natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Findings of investigation: Investigation concluded that the Korean regime for the import and marketing of cosmetics wascontrary to provisions of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and was causing adversetrade effects to the Community industry in that imported products were treated differently from locally produced ones.
Izsledki preiskave: Preiskava je pokazala, da je korejski režim uvoza in trženja kozmetike nasprotoval določbam Sporazuma STO o tehničnih ovirah v trgovini in škodljivo vplival na industrijo Skupnosti, ker so bili uvoženi izdelki obravnavani drugače od doma proizvedenih.
Outcome: As a first positive result, an agreement between the Korean authorities and the European Communitieswas concluded in July 1999.
Izid: Kot prvi pozitiven rezultat je bil julija 1999 sklenjen sporazum med korejskimi organi in Evropskimi skupnostmi.
This agreement introduced a procedure whereby standards maintained by Community producers could be considered equivalent to those required in Korea.
Ta sporazum je uvedel postopek, v katerem se standardi, ki jih vzdržujejo proizvajalci Skupnosti, štejejo za enakovredne tistim, ki jih zahteva Koreja.
The Commission services then started a monitoring exercise, including close observation of the correctapplication of the 1999 agreement and verifying the compatibility of the new legislation and of the enforcement regulation with the agreement and international trade rules and practices.
Službe Komisije so nato začele s izvajanjem nadzora, vključno z natančnim opazovanjem pravilne uporabe sporazuma iz leta 1999 in s preverjanjem skladnosti nove zakonodaje in izvedbenih pravil s sporazumom in mednarodnimi pravili ter praksami trgovanja.
Under the monitoring, the Commission services work very closely together with industry and reportregularly to the EU Member States.
Službe Komisije pri spremljanju tesno sodelujejo z industrijo in redno poročajo državam članicam EU.
The EU and Korea are currently discussing EU-proposed “sharedagreed objectives”that would address the remaining obstacles to imports of EC cosmetics into Korea.
Trenutno EU in Koreja razpravljata o “skupno dogovorjenih ciljih“, ki jih je predlagala EU in s katerimi bi odpravili preostale ovire za uvoz kozmetike ES v Korejo.
Complaint lodged by FEBELTEX (Belgian Textile Federation) on 12 January 1998
Pritožba, ki jo je vložil FEBELTEX (Belgijsko združenje za tekstil) 12. januarja 1998
Trade barrier: Brazilian non-automatic import licensing system applied for textile products and operating throughcompulsory payment terms and minimum prices.
Trgovinska ovira: Brazilski neavtomatični sistem uvoznega izdajanja dovoljenj, ki se je uporabljal za tekstilne izdelke in se je izvajal z obveznimi plačilnimi pogoji in minimalnimi cenami.
TBR investigation initiated on 27 February 1998.
Preiskava UTO se je začela 27. februarja 1998.
Findings of investigation The investigation concluded that the Brazilian authorities refuse to grant import licences for certaintextile products on the basis of non-compliance with minimum prices and compulsory paymentterms.
Izsledki preiskave: Preiskava je potrdila, da so brazilski organi zavrnili izdajo uvoznih dovoljenj za nekatere tekstilne izdelke na osnovi neskladnosti z minimalnimi cenami in obveznimi plačilnimi pogoji.
The implementation of this system appears to infringe Brazil's obligations under several Articles of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (art.
Izkazalo se je, da izvajanje tega sistema krši obveznosti Brazilije po več členih Sporazuma STO o postopkih za izdajanje uvoznih dovoljenj (čl. 1, 3, 5 in 8) in GATT 1994 (čl. X in XI.1).
On 14 October 1999, the Community requested WTO consultations, which were held on 19 November 1999.
14. oktobra 1999 je Skupnost zahtevala posvetovanja STO, ki so se odvijala 19. novembra 1999.
The Commission then decided to try to solve the problems via bilateralnegotiations.
Komisija se je nato odločila za poskus reševanja težav z dvostranskimi pogajanji.
As a result, the Brazilian authorities decided to exclude all textile products covered by the TBR report from the non-automatic import licensing system.
Posledično so se brazilski organi odločili izključiti vse tekstilne izdelke, zajete v poročilu UTO, iz neavtomatičnega sistema uvoznega izdajanja dovoljenj.
The TBR procedure was suspendedby decision of the Commission on 8 June 2001.
Postopek UTO je bil ustavljen s sklepom Komisije 8. junija 2001.
During the period of suspension, the Commissionservices have been monitoring and supervising the situation, in close contact with the Communityindustry affected, which alleged that Brazil was imposing minimum prices on the same products via minimum customs values applied at the time of release for free circulation.
V obdobju ustavitve so službe Skupnosti spremljale in nadzirale stanje v tesnem sodelovanju s prizadeto industrijo Skupnosti, ki je trdila, da je Brazilija določala minimalne cene na enake izdelke z minimalnimi carinskimi vrednostmi, uporabljenimi v času sprostitve v prosti obtok.
Outcome: The EU and Brazil signed a Memorandum Of Understanding on textiles trade liberalisation on 6 November 2002, under which both parties will refrain from applying any non-tariff barriers.
Izid: EU in Brazilija sta 6. novembra 2002 podpisali Memorandum o soglasju o liberalizaciji trgovine s tekstilnimi izdelki po katerem se bosta obe stranki vzdržali uporabe kakršnih koli netarifnih ovir.
This addressed particularly the problem concerning customs valuation.
To se je nanašalo zlasti na težave glede carinskega vrednotenja.
The Commission services will monitor the enforcement of the agreement and may envisage terminating the investigationprocedure if the trade barriers are eliminated.
Službe Komisije bodo spremljale izvajanje sporazuma in lahko načrtujejo ustavitev postopka preiskave, če bodo trgovinske ovire odpravljene.
ARGENTINA Measures concerning import of textile and clothing products
ARGENTINA Ukrepi glede uvoza tekstilnih izdelkov in oblačil
Complaint lodged by Euratex (European Apparel and Textile Organisation) on 11 October 1999
Pritožba, ki jo je vložil Euratex (Evropska organizacija za oblačila in tekstilne izdelke) 11. oktobra 1999
Trade barrier: Certain measures maintained by Argentina affecting import of textile and clothing products: repetition of pre-shipment controls and penalising customs valuation procedures; excessiverequirements concerning certificates of origin, impeding transhipment of goods; excessiverequirements concerning customs documentation and labelling.
Trgovinska ovira: Nekateri ukrepi, ki jih je ohranjala Argentina, s škodljivimi učinki na uvoz tekstilnih izdelkov in oblačil: ponavljanje pregledov pred odpremo in škodljivi postopki carinskega vrednotenja; pretirane zahteve glede potrdil o poreklu, ki so ovirale pretovarjanje blaga; pretirane zahteve glede carinske dokumentacije in označevanja.
TBR investigation initiated on 27 November 1999.
Preiskava UTO se je začela 27. novembra 1999.
Findings of investigation: the investigation concluded that some of the measures alleged appeared to violate GATT/WTO rules.
Izsledki preiskave: Preiskava je pokazala, da so nekateri navedeni ukrepi kršili pravila GATT/STO.
In particular, it found that the certificate of origin requirements seemed to violate GATT Articles VIII.1(c),VIII.3, X and XI.1 as well as Article 7.1 of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
Odkrila je zlasti, da zahteve glede potrdila o poreklu kršijo člene VIII.1(c), VIII.3, X in XI.1 GATT ter člen 7.1 Sporazuma STO o tekstilnih izdelkih in oblačilih.
On labelling requirements, the TBR investigation confirmed that they constitute an infringement of Article 2.2 of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade as well as of Article VIII.1(c) of GATT.Regarding the repetition of pre-shipment inspection controls and the imposition of specific duties, no violation of Argentina's specific international obligations was found.
Glede zahtev v zvezi z označevanjem je preiskava UTO potrdila, da kršijo člen 2.2 Sporazuma STO o tehničnih ovirah v trgovini in člen VIII.1(c) GATT. Glede ponavljanja pregledov pred odpremo in nalaganja posebnih dolžnosti ni bila odkrita kršitev nobene izmed posebnih mednarodnih obveznosti Argentine.
They were found, however, to add to the burdensome formalities required for import of the products under examination and to create an unfavourable context to trade.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da prispevajo k obremenjujočim uradnim postopkom, zahtevanim pri uvozu izdelkov v pregledu, in ustvarjajo neugodno okolje za trgovino.
Outcome: Following the investigation, it was decided to pursue the above matters with the Argentineanauthorities with the aim of achieving an amicable settlement eliminating or gradually easing the abovetrade barriers.
Izid: Po preiskavi je bila sprejeta odločitev, da se sledi zgornjim zadevam z argentinskimi organi za dosego mirnega sporazuma o odpravi ali postopnem popuščanju zgornjih trgovinskih ovir.
With regard to customs valuation practices, the situation seems to have improved over the last threeyears.
Glede praks carinskega vrednotenja se zdi, da se je stanje v zadnjih treh letih izboljšalo.
Transparency has improved while European manufacturers and exporters can participate in the determination of the indicative values for customs valuation.
Preglednost se je izboljšala, ker lahko evropski proizvajalci in izvozniki sodelujejo pri določanju indikativnih vrednosti za carinsko vrednotenje.
As regards pre-shipmentinspection, it has been eliminated.
Pregled pred odpremo je bil odpravljen.
On the issue of certificates of origin, a new legislation dated February 2002 seems to soften the current requirements and will consequently facilitate exports from the EU of goods originating in third countries In terms of labelling, encouraging developmentshave also taken place with the introduction of new rules on labelling, complemented by new rulesadopted in 2007.
V zvezi s potrdili o poreklu se zdi, da je nova zakonodaja iz februarja 2002 omilila veljavne zahteve in bo posledično olajšala izvoz blaga iz EU, ki izvira iz tretjih držav. Glede označevanja je prišlo do vzpodbudnega izboljšanja z uvedbo novih pravilo označevanju, ki so jih dopolnila nova pravila, sprejeta leta 2007.
The investigation procedure has therefore been terminated in 2008.
Postopek preiskave je bil zato zaključen leta 2008.
KOREANRegime for imports of Pharmaceuticals
KOREJSKI režim uvoza farmacevtskih izdelkov
Complaint lodged by EFPIA on 5 June 1999
Pritožba, ki jo je vložila EFPIA 5. junija 1999
Trade barrier: Discrimination in rules and practices concerning pricing and reimbursement of pharmaceuticalproducts affecting trade of Community pharmaceutical products in the Korean market.
Trgovinska ovira: Diskriminacija v pravilih in postopkih glede določanja cen in povračila stroškov za farmacevtske izdelke, ki je prizadela trgovino s farmacevtskimi izdelki Skupnosti na korejskem trgu.
TBR investigation initiated on 30 July 1998.
Preiskava UTO se je začela 30. julija 1998.
Findings of investigation: Investigation concluded that the Korean system for pricing and reimbursement of importedpharmaceutical products was contrary to provisions of the WTO GATT Agreement and was causingadverse trade effects to the Community industry in that imported products were treated differentlyfrom locally produced ones.
Izsledki preiskave: Preiskava je pokazala, da je bil korejski sistem določanja cen in povračila stroškov uvoženih farmacevtskih izdelkov v nasprotju z določbami Sporazuma STO GATT in je škodljivo vplival na industrijo Skupnosti, saj so bili uvoženi izdelki obravnavani drugače od doma proizvedenih.
Other problems for the EU industry were related to clinical testing of new drugs and to the respect of intellectual property of newly developed medicines.
Ostale težave industrije EU so bile povezane s kliničnim testiranjem novih zdravil in z varstvom intelektualne lastnine novo razvitih zdravil.
Outcome: During the course of the investigation, the Korean authorities had significantly changed the legislationin that the previously existing de jurediscriminatory elements had been eliminated so that importedproducts were now admitted for the first time on the list of reimbursable pharmaceuticals andimported products were now reimbursed according to the same rules as domestic products.
Izid: Med preiskavo so korejske oblasti pomembno spremenile zakonodajo, s čimer so bili odpravljeni prej obstoječi pravni diskriminatorni elementi, tako da so bili uvoženi izdelki sedaj prvič pripuščeni na seznam farmacevtskih izdelkov s povračilom stroškov, stroški pa so bili povrnjeni po enakih pravilih kot je veljalo za domače izdelke.
Prices of newly imported, mainly innovative R & D based pharmaceuticals were now calculated on average prices of 7 industrialised countries (the so-called A-7 countries).
Cene novo uvoženih, pretežno inovativnih farmacevtskih izdelkov na osnovi raziskav in razvoja so se sedaj izračunavale na osnovi povprečnih cen 7 industrijskih držav (tako imenovanih držav A-7).
Moreover, the Korean authorities introduced a system for reimbursement, based on Actual Transaction Prices (ATP), thereby eliminating previously existing practices of illegal discounts and they furthermoreintroduced an obligatory system of Separation of Dispensing and Prescribing (SDP) which aimed at eliminating a wide-spread practice of dispensing of drugs by prescribing doctors or institutionswhich in the past often led to abusive practices.
Poleg tega so korejske oblasti uvedle sistem povračila stroškov na osnovi dejanskih prometnih cen (ATP), s čimer so bile odpravljene prejšnje prakse nezakonitih popustov, in obvezni sistem ločevanja razdeljevanja in predpisovanja (SDP) s ciljem odpraviti precej razširjeno prakso razdeljevanja zdravil, ki so jih predpisovali zdravniki ali institucije, kar je v praksi pogosto vodilo v zlorabe.
In order to appraise the correct application of these major changes to the legislation on pricing andreimbursement of pharmaceuticals, the Commission services continue to monitor the situation on the Korean market.
Da bi ocenile pravilno uporabo teh velikih sprememb zakonodaje glede določanja cen in povračila stroškov za farmacevtske izdelke, službe Komisije nadaljujejo s spremljanjem razmer na korejskem trgu.
During this observation exercises it appeared that, in practice, the rules on pricingof imported drugs were not correctly applied as too often innovative medicines did not get a standarddrugs price on the basis of the A-7 countries averages.
Med opazovanjem se je izkazalo, da pravila glede določanja cen uvoženih zdravil v praksi niso bila pravilno uporabljena, saj inovativna zdravila prepogosto niso dosegla običajne cene zdravil na osnovi povprečja držav A-7.
The Commission services, during the monitoring, have noticed that the Korean authorities have kepton modifying the pricing and reimbursement rules.
Službe Komisije so med spremljanjem opazile, da so korejski organi nadaljevali s spreminjanjem pravil cen in povračila stroškov.
This behaviour seems to be mainly inspired by an increasing need to keep the healthcare-budget under control.
Zdi se, da je to vedenje v največji meri vzpodbudila naraščajoča potreba po ohranitvi nadzora nad zdravstvenim proračunom.
Today the pricing andreimbursement issues are still the main topics in discussions with the Korean side.
Danes so vprašanja glede določanja cen in povračila stroškov še vedno glavna tema v pogovorih s korejsko stranjo.
Clinical testing and intellectual property issues are equally still included in the list of points for discussion.
Vprašanja kliničnega testiranja in intelektualne lastnine so prav tako še vedno vključena na seznam tem za razpravo.
At the end of 2006, Korea introduced amendments to its pricing and reimbursement rules.
Konec leta 2006 je Koreja spremenila pravila določanja cen in povračila stroškov.
On 26 December 2006, Korea adopted measures implementing its reformed system.
Dne 26. decembra 2006 je sprejela ukrepe o izvajanju reformiranega sistema.
Despite an exchange of letters between the Commission services and Korean authorities before the adoption of these measures, some issues of concern remain for the EU pharmaceutical industry.
Kljub izmenjavi dopisov med službami Komisije in korejskimi oblastmi pred sprejetjem teh ukrepov, za farmacevtsko industrijo EU še vedno ostaja nekaj odprtih vprašanj.
Recourse to WTO dispute settlement proceedings
Vrnitev k postopkom reševanja sporov STO
Cross-Border Music Licensing in the USA
Čezmejno izdajanje dovoljenj za glasbo v zda ZDA
Trade barrier: US legislation on Copyright exempting restaurants, bars, shops or other public venues from the obligation to obtain licences for the broadcast of music works by radio or T.V, provided certainconditions are met in terms of floor surface and number of audio-visual devices.
Trgovinska ovira: Zakonodaja ZDA o avtorskih pravicah z izvzetjem restavracij, barov, trgovin ali drugih javnih mest iz obveznosti pridobitve dovoljenja za predvajanje glasbenih del po radiu ali televiziji, pod pogojem, da so izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji glede površine tal in števila avdio-vizualnih naprav.
TBR investigation initiated on 11 June 1997.
Preiskava UTO se je začela 11. junija 1997.
Findings of investigation: Investigation found violations of Article 9(1) of TRIP's Agreement and Articles 11 and 11bis of the Berne Convention.
Izsledki preiskave: Preiskava je pokazala kršitve člena 9(1) Sporazuma TRIP in členov 11 ter 11bis Bernske konvencije.
Outcome: Informal consultations with the US authorities did not lead to a solution.
Izid: Neformalna posvetovanja z organi ZDA niso pripeljala do rešitve.
On 22 December 1998the Commission decided to initiate WTO dispute settlement proceedings and a Panel was established.A Panel report condemning the most important part of Section 110(5) was adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body on 26 July 2000.
22. decembra 1998 se je Komisija odločila začeti postopke reševanja sporov STO in ustanovljen je bil odbor. Poročilo odbora, ki obsoja najpomembnejši del poglavja 110(5), je 26. julija 2000 sprejel organ STO za reševanje sporov.
Before the expiry of the period accorded to the US to implement the Panel report, the EU and the US reached an agreement of principle on a temporary solution tooffset the losses of affected EU right holders.
Pred iztekom roka, postavljenega ZDA za pripravo poročila odbora, sta EU in ZDA dosegli načelni sporazum o začasni rešitvi s kompenziranjem izgub prizadetih imetnikov pravic EU.
As part of the agreement, a Panel of arbitrators wasentrusted with the task of determining the extent of those losses.
Kot del sporazuma je bila odboru arbitrov zaupana naloga določitve obsega teh izgub.
On 9 November 2001, the Arbitratorsfixed the amount of royalty income otherwise due to EU right holders at $1,1 million per year.On the basis of a lump-sum payment by the US for an amount of $ 3.3 million, the US and the EU have notified to the WTO a temporary arrangement covering a period of 3 years.
9. novembra 2001 so arbitri določili znesek zapadle licenčnine za imetnike pravic EU v višini 1,1 milijona USD letno. Na osnovi pavšalnega plačila ZDA v višini 3,3 milijone USD so ZDA in EU naznanile STO začasni sporazum za obdobje 3 let.
However, in order to achieve a long-term solution, the US is required to bring its legislation into compliance with the TRIPS agreement.
Ne glede nato pa se za dolgoročno rešitev od ZDA zahteva, da uskladi svojo zakonodajo s sporazumom TRIPS.
The complainant is satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, the Panel report and the temporaryarrangement reached with the US.
Pritožnik je zadovoljen z izsledki preiskave, poročilom odbora in začasnim sporazumom, doseženim z ZDA.
The complainant expects that the amendment of Section 110(5) will result in benefits for EU right holders in excess of the amount determined by the Arbitrators.
Pritožnik pričakuje, da bodo s spremembo poglavja 110(5) koristi za imetnike pravic EU večje, kot je znesek, ki so ga določili arbitri.
Complaint lodged by EUROFER on 10 January 1997
Pritožbo, ki jo je vložil EUROFER 10. januarja 1997
Trade barrier: US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 which consists of prohibiting importers from importing or selling articlesfrom any foreign country at a price substantially less than the market value or wholesale price of sucharticles, at the time of importation, in the country of production or other foreign countries to whichthey are commonly exported.
Trgovinska ovira: Protidampinški zakon ZDA iz leta 1916, ki uvoznikom prepoveduje uvažati ali prodajati blago iz katere koli tuje države po ceni, ki je znatno nižja od tržne vrednosti, ali ceni takšnega blaga pri prodaji na veliko, v času uvoza, v državi proizvodnje ali drugih tujih državah, v katere je navadno izvoženo.
TBR investigation initiated on 25 February 1997.
Preiskava UTO se je začela 25. februarja 1997.
Findings of investigation: Investigation concluded on violations of GATT 1994 and of the provisions of the WTO Antidumping Agreement and of the Agreement establishing the WTO.
Izsledki preiskave: Preiskava je pokazala kršitve GATT 1994 in določb protidampinškega sporazuma STO in sporazuma o ustanovitvi STO.
On 28 April 1998the Commission decided to initiate WTO dispute settlement proceedings.
28. aprila 1998 se je Komisija odločila začeti postopke reševanja sporov STO.
Formal consultations in that context were not successful and a Panel was established.
Formalna posvetovanja v tem smislu niso bila uspešna in ustanovljen je bil odbor.
The Panel and the Appellate Body found the US in violation of several WTO provisions.
Odbor in pritožbeni organ sta ugotovila kršitve ZDA več določb STO.
In light of continuous lack of compliance by the US, the Commission has requested WTO authorisationto apply countermeasures vis-à-vis the US.
Februarja 2004 je STO priznala EU pravico, da ob primernem času sprejme predpis, s katerim bodo izdelkom iz ZDA, ki se izvažajo po dampinških cenah, naložene posebne obveznosti.
In February 2004, the WTO recognized the right for the EUto adopt at any appropriate time a regulation imposing specific obligations on US dumped products.The US finally repealed the 1916 Act in December 2004.
Decembra 2004 so ZDA Zakon 1916 razveljavile.
TBR Case concerning KOREA –Measures affceting trade in commercial vessels
Primer UTO glede ukrepovKOREJE, ki škodljivo vplivajo na trgovino s trgovskimi plovili
Complaint lodged by CESA (Committee of European Union Shipbuilders Associations) on 24 October 2000
Pritožbo je vložila CESA (Odbor Združenj ladjedelničarjev Evropske unije) 24. oktobra 2000
Trade barrier: Subsidies granted to, or otherwise benefiting, Korean shipbuilding companies by the Republic of Korea.
Trgovinska ovira: Subvencije, dodeljene ali kako drugače namenjene, ladjedelniškim podjetjem Republike Koreje.
TBR investigation initiated on 2 December 2000.
Preiskava UTO se je začela 2. decembra 2000.
Findings of investigation: This investigation showed that Korea has granted substantial amounts of subsidies, mainly throughexport schemes by the state owned Korean Export-Import Bank (KEXIM), debt forgiveness and debt-to-equity swaps by government-owned or government-controlled financial institutions.Furthermore, there was evidence that the subsidies in question were causing adverse effects to EU industry within the meaning of the WTO Subsidies Agreement, i.e. material injury and seriousprejudice, in several key commercial vessels sectors.
Izsledki preiskave: Ta preiskava je pokazala, da je Koreja dodeljevala znatne subvencije, pretežno prek izvoznih programov korejske državne banke, Export-Import Bank (KEXIM), odpis dolgov in menjavo terjatev za lastniške deleže finančnih ustanov v državni lasti ali pod državnim nadzorom. Dokazano je bilo, da so zadevne subvencije škodljivo vplivale na industrijo EU v smislu sporazuma STO o subvencijah, tj. povzročale materialno škodo in resno škodo v več ključnih sektorjih trgovskih plovil.
Outcome:In November 2001, CESA requested the Commission to update the TBR Report, so as to examinewhether adverse effects had been suffered by the EU industry during 2001.
Izid: Novembra 2001 je CESA zaprosila Komisijo za posodobitev poročila UTO, da bi se preverilo, ali je industrija Skupnosti utrpela škodljive učinke tudi v letu 2001.