natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
C. As regards Cheddar cheeses intended for processing covered by CN code ex04069001 and listed under quota number 09.4515 in Annex I.K and under quota number 09.4522 in Annex III.B:
C. V zvezi s siri cheddar, ki so namenjeni za predelavo in zajeti pod oznako KN ex04069001 ter ki so navedeni pod številko kvote 09.4515 v Prilogi I.K in pod številko kvote 09.4522 v Prilogi III.B:
D. As regards cheeses other than Cheddar cheese intended for processing covered by CN code ex04069001 listed under quota number 09.4515 in Annex I.K and under quota number 09.4522 in Annex III.B:
D. V zvezi z drugimi siri razen sira cheddar, ki so namenjeni za predelavo in zajeti pod oznako KN ex04069001 ter ki so navedeni pod številko kvote 09.4515 v Prilogi I.K in pod številko kvote 09.4522 v Prilogi III.B:
box 16, by specifying the period for which the quota is valid.’
polje 16 z navedbo obdobja, za katero kvota velja.“
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1589
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2017/1589
Having regard to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China [3], and in particular Article 3 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Izvedbene uredbe Sveta (EU) št. 1238/2013 z dne 2. decembra 2013 o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve na uvoz fotonapetostnih modulov iz kristalnega silicija in njihovih ključnih sestavnih delov (tj. celic) s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske [3] ali ki so od tam poslani in zlasti člena 3 te uredbe,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 of 1 March 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China [4], and in particular Article 2 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Izvedbene uredbe Sveta (EU) 2017/367 z dne 1. marca 2017 o uvedbi dokončne izravnalne dajatve na uvoz fotonapetostnih modulov iz kristalnega silicija in njihovih ključnih sestavnih delov (tj. celic) s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske [4] ali ki so od tam poslani in zlasti člena 2 te uredbe,
Having regard to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China [5], and in particular Article 2 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Izvedbene uredbe Sveta (EU) št. 1239/2013 z dne 2. decembra 2013 o uvedbi dokončne izravnalne dajatve na uvoz fotonapetostnih modulov iz kristalnega silicija in njihovih ključnih sestavnih delov (tj. celic) s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske [5] ali ki so od tam poslani in zlasti člena 2 te uredbe,
Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 of 1 March 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China [6], and in particular Article 2 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Izvedbene uredbe Sveta (EU) 2017/366 z dne 1. marca 2017 o uvedbi dokončne izravnalne dajatve na uvoz fotonapetostnih modulov iz kristalnega silicija in njihovih ključnih sestavnih delov (tj. celic) s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske [6] ali ki so od tam poslani in zlasti člena 2 te uredbe,
By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the Union of modules and cells originating in or consigned from the PRC (‘the products concerned’).
Svet je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) št. 1238/2013 določil dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz modulov in celic s poreklom iz LRK ali ki so od tam poslani („zadevni izdelki“), v Unijo.
Chinaland Solar Energy Co.
družba Chinaland Solar Energy Co.
Ltd covered by TARIC additional code B808 (‘Chinaland’).
Ltd, ki je zajeta z dodatno oznako TARIC B808 („Chinaland“).
The anti-dumping and countervailing duties referred to in recital 4 above, together with the undertaking, are jointly referred to hereafter as ‘measures’.
Protidampinške in izravnalne dajatve iz uvodne izjave 4 ter zaveza se v nadaljnjem besedilu skupaj imenujejo „ukrepi“.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/866 [12] the Commission withdrew the acceptance of the undertaking for three exporting producers.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2015/866 [12] umaknila svoje sprejetje zaveze za tri proizvajalce izvoznike.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1403 [13] the Commission withdrew the acceptance of the undertaking for another exporting producer.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2015/1403 [13] umaknila svoje sprejetje zaveze za še enega od proizvajalcev izvoznikov.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2018 [14] the Commission withdrew the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2015/2018 [14] umaknila svoje sprejetje zaveze za dva proizvajalca izvoznika.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/185 [19], the Commission extended the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 on imports of the products concerned originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China to imports of the product concerned consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and in Taiwan or not.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2016/185 [19] dokončno protidampinško dajatev, uvedeno z Uredbo (EU) št. 1238/2013 na uvoz zadevnih izdelkov s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske ali ki so od tam poslani, razširila na uvoz zadevnih izdelkov, poslanih iz Malezije in Tajvana, ne glede na to, ali so deklarirani kot izdelki s poreklom iz Malezije in Tajvana ali ne.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/184 [20], the Commission extended the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 on imports of the products concerned originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China to imports of the product concerned consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, whether declared as originating in Malaysia and in Taiwan or not.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2016/184 [20] dokončno izravnalno dajatev, uvedeno z Uredbo (EU) št. 1239/2013 na uvoz zadevnih izdelkov s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske ali ki so od tam poslani, razširila na uvoz zadevnih izdelkov, poslanih iz Malezije in Tajvana, ne glede na to, ali so deklarirani kot izdelki s poreklom iz Malezije in Tajvana ali ne.
Following the expiry and interim reviews referred to in recitals 10 to 12, the Commission maintained the measures in force by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367.
Po pregledu zaradi izteka ukrepov in vmesnem pregledu iz uvodnih izjav 10 do 12 je Komisija ohranila veljavne ukrepe z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2017/366 in Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2017/367.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1524 [32], the Commission withdrew the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers.
Komisija je z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2017/ 1524 [32] umaknila svoje sprejetje zaveze za dva proizvajalca izvoznika.
This list of breaches includes indirect sales to the Union by companies other than those listed in the undertaking.
Seznam kršitev vključuje posredno prodajo v Unijo s strani družb, ki niso navedene v zavezi.
The exporting producer is liable for the breach of any of its related parties, whether or not listed in the undertaking.
Proizvajalec izvoznik je odgovoren za kršitve katere koli od svojih povezanih strank, ne glede na to, ali so navedene v zavezi ali ne.
C. MONITORING OF THE EXPORTING PRODUCER
C. SPREMLJANJE PROIZVAJALCEV IZVOZNIKOV
While monitoring compliance with the undertaking, the Commission verified information submitted by Chinaland that was relevant to the undertaking.
Komisija je med spremljanjem skladnosti z zavezo preverila informacije, ki jih je predložila družba Chinaland in so bile relevantne za zavezo.
The Commission also assessed publicly available information regarding the corporate structure of Chinaland.
Komisija je ocenila tudi javno dostopne informacije glede korporacijske strukture družbe Chinaland.
The Commission also received evidence from customs authorities of one Member State on the basis of Articles 8(9) and 14(7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Articles 13(9) and 24(7) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.
Komisija je prav tako prejela dokaze carinskih organov ene države članice na podlagi členov 8(9) in 14(7) osnovne protidampinške uredbe in členov 13(9) in 24(7) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe.
The findings listed in recitals 38 to 40 address the problems identified for Chinaland which oblige the Commission to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking for this exporting producer.
Ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 38 do 40 obravnavajo težave, ugotovljene za družbo Chinaland, zaradi katerih je Komisija dolžna umakniti sprejetje zaveze za tega proizvajalca izvoznika.
In its quarterly reports, Chinaland had reported sales transactions of the product covered to an allegedly unrelated importer in the Union and had issued undertaking invoices.
Družba Chinaland je v svojih četrtletnih poročilih poročala o prodajnih transakcijah zadevnega izdelka domnevno nepovezanemu uvozniku v Uniji in je izdala račune na podlagi zaveze.
These transactions amounted in value to around 20 % of its total sales to the Union.
Vrednost teh transakcij je bila približno 20 % njene skupne prodaje v Unijo.
Based on the information available to the Commission, the importer involved in these transactions was related to Chinaland.
Toda na podlagi informacij, ki so na voljo Komisiji, je bil uvoznik, vključen v te transakcije, povezan z družbo Chinaland.
In particular, several sales transactions of this allegedly unrelated importer were carried out by two of Chinaland's officials.
Več prodajnih transakcijah tega domnevno nepovezanega uvoznika sta izvedla dva uslužbenca družbe Chinaland.
In their communication with final customers, these officials stated that this allegedly unrelated customer was a Union company belonging to Chinaland.
Ta dva uslužbenca sta v komunikaciji s končnimi strankami navedla, da je ta domnevno nepovezana stranka družba Unije, ki je pripadala družbi Chinaland.
Email accounts of these officials also hint to Chinaland.
Računi elektronske pošte teh uslužbencev tudi kažejo na družbo Chinaland.
The Commission analysed this trade pattern.
Komisija je analizirala ta vzorec trgovanja.
As this importer is not listed as related party in the undertaking, Chinaland had breached the terms of the undertaking as described in recital 30.
Ker ta uvoznik v zavezi ni naveden kot povezana stranka, je družba Chinaland kršila pogoje zaveze, kot so navedeni v uvodni izjavi 30.
In addition, sales made by this importer to the first independent customer in the Union were carried out at prices below the MIP.
Poleg tega je ta uvoznik prvi neodvisni stranki v Uniji izdelek prodajal po cenah, ki so bile nižje od minimalne uvozne cene.
Therefore, Chinaland breached the terms of the undertaking as described in recitals 29 and 33.
Zato je družba Chinaland kršila pogoje zaveze, kot so navedeni v uvodnih izjavah 29 in 33.
None of the re-sales by the related importer was reported to the Commission.
Komisija ni bila obveščena o nobeni nadaljnji prodaji s strani povezanega uvoznika.
Consequently, Chinaland also breached the terms of the undertaking as described in recitals 32 and 33.
Zato je družba Chinaland kršila tudi pogoje zaveze, kot so navedeni v uvodnih izjavah 32 in 33.
The Commission analysed the findings set out in recitals 38 to 40 and concluded that these also harmed the relationship of trust established with the Commission.
Komisija je analizirala odkritja iz uvodnih izjav 38 in 40 ter sklenila, da so ta zlorabila njeno zaupanje.
The indirect sales transactions made by Chinaland are linked to the following undertaking invoices:
Posredne prodajne transakcije, ki jih je izvršila družba Chinaland, so povezane z naslednjimi računi na podlagi zaveze:
Number of commercial invoice accompanying goods subject to the undertaking
Številka trgovinskega računa, priloženega blagu, ki je predmet zaveze
Therefore, in accordance with Article 3(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013, these invoices are declared invalid.
Zato se v skladu s členom 3(2)(b) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1238/2013 in členom 2(2)(b) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 1239/2013 ti računi razglasijo za neveljavne.
The customs debt incurred at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release into free circulation should be recovered by the national customs authorities under Article 105(3) to (6) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [33] laying down the Union Customs Code, when the withdrawal of the undertaking in relation to the exporting producer enters into force.
Carinski dolg, ki je nastal ob sprejetju deklaracije za sprostitev v prosti promet, bi morali nacionalni carinski organi v skladu s členom 105(3) do (6) Uredbe (EU) št. 952/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o carinskem zakoniku Unije [33] izterjati ob začetku veljavnosti umika zaveze za zadevnega proizvajalca izvoznika.
The national customs authorities responsible for the collection of duties will be informed accordingly.
Nacionalni carinski organi, ki so pristojni za pobiranje dajatev, bodo o tem ustrezno obveščeni.
In this context, the Commission recalls that pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) read in conjunction with Annex III, No 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013, Article (2)(1)(b) read in conjunction with Annex III, No 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/367 and to Article 2(1)(b) read in conjunction with Annex 2, No 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013, Article 2(2)(b) read in conjunction with Annex 2, No 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/366, imports are only exempted from duties if the invoice indicates the price and possible rebates for the product covered.
V tem okviru Komisija poudarja, da je v skladu s členom 3(1)(b) v povezavi s točko 7 Priloge III Izvedbene Uredbe (EU) št. 1238/2013, členom 2(1)(b) v povezavi s točko 7 Priloge III Izvedbene Uredbe (EU) 2017/367 ter s členom 2(1)(b) v povezavi s točko 7 Priloge 2 Izvedbene Uredbe (EU) št. 1239/2013 in členom (2)(2)(b) v povezavi s točko 7 Priloge 2 Izvedbene Uredbe (EU) 2017/366 uvoz oproščen dajatev le, če so na računu navedeni cena in morebitni rabati za zajeti izdelek.
Where those conditions are not complied with, duties are due, even where the commercial invoice accompanying the goods has not been invalidated by the Commission.
Če navedeni pogoji niso izpolnjeni, je treba dajatve plačati, čeprav Komisija ni razveljavila trgovinskega računa, priloženega blagu.
In such a case, the Commission should assess the impact of that particular breach on the practicability of the undertaking with the effect for all exporting producers and the CCCME.
V takem primeru bi morala Komisija oceniti učinek te kršitve na izvedljivost zaveze z učinkom za vse proizvajalce izvoznike in CCCME.
The Commission accordingly assessed the impact of the breaches by Chinaland on the practicability of the undertaking with the effect for all exporting producers and the CCCME.
Komisija je ustrezno ocenila vpliv kršitev s strani družbe Chinaland na izvedljivost zaveze z učinkom za vse proizvajalce izvoznike in CCCME.
This case is similar to previous withdrawal cases.
Ta primer je podoben prejšnjim primerom umika.
The Commission had already informed the CCCME on those occasions that should breaches of a similar pattern persist in the future, the Commission might re-assess the overall practicability of the undertaking [34].
Komisija je v navedenih primerih CCCME že obvestila, da je v primeru, če bi se podoben vzorec kršitev nadaljeval v prihodnosti, možno, da bo Komisija znova ocenila izvedljivost celotne zaveze [34].
The Commission continues to reserve its right to do so.
Komisija si še naprej pridržuje pravico do tega.
Chinaland submitted comments after the disclosure.
Družba Chinaland je predložila pripombe po razkritju.
It contested the relationship with the importer in the Union.
Izpodbijala je povezavo z uvoznikom v Uniji.
Chinaland further alleged that the importer in the Union was owned by another person than the exporting producer.
Družba Chinaland je tudi trdila, da je bil uvoznik v Uniji v lasti druge osebe, ne proizvajalca izvoznika.
Chinaland also alleged that the two officials (referred to in recital 38 above) were pursuing their personal interests without authorisation of Chinaland in referring to the affiliation between the importer and Chinaland.
Družba Chinaland je še trdila, da sta se uslužbenca (na katera se navezuje uvodna izjava 38) sklicevala na povezavo med uvoznikom in družbo Chinaland zaradi svojega lastnega interesa, ne da bi za to imela pooblastilo družbe Chinaland.
The Commission, however, considers that, in absence of evidence to the contrary, communications of the exporter's officials towards third parties made within their usual business activities are to be attributed to Chinaland.
Vendar Komisija meni, da je treba zaradi odsotnosti dokazov o nasprotnem komunikacijo med uslužbenci izvoznika in tretjimi stranmi, ki poteka v okviru običajnih gospodarskih dejavnosti, šteti za komunikacijo družbe Chinaland.
As Chinaland failed to disprove this presumption, the claim is therefore rejected.
Ker družba Chinaland ni ovrgla te domneve, se trditev zavrne.
Chinaland also contested the invalidation of invoices.
Družba Chinaland je tudi nasprotovala razveljavitvi računov.
It claimed that the Commission cannot impose duties/order customs to levy duties on imports released for free circulation before the date of the withdrawal of the acceptance of the undertaking if imports have not been registered.
Trdila je, da Komisija ne more uvesti dajatev oziroma carini naložiti obračunavanje dajatev na uvoz, sproščen v prosti promet pred datumom umika sprejetja zaveze, če uvoz ni bil registriran.
That claim is made by reference to Articles 8 and 13 of the basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidy Regulations.
Trditev se navezuje na člen 8 osnovne protidampinške uredbe in člen 13 osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe.
That understanding is, however, not correct.
Vendar ta interpretacija ni pravilna.
According to Article 8(10) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13(10) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, a provisional duty may be imposed retroactively for a limited period where registration of imports occurred.
V skladu s členom 8(10) osnovne protidampinške uredbe in členom 13(10) osnovne protisubvencijske uredbe se lahko začasna dajatev uvede retroaktivno za omejeno obdobje, če je bil uvoz registriran.
Those provisions, however, address a different point in time during an anti-dumping or anti-subsidy investigation.
Vendar se te določbe ne nanašajo na isti trenutek pri protidampinški oziroma protisubvencijski preiskavi.
The articles do not apply to the case at hand where the investigations were already completed in 2013 with the imposition of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties and the voluntary commitment, by some exporting producers of the product concerned, including Chinaland, for a price undertaking in lieu of the payment of those duties to remove the injury arising from their dumping practices.
Členi se ne uporabljajo za obravnavani primer, v katerem so bile preiskave zaključene že v letu 2013 z uvedbo dokončnih protidampinških in izravnalnih dajatev in s prostovoljno zavezo nekaterih proizvajalcev izvoznikov zadevnega izdelka, vključno z družbo Chinaland, da bodo škodo, ki je nastala zaradi njihovih dampinških praks, poravnali s cenovno zavezo namesto s plačilom navedenih dajatev.
In any case, the retroactive invalidation of invoices and the related claim for the payment of outstanding duties is not effected under those provisions.
V nobenem primeru take določbe ne omogočajo retroaktivne razveljavitve računov in ne vplivajo na z njo povezan zahtevek za plačilo neporavnanih dajatev.
The claim is, therefore, rejected.
Trditev se zato zavrne.
Chinaland also claimed that the Commission could not impose duties retroactively without falling foul of the principle of non-retroactivity, having allegedly itself recognised in another case, that there would be no legal basis for such a retroactive withdrawal [35].
Družba Chinaland je še trdila, da Komisija ni mogla uvesti dajatev retroaktivno, ne da bi kršila načela neretroaktivnosti, saj naj bi v nekem drugem primeru domnevno sama priznala, da za retroaktivni umik ni pravne podlage [35].
Chinaland also cites a previous decision according to which it allegedly deserves like treatment [36].
Družba Chinaland navaja tudi predhodno odločitev, v skladu s katero si domnevno zasluži enako obravnavo [36].
First, it should be noted that all Commission decisions withdrawing the acceptance of an undertaking are taken on a case-by-case basis.
Najprej je treba navesti, da so odločitve Komisije glede umika sprejetja zaveze odvisne od primera do primera.
Decisions taken within these individual cases are, accordingly, limited and specific to the circumstances at hand, so that a like casting of reasoning therein on a different case cannot be done.
Odločitve, ki jih sprejme za posamezen primer, so torej omejene na določene okoliščine in specifične za te okoliščine, zato utemeljitve, ki velja za ta primer, ni možno enostavno prenesti na nek drug primer.
In any case, Chinaland has advanced no arguments on how its case resembles that of the exporting producer concerned by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/866.
Kakor koli, družba Chinaland ni navedla nobene trditve o tem, kako naj bi bil njen primer podoben primeru proizvajalca izvoznika, ki ga zadeva Izvedbena uredba (EU) 2015/866.
Second, it is true that the activities of the European institutions are subject to the general principles of law, in particular those of legal certainty and non-retroactivity.
Drugič, res je, da za dejavnosti Evropskih institucij veljajo splošna pravna načela, zlasti načela o pravni varnosti in neretroaktivnosti.
However, the Commission recalls that settled case-law of the Court of Justice recognises that an economic operator cannot entertain a legitimate expectation that an ‘existing situation’ which is capable of being altered by decisions taken by the Union institutions within the limits of their discretion will be maintained [37].
Vendar Komisija opozarja, da ustaljena sodna praksa Sodišča Evropske unije priznava, da gospodarski subjekt ne more legitimno pričakovati, da se bodo „obstoječe razmere“ ohranile, saj se te lahko spremenijo zaradi odločitev, ki jih sprejmejo institucije Unije v okviru svoje diskrecijske pravice [37].
The principle of legitimate expectations does not protect situations in which no legitimate expectations existed, especially where the economic operator was warned from the outset about the consequences of breach of an undertaking through particular transactions.
Načelo legitimnega pričakovanja ne velja za primere, v katerih ni obstajalo nobeno legitimno pričakovanje, zlasti kadar je bil gospodarski subjekt že na začetku opozorjen o posledicah kršitve zaveze z izvajanjem določenih transakcij.