natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For those reasons, the proposed citizens' initiative does not fall manifestly outside the framework of the Commission's powers to submit proposals for legal acts of the Union for the purpose of implementing the Treaties.
Iz teh razlogov predlagana državljanska pobuda ni očitno zunaj okvira, v katerem ima Komisija pristojnost za predložitev predlogov pravnih aktov Unije za namen izvajanja Pogodb.
Furthermore, the citizens' committee has been formed and the contact persons have been designated in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Regulation and the proposed citizens' initiative is neither manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious nor manifestly contrary to the values of the Union as set out in Article 2 TEU.
Poleg tega je bil v skladu s členom 3(2) Uredbe ustanovljen državljanski odbor in imenovani sta bili kontaktni osebi, predlagana državljanska pobuda pa ni očitno žaljiva, neresna ali provokativna in ni v očitnem nasprotju z vrednotami Unije, kot so določene v členu 2 PEU.
The proposed citizens' initiative entitled ‘Eat ORIGINal!
Predlagano državljansko pobudo „Eat ORIGINal!
Unmask your food’ should therefore be registered.
Unmask your food“ bi bilo zato treba prijaviti –
The proposed citizens' initiative entitled ‘Eat ORIGINal!
Predlagana državljanska pobuda „Eat ORIGINal!
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1305
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2018/1305
of 26 September 2018
z dne 26. septembra 2018
on the terms and conditions of the authorisation of a biocidal product family containing deltamethrin referred by Sweden in accordance with Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
o določilih in pogojih za izdajo dovoljenja za družino biocidnih proizvodov, ki vsebujejo deltametrin, ki jih je predložila Švedska v skladu s členom 36 Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
(notified under document number C(2018) 5503)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2018) 5503)
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products, and in particular Article 36(3) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. maja 2012 o dostopnosti na trgu in uporabi biocidnih proizvodov ter zlasti člena 36(3) Uredbe,
On 29 August 2013, the company Bayer CropScience Deutschland GmbH (‘the applicant’) submitted an application to Germany (‘the Member State concerned’) for the mutual recognition of an insecticide biocidal product family containing the active substance deltamethrin (‘the contested product family’).
Družba Bayer CropScience Deutschland GmbH (v nadaljnjem besedilu: vlagatelj) je 29. avgusta 2013 vložila vlogo pri Nemčiji (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zadevna država članica) za medsebojno priznavanje družine insekticidnih biocidnih proizvodov, ki vsebujejo aktivno snov deltametrin (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sporna družina proizvodov).
Applications for mutual recognition of the contested product family were also submitted to a number of other Member States.
Vloge za medsebojno priznavanje sporne družine proizvodov so bile predložene tudi več drugim državam članicam.
The competent authority of Sweden acted as the Member State responsible for the evaluation of the application referred to in Article 34(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (‘the reference Member State’).
Pristojni organ Švedske je deloval kot država članica, pristojna za oceno vloge, iz člena 34(1) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: referenčna država članica).
Pursuant to Article 35(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, Germany referred an objection to the coordination group on 23 February 2017, indicating that the contested product family does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 19(1)(c) of that Regulation.
V skladu s členom 35(2) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 je Nemčija koordinacijski skupini 23. februarja 2017 predložila ugovor, pri čemer je navedla, da sporna družina proizvodov ne izpolnjuje pogojev iz člena 19(1)(c) navedene uredbe.
Germany considers that the determination of the quantity of active substance in the contested product family made by the reference Member State, and indicated in the draft summary of the product characteristics established pursuant to Article 22(2)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, is not correct.
Nemčija meni, da določitev količine aktivne snovi v sporni družini proizvodov, ki jo je opravila referenčna država članica in je navedena v osnutku povzetka značilnosti proizvoda v skladu s členom 22(2)(e) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012, ni pravilna.
Germany argues that excluding the impurities of the active substance when expressing the quantitative composition in terms of the main constituent of that substance, is inconsistent with the definition of an active substance laid down in Article 3(1)(c) of that Regulation, which in turn refers to the definition of a substance laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Nemčija trdi, da je izključitev nečistot aktivne snovi, kadar se izraža količinska sestava glavne sestavine navedene snovi, neskladna z opredelitvijo aktivne snovi iz člena 3(1)(c) navedene uredbe, ki pa se sklicuje na opredelitev snovi iz člena 3(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta.
Since the definition of a substance in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 refers to a chemical element and its compounds in the natural state or obtained by any manufacturing process, including any additive necessary to preserve its stability and any impurity deriving from the process used, the quantitative composition should, according to the objection referred by Germany, not refer only to the content of the active substance without impurities.
Ker se opredelitev snovi iz člena 3(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 nanaša na kemijski element in njegove spojine v naravnem stanju ali pridobljene s kakršnim koli proizvodnim postopkom, vključno z vsemi dodatki, potrebnimi za ohranitev njene obstojnosti, in vsemi nečistotami, ki nastanejo pri uporabljenem postopku, se količinska sestava, v skladu z ugovorom Nemčije, ne bi smela nanašati samo na vsebnost aktivne snovi brez nečistoč.
The coordination group secretariat invited the other Member States and the applicant to submit written comments about the referral.
Sekretariat koordinacijske skupine je druge države članice in vlagatelja pozval k predložitvi pisnih pripomb na sporno točko.
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Member State concerned, Hungary, Norway, the reference Member State, the United Kingdom and the applicant submitted comments.
Pripombe so predložili Avstrija, Belgija, Danska, Francija, zadevna država članica, Madžarska, Norveška, referenčna država članica, Združeno kraljestvo in vlagatelj.
The referral was also discussed in the coordination group's meetings of 14 March 2017 and 10 May 2017.
O sporni točki se je razpravljalo tudi na sestankih koordinacijske skupine 14. marca 2017 in 10. maja 2017.
As no agreement was reached in the coordination group, the reference Member State referred the unresolved objection to the Commission pursuant to Article 36(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 on 18 May 2017.
Ker v koordinacijski skupini ni bil dosežen dogovor, je referenčna država članica Komisiji 18. maja 2017 predložila nerešeni ugovor v skladu s členom 36(1) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012.
It hereby provided the Commission with a detailed statement of the matters on which Member States were unable to reach agreement and the reasons for their disagreement.
S tem dopisom je Komisiji predložila podroben opis zadev, o katerih države članice niso mogle doseči dogovora, ter razloge za njihovo nestrinjanje.
A copy of that statement was forwarded to the Member States concerned and the applicant.
Kopija navedenega opisa je bila posredovana zadevnim državam članicam in vlagatelju.
The reference Member State, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia and Switzerland authorised the contested product family in the period from 29 June 2017 to 19 December 2017 pursuant to Article 34(7) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.
Referenčna država članica, Belgija, Bolgarija, Hrvaška, Češka, Danska, Finska, Francija, Latvija, Luksemburg, Norveška, Slovenija in Švica so v obdobju od 29. junija 2017 do 19. decembra 2017 izdale dovoljenje za sporno družino proizvodov v skladu s členom 34(7) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012.
According to the definition laid down in Article 3(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, an active substance means a substance that has an action on or against harmful organisms.
V skladu z opredelitvijo iz člena 3(1)(c) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012 aktivna snov pomeni snov, ki deluje na škodljive organizme ali proti njim.
Pursuant to Article 3(2) of that Regulation, the definition in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is to apply for the term ‘substance’.
V skladu s členom 3(2) navedene uredbe se za izraz „snov“ uporablja opredelitev iz člena 3(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006.
According to that definition, a substance also includes any additive necessary to preserve its stability and any impurity deriving from the process used.
V skladu z navedeno opredelitvijo vključuje snov tudi vse dodatke, potrebne za ohranitev njene obstojnosti, in vse nečistote, ki nastanejo pri uporabljenem postopku.
The risk assessment and the efficacy assessment carried out for the approval of deltamethrin as an active substance in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 were based on the active substance including its impurities, and the approval itself sets a minimum degree of purity to be observed by any source of that active substance.
Ocena tveganja in ocena učinkovitosti, izvedeni za odobritev deltametrina kot aktivne snovi v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012, sta temeljili na aktivni snovi, vključno z njenimi nečistotami, sama odobritev pa določa minimalno stopnjo čistosti, ki jo je treba upoštevati pri vsakem viru navedene aktivne snovi.
Therefore, a reference to the content of the active substance in the contested product family should not relate to the concentration of the main constituent of the active substance on its own without impurities.
Zato se sklicevanje na vsebnost aktivne snovi v sporni družini proizvodov ne bi smelo nanašati na koncentracijo glavne sestavine aktivne snovi v samostojni obliki brez nečistot.
On 30 April 2018, the Commission provided the applicant with the opportunity to provide written comments in accordance with Article 36(2) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.
Komisija je 30. aprila 2018 vlagatelju zagotovila možnost, da predloži pisne pripombe v skladu s členom 36(2) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012.
The Commission took into account the comments provided by the applicant.
Komisija je upoštevala pripombe, ki jih je predložil vlagatelj.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,
Ukrepi iz tega sklepa so v skladu z mnenjem Stalnega odbora za biocidne pripravke –
This Decision applies to the biocidal product family identified by the asset number SE-0017809-0000 in the Register for Biocidal Products.
Ta sklep se uporablja za družino biocidnih proizvodov, opredeljeno z zadevno številko SE-0017809-0000 v registru biocidnih proizvodov.
The minimum and maximum percentage for the concentration of the active substance in the biocidal product family referred to in Article 1, as referred to in Article 22(2)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, shall be expressed by considering the active substance as it was approved, which includes the main constituent of the active substance and any additives or impurities.
Najnižji in najvišji odstotek za koncentracijo aktivne snovi v družini biocidnih proizvodov iz člena 1, kakor je navedeno v členu 22(2)(e) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012, se izrazi z upoštevanjem aktivne snovi, kot je bila odobrena, kar vključuje glavno sestavino aktivne snovi in vse dodatke ali nečistote.
Under the terms and conditions set out in paragraph 1, the biocidal product family referred to in Article 1 meets the conditions laid down in Article 19(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.
Pod določili in pogoji iz odstavka 1 družina biocidnih proizvodov iz člena 1 izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 19(1)(c) Uredbe (EU) št. 528/2012.
Done at Brussels, 26 September 2018.
V Bruslju, 26. septembra 2018
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1306
Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2018/1306
of 27 September 2018
z dne 27. septembra 2018
terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India
o zaključku protidampinškega postopka glede uvoza nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 266 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in zlasti člena 266 Pogodbe,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) 2016/1036 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 8. junija 2016 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske unije,
MEASURES IN FORCE AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
VELJAVNI UKREPI IN SODBA SODIŠČA
In 2013, by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013 (‘the contested Regulation’) the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain stainless steel wires originating in India (‘the original measures’) following an investigation pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.
Svet je leta 2013 z Izvedbeno Uredbo (EU) št. 1106/2013 po preiskavi v skladu s členom 5 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1225/2009 („izpodbijana uredba“) uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz nekaterih žic iz nerjavnega jekla s poreklom iz Indije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: prvotni ukrepi).
By Notice of 1 April 2015, the Commission published a name and location change of the company Viraj Profiles Vpl.
Komisija je z obvestilom z dne 1. aprila 2015 objavila spremembo imena in lokacije sedeža družbe Viraj Profiles Vpl.
Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra into Viraj Profiles Limited, Palghar, Maharashtra and Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra se spremeni v Viraj Profiles Limited, Palghar, Maharashtra in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
In September 2015, the original measures were amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1483 following an absorption re-investigation.
Septembra 2015 so bili po ponovni preiskavi za ugotavljanje absorpcije prvotni ukrepi spremenjeni z Izvedbeno uredbo (EU) 2015/1483.
In February 2017, by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/220 the original measures were amended following a partial interim review under Article 11(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.
Februarja 2017 so bili z Izvedbeno uredbo Komisije (EU) 2017/220 prvotni ukrepi spremenjeni po delnem vmesnem pregledu v skladu s členom 11(3) Uredbe (EU) 2016/1036.
By corrigenda published in May and October 2017 respectively, the duty rate for non-cooperating exporting producers was reduced from 16,2 % to 12,5 % and the duty rate for the cooperating non-sampled companies was set at 5 % instead of 8,4 %.
S popravkoma, objavljenima maja oziroma oktobra 2017, je bila stopnja dajatve za nesodelujoče proizvajalce izvoznike znižana s 16,2 % na 12,5 %, stopnja dajatve za sodelujoče nevzorčene družbe pa z 8,4 % na 5 %.
Judgment of the General Court of the European Union
Sodba Splošnega sodišča Evropske unije
On 1 February 2014, Viraj Profiles Limited (‘Viraj’), an Indian exporting producer of various stainless steel products, in particular stainless steel wires, lodged an application at the General Court of the European Union (‘the General Court’) seeking the annulment of the contested Regulation in so far as it applied to it.
1. februarja 2014 je družba Viraj Profiles Limited (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Viraj), indijski proizvajalec izvoznik raznih izdelkov iz nerjavnega jekla, zlasti žic iz nerjavnega jekla, vložila tožbo pri Splošnem sodišču Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Splošno sodišče) za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe v delu, v katerem se nanaša nanjo.
In its judgment of 11 July 2017 (‘the judgment’) in case T-67/14 Viraj Profiles Ltd v Council, the General Court annulled the contested Regulation to the extent that it applies to Viraj.
V sodbi z dne 11. julija 2017 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sodba) v zadevi T-67/14 Viraj Profiles Ltd proti Svetu je Splošno sodišče razglasilo ničnost izpodbijane uredbe v delu, v katerem se nanaša na družbo Viraj.
In particular, the General Court, in paragraph 144 of its judgment, ruled that the institutions infringed their obligation to state reasons by failing to provide detailed and relevant explanations to Viraj despite its repeated requests during the administrative proceeding.
Splošno sodišče je v točki 144 sodbe razsodilo, da so institucije kršile svojo obveznost navedbe razlogov, ker družbi Viraj kljub njenim večkratnim zahtevam med upravnim postopkom niso zagotovile podrobnih in ustreznih pojasnil.
The institutions thus infringed their obligation to state reasons for their decision to adjust upwards the costs provided by Viraj.
Institucije so s tem kršile svojo obveznost navedbe razlogov za svojo odločitev za povečanje stroškov, ki jih nosi družba Viraj.
The General Court also examined whether the institutions committed a manifest error of assessment in making such an adjustment.
Splošno sodišče je tudi preverilo, ali so institucije storile očitno napako pri presoji, ko so določile tako stopnjo prilagoditve.
It concluded, in paragraph 154 of its judgment, that it did not have all the information necessary in order to confirm that no manifest error of assessment was made by the institutions when determining the rate of adjustment.
V točki 154 sodbe je ugotovilo, da ni imelo na voljo vseh potrebnih informacij za potrditev, da pri določanju stopnje prilagoditve institucije niso storile očitne napake pri presoji.
Consequences of the judgment
Posledice sodbe
In accordance with Article 266 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, the Union institutions must take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment.
V skladu s členom 266 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije morajo institucije Unije sprejeti potrebne ukrepe za izvršitev sodbe.
In cases where proceedings consist of several administrative steps, the annulment of one of those steps does not annul the complete proceeding.
V primerih, ko je postopek sestavljen iz več upravnih ukrepov, razglasitev ničnosti enega od ukrepov ne pomeni, da je za ničnega razglašen celoten postopek.
The anti-dumping investigation is an example of such a multi-step proceeding.
Protidampinška preiskava je primer takega postopka, sestavljenega iz več ukrepov.
Consequently, the annulment of the contested Regulation, in so far as it concerns Viraj, does not imply the annulment of the entire procedure prior to the adoption of that Regulation.
Zato razveljavitev izpodbijane uredbe v delu, v katerem se nanaša na družbo Viraj, ne pomeni razglasitve ničnosti celotnega postopka, ki je potekal pred sprejetjem zadevne uredbe.
Accordingly, in complying with the judgment, the Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the proceeding which led to the annulment, while leaving unchanged those parts which are not affected by the judgment.
V skladu s sodbo ima Komisija možnost, da odpravi vidike postopka, ki so privedli do razglasitve ničnosti, hkrati pa ohrani nespremenjene tiste dele, na katere sodba ne vpliva.
It should be pointed out that apart from the finding that the institutions failed to provide detailed and relevant explanations for their decision to adjust upwards the costs provided by Viraj and the conclusion that the Court could not rule on whether a manifest error of assessment was made by the institutions when determining the rate of adjustment, all other findings reached in the contested Regulation which were not contested within the time-limits for a challenge or which were contested but rejected by the judgment or not examined by the General Court and therefore did not lead to the annulment of the contested Regulation, remain valid.
Opozoriti je treba, da razen ugotovitve, da institucije niso predložile podrobnih in ustreznih pojasnil v zvezi z odločitvijo za povečanje stroškov družbe Viraj, in sklepa, da Sodišče ni moglo presoditi, ali so institucije pri določanju stopnje prilagoditve storile očitno napako, vse druge ugotovitve iz izpodbijane uredbe, ki niso bile izpodbijane v predpisanih rokih ali so bile izpodbijane, vendar je Splošno sodišče zahtevo zavrnilo s sodbo ali je ni proučilo, zaradi česar niso privedle do razglasitve ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe, ostajajo veljavne.
Therefore, the failure to state reasons should be re-examined in the light of the particular circumstances relating to Viraj.
Zato je treba zaradi posebnih okoliščin v zvezi z družbo Viraj ponovno preučiti neupoštevanje obveznosti navedbe razlogov.
Following the judgment, the Commission published a Notice concerning the reopening of the anti-dumping investigation that led to the adoption of the contested Regulation.
Komisija je po sodbi objavila obvestilo v zvezi s ponovnim odprtjem protidampinške preiskave, ki je pripeljala do sprejetja izpodbijane uredbe.
The reopening was limited in scope to the implementation of the judgment with regard to Viraj.
Ponovno odprtje preiskave je bilo po obsegu omejeno na izvršitev sodbe v zvezi z družbo Viraj.
The Commission officially informed Viraj, the representatives of India and the Union industry of the reopening of the investigation.
Komisija je o ponovnem odprtju preiskave uradno obvestila družbo Viraj, predstavnike Indije in industrijo Unije.
Viraj and the Union industry were given the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing within the time-limit set out in the notice.
Družba Viraj in industrija Unije sta imeli možnost, da dasta pripombe in Komisijo zaprosita za zaslišanje v roku iz obvestila.
Following the initial comments received, all other interested parties known to be concerned at the time of the original investigation were contacted and given the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing.
Po prejetju prvotnih pripomb je bil z vsemi drugimi zainteresiranimi stranmi, za katere je bilo iz prvotne preiskave znano, da jih to zadeva, vzpostavljen stik, in imele so možnost dati pripombe in Komisijo zaprositi za zaslišanje.
The Commission received submissions on various aspects of the reopening from Viraj and from the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries (Eurofer).
Komisija je od družbe Viraj in Evropske zveze za železo in jeklo (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Eurofer) prejela stališča o različnih vidikih ponovnega odprtja preiskave.
Viraj claimed that the General Court annulled the entire contested Regulation as far as it was concerned, as opposed to only annulling the contested Regulation in part.
Družba Viraj je trdila, da je Splošno sodišče razglasilo ničnost celotne izpodbijane uredbe v zvezi z družbo, namesto da bi razglasilo ničnost le dela izpodbijane uredbe.
It claimed that the illegality committed by the Union Institutions which led to the annulment of the contested Regulation could not be cured and that therefore no re-opening of the investigation was warranted.
Trdila je, da nezakonitost, ki so jo zagrešile institucije Unije in zaradi katere je bila izpodbijana uredba razveljavljena, ni mogoče popraviti in da zato ponovno odprtje preiskave ni upravičeno.
Viraj further claimed that if, however, the Union institutions nevertheless pursued the decision to re-open the investigation, such re-examination should not be limited to the obligation to state reasons but should entail a complete re-verification and assessment of the adjustments made by the Commission to its costs of production.
Družba Viraj je še trdila, da so institucije Unije sicer kljub temu odločile, da ponovno odprejo preiskavo, vendar da takšno ponovno preverjanje ne bi smelo biti omejeno na obveznost navedbe razlogov, pač pa bi moralo vključevati popolno ponovno preverjanje in oceno prilagoditev, ki jih je Komisija opravila za proizvodne stroške družbe Viraj.