text:
 12.1.2018
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 7/35
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) 2018/50 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 11 januari 2018
 tot 280e wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 881/2002 van de Raad tot vaststelling van bepaalde specifieke beperkende maatregelen tegen sommige personen en entiteiten die banden hebben met de organisaties ISIS (Da'esh) en Al Qaida
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EG) nr. 881/2002 van de Raad van 27 mei 2002 tot vaststelling van bepaalde specifieke beperkende maatregelen tegen sommige personen en entiteiten die banden hebben met de organisaties ISIS (Da'esh) en Al Qaida (1), en met name artikel 7, lid 1, onder a), en artikel 7 bis, lid 5,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 In bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 881/2002 worden de personen, groepen en entiteiten opgesomd waarvan de tegoeden en economische middelen krachtens die verordening worden bevroren.
 (2)
 Het Sanctiecomité van de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties heeft op 26 december 2017 besloten tot schrapping van één vermelding en tot wijziging van één vermelding op de lijst van personen, groepen en entiteiten waarvan de tegoeden en economische middelen dienen te worden bevroren. Bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 881/2002 moet derhalve dienovereenkomstig worden gewijzigd,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 Bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 881/2002 wordt gewijzigd overeenkomstig de bijlage bij deze verordening.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 11 januari 2018.
 Voor de Commissie,
 namens de voorzitter,
 Hoofd van de dienst Instrumenten voor het buitenlands beleid
 (1) PB L 139 van 29.5.2002, blz. 9.
 BIJLAGE
 Bijlage I bij Verordening (EG) nr. 881/2002 wordt als volgt gewijzigd:
 1)
 De vermelding „Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Hussein (ook bekend als a) Abu Zubaida, b) Abd Al-Hadi Al-Wahab, c) Zain Al-Abidin Muhahhad Husain, d) Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, e) Zeinulabideen Muhammed Husein Abu Zubeidah, f) Abu Zubaydah, g) Tariq Hani). Geboortedatum: 12.3.1971. Geboorteplaats: Riyad, Saudi-Arabië. Nationaliteit: Palestijns. Overige informatie: a) naaste medewerker van Usama Bin Laden en reisagent voor terroristen; b) in Amerikaanse gevangenschap sinds juli 2007. Datum van aanwijzing bedoeld in artikel 2 bis, lid 4, onder b): 25.1.2001.” wordt geschrapt van de lijst „Natuurlijke personen”.
 2)
 De vermelding „Seifallah Ben-Hassine (ook bekend als a) Seif Allah ben Hocine; b) Saifallah ben Hassine; c) Sayf Allah 'Umar bin Hassayn; d) Sayf Allah bin Hussayn; e) Abu Iyyadh al-Tunisi; f) Abou Iyadh el-Tounsi; g) Abu Ayyad al-Tunisi; h) Abou Aayadh; i) Abou Iyadh). Geboortedatum: 8.11.1965. Geboorteplaats: Tunis, Tunesië. Nationaliteit: Tunesisch. Datum van aanwijzing bedoeld in artikel 7 quinquies, lid 2, onder i): 23.9.2014.” in de lijst „Natuurlijke personen” wordt vervangen door:
 „Seifallah Ben Omar Ben Mohamed Ben Hassine (ook bekend als a) Seif Allah ben Hocine; b) Saifallah ben Hassine; c) Sayf Allah 'Umar bin Hassayn; d) Sayf Allah bin Hussayn; e) Abu Iyyadh al-Tunisi; f) Abou Iyadh el-Tounsi; g) Abu Ayyad al-Tunisi; h) Abou Aayadh; i) Abou Iyadh; j) Seifallah ben Amor ben Hassine). Adres: a) 60, Rue de la Libye, Hammam Lif, Ben Arous, Tunisië; b) Libië (mogelijke verblijfplaats juli 2017). Geboortedatum: 8.11.1965. Geboorteplaats: Tunis, Tunesië. Nationaliteit: Tunesisch. Paspoortnummer: Tunesisch nummer G557170, afgegeven op 16 november 1989. Nationaal identificatienummer: Tunesische nationale identiteitskaart 05054425, afgegeven op 3 mei 2011 (afgegeven in Hammam Lif). Datum van aanwijzing bedoeld in artikel 7 quinquies, lid 2, onder i): 23.9.2014.”.


type: wikipedia

text:
Jeroen van Eck (14 de mayo de 1993) es un deportista neerlandés que compite en ciclismo de montaña en la disciplina de campo a través.
 Ganó una medalla de plata en el Campeonato Mundial de Ciclismo por Eliminación de 2021 y cuatro medallas en el Campeonato Europeo de Ciclismo de Montaña entre los años 2015 y 2021.
 Medallero internacional
 Referencias
 Ciclistas de montaña de los Países Bajos


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 30.3.2017
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 85/24
 DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALGS AFGØRELSE
 Nr. 209/2015
 af 25. september 2015
 om ændring af bilag II (Tekniske forskrifter, standarder, prøvning og certificering) til EØS-aftalen [2017/516]
 DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR —
 under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde (»EØS-aftalen«), særlig artikel 98, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/639 af 23. april 2015 om ændring af bilag III til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1333/2008 for så vidt angår anvendelsen af siliciumdioxid (E 551) i polyethylenglycol podet på polyvinylalkohol (E 1209) (1) skal indarbejdes i EØS-aftalen.
 (2)
 Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/647 af 24. april 2015 om ændring og berigtigelse af bilag II og III til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1333/2008 for så vidt angår anvendelsen af visse fødevaretilsætningsstoffer (2) skal indarbejdes i EØS-aftalen.
 (3)
 Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/648 af 24. april 2015 om ændring af bilag I til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1334/2008 for så vidt angår fjernelse af aromastoffet N-ethyl-(2E,6Z)-nonadienamid fra EU-listen (3) skal indarbejdes i EØS-aftalen.
 (4)
 Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/649 af 24. april 2015 om ændring af bilag II til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1333/2008 og af bilaget til Kommissionens forordning (EU) nr. 231/2012 for så vidt angår anvendelsen af L-leucin som bærestof for sødestoffer til bordbrug i tabletform (4) skal indarbejdes i EØS-aftalen.
 (5)
 Denne afgørelse vedrører fødevarelovgivning. Lovgivning om fødevarer finder ikke anvendelse på Liechtenstein, så længe aftalen mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Det Schweiziske Forbund om handel med landbrugsprodukter også gælder for Liechtenstein, jf. indledningen til kapitel XII i bilag II til EØS-aftalen. Denne afgørelse finder derfor ikke anvendelse på Liechtenstein.
 (6)
 Bilag II til EØS-aftalen bør derfor ændres —
 VEDTAGET DENNE AFGØRELSE:
 Artikel 1
 I kapitel XII i bilag II til EØS-aftalen foretages følgende ændringer:
 1)
 Følgende led tilføjes i punkt 54zzzzr (Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1333/2008):
 »—
 32015 R 0639: Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/639 af 23. april 2015 (EUT L 106 af 24.4.2015, s. 16)
 —
 32015 R 0647: Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/647 af 24. april 2015 (EUT L 107 af 25.4.2015, s. 1)
 —
 32015 R 0649: Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/649 af 24. april 2015 (EUT L 107 af 25.4.2015, s. 17).«
 2)
 Følgende led tilføjes til punkt 54zzzzs (Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1334/2008):
 »—
 32015 R 0648: Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/648 af 24. april 2015 (EUT L 107 af 25.4.2015, s. 15).«
 3)
 Følgende led tilføjes i punkt 69 (Kommissionens forordning (EU) nr. 231/2012):
 »—
 32015 R 0649: Kommissionens forordning (EU) 2015/649 af 24. april 2015 (EUT L 107 af 25.4.2015, s. 17).«
 Artikel 2
 Den islandske og den norske udgave af forordning (EU) 2015/639, (EU) 2015/647, (EU) 2015/648 og (EU) 2015/649, der offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidendes EØS-tillæg, er begge autentiske.
 Artikel 3
 Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 26. september 2015, forudsat at alle meddelelser er indgivet, jf. EØS-aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1 (*1).
 Artikel 4
 Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidendes EØS-afsnit og EØS-tillæg.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 25. september 2015.
 På Det Blandede EØS-Udvalgs vegne
 Ingrid SCHULERUD
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 106 af 24.4.2015, s. 16.
 (2) EUT L 107 af 25.4.2015, s. 1.
 (3) EUT L 107 af 25.4.2015, s. 15.
 (4) EUT L 107 af 25.4.2015, s. 17.
 (*1) Ingen forfatningsmæssige krav angivet.


type: other

text:
ADUC - Scheda Pratica - PATENTE DI GUIDA: SOSPENSIONE A SEGUITO DI IPOTESI DI REATO, EX ART.223 C.D.S.
 PATENTE DI GUIDA: SOSPENSIONE A SEGUITO DI IPOTESI DI REATO, EX ART.223 C.D.S.
 Ultimo aggiornamento 7/4/2016
 La sospensione della patente, oltre che come sanzione accessoria a varie violazioni amministrative previste dal c.d.s. (clicca qui), puo' anche essere applicata come:
 Sanzione amministrativa accessoria di sanzioni penali (norme del codice della strada che prevedono l'arresto o l'ammenda, come la guida in stato di ebbrezza o sotto gli effetti di sostanze stupefacenti, oppure il non fermarsi dopo aver causato un incidente).
 In questi casi la patente e' ritirata direttamente dall'agente accertatore della violazione che la trasmette, unitamente al rapporto ed entro dieci giorni alla prefettura del luogo dov'e' stata commessa la violazione. Il prefetto, ricevuti gli atti, dispone la sospensione provvisoria della validita' della patente di guida, fino ad un massimo di due anni.
 Gli estremi del provvedimento sono iscritti sulla patente e comunicati alla direzione generale della MCTC.
 Quando il ritiro immediato non e' possibile, per qualsiasi motivo, il verbale di contestazione e' trasmesso, senza indugio, al prefetto che ordina all'autore della violazione di consegnare la patente entro cinque giorni dalla comunicazione dell'ordinanza, presso il proprio ufficio.
 Il provvedimento di sospensione cautelativa, in taluni casi, puo' essere disposto (dal prefetto, tramite imposizione di una revisione della patente) al fine di far sottoporre il conducente a visita medica per accertare le sue condizioni psico-fisiche. Se la visita e' positiva, la patente dev'essere restituita, altrimenti puo' scattare la revoca.
 A seguito di incidente con danni alle persone (lesioni colpose, omicidio colposo). I provvedimenti previsti dal codice sono:
 - in caso di lesioni personali colpose sospensione della patente da 15gg a sei mesi;
 - se la lesione e' grave o gravissima la sospensione puo' arrivare a due anni;
 - nel caso di omicidio colposo la sospensione puo' durare fino a quattro anni;
 Nelle ipotesi di recidiva reiterata verificatasi entro il periodo di cinque anni a decorrere dalla data della condanna definitiva per la prima violazione puo' essere applicata la revoca della patente.
 Anche in questo caso la patente viene ritirata subito, dagli agenti che hanno rilevato il sinistro, ed inviata insieme al verbale di contestazione, entro dieci giorni, al prefetto del luogo dov'e' stata commessa la violazione e, contestualmente, alla direzione generale della MCTC. Il prefetto, dopo aver sentito il parere di tale direzione (che deve esprimersi entro quindici giorni dalla ricezione del rapporto) e se ritiene che sussistano fondati elementi di una evidente responsabilita', dispone la sospensione provvisoria della validità della patente fino ad un massimo di tre anni.
 Se in conseguenza all'incidente compiuto violando una norma del codice della strada vi sono morti o vengono provocate lesioni a una o più persone si applicano le regole dei nuovi reati dell'omicidio stradale o lesioni personali stradali applicabili dal 25/3/2016 (nuovi artt. 589 bis e ter e 590 bis e ter del codice penale), con ritiro immediato della patente e sospensione provvisoria che può arrivare a 5 anni, e successiva revoca.
 Si veda per approfondimenti la scheda Omicidio stradale e lesioni personali stradali: guida alle nuove norme
 In ambedue i casi i provvedimenti definitivi sono applicati come conseguenza di una sentenza di un giudice, previa una sospensione provvisoria ed a carattere anticipatorio (nel primo caso) o cautelare (nel secondo) disposta, come visto, dal prefetto.
 Il fine della misura cautelare e' impedire che il responsabile di un sinistro con lesioni, potenzialmente pericoloso per la sicurezza della circolazione, continui a circolare liberamente fino a che non sia accertato, a seguito di processo penale, il suo effettivo apporto causale.
 Al momento in cui viene pronunciata la sentenza, il cancelliere del giudice ne trasmette copia autentica al Prefetto entro 15gg. Il prefetto adotta il relativo provvedimento stabilito dall'autorita' giudiziaria (sospensione o revoca) dandone comunicazione al competente ufficio provinciale della Direzione generale della M.C.T.C.
 Se la sentenza e' di proscioglimento, il prefetto ordina la restituzione della patente all'intestatario tramite emissione di un'ordinanza.
 NOTE, OSSERVAZIONI:
 * non esistono termini massimi per l'adozione del provvedimento di sospensione anticipatoria o cautelare. La Corte di Cassazione è più volte intervenuta sul punto, stabilendo che la pubblica amministrazione non deve restare inerte e che il termine deve essere "ragionevole", non eccessivo e non di "molti mesi" (la sentenza n.26018/2007 si esprimeva su 15 mesi, la sentenza n.13226/2007 su otto mesi e la sentenza 28032/2011 su nove mesi). La ragionevolezza e' decisa dal giudice rispetto al caso specifico.
 * La sorte della misura cautelare e' condizionata dall'esito del procedimento penale. A causa della lunghezza dei processi, molto spesso la decisione viene presa dopo la scadenza della sanzione, con la conseguenza che, in quel momento, il trasgressore potra' avere gia' scontato una sospensione piu' lunga di quella stabilita dal Giudice o avere ripreso a circolare prima della pronuncia.
 * il periodo di sospensione provvisoriamente disposto dal Prefetto e quello definitivamente disposto dal Giudice non si cumulano ma sono complementari. Il Prefetto, nel dare esecuzione alla sentenza, deve provvedere alla detrazione del periodo di sospensione già "scontato", senza bisogno che vi sia una esplicita dichiarazione in tal senso da parte del Giudice (si veda in proposito la Cassazione sezione penale sentenza n.31/2013).
 * Il provvedimento a seguito di incidente va adottato indipendentemente dalla preventiva presentazione della querela, e quindi non e' subordinato al concretizzarsi della condizione di procedibilita' dell'azione penale; la remissione della querela non comporta l'obbligo di revoca.
 * La circolare n.69/93 del Ministero dei Trasporti, integrata dalla circolare protocollo n.10934/CA del 1993, prevede che:
 - la sospensione puo' essere disposta solo per incidenti con lesioni a terzi, senza possibilita' di procedervi in caso di lesioni del solo conducente;
 -in caso di piu' violazioni si applica la sospensione piu' lunga;
 -per il concorso di altri (o per l'esistenza di cause ambientali) nella causa del sinistro, si puo' diminuire il periodo di sospensione; mentre per cause relative alla deficiente manutenzione del veicolo si puo' disporre un aumento;
 -la sospensione puo' essere disposta anche in assenza della contestazione di una violazione se, dall'esame delle circostanze di fatto, sia inequivocabile la responsabilita' del conducente.
 Avverso il provvedimento prefettizio di sospensione provvisoria (o cautelare) della patente e' possibile ricorrere presso il giudice di pace entro 30 giorni, ai sensi dell'art.205 cds (che rimanda all'art.6 del D.lgs.150/2011 in vigore dal 6/10/2011). La procedura e' la stessa dei ricorsi ai verbali di multe.
 Sul nostro sito, nel settore modulistica, e' disponibile una bozza utile per i ricorsi: clicca qui
 Si consiglia comunque di avvalersi di un legale.


text:
Rovnocennosť porozvodových modelov starostlivosti o maloleté dieťa so zameraním sa na rozvíjajúcu sa prezumpciu striedavej a spoločnej osobnej starostlivosti na medzinárodnej úrovni | Články | Najprávo.sk - najlepší právny poradca
 meniny má Iveta , zajtra Viliam
 16.5. 2018, 16:45 | Sabina Demovicova
 Striedavú osobnú starostlivosť (ďalej aj „striedavá starostlivosť“) zaraďujeme do škály porozvodových modelov starostlivosti o maloletých. Podstatou tohto inštitútu je striedavá zmena bydliska dieťaťa v stanovených časových intervaloch. Dieťa zverené do striedavej osobnej starostlivosti teda žije určitý časový úsek s jedným rodičom, v rámci tohto času je v jeho osobnej starostlivosti, a určitý časový úsek je v osobnej starostlivosti druhého rodiča.[1]
 Cieľom predloženého príspevku je zamyslieť sa nad prezumpciou inštitútu striedavej starostlivosti, ktorú možno pozorovať na viacerých úrovniach. Prioritne sa však príspevok zameriava na prezumpciu tohto modelu starostlivosti na úrovni aplikačnej praxe Ústavného súdu Českej republiky (ďalej len „Ústavný súd ČR“).
 S prezumpciou inštitútu striedavej osobnej starostlivosti sa možno na medzinárodnej úrovni stretnúť najmä (i) v rámci rodičovských dohôd, (ii) v rozhodovacej činnosti súdov, (iii) na legislatívnej úrovni a (iv) v rámci aplikačnej praxe Ústavného súdu ČR.
 V prvom rade je prezumpcia striedavej starostlivosti badateľná na úrovni rodičovských dohôd. Aj napriek vysokému percentu rodičov, odmietajúcich striedavú starostlivosť, možno ustáliť, že stále viac rozvedených rodičov označuje striedavú starostlivosť za najvhodnejšie riešenie pre ich maloleté deti (prirodzene pri neexistencií prekážok, ktoré jej nariadenie vylučujú).
 K dobrovoľnému uzatváraniu dohôd o striedavej starostlivosti vedie rodičov najmä skutočnosť, že striedavá starostlivosť, na rozdiel od výlučnej osobnej starostlivosti jedného rodiča, garantuje vo väčšom rozsahu právo rodičov vychovávať svoje dieťa, s tým súvisiace právo dieťaťa na rodičovskú starostlivosť, ako aj udržiavanie produktívneho vzťahu medzi dieťaťom a oboma rodičmi. Na druhej strane tiež otvára rozvedeným rodičom priestor pre vlastnú sebarealizáciu a existenciu v iných oblastiach.[2] Pre matky predstavuje striedavá starostlivosť odbremenenie od každodennej starostlivosti o dieťa, čím im zabezpečuje viac času na profesijný a súkromný život.[3]
 V druhom rade na úrovni súdnych rozhodnutí – aj napriek prítomnému rozkolu názorov na vhodnosť inštitútu striedavej starostlivosti, možno vo viacerých krajinách zaznamenať nárast počtu súdnych rozhodnutí o jej nariadení.
 Vychádzajúc zo štatistík Ústredia práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny má v podmienkach súdnej praxe Slovenskej republiky počet rozhodnutí o striedavej starostlivosti stúpajúcu tendenciu, hoci v každom roku len o nepatrné stotiny percent. Aj napriek tejto tendencii však netreba zabúdať na to, že v rámci rozhodovacej činnosti súdov dochádza i k rušeniu nariadenej striedavej starostlivosti. Táto skutočnosť môže uvedené štatistiky skresľovať.
 % počet rozhodnutí o striedavej starostlivosti z celkového počtu rozhodnutí v agende porozvodovej starostlivosti o dieťa[4]
 8, 57 %
 Vzhľadom na zaznamenaný nárast rozhodnutí o striedavej starostlivosti, ktorý má svoj základ v zmene vnímania modelu rodiny a v judikatúre Európskeho súdu pre ľudské práva (ďalej len „ESĽP“) o najlepšom záujme dieťaťa a o dôležitosti rovnakého podielu rodičov na výchove, je zrejmé, že sa v rámci aplikačnej praxe slovenských súdov prekoná (doposiaľ vo väčšine prípadov) konzervatívny postoj súdov a preferovanie zverenia dieťaťa do osobnej starostlivosti matky.
 Na základe skúseností z viacerých krajín, ako napríklad USA, Nemecko, Nórsko, Česká republika a krajiny Beneluxu, sa striedavá starostlivosť prejavila ako najlepšia a najefektívnejšia forma porozvodovej starostlivosti o dieťa.[5] V dôsledku prevažujúcich pozitívnych stránok a skúsenosti so striedavou a spoločnou osobnou starostlivosťou na medzinárodnej úrovni, sa stal tento inštitút prezumovaným, a to nielen zo strany rodičovských dohôd, či súdnych rozhodnutí, ale aj na legislatívnej úrovni.
 Uvedenú zákonnú prezumpciu možno priblížiť na príklade dvoch vybraných štátov – Belgicka a Švédska.
 Legislatívna prezumpcia striedavej a spoločnej starostlivosti, ktorá v sebe zahŕňa povinnosť súdu prioritne zvážiť tieto modely starostlivosti aj v prípade, ak o ich nariadenie požiada iba jeden z rodičov,[6] bola v Belgicku ukotvená v roku 2006.
 Články 373 a 374 belgického občianskeho zákonníka stanovujú princíp spoločného výkonu rodičovskej autority. Rodičovskú právomoc nad maloletým dieťaťom bežne vykonávajú spoločne obaja rodičia, bez ohľadu na to, či sú zosobášení alebo žijú v spoločnej domácnosti.
 Vzhľadom na tento princíp zostávajú rodičovské práva a povinnosti každého rodiča aj po rozpade ich manželstva zachované. Rozsah výkonu rodičovskej autority po rozvode manželov určia rodičia v rámci súkromnej dohody alebo ho určí autoritatívne súd.
 Rodičia môžu uzatvoriť súkromnú dohodu, a to aj s využitím odbornej pomoci, napr. formou mediácie. Finálnu verziu súkromnej dohody sú rodičia povinní predložiť príslušnému súdu, ktorý rozhodne, či jej obsah zodpovedá záujmom dieťaťa. Pri neúplnej dohode a dohode, ktorá neodzrkadľuje najlepší záujem dieťaťa, súd vyrieši: (i) či bude vykonávanie rodičovských práv spoločné alebo vyhradené jednému rodičovi, (ii) miesto, kde bude dieťa zaregistrované v registri obyvateľstva, (iii) ubytovanie dieťaťa, (iv) príspevok na údržbu, zdravie, vzdelávanie a rozvoj dieťaťa.
 S prihliadnutím na obsah riešených otázok, súd prioritne rozhoduje o určení bydliska dieťaťa, nie o výkone rodičovskej zodpovednosti. Tá zostáva nedotknutá aj po rozvode.[7]
 Ak nedôjde k uzatvoreniu rodičovskej dohody, rozhodne súd. Ten môže poveriť výlučným výkonom rodičovskej autority iba jedného rodiča. V takomto prípade si však druhý rodič vyhradzuje právo na dohľad, teda právo byť informovaný o dieťati. Takisto má právo na osobný styk s dieťaťom, ktorý sa mu môže obmedziť iba pre veľmi vážne dôvody. Ak dôjde k nerešpektovaniu práv rodiča a úpravy výkonu rodičovskej autority nariadenej súdom, majú rodičia prednostný prístup k súdu, ktorý môže nariadiť predbežné opatrenie.[8]
 Zákonnú prednosť spoločnej rodičovskej autority však nemožno vykladať ako povinnosť súdu automaticky rozhodnúť o jej nariadení v každom porozvodovom konaní. Za predpokladu nevhodnosti tohto spôsobu výchovy je súd povinný predmetné zamietnutie náležite písomne odôvodniť (pre prípad jeho následného preskúmania).[9]
 Spoločná starostlivosť o maloletých v prípade zachovania spoločného bývania rodičov je na území Švédska prirodzenosťou od prelomu rokov 1976 – 1977.[10]
 Legislatívnymi zmenami v oblasti rodičovstva sa zaviedla prednosť striedavej starostlivosti od roku 1983. Pritom až do účinnosti nového zákona o starostlivosti o dieťa (1996), nebol súd o striedavej starostlivosti oprávnený rozhodnúť, ak bol jeden z rodičov proti jej nariadeniu.[11]
 Česká právna úprava kladie všetky druhy modelov úpravy starostlivosti o dieťa po rozvode na jednu úroveň. Inštitúty osobnej, striedavej a spoločnej starostlivosti sú rovnocenné, keďže poradie ich voľby by nemalo vyplývať z poradia zvoleného zákonodarcom.[12]
 K úvahám o možnej prezumpcii striedavej starostlivosti však nabáda aplikačná prax Ústavného súdu ČR.
 Prvým a prelomovým nálezom v tomto ohľade bol nález, sp. zn. I. ÚS 2482/13 z 26. mája 2014, v rámci ktorého Ústavný súd ČR judikoval: „Nejlepším zájmem dítěte je, aby bylo především v péči obou rodičů, a pokud jsou splněny veškeré zákonné podmínky (...), tak je svěření dětí do střídavé péče pravidlem, nikoli výjimkou.“[13]
 Vyjadrený názor Ústavného súdu ČR vyvolal búrlivú debatu, v rámci ktorej sa objavili názory o tom, že v dôsledku tohto nálezu dôjde k masovej aplikácii striedavej starostlivosti a zároveň k eliminácii zaužívaného postupu súdov – zvereniu maloletého dieťaťa do osobnej starostlivosti matky.[14]
 Presvedčivú argumentáciu Ústavného súdu ČR priaznivo prijali najmä rozvedení rodičia, ktorým neboli ich deti do starostlivosti zverené. Tí sa začali okamžite domáhať zmeny a novými návrhmi žiadali zverenie dieťaťa do striedavej starostlivosti.[15]
 Pre úplnosť v stručnosti uvádzame opis skutkových okolností, z ktorých Ústavný súd ČR pri formovaní tak prevratného názoru vychádzal:
 Maloleté deti, pochádzajúce z rozvádzajúceho sa manželstva, boli na základe dohody ich rodičov v režime faktickej striedavej starostlivosti. Tento spôsob starostlivosti sa ukázal ako funkčný a plne vyhovujúci všetkým zúčastneným osobám.
 Po odchode matky s maloletými deťmi zo spoločnej domácnosti podal otec maloletých návrh na úpravu styku počas rozvodu a po ňom, pričom žiadal, aby boli maloleté deti zverené do striedavej starostlivosti oboch rodičov. Matka maloletých s týmto návrhom nesúhlasila a požiadala súd, aby ich zveril do jej osobnej starostlivosti.
 Maloletí boli zverení do osobnej starostlivosti matky s odôvodnením, že režim striedavej starostlivosti sa vzhľadom na rolu matky v živote detí v predškolskom a ranom školskom veku odporúča uplatniť až u maloletých vo vyššom veku.
 Otec s takouto upravenou starostlivosťou nesúhlasil, rešpektoval však názor súdu a podal návrh na zmenu úpravy pomerov k maloletým deťom až v čase, keď sa stali školopovinnými, teda v čase, keď by argument o nevhodnosti zavedenia striedavej starostlivosti v útlom veku mal stratiť relevanciu.
 Súd návrhu nevyhovel s odôvodnením, že maloletí vyjadrili svoju spokojnosť s pretrvávajúcim výchovným usporiadaním. Styk s otcom však nepatrne rozšíril. Proti tomuto rozhodnutiu podali odvolanie obaja rodičia maloletých. Odvolací súd odvolaniu nevyhovel a styk otca s maloletými zúžil.
 Reakciou otca bolo podanie ústavnej sťažnosti, v ktorej namietal porušenie svojich ústavných práv a slobôd, najmä práv súvisiacich s rodičovstvom a výchovou maloletých.
 Ústavný súd ČR s využitím relevantnej judikatúry ESĽP súvisiacej s úpravou starostlivosti o maloleté deti po rozvode konštatoval, že všeobecné súdy nepostupovali v súlade s najlepším záujmom dieťaťa.
 Keďže nevhodnosť striedavej starostlivosti najskôr opierali o útly vek maloletých a neskôr v čase ich školopovinnosti o stabilitu výchovného prostredia matky, popreli zmysel zákonnej úpravy a ustálenej judikatúry ESĽP.
 Vzhľadom na argument všeobecného súdu, že striedavá starostlivosť nie je vhodná pre maloletých v útlom veku, možno legitímne očakávať, že po uplynutí istého časového obdobia a po nástupe maloletých do školských zariadení odpadne prekážka zverenia dieťaťa do striedavej starostlivosti. Ak by sa takáto zmena (vyšší vek maloletých) označila za nedostatočnú, vážne by sa spochybnil princíp predvídateľnosti súdnych rozhodnutí. Takýmto postupom všeobecné súdy de facto deklarovali nezmeniteľnosť pomerov k maloletým deťom: „Kdyby byla argumentace obecných soudů vzatá doslovně, tak by nebylo možné přisoudit otci děti nacházející se v době rozvodu v předškolním či ranně školním věku v podstatě nikdy, protože by vždy prví rozhodnutí (z důvodu věku dětí ve prospěch matky) bylo rozhodnutím konečným.“[16]
 Ústavný súd ČR však upozornil na to, že postoj zákonodarcu a judikatúra Ústavného súdu ČR a ESĽP vychádzajú z odlišnej idey ako tej, ktorú v tomto prípade uplatnili všeobecné súdy. Najlepším záujmom dieťaťa je poskytnutie starostlivosti od oboch rodičov, samozrejme, za predpokladu splnenia zákonných podmienok, t. j. schopnosť a ochota oboch rodičov starať sa o zdravie dieťaťa, o jeho telesný, citový, rozumový a mravný vývoj, ako aj hlboký citový vzťah maloletého k obom rodičom.
 V takejto priaznivej situácii (za naplnenia zákonných predpokladov) by podľa názoru Ústavného súdu ČR malo ustanovenie striedavej starostlivosti predstavovať pravidlo.[17]
 Po prijatí analyzovaného nálezu prišiel ďalší, v ktorom Ústavný súd ČR označil striedavú starostlivosť za všeobecné pravidlo úpravy styku s maloletým, a to aj napriek skutočnosti, že tento záver zo zákonnej úpravy nevyplýva: „Pokud oba rodiče projevují o dítě skutečný zájem a chtějí jej mít v péči a zároveň oba naplňují relevantní objektivní kriteria ve zhruba stejné míře, čl. 10 odst. 2 Listiny a čl. 8 Evropské úmluvy ve spojení s čl. 32 odst. 4 Listiny a čl. 3 odst. 1 a čl. 18 odst. 1 Úmluvy o právech dítěte vytváří presumpci ve prospěch střídavé péče. Tuto presumpci lze vyvrátit, nicméně jsou k tomu zapotrěbi pádne důvody, mající oporu v ochraně najlepšího záujmu dítěte. Mezi tyto důvody patří například specifický zdravotní či psychický stav dítěte, v jehož důsledku by střídavá péče představovala pro dítě nepřiměřenou zátež, či velmi velká vzdálenost bydlišť rodičů, a to zejména v případech, kdy by tato velká vzdálenost mohla zásadním způsobem narušit školní docházku dítěte.“[18]
 Prítomný rozpor medzi ideou zákonnej úpravy o rovnosti všetkých modelov úpravy starostlivosti o dieťa po rozvode a aplikačnou praxou o prezumpcii inštitútu striedavej starostlivosti, si Ústavný súd ČR zrejme uvedomil a v snahe o korekciu svojich striktných názorov o tomto inštitúte v uznesení sp. zn. 1234/15, z 12. augusta 2015 uviedol, že jeho cieľom nebolo zaviesť normu, podľa ktorej má všeobecný súd v prípade úpravy k maloletým deťom rozhodnúť.
 Potvrdil aj zaužívanú súdnu prax, že v každom prípade je potrebné dbať na individualizáciu konkrétnych skutkových okolností a špecifík posudzovaného prípadu s dôrazom na najlepší záujem dieťaťa.[19]
 Na porovnanie uvádzame, že obdobný názor prevláda aj v aplikačnej praxi slovenských súdov. „Striedavá starostlivosť nie je normou, každý prípad treba posudzovať individuálne s prihliadnutím na konkrétne okolnosti a špecifiká prípadu. Striedavá starostlivosť by mala byť prioritou len za predpokladu, že sú splnené všetky zákonné podmienky.“ Pritom naplnenie týchto podmienok sa musí v konaní jednoznačne preukázať.[20]
 Vzhľadom na to, že z ustanovenia § 24 ods. 2 zákona č. 36/2005 Z. z. o rodine o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov a ktorým sa menia dopĺňajú niektoré zákony nevyplýva prezumpcia žiadneho modelu úpravy starostlivosti o dieťa po rozvode, je predovšetkým povinnosťou súdu, „aby v súlade s princípom nezávislosti rozhodovania súdnej moci, vzhľadom na zistený skutkový stav a vzhľadom na nezastupiteľné osobné skúsenosti vyplývajúce z bezprostredného kontaktu s účastníkmi konania a zo znalostí vývoja rodinnej situácie rozhodli o zverení maloletého do starostlivosti jedného alebo oboch rodičov“.[21]
 Vychádzajúc z analyzovaných rozhodnutí, zastávame názor, že cieľom Ústavného súdu ČR nebolo prelomiť zákonnú rovnosť existujúcich modelov úpravy starostlivosti o dieťa po rozvode, ale stanoviť doplňujúce kritériá vhodnosti tohto inštitútu.
 Základným kritériom, vyjadreným rovnako v českej právnej úprave ako aj v európskej úprave je prirodzene najlepší záujem dieťaťa.[22]
 V súlade s najlepším záujmom dieťaťa je, aby súd u každej osoby, ktorá má o uplatnenie striedavej starostlivosti úprimný záujem, posúdil všetky relevantné kritériá samostatne. Pritom ak sa preukáže, že jeden rodič zodpovedá skúmaným kritériám lepšie, bude v záujme dieťaťa, aby bolo zverené do starostlivosti tohto rodiča.[23]
 Ak sa naopak preukáže, že u všetkých posudzovaných osôb sú naplnené skúmané kritériá rovnako, žiada sa zveriť dieťa do striedavej alebo spoločnej starostlivosti všetkých týchto osôb.[24] „Je-li tedy svěření dítěte do péče každé z těchto osob v jeho nejlepším zájmu, pak je zpravidla v jeho nejlepším zájmu svěření do péče všech těchto osob současně, neboť jen takto jsou zajištěny podmínky pro všestranný rozvoj dítěte a jen takovým postupem lze minimalizovat zásah do rodinného života dítěte i o jeho svěření do péče usilujících osob.“[25]
 Povinnosť všeobecného súdu uvažovať o možnej prezumpcií striedavej starostlivosti, by teda mala nastúpiť až za predpokladu naplnenia všetkých zákonných kritérií. V takomto prípade by totiž mohla striedavá starostlivosť predstavovať najvhodnejšie riešenie odzrkadľujúce najlepší záujem dieťaťa.
 Autor: Bc. Sabina Demovičová
 Študent, Právnická fakulta Trnavskej univerzity v Trnave
 Case of Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy
 Case of Schneider v. Germany
 CICHLÁŘ, P. Problematika hodnotenia fungovania striedavej starostlivosti. In Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa, zborník odborných materiálov, rád, informácií a praktických skúseností o spoločnej porozvodovej starostlivosti o deti. [online]. Liga otcov. s. 41. Dostupné na internete: http://www.ligaotcov.eu/data/ligaotcov.eu/documents/KNIHA-striedavka--Liga-otcov.pdf
 CHALUPSKÁ, L. 2014. Střídavé péče novým standardem v péči o nezletilé? [online]. Dostupné na internete: https://www.pravniprostor.cz/clanky/obcanske-pravo/stridava-pece-novym-standardem-v-peci-o-nezletile
 European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters. Responsabilité parentale Belgique. [online].
 Dostupné na internete: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_parental_responsibility-302-be-en.do?clang=fr
 FABIANOVÁ, Z. – FRIŠTIKOVÁ, T. 2017. Judikatúra vo veciach úpravy práv a povinností k maloletým deťom. Bratislava : Wolters Kluwer, s. r. o., 2017. s. 45. ISBN 978-80-8168-597-2.
 FOREJTOVÁ, M. – GRYGEROVÁ, J. 2016. Otazníky nad presumpcí střídavé péče o nezletilé děti aneb vliv ESLP na judikaturu Ústavního soudu. In Bulletin advokacie. [online]. Dostupné na internete: http://www.bulletin-advokacie.cz/otazniky-nad-presumpci-stridave-pece-o-nezletile-deti-aneb-vliv-eslp-na-judikaturu-ustavniho-soudu
 LAZÁR, J. a kolektív. 2014. Občianske právo hmotné. 1. zväzok. 1. vydanie. Bratislava : IURIS LIBRI, spol. s r. o., 2014. s. 315. ISBN 978-80-89635-08-5.
 Striedavá starostlivosť vo Švédsku. [online]. Dostupné na internete: http://www.striedavka.sk/index.php/odborne-informacie/93-striedava-starostlivos-vo-vedsku.html
 SMATANOVÁ, L. – VALACHOVÁ, I. 2013. Inštitút osobnej striedavej starostlivosti. In Bulletin Slovenskej advokácie. ISSN 1335-1079, 2013, roč. IXX, č. 11, s. 21
 ŠVESTKA, J. – DVOŘÁK, J. – FIALA, J. – ZUKLÍNOVÁ, M. a kol. 2014. Občanský zákoník. Komentář. Svazek II. Praha : Wolters Kluwer, a. s.,2014. s. 549. ISBN 978-80-7478-457-6.
 TKÁČ, V. 2015. Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa v Európskej únii. Shared custody order in the European Union.In Nemecko-rumunsko-česko-slovenská medzinárodná konferencia „Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa v systéme sociálnoprávnej ochrany detí v EÚ“ In OLÁH, M. 2016. Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa „Cochemská prax“. Nadlak : Editura Ivan Krasko, 2016. s. 93. ISBN 978-973-107-106-0.
 VODIČKA, I. Střídavá výchova v Evropě – prezentácia. In Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa, zborník odborných materiálov, rád, informácií a praktických skúseností o spoločnej porozvodovej starostlivosti o deti. [online]. Liga otcov. s. 49. Dostupné na internete: http://www.ligaotcov.eu/data/ligaotcov.eu/documents/KNIHA-striedavka--Liga-otcov.pdf
 VODIČKA, J. 2010. Střídavá výchova ve světe. [online]. Dostupné na internete: http://www.stridavka.cz/stridava-vychova-ve-svete.html
 Nález Ústavného súdu ČR, sp. zn. I. ÚS 2482/13, z dňa 26. mája 2014
 Uznesenie Ústavného súdu ČR, sp. zn. I. ÚS 1554/14, z dňa 30. decembra 2014
 Uznesenie Ústavného súdu ČR, sp. zn. I. ÚS 1234/15, z dňa 12. augusta 2015
 Odkazy a citácie:
 [1]LAZÁR, J. a kolektív. 2014. Občianske právo hmotné. 1. zväzok. 1. vydanie. Bratislava : IURIS LIBRI, spol. s r. o., 2014. s. 315. ISBN 978-80-89635-08-5.
 [2]CICHLÁŘ, P. Problematika hodnotenia fungovania striedavej starostlivosti. In Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa, zborník odborných materiálov, rád, informácií a praktických skúseností o spoločnej porozvodovej starostlivosti o deti. [online]. Liga otcov. s. 41. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: http://www.ligaotcov.eu/data/ligaotcov.eu/documents/KNIHA-striedavka--Liga-otcov.pdf
 [3]SMATANOVÁ, L. – VALACHOVÁ, I. 2013. Inštitút osobnej striedavej starostlivosti. In Bulletin Slovenskej advokácie. ISSN 1335-1079, 2013, roč. IXX, č. 11, s. 21.
 [4] Pre úplnosť dodávame, že do výsledného počtu rozhodnutí o striedavej starostlivosti boli zahrnuté aj schválené rodičovské dohody o striedavej osobnej starostlivosti.
 [5]TKÁČ, V. 2015. Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa v Európskej únii. Shared custody order in the European Union.In Nemecko-rumunsko-česko-slovenská medzinárodná konferencia „Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa v systéme sociálnoprávnej ochrany detí v EÚ“ In OLÁH, M. 2016. Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa „Cochemská prax“. Nadlak : Editura Ivan Krasko, 2016. s. 92. ISBN 978-973-107-106-0.
 [6]VODIČKA, I. Střídavá výchova v Evropě – prezentácia. In Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa, zborník odborných materiálov, rád, informácií a praktických skúseností o spoločnej porozvodovej starostlivosti o deti. [online]. Liga otcov. s. 49. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: http://www.ligaotcov.eu/data/ligaotcov.eu/documents/KNIHA-striedavka--Liga-otcov.pdf
 [7]European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters. Responsabilité parentale Belgique. [online]. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_parental_responsibility-302-be-en.do?clang=fr
 [8]EuropeanJudicial Network in civil and commercial matters. Responsabilité parentale Belgique. [online]. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_parental_responsibility-302-be-en.do?clang=fr
 [9]VODIČKA, J. 2010. Střídavá výchova ve světe. [online]. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: http://www.stridavka.cz/stridava-vychova-ve-svete.html
 [10]Striedavá starostlivosť vo Švédsku. [online]. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: http://www.striedavka.sk/index.php/odborne-informacie/93-striedava-starostlivos-vo-vedsku.html
 [11]Striedavá starostlivosť vo Švédsku. [online]. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: http://www.striedavka.sk/index.php/odborne-informacie/93-striedava-starostlivos-vo-vedsku.html
 [12]ŠVESTKA, J. – DVOŘÁK, J. – FIALA, J. – ZUKLÍNOVÁ, M. a kol. 2014. Občanský zákoník. Komentář. Svazek II. Praha : Wolters Kluwer, a. s.,2014. s. 549. ISBN 978-80-7478-457-6.
 [13]FOREJTOVÁ, M. – GRYGEROVÁ, J. 2016. Otazníky nad presumpcí střídavé péče o nezletilé děti aneb vliv ESLP na judikaturu Ústavního soudu.In Bulletin advokacie. [online]. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: http://www.bulletin-advokacie.cz/otazniky-nad-presumpci-stridave-pece-o-nezletile-deti-aneb-vliv-eslp-na-judikaturu-ustavniho-soudu
 [14]CHALUPSKÁ, L. 2014. Střídavé péče novým standardem v péči o nezletilé? [online]. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: https://www.pravniprostor.cz/clanky/obcanske-pravo/stridava-pece-novym-standardem-v-peci-o-nezletile
 [15]FOREJTOVÁ, M. – GRYGEROVÁ, J. 2016. Otazníky nad presumpcí střídavé péče o nezletilé děti aneb vliv ESLP na judikaturu Ústavního soudu.In Bulletin advokacie. [online]. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: http://www.bulletin-advokacie.cz/otazniky-nad-presumpci-stridave-pece-o-nezletile-deti-aneb-vliv-eslp-na-judikaturu-ustavniho-soudu
 [16]Nález Ústavného súdu ČR, sp. zn. I. ÚS 2482/13, z dňa 26. mája 2014
 [17]Nález Ústavného súdu ČR, sp. zn. I. ÚS 2482/13, z dňa 26. mája 2014
 [18]Uznesenie Ústavného súdu ČR, sp. zn. I. ÚS 1554/14, z dňa 30. decembra 2014
 [19]Uznesenie Ústavného súdu ČR, sp. zn. I. ÚS 1234/15, z dňa 12. augusta 2015
 [20]FABIANOVÁ, Z. – FRIŠTIKOVÁ, T. 2017. Judikatúra vo veciach úpravy práv a povinností k maloletým deťom. Bratislava : Wolters Kluwer, s. r. o., 2017. s. 44. ISBN 978-80-8168-597-2.
 [21]FABIANOVÁ, Z. – FRIŠTIKOVÁ, T. 2017. Judikatúra vo veciach úpravy práv a povinností k maloletým deťom. Bratislava : Wolters Kluwer, s. r. o., 2017. s. 45. ISBN 978-80-8168-597-2.
 [22]FOREJTOVÁ, M. – GRYGEROVÁ, J. 2016. Otazníky nad presumpcí střídavé péče o nezletilé děti aneb vliv ESLP na judikaturu Ústavního soudu.In Bulletin advokacie. [online]. [cit. 2017.09.26.] Dostupné na internete: http://www.bulletin-advokacie.cz/otazniky-nad-presumpci-stridave-pece-o-nezletile-deti-aneb-vliv-eslp-na-judikaturu-ustavniho-soudu
 [23]Uznesenie Ústavného súdu ČR, sp. zn. I. ÚS 1554/14, z dňa 30. decembra 2014
 [24]Case of Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy
 [25]Case of Schneider v. Germany
 Hlasovalo: 596
 Plynutie lehôt vo vzťahu dovolania a ústavnej sťažnosti
 ÚS ČR pripustil, že striedavá starostlivosť nie je vždy v záujme dieťaťa
 Striedavá osobná starostlivosť o dieťa a kvalita komunikácie medzi rodičmi
 Právne aspekty striedavej osobnej starostlivosti
 Záujem dieťaťa je dôležitejší než stabilita výchovného prostredia
 Predpoklady pre zverenie do striedavej osobnej starostlivosti
 Kritériá pre zverenie dieťaťa do striedavej osobnej starostlivosti
 Nesúhlas matky so zverením maloletého dieťaťa do striedavej osobnej starostlivosti
 Istotu a bezpečnosť dieťaťu dodávajú obaja rodičia
 Neprípustnosť dovolania vo veci rozvodu manželstva
 Vzdialenosť bydliska rodičov nie je prekážkou striedavej starostlivosti o dieťa
 Pri zverení dieťaťa je kritériom predovšetkým miera zachovania jeho identity a rodinných väzieb
 Antispam: 7+5 *
 mediácia trovy konania judikatúra dedenie rekodifikácia náhrada škody ochrana osobnosti premlčanie súdne poplatky exekúcia odvolanie dokazovanie podielové spoluvlastníctvo oslobodenie od súdnych poplatkov bezpodielové spoluvlastníctvo manželov náhrada trov konania spotrebiteľ úroky z omeškania dovolanie verejné obstarávanie
 Návštev: 12238039 | Pravidlá používania portálu | Napíšte nám | Tvorba web stránok, www.webcreators.sk | Webhosting - HostCreators | Admin


type: caselaw

text:
 4.5.2013
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 129/4
 Usnesení Soudního dvora (osmého senátu) ze dne 7. března 2013 (žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce Juzgado de lo Social — Španělsko) — Rafaela Rivas Montes v. Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)
 (Věc C-178/12) (1)
 (Článek 53 odst. 2 a článek 99 jednacího řádu Soudního dvora - Sociální politika - Zásada rovného zacházení - Směrnice 1999/70/CE - Rámcová dohoda CES, UNICE a CEEP o pracovních poměrech na dobu určitou - Ustanovení 4 - Pracovní smlouvy na dobu určitou ve veřejném sektoru - Stanovení počtu odpracovaných let - Rozdílné zacházení se zaměstnanci v úředním poměru a se smluvními zaměstnanci - Započtení dříve vykonávané služby v rámci veřejné správy - Zjevná nepříslušnost Soudního dvora)
 2013/C 129/06
 Jednací jazyk: španělština
 Předkládající soud
 Juzgado de lo Social
 Účastníci původního řízení
 Žalobkyně: Rafaela Rivas Montes
 Žalovaný: Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)
 Předmět věci
 Žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce — Juzgado de lo Social — Výklad čl. 45 odst. 4 SFEU — Vnitrostátní právní úprava upravující způsob výpočtu příplatku za odpracovaná léta ve veřejné službě — Uplatňování odlišných pravidel podle povahy úřední nebo smluvní povahy pracovního poměru ze strany veřejné správy — Nezohlednění některých dob odpracovaných zaměstnanci, kteří nejsou v úředním poměru
 Výrok
 Soudní dvůr Evropské unie je zjevně nepříslušný k zodpovězení předběžných otázek položených rozhodnutím Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba (Španělsko) ze dne 27. února 2012
 (1) Úř. věst. C 209, 14.7.2012.


text:
 21.4.2005
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 L 102/4
 ΑΠΌΦΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΜΕΙΚΤΉΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΉΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΟX
 αριθ. 140/2004,
 της 29ης Οκτωβρίου 2004,
 για την τροποποίηση του παραρτήματος Ι (Κτηνιατρικά και φυτοϋγειονομικά θέματα) της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ
 Η ΜΕΙΚΤΗ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ TOY ΕΟΧ,
 Έχοντας υπόψη τη συμφωνία για τον Ευρωπαϊκό Οικονομικό Χώρο, όπως τροποποιήθηκε από το πρωτόκολλο προσαρμογής της συμφωνίας για τον Ευρωπαϊκό Οικονομικό Χώρο, εφεξής «η συμφωνία», και ιδίως το άρθρο 98,
 Εκτιμώντας τα ακόλουθα:
 (1)
 Το παράρτημα I της συμφωνίας τροποποιήθηκε με την απόφαση αριθ. 96/2004 της Μεικτής Επιτροπής του ΕΟΧ, της 9ης Ιουλίου 2004 (1).
 (2)
 Ο κανονισμός (ΕΚ) αριθ. 879/2004 της Επιτροπής, της 29ης Απριλίου 2004, για την προσωρινή έγκριση νέας χρήσης μιας ήδη εγκεκριμένης πρόσθετης ύλης στις ζωοτροφές (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) (2), όπως διορθώθηκε στην ΕΕ L 180 της 15.5.2004, σ. 30, πρέπει να ενσωματωθεί στη συμφωνία.
 (3)
 Ο κανονισμός (ΕΚ) αριθ. 880/2004 της Επιτροπής, της 29ης Απριλίου 2004, για την έγκριση χωρίς χρονικό περιορισμό της χρήσης της βήτα-καροτίνης και της κανθαξανθίνης ως πρόσθετων υλών για ζωοτροφές που ανήκουν στην ομάδα των χρωστικών υλών, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των πιγμέντων (3), πρέπει να ενσωματωθεί στη συμφωνία,
 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΙΖΕΙ:
 Άρθρο 1
 Μετά το σημείο 1λθ [κανονισμός (ΕΚ) αριθ. 490/2004 της Επιτροπής] στο κεφάλαιο ΙΙ του παραρτήματος Ι της συμφωνίας παρεμβάλλονται τα ακόλουθα σημεία:
 «1μ.
 32004 R 0879: Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) αριθ. 879/2004 της Επιτροπής, της 29ης Απριλίου 2004, για την προσωρινή έγκριση νέας χρήσης μιας ήδη εγκεκριμένης πρόσθετης ύλης στις ζωοτροφές (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) (ΕΕ L 162 της 30.4.2004, σ. 65), όπως διορθώθηκε με την ΕΕ L 180 της 15.5.2004, σ. 30.
 1μα.
 32004 R 0880: Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) αριθ. 880/2004 της Επιτροπής, της 29ης Απριλίου 2004, για την έγκριση χωρίς χρονικό περιορισμό της χρήσης της βήτα-καροτίνης και της κανθαξανθίνης ως πρόσθετων υλών για ζωοτροφές που ανήκουν στην ομάδα των χρωστικών υλών, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των πιγμέντων (ΕΕ L 162 της 30.4.2004, σ. 68).».
 Άρθρο 2
 Τα κείμενα των κανονισμών (ΕΚ) αριθ. 879/2004, όπως διορθώθηκε στην ΕΕ L 180 της 15.5.2004, σ. 30, και (ΕΚ) αριθ. 880/2004 στην ισλανδική και νορβηγική γλώσσα, τα οποία δημοσιεύονται στο συμπλήρωμα για τον ΕΟΧ της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων, είναι αυθεντικά.
 Άρθρο 3
 Η παρούσα απόφαση αρχίζει να ισχύει στις 30 Οκτωβρίου 2004, υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι έχουν πραγματοποιηθεί προς τη Μεικτή Επιτροπή του ΕΟΧ όλες οι κοινοποιήσεις που προβλέπει το άρθρο 103 παράγραφος 1 της συμφωνίας (4).
 Άρθρο 4
 Η παρούσα απόφαση δημοσιεύεται στο τμήμα για τον ΕΟΧ και στο συμπλήρωμα για τον ΕΟΧ της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
 Βρυξέλλες, 29 Οκτωβρίου 2004.
 Για τη Μεικτή Επιτροπή του ΕΟΧ
 Ο Πρόεδρος
 Kjartan JÓHANNSSON
 (1) ΕΕ L 376 της 23.12.2004, σ. 17.
 (2) ΕΕ L 162 της 30.4.2004, σ. 65.
 (3) ΕΕ L 162 της 30.4.2004, σ. 68.
 (4) Δεν έχουν αναφερθεί συνταγματικές απαιτήσεις.


text:
Kinnine nimekiri (ka suletud nimekiri) on valimiste reegel, mille puhul määrab kandidaatide järjekorra partei nimekirjas kindlaks partei ning pärast valimisi jagatakse valimisnimekirja poolt saadud mandaadid vastavalt sellele nimekirja järjestusele.
 Kui nimekiri (erakond või valimisliit) on ületanud valimiskünnise, vajadusel on välja jagatud isikumandaadid, siis ülejäänud saadud kohad jagatakse vastavalt nimekirjale, alustades jagamist valiminimekirja algusest. Nii saavad eelise eespool olevad kandidaadid ja nimekirjas tagapool olevate kandidaatide võimalus saada valituks on väike. Ainuke võimalus kindlale isikule häält anda on sellisel juhul hääletada üksikkandidaadi poolt või kui nimekirja kandidaadil õnnestub kindlalt kokku saada isikumandaadi jagu hääli.
 Eestis kasutatakse kinniseid nimekirjasid Riigikogu valimistel kompensatsioonimandaatide jagamisel. Mandaadid jagatakse üleriigilise nimekirja põhjal. Eestis on mitmeid kordi teemaks võetud Riigikogu valimistel nimekirjade avamine, aga seni on need avatuks muutmise katsed jäänud tulutuks.
 Kohalikel valimistel kasutatakse avatud nimekirjade põhimõtet, välja arvatud Tallinna linna kompensatsioonimandaatide jagamisel, kus mandaadi saab kandidaat, kes on ülelinnalises nimekirjas eespool.
 Sellist valimissüsteemi kasutatakse veel ka näiteks Hispaanias, samuti Saksamaal ja Uus-Meremaal võrdelise valimissüsteemi alusel valitud saadikute puhul.
 Viited
 Valimised


text:
27.6.2019
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 174/66
 EEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMAS
 Nr. 192/2017
 2017 m. rugsėjo 22 d.
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas EEE susitarimo XXII priedas (Bendrovių teisė) [2019/1079]
 EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,
 atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau – EEE susitarimas), ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2016 m. rugsėjo 22 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) 2016/1905, kuriuo dėl 15-ojo tarptautinio finansinės atskaitomybės standarto iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1126/2008, priimantis tam tikrus tarptautinius apskaitos standartus pagal Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 1606/2002 (1);
 (2)
 todėl EEE susitarimo XXII priedas turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeistas,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 EEE susitarimo XXII priedo 10ba punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1126/2008) papildomas šia įtrauka:
 „—
 32016 R 1905: 2016 m. rugsėjo 22 d. Komisijos reglamentu (ES) 2016/1905 (OL L 295, 2016 10 29, p. 19).“
 2 straipsnis
 Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede skelbtinas Reglamento (ES) 2016/1905 tekstas islandų ir norvegų kalbomis yra autentiškas.
 3 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja 2017 m. rugsėjo 23 d., jei pateikti visi pranešimai pagal EEE susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį (*1).
 4 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE dalyje ir EEE priede.
 Priimta Briuselyje 2017 m. rugsėjo 22 d.
 EEE jungtinio komiteto vardu
 Pirmininkė
 Sabine MONAUNI
 (1) OL L 295, 2016 10 29, p. 19.
 (*1) Konstitucinių reikalavimų nenurodyta.


text:
Mats Lilienberg, född 22 december 1969 i Vollsjö, är en svensk före detta fotbollsspelare, känd för sin kvickhet och målfarlighet som anfallare. Lilienberg gjorde sex landskamper och ett mål i landslaget under sin karriär. Inför 2022 blev han klar som tränare för Marieholms IS.
 Karriär
 Lilienberg kom till Trelleborgs FF 1990. Han var en bidragande orsak till att Trelleborg gick upp i Allsvenskan, där han 1993 vann skytteligan på 18 mål (delad skytteligavinst med Halmstad BK:s Henrik Bertilsson). Intresset för Lilienberg var efter skytteligavinsten stort och den tyska klubben 1860 München drog det längsta strået. Det gick dock inget vidare i Bundesliga, vilket fick Mats Lilienberg att söka sig tillbaka till Sverige, närmare bestämt till IFK Göteborg, där han vann både SM-guld och gjorde mål i Champions League, mot Bayern München.
 Halmstad blev nästa hållplats i karriären och där var succén given: 1997 vann Halmstad SM-guld mycket tack vare Fredrik Ljungberg och Mats Lilienberg, som med sina 14 mål åter vann skytteligan. I Ljungbergs avslutningsmatch, den sista före flytten till Arsenal, gjorde Mats Lilienberg 4 mål.
 MFF köpte sedan över guldklimpen. Karriären i MFF gick dock upp och ner, och Lilienbergs plats i startelvan var inte alltid självklar. Efter sextio raka säsonger åkte MFF 1999 ur Allsvenskan, men kom tillbaka efter endast ett år i Superettan. Mats Lilienberg bildade under tiden i Malmö FF ofta anfallspar med Zlatan. När laget väl var uppe i den högsta serien igen var konkurrensen om anfallsplatserna mycket hård då Markus Rosenberg var på väg fram i laget.
 Lilienberg valde 2002 att skriva på för Trelleborgs FF. Han gjorde således comeback i TFF, som då var en klubb i kris och som låg under nedflyttningsstrecket i Superettan. Tillsammans med det estländska nyförvärvet, anfallaren Vitali Gussev, räddade Lilienberg laget från att åka ur, och året därpå kvalificerade sig Trelleborg än en gång för Allsvenskan. Under säsongen 2003 i Superettan gjorde Lilienberg hela 18 mål. Säsongen 2004 gick emellertid varken TFF:s eller Lilienbergs vägar - laget åkte ur och han gjorde klart att heltidskarriären var slut, efter nästan 15 år på elitnivå.
 Mats Lilienberg tog därefter upp en tränarkarriär i Höörs IS. Den 11 oktober 2016 tog han jobbet som huvudtränare i division 3-nykomlingen Hörby FF I oktober 2018 bytte han till IF Lödde.
 Meriter
 6 A-landskamper för Sverige, 1 mål
 Allsvensk skyttekung 1993, 1997
 Klubbar
 Trelleborgs FF (1990–1993)
 1860 München (1993–1995)
 IFK Göteborg (1995–1996)
 Halmstads BK (1997–1998)
 Malmö FF (1999–2002)
 Trelleborgs FF (2002–2004)
 Höörs IS (2004–)
 Postens IF (2013)
 Referenser
 Webbsidor
 Lista på landskamper, ''svenskfotboll.se, läst 2013 01 29
 Noter
 Födda 1969
 Svenska fotbollsspelare
 Spelare i Trelleborgs FF
 Spelare i Malmö FF
 Spelare i IFK Göteborg
 Spelare i Halmstads BK
 Spelare i 1860 München
 Män
 Levande personer
 Personer från Vollsjö socken
 Svenska mästare i fotboll
 Svenska landslagsspelare i fotboll
 Spelare i Fotbollsallsvenskan


text:
Andrew S. Tanenbaum () este un informatician american, profesor în cadrul Universității Vrije din Amsterdam, unde predă cursuri de Arhitectura calculatoarelor și Sisteme de operare.
 Este cunoscut în special datorită cărților sale:
 Computer Networks
 Operating Systems: Design and Implementation
 Modern Operating Systems
 Este creatorul sistemului de operare demonstrativ Minix, o clonă a UNIX-ului, sistem care l-a inspirat pe Linus Torvalds în dezvoltarea Linux-ului.
 Note
 Legături externe
 Pagina personală
 Vezi și
 Programatori celebri
 Nașteri în 1944
 Programatori americani
 Americani în viață
 Membri ai Academiei Regale Neerlandeze de Arte și Științe


type: legislation

text:
ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
 DE LA COMMISSION
 COLLECTION RELIEE DES
 DOCUMENTS "COM"
 COM (88) 676
 Vol. 1988/0223
 ---pagebreak--- Disclaimer
 Conformément au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 concernant
 l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique européenne et de
 la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, p. 1) modifié en dernier
 lieu par le règlement (UE) 2015/496 du Conseil du 17 mars 2015 (JO L79 du 25. 3.2015, p. 1), ce
 dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents classifiés présents dans ce dossier
 ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit règlement ou sont considérés déclassifiés
 conformément aux articles 26(3) et 59(2) de la décision (UE, Euratom) 2015/444 de la
 Commission du 13 mars 2015 concernant les règles de sécurité aux fins de la protection des
 informations classifiées de l'Union européenne.
 In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 concerning
 the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the
 European Atomic Energy Community (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as last amended by Council
 Regulation (EU) 2015/496 of 17 March 2015 (OJ L 79, 27.3.2015, p. 1), this file is open to the
 public. Where necessary, classified documents in this file have been declassified in conformity
 with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation or are considered declassified in conformity with
 Articles (26.3) and 59(2) of the Commission Decision (EU, Euratom) 2015/444 of 13 March 2015
 on the security rules for protecting EU classified information.
 In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom 1. Februar
 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und
 der Europäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L 43 vom 15.2.1983, S. 1), zuletzt geändert durch die
 Verordnung (EU) Nr. 2015/496 vom 17. März 2015 (ABI. L 79 vom 25.3.2015, S. 1), ist dieser Akt
 der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in diesem Akt in
 Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5 der genannten Verordnung freigegeben; beziehungsweise werden
 sie auf Grundlage von Artikel 26(3) und 59(2) der Entscheidung der Kommission (EU, Euratom)
 2015/444 vom 13. März 2015 über die Sicherheitsvorschriften für den Schutz von EU-
 Verschlusssachen als herabgestuft angesehen.
 ---pagebreak--- COMISSÃO DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS
 COM(88 ) 676 final
 Bruxelas , 16 de Novembro de 1988
 Proposta de
 REGULAMENTO ( CEE ) DO CONSELHO
 que altera o Regulamento ( CEE ) n° 3205/ 88 no que respeita a certos
 aparelhos fotocopiadores de papel normal montados na Comunidade
 pela Matsushita Business Machine ( Europe ) GmbH e
 pela Toshiba Systèmes ( France ) S.A.
 ( Apresentada pela Comissão )
 /ta o\
 fît
 Lî- d
 1 â^ .'fà ■; t
 >
 : - JQ
 "I
 . ! C' I
 Wâ Serti duGsnéfJ
 Sorti i!u So.r- lé -hth i . , 'W.Mj
 Sc-.rr.d-
 Qéné^l
 ---pagebreak--- C Ô?1'? * ^
 Exposé des mot I fs
 1. Par son règlement ( CEE ) n 8 535/87Î 1 ), le Conseil a Inslstué un
 droit anti-dumping définitif sur les Importations de photocopieurs à
 papier ordinaire ( PPC ) originaires du Japon .
 2. En Janvier 1988 la Commission a été saisie d' une plainte émanant ce
 producteurs communautaires de PPC , alléguant que le droit
 anti-dumping Institué par le réglement ( CEE ) n° 535 / 87 était
 contourné par l' assemblage du produit en cause dans la Communauté
 . dans les conditions visées à l' article 13 paragraphe 10 du règlement
 ( CEE ) n 8 du 2423/88 du 11 Juillet 1988 ( 2 ).
 3. En février 1988 , la Commission a ouvert une enquête conformément à
 l' article 13 pargraphe 10 concernant les opérations d' assemblage de
 PPC de filiales de sociétés Japonaises dont les produits avalent été
 soumis au droit ant I -dumping définitif .
 4. La moyenne pondérée des composants Japonais pour tous les modèles
 fabriqués par Canon Giessen ( A ) et 0 I I vett I -Canon ( I ) s' est averée
 être Inférieure à 60% . En outre Canon Bretagne ( F ), F Irma Develop
 Dr Elsbeln ( D ) et Ricoh ( RU ) ont offert des engagements qui ont été
 acceptés par la Commission . La procédure a donc été , en ce qui
 4
 concerne ces entreprises , clôturée par la décision ( CEE ) n 8 88/ 51L
 de la Commission .
 Pour ce qui est des entreprises restantes Konlca ( A ), Matsushita ( A )
 et Toshiba ( F ), le droit anti-dumping définitif a été étendu aux
 produits assemblés dans la Communauté par le réglement
 ( CEE ) n 8 3205 / 88 du Conseil .
 5. En 1988 Matsushita et Toshiba ont offert des engagements . Après in
 contrôle dans les locaux de ces entreprises et . après consultation ,
 la Commission a accepté ces engagements .
 6. Par conséquent II est proposé de modifier le réglement ( CEE )
 n° 3205 /88 étendant le droit anti-dumping à certains PPC assemblés
 ou fabriqués dans la Communauté , en ce qui concerne Matsushita et
 Tosh iba .
 ( 1 ) J0 N 8 L 54 , 24.02.1987 , p. 12
 ( 2 ) J0 N° L 209 , 02.08.1988 , p. 1
 ---pagebreak--- Proposta de
 REGULAMENTO ( CEE ) DO CONSELHO
 que altera o Regulamento ( CEE ) nQ 3205 / 88 no que respeita a certos
 aparelhos fotocopiadores de papel normal montados na Comunidade
 pela Matsushita Business Machine ( Europe) GmbH e
 pela Toshiba Systèmes ( France ) S.A.
 0 CONSELHO DAS COM"MIDADES EUROPFTAS ,
 Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Económica Europeia ,
 Tendo em conta o Regulamento ( CEE ) nQ 2423 / 88 do Conselho , de 11 de Julho
 de 1988, relativo à defesa contra as importações que são o.bjecto de '
 dumpi ng ou de subvenções por parte de paises. não membros da Comunidade
 Económica Europeia ( 1 ) e , nomeadamente , o nQ 10 do seu artigo 13Q ,
 Tendo em conta a proposta da Comissão, apresentada após consultas realiza¬
 das no âmbito do Comité Consultivo tal como previsto pelo referido regulamento.
 Considerando o seguirte :
 1 . 0 Conselho, pelo Regulamento ( CEE ) nQ3205'88 ( 2 ), tornou extensivo o
 direito anti-dumping criado pelo Regulamento ( CEE ) nQ 535 / 87 ( 3 )
 a certos aparelhos fotocopiadores para papel normal ( PPCs ) montados
 na Comunidade pela Konica Business Machines Manufacturi ng GmbH , pela
 Matsushita Business Machine ( Europa ) GmbH e pela Toshiba Systèmes
 ( França ) S.A. No decurso do processo, a Canon Bretagne SA, a Firma
 Develop Dr Eisbein GmbH e a Ricoh UK Products Ltd ofereceram compro¬
 missos que foram aceites pela Decisão 88 / 519/ CEE da Comissão ( 4 ).
 2 . Posteriormente , a Matsushita Business Machine ( Europe ) GmbH e a
 Toshiba Systèmes ( France ) S.A. ofereceram compromissos . A Comissão ve¬
 rificou, nas instalações destas empresas , que os compromissos elimina¬
 vam as condições que justificavam a extensão do direito anti-dumpi ng
 aos PPCs montados na Comunidade pelo Regulamento ( CEE ) nQ3205/ 88 .
 (1 ) JO nû L 209 de 2.8.1988, p. 1 .
 ( 2) JO nQ L 284 de 19.10.1988, p. 36
 (3) JO nQ L 54 de 24.2.1987, p. 12 .
 (4 ) JO nQ L 284 , 19.10.1988, p. 60 .
 3
 ---pagebreak--- Os compromissos deram igualmente garantias satisfatórias no que respeita
 à origem futura das peças e dos materiais, bem como a outros aspectos das
 operações de montagem das empresas em questão na Comunidade .
 3 . A Comissão decidiu, após consultas , aceitar estes compromissos .
 4 . Nestas circunstâncias , o Regulamento ( CEE ) nQ 3205'88 que torna
 extensivo o direito anti-dumping a certos PPCs montados
 na Comunidade , deve ser alterado no que diz
 respeito à Matsushita Business Machine ( Europe ) GmbH e à Toshiba
 Systèmes ( France ) S.A.
 5. Julga -se adequado que o direito seja cobrado até à data de
 aceitação dos compromissos pela Comissão, considerando o Conselho
 que a partir dessa data a aderência aos termos dos compromissos elimina
 fugas ao direito anti-dumping e que a não aderência implicará à
 aplicação do Art° 10 . n “ 6 do Regulamento ( CEE) n° 2423 /88 .
 AD0PT0U 0 PRESENTE REGULAMENTO :
 Artigo 1Q
 0 artigo 1Q do Regulamento ( CEE ) nQ 3205 /88 passa a ter a seguinte
 redacção :
 "1 . 0 direito anti-dumping definitivo criado pelo Regulamento ( CEE )
 nQ 535 / 87 sobre as importações de aparelhos fotocopiadores de papel
 normal com sistema óptico incorporado, originárias do Japão, é igual¬
 mente criado sobre os aparelhos fotocopiadores de papel normal com
 sistema óptico incorporado, correspondentes aos códigos da Nomencla¬
 tura Combinada ex 9009 11 00, ex 9009 12 00 e ex 9009 21 00, coloca¬
 dos no mercado comunitário após terem sido montados na Comunidade
 pela Konica Business Machine Manufacturing GmbH , Luneburg .
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . A taxa do direito é de 225 ecus por unidade montada pela Konica
 Business Machines Manuf acturi ng GmbH ."
 Artigo 2Q
 0 presente regulamento entra em vigor na data da sua publicação no Jornal
 Oficial das Comunidades Europeias .
 Produz efeitos a partir de
 0 presente regulamento é obrigatório em todos os seus elementos e
 directamente aplicável em todos os Estados-membros .
 Feito em Bruxelas , Pelo Conselho,


text:
 Avviż Legali Importanti
 |
 22006A1207(01)
 Protokoll li jemenda l-Ftehim ta’ Stabbilizzazzjoni u Assoċjazzjoni bejn il-Komunitajiet Ewropej u l-Istati Membri tagħhom, fuq naħa waħda, u r-Repubblika tal-Kroazja, fuq in-naħa l-oħra, dwar kwoti tariffarji fuq iz-zokkor u l-prodotti taz-zokkor li joriġinaw mill-Kroazja jew mill-Komunità
 Official Journal L 341 , 07/12/2006 P. 0033 - 0036 Official Journal L 200 , 01/08/2007 P. 0281 - 0284
 20061113Protokollli jemenda l-Ftehim ta' Stabbilizzazzjoni u Assoċjazzjoni bejn il-Komunitajiet Ewropej u l-Istati Membri tagħhom, fuq naħa waħda, u r-Repubblika tal-Kroazja, fuq in-naħa l-oħra, dwar kwoti tariffarji fuq iz-zokkor u l-prodotti taz-zokkor li joriġinaw mill-Kroazja jew mill-KomunitàIL-KOMUNITÀ EWROPEA, minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejħa "il-Komunità",fuq naħa waħda, uIR-REPUBBLIKA TAL-KROAZJA, minn hawn ‘il quddiem imsejħa "il-Kroazja",min-naħa l-oħra,Billi:(1) Il-Ftehim ta’ Stabbilizzazzjoni u Assoċjazzjoni bejn il-Komunitajiet Ewropej u l-Istati Membri tagħhom, fuq naħa waħda, u r-Repubblika tal-Kroazja, fuq in-naħa l-oħra, (minn hawn ’il quddiem imsejjaħ "l-FSA") kien iffirmat fil-Lussemburgu nhar id- 29 ta’ Ottubru 2001 u daħal fis-seħħ nhar l- 1 ta' Frar 2005.(2) Seħħew negozjati biex jibdlu l-arranġamenti preferenzjali fil-FSA fir-rigward taz-zokkor u l-prodotti taz-zokkor li joriġinaw mill-Kroazja jew mill-Komunità.(3) L-emendi xierqa għall-FSA għandhom jiġu adottati,FTIEHMU KIF ĠEJ:Artikolu 1Il-FSA huwa b' dan emendat kif ġej:1) L-Artikolu 27 għandu jiġi emendat kif ġej:(a) fil-paragrafu 1, l-ewwel subparagrafu għandu jinbidel b'dan li ġej:"1. Il-Komunità għandha tabolixxi l-ħlasijiet u d-dazji tad-dwana li għandhom effett ekwivalenti fuq l-importazzjonijiet ta’ prodotti agrikoli li joriġinaw mill-Kroazja, għajr dawk bit-titli Nri 0102, 0201, 0202, 1701, 1702 u 2204 tan-Nomenklatura Magħquda.";(b) għandu jiżdied il-paragrafu (5) li ġej:"5. L-Anness IV(h) jistipola ċerti arranġamenti tal-kummerċ li għandhom ikunu applikati għaz-zokkor u l-prodotti taz-zokkor taħt it-titli Nri 1701 u 1702 tan-Nomenklatura Magħquda."2) Fl-Anness IV, it-test fl-Anness ta' din id-Deċiżjoni għandu jiġi miżjud bħala l-Anness IV(h).3) Fit-tabella fl-Anness I tal-Protokoll 3, għandhom jitħassru r-referenzi li ġejjin:"17025000 — Fruktożju kimikalment pur","17029010 — Maltożju kimikalment pur".Artikolu 2Il-partijiet għandhom jiltaqgħu fit-tieni nofs ta' l-2008 biex jirrevedu l-effetti ta' dan il-Protokoll.Artikolu 3Dan il-Protokoll għandu jifforma parti integrali mill-FSA.Artikolu 4Dan il-Protokoll għandu jidħol fis-seħħ fl- 1 ta' Jannar 2007.Artikolu 5Dan il-Protokoll qed jitfassal f'żewġ kopji biċ-Ċek, id-Daniż, l-Olandiż, l-Ingliż, l-Estonjan, il-Finlandiż, il-Franċiż, il-Ġermaniż, il-Grieg, l-Ungeriż, it-Taljan, il-Latvjan, il-Litwan, il-Malti, il-Pollakk, il-Portugiż, is-Slovakk, is-Sloven, l-Ispanjol, l-Iżvediż, u l-Kroat, kull wieħed minn dawn it-testi huwa awtentiku bl-istess mod.Hecho en Zagreb, el veintiocho de noviembre de dos mil seis.V Záhřebu dne dvacátého osmého listopadu dva tisíce šest.Udfærdiget i Zagreb den otteogtyvende november to tusind og seks.Geschehen zu Zagreb am achtundzwanzigsten November zweitausendundsechs.Koostatud kahekümne kaheksandal novembril kahe tuhande kuuendal aastal Zagrebis.Έγινε στο Ζάγκρεμπ στις είκοσι οκτώ Νοεμβρίου δύο χιλιάδες έξι.Done at Zagreb on the twenty-eighth day of November in the year two thousand and six.Fait à Zagreb, le vingt-huit novembre deux mille six.Fatto a Zagabria, addì ventotto novembre duemilasei.Zagrebā, divi tūkstoši sestā gada divdesmit astotajā novembrī.Priimta Zagrebe, du tūkstančiai šeštų metų lapkričio dvidešimt aštuntą dieną.Kelt Zágrábban, a kétezer-hatodik év november havának huszonnyolcadik napján.Magħmul f'Żagreb fit- tmienja u għoxrin jum ta' Novembru fis-sena elfejn u sitta.Gedaan te Zagreb, de achtentwintigste november tweeduizend en zes.Sporządzono w Zagrzebiu dnia dwudziestego ósmego listopada dwa tysiące szóstego roku.Feito em Zagrebe, aos vinte e oito dias do mês de Novembro do ano de dois mil e seis.V Záhrebe dvadsiateho ôsmeho novembra dvetisícšesť.V Zagrebu, dne osemindvajsetega novembra, leta dva tisoč šest.Tehty Zagrebissa kahdentenakymmenentenäkahdeksantena päivänä marraskuuta vuonna kaksituhattakuusi.Utfärdat i Zagreb den tjuguåttonde november år tvåtusensex.Sastavljeno u Zagrebu dana dvadesetosmog studenoga dvije tisuće i šeste godine.Por la Comunidad EuropeaZa Evropské společenstvíFor Det Europæiske FællesskabFür die Europäische GemeinschaftEuroopa Ühenduse nimelΓια την Ευρωπαϊκή ΚοινότηταFor the European CommunityPour la Communauté européennePer la Comunità europeaEiropas Kopienas vārdāEuropos bendrijos varduAz Európai Közösség részérőlGħall-Komunità EwropeaVoor de Europese GemeenschapW imieniu Wspólnoty EuropejskiejPela Comunidade EuropeiaZa Európske spoločenstvoZa Evropsko skupnostEuroopan yhteisön puolestaFör Europeiska gemenskapenZa Europsku zajednicu+++++ TIFF +++++Por la República de CroaciaZa Chorvatskou republikuFor Republikken KroatienFür die Republik KroatienHorvaatia Vabariigi nimelΓια τη Δημοκρατία της ΚροατίαςFor the Republic of CroatiaPour la République de CroatiePer la Repubblica di CroaziaHorvātijas Republikas vārdāKroatijos Respublikos varduA Horvát Köztársaság részérőlGħar-Repubblika tal-KroazjaVoor de Republiek KroatiëW imieniu Republiki ChorwacjiPela República da CroáciaZa Chorvátsku republikuZa Republiko HrvaškoKroatian tasavallan puolestaFör Republiken KroatienZa Republiku Hrvatsku+++++ TIFF +++++--------------------------------------------------20061113ANNESS"20061113"L-ANNESS IV(h)imsemmi fl-Artikolu 27(5)1. Il-Komunità għandha tapplika l-aċċess bla ħlas ta’ dazju fuq l-importazzjonijiet lejn il-Komunità ta’ prodotti li joriġinaw mill-Kroazja bit-titli 1701 u 1702 tan-Nomenklatura Magħquda, fil-limitu ta’ kwota tariffarja annwali ta’ 180000 tunnellata (piż nett).2. Il-Kroazja għandha tapplika l-aċċess bi tnaqqis fil-ħlas ta’ dazju fuq l-importazzjonijiet lejn il-Kroazja ta’ prodotti li joriġinaw mill-Komunità bit-titli 1701 tan-Nomenklatura Magħquda, fil-limitu ta’ kwantità annwali ta’ 80000 tunnellata (piż nett) li għandu japplika biss ladarba l-importazzjonijiet mill-Kroazja fil-Komunità bit-titli 1701 u 1702 tan-Nomenklatura Magħquda jilħqu t-80000 tunnellata (piż nett). Fuq din il-kwantità, il-Kroazja se tnaqqas il-rata tal-ħlas ta’ dazju kif ġej:- fl-1 ta' Jannar 2007, id-dazju għandu jitnaqqas għal 75 % tad-dazju bażiku,- fl-1 ta' Jannar 2008, id-dazju għandu jitnaqqas għal 70 % tad-dazju bażiku,- fl-1 ta' Jannar 2009 u ‘l quddiem, id-dazju għandu jitnaqqas għal 50 % tad-dazju bażiku.3. Il-Komunità hija impenjata li ma tħallasx rifużjonijiet għall-esportazzjoni mill-baġit tal-Komunità għaz-zokkor, ix-xiropp u ċerti prodotti taz-zokkor oħra li jaqgħu taħt it-titli 1701 u 1702 tan-Nomenklatura Magħquda meta dawn jiġu esportati fl-istat naturali tagħhom lejn il-Kroazja. Il-Kroazja hija impenjata li ma tħallasx rifużjonijiet għall-esportazzjoni għall-esportazzjonijiet taz-zokkor lejn il-Komunità.""--------------------------------------------------


text:
 18.12.2010
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 C 346/2
 Eedaflegging door een nieuw lid van het Gerecht
 2010/C 346/02
 Na zijn benoeming tot rechter in het Gerecht van de Europese Unie bij besluit van de vertegenwoordigers van de regeringen van de lidstaten van de Europese Unie van 18 november 2010 (1), voor de periode van 26 november 2010 tot en met 31 augustus 2016, heeft de heer Andrei Popescu voor het Hof de eed afgelegd op 26 november 2010.
 (1) PB L 306 van 23.11.2010, blz. 76.


text:
 27.2.2014
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 58/32
 РЕШЕНИЕ НА СЪВМЕСТНИЯ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП
 No 178/2013
 от 8 октомври 2013 година
 за изменение на приложение XXII (Дружествено право) към Споразумението за ЕИП
 СЪВМЕСТНИЯТ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП,
 като взе предвид Споразумението за Европейското икономическо пространство („Споразумението за ЕИП“), и по-специално член 98 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 Регламент (ЕС) No 183/2013 на Комисията от 4 март 2013 г. за изменение на Регламент (ЕО) No 1126/2008 за приемане на някои международни счетоводни стандарти в съответствие с Регламент (ЕО) No 1606/2002 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета във връзка с Международен стандарт за финансово отчитане (МСФО) 1 (1) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (2)
 Регламент (ЕС) No 301/2013 на Комисията от 27 март 2013 г. за изменение на Регламент (ЕО) No 1126/2008 за приемане на някои международни счетоводни стандарти в съответствие с Регламент (ЕО) No 1606/2002 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета във връзка с цикъла на годишни подобрения 2009—2011 г. на Международните стандарти за финансово отчитане (МСФО) (2) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (3)
 Регламент (ЕС) No 313/2013 на Комисията от 4 април 2013 г. за изменение на Регламент (ЕО) No 1126/2008 за приемане на някои международни счетоводни стандарти в съответствие с Регламент (ЕО) No 1606/2002 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета по отношение на консолидираните финансови отчети, съвместните предприятия и оповестяването на дялови участия в други предприятия: насоки за преминаване към прилагането (изменения на Международните стандарти за финансово отчитане 10, 11 и 12) (3) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (4)
 Ето защо приложение XXII към Споразумението за ЕИП следва да бъде съответно изменено,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩОТО РЕШЕНИЕ:
 Член 1
 В точка 10ба (Регламент (ЕО) No 1126/2008 на Комисията) в приложение XXII към Споразумението за ЕИП се добавят следните тирета:
 „—
 32013 R 0183: Регламент (ЕС) No 183/2013 на Комисията от 4 март 2013 г. (ОВ L 61, 5.3.2013, стр. 6),
 —
 32013 R 0301: Регламент (ЕС) No 301/2013 на Комисията от 27 март 2013 г. (ОВ L 90, 28.3.2013, стр. 78),
 —
 32013 R 0313: Регламент (ЕС) No 313/2013 на Комисията от 4 април 2013 г. (ОВ L 95, 5.4.2013 г., стр. 9).“
 Член 2
 Текстовете на регламенти (ЕС) No 183/2013, (ЕС) No 301/2013 и (ЕС) No 313/2013 на исландски и норвежки език, които ще бъдат публикувани в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз, са автентични.
 Член 3
 Настоящото решение влиза в сила на 9 октомври 2013 г., при условие че са внесени всички нотификации, предвидени в член 103, параграф 1 от Споразумението за ЕИП (4).
 Член 4
 Настоящото решение се публикува в раздела за ЕИП и в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 8 октомври 2013 година.
 За Съвместния комитет на ЕИП
 Председател
 Thórir IBSEN
 (1) ОВ L 61, 5.3.2013 г., стр. 6.
 (2) ОВ L 90, 28.3.2013 г., стр. 78.
 (3) ОВ L 95, 5.4.2013 г., стр. 9.
 (4) Без отбелязани конституционни изисквания.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21992A1231(40)
 Συμφωνία υπό μορφή ανταλλαγής επιστολών για την τροποποίηση της συμφωνίας μεταξύ της Ευρωπαϊκής Οικονομικής Κοινότητας και της Ρουμανίας για το εμπόριο κλωστοϋφαντουργικών προϊόντων /* ανεπίσημη μετάφραση */
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα αριθ. L 410 της 31/12/1992 σ. 0377
 AGREEMENT in the form of an exchange of letters amending the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Romania on trade in textile productsLetter N° 1 Sir, 1. I have the honour to refer to the consultations held on 15 December 1992 between our respective delegations for the purpose of amending the Agreement on trade in textile products between the European Economic Community and Romania applied since 1 January 1987, as extended by the exchange of letters applied since 1 January 1992 (hereinafter 'the Agreement`). 2. As a result of these consultations, both Parties agreed to amend the following provisions of the Agreement: 2.1. Annex I, Annex II and the Annex to Protocol E which set out the products concerned by the Agreement, the quantitative restrictions for exports and the OPT operations respectively, from Romania to the European Economic Community, are replaced for the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994 by Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 to this letter, respectively. 2.2. Article 7 (6) of the Agreement is deleted. 2.3. Article 9 (2) is replaced by the following: 'The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for all categories of products, be forwarded before the end of the month following the month to which the statistics relate.`2.4. Article 11 (1) and (2) are replaced by the following: '1. The quantitative limits established under this Agreement on imports into the Community of textile products of Romanian origin will not be broken down by the Community into regional shares. 2. The Parties shall cooperate in order to prevent sudden and prejudicial changes in traditional trade flows resulting in regional concentration of direct imports into the Community. 3. Romania shall monitor its exports of products under restraint or surveillance into the Community. Should a sudden and prejudicial change in traditional trade flows arise, the Community will be entitled to request consultations in order to find a satisfactory solution to those problems. Such consultations must be held within 15 working days of their being requested by the Community. 4. Romania shall endeavour to ensure that exports of textile products subject to quantitative limits into the Communtiy are spaced out as evenly as possible over the year due account being taken in particular of seasonal factors.`2.5. Article 13 and all references to this Article in the Agreement are deleted. 2.6. The following is added at the beginning of Article 14 (1): '1. Save where it is otherwise provided for in this Agreement, . . .`2.7. The second sentence of Article 18 (1) is replaced by the following: 'It shall be applicable until 31 December 1993 or until the entry into force of the Protocol on quantitative arrangements referred to in Article 3 (2) of Protocol 1 on textile and clothing products to the Europe Agreement between the Community and Romania, whichever date is earlier.`2.8. The first sentence of Article 7 (1) of Protocol A is replaced by the following: '1. The export licence shall conform to the model annexed to this Protocol and it shall be valid for exports throughout the customs territory to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied. However, where the Community has made recourse to the provisions of Article 8 in accordance with the provisions of Agreed Minute No 1, or to Agreed Minute No 2, the textile products covered by the export licences can only be put into free circulation in the region(s) of the Community indicated in those licences.`2.9. The second indent of Article 12 (1) of Protocol A to the Agreement is replaced by the following: 'The import authorizations shall be valid for six months from the date of their issue for imports throughout the customs territory to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied. However, where the Community has recourse to the provisions of Article 8 in accordance with the provisions of Agreed Minute No 1, or to Agreed Minute No 2, the products covered by the import licences can only be put into free circulation in the regions(s) of the Community indicated in those licences.`2.10. The second and fifth indents of Article 14 (2) of Protocol A are replaced by the following: '- two letters identifying the intended Member State of customs clearance as follows: BL = Benelux, DE = Germany, DG = Denmark, EL = Greece, ES = Spain, FR = France, GB = United Kingdom, IE = Ireland, IT = Italy, PT = Portugal`, '- a five-digit number running consecutively from 00001 to 99999 allocated to the intended Member State of customs clearance.`2.11. Paragraph 3 (b) of Protocol E to the Agreement is deleted. 2.12. Agreed Minute N° 1 set out in Appendix 4 to this letter shall form an integral part of the Agreement. 2.13. Agreed Minute N° 2 set out in Appendix 5 to this letter shall form an integral part of the Agreement. 2.14. Agreed Minute N° 3 set out in Appendix 6 to this letter shall form an integral part of the Agreement. 2.15. Agreed Minute N° 4 set out in Appendix 7 to this letter shall form an integral part of the Agreement. 3. The Parties agreed that this Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the day on which the Parties have notified each other that the legal procedures necessary to this end have been completed. The Parties also agreed that this Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters and the amendments hereby to the Agreement of 1987, as extended, shall be applied provisionally from 1 January 1993. 4. I should be obliged if you kindly confirm the acceptance of your Government of the foregoing. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. For the Councilof the European CommunitiesAppendix 1 (The contents of Appendix 1 are identical to those of Appendix 1 to the Agreement with Bulgaria; see pages 339 to 366) Appendix 2 ANNEX II(The full product descriptions of the categories listed in this Annex are to be found in Annex I to the Agreement)>ΘΕΣΗ ΠΗΝΑΚΑ>Appendix 3 ANNEX TO PROTOCOL E(The product descriptions of the categories listed in this Annex are to be found in Annex I to the Agreement)OPT QUOTASYear: 1992>ΘΕΣΗ ΠΗΝΑΚΑ> Appendix 4 Agreed Minute N° 1In the context of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Romania on trade in textile and clothing products, initialled on 15 December 1992, the Parties agreed that Article 7 of the Agreement does not preclude the Community, if the conditions are fulfilled, from applying the safeguard measures for one or more of its regions in conformity with the principles of the internal market. In such an event, Romania shall be informed in advance of the relevant provisions of Protocol A to the Agreement to be applied, as appropriate. For the Governmentof RomaniaFor the Councilof the European Communities Appendix 5 Agreed Minute N° 2Notwithstanding Article 11 (1) of this Agreement, for imperative technical or administrative reasons or to find a solution to economic problems resulting from regional concentration of imports, or in order to combat circumvention and fraud of the provisions of this Agreement, the Community will establish for a limited period of time a specific management system in conformity with the principles of the internal market. However, if the Parties are unable to reach a satisfactory solution during the consultations provided for in Article 11 (3), Romania undertakes, if so requested by the Community, to respect temporary export limits for one or more regions of the Community. In such a case, these limits shall not preclude the importation into the region(s) concerned of products which were shipped from Romania on the basis of export licences obtained before the date of formal notification to Romania by the Community about the introduction of the above limits. The Community shall inform Romania of the technical and administrative measures, such as defined in the attached note verbale, that need to be introduced by both Parties in order to implement the above paragraphs in conformity with the principles of the internal market. For the Governmentof RomaniaFor the Councilof the European CommunitiesNote verbale The Directorate-General for External Relations of the Commission of the European Communities presents its compliments to the Mission of Romania to the European Communities and has the honour to refer to the Agreement on textile products negotiated between Romania and the Community applied since 1 January 1987, as extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 20 September 1991 and as further extended by the exchange of letters of 15 December 1992. The Directorate-General wishes to inform the Mission of Romania that the Community has decided to apply, starting from 1 January 1993, the provisions of paragraph 1 of Agreed Minute No 2 to the exchange of letters initialled on 15 December 1992. Consequently, the corresponding provisions of Articles 7 and 12 of Protocol A to the Agreement shall also be applied as of the above date. The Directorate-General for External Relations avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Mission of Romania to the European Communities the assurance of its highest consideration. Appendix 6 Agreed Minute No 3In the context of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Romania on trade in textile and clothing products, initialled in Brussels on 15 December 1992, the Parties agreed that Romania shall endeavour not to deprive certain regions of the Community which have traditionally had relatively small shares of Community quotas of imports of products serving as inputs for their processing industry. The Community and Romania further agreed to hold consultations, should the need arise, in order to avert any problems which might occur in this respect. The Parties agreed that this Agreed Minute replaces the corresponding Agreed Minute of the Agreement on this subject. For the Governmentof RomaniaFor the Councilof the European Communities Appendix 7 Agreed Minute N° 4In the context of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Romania on trade in textile and clothing products, applied since 1 January 1987, as extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 20 September 1991 and further extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 15 December 1992, Romania agreed that, from the date of request for and pending the consultations referred to in Article 11 (3), it shall cooperate by not issuing export licences that would further aggravate the problems resulting from the regional concentration of direct imports into the Community. For the Governmentof RomaniaFor the Councilof the European Communities Exchange of notes The Directorate-General for External Relations of the Commission of the European Communities presents its compliments to the Mission of Romania to the European Communities and has the honour to refer to the Agreement on textile products between Romania and the Community applied since 1 January 1987, as extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 20 September 1991 and as further extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 15 December 1992. The Directorate-General wishes to inform the Mission of Romania that whilst awaiting the completion of the necessary procedures for the conclusion and the coming into force of the extended Agreement, the Community is prepared to allow the provisions of the Agreement to apply de facto from 1 January 1993. This is on the understanding that either Party may at any time terminate this de facto application of the extended Agreement provided that 120 days' notice is given. The Directorate-General for External Relations would be grateful if the Mission would confirm its Agreement to the foregoing. The Directorate-General for External Relations avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Mission of Romania to the European Communities the assurance of its highest consideration. Letter N° 2 Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of . . . . . . which reads as follows: 'Sir, 1. I have the honour to refer to the consultations held on 15 December 1992 between our respective delegations for the purpose of amending the Agreement on trade in textile products between the European Economic Community and Romania, applied since 1 January 1987, as extended by the exchange of letters applied since 1 January 1992 (hereinafter "the Agreement"). 2. As a result of these consultations, both Parties agreed to amend the following provisions of the Agreement: 2.1. Annex I, Annex II and the Annex to Protocol E which set out the products concerned by the Agreement, the quantitative restrictions for exports and the OPT operations, respectively from Romania to the European Economic Community, are replaced for the period 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994 by Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 of this letter, respectively. 2.2. Article 7 (6) and Protocol C to the Agreement are deleted. 2.3. Article 9 (2) is replaced by the following: "The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall, for all categories of products, be forwarded before the end of the month following the month to which the statistics relate."2.4. Article 11 (1) and (2) are replaced by the following: "1. The quantitative limits established under this Agreement on imports into the Community of textile products of Romanian origin will not be broken down by the Community into regional shares. 2. The Parties shall cooperate in order to prevent sudden and prejudicial changes in traditional trade flows resulting in regional concentration of direct imports into the Community. 3. Romania shall monitor its exports of products under restraint or surveillance into the Community. Should a sudden and prejudicial change in traditional trade flows arise, the Community will be entitled to request consultations in order to find a satisfactory solution to those problems. Such consultations must be held within 15 working days of their being requested by the Community. 4. Romania shall endeavour to ensure that exports of textile products subject to quantitative limits into the Community are spaced out as evenly as possible over the year due account being taken in particular of seasonal factors."2.5. Article 13 and all references to this Article in the Agreement are deleted. 2.6. The following is added at the beginning of Article 14 (1): "1. Save where it is otherwise provided for in this Agreement, . . ."2.7. The second sentence of Article 18 (1) is replaced by the following: "It shall be applicable until 31 December 1993 or until the entry into force of the Protocol on quantitative arrangements referred to in Article 3 (2) of Protocol 1 on textile and clothing products to the Europe Agreement between the Community and Romania, whichever date is earlier."2.8. The first sentence of Article 7 (1) of Protocol A is replaced by the following: "1. The export licence shall conform to the model annexed to this Protocol and it shall be valid for exports throughout the customs territory to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied. However, where the Community has made recourse to the provisions of Article 8 in accordance with the provisions of the Agreed Minute No 1, or to the Agreed Minute No 2, the textile products covered by the export licences can only be put into free circulation in the region(s) of the Community indicated in those licences."2.9. The second indent of Article 12 (1) of Protocol A to the Agreement is replaced by the following: "The import authorizations shall be valid for six months from the date of their issue for imports throughout the customs territory to which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied. However, where the Community has recourse to the provisions of Article 8 in accordance with the provisions of the Agreed Minute No 1, or to Agreed Minute No 2, the products covered by the import licences can only be put into free circulation in the region(s) of the Community indicated in those licences."2.10. The second and fifth indents of Article 14 (2) of Protocol A are replaced by the following: "- two letters identifying the intended Member State of customs clearance as follows: BL = Benelux, DE = Germany, DK = Denmark, EL = Greece, ES = Spain, FR = France, GB = United Kingdom, IE = Ireland, IT = Italy, PT = Portugal", "- a five-digit number running consecutively from 00001 to 99999 allocated to the intended Member State of customs clearance."2.11. Paragraph 3 (b) of Protocol E to the Agreement is deleted. 2.12. Agreed Minute No 1 set out in Appendix 4 to this letter shall form an integral part of the Agreement. 2.13. Agreed Minute No 2 set out in Appendix 5 to this letter shall form an integral part of the Agreement. 2.14. Agreed Minute No 3 set out in Appendix 6 to this letter shall form an integral part of the Agreement. 2.15. Agreed Minute No 4 set out in Appendix 7 to this letter shall form an integral part of the Agreement. 3. The Parties agreed that this Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the day on which the Parties have notified each other that the legal procedures necessary to this end have been completed. The Parties also agreed that this Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters and the amendments hereby to the Agreement of 1987, as extended, shall be applied provisionally from 1 January 1993. 4. I should be obliged if you kindly confirm the acceptance of your Government of the foregoing. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.`I have the honour to confirm that my Government is in agreement with the contents of your letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. For the Governmentof RomaniaAppendix 1 (The contents of Appendix 1 are identical to those of Appendix 1 to the Agreement with Bulgaria; see pages 339 to 366) Appendix 2 ANNEX II(The full product descriptions of the categories listed in this Annex are to be found in Annex I to the Agreement)>ΘΕΣΗ ΠΗΝΑΚΑ>Appendix 3 ANNEX TO PROTOCOL E(The product descriptions of the categories listed in this Annex are to be found in Annex I to the Agreement)OPT QUOTASYear: 1992>ΘΕΣΗ ΠΗΝΑΚΑ>Appendix 4 Agreed Minute N° 1In the context of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Romania on trade in textile and clothing products, initialled on 15 December 1992, the Parties agreed that Article 7 of the Agreement does not preclude the Community, if the conditions are fulfilled, from applying the safeguard measures for one or more of its regions in conformity with the principles of the internal market. In such an event, Romania shall be informed in advance of the relevant provisions of Protocol A to the Agreement to be applied, as appropriate. For the Governmentof RomaniaFor the Councilof the European Communities Appendix 5 Agreed Minute N° 2Notwithstanding Article 11 (1) of this Agreement, for imperative technical or administrative reasons or to find a solution to economic problems resulting from regional concentration of imports, or in order to combat circumvention and fraud of the provisions of this Agreement, the Community will establish for a limited period of time a specific management system in conformity with the principles of the internal market. However, if the Parties are unable to reach a satisfactory solution during the consultations provided for in Article 11 (3), Romania undertakes, if so requested by the Community, to respect temporary export limits for one or more regions of the Community. In such a case, these limits shall not preclude the importation into the region(s) concerned of products which were shipped from Romania on the basis of export licences obtained before the date of formal notification to Romania by the Community about the introduction of the above limits. The Community shall inform Romania of the technical and administrative measures, such as defined in the attached note verbale, that need to be introduced by both Parties in order to implement the above paragraphs in conformity with the principles of the internal market. For the Governmentof RomaniaFor the Councilof the European CommunitiesNote verbale The Directorate-General for External Relations of the Commission of the European Communities presents its compliments to the Mission of Romania to the European Communities and has the honour to refer to the Agreement on textile products negotiated between Romania and the Community applied since 1 January 1987, as extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 20 September 1991 and as further extended by the exchange of letters of 15 December 1992. The Directorate-General wishes to inform the Mission of Romania that the Community has decided to apply, starting from 1 January 1993, the provisions of paragraph 1 of Agreed Minute No 2 to the exchange of letters initialled on 15 December 1992. Consequently, the corresponding provisions of Articles 7 and 12 of Protocol A to the Agreement shall also be applied as of the above date. The Directorate-General for External Relations avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Mission of Romania to the European Communities the assurance of its highest consideration. Appendix 6 Agreed Minute No 3In the context of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Romania on trade in textile and clothing products, initialled in Brussels on 15 December 1992, the Parties agreed that Romania shall endeavour not to deprive certain regions of the Community which have traditionally had relatively small shares of Community quotas of imports of products serving as inputs for their processing industry. The Community and Romania further agreed to hold consultations, should the need arise, in order to avert any problems which might occur in this respect. The Parties agreed that this Agreed Minute replaces the corresponding Agreed Minute of the Agreement on this subject. For the Governmentof RomaniaFor the Councilof the European Communities Appendix 7 Agreed Minute N° 4In the context of the Agreement between the European Economic Community and Romania on trade in textile and clothing products, applied since 1 January 1987, as extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 20 September 1991 and further extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 15 December 1992, Romania agreed that, from the date of request for and pending the consultations referred to in Article 11 (3), it shall cooperate by not issuing export licences that would further aggravate the problems resulting from the regional concentration of direct imports into the Community. For the Governmentof RomaniaFor the Councilof the European Communities Exchange of notes The Mission of Romania to the European Communities presents its compliments to the Directorate-General for External Relations of the Commission of the European Communities and has the honour to refer to the Director General's Note of . . December 1992 regarding the Agreement on textile products between the Republic of Singapore and the Community applied since 1 January 1987, as extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 20 September 1991 and as further extended by the exchange of letters initialled on 15 December 1992. The Mission of Romania wishes to confirm to the Directorate-General that whilst awaiting the completion of the necessary procedures for the conclusion and the coming into force of the extended Agreement, the Government of Romania is prepared to allow the provisions of the extended Agreement to apply de facto from 1 January 1993. This is on the understanding that either Party may at any time terminate this de facto application of the extended Agreement provided that 120 days' notice is given. The Mission of Romania to the European Communities avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Directorate-General for External Relations the assurance of its highest consideration.