natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 617/2003 of 4 April 2003 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in the Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (Carne dos Açores, Borrego do Nordeste Alentejano, Carne de Porco Alentejano, Pomodoro di Pachino, Uva da tavola di Mazzarrone) (OJ L 89, 5.4.2003, p. 3).
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 617/2003 z dne 4. aprila 2003 o dopolnitvi Priloge k Uredbi (ES) št. 2400/96 o vnosu nekaterih imen v Register zaščitenih označb porekla in zaščitenih geografskih označb, ustanovljen z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 2081/92 o zaščiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila (Carne dos Açores, Borrego do Nordeste Alentejano, Carne de Porco Alentejano, Pomodoro di Pachino, Uva da tavola di Mazzarrone) (UL L 89, 5.4.2003, str. 3).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 675/2013 of 15 July 2013 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Pomodoro di Pachino (PGI)] (OJ L 194, 17.7.2013, p. 1).
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 675/2013 z dne 15. julija 2013 o odobritvi večje spremembe specifikacije za ime, vpisano v registru zaščitenih označb porekla in zaščitenih geografskih označb (Pomodoro di Pachino (ZGO)) (UL L 194, 17.7.2013, str. 1).
OJ C 271, 26.7.2016, p. 5.
UL C 271, 26.7.2016, str. 5.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2303
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/2303
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods originating in the Republic of Belarus
o uvedbi začasne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz nekaterih armaturnih palic s poreklom iz Republike Belorusije
On 31 March 2016, the European Commission (‘the Commission’) initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports into the Union of certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods originating in the Republic of Belarus (‘Belarus’ or ‘the country concerned’) on the basis of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 [2] (‘the basic Regulation’).
Evropska komisija („Komisija“) je 31. marca 2016 na podlagi člena 5 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 [2] („osnovna uredba“) začela protidampinško preiskavo v zvezi z uvozom nekaterih armaturnih palic s poreklom iz Republike Belorusije („Belorusija“ ali „zadevna država“) v Unijo.
The relevant Notice of Initiation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3] (‘the Notice of Initiation’).
Zadevno obvestilo o začetku („obvestilo o začetku“) je bilo objavljeno v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3].
The Commission initiated the investigation following a complaint lodged on 15 February 2016 by the European Steel Association (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing 44 % of the total Union production of certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods.
Komisija je preiskavo začela po prejemu pritožbe, ki jo je 15. februarja 2016 v imenu proizvajalcev Unije, ki predstavljajo 44 % celotne proizvodnje nekaterih armaturnih palic v Uniji, vložilo združenje evropskih jeklarjev („pritožnik“).
No other producer expressing either opposition or neutral position had come forward.
Javil se ni noben drug proizvajalec, ki bi izrazil nasprotovanje ali nevtralno stališče.
Therefore, the relevant thresholds as set out in the Article 5(4) of the basic Regulation [4] were met at the time of the initiation of the case.
Zato so bili ob začetku postopka doseženi ustrezni pragovi, kot so določeni v členu 5(4) osnovne uredbe [4].
Once the investigation is opened, it is not necessary that the conditions for standing are met throughout the entire investigation.
Ko se preiskava začne, ni nujno, da so pogoji za postopek izpolnjeni skozi celotno preiskavo.
The Court has confirmed this for the situation where a company withdraws its support for the complaint [5]; the same reasoning applies by analogy in a situation where the product scope changes.
Sodišče je to potrdilo za primer, ko družba umakne svojo podporo pritožbi [5]; enako po analogiji velja v primeru, ko se obseg izdelka spremeni.
In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the one known Belarusian exporting producer and the authorities of the Republic of Belarus as well as known importers and users about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.
Poleg tega je o začetku preiskave posebej obvestila pritožnika, druge znane proizvajalce Unije, edinega znanega proizvajalca izvoznika iz Belorusije, organe Republike Belorusije, znane uvoznike in uporabnike ter jih povabila k sodelovanju.
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission also informed interested parties that it envisaged South Africa or the United States of America (‘the USA’) as a third market-economy country (‘the analogue country’) within the meaning of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation.
V obvestilu o začetku je Komisija še obvestila zainteresirane strani, da namerava kot tretjo državo s tržnim gospodarstvom („primerljiva država“) v smislu člena 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe uporabiti Južno Afriko ali Združene države Amerike (ZDA).
In its Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had provisionally selected a sample of Union producers on the basis of production and sales volume of the product under investigation and geographic location.
Komisija je v obvestilu o začetku navedla, da je na podlagi proizvodnje in obsega prodaje izdelka v preiskavi ter geografske lokacije začasno izbrala vzorec proizvajalcev Unije.
This sample consisted of five Union producers.
Vključeval je pet proizvajalcev Unije.
The sampled Union producers accounted for 22,4 % of the total Union production and 24,4 % of the total Union sales of the product concerned.
Vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije so predstavljali 22,4 % celotne proizvodnje in 24,4 % celotne prodaje zadevnega izdelka v Uniji.
The companies are located in France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, covering a broad geographic variety.
Družbe imajo sedež v Franciji, Nemčiji, Italiji, na Poljskem in v Španiji ter tako pokrivajo različna in obsežna geografska območja.
Therefore, it was concluded that the sample is representative of the Union industry.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da je vzorec reprezentativen za industrijo Unije.
In order to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, the Commission requested unrelated importers to provide the information specified in the Notice of Initiation.
Komisija je prosila nepovezane uvoznike, naj predložijo informacije, določene v obvestilu o začetku, da bi se odločila, ali je vzorčenje potrebno, in da bi v tem primeru lahko izbrala vzorec.
In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected a sample of three importers on the basis of the largest volume of imports into the Union.
Komisija je v skladu s členom 17(1) osnovne uredbe izbrala vzorec treh uvoznikov na podlagi največjega obsega uvoza v Unijo.
The three sampled companies accounted for 80 % of the unrelated imports of the product concerned originating in Belarus.
Tri vzorčene družbe so predstavljale 80 % nepovezanega uvoza zadevnega izdelka s poreklom iz Belorusije.
The Commission sent questionnaires to the five sampled Union producers, the cooperating exporting producer in the country concerned, one producer in the USA, selected as the analogue country as explained in recital 32 below, three sampled importers, eight users known at the moment of initiation of the investigation and to one additional user who made itself known at a late stage of the procedure.
Komisija je vprašalnike poslala petim vzorčenim proizvajalcem Unije, sodelujočemu proizvajalcu izvozniku v zadevni državi, proizvajalcu v ZDA, ki so bile izbrane kot primerljiva država, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 32, trem vzorčenim uvoznikom, osmim uporabnikom, znanim ob začetku preiskave, ter dodatnemu uporabniku, ki se je razkril proti koncu postopka.
Questionnaire replies were received from five sampled Union producers, the cooperating exporting producer in the country concerned, one producer in the USA (‘the analogue country’) and two unrelated importers.
Izpolnjene vprašalnike je poslalo pet vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije, sodelujoči proizvajalec izvoznik v zadevni državi, proizvajalec iz ZDA („primerljive države“) in nepovezana uvoznika.
Celsa Huta Ostrowiec sp. z.o.o., Ostrowiec Swietokrzyski, Poland,
Celsa Huta Ostrowiec sp. z.o.o., Ostrowiec Swietokrzyski, Poljska;
Feralpi Sideruglica SpA, Lonato del Garda, Italy,
Feralpi Sideruglica s.p.a, Lonato del Garda, Italija;
Riva Acier SA, Gargenville, France,
Riva Acier SA, Gargenville, Francija;
Certain macro data were also verified at the premises of the complainant (Brussels, Belgium);
nekateri makropodatki so bili preverjeni tudi v prostorih pritožnika (Bruselj, Belgija);
Exporting producer in Belarus
proizvajalec izvoznik v Belorusiji
Open Joint-Stock Company ‘Byelorussian Steel Works — Management Company of “Byelorussian Metallurgical Company” Holding’, Belarus (‘BMZ’);
Open Joint-Stock Company „Byelorussian Steel Works – Management Company of ‚Byelorussian Metallurgical Company‘ Holding“, Belorusija („BMZ“);
Traders related to the exporting producer
trgovci, povezani s proizvajalcem izvoznikom
Bel Kap Steel LLC, Miami (Fl), the USA,
Bel Kap Steel LLC, Miami (Fl), ZDA;
BMZ Polska Sp. z.o.o., Katowice, Poland,
BMZ Polska Sp. z.o.o., Katowice, Poljska;
UAB ‘Prekybos namai BMZ-Baltija’, Šiauliai, Lithuania;
UAB „Prekybos namai BMZ-Baltija“, Šiauliai, Litva;
Producer in an analogue country
proizvajalec v primerljivi državi
Commercial Metals Company, Dallas (TX), the USA.
Commercial Metals Company, Dallas (TX), ZDA.
The product concerned is certain concrete reinforcement bars and rods, made of iron or non-alloy steel, not further worked than forged, hot-rolled, hot-drawn or hot-extruded, but including those twisted after rolling and also those containing indentations, ribs, grooves or other deformations produced during the rolling process, originating in Belarus and currently falling within CN codes ex72141000, ex72142000, ex72143000, ex72149110, ex72149190, ex72149910, ex72149971, ex72149979 and ex72149995 (‘the product concerned’).
Zadevni izdelek so nekatere armaturne palice s poreklom iz Belorusije, izdelane iz železa ali nelegiranega jekla, kovane, toplo valjane, toplo vlečene ali toplo iztiskane, brez nadaljnje obdelave, vključno s spiralno zvitimi po valjanju in tudi tistimi, ki vsebujejo zareze, rebra, brazde ali druge deformacije, nastale med procesom valjanja, in ki so trenutno uvrščene pod oznake KN ex72141000, ex72142000, ex72143000, ex72149110, ex72149190, ex72149910, ex72149971, ex72149979 in ex72149995 („zadevni izdelek“).
High fatigue performance iron or steel concrete reinforcing bars and rods are excluded.
Armaturne palice iz železa ali jekla z visoko odpornostjo proti utrujenosti so izključene.
The investigation showed that the product concerned and the product produced and sold on the domestic market of the USA, as well as the product produced by the Union industry and sold on the Union market have the same basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses.
Preiskava je pokazala, da imajo zadevni izdelek in izdelek, ki se proizvaja in prodaja na domačem trgu ZDA, ter izdelek, ki ga proizvaja industrija Unije in se prodaja na trgu Unije, enake osnovne fizikalne, kemične in tehnične lastnosti ter uporabe.
They are therefore provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zato se začasno obravnavajo kot podobni izdelki v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
The Belarusian exporting producer pointed to an alleged inconsistency in the product scope description between the complaint (referring to two CN codes) and the Notice of Initiation (referring to nine CN codes).
Proizvajalec izvoznik iz Belorusije je opozoril na domnevno neskladnost med opisom obsega izdelka v pritožbi (s sklicem na dve oznaki KN) in opisom v obvestilu o začetku (s sklicem na devet oznak KN).
It was claimed that for that reason the injury assessment in the complaint does not refer to the same scope as in the subsequent initiated proceeding.
Trdil je, da se zaradi tega ocena škode v pritožbi ne nanaša na enak obseg kot v pozneje začetem postopku.
It further noted that the company only exported under the two CN codes mentioned in the complaint.
Nadalje je opozoril, da družba izvaža samo pod dvema oznakama KN, navedenima v pritožbi.
The complaint indeed mentioned two CN codes in the product description while the Notice of Initiation listed nine of them.
V pritožbi sta pri opisu izdelka dejansko navedeni dve oznaki KN, v obvestilu o začetku pa jih je devet.
The Commission notes that the CN codes provided in the Notice of Initiation are given for information purposes only, as clearly stated.
Komisija opozarja, da so oznake KN v obvestilu o začetku navedene zgolj informativno, kot je jasno navedeno.
It further notes that the investigation was opened based on the description of the product concerned provided in the complaint which in substance covers nine CN codes regardless of the reference and, therefore, the additional CN codes had no impact on the evidence provided in the Complaint.
Opozarja tudi, da se je preiskava začela na podlagi opisa zadevnega izdelka v pritožbi, ki vsebinsko zajema devet oznak KN ne glede na sklic, in da dodatne oznake KN torej niso vplivale na dokaze, predložene v pritožbi.
Therefore this claim of alleged inconsistency in the product description was rejected.
Zato je bila ta trditev o domnevni neskladnosti pri opisu izdelka zavrnjena.
According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, Belarus is not considered as a market-economy country.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe se Belorusija ne šteje za državo s tržnim gospodarstvom.
Therefore, the normal value in respect of Belarusian exports to the Union was determined on the basis of data obtained from a producer in a market-economy third country.
Zato se je normalna vrednost v zvezi z izvozom iz Belorusije v Unijo določila na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je predložil proizvajalec v tretji državi s tržnim gospodarstvom.
During the IP, imports from Belarus totalled around 488000 tonnes with a market share of about 5 %.
V OP je bila skupna količina uvoza iz Belorusije približno 488000 ton, kar ustreza približno 5-odstotnemu tržnemu deležu.
The main importing Member States were Germany, Lithuania, Poland and the Netherlands.
Glavne države članice uvoznice so bile Nemčija, Litva, Poljska in Nizozemska.
The only known Belarusian manufacturer cooperated with the investigation and replied to the questionnaire.
Edini znani proizvajalec iz Belorusije je sodeloval v preiskavi in izpolnil vprašalnik.
This manufacturer sold the product concerned to the Union directly or via related traders established in the Union and the USA.
Ta proizvajalec je zadevni izdelek v Unijo prodajal neposredno ali prek povezanih trgovcev s sedežem v Uniji in ZDA.
According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value was determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market-economy third country.
V skladu s členom 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe je bila normalna vrednost določena na podlagi cene ali konstruirane vrednosti v tretji državi s tržnim gospodarstvom.
For this purpose, a market-economy third country had to be selected (‘the analogue country’).
V ta namen je bilo treba izbrati tretjo državo s tržnim gospodarstvom („primerljiva država“).
As mentioned in recital 6, in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission had informed interested parties that it envisaged South Africa or the USA as a market-economy third for the purpose of establishing the normal value.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 6, je Komisija v obvestilu o začetku obvestila zainteresirane strani, da namerava za določitev normalne vrednosti kot tretjo državo s tržnim gospodarstvom uporabiti Južno Afriko ali ZDA.
Comments on the proposed analogue countries were received from the sole Belarusian cooperating exporting producer.
Pripombe o predlaganih primerljivih državah je prejela od edinega sodelujočega proizvajalca izvoznika iz Belorusije.
It claimed that neither South Africa nor the USA was an appropriate choice as an analogue country because, among other reasons, the production capacity, the actual production output, the production process in South Africa and the USA was different in comparison with the Belarusian producer.
Ta je trdil, da niti Južna Afrika niti ZDA nista primerni primerljivi državi, ker se med drugim proizvodna zmogljivost, dejanski obseg proizvodnje ter proizvodni proces proizvajalca v Belorusiji razlikujejo od tistih v Južni Afriki in ZDA.
Moreover, this party claimed that the domestic producers in South Africa and the USA identified by the complainants were directly related to Union producers.
Poleg tega je trdil, da so domači proizvajalci v Južni Afriki in ZDA, ki so jih opredelili pritožniki, neposredno povezani s proizvajalci Unije.
Therefore, the objectiveness of the data collected in these countries from such producers may be questionable.
Zato je lahko objektivnost podatkov, zbranih v teh državah od takih proizvajalcev, vprašljiva.
This party proposed that Russia would constitute the most appropriate choice as the analogue country since the Russian steel bar industry has the most similar level of development compared to that of Belarus, production process is also based on metal scrap and the steel bar produced is similar in terms of quality and technical specifications.
Predlagal je, da bi bila Rusija najprimernejša primerljiva država, saj sta ruska in beloruska industrija jeklenih palic razvojno najbolj primerljivi, proizvodni proces prav tako temelji na odpadnih kovinah, kakovost in tehnične specifikacije proizvedenih jeklenih palic pa so si podobne.
However, the Commission noted that the party did not provide any evidence, showing that South Africa or the USA producers were not using metal scrap for producing the product concerned or that in their cost structure the raw materials did not represent 60 %-70 % of the cost of production.
Vendar je Komisija ugotovila, da ta stran ni predložila dokazov o tem, da proizvajalci v Južni Afriki ali ZDA ne uporabljajo odpadnih kovin za proizvajanje zadevnega izdelka ali da v njihovi stroškovni strukturi surovine ne predstavljajo 60–70 % proizvodnih stroškov.
In any event the Commission investigated the appropriateness of South Africa and the USA (as well as Brazil) as an analogue country.
Komisija je vsekakor preiskala primernost Južne Afrike in ZDA (pa tudi Brazilije) kot primerljive države.
The details of these analyses were set out in recitals 28 to 34.
Podrobnosti o analizi so navedene v uvodnih izjavah 28 do 34.
With the aim of selecting the market-economy third country, the Commission contacted all known producers not only in South Africa and the USA but also in Turkey, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mexico, Korea, the Dominican Republic, Norway and Switzerland.
Da bi Komisija izbrala tretjo državo s tržnim gospodarstvom, je stopila v stik z vsemi znanimi proizvajalci ne le v Južni Afriki in ZDA, ampak tudi v Turčiji, Ukrajini, Ruski federaciji, Bosni in Hercegovini, Mehiki, Koreji, Dominikanski republiki, Norveški in Švici.
The commission requested information regarding their domestic market and to report the type of products produced, the production capacity, the production output, the volume of domestic sales, to describe the production process, the type of raw material used, the share of raw materials, energy and labour costs in the total manufacturing costs of the product concerned, and finally their willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
Zaprosila je za informacije v zvezi z njihovim domačim trgom, vrsto proizvedenega izdelka, proizvodno zmogljivostjo, obsegom proizvodnje, obsegom domače prodaje, opisom proizvodnega procesa, vrsto uporabljene surovine, deležem surovin, stroški energije in dela v skupnih proizvodnih stroških zadevnega izdelka ter v zvezi z njihovo pripravljenostjo za sodelovanje v preiskavi.
In addition, the authorities of the above mentioned third countries were contacted.
Poleg tega je stopila v stik z organi navedenih tretjih držav.
The Russian authorities informed the Commission that none of the known Russian producers or their associations demonstrated interest in the current investigation.
Ruski organi so Komisijo obvestili, da nobeden od znanih ruskih proizvajalcev ali združenj proizvajalcev ni izkazal zanimanja za sedanjo preiskavo.
Therefore, in the absence of cooperation from any Russian producers, Russia could not be taken as analogue country.
Zaradi nesodelovanja ruskih proizvajalcev Rusije ni bilo mogoče upoštevati kot primerljive države.
The South African and the US producers were related with some of the complainants.
Ta proizvajalec ni bil povezan s pritožniki.
The Brazilian producer was part of group of companies which had production facilities in various countries, including the USA, Mexico and the Dominican Republic.
Komisija je odgovore treh proizvajalcev preverila v povezavi s pritožbo in prejetimi pripombami.
This producer was not related to the complainants.
Ugotovila je, da je domača potrošnja v Južni Afriki razmeroma majhna, tj. samo približno 435000 ton, da znaša proizvodna zmogljivost južnoafriškega proizvajalca približno 10 % zmogljivosti beloruskega proizvajalca in da je uporabljena glavna surovina železova ruda, medtem ko beloruski proizvajalec izvoznik uporablja odpadne kovine.
The three replies were examined in relation to the complaint and the comments received.
Zato se je odločila, da Južne Afrike ne bo uporabila kot možne primerljive države.
It was found that the domestic consumption in South Africa is relatively small, only around 435000 tonnes, the production capacity of the South African producer is around 10 % of the Belarusian producer and the main raw material used is iron ore whereas the Belarusian exporting producer is using metal scrap.
Domača potrošnja v Braziliji znaša približno 3,5 milijona ton, uvoz (približno 95 % s poreklom iz Turčije), za katerega velja dajatev ad valorem v višini 12 %, pa predstavlja približno 5,5 % brazilske potrošnje.
Therefore, the Commission decided to disregard South Africa as a potential analogue country.
Proizvodni proces proizvajalca, ki je ponudil sodelovanje, temelji na odpadnih kovinah in surovem železu, medtem ko beloruski proizvajalec izvoznik večinoma uporablja odpadne kovine, obseg njegove proizvodnje pa znaša približno 50 % obsega beloruskega proizvajalca.
Brazil has a domestic consumption of around 3,5 million tonnes and imports (around 95 % originating in Turkey), subject to an ad valorem duty of 12 %, represents around 5,5 % of the Brazilian consumption.
Domača potrošnja v ZDA je znašala približno 7,7 milijona ton.
The production process of the producer offering to cooperate is based on metal scrap and pig iron, whereas the Belarusian exporting producer uses mainly metal scrap and its production volume is around 50 % of the Belarusian producer.
V ZDA je bilo najmanj osem domačih proizvajalcev.
The USA's domestic consumption was around 7,7 million tonnes.
Čeprav so veljale omejitve uvoza [6], je ta vseeno predstavljal približno 23 % celotne potrošnje, prihajal pa je predvsem iz Turčije in Japonske.
There were at least eight domestic producers.
Proizvajalec v ZDA je uporabljal podoben proizvodni proces kot proizvajalec v Belorusiji.
Imports restrictions were in force [6] but imports represented nevertheless around 23 % of the total consumption, mainly originating from Turkey and Japan.
Obseg njegove proizvodnje je znašal približno 52 % obsega beloruskega proizvajalca.
The US producer used a similar production process than the Belarusian producer.
Na podlagi te analize je Komisija menila, da je stanje na trgu, ugotovljeno v Braziliji in ZDA, dovolj konkurenčno.
Its production volume was around 52 % of that of the Belarusian producer.
Zato se je odločila, da bo kot možni primerljivi državi uporabila Brazilijo in ZDA.