type: contracts

text:
 12.3.2019
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 70/33
 ODLOČITEV št. 1/2019 ODBORA ZA TRGOVINO IN RAZVOJ, USTANOVLJENEGA NA PODLAGI SPORAZUMA O GOSPODARSKEM PARTNERSTVU MED EVROPSKO UNIJO IN NJENIMI DRŽAVAMI ČLANICAMI NA ENI STRANI TER DRŽAVAMI SADC, KI IZVAJAJO SGP, NA DRUGI STRANI
 z dne 18. februarja 2019
 o pripravi seznama arbitrov [2019/391]
 ODBOR ZA TRGOVINO IN RAZVOJ JE –
 ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o gospodarskem partnerstvu med Evropsko unijo in njenimi državami članicami na eni strani ter državami SADC, ki izvajajo SGP, na drugi strani (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum) ter zlasti členov 94, 100, 103 in 104 Sporazuma –
 SPREJEL NASLEDNJO ODLOČITEV:
 Člen 1
 Sprejme se seznam arbitrov iz člena 94 Sporazuma, kot je določen v Prilogi k tej odločitvi.
 Člen 2
 Ta odločitev začne veljati na dan sprejetja.
 V Cape Townu, v Južni Afriki.
 Za Odbor za trgovino in razvoj
 Predstavnik držav SADC, ki izvajajo SGP
 O. WARD
 Predstavnik EU
 E. SYNOWIEC
 PRILOGA
 SEZNAM ARBITROV IZ ČLENA 94 SPORAZUMA
 Arbitri, ki so jih izbrale države SADC, ki izvajajo SGP:
 1.
 Boitumelo Sendy GOFHAMODIMO
 2.
 Leonard Moses PHUTI
 3.
 Tsotetsi MAKONG
 4.
 Sakeus AKWEENDA
 5.
 Faizel ISMAIL
 6.
 Kholofelo Ngokoane KUGLER
 7.
 Nkululeko J. HLOPHE
 8.
 Samuel Jay LEVY
 Arbitri, ki jih je izbrala EU:
 9.
 Jacques BOURGEOIS
 10.
 Claus-Dieter EHLERMANN
 11.
 Pieter Jan KUIJPER
 12.
 Giorgio SACERDOTI
 13.
 Laurence BOISSON DE CHAZOURNES
 14.
 Ramon TORRENT
 15.
 Michael Johannes HAHN
 16.
 Hélène RUIZ FABRI
 Arbitri, ki so jih skupaj izbrale pogodbenice (tuji državljani, ki lahko opravljajo funkcijo predsednika):
 17.
 Merit JANOW
 18.
 Ichiro ARAKI
 19.
 Christian HÄBERLI
 20.
 Claus VON WOBESER
 21.


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,12.1.2021
 COM(2021) 16 final
 2021/0007(NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh san Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta a mhéid a bhaineann le Leasú 28 ar Iarscríbhinn 9 Roinn D a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta Idirnáisiúnta
 MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁIN
 1.Subject matter of the proposal
 This proposal concerns the decision establishing the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in connection with Amendment 28 to Annex 9 on Facilitation to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the ‘Chicago Convention’). The ICAO Council adopted this Amendment on 23 June 2020.
 Amendment 28 relates to the rules for processing of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, which are addressed in Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9.
 PNR data are personal data of passengers collected by airlines for their business purposes, unlike other travel-related data collected by them on behalf of the authorities such as Advance Passenger Information (API). Law enforcement authorities around the world increasingly use the PNR data transferred to them by airlines to fight terrorism and other forms of serious crime.
 2.Context of the proposal
 2.1.The Convention on International Civil Aviation (the ‘Chicago Convention’)
 The Chicago Convention aims to regulate international air transport. It entered into force on 4 April 1947 and established the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO.
 All EU Member States are Parties to the Chicago Convention.
 2.2.The International Civil Aviation Organization
 ICAO is a specialised agency of the United Nations. The objectives of the Organization are to develop the principles and techniques of international air navigation and to foster the planning and development of international air transport.
 The ICAO Council is a permanent body of ICAO with a membership of 36 Contracting States elected by the ICAO Assembly for a three-year term. For the period 2019-2022, there are seven EU Member States represented in the ICAO Council
 1
 .
 Mandatory functions of the ICAO Council, listed in Article 54 of the Chicago Convention, include the adoption of international Standards and Recommended Practices (also known as SARPs), designated as Annexes to the Chicago Convention. Standards are specifications for which a uniform application is considered necessary, whereas Recommended Practices are not mandatory.
 The ICAO Council also convenes the Assembly, which is ICAO’s sovereign body. The ICAO Assembly meets at least once every three years and establishes the Organization’s political direction for the upcoming triennium. The 40th Session of the ICAO Assembly took place on 24 September-4 October 2019 in Montreal, Canada.
 2.3.The process for updating ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) on PNR
 The elaboration of new PNR international Standard and Recommended Practices (SARPs) is rooted in United Nations Security Council Resolution 2396 (2017), adopted on 21 December 2017
 2
 . The Resolution requires UN Member States to ‘develop the capability to collect, process and analyse, in furtherance of ICAO standards and recommended practices, passenger name record (PNR) data and to ensure PNR data is used by and shared with all their competent national authorities, with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms’. It also urges ICAO ‘to work with its Member States to establish a standard for the collection, use, processing and protection of PNR data’.
 The drafting of proposals to review the PNR SARPs was entrusted to an expert group, the ICAO PNR Task Force, set up by the ICAO Air Transport Committee (ATC) in March 2019. The work of the Task Force concluded in December 2019 and was reviewed by the ICAO Facilitation Panel in January 2020.
 The proposals of the ICAO Facilitation Panel were endorsed by the ATC on 7 February 2020. Such endorsement was followed by a formal consultation of the ICAO Member States by way of ICAO State letter 2020 14E. The State consultation concluded on 15 May 2020.
 Following the State consultation, the ICAO Secretariat analysed the responses received from States and presented a proposal to the ATC. The Secretariat proposal was practically identical to the outcome of the Facilitation Panel meeting in January 2020. Similarly, as its meeting of 19 June 2019, the ATC recommended the ICAO Council to adopt the PNR SARPs as presented by the Secretariat with only minor corrections.
 On 23 June 2020, during the Tenth Meeting of its 220th Session, the ICAO Council adopted Amendment 28 to Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention. As noted above, Annex 9 lays down international standards on Facilitation and its Chapter 9, Section D relates specifically to PNR.
 On 17 July 2020, ICAO informed its Member States of the adoption of Amendment 28 through another State letter (EC 6/3-20/71). The Amendment became effective on 30 October 2020, unless a majority of States register their disapproval by that date in accordance with Article 90 of the Chicago Convention. The Amendment will be applicable as of 28 February 2021. However, the ICAO Member States can notify, by 30 January 2020, any differences between their national regulations and practices and those enshrined in the Standards laid down by Amendment 28 if they consider that certain differences exists between their domestic regulations or practices and any of the Standards. Such notification must be submitted in accordance with Article 38 of the Chicago Convention and the applicable mechanism for the filing of differences.
 2.4.The PNR-aspects of Amendment 28 to Annex 9
 If effective, Amendment 28 will replace existing Standards 9.22-9.22.1 and Recommended Practice 9.23 with new SARPs 9.23-9.38. These SARPs are significantly more detailed than the existing framework, covering among others aspects related to purpose limitation, oversight, data subject’s rights, the transmission method, data retention, the processing of sensitive data and the relationship between the Contracting States to the Chicago Convention concerning PNR data transfers. Some of the non-binding guidance provided in ICAO Document 9944 setting out guidelines on PNR data
 3
 has been upgraded to the new Standards.
 Standard 9.23 requires the contracting States to develop the capability to collect, use, process and protect PNR and to translate the rules for the practical implementation of this capability in the appropriate internal legal and administrative framework in consistency with the SARPs. The mandatory character of the development of PNR-processing capabilities is in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2396 (2017).
 Standard 9.24 requires contracting States, in full compliance with human rights and fundamental freedoms, to clearly identify the PNR data to be used in their operations and set the purposes for which PNR data may be used by the authorities. Such purposes should be no wider than necessary, including, in particular, border security purposes to fight terrorism and serious crime. In addition, the disclosure of PNR data within the receiving State or in others should be limited to authorities competent that exercise relevant functions related to the purposes for which PNR data are processed. These authorities should also ensure comparable protections as those afforded by the disclosing authority.
 Standard 9.25 establishes requirements concerning data security and the rights of individuals in relation to the processing of their PNR data, including as regards non-discrimination, the provision of information, administrative and judicial redress, access to data and the possibility to request corrections, deletions or notations. Recommended Practice 26 encourages States to notify individuals about the processing of their PNR data and the rights and means of redress afforded to them.
 Standard 9.27 requires contracting States to base the automated processing of PNR data on objective, precise and reliable criteria that effectively indicate the existence of a risk, without leading to unlawful differentiation, and refrain from making decisions that produce significant adverse actions affecting the individuals’ legal interest based solely on the automated processing of PNR data.
 Under Standard 9.28, States are required to designate one (or more) competent domestic authority(ies) with the power to conduct independent oversight of the protection of PNR data and determine whether PNR data are being collected, used, processed and protected with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
 Standard 9.29 precludes States from requiring airlines to collect PNR data that are not required as part of their normal business operating procedures, or to filter such data prior to transmission. It also prohibits the processing of sensitive data – that is, PNR data revealing an individual’s racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership or data concerning their health, sexual life or sexual orientation – except in exceptional and immediate circumstances to protect the vital interests of the data subject or of another natural person. In the event such data are transmitted, States are required to delete them as soon as practicable.
 Standard 9.30 lays down obligations concerning data retention and the de-personalisation and re-personalisation of PNR data, requiring States to only retain the data for a set period as defined in their legal and administrative framework which shall be that period necessary and proportionate for the purposes for which the PNR data is used, and mask it after an established timeframe. Following masking, re-personalisation should only be possible when the data is to be used in connection with an ongoing case, threat or risk related to the purposes for which PNR data can be processed. Recommended Practice 9.32 suggests a maximum retention period of five years and Recommended Practice 9.33 proposes that PNR data should be de-personalised within six months and no later than two years from the moment it is transferred by airlines.
 Standard 9.33 establishes that PNR data should be, as a rule, transmitted through the less privacy-intrusive push method. It also seeks to minimise burdens on air carriers by limiting the ability of States to impose fines for transmission errors in certain circumstances and by requiring them to limit the number of push times.
 Standard 9.34(a) requires contracting States not to inhibit or prevent the transfer of PNR data to another contracting State that complies with the new Standards. At the same time, Standard 9.34(b) provides that ICAO contracting States shall retain the ability to introduce or maintain higher levels of protection of PNR data, in accordance with their domestic legal framework, and to enter into additional arrangements with other States, in particular, with a view to comply with their internal legal requirements, or establish more detailed provisions relating to PNR data processing and transfer provided that those measures do not otherwise conflict with the Standards.
 Under Standard 9.35, contracting States may be called to demonstrate their compliance with the new Standards upon request from another State. Where contracting States determine that they must impede PNR data transfers or fine an air carrier, Standard 9.36 requires them to do so in a transparent manner and with the intent of resolving the situation.
 Recommended Practice 9.37 encourages States to notify others maintaining air travel with them of any significant changes in their PNR programme, including as regards compliance with the SARPs. Recommended Practice 9.38 suggests that air carriers are not penalised by States while they attempt to resolve disputes regarding PNR data transfers.
 2.5.The applicable EU legal framework
 The processing of PNR data constitutes an essential instrument in the EU’s common response to terrorism and serious crime and a building block of the Security Union. Identifying and tracing suspicious travel patterns by processing PNR to gather evidence and, where relevant, find associates of criminals and unravel criminal networks has proven essential to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorist and serious crime offences. At the same time, processing of PNR data constitutes an interference with the rights to privacy and protection of personal data as enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (‘Charter’). In accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter, it shall therefore be provided for by law, respect the essence of the rights concerned and, subject to the principle of proportionality, be allowed only insofar as it is necessary and genuinely meet an objective of general interest of the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. One such objective of general interest is the protection of citizens from serious security threats.
 On 27 April 2016, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the Directive (EU) 2016/681 on the use of PNR data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime
 4
 . This Directive enables national authorities to require air carriers to transfer PNR data, while providing safeguards for individuals’ rights to privacy and data protection. The deadline for the Member States to transpose the legislation into national law was 25 May 2018. The review
 5
 of the first two years of application of the Directive carried out in 2020 showed that the processing of PNR data had delivered tangible results in the fight against terrorism and serious crime.
 Also in April 2016, the European Parliament and the Council adopted new EU data protection rules: Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (the General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR
 6
 ) and Directive (EU) 2016/680 (on data protection in the law enforcement sector
 7
 ). Among others, the GDPR lays down rules on international transfers of personal data that are applicable to the transmission of PNR data by air carriers. Directive (EU) 2016/680 regulates the processing of personal data by law enforcement authorities and completes the regime of Directive (EU) 2016/681 on aspects such as data subject rights and case-by-case transfers of data to law enforcement authorities in third countries.
 There are currently two international agreements in place between the EU and third countries (namely Australia
 8
 and the United States
 9
 ) on the processing and transfer of PNR data. On 26 July 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued an Opinion (henceforth Opinion 1/15
 10
 ) on the envisaged Agreement on the transfer and processing of PNR data between the EU and Canada, signed on 25 June 2014. The Court found that the agreement could not be concluded in its intended form because some of its provisions were incompatible with the fundamental rights to privacy and to personal data protection protected by the Charter. In particular, the Court interpreted the relevant Charter provisions as requiring specific safeguards with regard to oversight by an independent authority, processing of sensitive data, automated processing of PNR data and non-discrimination, purposes for which PNR data may be processed, and the retention, use, disclosure and further transfer of PNR data. Further to the adoption of negotiating directives by the Council in December 2017, the Commission begun new PNR negotiations with Canada in June 2018.
 More generally, an increasing number of third countries are collecting PNR data from air carriers and several of them have approached the Commission over the past few years to express their interest in concluding an international agreement on PNR with the EU. In the absence of a legal basis allowing for data transfers, air carriers are confronted with a situation of conflict of laws and risk fines and other sanctions. At the same time, further to the implementation of Directive (EU) 2016/681, EU Member States are requesting air carriers from third countries to transfer PNR data to their Passenger Information Units. A number of third countries have refused such transfers – and others have threatened to do so – as a retaliatory measure due to the impossibility of receiving PNR data from the EU, therefore compromising the effectiveness of the EU PNR mechanism.
 The EU approach to PNR data transfers to third countries dates back to 2010
 11
 and predates the adoption of Directive (EU) 2016/681, the reform of the EU data protection framework and Opinion 1/15 of the Court of Justice. The EU Security Union Strategy for the period 2020 to 2025 envisages the review of the approach as a mid-term action
 12
 .
 3.Position to be taken on the Union’s behalf
 3.1.Background
 The Union strongly supports the development of new international standards on PNR and has actively contributed to the elaboration of the SARPs laid down in Amendment 28 to Annex 9.
 The subject matter of Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9 of Amendment 28 concerns an area for which the Union has exclusive competence by virtue of the last limb of Article 3(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as it is liable to affect common rules on PNR and data protection.
 Accordingly, throughout the discussions within the ICAO preparatory bodies, the approach of the EU Member States and of the Commission (as observer) was guided by the orientations set out in Council Decision (EU) 2019/2107 of 28 November 2019 laying down the Union position
 13
 . This position reflects the requirements of the EU legal framework on PNR and data protection, notably under Directive (EU) 2016/681, Regulation (EU) 2016/679, Directive (EU) 2016/680, as well as under the Charter as interpreted in the relevant case law of the Court of Justice, in particular Opinion 1/15.
 On 25 March 2020, the Council of the EU endorsed a further Union position
 14
 on the reply to the ICAO State letter 2020 14E through which Contracting States were consulted on the draft SARPs. The position welcomed the work undertaken by ICAO to develop the SARPs, and highlighted the importance of the protection of fundamental rights, including the protection of personal data, in the processing of PNR. Therefore, it submitted a drafting proposal aimed at amending (then draft) Standard 9.34. Its objective was to reinforce the text of this Standard in order to ensure that the ability of Contracting States to establish stricter requirements for PNR data transfers is clearly reflected in the SARPs.
 It is to be noted that in the revision process following the State consultation, the ICAO Secretariat did not take into account the drafting suggestions submitted by the EU Member States, nor amendments proposed by any other ICAO contracting States, and retained the draft text resulting from the Facilitation Panel at its meeting of January 2020. Instead, the ICAO Secretariat proposed that ‘States that have made proposals to amend the provision should be invited to submit their proposal(s) to amend the text in Paragraph 9.34 to the next meeting of the Facilitation Panel (FALP/12), planned for July 2021’.
 On 23 June 2020, during the ICAO Council meeting where Amendment 28 was adopted, the EU Member States stressed again the importance of striking the necessary balance between data availability and data protection and referred to the above-mentioned Union positions as submitted during the State consultation process. They also underlined the importance of ensuring high data protection levels and explicitly referred to the obligations stemming from the EU’s legal framework. In particular, the EU Member States emphasised the importance of the SARPs, in particular of Standard 9.34, arguing that it should be interpreted in such a way to allow States to retain the ability to require from other contracting States not only to demonstrate compliance of their legal framework with the SARPs but also the fulfilment of higher data protection standards, notably for enabling PNR data transfers, when so required by their domestic legal frameworks.
 3.2.Proposed position
 The present proposal for a Council Decision is necessary to adopt, within the timeframe set by the ICAO State letter EC 6/3-20/71, the position to be taken on the Union’s behalf with regard to the ICAO Council adoption of the new PNR SARPs.
 The new PNR SARPs set out in Amendment 28 (Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9) largely follow the lines of the Union position enshrined in Council Decision (EU) 2019/2107. As such, they lay down ambitious safeguards on data protection, notably on data subject rights, oversight by an independent authority, sensitive data, automated processing of PNR data and non-discrimination, purposes for which PNR data may be processed, and the retention, use, disclosure and further transfer of PNR data.
 In the Commission’s view, the SARPs allow significant progress to be achieved at international level in relation to the protection and use of PNR data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. Therefore, no disapproval should be notified by the EU Member States under Article 90 of the Chicago Convention, in particular since such a notification would also undermine the efforts to establish higher standards for the protection of PNR data worldwide if compared to the current ICAO rules of PNR.
 The SARPs also take into consideration, in Standard 9.34(b), that the contracting States – such as the EU Member States - may retain the ability to maintain or introduce higher levels of protection in accordance with their domestic legal and administrative framework, and to enter into additional arrangements with other States in order to establish more detailed provisions relating to the transfer of PNR data. Under EU law, transfers by airlines of PNR data processed in the EU to a law enforcement authority in a third country must, in particular, meet the requirements of Chapter V of the GDPR and those resulting from the Charter, as specified in particular in the Court’s Opinion 1/15. Those requirements are more exacting than what is required under the PNR SARPs contained in Amendment 28.
 In this context, Standard 9.34(a) requires Contracting States not to inhibit or prevent the transfer of PNR data to another Contracting State that complies with the SARPs, the current language of the Standard 9.34 is, from the perspective of the European Union and its Member States, not sufficiently clear in legal terms in expressing that the EU Member States are not precluded from imposing those requirements notwithstanding Standard 9.34.
 For this reason, the Commission considers that Member States should notify a difference, pursuant to Article 38 of the Chicago Convention. Such difference, described in the Annex to the present Proposal for Council Decision, should remain strictly limited to what is necessary to avoid any doubt as to the prerogative for the EU Member States to impose more exacting requirements for PNR data transfers to third countries, and consequently to inhibit such transfers if such requirements are not fulfilled.
 4.Legal basis
 4.1.Procedural legal basis
 4.1.1.Principles
 Article 218(9) TFEU provides for decisions establishing ‘the positions to be adopted on the Union’s behalf in a body set up by an agreement, when that body is called upon to adopt acts having legal effects, with the exception of acts supplementing or amending the institutional framework of the agreement.’
 Article 218(9) TFEU applies regardless of whether the Union is a member of the body or a party to the agreement
 15
 .
 The concept of ‘acts having legal effects’ includes acts that have legal effects by virtue of the rules of international law governing the body in question. It also includes instruments that do not have a binding effect under international law, but that are ‘capable of decisively influencing the content of the legislation adopted by the EU legislature’
 16
 .
 4.1.2.Application to the present case
 ICAO is a body set up by an international agreement, namely the Chicago Convention.
 Amendment 28 to Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention contains standards that are, in principle, binding, upon ICAO members, among which the Member States of the Union and thus constitutes an act having legal effects. Certain of those legal effects depend however on the notification of differences, and the terms of such notification. Therefore, the adoption of a Union position in respect of such notification falls within the scope of Article 218(9) TFEU.
 The legal effects of the standards and of any differences to be notified fall in an area covered by Union rules, notably Directive (EU) 2016/681 as well as the existing and future international agreements on PNR between the EU and third countries. This entails that, in accordance with Article 3(2) TFEU, the Union has exclusive competence in this matter.
 The notification of differences does not entail that the institutional framework of the Chicago agreement be supplemented or amended.
 4.2.Substantive legal basis
 4.2.1.Principles
 The substantive legal basis for a decision under Article 218(9) TFEU depends primarily on the objective and content of the act in respect of which a position is taken on the Union's behalf. If the act pursues two aims or has two components and if one of those aims or components is identifiable as the main one, whereas the other is merely incidental, the decision under Article 218(9) TFEU must be founded on a single substantive legal basis, namely that required by the main or predominant aim or component.
 With regard to an act that simultaneously pursues a number of objectives, or that has several components, which are inseparably linked without one being incidental to the other, the substantive legal basis of a decision under Article 218(9) TFEU will have to include, exceptionally, the various corresponding legal bases.
 4.2.2.Application to the present case
 Amendment 28 to Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention pursues objectives and has components in the areas of data protection and police cooperation. These elements are inseparably linked without one being incidental to the other.
 Therefore, the substantive legal basis of the proposed decision comprises the following provisions: Article 16(2) and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU.
 4.3.Conclusion
 The legal basis of the proposed decision should be Article 16(2) and Article 87(2)(a) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 218(9) TFEU.
 2021/0007 (NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh san Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta a mhéid a bhaineann le Leasú 28 ar Iarscríbhinn 9 Roinn D a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta Idirnáisiúnta
 TÁ COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,
 Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe Airteagal 16(2) agus pointe (a) d’Airteagal 87(2), i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) de,
 Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,
 De bharr an mhéid seo a leanas:
 (1)Tháinig an Coinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta Idirnáisiúnta (‘Coinbhinsiún Chicago’) lena rialaítear aeriompar idirnáisiúnta, i bhfeidhm an 4 Aibreán 1947. Bunaíodh an Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta (ICAO) leis.
 (2)Is Stáit chonarthacha de Choinbhinsiún Chicago iad na Ballstáit agus is comhaltaí de ICAO iad, agus tá stádas breathnóra ag an Aontas Eorpach i gcomhlachtaí áirithe de chuid ICAO, lena n‐áirítear an Comhthionól agus comhlachtaí teicniúla eile.
 (3)De bhun phointe (l) d’Airteagal 54 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago, tá Comhairle ICAO chun caighdeáin idirnáisiúnta agus cleachtais mholta (SARPanna) a ghlacadh.
 (4)Chinn Comhairle Slándála na Náisiún Aontaithe sa Rún 2396 (2017) uaidh an 21 Nollaig 2017 (‘UNSCR 2396 (2017)’) go bhfuil Ballstáit na Náisiún Aontaithe chun an cumas a fhorbairt sonraí maidir le taifead ainmneacha paisinéirí (PNR) a bhailiú, a phróiseáil agus a anailísiú, ar mhaithe le SARPanna ICAO a chur chun cinn, agus chun a áirithiú go n‐úsáideann a n‐údaráis inniúla náisiúnta uile na sonraí PNR agus go gcomhroinntear leo iad, agus lánurraim á thabhairt do chearta an duine agus do shaoirsí bunúsacha, chun cionta sceimhlitheoireachta agus taisteal gaolmhar a chosc, a bhrath agus a imscrúdú.
 (5)D’áitigh UNSCR 2396 (2017) ar ICAO oibriú lena Stáit chonarthacha freisin chun caighdeán a bhunú maidir le sonraí PNR a bhailiú, a úsáid, a phróiseáil agus a chosaint.
 (6)
 Leagtar amach na SARPanna maidir le PNR i Roinn D de Chaibidil 9 d’Iarscríbhinn 9 a ghabhann le Coinbhinsiún Chicago. Déantar comhlánú ar na SARPanna sin le treoir bhreise, go áirithe Doiciméad 9944 ICAO lena leagtar amach treoirlínte maidir le sonraí PNR.
 (7)An 23 Meitheamh 2020, ghlac Comhairle ICAO Leasú 28 ar Iarscríbhinn 9 a ghabhann le Coinbhinsiún Chicago ina leagtar amach, i Roinn D de, tacar nua SARPanna dá Stáit chonarthacha chun cumas a fhorbairt chun sonraí PNR a bhailiú, a úsáid, a phróiseáil agus a chosaint le haghaidh eitiltí chuig a gcríoch agus óna gcríoch, agus creat iomchuí dlíthiúil agus riaracháin mar thacaíocht léi.
 (8)I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 90 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago, ach amháin má chláraíonn tromlach de na Stáit chonarthacha a míshástacht, tiocfaidh éifeacht le Leasú 28 trí mhí tar éis an spriocdháta chun míshástacht a chlárú.
 (9)I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 38 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago, más dofheidhmithe d’aon Stát Conarthach caighdeáin nó nósanna imeachta idirnáisiúnta a chomhlíonadh ar gach bealach nó más dofheidhmithe dó a rialacháin nó a chleachtais féin a chur i gcomhréir go hiomlán le haon chaighdeán nó nós imeachta idirnáisiúnta tar éis leasú ar an gcaighdeán nó nós imeachta idirnáisiúnta sin, nó má mheasann sé é a bheith riachtanach rialacháin nó cleachtais a ghlacadh atá éagsúil ar dhóigh ar bith leis na rialacháin nó na cleachtais arna mbunú le caighdeán idirnáisiúnta, tá an Stát sin le fógra láithreach a thabhairt do ICAO faoi na difríochtaí idir a chleachtas féin agus an cleachtas arna bhunú leis an gcaighdeán idirnáisiúnta. Tá tionchar ag fógra faoi dhifríocht den sórt sin ar éifeachtaí dlíthiúla na gcaighdeán arna nglacadh ag ICAO. Dá bhrí sin, tá seasamh an Aontais maidir leis an ábhar le bunú i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 218(9) CFAE.
 (10)Tugadh fógra do Stáit chonarthacha ICAO faoi Leasú 28 trí bhíthin Litir Stáit CE 6/3-20/71. De réir na litreach Stáit sin, tá fógra le tabhairt faoi aon difríocht i dtaca leis an leasú sin agus comhlíonadh an leasaithe sin faoin 30 Eanáir 2021.
 (11)Tá comhrialacha maidir le sonraí PNR glactha ag an Aontais i dTreoir (AE) 2016/681 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 17
 , treoir a bhfuil raon feidhme aici a bhfuil forluí mór ann leis an réimse atá cumhdaithe ag na SARPanna atá i Leasú 28. Tá tacar cuimsitheach rialacha, go háirithe, san áireamh i dTreoir (AE) 2016/681 chun coimirciú a dhéanamh ar na cearta bunúsacha chun príobháideachais agus chun cosaint sonraí pearsanta i gcomhthéacs aeriompróirí a bheith ag aistriú sonraí PNR chuig na Ballstáit agus próiseáil sonraí den sórt sin chun cionta sceimhlitheoireachta agus coireacht thromchúiseach a chosc, a bhrath, a imscrúdú agus a ionchúiseamh.
 (12)Tá reachtaíocht maidir le cosaint sonraí pearsanta glactha ag an Aontas freisin, go háirithe Rialachán (AE) 2016/679 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 18
 agus Treoir (AE) 2016/680 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 19
 , is infheidhme maidir le próiseáil sonraí PNR ag aeriompróirí agus ag oibreoirí príobháideacha eile agus údaráis, faoi seach, atá inniúil maidir le cionta coiriúla a chosc, a imscrúdú, a bhrath nó a ionchúiseamh agus pionóis choiriúla a fhorghníomhú, lena n‐áirítear an coimirciú i gcoinne bagairtí don tsláinte phoiblí agus bagairtí don tsláinte phoiblí a chosc.
 (13)Ina theannta sin, tá dhá chomhaontú idirnáisiúnta maidir le próiseáil agus aistriú sonraí PNR i bhfeidhm faoi láthair idir an tAontas agus tríú tíortha, eadhon an Astráil
 20
 agus na Stáit Aontaithe
 21
 . An 26 Iúil 2017 thug Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh a Tuairim 1/15
 22
 uaithi maidir leis an gcomhaontú idirnáisiúnta atá beartaithe i ndáil le sonraí PNR a aistriú agus a phróiseáil idir an tAontas agus Ceanada (2014).
 (14)Maidir leis na gnéithe a bhaineann le PNR de Roinn D de Chaibidil 9 d’Iarscríbhinn 9 a ghabhann le Coinbhinsiún Chicago, arna leasú le Leasú 28, baineann siad le réimse a bhfuil inniúlacht eisiach ag an Aontas ina leith de bhun Airteagal 3(2) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, toisc go bhféadfadh sé difear a dhéanamh do na comhrialacha maidir le sonraí PNR a chosaint agus a phróiseáil.
 (15)Dá réir sin, is i gcomhréir le Cinneadh (AE) 2019/2107 ón gComhairle
 23
 a rinneadh seasamh an Aontais maidir leis an ábhar seo chun an méid a ndearnadh Leasú 28 de a mhionsaothrú. Léiríonn an seasamh sin ceanglais dhlí an Aontais maidir le cosaint sonraí pearsanta agus aistrithe sonraí PNR chuig tríú tíortha, go háirithe faoi Rialachán (AE) 2016/679, Treoir (AE) 2016/680 agus Treoir (AE) 2016/681, chomh maith leis na ceanglais sin atá mar thoradh ar Chairt um Chearta Bunúsacha an Aontais Eorpaigh mar a léirmhíníonn Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh iad, go háirithe i dTuairim 1/15. Bhí an seasamh ábhartha don phlé a bhí ar siúl i gcomhlachtaí ullmhúcháin ICAO agus don vótáil chríochnaitheach i gComhairle ICAO.
 (16)Is i gcomhréir, den chuid is mó, le seasamh an Aontais a chumhdaítear i gCinneadh (AE) 2019/2107 ón gComhairle atá na SARPanna atá i Leasú 28 agus leagtar síos coimircí uaillmhianacha maidir le cosaint sonraí, go háirithe maidir le cearta na ndaoine is ábhar do na sonraí, maoirseacht ag údarás neamhspleách, sonraí íogaire, próiseáil uathoibríoch sonraí PNR agus neamh-idirdhealú, cuspóirí a bhféadfar sonraí PNR a phróiseáil ina leith, agus sonraí PNR a choinneáil, a úsáid, a nochtadh agus a aistriú tuilleadh.
 (17)Dá bhrí sin, ós rud é go bhféadfaí dul chun cinn suntasach a dhéanamh ar an leibhéal idirnáisiúnta le Leasú 28 maidir leis na caighdeáin chun sonraí PNR a chosaint, níor cheart do Bhallstáit an Aontais aon mhíshásamh a chur in iúl faoi Airteagal 90 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago.
 (18)Mar sin féin, tá na ceanglais a eascraíonn as dlí an Aontais i ndáil le haistriú agus próiseáil sonraí PNR níos beaichte ná na SARPanna atá i Leasú 28.
 (19)Ceanglaíonn Caighdeán 9.34(a) ar Stáit chonarthacha gan bac ná cosc a chur ar aistriú sonraí PNR chuig Stát conarthach eile a chomhlíonann na SARPanna. Cé go gcoinníonn na Stáit chonarthacha, de réir Chaighdeán 9.34(b), an cumas leibhéil níos airde cosanta a choinneáil nó a thabhairt isteach i gcomhréir lena gcreat dlíthiúil agus riaracháin intíre, agus socruithe breise a dhéanamh le Stáit chonarthacha eile d’fhonn forálacha níos mionsonraithe a bhunú maidir le haistriú sonraí PNR, níl teanga reatha Chaighdeán 9.34 soiléir go leor i dtéarmaí dlíthiúla ó thaobh an Aontais Eorpaigh agus a Bhallstát de chun a áirithiú nach gcuirfear cosc ar na Ballstáit na ceanglais sin a fhorchur d’ainneoin Chaighdeán 9.34.
 (20)Sna himthosca sin, d’fhonn a áirithiú go gcomhlíonfar dlí an Aontais agus na SARPanna, is ceart do na Ballstáit fógra foirmiúil a thabhairt faoi dhifríocht de réir bhrí Airteagal 38 de Choinbhinsiún Chicago. Is ceart aon difríocht den sórt sin a bheith teoranta do Chaighdeán 9.34 i Roinn D de Chaibidil 9 d’Iarscríbhinn 9 a ghabhann leis, arna athbhreithniú le Leasú 28.
 (21)Is iomchuí, dá bhrí sin, seasamh an Aontais a bhunú dá réir sin.
 (22)Tá Éire faoi cheangal ag Treoir (AE) 2016/681 agus, dá bhrí sin, tá sí rannpháirteach i nglacadh an Chinnidh seo.
 (23)I gcomhréir le hAirteagail 1 agus 2 de Phrótacal Uimh. 22 maidir le seasamh na Danmhairge, atá i gceangal leis an gConradh ar an Aontas Eorpach agus leis an gConradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, níl an Danmhairg rannpháirteach i nglacadh an Chinnidh seo agus níl sí faoi cheangal aige ná faoi réir a chur i bhfeidhm.
 (24)Ba cheart do na Ballstáit seasamh an Aontais a chur in iúl,
 TAR ÉIS AN CINNEADH SEO A GHLACADH:
 Airteagal 1
 An seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais mar fhreagra ar Litir Stáit CE 6/3-20/71, a d'eisigh an Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta (ICAO) an 17 Iúil 2020, leagtar amach an seasamh sin san Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann leis an gCinneadh seo.
 Airteagal 2
 Déanfaidh Ballstáit an Aontais an seasamh dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 1 a chur in iúl.
 Airteagal 3
 Is chuig na Ballstáit a dhírítear an Cinneadh seo.
 Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,
 Thar ceann na Comhairle
 An tUachtarán
 (1)
 These are Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Spain.
 (2)
 Security Council resolution 2396 (2017) of 21 December 2017 on threats to international peace and security caused by returning foreign terrorist fighters.
 (3)
 ICAO, Guidelines on Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data, First Edition — 2010.
 (4)
 Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 132–149.
 (5)
 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the review of Directive 2016/681 on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, COM(2020) 305 final. For further details, see the Staff Working Document accompanying the Report (SWD(2020) 128 final).
 (6)
 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1.
 (7)
 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89.
 (8)
 Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger NameRecord (PNR) data by air carriers to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, OJ L 186,14.7.2012, p. 4. The joint review and evaluation of this agreement are currently ongoing.
 (9)
 Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer ofpassenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security, OJ L 215, 11.8.2012, p. 5.The joint evaluation of this agreement is currently ongoing.
 (10)
 Opinion 1/15 of the Court (grand chamber), 26 July 2017.
 (11)
 Communication from the Commission on the global approach to transfers of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data to third countries, COM (2010) 492 final.
 (12)
 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the EU Security Union Strategy, COM (2020) 605 final.
 (13)
 Council Decision (EU) 2019/2107 of 28 November 2019 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union within the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization as regards the revision of Chapter 9 of Annex 9 (Facilitation) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation in respect of standards and recommended practices on passenger name record data, OJ L 318, 10.12.2019, p. 117–122.
 (14)
 Union Position on the reply to ICAO State letter as regards the revision of chapter 9 of annex 9 (Facilitation) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation in respects of standards and recommended practices on passenger name record data Approval, ST 6744 2020 INIT.
 (15)
 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 October 2014, Germany v Council, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, paragraph 64:‘[..] the European Union, while not a party to the OIV Agreement, is entitled to establish a position to be adopted on its behalf with regard to those recommendations, in view of their direct impact on the European Union’s acquis in that area.]
 (16)
 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 October 2014, Germany v Council, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, paragraphs 61 to 64.
 (17)
 Treoir (AE) 2016/681 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 27 Aibreán 2016 maidir le húsáid sonraí as an Taifead Ainmneacha Paisinéirí (PNR) chun cionta sceimhlitheoireachta agus coireacht thromchúiseach a chosc, a bhrath, a imscrúdú agus a ionchúiseamh (IO L 119, 4.5.2016, lch. 132).
 (18)
 Rialachán (AE) 2016/679 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 27 Aibreán 2016 maidir le daoine nádúrtha a chosaint i ndáil le sonraí pearsanta a phróiseáil agus maidir le saorghluaiseacht sonraí den sórt sin, agus lena n‐aisghairtear Treoir 95/46/CE (An Rialachán Ginearálta maidir le Cosaint Sonraí) (IO L 119, 4.5.2016, lch. 1).
 (19)
 Treoir (AE) 2016/680 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 27 Aibreán 2016 i ndáil le cosaint daoine nádúrtha maidir le próiseáil sonraí pearsanta ag údaráis inniúla chun cionta coiriúla a chosc, a imscrúdú, a bhrath nó a ionchúiseamh nó chun pionóis choiriúla a fhorghníomhú, agus saorghluaiseacht sonraí den sórt sin agus lena n‐aisghairtear Cinneadh Réime 2008/977/CGB ón gComhairle (IO L 119, 4.5.2016, lch. 89).
 (20)
 Comhaontú idir an tAontas Eorpach agus an Astráil maidir le haeriompróirí do phróiseáil agus d’aistriú sonraí taifid ainmneacha paisinéirí (TAP) arna bhfoinsiú san Aontas Eorpach chuig Seirbhís Custam agus Cosanta Teorann na hAstráile (IO L 186, 14.7.2012, lch. 4).
 (21)
 Comhaontú idir Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá agus an tAontas Eorpach maidir le taifid ainmneacha paisinéirí a úsáid agus a aistriú chuig Roinn Slándála Dúiche na Stát Aontaithe (IO L 215, 11.8.2012, lch. 5).
 (22)
 Tuairim 1/13 ón gCúirt (Mór-Dhlísheomra) an 26 Iúil 2017 (Comhaontú idir an tAontas Eorpach agus Ceanada i dtaca le Taifid Ainmneacha Paisinéirí ), ECLI:EU:C:2017:592.
 (23)
 Cinneadh (AE) 2019/2107 ón gComhairle an 28 Samhain 2019 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh laistigh de Chomhairle na hEagraíochta Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta i dtaca leis an athbhreithniú ar Chaibidil 9 d’Iarscríbhinn 9 (Saoráil) a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta i leith caighdeán agus cleachtas molta i ndáil le sonraí as an taifead ainmneacha paisinéirí (IO L 318, 10.12.2019, lch. 117).
 ---documentbreak---
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,12.1.2021
 COM(2021) 16 final
 IARSCRÍBHINNÍ
 a ghabhann leis an
 Togra le haghaidh Cinneadh ón gComhairle
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh san Eagraíocht Eitlíochta Sibhialta Idirnáisiúnta a mhéid a bhaineann le Leasú 28 ar Iarscríbhinn 9 Roinn D a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún um Eitlíocht Shibhialta Idirnáisiúnta
 IARSCRÍBHINN
 1. POSITION TO BE TAKEN
 A) As regards point 6(a) of ICAO State Letter EC 6/3-20/71:
 The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf in reply to the State Letter issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization on 17 July 2020 is that no disapproval should be registered on Amendment 28 of Annex 9, Chapter 9, Section D to the Chicago Convention.
 B) As regards point 6(b) of ICAO State Letter EC 6/3-20/71:
 The position to be taken on the Union’s behalf in reply to the State Letter issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization on 17 July 2020 is that a difference should be notified in relation to Standard 9.34, Annex 9, Chapter 9, Section D to the Chicago Convention.
 2. DETAILED EXPLANATION
 The difference to be filed is reflected in the following statement and table:
 “The following difference will exist on 28 February 2021 between the regulations and/or practices of [Member State] and the provisions of Annex 9, including Amendment 28:”
 Provision
 Details of the difference
 Remarks
 Amendment 28 of Annex 9, Section D, Standard 9.34
 Category A – ‘A Contracting State’s requirement is more exacting or exceeds a SARP’
 Standard 9.34(a) requires Contracting States not to inhibit or prevent the transfer of PNR data to another Contracting State that complies with the SARPs.
 Standard 9.34(b) takes into account that the Contracting States shall retain the ability to maintain or introduce higher levels of protection in accordance with their domestic legal and administrative framework, and to enter into additional arrangements with other States in order to establish, in particular, more detailed provisions relating to the transfer of PNR data.
 Under the current European Union legal framework, Member States have to comply with requirements that are in some respects more exacting than those set out in Amendment 28 for the transfers of PNR data originated in the Union to Contracting States that are not Member States of the European Union.
 In this context, the current language of the Standard 9.34 is, from the perspective of the European Union and its Member States
 1
 , not sufficiently clear in legal terms in expressing that the Union Member States are not precluded from imposing those requirements notwithstanding Standard 9.34.
 For this reason, [Member State] considers that the present difference should be notified pursuant to Article 38 of the Chicago Convention in order to allow it to apply legal requirements to PNR data transfers to Contracting States that are not Member States of the European Union, which are in some respects more exacting, without undermining the Standards laid out in Amendment 28.
 [Member State] confirms that in the absence of the possibility of ensuring compliance with such requirements, therefore, transfers by air carriers cannot take place in accordance with Union law.
 [Member State] would like to stress the importance of the work made by ICAO and its contracting States in updating the Standards and Recommended Practices on PNR and welcome the adoption of Amendment 28 by the ICAO Council in June 2020.
 [Member State] underlines that the present difference – filed under Category A as per point 2.1 of Attachment E of State Letter 2020 – 71 – is intended to communicate with due transparency to ICAO and its Contracting States how European Union Member States will implement the Standards in accordance with the European Union legal framework.
 According to the European Union legal framework, the transfer of PNR data originated in the Union from air carriers to the competent authorities of a third country is lawful if certain requirements, which are in some respects more exacting than those set out in Amendment 28, are met.
 Such requirements stem from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 7, 8 and 52, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Opinion 1/15 on the envisaged PNR agreement with Canada and from Chapter V of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
 (1)
 Text proposed by Member States of the European Union to the ICAO Council in reply to EC 6/3-20/14, dated 25 February 2020, on the draft amendment:
 “9.34: Contracting States shall:
 (a) not inhibit or prevent the transfer of PNR data by an aircraft operator or other relevant party, nor sanction, impose penalties or create unreasonable obstacles on aircraft operators or other relevant parties that transfer PNR data to another Contracting State provided that Contracting States’ PNR data system is compliant with the Standards contained in Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9; and
 but
 (b) equally, retain the ability to introduce or maintain higher levels of protection of PNR data, in accordance with their legal and administrative framework, and to enter into additional arrangements with other Contracting States, in particular to: promote collective security; achieve higher levels of protection of PNR data, including on data transfers retention; or to establish more detailed provisions relating to the transfer of PNR data, provided those measures do not undermine otherwise conflict with the Standards contained in Section D, Chapter 9 of Annex 9.”


type: caselaw

text:
 20.3.2017
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 86/17
 Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Korkein oikeus (Finska) 13. januarja 2017 – Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp./Rajavartiolaitos
 (Zadeva C-15/17)
 (2017/C 086/22)
 Jezik postopka: finščina
 Predložitveno sodišče
 Korkein oikeus
 Stranki v postopku v glavni stvari
 Pritožnica: Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp.
 Nasprotna stranka v postopku s pritožbo: Rajavartiolaitos
 Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
 1.
 Ali je treba izraz „obali ali interesom obalne države v zvezi z njeno morsko obalo“ iz člena 220(6) Konvencije oziroma izraz „obali ali s tem povezanim interesom“ iz člena 7(2) Direktive 2005/35/ES (1) razlagati na podlagi opredelitve izraza „obale in interese v zvezi s tem“ iz člena II, točka 4, Mednarodne konvencije iz leta 1969 o intervenciji na odprtem morju za primer nesreče, ki jo povzroči oziroma utegne povzročiti onesnaženje z nafto?
 2.
 V skladu z opredelitvijo v členu II, točka 4(c), Konvencije iz leta 1969, navedene v prvem vprašanju za predhodno odločanje, pomenijo „interesi v zvezi s tem“ med drugim blagostanje območja, za katero gre, vštevši varovanje morskega biološkega zaklada – faune in flore. Ali ta določba velja tudi za ohranitev živih virov ter živalskega in rastlinskega sveta v izključni ekonomski coni ali pa se ta določba konvencije nanaša samo na varovanje interesov obalnega območja?
 3.
 Če je odgovor na prvo vprašanje nikalen: Kaj pomeni izraz „obali ali interesom obalne države v zvezi z njeno morsko obalo“ iz člena 220(6) Konvencije oziroma izraz „obali ali s tem povezanim interesom“ iz člena 7(2) Direktive 2005/35/ES?
 4.
 Kaj pomeni izraz „bogastvu/viri njenega teritorialnega morja ali izključne ekonomske cone“ v smislu člena 220(6) Konvencije in člena 7(2) Direktive 2005/35/ES? Ali je treba z živimi viri razumeti samo uporabne vrste ali pa sem spadajo tudi vrste, ki so z uporabnimi vrstami povezane ali so od njih odvisne, v smislu člena 61(4) Konvencije, kot so na primer rastlinske in živalske vrste, s katerimi se uporabne vrste prehranjujejo?
 5.
 Kaj pomeni izraz „povzroča nevarnost/bi utegnil povzročiti“ iz člena 220(6) Konvencije in člena 7(2) Direktive 2005/35/ES? Ali je treba nevarnost povzročitve opredeliti na podlagi pojma abstraktne ali konkretne nevarnosti ali kako drugače?
 6.
 Ali je treba pri presoji pogojev za pristojnost obalne države, predvidenih v členu 220(6) Konvencije in členu 7(2) Direktive 2005/35/ES, izhajati iz tega, da gre pri povzročeni veliki škodi oziroma nevarnosti, da bo taka škoda nastala, za posledico, ki je hujša od precejšnjega onesnaženja morskega okolja, ki je bilo povzročeno ali za katero obstaja nevarnost, da bo povzročeno, v smislu člena 220(5)? Kako je treba opredeliti precejšnje onesnaženje morskega okolja in kako se upošteva pri oceni povzročene velike škode oziroma nevarnosti za nastanek velike škode?
 7.
 Katere okoliščine je treba upoštevati pri oceni velikosti povzročene škode oziroma nevarnosti za nastanek škode? Ali je treba pri oceni upoštevati, na primer, trajanje in zemljepisno razsežnost negativnih vplivov, ki se kažejo kot škoda? Če se na to vprašanje odgovori pritrdilno: Kako je treba oceniti trajanje in obseg škode?
 8.
 Direktiva 2005/35/ES je direktiva, ki določa minimalne pogoje, in državam članicam ne preprečuje, da v skladu z mednarodnim pravom sprejmejo strožje ukrepe proti onesnaževanju morja z ladij (člen 2). Ali možnost uporabiti strožja pravila velja za člen 7(2) Direktive, ki ureja pristojnost obalne države, da ukrepa proti ladji v tranzitu?
 9.
 Ali so pri razlagi pogojev za pristojnost obalne države, določenih v členu 220(6) Konvencije in v členu 7(2) Direktive, pomembne posebne zemljepisne in ekološke danosti ter občutljivost območja Baltskega morja?
 10.
 Ali izraz „jasne in dejanske dokaze/jasni, objektivni dokazi“ v smislu člena 220(6) Konvencije in člena 7(2) Direktive 2005/35/ES pomeni poleg dokaza, da je ladja storila kršitve, na katere se nanašata navedeni določbi, tudi dokaz posledic izpusta? Kakšen mora biti dokaz, da obstaja nevarnost nastanka velike škode obali ali s tem povezanim interesom ali virom teritorialnega morja ali izključne ekonomske cone, na primer za staleže ptic in rib ter za morsko okolje na tem območju? Ali pomeni zahteva po jasnem, objektivnem dokazu, da mora na primer ocena negativnih vplivov izpusta nafte na morsko okolje vedno temeljiti na konkretnih preiskavah in študijah o vplivih izpusta nafte, do katerega je prišlo?
 (1) Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2005/35/ES z dne 7. septembra 2005 o onesnaževanju morja z ladij in uvedbi kazni za kršitve (UL L 255, str. 1), kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2009/123/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. oktobra 2009 o spremembah Direktive 2005/35/ES o onesnaževanju morja z ladij in uvedbi kazni za kršitve (UL L 280, str. 52).


text:
 24.4.2017
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 129/5
 Petición de decisión prejudicial planteada por el Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) el 9 de febrero de 2017 — David Vicente Fernandes/Gabinete Português de Carta Verde
 (Asunto C-71/17)
 (2017/C 129/07)
 Lengua de procedimiento: portugués
 Órgano jurisdiccional remitente
 Supremo Tribunal de Justiça
 Partes en el procedimiento principal
 Recurrente: David Vicente Fernandes
 Recurrida: Gabinete Português de Carta Verde
 Cuestiones prejudiciales
 1)
 ¿Produce efectos jurídicos en Portugal el seguro celebrado en Luxemburgo de la misma forma que si la póliza correspondiente hubiese sido emitida en Portugal?
 2)
 ¿Es el Gabinete Português de Carta Verde el organismo de indemnización a que se refiere el artículo 24, apartado 1, de la Directiva 2009/103/CE (1) y [...], como responsable de la indemnización a los perjudicados en los casos a los que se refiere el artículo 20, apartado 1, de la Directiva, responde del mismo modo que lo haría la compañía de seguros luxemburguesa?
 3)
 En el caso de autos, ¿basta con demandar al organismo de indemnización o [...] es necesario demandar también a la compañía de seguros? En este último supuesto, [...] podrá ser demandada dicha compañía de seguros en su domicilio de Luxemburgo o [...] deberá demandarse a su representante en Portugal?
 4)
 En caso de que la compañía de seguros no tenga un representante en Portugal, ¿a quién deberá demandarse para que se satisfaga la indemnización íntegra, en caso de que exista una póliza de seguros de responsabilidad civil ilimitada?
 (1) Directiva 2009/103/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 16 de septiembre de 2009, relativa al seguro de la responsabilidad civil que resulta de la circulación de vehículos automóviles, así como al control de la obligación de asegurar esta responsabilidad (DO 2009, L 263, p. 11).


text:
 31.7.2010
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 209/47
 Προσφυγή της 24ης Μαΐου 2010 — Πολωνία κατά Επιτροπής
 (Υπόθεση T-241/10)
 ()
 2010/C 209/71
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η πολωνική
 Διάδικοι
 Προσφεύγουσα: Δημοκρατία της Πολωνίας (εκπρόσωπος: M. Szpunar)
 Καθής: Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή
 Αιτήματα της προσφεύγουσας
 Η προσφεύγουσα ζητεί από το Γενικό Δικαστήριο:
 —
 να ακυρώσει την απόφαση 2010/152/ΕΕ της Επιτροπής της 11ης Μαρτίου 2010 [κοινοποιηθείσα υπό τον αριθμό Ε(2010) 1317] περί εξαιρέσεως από τη χρηματοδότηση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης ορισμένων δαπανών που πραγματοποιήθηκαν από τα κράτη μέλη στο πλαίσιο του Ευρωπαϊκού Γεωργικού Ταμείου Προσανατολισμού και Εγγυήσεων (ΕΓΤΠΕ), τμήμα Εγγυήσεων, στο πλαίσιο του Ευρωπαϊκού Γεωργικού Ταμείου Εγγυήσεων (ΕΓΤΕ) και στο πλαίσιο του Ευρωπαϊκού Γεωργικού Ταμείου Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης (ΕΓΤΑΑ) ΕΕ L 257, σ. 28 (1), καθόσον εξαιρεί δαπάνες ύψους 279 794 442,15 PLN και 25 583 996,81 ευρώ, στις οποίες προέβη η επιφορτισμένη προς τούτο από τη Δημοκρατία της Πολωνίας αρχή·
 —
 να καταδικάσει την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή στα δικαστικά έξοδα.
 Λόγοι ακυρώσεως και κύρια επιχειρήματα
 Με την προσβαλλόμενη απόφαση προβλέπεται μια οικονομική διόρθωση λόγω παρατυπιών στο σύστημα προσδιορισμού και ελέγχου των αγροτεμαχίων κατά τα έτη 2005 και 2006, συνιστάμενων σε ένα μη πλήρως ανυσματικό σύστημα προσδιορισμού αγροτεμαχίων, στην αποδοχή μη επιλέξιμων εκτάσεων για ενισχύσεις, σε πολύ μικρό αριθμό επιτόπιων ελέγχων σε περιοχές με υψηλά ποσοστά σφαλμάτων (Województwo opolskie) και σε εσφαλμένη εφαρμογή των διατάξεων περί μη συμμόρφωσης εκ προθέσεως.
 Η προσφεύγουσα αμφισβητεί την ύπαρξη των εν λόγω παρατυπιών και προβάλλει, σε σχέση με την προσβαλλόμενη απόφαση, τους ακόλουθους λόγους ακυρώσεως.
 Πρώτον, ισχυρίζεται ότι διαπράχθηκε παράβαση του άρθρου 7, παράγραφος 4, πρώτο εδάφιο, του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) 1258/1999 (2) και του άρθρου 31, παράγραφος 1, του κανονισμού 1290/2005 (3), αλλά και παράβαση των περιλαμβανόμενων στο έγγραφο VI/216/93 κατευθυντήριων γραμμών, διότι η οικονομική διόρθωση πραγματοποιήθηκε βάσει εσφαλμένης πραγματικής διαπίστωσης και πεπλανημένης νομικής ερμηνείας, παρότι οι πολωνικές αρχές πραγματοποίησαν τις δαπάνες σύμφωνα με τη νομοθεσία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
 Κατά την προσφεύγουσα, δεν υπήρξε καμία από τις φερόμενες παρατυπίες στις οποίες βασίζεται η επελθούσα οικονομική διόρθωση, οι δε δαπάνες που εξαιρέθηκαν από την χρηματοδότηση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, δυνάμει της προσβαλλομένης αποφάσεως, πραγματοποιήθηκαν σύμφωνα με τη νομοθεσία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
 Το σύστημα προσδιορισμού των αγροτεμαχίων που εφαρμόσθηκε στην Πολωνία κατά τα έτη 2005 και 2006 ανταποκρινόταν πλήρως στις απαιτήσεις του άρθρου 20 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) 1782/2003 (4) και του άρθρου 6 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) 796/2004 (5)· υπερκάλυψε, από κάθε άποψη, σημαντικά τις απαιτήσεις, εξασφαλίζοντας αυστηρή προστασία των οικονομικών συμφερόντων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
 Οι εθνικές διαδικασίες που εφαρμόσθηκαν το 2005 και το 2006 επέτρεψαν να διαπιστώνεται αποτελεσματικά και αντικειμενικά κατά πόσον ένας αιτών παρείχε εκ προθέσεως ή όχι υπερτιμημένα στοιχεία ως προς το μέγεθος των δηλωθεισών για ενισχύσεις εκτάσεων, καθόσον προέβλεπαν δικαστική απόφαση σε αμφισβητούμενες περιπτώσεις και διατήρησαν την αρχή του «τεκμηρίου αθωότητας».
 Η αναγνώριση επιλέξιμων για ενισχύσεις εκτάσεων πραγματοποιήθηκε σύμφωνα με τους όρους εδαφικής επιλεξιμότητας, καθότι κατά την Πράξη Προσχώρησης όρος επιλεξιμότητας μίας έκτασης είναι η διατήρησή της σε καλή γεωργική κατάσταση στις 30 Ιουνίου 2003, ενώ η διατήρηση της έκτασης σε καλή γεωργική και περιβαλλοντική κατάσταση την ημέρα του ελέγχου δεν συνιστά όρο επιλεξιμότητας της εν λόγω έκτασης, αλλά προϋπόθεση, η μη πλήρωση της οποίας έχει ως συνέπεια μείωση του ποσού της ενίσχυσης.
 Ο αριθμός των επιτόπιων ελέγχων που διενεργήθηκαν το 2005 στο Województwo opolskie ανταποκρινόταν στις απαιτήσεις του άρθρου 26 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) 796/2004.
 Δεύτερον, η προσφεύγουσα προβάλλει παράβαση του άρθρου 7, παράγραφος 4, του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) 1258/1999 και του άρθρου 31, παράγραφος 2, του κανονισμού 1290/2005, παραβίαση των κατευθυντήριων γραμμών του εγγράφου VI/5330/97 και παραβίαση της αρχής της αναλογικότητας, λόγω της χρησιμοποιήσεως ενός εξαιρετικά υψηλού ποσοστού διορθώσεως σε σχέση με τον ενδεχόμενο κίνδυνο επελεύσεως οικονομικής ζημίας σε βάρος του προϋπολογισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
 Ακόμα και αν εντοπίζονταν συγκεκριμένες παρατυπίες στο σύστημα ελέγχου και κυρώσεων που εγκαθίδρυσαν οι πολωνικές αρχές, γεγονός που εν προκειμένω δεν συντρέχει, οι παρατυπίες αυτές θα ήταν τόσο επουσιώδεις που ο κίνδυνος επελεύσεως ζημίας σε βάρος του προϋπολογισμού της Ένωσης θα ανήρχετο σε πολύ μικρότερο πόσο από την προβλεπόμενη στην προσβαλλόμενη απόφαση διόρθωση της Επιτροπής. Τούτο αφορά ειδικότερα το ύψος της διόρθωσης στην οποία προέβη η Επιτροπή, διότι φέρεται ότι το σύστημα προσδιορισμού αγροτεμαχίων δεν είναι πλήρως ανυσματικό και ότι δεν διενεργήθηκαν αρκετοί επιτόπιοι έλεγχοι στο Województwo opolskie το 2005.
 (1) ΕΕ L 63, σ. 7.
 (2) Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) 1258/1999 του Συμβουλίου, της 17ης Μαΐου 1999, περί χρηματοδοτήσεως της κοινής γεωργικής πολιτικής (ΕΕ L 160, σ. 103).
 (3) Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) 1290/2005 του Συμβουλίου, της 21ης Ιουνίου 2005, για τη χρηματοδότηση της κοινής γεωργικής πολιτικής (ΕΕ L 209, σ. 1).
 (4) Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) 1782/2003 του Συμβουλίου, της 29ης Σεπτεμβρίου 2003, για τη θέσπιση κοινών κανόνων για τα καθεστώτα άμεσης στήριξης στα πλαίσια της κοινής γεωργικής πολιτικής και για τη θέσπιση ορισμένων καθεστώτων στήριξης για τους γεωργούς και για την τροποποίηση των κανονισμών (ΕΟΚ) 2019/93, (ΕΚ) 1452/2001, (ΕΚ) 1453/2001, (ΕΚ) 1454/2001, (ΕΚ) 1868/94, (ΕΚ) 1251/1999, (ΕΚ) 1254/1999, (ΕΚ) 1673/2000, (ΕΟΚ) 2358/71 και (ΕΚ) 2529/2001 (ΕΕ L 270, σ. 1).
 (5) Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) 796/2004 της Επιτροπής, της 21ης Απριλίου 2004, σχετικά με τη θέσπιση λεπτομερών κανόνων για την εφαρμογή της πολλαπλής συμμόρφωσης, της διαφοροποίησης και του ολοκληρωμένου συστήματος διαχείρισης και ελέγχου που προβλέπονται στον κανονισμό (ΕΚ) 1782/2003 του Συμβουλίου για τη θέσπιση κοινών κανόνων για τα καθεστώτα άμεσης στήριξης στα πλαίσια της κοινής γεωργικής πολιτικής και για τη θέσπιση ορισμένων καθεστώτων στήριξης για τους γεωργούς (ΕΕ L 141, σ. 18).


text:
 29.4.2016
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 115/22
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2016/665 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 26 април 2016 година
 относно класирането на някои стоки в Комбинираната номенклатура
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕИО) No 2658/87 на Съвета от 23 юли 1987 г. относно тарифната и статистическа номенклатура и Общата митническа тарифа (1), и по-специално член 9, параграф 1, буква а) от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 С цел да се осигури еднакво прилагане на Комбинираната номенклатура, приложена към Регламент (ЕИО) No 2658/87, е необходимо да се приемат мерки относно класирането на стоките, посочени в приложението към настоящия регламент.
 (2)
 С Регламент (ЕИО) No 2658/87 се определят общите правила за тълкуване на Комбинираната номенклатура. Тези правила се прилагат също така и към всяка друга номенклатура, която изцяло или частично се основава на нея, с която се добавят допълнителни подраздели към нея и която е създадена със специални разпоредби на Съюза с оглед на прилагането на тарифни и други мерки, свързани с търговията със стоки.
 (3)
 В съответствие с тези общи правила стоките, описани в колона 1 от таблицата в приложението, следва да бъдат класирани в кода по КН, посочен в колона 2, на основание на посоченото в колона 3 от същата таблица.
 (4)
 Целесъобразно е да се предвиди обвързващата тарифна информация, която е издадена по отношение на обхванатите от настоящия регламент стоки и която не е в съответствие с него, да може да продължи да се използва от титуляря за известен период от време в съответствие с член 12, параграф 6 от Регламент (ЕИО) No 2913/92 на Съвета (2). Този период следва да бъде определен на три месеца.
 (5)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Комитета по Митническия кодекс,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Стоките, описани в колона 1 от таблицата в приложението, се класират в Комбинираната номенклатура в кода по КН, посочен в колона 2 от същата таблица.
 Член 2
 Обвързващата тарифна информация, която не е в съответствие с настоящия регламент, може да продължи да се използва съгласно член 12, параграф 6 от Регламент (ЕИО) No 2913/92 за срок от три месеца от датата на влизане в сила на настоящия регламент.
 Член 3
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на двадесетия ден след деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 26 април 2016 година.
 За Комисията,
 от името на председателя,
 Stephen QUEST
 Генерален директор на генерална дирекция „Данъчно облагане и митнически съюз“
 (1) ОВ L 256, 7.9.1987 г., стр. 1.
 (2) Регламент (ЕИО) No 2913/92 на Съвета от 12 октомври 1992 г. за създаване на Митнически кодекс на Общността (ОВ L 302, 19.10.1992 г., стр. 1).
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ
 Описание на стоките
 Класиране
 (код по КН)
 Основания
 (1)
 (2)
 (3)
 Ръчен електрически уред (така нареченият „пистолет за лепене“), предназначен за нанасяне на горещо стопено лепило върху дърво и други материали. Корпусът на уреда е от пластмаса и има сменяема дюза, изработена от неблагороден метал. Дюзата е регулируема, така че да може да се променя потокът на лепилото.
 Когато се включи уредът, се нагрява контролирана с термостат подаваща тръба, която на свой ред загрява сменяема пръчка лепило (с максимална температура 207 °C). Лепилото омеква и може да бъде нанесено върху материалите, които трябва да бъдат залепени.
 Пистолетът е предназначен да бъде използван основно от специалисти, например в сектора на опаковането, мебелната промишленост или сглобяването на стендове.
 Вж. изображението (*)
 8419 89 98
 Класирането се определя от разпоредбите на Общи правила 1 и 6 за тълкуване на Комбинираната номенклатура, забележка 3 към раздел XVI и от описанието на кодовете по КН 8419 , 8419 89 и 8419 89 98 .
 Изключва се класирането в позиция 8205 като ръчен инструмент, от неблагороден метал, неупоменат, нито включен другаде, тъй като функцията на уреда е посочена в глава 84.
 Изключва се и класирането в позиция 8424 като механичен апарат за изхвърляне, разпръскване или пулверизиране на течни или прахообразни материали, или като шприцпистолет, тъй като лепилото не се изхвърля, разпръсква, нито пулверизира.
 Изключва се класирането в позиция 8516 като електронагревателен апарат за домакински цели, тъй като уредът е предназначен за използване от специалисти и не е от вид, който обикновено се използва в домакинствата (вж. също Обяснителните бележки към Хармонизираната система (ОБХС) за позиция 8516 (Д).
 Класирането в позиция 8465 като машина за обработка на дърво също се изключва, тъй като уредът не обработва дървото. Освен това уредът се държи с ръка и не е монтиран другаде (вж. също Обяснителните бележки към ХС за позиция 8465 ).
 Уредът е предназначен за обработване на материали чрез операция, изискваща промяна на температурата с нагряване (функция, класирана в позиция 8419 ), което се счита за главната му функция, както и за регулиране на потока на лепилото и неговото нанасяне (специфична функция, неупомената, нито включена другаде).
 Следователно той трябва да бъде класиран в код по КН 8419 89 98 като „Други машини, с електрическо загряване, за обработка на материали“.
 (*) Изображението е само за информация.


text:
 |
 52011PC0799
 /* KOM/2011/0799 lopullinen - 2011/0375 (NLE) */ Ehdotus NEUVOSTON ASETUS eräiden kalakantojen ja kalakantaryhmien Mustallamerellä sovellettavien kalastusmahdollisuuksien vahvistamisesta vuodeksi 2012
 PERUSTELUTEHDOTUKSEN TAUSTA110- Ehdotuksen perustelut ja tavoitteetElollisten vesiluonnonvarojen säilyttämisestä ja kestävästä hyödyntämisestä yhteisessä kalastuspolitiikassa 20 päivänä joulukuuta 2002 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 2371/2002 mukaisesti yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan tavoitteena on varmistaa elollisten vesiluonnonvarojen hyödyntäminen talouden, ympäristön ja sosiaalisten tekijöiden kannalta kestävin edellytyksin. Tärkeä väline näiden tavoitteiden saavuttamiseksi on kalastusmahdollisuuksien vuosittainen vahvistaminen suurimpien sallittujen saaliiden (TACit), kiintiöiden ja pyyntiponnistusrajoitusten muodossa.Tämän ehdotuksen tavoitteena on vahvistaa Mustanmeren kaupallisesti tärkeimpien kalakantojen kalastusmahdollisuudet jäsenvaltioille vuodeksi 2012.- Yleinen taustaKomission tiedonannossa vuoden 2012 kalastusmahdollisuuksia koskevasta kuulemisesta (KOM(2011) 298 lopullinen) esitetään ehdotuksen taustat.Tieteellis-teknis-taloudellinen kalastuskomitea (STECF) antaa vuoden 2012 kalastusmahdollisuuksia Mustallamerellä koskevan tieteellisen lausuntonsa marraskuussa 2011.Ehdotuksessa on yksi osa, joka koskee Mustanmeren kalastuksenhoitoa vuonna 2012. Tässä osassa vahvistetaan TACit ja kiintiöt.- Voimassa olevat aiemmat säännöksetKalastusmahdollisuuksista ja niiden jakamisesta jäsenvaltioille annetaan vuosittain asetus. Viimeisin tällainen asetus on eräiden kalakantojen Mustallamerellä sovellettavien kalastusmahdollisuuksien vahvistamisesta vuodeksi 2011 17 päivänä joulukuuta 2010 annettu neuvoston asetus (EU) N:o 1256/2010.- Johdonmukaisuus suhteessa EU:n muuhun politiikkaan ja muihin tavoitteisiinEhdotetut toimenpiteet ovat yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan tavoitteiden ja sääntöjen mukaisia ja yhdenmukaisia kestävää kehitystä koskevan unionin politiikan kanssa.KUULEMISET JA VAIKUTUSTEN ARVIOINTI- Asiantuntijatiedon keruu ja käyttöTärkeimmät organisaatiot ja asiantuntijat, joita on kuultuTieteellisistä järjestöistä on kuultu tieteellis-teknis-taloudellista kalatalouskomiteaa (STECF).Unioni pyytää vuosittain STECF:ltä tieteelliset lausunnot tärkeiden kalakantojen tilasta. Saatujen lausuntojen odotetaan kattavan kaikki Mustanmeren kannat, joille TACia ehdotetaan.- Sidosryhmien kuuleminenSidosryhmiä kuultiin vuoden 2012 kalastusmahdollisuuksia koskevasta kuulemisesta annetun tiedonannon välityksellä. STECF esittelee ehdotuksen tieteellisen perustan.- Vaikutusten arviointiTieteellistä lausuntoa odotettaessa ehdotetut toimenpiteet saattavat, jos ne toteutetaan, muuttaa EU:n alusten kalastusmahdollisuuksia Mustallamerellä saalismäärien osalta.Ehdotus ei perustu ainoastaan lyhyen aikavälin tavoitteisiin vaan on myös osa pidemmän aikavälin lähestymistapaa, jonka avulla kalastus saadaan asteittain mukautettua pitkällä aikavälillä kestävälle tasolle.Ehdotuksessa omaksuttu lähestymistapa saattaa sen vuoksi johtaa keskipitkällä ja pitkällä aikavälillä pyyntiponnistuksen vähenemiseen mutta pitkällä aikavälillä vakaisiin tai suurempiin kiintiöihin. Lähestymistavan pitkän aikavälin seurauksina arvellaan sen vuoksi olevan ympäristövaikutusten väheneminen pyyntiponnistuksen mukauttamisen myötä ja purettujen saaliiden pysyminen ennallaan tai kasvaminen. Kalastustoiminnan kestävyys parantunee pitkällä aikavälillä.EHDOTUKSEEN LIITTYVÄT OIKEUDELLISET NÄKÖKOHDAT- Ehdotetun toimen lyhyt kuvausEhdotuksessa vahvistetaan saalis- ja pyyntiponnistusrajoitukset, joita sovelletaan EU:n kalastuksiin sekä kansainvälisiin kalastuksiin silloin, kun EU:n alukset osallistuvat niihin. Rajoitusten avulla pyritään saavuttamaan yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan tavoite, jonka mukaan olisi varmistettava, että unionin kalastus on biologisesti, taloudellisesti ja sosiaalisesti kestävällä pohjalla.- OikeusperustaEuroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen 43 artiklan 3 kohta.- ToissijaisuusperiaateEhdotus kuuluu Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen 3 artiklan 1 kohdan d alakohdassa tarkoitettuun Euroopan unionin yksinomaiseen toimivaltaan. Sen vuoksi toissijaisuusperiaatetta ei sovelleta.- SuhteellisuusperiaateEhdotus on suhteellisuusperiaatteen mukainen seuraavista syistä:Yhteinen kalastuspolitiikka on yhteinen koko unionille. SEUT-sopimuksen 43 artiklan 3 kohdan mukaan neuvoston tehtävänä on hyväksyä kalastusmahdollisuuksien vahvistamista ja jakamista koskevat toimenpiteet.Kyseisessä neuvoston asetuksessa jaetaan kalastusmahdollisuudet jäsenvaltioille. Asetuksen (EY) N:o 2371/2003 20 artiklan 3 kohdan mukaan jäsenvaltiot voivat vapaasti jakaa mainitut mahdollisuudet parhaaksi katsomallaan tavalla eri alueiden tai toimijoiden kesken. Jäsenvaltioilla on täten laaja liikkumavara päätöksissä, jotka koskevat niiden valitsemaa sosiaalista/taloudellista mallia niille myönnettyjen kalastusmahdollisuuksien hyödyntämiseksi.Ehdotuksella ei ole uusia rahoitusvaikutuksia jäsenvaltioille. Neuvosto antaa tämän asetuksen vuosittain, ja sen täytäntöön panemiseksi tarvittavat julkiset ja yksityiset resurssit ovat jo olemassa.- Sääntelytavan valintaEhdotettu sääntelytapa: asetus.Kyseessä on SEUT-sopimuksen 43 artiklan 3 kohtaan perustuva ja neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 2371/2002 20 artiklan mukainen kalastuksenhoitoa koskeva ehdotus.TALOUSARVIOVAIKUTUKSETEhdotuksella ei ole vaikutuksia EU:n talousarvioon.LISÄTIEDOT- YksinkertaistaminenEhdotuksella yksinkertaistetaan (EU:n tai kansallisten) viranomaisten hallintomenettelyjä, erityisesti pyyntiponnistuksen hallinnointia koskevien vaatimusten osalta.- Uudelleentarkastelu-, tarkistus- tai raukeamislausekeEhdotus koskee vuodeksi 2012 annettavaa vuotuista asetusta eikä sen vuoksi sisällä tarkistuslauseketta.- Yksityiskohtainen selvitysEhdotuksessa vahvistetaan eräiden kalakantojen tai kalakantaryhmien kalastusmahdollisuudet Mustallamerellä kalastaville jäsenvaltioille vuodeksi 2012.Ehdotetut luvut kuvastavat tieteellisiä lausuntoja sekä TACien ja kiintiöiden vahvistamista koskevaa kehystä, joka esitetään vuoden 2012 kalastusmahdollisuuksia koskevasta kuulemisesta annetussa komission tiedonannossa.Koska komissio aikoo varmistaa kalavarojen kestävän käytön unionin politiikan ja kansainvälisten sitoumusten mukaisesti ja säilyttää kalastusmahdollisuudet vakaina, TACien ja kiintiöiden vuotuisia vaihteluita rajoitetaan siinä määrin kuin se on käytännöllistä, kun otetaan huomioon jonkin tietyn kannan tila.Jäsenvaltioille myönnettävät TACit ja kiintiöt vahvistetaan liitteessä I.2011/0375 (NLE)EhdotusNEUVOSTON ASETUSeräiden kalakantojen ja kalakantaryhmien Mustallamerellä sovellettavien kalastusmahdollisuuksien vahvistamisesta vuodeksi 2012EUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, jokaottaa huomioon Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen ja erityisesti sen 43 artiklan 3 kohdan,ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen,sekä katsoo seuraavaa:1. Perussopimuksen 43 artiklan 3 kohdan mukaisesti neuvosto hyväksyy komission ehdotuksesta kalastusmahdollisuuksien vahvistamiseen ja jakamiseen liittyviä toimenpiteitä.2. Elollisten vesiluonnonvarojen säilyttämisestä ja kestävästä hyödyntämisestä yhteisessä kalastuspolitiikassa annetussa asetuksessa (EY) N:o 2371/2002[1] edellytetään, että vahvistetaan toimenpiteitä, jotka koskevat vesialueille pääsyä ja vesiluonnonvarojen käyttöoikeutta sekä kestävän kalastustoiminnan harjoittamista, ottaen huomioon käytettävissä olevat tieteelliset lausunnot ja erityisesti tieteellis-teknis-taloudellisen kalastuskomitean (STECF) laatima kertomus.3. Neuvoston tehtävänä on hyväksyä kalastus- tai kalastusryhmäkohtaisten kalastusmahdollisuuksien vahvistamista ja jakamista koskevat toimenpiteet, mukaan luettuina tarvittaessa niiden käyttöön toiminnallisesti liittyvät edellytykset. Kalastusmahdollisuudet olisi jaettava jäsenvaltioiden kesken siten, että varmistetaan kunkin jäsenvaltion kalastustoiminnan suhteellinen vakaus kunkin kannan tai kalastuksen osalta ja ottaen asianmukaisesti huomioon asetuksessa (EY) N:o 2371/2002 vahvistetut yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan tavoitteet.4. Suurimmat sallitut saaliit (TACit) ja kiintiöt olisi vahvistettava saatavilla olevien tieteellisten lausuntojen perusteella ja ottaen huomioon biologiset ja sosioekonomiset näkökohdat varmistaen samalla eri kalastussektorien välinen oikeudenmukainen kohtelu ja kannanotot, jotka on tuotu esiin sidosryhmien kuulemisissa.5. Tässä asetuksessa vahvistettujen kalastusmahdollisuuksien käyttöön sovelletaan yhteisön valvontajärjestelmästä, jonka tarkoituksena on varmistaa yhteisen kalastuspolitiikan sääntöjen noudattaminen, 20 päivänä marraskuuta 2009 annettua neuvoston asetusta (EY) N:o 1224/2009[2] ja erityisesti mainitun asetuksen 33 artiklaa, joka koskee saaliiden ja pyyntiponnistuksen kirjaamista, ja 34 artiklaa, joka koskee tietojen ilmoittamista kalastusmahdollisuuksien käyttämisestä loppuun. Sen vuoksi on tarpeen täsmentää koodit, joita jäsenvaltioiden on käytettävä, kun ne lähettävät komissiolle tämän asetuksen soveltamisalaan kuuluvien kantojen purettujen saaliiden määriin liittyviä tietoja.6. TACien ja kiintiöiden vuosittaiseen hallinnoimiseen liittyvien lisäedellytysten käyttöönottamisesta 6 päivänä toukokuuta 1996 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 847/96[3] 2 artiklan mukaisesti on määriteltävä kannat, joihin sovelletaan mainitussa asetuksessa tarkoitettuja eri toimenpiteitä.7. Jotta kalastustoiminta ei keskeytyisi ja turvattaisiin unionin kalastajien toimeentulo, on tärkeää avata nämä kalastukset 1 päivänä tammikuuta 2012. Asian kiireellisyyden vuoksi tämän asetuksen olisi tultava voimaan välittömästi sen jälkeen, kun se on julkaistu,ON HYVÄKSYNYT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN:I LUKU Soveltamisala ja määritelmät1 artikla KohdeTässä asetuksessa vahvistetaan eräiden kalakantojen ja kalakantaryhmien Mustallamerellä sovellettavat kalastusmahdollisuudet vuodeksi 2012.2 artikla SoveltamisalaTätä asetusta sovelletaan Mustallamerellä toimiviin EU:n kalastusaluksiin.3 artikla MääritelmätTässä asetuksessa sovelletaan seuraavia määritelmiä:a) ’GFCM’ tarkoittaa Välimeren yleistä kalastusneuvostoa;b) ’Mustameri’ tarkoittaa päätöslauselman nro GFCM/33/2009/2 mukaista CFCM:n maantieteellistä osa-aluetta;c) ’EU:n alus’ tarkoittaa jonkin jäsenvaltion lipun alla purjehtivaa ja unionissa rekisteröityä kalastusalusta;d) ’suurin sallittu saalis (TAC)’ tarkoittaa sitä määrää, joka voidaan pyytää kustakin kannasta kunakin vuonna;e) ’kiintiö’ tarkoittaa unionille, jäsenvaltiolle tai kolmannelle maalle TACista myönnettyä osuutta.II LUKUKalastusmahdollisuudet4 artikla TACit ja niiden jakaminenTACit, niiden jakaminen jäsenvaltioiden kesken ja tarvittaessa niiden käyttöön toiminnallisesti liittyvät edellytykset vahvistetaan liitteessä.5 artikla Jakamista koskevat erityissäännöksetTässä asetuksessa vahvistettu kalastusmahdollisuuksien jakaminen jäsenvaltioiden kesken ei rajoita seuraavien soveltamista:a) asetuksen (EY) N:o 2371/2002 20 artiklan 5 kohdan mukaisesti tehtävät vaihdot;b) asetuksen (EY) N:o 1224/2009 37 artiklan mukaisesti tehtävät uudelleen jakamiset;c) asetuksen (EY) N:o 847/96 3 artiklan nojalla sallittavat saaliiden lisäpurkamiset;d) asetuksen (EY) N:o 847/96 4 artiklan mukaisesti pidätettävät määrät;e) asetuksen (EY) N:o 1224/2009 37, 105 ja 107 artiklan mukaisesti tehtävät vähennykset.6 artikla Saaliiden ja sivusaaliiden aluksesta purkamista koskevat edellytyksetAluksella ei saa pitää eikä aluksesta saa purkaa sellaisiin kantoihin kuuluvia kaloja, joille on vahvistettu kalastusmahdollisuudet tällä asetuksella, paitsi josa) saaliit on pyydetty sellaisen jäsenvaltion aluksilla, jolla on olemassa kiintiö, eikä tämä kiintiö ole täyttynyt; taib) saaliit ovat osa unionin kiintiötä, jota ei ole jaettu jäsenvaltioiden kesken kiintiöiksi, eikä tämä unionin kiintiö ole täyttynyt.III LUKULoppusäännökset7 artikla Tietojen siirtäminenKun jäsenvaltiot lähettävät komissiolle pyydettyjen kantojen purettujen saaliiden määriin liittyviä tietoja asetuksen (EY) N:o 1224/2009 33 ja 34 artiklan mukaisesti, niiden on käytettävä tämän asetuksen liitteessä esitettyjä kantojen koodeja.8 artikla VoimaantuloTämä asetus tulee voimaan sitä päivää seuraavana päivänä, jona se julkaistaan Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä .Sitä sovelletaan 1 päivästä tammikuuta 2012.Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa.Tehty BrysselissäNeuvoston puolestaPuheenjohtaja LIITEEU:n aluksiin sovellettavat TACit alueilla, joilla on TACit vahvistetaan laji- ja aluekohtaisestiSeuraavissa taulukoissa vahvistetaan TACit ja kiintiöt (tonneina elopainoa, jollei toisin mainita) kalakannoittain ja tarvittaessa niiden käyttöön toiminnallisesti liittyvät edellytykset.Kalakannat mainitaan lajin latinankielisen nimen mukaisessa aakkosjärjestyksessä. Seuraavassa esitetään tämän asetuksen soveltamiseksi latinankielisten nimien ja yleiskielisten nimien vastaavuustaulukko:Tieteellinen nimi | Kolmikirjaiminen koodi | Yleiskielinen nimi |Psetta maxima | TUR | Piikkikampela |Sprattus sprattus | SPR | Kilohaili |Laji: | Piikkikampela | Alue: | EU:n vedet ja Mustameri |Psetta maxima | TUR/F37.4.2.C |Bulgaria | 37 | Analyyttinen TAC Asetuksen (EY) N:o 847/96 3 artiklaa ei sovelleta. Asetuksen (EY) N:o 847/96 4 artiklaa ei sovelleta. |Romania | 37 |EU | 74 | (1) |TAC | Ei sovelleta |_________ |(1) Kalastus, jälleenlaivaaminen, alukselle ottaminen ja purkaminen kielletty 15.4.–15.6. |Laji: | Kilohaili | Alue: | EU:n vedet ja Mustameri |Sprattus sprattus | SPR/F37.4.2.C |Bulgaria | 8 032,5 | Analyyttinen TAC Asetuksen (EY) N:o 847/96 3 artiklaa ei sovelleta. Asetuksen (EY) N:o 847/96 4 artiklaa ei sovelleta. |Romania | 3 442,5 |EU | 11 475 |TAC | Ei sovelleta |_________ |[1] EYVL L 358, 31.12.2002, s. 59.[2] EUVL L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.[3] EYVL L 115, 9.5.1996, s. 3.


type: wikipedia

text:
Jonathan "Jack" O'Neill je fiktívna postava v sci-fi televiznom seriáli Stargate SG-1 a videofilme Stargate: The Ark of Truth. V menšej miere aj v seriáloch Stargate Atlantis a Stargate Universe.
 V pôvodnom filme Hviezdna brána ho hral americký herec Kurt Russell. V seriáloch počas desiatich rokov herec Richard Dean Anderson.
 Film
 Vo filme bol stvárnený ako plukovník vzdušných síl USA vo výslužbe, s ťažkými depresiami zo smrti syna, ktorý sa zastrelil jeho služobnou zbraňou. Do novovzniknutého, tajného projektu Hviezdna brána bol povolaný ako vojenský dôstojník so skúsenosťami v špeciálnych jednotkách. Bol jedným z prvých cestovateľov zariadením hviezdna brána. Spolu s doktorom Danielom Jacksonom a ďalšími členmi viedol expedíciu na planétu Abydos, kde čelili hrozbe Goa’ulda Ra.
 Charakter postavy je vykreslený odlišne ako v seriáloch. O'Neill je uzavretá postava, s minimom zmyslu pre humor a silnými militantnými zvyklosťami. Rodinné problémy (smrť syna, odchod manželky) ho predurčili na možnú "jednocestnú misiu", keď pri nepriaznivom vývoji situácie na Abydose mal zostať a odpáliť nukleárnu zbraň. Vytvorí si však vzťah so Skaarom, ktorý mu pripomína jeho syna.
 Seriály
 V seriáloch sa na Zemi vytvorilo Veliteľstvo hviezdnej brány (po anglicky Stargate Command, skracované ako SGC) a stále prieskumné tímy. O'Neill sa stal členom tímu SG-1 ako jeho veliteľ, hodnosť plukovník. Spolu s ďalšími členmi (doktor histórie Daniel Jackson, Jaffa Teal’com a Samantha Carterová) cestoval na rôzne ďalšie planéty v systéme hviezdných brán. Od ôsmej série seriálu SG1 bol brigádnym generálom a veliteľom samotného SGC s minimálnou účasťou na misiách.
 V priebehu seriálu bol odhalený jeho antický gén, pomocou ktorého bol ako jeden z mála ľudí schopný ovládať vyspelé antické zariadenia.
 Postava oplýva výborným zmyslom pre humor, často skrytou inteligenciou a zámerne sa prezentuje ako veľmi nechápavý člen tímu. Priatelí sa s Teal’com a vrchným veliteľom asgardských bojových síl Thorom. Inklinuje k Samanthe Cartrovej. Rád sleduje televízny seriál Simpsonovci.
 Poznámky
 Externé zdroje
 O'Neill na Stargate wikia
 Postavy zo seriálu Hviezdna brána
 de:Stargate – Kommando SG-1#Jack O’Neill
 sv:Lista över rollfigurer i Stargate#Jack O'Neill