natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, the Aeolus Group submitted that the initiation of the investigation was clearly to protect the interests of a specific segment of the Union industry (namely the retreading industry), without taking into consideration that most of the large European tyre manufacturers also import the product concerned from the PRC and resell it on the Union market.
Vendar je skupina Aeolus Group trdila, da se je preiskava očitno začela zaradi zaščite interesov določenega segmenta industrije Unije (tj. industrije protektiranja), pri čemer se ni upoštevalo, da večina velikih evropskih proizvajalcev pnevmatik zadevni izdelek prav tako uvaža iz LRK in ga preprodaja na trgu Unije.
In reply to those comments the Commission noted that Article 19 of the basic Regulation specifically provides that interested parties can supply information on a confidential basis upon good cause being shown.
Komisija je v odziv na navedene pripombe opozorila, da člen 19 osnovne uredbe izrecno določa, da lahko zainteresirane strani dostavijo informacije na zaupni osnovi, če se predloži ustrezen razlog za to.
In addition, a meaningful summary of the confidential information was included in the open file for inspection by interested parties.
Poleg tega je bil v javno dokumentacijo vključen razumljiv povzetek zaupnih informacij za vpogled zainteresiranim stranem.
The fact that the identity of certain cooperating Union producers was kept confidential did not prevent the Commission from performing an objective examination of the facts, nor did it hinder interested parties from exercising their rights of defence.
Dejstvo, da je identiteta nekaterih sodelujočih proizvajalcev Unije ostala zaupna, Komisiji ni preprečilo, da bi objektivno proučila dejstva, niti ni zainteresiranih strani oviralo pri uveljavljanju pravic do obrambe.
Furthermore, the rights of defence of interested parties were safeguarded as explained in recital (37) through the intervention of the Hearing Officer.
Poleg tega so bile pravice zainteresiranih strani do obrambe, kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 37, zaščitene s posredovanjem pooblaščenca za zaslišanje.
The CRIA and the CCCMC claimed that Chinese small and medium-sized (SMEs) producers were discriminated against compared with Union SMEs producers as Union SMEs were entitled to complete a less detailed (and thus less reliable) questionnaire.
Združenje CRIA in zbornica CCCMC sta trdila, da so bili kitajski mali in srednji proizvajalci diskriminirani v primerjavi z malimi in srednjimi proizvajalci Unije, saj so imela mala in srednja podjetja (MSP) iz Unije pravico, da izpolnijo manj podroben (in torej manj zanesljiv) vprašalnik.
Those parties claimed that Chinese SME producers may have been discouraged from participating in the investigation because of the significant burden that completing a full questionnaire response entails.
Navedeni strani sta trdili, da je kitajske male in srednje proizvajalce od sodelovanja v preiskavi morda odvrnilo precejšnje breme, ki ga pomeni izpolnjevanje celotnega vprašalnika.
Furthermore, the CRIA and the CCCMC claimed that, given that the Commission was (allegedly erroneously) basing its injury determination predominantly on the data of the small volume of SME' sales, the underrepresentation of Chinese SMEs producers was further aggravated by the fact that Union SMEs producers could provide a less complete and thus less reliable response.
Združenje CRIA in zbornica CCCMC sta trdila še, da glede na to, da je Komisija škodo (domnevno napačno) določila zlasti na podlagi podatkov o majhnem obsegu prodaje MSP, je slabo zastopanost kitajskih malih in srednjih proizvajalcev še poslabšalo dejstvo, da so lahko mali in srednji proizvajalci Unije predložili manj popolne in s tem manj zanesljive odgovore.
A similar claim was reiterated after the final disclosure.
Podobna trditev je bila ponovljena po končnem razkritju.
Moreover, the CRIA and the CCCMC requested that the Commission disclose the specific data on Union producers sampling, in particular to verify the representativity of the Union industry sample for both new and retreaded tyres.
Poleg tega sta Komisijo pozvala, naj razkrije posebne podatke o vzorčenju proizvajalcev Unije, da bi se zlasti preverila reprezentativnost vzorca industrije Unije za nove in protektirane pnevmatike.
That claim was reiterated after the final disclosure.
Ta trditev je bila ponovljena po končnem razkritju.
The statement that the injury determination was predominantly based on the data of Union SME producers is incorrect as the Commission established a representative sample to accurately analyse the injury situation of the Union producers.
Trditev, da je določitev škode temeljila zlasti na podatkih o malih in srednjih proizvajalcih Unije, je napačna, saj je Komisija oblikovala reprezentativen vzorec, da bi natančno analizirala škodo, povzročeno proizvajalcem Unije.
The Commission weighted the Union sales to ensure the proper representation of the SMEs' sales on the Union market.
Komisija je ponderirala prodajo Unije, da bi zagotovila ustrezno zastopanost prodaje MSP na trgu Unije.
Moreover, it is the constant practice of the Commission to send a simplified questionnaire to SME producers in the Union, but this fact has no impact on the correctness of the data provided or thoroughness of the investigation.
Poleg tega je stalna praksa Komisije, da malim in srednjim proizvajalcem v Uniji pošlje poenostavljen vprašalnik, vendar to dejstvo ne vpliva na pravilnost predloženih podatkov ali temeljitost preiskave.
Therefore, that claim was rejected.
Ta trditev je bila zato zavrnjena.
As mentioned in recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, two exporting producers argued that confidentiality hindered them from verifying whether the complainant represents more than 25 % of the total Union production.
Kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 15 začasne uredbe, sta dva proizvajalca izvoznika trdila, da zaradi zaupnosti niso mogle preveriti, ali pritožnik predstavlja več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje Unije.
They also maintained that they could not verify whether the sample for the Union industry was sufficiently representative.
Trdile so tudi, da niso mogle preveriti, ali je vzorec za industrijo Unije dovolj reprezentativen.
The Commission services requested the intervention of the Hearing Officer in order to guarantee the rights of defence of the interested parties in light of those claims.
Službe Komisije so zahtevale posredovanje pooblaščenca za zaslišanje, da bi se glede na navedene trditve zainteresiranim stranem zagotovile pravice do obrambe.
By note of 12 July 2018, the Hearing Officer added a note to the open file with the following two findings:
Pooblaščenec za zaslišanje je z dopisom z dne 12. julija 2018 javni dokumentaciji priložil obvestilo z naslednjima ugotovitvama:
The data in the confidential file support the conclusion that Commission services have correctly reflected the data received in the calculation of the standing requirements.
Podatki iz zaupne dokumentacije podpirajo sklep, da so službe Komisije prejete podatke pravilno zajele pri izračunu zadevnih zahtev.
The complainant, including the two Union producers having requested anonymity, represents more than 25 % of total Union production of the product under investigation.
Pritožnik, vključno z dvema proizvajalcema Unije, ki sta zahtevala anonimnost, predstavlja več kot 25 % celotne proizvodnje izdelka v preiskavi v Uniji.
The data in the confidential file support the conclusion that the sampling conducted by the Commission services responsible for the investigation has been accurately described in their relevant note for the file of 18 October 2017 on the subject of sampling, which is included in the file for inspection by the interested parties’.
Podatki iz zaupne dokumentacije podpirajo sklep, da je bilo vzorčenje, ki so ga izvedle službe Komisije, odgovorne za preiskavo, natančno opisano v njihovem ustreznem obvestilu v zvezi z dokumentacijo z dne 18. oktobra 2017 o vzorčenju, ki je v dokumentacijo vključeno, da se zainteresiranim stranem omogoči vpogled.“
Therefore, the Commission considered that the rights of defence of the interested parties were respected.
Komisija je zato menila, da so bile pravice zainteresiranih strani do obrambe spoštovane.
Finally, some exporting producers alleged that the lack of knowledge of potential links between anonymous complainants and Chinese exporting producers impeded their rights of defence.
Nazadnje, nekateri proizvajalci izvozniki so trdili, da je bila pravica zainteresiranih strani do obrambe omejena, ker niso poznale morebitnih povezav med anonimnimi pritožniki in kitajskimi proizvajalci izvozniki.
However, it was not substantiated how knowledge about such a potential link would help them in defending their case.
Vendar ni bilo utemeljeno, kako bi jim poznavanje take morebitne povezave pomagalo pri zagovarjanju njihovega primera.
Even if, hypothetically, there were a link between one or several anonymous Union producers and one or several Chinese exporting producers, the analysis for dumping and injury would not be materially affected.
Tudi če bi hipotetično obstajala povezava med enim ali več anonimnimi proizvajalci Unije in enim ali več kitajskimi proizvajalci izvozniki, to ne bi bistveno vplivalo na analizo dampinga in škode.
The Giti Group submitted that the Commission should have taken the share of each tier in total Union sales into consideration when selecting the sample of Union producers.
Skupina Giti Group je trdila, da bi morala Komisija pri izbiri vzorca proizvajalcev Unije upoštevati delež vsakega razreda v celotni prodaji Unije.
Such an approach would have been more objective compared to the current approach where the weight of most injured tier 3 data is inflated in the Giti Group's view.
Tak pristop bi bil objektivnejši kot sedanji pristop, kjer je po mnenju skupine Giti Group pomembnost podatkov o tretjem razredu, ki je utrpel največjo škodo, napihnjena.
As explained in recital (24) of the provisional Regulation, the Commission indeed took into account the tiers for the selection of the sample of Union producers.
Kot je pojasnjeno v uvodni izjavi 24 začasne uredbe, je Komisija pri izbiri vzorca proizvajalcev Unije razrede upoštevala.
In addition, the provisional Regulation in recitals (157) and (158) and further clarifications in the note for the file mentioned in recital (28) of this Regulation contained a thorough explanation of the methodology used to reflect all tiers appropriately in the microeconomic indicators (see further Section 4.5.1.2 below).
Poleg tega je v uvodnih izjavah 157 in 158 začasne uredbe ter dodatnih pojasnilih v obvestilu v zvezi z dokumentacijo iz uvodne izjave 28 te uredbe podrobno pojasnjena metodologija, uporabljena za ustrezno upoštevanje vseh razredov v mikroekonomskih kazalnikih (glej tudi oddelek 4.5.1.2 v nadaljevanju).
The CRIA and the CCCMC requested that full access should be granted to its legal representatives to the dumping margin, price effects and injury margin calculations carried out by the Commission, including access to any confidential information from other interested parties on which such calculations are based (subject to appropriate non-disclosure commitments).
Združenje CRIA in zbornica CCCMC sta zahtevala, naj se njunim pravnim zastopnikom zagotovi popoln dostop do stopnje dampinga, cenovnih učinkov in stopnje škode, ki jih je izračunala Komisija, vključno z dostopom do vseh zaupnih informacij drugih zainteresiranih strani, na katerih temeljijo taki izračuni (ob upoštevanju ustreznih obveznosti glede nerazkritja).
The CRIA and the CCCMC pointed out that the requirements of Article 19 of the basic Regulation should be balanced against the rights of defence, which are guaranteed by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Poudarila sta, da bi bilo treba zahteve iz člena 19 osnovne uredbe uravnotežiti s pravicami do obrambe, ki so zagotovljene s členom 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah.
The CRIA and the CCCMC argued that the lawyers that would be granted the access are registered at a European bar association and are subject to strict bar rules and disclosing confidential information to their clients would result in severe disciplinary actions, including disbarment and potential criminal action.
Združenje CRIA in zbornica CCCMC sta trdila, da so odvetniki, ki bi jim bil odobren dostop, registrirani pri Evropski odvetniški zbornici, zaradi česar zanje veljajo stroga pravila zbornice in bi se jim ob razkritju zaupnih informacij njihovim strankam naložili hudi disciplinski ukrepi, vključno z odvzemom licence in morebitnim kazenskim pregonom.
Therefore, the CRIA and the CCCMC argued that the access to the confidential file would not breach the Commission's obligation to protect confidential information whilst allowing an effective exercise of the rights of defence.
Zato sta menila, da dostop do zaupnih spisov ne bi bil v nasprotju z obveznostjo Komisije, da varuje zaupne informacije, hkrati pa omogoča učinkovito uveljavljanje pravic do obrambe.
Moreover, those parties considered that the intervention of the Hearing Officer to access the confidential information and report its conclusion to interested parties cannot be considered as a substitute for the review of these calculations.
Poleg tega sta navedeni strani menili, da posredovanje pooblaščenca za zaslišanje za dostop do zaupnih informacij in poročanje zainteresiranim stranem o njegovem sklepu ne moreta nadomestiti pregleda teh izračunov.
At the earing with the Hearing Officer on 16 August 2018 the Hankook Group claimed that the Commission had breached its rights of defence by denying it access to data which the Hankook Group considered as unjustly confidential.
Skupina Hankook Group je na zaslišanju pri pooblaščencu za zaslišanje 16. avgusta 2018 trdila, da je Komisija kršila njene pravice do obrambe, ko ji je zavrnila dostop do podatkov, za katere je zadevna skupina menila, da so neupravičeno zaupni.
The Hankook Group made a general request for a policy change with respect of handling of confidential data and invited the Commission services to change the current practice regarding disclosure of calculations and, in the future, to allow the legal representatives of the interested parties to access the calculations to the fullest extent.
Vložila je splošno zahtevo za spremembo politike glede ravnanja z zaupnimi podatki in službe Komisije pozvala, naj spremenijo sedanjo prakso glede razkritja izračunov ter v prihodnosti pravnim zastopnikom zainteresiranih strani omogočijo dostop do izračunov v čim večjem obsegu.
In the Hankook's Group view, the protection of confidential data should only apply to an extent that such protection is necessary to prevent possible harm to concerned companies.
Po njenem mnenju bi bilo treba varovanje zaupnih podatkov uporabljati le toliko, kolikor je tako varstvo potrebno za preprečitev morebitne škode zadevnim družbam.
Such harm would not arise if the legal representatives were to operate under a confidentiality agreement with the Commission services.
Taka škoda ne bi nastala, če bi pravni zastopniki delovali na podlagi sporazuma o zaupnosti s službami Komisije.
In respect to the current investigation, the Hankook Group also requested access for their legal representatives to all dumping and injury margins calculations, including the full normal value data.
V zvezi s sedanjo preiskavo je skupina Hankook prav tako zaprosila za dostop svojih pravnih zastopnikov do vseh izračunov stopenj dampinga in škode, vključno s popolnimi podatki o normalni vrednosti.
Article 19 of the basic Regulation stipulates that the Commission must not reveal any information which is by nature confidential, or which is provided on a confidential basis by parties and for which a good cause is shown, without the specific permission from the supplier of such information.
Člen 19 osnovne uredbe določa, da Komisija ne sme razkriti nobenih informacij, ki so po svoji naravi zaupne ali ki jih strani dostavijo na zaupni osnovi in za katere se predloži ustrezen razlog za to, razen če oseba, ki je dostavila take informacije, tega izrecno ne dovoli.
It does not envisage that any other party, including lawyers registered at a European bar association, is granted such access.
Odobritve takega dostopa kateri koli drugi osebi, vključno z odvetniki, registriranimi pri Evropski odvetniški zbornici, ne predvideva.
It should also be noted that, on 9 January 2018, the CRIA and the CCCMC submitted power of attorneys signed by cooperating and sampled exporting producers.
Opozoriti bi bilo treba tudi, da sta združenje CRIA in zbornica CCCMC 9. januarja 2018 predložila pooblastila, ki so jih podpisali sodelujoči in vzorčeni proizvajalci izvozniki.
The Commission found that some of the power of attorneys given by sampled Chinese exporting producers to the CRIA and the CCCMC did not cover access to confidential information but only covered attending hearings, submitting comments and lodging submissions.
Komisija je ugotovila, da nekatera pooblastila, ki so jih vzorčeni kitajski proizvajalci izvozniki dali združenju CRIA in zbornici CCCMC, niso zajemala dostopa do zaupnih informacij, ampak le udeležbo na zaslišanjih, predložitev pripomb in vložitev zahtevkov.
Furthermore, the case-law of the Court of Justice stipulates that the protection of rights of the defence must, where necessary, be reconciled with the principle of confidentiality, which is specifically laid down in Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Poleg tega sodna praksa Sodišča določa, da mora biti varstvo pravice do obrambe, kjer je to potrebno, usklajeno z načelom zaupnosti, kar je posebej določeno v členu 19 osnovne uredbe.
In this particular case, good cause was shown because several interested parties requested that their names be kept confidential for fear that they could face retaliation by customers or competitors.
V tem konkretnem primeru se je podal ustrezen razlog za to, saj je več zainteresiranih strani zahtevalo, naj njihova imena ostanejo zaupna, ker so se bale maščevanja strank ali konkurentov.
The Commission assessed those claims and deemed them warranted.
Komisija je navedene trditve ocenila in menila, da so upravičene.
Therefore, it concluded that the disclosure of such confidential information would have a significant adverse effect for these parties.
Zato je sklenila, da bi imelo razkritje takih zaupnih informacij znaten škodljiv učinek na te strani.
That reconciliation permits the receipt of non-confidential summaries of confidential information (provided, for instance, in the form of ranges and/or indexed elements of information) where that non-confidential information would not lead to a disclosure of business secrets.
Navedena uskladitev dopušča prejem nezaupnih povzetkov zaupnih informacij (predloženih, na primer, v obliki razponov in/ali indeksiranih elementov informacij), kadar te nezaupne informacije ne bi povzročile razkritja poslovnih skrivnosti.
However, full disclosure of the confidential information was not deemed reconcilable with the duty to protect such information.
Vendar se za popolno razkritje zaupnih informacij ni štelo, da je združljivo z dolžnostjo varovanja takih informacij.
In the same vein, because the Union legislator did not provide for such an exception in the basic Regulation, the Commission considered that the fact that the lawyers registered with a European bar association are subject to strict bar rules and are potentially subject to sanctions in case of breach of these rules does not allow the Commission to grant access to confidential information in breach of the legislation in force.
Ker zakonodajalec Unije te izjeme ni predvidel v osnovni uredbi, je Komisija podobno menila, da dejstvo, da za odvetnike, ki so registrirani pri Evropski odvetniški zbornici, veljajo stroga pravila zbornice in da se jim ob kršitvi teh pravil naložijo sankcije, Komisiji ne omogoča, da bi odobrila dostop do zaupnih informacij v nasprotju z veljavno zakonodajo.
The Commission thus concluded that the access to confidential information could not be granted to lawyers registered at a European bar association.
Komisija je zato sklenila, da odvetnikom, registriranim pri Evropski odvetniški zbornici, ni mogoče odobriti dostopa do zaupnih informacij.
In any event, an additional element for safeguarding the rights of defence of interested parties is the possibility of having recourse to the Hearing Officer in Trade Proceedings under Article 15 of Decision of the President of the European Commission of 29 February 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the Hearing Officer in certain trade proceedings.
Vsekakor je dodaten element za varovanje pravic zainteresiranih strani do obrambe možnost pritožbe pri pooblaščencu za zaslišanje v trgovinskih postopkih v skladu s členom 15 Sklepa predsednika Evropske komisije z dne 29. februarja 2012 o funkciji in mandatu pooblaščenca za zaslišanje v nekaterih trgovinskih postopkih.
Since the interested parties did not seek the Hearing Officer's opinion on that point, that claim must, accordingly, be rejected.
Ker zainteresirane strani v zvezi s tem niso zaprosile za mnenje pooblaščenca za zaslišanje, je treba torej to trditev zavrniti.
Furthermore the Commission considered that the open file available to interested parties, including to the CRIA and the CCCMC and the Hankook Group, contained all the relevant case information used in the investigation.
Poleg tega je Komisija menila, da je javna dokumentacija, ki je bila na voljo zainteresiranim stranem, tudi združenju CRIA, zbornici CCCMC in skupini Hankook Group, vsebovala vse pomembne informacije o zadevi, uporabljene v preiskavi.
If the information was deemed confidential, the open file contained meaningful summaries thereof.
Če se je štelo, da so informacije zaupne, so bile v javni dokumentaciji smiselno povzete.
All interested parties, including the CRIA and the CCCMC, had access to the open file and could consult it.
Vse zainteresirane strani, vključno z združenjem CRIA in zbornico CCCMC, so imele dostop do javne dokumentacije in pravico do vpogleda vanjo.
In view of those considerations, the Commission deemed the information provided in the disclosure documents and in the open file sufficient to satisfy the rights of defence of all interested parties.
Komisija je ob upoštevanju navedenih premislekov menila, da informacije v dokumentih o razkritju in javni dokumentaciji zadostujejo za izpolnitev pravic vseh zainteresiranih strani do obrambe.
Nonetheless, after the hearing with the Hearing Officer, the Commission disclosed certain additional data on dumping and injury calculations as set out in recitals (77) and (178).
Kljub temu je Komisija po zaslišanju pri pooblaščencu za zaslišanje razkrila nekatere dodatne podatke o izračunih dampinga in škode, kot je navedeno v uvodnih izjavah 77 in 178.
Hämmerling requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer to raise legal concerns related to the current investigation and certain horizontal issues concerning data protection of confidential and non-confidential information as included in the TRON TDI database and the current practice of granting access to the non-confidential files to interested parties outside the territory of the Union through that database.
Družba Hämmerling je zahtevala zaslišanje pri pooblaščencu za zaslišanje, da bi izrazila pomisleke v zvezi s sedanjo preiskavo in nekaterimi horizontalnimi vprašanji glede varstva zaupnih in nezaupnih informacij, vključenih v podatkovno zbirko TRON TDI, ter sedanjo prakso omogočanja dostopa do nezaupnih spisov zainteresiranim stranem zunaj ozemlja Unije prek te zbirke.
The Commission observed that the new General Data Protection Regulation was not applicable to this case.
Komisija je ugotovila, da se nova splošna uredba o varstvu podatkov v tem primeru ne uporablja.
Moreover, Hämmerling confirmed that the personal data protection issue was not directly linked to a possible specific hampering of its rights of defence under trade defence law.
Poleg tega je družba Hämmerling potrdila, da vprašanje varstva osebnih podatkov ni neposredno povezano z morebitnim specifičnim oviranjem njenih pravic do obrambe na podlagi zakonodaje o trgovinski zaščiti.