natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This additional evidence, which is available in the non-confidential file of the case as part of the memorandum on sufficiency of evidence, further confirmed and complemented the allegations made in the complaint as regards the existence and nature of the alleged subsidisation.
Ti dodatni dokazi, ki so na voljo v nezaupni različici spisa zadeve kot del memoranduma o zadostnosti dokazov, so dodatno potrdili in dopolnili obtožbe, navedene v pritožbi, glede obstoja in narave domnevnega subvencioniranja.
Insofar as the GOC pointed to any deficiencies with respect to the accuracy and adequacy of the complaint, the Commission examined these allegations during the investigation, and found no reason to question the allegations about the existence and extent of subsidisation when initiating the investigation.
Kolikor je kitajska vlada opozorila na morebitne pomanjkljivosti v zvezi z natančnostjo in ustreznostjo pritožbe, je Komisija med preiskavo proučila te trditve, vendar ni našla razloga za pomisleke glede obtožb o obstoju in obsegu subvencioniranja ob začetku preiskave.
Following final disclosure, Hämmerling claimed that the Commission cannot initiate an investigation with a general reference to CN codes given for information only.
Družba Hämmerling je po dokončnem razkritju trdila, da Komisija ne more začeti preiskave s splošnim sklicevanjem na oznake KN, ki so zgolj informativne narave.
According to Hämmerling, although the CN codes are not binding in their interpretation, such a general reference defining product concerned cannot be accepted, as it impairs the legal certainty of all of the interested parties, concerning whether they will fall within the scope of the investigation and constitutes a direct breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter ‘Charter’) and the right to good administration.
Čeprav razlaga oznak KN ni zavezujoča, po mnenju družbe Hämmerling takega splošnega sklicevanja za opredelitev zadevnega izdelka ni mogoče sprejeti, saj zmanjšuje pravno varnost vseh zainteresiranih strani glede tega, ali bodo spadale v okvir preiskave, ter pomeni neposredno kršitev člena 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Listina) in pravice do dobrega upravljanja.
Moreover, such a reference and unclear language referring to ‘of a kind used’ convey the message that the scope of the investigation was uncertain and could have been further discretionally extended or narrowed, at the later stage of the investigation, which impairs the right to be heard of interested parties.
Poleg tega tako sklicevanje in nejasen jezik, kar zadeva besedno zvezo „ki se uporabljajo“, izražata, da je bilo področje preiskave negotovo in bi ga bilo mogoče v poznejši fazi preiskave po lastni presoji dodatno razširiti ali zožiti, kar omejuje pravico zainteresiranih strani, da se izjasnijo.
In regard to this claim, the Commission found that the party did not substantiate its theoretical claim how the use of CN codes impair legal certainty.
V zvezi s to trditvijo je Komisija ugotovila, da stran v svoji teoretični trditvi ni utemeljila, kako se bo z uporabo oznak KN zmanjšala pravna varnost.
The Commission is not bound by the CN codes but by the product definition as stated in the Notice of Initiation.
Za Komisijo niso zavezujoče oznake KN, ampak opredelitev izdelka, kot je navedena v obvestilu o začetku.
The party made no claims that the Commission did not respect the product definition as stated in the Notice of Initiation.
Stran ni trdila, da Komisija ni upoštevala opredelitve izdelka, kot je navedena v obvestilu o začetku.
The complainant submitted requests for registration of imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation on 19 August 2017 and on 5 October 2017 respectively.
Pritožnik je 19. avgusta 2017 oziroma 5. oktobra 2017 vložil zahtevek za registracijo uvoza zadevnega izdelka s poreklom iz LRK v skladu s členom 14(5) osnovne protidampinške uredbe in členom 24(5) osnovne uredbe.
On 4 October 2017, the China Rubber Industry Association (‘CRIA’) and the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters (‘CCCMC’) submitted comments on the request for registration.
Združenje gumarske industrije Kitajske (v nadaljnjem besedilu: CRIA) in Gospodarska zbornica uvoznikov in izvoznikov kovin, rud in kemikalij Kitajske (v nadaljnjem besedilu: CCCMC) sta 4. oktobra 2017 predložila pripombe na zahtevek za registracijo.
They claimed that the request had failed to satisfy the applicable evidentiary standard as there was no evidence of a history of dumping/subsidy, a substantial rise in imports and that the imports are likely to seriously undermine the remedial effects of the duty.
Trdila sta, da zahtevek ne izpolnjuje veljavnih dokaznih standardov, ker ni bilo dokazov o dampingu/subvenciji v preteklosti ali znatnem povečanju uvoza ter dokazov, da bo uvoz verjetno resno ogrozil popravljalni učinek dajatev.
On 2 February 2018, the Commission published Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/163 (‘the registration Regulation’) making imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC subject to registration as of 3 February 2018 onwards.
Komisija je 2. februarja 2018 objavila Izvedbeno Uredbo (EU) 2018/163 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: uredba o registraciji), s katero je za uvoz zadevnega izdelka s poreklom iz LRK od 3. februarja 2018 dalje postala obvezna registracija.
The Commission took into account comments by interested parties when assessing the validity of the request for registration.
Pri ocenjevanju veljavnosti zahtevka za registracijo je upoštevala pripombe zainteresiranih strani.
After the registration entered into force Hankook Group claimed that its rights of defence were violated as no information regarding the Commission's intention to make imports of the product concerned subject to registration had been communicated to it before the entry into force of the registration Regulation.
Po začetku veljavnosti registracije je skupina Hankook Group trdila, da so bile njene pravice do obrambe kršene, ker ji informacije v zvezi z namero Komisije glede obvezne registracije uvoza zadevnega izdelka niso bile sporočene pred začetkom veljavnosti uredbe o registraciji.
For that reason the Hankook Group claimed that there was a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Zato je skupina Hankook Group trdila, da je prišlo do kršitve člena 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah.
The Commission observed that prior disclosure is mandatory under Article 30(2) of the basic Regulation before the imposition of definitive measures.
Komisija je navedla, da je v skladu s členom 30(2) osnovne uredbe pred uvedbo dokončnih dajatev obvezno predhodno razkritje.
The same does not apply to a registration Regulation under Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation.
To pa ne velja za uredbo o registraciji v skladu s členom 24(5) osnovne uredbe.
That Article only provides for the prior information to Member States in due time.
Navedeni člen določa le, da je treba države članice pravočasno predhodno obvestiti.
Moreover, the right to be heard under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union only applies to individual adverse measures.
Poleg tega se pravica osebe, da se izjasni, iz člena 41(2)(a) Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah uporablja le za posamične ukrepe, ki jo prizadenejo.
The registration Regulation is not an individual measure affecting the Hankook Group adversely.
Uredba o registracij ni posamični ukrep, ki bi prizadel skupino Hankook Group.
It was neither addressed to the Hankook Group nor did it produce individual negative effects for that group.
Uredba ni bila niti naslovljena na skupino Hankook Group niti ni imela posamičnih negativnih učinkov za to skupino.
In this respect, it should also be recalled that the registration of imports is an appropriate step in order to allow for the subsequent imposition of duties against registered imports and duly informs operators about the potential liability attached to those imports which may be incurred in case of definitive measures.
V zvezi s tem bi bilo treba tudi opozoriti, da je registracija uvoza ustrezen ukrep, ki omogoča poznejšo uvedbo dajatev na registrirani uvoz in s katerim so izvajalci dejavnosti ustrezno obveščeni o morebitni odgovornosti, povezani s takim uvozom, ki se lahko naloži v primeru dokončnih ukrepov.
Therefore, neither the rights of defence of the Hankook Group nor Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union were violated by failing to inform the Hankook Group in advance of the registration decision.
Zato s tem, ko skupina Hankook Group ni bila vnaprej obveščena o odločitvi o registraciji, niso bili kršeni niti pravice do obrambe skupine Hankook Group niti člen 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah.
The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Preiskava subvencioniranja in škode je zajela obdobje od 1. julija 2016 do 30. junija 2017 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obdobje preiskave ali OP).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2014 to end of June 2017 (‘the period considered’).
Proučitev trendov, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2014 do konca junija 2017 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: obravnavano obdobje).
In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the GOC, the known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.
Poleg tega je o začetku preiskave posebej obvestila pritožnika, druge znane proizvajalce Unije, znane proizvajalce izvoznike in kitajsko vlado, znane uvoznike, dobavitelje in uporabnike, trgovce in združenja, za katera je znano, da jih to zadeva, ter jih povabila k sodelovanju.
Two Union producers, represented by the complainant, took this opportunity to request the Commission to keep their names confidential for fear that they could face retaliation by customers or competitors concerned by this investigation, in accordance with Article 29(1) of the basic Regulation.
Dva proizvajalca Unije, ki ju je zastopal pritožnik, sta ob tej priložnosti v skladu s členom 29(1) osnovne uredbe zahtevala, naj Komisija njuni imeni ohrani zaupni, saj sta se bala maščevanja strank ali konkurentov, ki jih zadeva ta preiskava.
Moreover, two other cooperating Union producers requested the same status subsequently.
Poleg tega sta dva druga sodelujoča proizvajalca Unije pozneje zahtevala enak status.
The Commission individually examined the merits of each confidentiality request.
Komisija je posamično proučila utemeljenost vsakega zahtevka za zaupnost.
It established that there was indeed evidence of a significant possibility of retaliation in each case and accepted that the names of those companies should not be disclosed.
Ugotovila je, da v vseh primerih dejansko obstaja velika verjetnost maščevanja, zato se je strinjala s tem, da se imena teh družb ne bi smela razkriti.
Two exporting producers, the Giti Group and the China National Tire Group, claimed that the anonymity of two Union producers represented by the complainant could seriously affect the parties' right of defence as it is not possible to verify that the complainant effectively represents more than 25 % of total Union production.
Dva proizvajalca izvoznika, tj. skupina Giti Group in skupina China National Tire Group, sta trdila, da bi lahko anonimnost dveh proizvajalcev Unije, ki ju zastopa pritožnik, resno vplivala na pravico strank do obrambe, saj naj ne bi bilo mogoče preveriti, ali pritožnik dejansko predstavlja več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje Unije.
In addition, the anonymity does not allow interested parties to know in which tier the complainant is active and thus, to meaningfully comment on the material injury that it could suffer due to Chinese exports of the product concerned to the Union.
Poleg tega zainteresirani strani zaradi anonimnosti nista mogli vedeti, v katerem razredu je dejaven pritožnik, in zato nista mogli navesti smiselnih pripomb na materialno škodo, ki bi jo lahko utrpel zaradi kitajskega izvoza zadevnega izdelka v Unijo.
Moreover, the Giti Group claimed that, according to the complainant, tier 3 Union production represented only 16 % of total Union production.
Skupina Giti Group je tudi trdila, da po navedbah pritožnika proizvodnja Unije tretjega razreda predstavlja le 16 % celotne proizvodnje Unije.
Finally, the Giti Group and the China National Tire Group argued that confidentiality hinders interested parties from knowing whether sampled Union producers are related to Chinese exporting producers.
Poleg tega sta skupina Giti Group in skupina China National Tire Group trdili, da zaupnost ovira zainteresirane strani pri tem, da bi izvedele, ali so vzorčeni proizvajalci Unije povezani s kitajskimi proizvajalci izvozniki.
In light of these comments, the Commission re-assessed the non-confidential version of the complaint but came to the conclusion that the version available for inspection by interested parties sufficiently permitted interested parties to assess the standing requirements underlying this investigation.
Komisija je ob upoštevanju teh pripomb ponovno ocenila nezaupno različico pritožbe, vendar je ugotovila, da različica, ki jo imajo zainteresirane strani na voljo za pregled, tem stranem zadostno omogoča, da ocenijo zahteve v zvezi s procesnim upravičenjem, na katerih temelji ta preiskava.
In any case, the Commission noted that whether a complainant belongs to a particular market tier is not determinative of the finding of standing since standing is assessed on the basis of the total production (regardless of any tier segmentation) of the product concerned.
Komisija je vsekakor ugotovila, da to, ali pritožba spada v določen tržni razred, ni odločilno za ugotovitev procesnega upravičenja, saj se procesno upravičenje oceni na podlagi celotne proizvodnje zadevnega izdelka (ne glede na njegovo segmentacijo na razrede).
Finally, the Commission observed that there was insufficient evidence or explanation provided how the alleged lack of knowledge of potential links between anonymous complainants and Chinese exporting producers would impede the rights of defence of interested parties.
Poleg tega je Komisija ugotovila, da ni predloženih dovolj dokazov ali pojasnil o tem, kako bi domnevno nezadostna seznanjenost z morebitnimi povezavami med anonimnima pritožnikoma in kitajskimi proizvajalci izvozniki omejevala pravico zainteresiranih strani do obrambe.
The Commission invited interested parties to provide such evidence or explanations, but no further evidence was provided.
Komisija je povabila zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo take dokaze ali pojasnila, vendar niso bili predloženi dodatni dokazi.
Article 29 of the basic Regulation stipulates that the Commission must not reveal any information which is deemed confidential upon good cause being shown without specific permission from the supplier of such information.
Člen 29 osnovne uredbe določa, da Komisija ne sme razkriti nobenih informacij, ki se na podlagi utemeljenega razloga štejejo za zaupne, razen če predložnik takih informacij tega izrecno ne dovoli.
Moreover, whether the complainant belongs to a particular market tier is irrelevant since standing is assessed on the basis of the total production (regardless of any tier segmentation).
Poleg tega to, ali pritožba spada v določen tržni razred, ni pomembno, saj se procesno upravičenje oceni na podlagi celotne proizvodnje (ne glede na kakršno koli segmentacijo na razrede).
Finally, the Commission was not convinced by the argument that the lack of knowledge of potential links between anonymous complainants and Chinese exporting producers should impede the rights of defence of interested parties.
Nazadnje, Komisije ni prepričala trditev, da naj bi nezadostna seznanjenost z morebitnimi povezavami med anonimnima pritožnikoma in kitajskimi proizvajalci izvozniki omejevala pravico zainteresiranih strani do obrambe.
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had preliminarily selected a sample of Union producers on the basis of the highest representative production and sales volumes whilst ensuring a geographical spread.
Komisija je v obvestilu o začetku navedla, da je predhodno izbrala vzorec proizvajalcev Unije na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega proizvodnje in prodaje ter obenem zagotovila geografsko razpršenost.
It invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample.
Zainteresirane strani je pozvala, naj izrazijo pripombe glede začasnega vzorca.
Four interested parties submitted comments on the provisional sample (the China National Tire Group; the Giti Group; the CRIA and the CCCMC).
Štiri zainteresirane strani so predložile pripombe o začasnem vzorcu (skupina China National Tire Group, skupina Giti Group, združenje CRIA in zbornica CCCMC).
In particular, they considered that the market segmentation into three tiers was not duly reflected in the provisional sample and that the sample should mirror as close as possible the percentage of tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 production and sales out of the total Union production and sales.
Zlasti so menile, da se segmentacija trga na tri razrede v začasnem vzorcu ni ustrezno odražala in da bi moral vzorec čim bolje odražati delež proizvodnje in prodaje prvega, drugega in tretjega razreda glede na celotno proizvodnjo in prodajo Unije.
Further to that comment, on 25 September 2017, the Commission requested Union producers to provide additional information on the tiers with a view to establishing a revised sample of Union producers.
Na podlagi te pripombe je Komisija 25. septembra 2017 od proizvajalcev Unije zahtevala, naj zagotovijo dodatne informacije o razredih, da bi lahko določila spremenjen vzorec proizvajalcev Unije.
Cooperating Union producers that responded to the sample questionnaire include large and Small and Medium Size Enterprises (‘SMEs’) and represent more than 50 % of the total estimated Union production and sales.
Sodelujoči proizvajalci Unije, ki so izpolnili vzorčni vprašalnik, vključujejo velika podjetja ter mala in srednja podjetja (v nadaljnjem besedilu: MSP) in predstavljajo več kot 50 % celotne ocenjene proizvodnje in prodaje Unije.
In addition, to ensure that the situation of the SMEs was properly reflected in the injury analysis given that they represent around 15 % of the total Union sales volumes of Union producers, the Commission considered that SMEs should also be represented in the sample.
Poleg tega je Komisija menila, da bi morala biti v vzorcu zastopani tudi MSP, da bi se zagotovilo, da se položaj MSP ustrezno upošteva pri analizi škode, saj predstavljajo približno 15 % celotne prodaje proizvajalcev Unije.
Eleven Union producers were sampled on the basis of:
V vzorec je bilo vključenih enajst proizvajalcev Unije, in sicer na podlagi:
the overall representativity in terms of size of the production and sales volume of the product concerned in the year 2016;
splošne reprezentativnosti v smislu obsega proizvodnje in prodaje zadevnega izdelka v letu 2016;
the representativity of tiers in terms of size of the production volume of the product concerned in the year 2016;
reprezentativnosti razredov v smislu obsega proizvodnje zadevnega izdelka v letu 2016;
the geographical spread; and
geografske razširjenosti ter
The selected Union producers were based in six Member States which together accounted for more than 36 % of Union production and sales reported by the cooperating Union producers.
Izbrani proizvajalci Unije so imeli sedež v šestih državah članicah, ki so skupaj predstavljale več kot 36 % proizvodnje in prodaje Unije, ki so jo prijavili sodelujoči proizvajalci Unije.
On 22 December 2017, one of the sampled Union producers, the Polish producer, Geyer & Hosaja, informed the Commission that it had decided to stop cooperating with the investigation.
Eden od vzorčenih proizvajalcev Unije, tj. poljski proizvajalec Geyer & Hosaja, je 22. decembra 2017 obvestil Komisijo, da se je odločil, da ne bo več sodeloval v preiskavi.
The percentages mentioned in recital (30) above are not impacted by the withdrawal of this producer as its production represents less than 0,1 % of the total Union production.
Umik tega proizvajalca ni vplival na deleže, navedene v uvodni izjavi 30, saj njegova proizvodnja predstavlja manj kot 0,1 % celotne proizvodnje Unije.
The Commission therefore concluded that the final sample remains representative of the Union industry.
Zato je Komisija sklenila, da je končni vzorec še vedno reprezentativen za industrijo Unije.
As demonstrated in recitals (26) to (30), the provisional sample was changed further to comments from interested parties.
Kot je razvidno iz uvodnih izjav od 26 do 30, je bil začasni vzorec nadalje spremenjen glede na pripombe zainteresiranih strani.
In addition, it requested the authorities of the PRC to identify and/or contact other exporting producers, if any, that could be interested in participating in the investigation.
Poleg tega je od organov LRK zahtevala, naj navedejo morebitne druge proizvajalce izvoznike, ki bi jih zanimalo sodelovanje v preiskavi, in/ali vzpostavijo stik z njimi.
44 exporting producers/group(s) of exporting producers in the country concerned provided the requested information and agreed to be included in the sample.
Zahtevane informacije je predložilo 44 proizvajalcev izvoznikov / skupin proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz zadevne države in se strinjalo z vključitvijo v vzorec.
In accordance with Article 27(1)(b) of the basic Regulation, the Commission selected the following sample of four groups of exporting producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available:
Komisija je v skladu s členom 27(1)(b) osnovne uredbe na podlagi največjega reprezentativnega obsega izvoza v Unijo, ki bi ga bilo razumno mogoče preiskati v razpoložljivem času, izbrala vzorec, v katerem so naslednje štiri skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov:
China National Tire Group, China;
China National Tire Group, Kitajska;
Giti Group, China;
Giti Group, Kitajska;
Hankook Group, China;
Hankook Group, Kitajska;
Xingyuan Group, China.
Xingyuan Group, Kitajska.
The sampled groups of exporting producers represented more than 50 % of the total imports of the product concerned to the Union.
Vzorčene skupine proizvajalcev izvoznikov so predstavljale več kot 50 % celotnega uvoza zadevnega izdelka v Unijo.
In accordance with Article 27(2) of the basic Regulation, all known exporting producers concerned, and the GOC, were consulted on the selection of the sample.
V skladu s členom 27(2) osnovne uredbe so bila z vsemi znanimi zadevnimi proizvajalci izvozniki in kitajsko vlado opravljena posvetovanja o izbiri vzorca.
Comments on the proposed sample were received from the European Retreading Association (‘BIPAVER’), which claimed that the finally selected sample could lead to a strong imbalance in the product mix between tier 2 and tier 3 tyres.
Pripombe o predlaganem vzorcu je predložilo Evropsko združenje za protektiranje pnevmatik (v nadaljnjem besedilu: BIPAVER), ki je trdilo, da bi lahko dokončno izbrani vzorec privedel do močnega neravnovesja v naboru izdelkov med drugim in tretjim razredom pnevmatik.
In their view, the average import prices might not accurately reflect the part of import volumes that are most harmful to the Union industry.
Po njegovem mnenju povprečne uvozne cene morda ne bi ustrezno izražale dela obsega uvoza, ki je najbolj škodljiv za industrijo Unije.
Therefore, they urged the Commission to reassess and amend the sample.
Zato je pozvalo Komisijo, naj vzorec ponovno oceni in spremeni.
The Commission assessed whether it would be practically feasible to further enlarge the sample.
Komisija je ocenila, ali bi bilo dodatno povečanje vzorca praktično izvedljivo.