno razlikujejo od tistih na sedanjem geografskem območju.
The fifth one was received on 17 December 2012 from the Danish Company CARL B.FELDTHUSEN.
Poleg tega je regija Mesinija trenutno opredeljeno geografsko območje ZOP „Elia Kalamatas“ (olive de Kalamata).
The last opposition was considered not admissible since, according to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, legal persons established in a Member State may not lodge a statement of opposition directly with the Commission.
Skratka, območje Mesinija, kakor je opredeljeno v vlogi za spremembo, se lahko šteje kot opredeljeno geografsko območje za ZOP „Καλαμάτα“ (Kalamata) za oljčno olje.
The other oppositions were deemed admissible.
Trditev v zvezi z razvrednotenjem kakovosti in izgubo ugleda ni bila podprta s konkretnimi podatki, ki potrjujejo takšno zmanjšanje kakovosti.
By letters dated 15 February 2013, the Commission invited the interested parties to engage in appropriate consultations to seek agreement among themselves within six months in accordance with their internal procedures.
Analiza podatkov o kemijskih in organoleptičnih značilnostih oljčnega olja, proizvedenega na obeh območjih, vključena v študijo, priloženo trditvam vložnikom ugovorov, ni prepričljiva pri dokazovanju, da so značilnosti oljčnega olja, proizvedenega na spremenjenem območju, slabše od značilnosti oljčnega olja, proizvedenega na sedanjem območju ZOP.
No agreement was reached between the parties within the time limit.
Nasprotno, podatki, ki so jih predložili grški organi, kažejo, da imata obe oljčni olji enake organoleptične in kemijske značilnosti z zanemarljivimi razlikami.
Given that no agreement was reached, the Commission should adopt a decision in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 52(3)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
Poleg tega doseganje ali ohranjanje dane kakovosti ali podobe določenega proizvoda ni cilj Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012, ki ne vsebuje nobene določbe v ta namen.
The opponents claim that the geographical area resulting from the amendment is not homogenous since the part of the geographical area additionally covered by the amendment request does not possess the same unique microclimatic characteristics as the current PDO area; that the chemical and organoleptic characteristics, and therefore the quality, of the olive oil produced in the amended area proposed are lower than those of the olive oil produced in the current PDO area; that this decline in quality would imply a loss of image and reputation of the product; that the extension of the area would mislead consumers since it is no longer produced in the area of Kalamata province but in the area of Messinia Region and since it can be even bottled outside that Region; that the new geographical area is not delimited with regard to the link; that the absence of a geographical bottling restriction dilutes the link between the product and the area, generates problems of traceability and exposes the product to possible frauds and quality deterioration; that the statistical relevance and representativeness of the data carried out to support the amendment application are questionable; that the web link in the published single document leading to the amended product specification did not work properly.
Dokler je mogoče preveriti, da so značilnosti proizvoda, ki izhaja s spremenjenega geografskega območja, podobne značilnostim proizvoda, ki izhaja s sedanjega območja ZOP, nastale predvsem zaradi naravnih in človeških dejavnikov spremenjenega geografskega območja, je vloga za spremembo v skladu z zahtevami Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012.
Despite the above mentioned allegations submitted by the opponent, it is appropriate to approve the amendment to the product specification of the PDO ‘Καλαμάτα’ (Kalamata) for the following reasons.
Obstaja veliko primerov registriranih ZOP, katerih imena ne ustrezajo imenu geografskega območja.
The homogeneity of natural and human factors inside the area of Messinia is exhaustively described in the application for amendment, in the single document and in the product specification.
Zato dejstvo, da bo po vlogi za spremembo ZOP proizvedena tudi v regiji Mesinija, ni v nasprotju z Uredbo (EU) št. 1151/2012.
The opponent did not provide evidence that the pedo-climatic conditions in the part of the geographical area additionally covered by the amendment request are substantially different from the ones of the current geographical area.
Stavek v specifikaciji proizvoda, ki pojasnjuje, da se sme proizvod ustekleničiti zunaj opredeljenega geografskega območja, ni v nasprotju z Uredbo (EU) št. 1151/2012 in ne vpliva na povezavo.
In addition, Messinia region is presently the defined geographical area of the PDO ‘Elia Kalamatas’ (olive of Kalamata).
V okviru Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 obveznost pakiranja proizvoda na območju odstopa od standardnih pravil in mora biti utemeljena v skladu s točko (e) člena 7(1) Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012.
In conclusion, the area of Messinia, as defined in the application for amendment, is liable to qualify as the defined geographical area for the PDO ‘Καλαμάτα’ (Kalamata) covering olive oil.
Če je potrebno, mora vložnik take omejitve vključiti v specifikacijo proizvoda.
The claim concerning the devaluation of the quality and the loss of reputation was not supported with concrete details giving evidence of such a quality decrease.
V obravnavanem primeru vložniki niso predlagali take omejitve.
The analysis of the data on the organoleptic and chemical characteristics of the olive oil produced in the two areas, included in the study enclosed to the oppositions, is not conclusive in demonstrating that the characteristics of the olive oil produced in the amended area proposed are lower than those of the olive oil produced in the current PDO area.
Poleg tega niso vložniki ugovorov podali zadostnih razlogov za določeni proizvod, zakaj bi moralo biti pakiranje obvezno na opredeljenem geografskem območju.
In contrast, the data provided by the Greek authorities show that the two olive oils have overall the same organoleptic and chemical characteristics with negligible differences.
Vložniki ugovorov trdijo, da analiza podatkov o kemijskih in organoleptičnih značilnostih oljčnega olja, proizvedenega na opredeljenem geografskem območju, in oljčnega olja, proizvedenega na preostalem delu geografskega območja, kakor je bilo spremenjeno, vključena v študijo, priloženo trditvam vložnikom ugovorov, jasno kaže, da novo geografsko območje ni zamejeno glede na povezavo.
In addition, to let a product reaching or maintaining a given quality or image is not the aim of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 which does not contain any provision to that purpose.
Komisija meni, da ta analiza ni uporabna za sklepanje, da spremenjeno območje ni opredeljeno glede na povezavo.
As long as it can be verified that the characteristics of the product issued from the modified geographical area, similar to the characteristics of the product issued from the current PDO area, are essentially due to the natural and human factors of the modified geographical area the application for amendment complies with the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
Analizi ne uspe dokazati, da kemijske in organoleptične značilnosti oljčnega olja, proizvedenega na predlaganem spremenjenem območju in na sedanjem območju ZOP, niso enovite.
There are numerous cases of registered PDOs whose names do not correspond to the name of the geographical area.
Vložnikom ugovorov ni uspelo razložiti, kako so prišli do sklepa, da spremenjeno območje ni opredeljeno glede na povezavo.
Accordingly, the fact that, following the amendment application, the PDO will be produced also in the Messinia Region is not at variance with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
Vložniki ugovorov prav tako kritizirajo podatke, ki podpirajo vlogo za spremembo in dokazujejo, da ima oljčno olje, proizvedeno v regiji Mesinija, značilnosti, ki ga naredijo enovitega z oljčnim oljem, proizvedenim na sedanjem območju ZOP.
The sentence in the product specification clarifying that the product may be bottled outside the defined geographical area is not at variance with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 and does not affect the link.
Vložniki ugovorov trdijo, da ti podatki statistično ne morejo zagotoviti rezultatov znanstvenega pomena.
In the framework of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, an obligation to package the product within the area derogates from the standard rules and must be justified in accordance with Article 7(1) point (e) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012.
Po njihovem mnenju podatki niso geografsko reprezentativni in so nezadostni, kar zadeva število vzorcev in proizvodna leta, ki se upoštevajo.
If justified, it is up to the applicant to insert this kind of restrictions in the product specification.
Komisija je preverila zanesljivost navedenih podatkov pri grških organih.
In the present case, the applicants did not propose such a restriction.
Zagotovljeni so bili tudi dodatni podatki.
In addition, the opponents did not give sufficient product-specific justifications as to why packaging in the delimited geographical area should be compulsory.
Ti podatki temeljijo na trdni statistični podlagi glede upoštevanih proizvodnih let ter števila in geografske porazdelitve vzorcev.
Opponents claim that the analysis of the data on the organoleptic and chemical characteristics of the olive oil produced in the established geographical area and of the olive oil produced in the rest of the geographical area, as amended, reported in the study enclosed to the oppositions, clearly demonstrates that the new geographical area is not delimited with regard to the link.
Iz teh podatkov izhaja, da imata oljčno olje, proizvedeno na opredeljenem geografskem območju ZOP „Καλαμάτα“ (Kalamata), in oljčno olje, proizvedeno na preostalem delu geografskega območja, kakor je bilo spremenjeno, na splošno enake kemijske in organoleptične značilnosti, z zanemarljivimi razlikami.
The Commission considers that this analysis is not useful to conclude that the amended area is not defined with regard to the link.
Ugotovljena je bila tipkarska napaka v preglednici v točki 3.2 vloge za spremembo: povprečna vrednost kislosti „v preostalem delu pokrajine Mesenija“ ni 0,49, ampak 0,37.
It fails to demonstrate that the organoleptic and chemical characteristics of the olive oil produced in the amended area proposed and those of the olive oil produced in the current PDO area are not homogenous.
Ta stvarna napaka ne vpliva na končno oceno o enovitosti olja, proizvedenega na obeh območjih, in ne pomeni bistvene spremembe, zaradi katere bi morala biti vloga za spremembo ponovno objavljena.
The opponents failed to explain their conclusion that the amended area is not defined with regard to the link.
Končno, vložniki ugovorov so se sklicevali na to, da spletni naslov, ki je vključen v enotni dokument, priložen vlogi za spremembo ZOP „Καλαμάτα“ (Kalamata), in vodi do najnovejše različice specifikacije proizvoda, ni deloval ustrezno.
The opponents also criticise the data supporting the amendment request and demonstrating that the olive oil produced in the Messinia Region possesses characteristics making it homogenous with the olive oil produced in the current PDO area.
To naj bi preprečilo, da bi raziskovalci, ki so pripravili študijo za vložnike ugovorov, imeli dostop do kakršnih koli referenc objave specifikacije.
The opponents claim that these data are statistically incapable of providing results with scientific significance.
Grški organi so potrdili, da je povezava ustrezno delovala med celotnim obdobjem za ugovor.
They see the data as geographically not representative and insufficient as regards the number of samples and the production years taken into consideration.
Vložniki ugovorov niso predložili podrobnih podatkov glede okoliščin (tj. datum, število poskusov dostopanja do strani itd.), v katerih povezava ni delovala.
The Commission has verified the reliability of the above mentioned data with the Greek authorities.
Skratka, tudi glede na podrobne in dobro razdelane štiri prejete ugovore, ki kažejo temeljito poznavanje specifikacije in njen poglobljen pregled, Komisija meni, da niso vplivali na pravico do nasprotovanja odobritvi spremembe ZOP „Καλαμάτα“ (Kalamata).
Additional figures were also provided.
Ukrepi iz te uredbe so v skladu z mnenjem Odbora za politiko kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov –
These figures are based on solid statistical grounds as regards the production years considered and the number and geographical distribution of the samples.
Spremembe specifikacije, objavljene v Uradnem listu Evropske unije v zvezi z imenom „Καλαμάτα“ (Kalamata) (ZOP), se odobrijo.
It stems from these data that the olive oil produced in the established geographical area of the PDO ‘Καλαμάτα’ (Kalamata) and the olive oil produced in the rest of the geographical area, as amended, have the same organoleptic and chemical characteristics overall, with negligible differences.
UL L 343, 14.12.2012, str. 1.
A typing error was identified in the table included in point 3.2 of the amendment application: the average acidity value for the area ‘rest of Messinia’ is not 0,49 but 0,37.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 510/2006 z dne 20. marca 2006 o zaščiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila (UL L 93, 31.3.2006, str. 12).
This clerical error does not prejudge the final assessment on the homogeneity of the oil produced in the two areas and it does not constitute a substantial change that requires the amendment application to be published again.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1065/97 z dne 12. junija 1997 o dopolnitvi Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 1107/96 o registraciji geografskih označb in geografskega porekla po postopku iz člena 17 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 2081/92 (UL L 156, 13.6.1997, str. 5).
At last, opponents invoked that the internet address included in the single document annexed to the application for amendment of the PDO ‘Καλαμάτα’ (Kalamata) leading to the most recent version of the product specification did not work properly.
UL C 186, 26.6.2012, str. 18.
This allegedly prevented the researchers who drafted the study for the opponents from having access to any publication reference of the specification.
Vmes ga je zamenjal člen 51(1) Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012.
The Greek authorities have confirmed that the link worked properly during the whole opposition period.
Uredba (EU) št. 1151/2012 je začela veljati 3. januarja 2013.
The opponents failed to provide detailed information as to the circumstances (i.e. date, number of attempts to access the site etc. …) under which the link was found not working.
Razveljavila in nadomestila je Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 510/2006 [2].
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1394
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2015/1394
amending Regulation (EU) No 470/2014, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/588, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in the People's Republic of China following an absorption reinvestigation pursuant to Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
o spremembi Uredbe (EU) št. 470/2014, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (EU) 2015/588, o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in o dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz solarnega stekla s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske, po ponovni preiskavi za ugotavljanje absorpcije v skladu s členom 12 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 12(3) 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] („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 12(3) Uredbe,
The measures currently in force (‘the original measures’) are definitive anti-dumping duty rates imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 470/2014 [2] ranging from 0,4 % to 36,1 %.
Trenutno veljavni ukrepi („prvotni ukrepi“) so stopnje dokončne protidampinške dajatve, ki so bile uvedene z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 470/2014 [2] in znašajo od 0,4 % do 36,1 %.
Article 1(2) of this Regulation was amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/588 [3].
Člen 1(2) te uredbe je bil spremenjen z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2015/588 [3].
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 471/2014 [4], the Commission also imposed countervailing duty rates ranging from 3,2 % to 17,1 %.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 471/2014 [4] uvedla tudi stopnje izravnalnih dajatev, in sicer od 3,2 % do 17,1 %.
Request for an absorption reinvestigation
Zahtevek za ponovno preiskavo za ugotavljanje absorpcije
On 12 November 2014, a request for an absorption reinvestigation of the original anti-dumping measures was lodged pursuant to Article 12 of the basic Regulation.
V skladu s členom 12 osnovne uredbe je bil 12. novembra 2014 vložen zahtevek za ponovno preiskavo za ugotavljanje absorpcije glede prvotnih protidampinških ukrepov.
The request was submitted by the association EU ProSun Glass (‘the applicant’) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production of solar glass.
Zahtevek je vložilo združenje EU ProSun Glass („vložnik“) v imenu proizvajalcev, ki predstavljajo več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje solarnega stekla v Uniji.
The applicant submitted sufficient information showing that after the original investigation period and prior to and following the imposition of the original measures export prices have decreased.
Vložnik je predložil zadostne informacije o tem, da so se izvozne cene po obdobju prvotne preiskave ter pred uvedbo prvotnih ukrepov in po njej znižale.
This allegedly resulted in an increased dumping margin which has impeded the intended remedial effects of the original measures.
To naj bi povzročilo povišanje stopnje dampinga, kar je zmanjševalo načrtovane popravljalne učinke prvotnih ukrepov.
The applicant also provided evidence showing that imports of solar glass have continued to enter the Union in significant volumes.
Vložnik je predložil tudi dokaze, da je uvoženo solarno steklo še naprej vstopalo v Unijo v znatnih količinah.
On 19 December 2014, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the initiation of an absorption reinvestigation, pursuant to Article 12 of the basic Regulation, of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of solar glass originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC) [5].
Komisija je 19. decembra 2014 v skladu s členom 12 osnovne uredbe z obvestilom, objavljenim v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, razglasila začetek ponovne preiskave za ugotavljanje absorpcije glede protidampinških ukrepov, ki se uporabljajo pri uvozu solarnega stekla s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske (LRK) [5].
Parties concerned by the reinvestigation
Strani, ki jih zadeva ponovna preiskava
In the Notice of reopening, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation.
Komisija je v obvestilu o ponovnem začetku zainteresirane strani pozvala, naj se ji javijo, če želijo sodelovati v preiskavi.
In addition, the Commission specifically informed the applicant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC, importers, traders, users, suppliers and the authorities of the PRC about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.
Poleg tega je o začetku preiskave posebej obvestila vložnika, druge znane proizvajalce Unije, znane proizvajalce izvoznike v LRK, uvoznike, trgovce, uporabnike, dobavitelje in organe LRK ter jih povabila k sodelovanju.
Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the reopening of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.
Zainteresirane strani so imele možnost, da predložijo pripombe o ponovnem začetku preiskave in zahtevajo zaslišanje pred Komisijo in/ali pooblaščencem za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih.
After disclosure one party requested such a hearing with the Commission and was able to submit its point of view on 23 June 2015.
Po razkritju je ena od strani zahtevala takšno zaslišanje pred Komisijo in je 23. junija 2015 lahko predstavila svoje stališče.
In its Notice of reopening, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je v obvestilu o ponovnem začetku navedla, da bo morda izbrala vzorec zainteresiranih strani v skladu s členom 17 osnovne uredbe.
To decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission asked all exporting producers in the PRC to provide the information specified in the Notice of reopening.
Da bi se lahko odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in da bi v tem primeru lahko izbrala vzorec, je vse proizvajalce izvoznike v LRK pozvala, naj zagotovijo informacije, določene v obvestilu o ponovnem začetku.
In addition, the Commission asked the Mission of the People's Republic of China to the European Union to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.
Poleg tega je pozvala misijo Ljudske republike Kitajske pri Evropski uniji, naj opredeli morebitne preostale proizvajalce izvoznike, ki bi bili zainteresirani za sodelovanje v preiskavi, in/ali stopi v stik z njimi.
Five Chinese exporting producers or groups of exporting producers, representing around 70 % of total Chinese exports to the Union during the current investigation provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.
Pet kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov ali skupin proizvajalcev izvoznikov, ki so v sedanji preiskavi predstavljali približno 70 % celotnega kitajskega izvoza v Unijo, je predložilo zahtevane informacije in se je strinjalo z vključitvijo v vzorec.