natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission referred to the anti-dumping measures on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia imposed by the same definitive Regulation.
Komisija se je v obvestilu o začetku sklicevala na protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz biodizla iz Indonezije, uvedene z isto dokončno uredbo.
These measures are at present subject to a pending WTO dispute by Indonesia against the Union [6] (‘EU Measures concerning Indonesia’).
Ti ukrepi so zdaj odvisni od nerešenega spora med Indonezijo in Unijo v okviru STO [6] („ukrepi EU v zvezi z Indonezijo“).
In that dispute, Indonesia has raised claims similar to those that were addressed in the Reports.
V navedenem sporu je Indonezija predložila trditve, podobne tistim, ki so se obravnavale v poročilih.
As the Appellate Body's legal interpretation contained in the Reports appears to be also relevant for the investigation concerning Indonesia, the Commission considered it appropriate that the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia should also be examined in a concurrent review conducted under Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling regulation, in particular as far as the definitive Regulation was found inconsistent with Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA.
Ker se zdi, da je pravna razlaga pritožbenega organa iz poročil pomembna tudi za preiskavo v zvezi z Indonezijo, je Komisija menila, da bi bilo primerno v okviru sočasnega pregleda, izvedenega v skladu s členom 2(1) pooblastitvene uredbe STO, proučiti protidampinške ukrepe za uvoz biodizla iz Indonezije, zlasti kolikor je bilo za dokončno uredbo ugotovljeno, da ni skladna s členom 2.2.1.1 protidampinškega sporazuma STO.
In recitals 12 to 20 of the general disclosure document, the Commission set out its preliminary analysis of the application of the Appellate Body's interpretation of Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA for the Indonesian investigation.
Komisija je v uvodnih izjavah 12 do 20 dokumenta o splošnem razkritju predstavila svojo predhodno analizo uporabe razlage pritožbenega organa glede člena 2.2.1.1 protidampinškega sporazuma STO za indonezijsko preiskavo.
After disclosure, interested parties submitted comments questioning the Commission's analysis, challenging, inter alia, the applicability of the Appellate Body's interpretation as well as the Commission's authority to act ex officio on that interpretation under the WTO enabling Regulation.
Po razkritju so zainteresirane strani predložile pripombe, v katerih so izrazile dvom glede analize Komisije, pri čemer so med drugim izpodbijale veljavnost razlage pritožbenega organa in pristojnost Komisije, da v skladu z navedeno razlago ukrepa po uradni dolžnosti v okviru pooblastitvene uredbe STO.
Because that analysis requires further time, the Commission decided not to terminate the review concerning Indonesia at this point, but instead to continue its analysis in light of the comments received.
Ker navedena analiza zahteva več časa, se je Komisija odločila, da pregleda v zvezi z Indonezijo na tej stopnji ne bo zaključila, temveč da bo svojo analizo nadaljevala glede na prejete pripombe.
The review initiated under Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation is therefore still ongoing and remains open insofar as it concerns Indonesia.
Pregled, ki se je začel v skladu s členom 2(1) pooblastitvene uredbe STO, tako še vedno poteka in ostaja odprt, kolikor se nanaša na Indonezijo.
All interested parties were informed accordingly by way of a revised disclosure document of 31 July 2017 and granted the opportunity to comment.
Vse zainteresirane strani so bile 31. julija 2017 o tem obveščene z revidiranim dokumentom o razkritju in so imele možnost, da predložijo pripombe.
The Indonesian government claimed that the Commission had infringed general principles of European Union law by first disclosing its intention to amend the definitive Regulation with regard to Indonesia and subsequently by reversing that intention in order to continue the investigation concerning Indonesia.
Indonezijska vlada je trdila, da je Komisija kršila splošna načela prava Evropske unije tako, da je najprej razkrila svojo namero, da bo spremenila dokončno uredbo v zvezi z Indonezijo, potem pa je navedeno namero spremenila in nadaljevala preiskavo v zvezi z Indonezijo.
First, the Indonesian government considered that this results in unequal and discriminatory treatment of Indonesian producers vis-à-vis the Argentinian exporting producers given that the Commission had allegedly acknowledged, as stated in the Notice of Initiation, that Indonesian imports of biodiesel are in a similar situation to that of Argentinian imports.
Prvič, indonezijska vlada je menila, da to pomeni neenako in diskriminatorno obravnavo indonezijskih proizvajalcev v primerjavi z argentinskimi proizvajalci izvozniki, saj naj bi Komisija priznala, kot je navedeno v obvestilu o začetku, da je indonezijski uvoz biodizla v primerljivem položaju kot argentinski uvoz.
By delaying the review in respect of Indonesia, the Indonesian exporting producers are manifestly disadvantaged compared to the Argentinian exporters.
Zaradi zamude pri pregledu v zvezi z Indonezijo so indonezijski proizvajalci izvozniki očitno prikrajšani v primerjavi z argentinskimi izvozniki.
Second, given that the Commission initiated the review with regard to both Indonesian and Argentinian imports of biodiesel, the Indonesian exporters could reasonably and legitimately expect to have the review concerning Indonesia concluded at the same time as for Argentina.
Drugič, indonezijski izvozniki bi lahko razumno in upravičeno pričakovali, da bo pregled v zvezi z Indonezijo sklenjen ob istem času kot za Argentino, saj je Komisija začela pregled v zvezi z uvozom biodizla iz obeh držav.
This expectation was further amplified by the first disclosure document in which the Commission proposed to also amend the definitive Regulation for Indonesia.
To pričakovanje je dodatno okrepil prvi dokument o razkritju, v katerem je Komisija predlagala tudi spremembo dokončne uredbe za Indonezijo.
Accordingly, by changing its position through a revised disclosure the Commission allegedly infringed the principle of legitimate expectations.
Komisija je s tem, ko je z revidiranim dokumentom o razkritju spremenila svoje stališče, domnevno kršila načelo legitimnega pričakovanja.
Third, the Indonesian government submitted that the Commission infringed the principle of good faith by excluding the Indonesian imports from the review at a late stage of the proceeding despite, including them throughout the investigation.
Tretjič, indonezijska vlada je trdila, da je Komisija kršila načelo dobre vere, ko je v pozni fazi postopka izključila indonezijski uvoz, čeprav je bil vključen ves čas preiskave.
At the outset, the Commission recalled that the WTO Dispute Settlement Body has already made definitive findings on the EU measures against imports of biodiesel from Argentina, while the separate dispute concerning anti-dumping measures on biodiesel from Indonesia is still pending before it.
Komisija je najprej opozorila, da je DSB že sprejel dokončne ugotovitve o ukrepih EU zoper uvoz biodizla iz Argentine, medtem ko pred njim še vedno poteka drugi spor o protidampinških ukrepih za biodizel iz Indonezije.
The latter are thus considered a non-disputed measure within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation.
Slednji se zato obravnavajo kot nesporni ukrepi v skladu s členom 2(1) pooblastitvene uredbe STO.
This is informed, inter alia, by the use of the term ‘report’ in Article 1(1) of the WTO enabling regulation to describe a disputed measure which the WTO Dispute Settlement Body has concerned itself with and adjudicated on.
To razlago med drugim podpira uporaba izraza „poročilo“ v členu 1(1) pooblastitvene uredbe STO za opis spornega ukrepa, ki ga je DSB obravnaval in o katerem je sprejel odločitev.
The Commission also recalled that, under European Union law, the concepts of ‘equal treatment’ and ‘non-discrimination’ prohibit treating similar situations differently, or different situations in the same way, without any objective ground for doing so [7].
Komisija je spomnila tudi, da v okviru prava Evropske unije pojma „enake obravnave“ in „nediskriminacije“ prepovedujeta različno obravnavo podobnih okoliščin ali obravnavo različnih okoliščin na enak način, razen če za to obstajajo objektivni razlogi [7].
For the purpose of implementing the WTO Reports, Indonesian and Argentinian exporting producers are not objectively in the same situation: the implementation exercise vis-à-vis the investigation into injurious dumping of the product concerned from Argentina occurred under Article 1(1) of the WTO enabling regulation and is terminated through this Regulation, whereas the implementation exercise vis-à-vis the investigation into the same practices from Indonesia occurred under Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling regulation and remains open.
Za namen izvajanja poročil STO proizvajalci izvozniki iz Indonezije in Argentine objektivno niso v enakem položaju: izvajanje preiskave o škodljivem dampingu zadevnega izdelka iz Argentine je temeljilo na členu 1(1) pooblastitvene uredbe STO in se s to uredbo zaključi, medtem ko je izvajanje preiskave glede istih praks iz Indonezije temeljilo na členu 2(1) pooblastitvene uredbe STO, pri čemer ta preiskava še vedno traja.
A situation of discrimination can only arise if there is a different legal treatment for operators in the same situation.
Do diskriminacije lahko pride le, če se gospodarski subjekti, ki so v enakem položaju, različno pravno obravnavajo.
Since, however, the review into implementation of the findings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body vis-à-vis Argentina and Indonesia was commenced on different legal bases, completing the review into the investigation on injurious dumping from Argentina before that into the investigation on injurious dumping from Indonesia does not result in the differential treatment of a comparable situation.
Ker pa se je pregled izvajanja ugotovitev DSB glede Argentine in Indonezije začel na različnih pravnih podlagah, dokončanje pregleda preiskave o škodljivem dampingu iz Argentine pred dokončanjem pregleda preiskave o škodljivem dampingu iz Indonezije ne pomeni različne obravnave v primerljivem položaju.
This is because operators find themselves in different situations.
Razlog za to je, da so subjekti v različnih položajih.
Contrary to the arguments by the Government of Indonesia, there is, consequently, no violation of the principle of ‘equal treatment’ or ‘non-discrimination’ for the purposes of European Union law.
V nasprotju s trditvami indonezijske vlade torej ne gre za kršitev načela „enake obravnave“ ali „nediskriminacije“ v smislu prava Evropske unije.
In any case, by including permissive language (‘may’ and ‘if it considers this appropriate’) in Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation, the EU legislature has vested the Commission with significant discretion on whether or not to implement a recommendation from the WTO in respect of a non-disputed measure.
V vsakem primeru je zakonodajalec EU z vključitvijo permisivnega besedila („lahko“ in „kadar meni, da je to primerno“) v člen 2(1) pooblastitvene uredbe STO Komisiji podelil pomembno diskrecijsko pravico glede tega, ali naj izvede priporočilo STO v zvezi z nespornim ukrepom.
As noted above in recital 16, the Commission, after having analysed the comments received after disclosure, considered it appropriate not to conclude the review investigation as far as Indonesia is concerned at this point in time but, instead, to continue its assessment of the applicability of those findings also vis-à-vis Indonesia in light of the comments received.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 16, se je Komisiji po preučitvi pripomb, prejetih po razkritju, zdelo primerno, da na tej stopnji ne zaključi preiskave v zvezi s pregledom glede Indonezije, temveč da ob upoštevanju prejetih pripomb nadaljuje svojo oceno uporabnosti navedenih ugotovitev glede Indonezije.
Moreover, the Commission cannot accept the argument that a disclosure document gives legitimate expectations as to the final conclusion of an investigation.
Poleg tega Komisija ne more sprejeti trditve, da bi dokument o razkritju podeljeval legitimna pričakovanja glede končnega sklepa v okviru preiskave.
On the contrary, the purpose of disclosure is to inform interested parties of the Commission's preliminary findings and grant them the possibility to effectively exercise their rights of defence.
Nasprotno, namen razkritja je obvestiti zainteresirane strani o predhodnih ugotovitvah Komisije in jim dati možnost, da dejansko uveljavljajo svoje pravice do obrambe.
It is thus the very essence of the disclosure for the Commission to take into account arguments and facts presented by interested parties.
Zato je bistvo razkritja, da Komisija upošteva trditve in dejstva, ki so jih navedle zainteresirane strani.
For that reason, the cover letter to all interested parties expressly stated that ‘this disclosure does not prejudice any subsequent decision which may be taken by the Commission, but where such decision is based on any different facts and considerations, these will be disclosed to your company as soon as possible’.
Zato spremni dopis vsem zainteresiranim stranem izrecno navaja, da „to razkritje ne posega v nobeno morebitno poznejšo odločitev Komisije, toda če ta odločitev temelji na kakšnih drugačnih dejstvih ali premislekih, se ti vaši družbi razkrijejo v najkrajšem možnem času“.
In this particular case, that exercise led the Commission to take the position that it needs more time in analysing the applicability of the findings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body insofar as it concerns Indonesia.
V tem primeru je to povzročilo, da je Komisija sprejela stališče, da potrebuje več časa za analizo uporabe ugotovitev DSB v zvezi z Indonezijo.
This decision is of a preparatory nature and does not necessarily prejudice the Commission's final conclusion.
Ta odločitev je pripravljalne narave in ne vpliva na končni sklep Komisije.
That same decision is, furthermore, an exercise of the Commission's wide discretion when conducting the type of reviews commenced under the WTO enabling regulation, which fall within the realm of the Common Commercial Policy.
Navedena odločitev poleg tega pomeni izvajanje široke diskrecijske pravice Komisije pri izvajanju vrste pregledov, ki so se začeli v okviru pooblastitvene uredbe STO in spadajo na področje skupne trgovinske politike.
Accordingly, an interested party cannot rely on the protection of legitimate expectations before the Commission has closed the review procedure at hand if the Commission chooses to act within the powers provided to it by the Union legislator [8].
V tem smislu se zainteresirana stran ne more sklicevati na varstvo legitimnih pričakovanj, še preden Komisija zaključi postopek pregleda, če se Komisija odloči, da bo delovala v okviru pooblastil, ki ji jih je podelil zakonodajalec Unije [8].
That argument, too, must, consequently, be rejected.
Tudi ta argument je zato treba zavrniti.
Finally, no bad faith can be inferred from the fact that his change occurred after initial disclosure of the Commission's preliminary position, nor has the Government of Indonesia presented evidence to this effect.
Iz dejstva, da je do te spremembe prišlo po začetnem razkritju predhodnega stališča Komisije, torej ni mogoče sklepati, da je Komisija ravnala v slabi veri, poleg tega pa indonezijska vlada ni predložila dokazov v tem smislu.
The Commission has faithfully conducted all steps in the review investigation with full respect of due process rights of all interested parties.
Komisija je v preiskavi v zvezi s pregledom dosledno izvajala vse ukrepe in v celoti spoštovala procesne pravice vseh zainteresiranih strani.
The Commission therefore rejected the claims that it had breached fundamental principles of EU law by exercising its discretion not to amend, at this stage of the review, the anti-dumping measures as far as Indonesia is concerned in full respect of due process rights of all interested parties.
Zato je zavrnila trditve, da je kršila temeljna načela prava EU, ko je uveljavljala svojo diskrecijsko pravico, da na tej stopnji pregleda ob polnem spoštovanju pravic vseh zainteresiranih strani ne spremeni protidampinških ukrepov, kar zadeva Indonezijo.
After the revised disclosure one exporting producer from Indonesia (‘Wilmar’) contested the Commission's view that it required further time to conclude its review vis-à-vis Indonesia given the clear findings of the WTO reports.
Po revidiranem razkritju je en proizvajalec izvoznik iz Indonezije („družba Wilmar“) izpodbijal odločitev Komisije, da potrebuje več časa za dokončanje pregleda v zvezi z Indonezijo zaradi jasnih ugotovitev v poročilih STO.
It claimed also that the measures against Indonesia should be amended.
Trdil je tudi, da bi bilo treba ukrepe proti Indoneziji spremeniti.
In its view, the Commission is competent under the WTO enabling Regulation to amend a non-disputed measure and that its authority to act ex officio could therefore not be put into question.
Po njegovem mnenju je Komisija v okviru pooblastitvene uredbe STO pristojna, da spremeni nesporni ukrep, zato njene pristojnosti, da ukrepa po uradni dolžnosti, ni mogoče postaviti pod vprašaj.
Finally, Wilmar claimed that should the Commission's findings vis-à-vis Indonesia be postponed then also the findings concerning Argentina should be postponed.
Nazadnje je še trdil, da če Komisija preloži svoje ugotovitve glede Indonezije, bi morala preložiti tudi ugotovitve v zvezi z Argentino.
From its perspective, there are legal issues pending in the Indonesian WTO proceeding that might also become relevant and applicable to the measures concerning imports of biodiesel from Argentina, notably in relation to the profit margin.
Po njegovem mnenju v okviru postopka STO v zvezi z Indonezijo obstajajo nerešena pravna vprašanja, ki bi lahko postala relevantna tudi za ukrepe v zvezi z uvozom biodizla iz Argentine in bi se za njih lahko tudi uporabljala, zlasti kar zadeva stopnjo dobička.
The Commission agreed with Wilmar that it is in principle competent to make findings with regard to a non-disputed measure under Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation.
Komisija se je strinjala z družbo Wilmar, da je načeloma pristojna za ugotovitve v zvezi z nespornim ukrepom v skladu s členom 2(1) pooblastitvene uredbe STO.
However, as explained above in recital 16, the Commission, after having examined the comments received, did not consider it appropriate, at this stage, to conclude the review investigation as far as Indonesia is concerned by legitimately exercising its discretion provided for in Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling Regulation.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 16, se Komisiji po preučitvi prejetih pripomb ni zdelo primerno, da na tej stopnji z legitimnim uveljavljanjem svoje diskrecijske pravice v skladu s členom 2(1) pooblastitvene uredbe STO zaključi preiskavo v zvezi s pregledom glede Indonezije.
With regard to Wilmar's claim that also the findings concerning Argentina should be postponed, the Commission recalled that the WTO reports confirmed the methodology used in the definitive Regulation to establish a profit margin.
Kar zadeva trditev družbe Wilmar, da bi bilo treba preložiti tudi ugotovitve v zvezi z Argentino, je Komisija opozorila, da sta poročili STO potrdili metodologijo za določitev stopnje dobička, uporabljeno v dokončni uredbi.
The issue at stake in the pending Indonesian case was not raised in so far as Argentina was concerned.
Obravnavano vprašanje v nerešeni indonezijski zadevi se ni pojavilo v zvezi z Argentino.
In any case, the Union and Argentina have agreed on a reasonable time period to implement the findings of the reports, which should be respected.
Unija in Argentina sta se v vsakem primeru dogovorili o razumnem časovnem obdobju za izvedbo ugotovitev iz poročil, kar je treba spoštovati.
Determination of the normal value and calculation of the dumping margins
Določitev normalne vrednosti in izračun stopnje dampinga
This section sets out the reassessed findings of the original investigation regarding the recommendations and rulings of the Reports that the Union acted inconsistently with:
V tem oddelku so predstavljene ponovno ocenjene ugotovitve prvotne preiskave v zvezi s priporočili in sklepi iz poročil, da Unija ni ravnala v skladu s:
Article 2.2.1.1 by failing to calculate the cost of production of the product under investigation on the basis of the records kept by the producers and
členom 2.2.1.1, ker ni izračunala stroškov proizvodnje izdelka v preiskavi na podlagi evidenc, ki jih vodijo proizvajalci,
Article 2.2 of the ADA and Article VI:1(b)(ii) of the GATT 1994 by not using the cost of production in Argentina when constructing the normal value of biodiesel.
členom 2.2 protidampinškega sporazuma STO in členom VI:1(b)(ii) GATT iz leta 1994, ker pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti biodizla ni uporabila stroškov proizvodnje v Argentini, ter
Article 9.3 of the ADA and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 by imposing anti-dumping duties in excess of the margin of dumping that should have been established under Article 2 of the ADA and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994, respectively
členom 9.3 protidampinškega sporazuma STO in členom VI:2 GATT iz leta 1994, ker je uvedla protidampinške dajatve, ki so bile višje od stopnje dampinga ter ki bi jih bilo treba določiti na podlagi člena 2 protidampinškega sporazuma STO oziroma člena VI:1 GATT iz leta 1994.
As mentioned in recital 28 of the definitive Regulation, the Commission determined that the normal value had to be constructed as the domestic sales were considered not to be in the ordinary course of trade.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 28 dokončne uredbe, je Komisija ugotovila, da se za domačo prodajo šteje, da ni v skladu z običajnim potekom trgovine, zato je bilo treba normalno vrednost konstruirati.
This finding has not been contested and remains valid.
Ta ugotovitev ni bila izpodbijana in ostaja veljavna.
In recitals 29 to 34 of the definitive Regulation, the Commission established that the difference in the export taxes imposed by Argentina on the main raw material input (soybean oil and soybeans in Argentina) and those imposed on the finished product (biodiesel) depressed domestic prices in Argentina, and hence this should be taken into account in the construction of the normal value.
Komisija je v uvodnih izjavah 29 do 34 dokončne uredbe ugotovila, da so bile domače cene v Argentini zaradi razlike v izvoznih dajatvah, ki jih je Argentina naložila na glavne vhodne surovine (sojino olje in soja v Argentini), in tistih, ki so bile naložene na končni izdelek (biodizel), znižane, kar bi bilo treba upoštevati pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti.
As a result, when constructing the normal value, the Commission replaced the costs of the main raw material reported in the records of the exporting producers with reference prices published by the relevant authorities of the countries concerned.
Na podlagi tega je Komisija pri konstruiranju normalne vrednosti stroške glavnih surovin, prikazane v evidencah proizvajalcev izvoznikov, nadomestila z referenčnimi cenami, ki so jih v zadevnih državah objavili ustrezni organi.
The Commission further based its conclusions in the original investigation on the interpretation that Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA allows the investigating authority to decline to use the records of the exporting producers if it determines that they are either (i) inconsistent with GAAP or (ii) do not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration (recital 42 of the definitive Regulation).
Komisija je svoje sklepe v prvotni preiskavi utemeljila tudi z razlago, da lahko v skladu s členom 2.2.1.1 protidampinškega sporazuma STO preiskovalni organ zavrne uporabo evidenc proizvajalcev izvoznikov, če ugotovi, da (i) niso skladne s splošno priznanimi računovodskimi načeli ali (ii) ne izražajo ustrezno stroškov, ki so povezani s proizvodnjo in prodajo obravnavanega izdelka (uvodna izjava 42 dokončne uredbe).