type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
2.5.2016
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea
 C 156/19
 Sentenza della Corte (Sesta Sezione) del 17 marzo 2016 (domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale proposta dalla Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Taser International Inc./SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu
 (Causa C-175/15) (1)
 ((Rinvio pregiudiziale - Spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia - Cooperazione giudiziaria in materia civile - Regolamento (CE) n. 44/2001 - Contratti che prevedono l’obbligo per un’impresa rumena di cedere taluni marchi ad un’impresa che ha la propria sede sociale in uno Stato terzo - Diniego - Clausola attributiva di competenza in favore dello Stato terzo - Comparizione del convenuto dinanzi ai giudici romeni senza contestazione - Norme sulla competenza applicabili))
 (2016/C 156/26)
 Lingua processuale: il rumeno
 Giudice del rinvio
 Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție
 Parti
 Ricorrente: Taser International Inc.
 Convenuti: SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu
 Dispositivo
 1)
 Gli articoli 23, paragrafo 5, e 24 del regolamento (CE) n. 44/2001 del Consiglio, del 22 dicembre 2000, concernente la competenza giurisdizionale, il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale, devono essere interpretati nel senso che, nell’ambito di una controversia vertente sull’inadempimento di un obbligo contrattuale, nella quale il ricorrente ha adito i giudici dello Stato membro nel cui territorio il convenuto ha la propria sede sociale, la competenza di tali giudici può risultare dall’articolo 24 di tale regolamento qualora il convenuto non contesti la loro competenza, anche se il contratto tra le due parti contiene una clausola attributiva di competenza in favore dei giudici di uno Stato terzo.
 2)
 L’articolo 24 del regolamento n. 44/2001 deve essere interpretato nel senso che osta, nell’ambito di una controversia tra le parti di un contratto che contiene una clausola attributiva di competenza in favore dei giudici di uno Stato terzo, a che il giudice dello Stato membro nel cui territorio il convenuto ha la propria sede sociale, il quale è stato adito, dichiari la propria incompetenza d’ufficio, anche se tale convenuto non ne contesta la competenza.
 (1) GU C 236 del 20.7.2015.


type: wikipedia

text:
Prof. dr Jovan Delić (Borkovići, Piva, Crna Gora, 4. listopada 1949.), književnik teoretičar i istraživač.
 Životopis
 Osnovnu školu je završio u pivskim selima (Bojkovići, Goransko, Plužine i Milkovac), a gimnaziju u Nikšiću. Studirao je na Filološkom fakultetu Sveučilišta u Beogradu grupu "Opća književnost sa teorijom književnosti" (1967. – 1971.) gdje je diplomirao (1971.), magistrirao (1983.) i doktorirao (1996.). Objavljivao je na ruskom, ukrajinskom, njemačkom i francuskom jeziku. Od prosinca 1972. do lipnja 1998. radio je na Filozofskom fakultetu u Novom Sadu, a od 1998. predaje suvremenu srpsku književnost na Filološkom fakultetu u Beogradu. Od 1986. do 1991. radio je kao lektor na sveučilištu "Georg August" u Getingenu. Gostovao je na više njemačkih sveučilišta kao predavač. Dobitnik je više književnih nagrada.
 Član je Matice srpske od 1985., stalni član suradnik od 1995., član Upravnog odbora od 1999., a za glavnog urednika "Zbornika Matice srpske za književnost i jezik" postavljen je 2000. godine.
 Važnija djela
 Objavio je oko 450 bibliografskih jedinica i sljedeće knjige:
 "Kritičarevi paradoksi", Novi Sad, Matica srpska, 1980.
 "Srpski nadrealizam i roman", Beograd, Srpska književna zadruga, 1980.
 "Pjesnik 'patetike uma'" (o pjesništvu Pavla Popovića), Novi Sad, Dnevnik, 1983.
 "Tradicija i Vuk Stef. Karadžić", Beograd, BIGZ, 1990.
 "Hazarska prizma, tumačenje proze Milorada Pavića", Beograd, Prosveta, Dosije; Titograd, Oktoih; Gornji Milanovac, Dečje novine, 1991.
 "Književni pogledi Danila Kiša, ka poetici Kišove proze", Beograd, Prosveta, 1995.
 "Kroz prozu Danila Kiša, ka poetici Kišove proze II", Beograd, BIGZ, 1997.
 Srpski književnici
 Srbijanski znanstvenici
 Matica srpska


type: contracts

text:
Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 22004A0123(01)
 Oficialusis leidinys L 016 , 23/01/2004 p. 0066 - 0073
 PRIEDASEuropos Sąjungos ir Buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijossusitarimasdėl Europos Sąjungos policijos misijos statuso ir veiklos Buvusiojoje Jugoslavijos Respublikoje Makedonijoje (EUPOL "Proxima")EUROPOS SĄJUNGA, toliau – ES,irBUVUSIOJI JUGOSLAVIJOS RESPUBLIKA MAKEDONIJA,toliau – Priimančioji Šalis,toliau abi kartu vadinamos Šalimis,ATSIŽVELGDAMOS Į:(a) Priimančiosios Šalies Ministro Pirmininko Crvenkovskio 2003 m. rugsėjo 16 d. laišką, kuriame ES raginama įsteigti konsultacinę policijos misiją ir kuriuo numatoma sudaryti Priimančiosios Šalies Vyriausybės ir ES susitarimą,(b) Generalinio Sekretoriaus ir Vyriausiojo įgaliotinio 2003 m. spalio 24 d. atsakymą, patvirtinantį, kad pasiūlymas priimamas,(c) Europos Sąjungos Tarybos 2003 m. rugsėjo 29 d. patvirtintą Bendrųjų veiksmų aktą 2003/681/BUSP dėl ES policijos misijos steigimo Priimančioje Šalyje,(d) tai, kad Šalys susitaria dėl EUPOL "Proxima" trukmės,(e) tai, kad, vykdant Policijos misijos veiklą, ES policijos ekspertai tikrins, konsultuos Priimančiosios Šalies policiją ir jai patars,(f) Priimančiosios Šalies ir Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių Stabilizacijos ir asociacijos susitarimą, pasirašytą 2001 m. balandžio 9 d., kuriame pateiktos nuostatos dėl bendradarbiavimo teisingumo ir vidaus reikalų srityje,(g) teigiama linkme besiformuojančią saugumo padėtį Priimančioje Šalyje ir prie to prisidėjusią paramą sėkmingai įgyvendinus ES karinę operaciją Priimančioje Šalyje ("Concordia"),(h) toliau vykdomą Priimančiosios Šalies veiklą, kurią remia ES ir tarptautinė bendruomenė siekiant įtvirtinti teisinę valstybę, ypač skatinant baudžiamosios teisenos sistemos reformą, ir vykdyti tolesnius veiksmus tam, kad būtų užkirstas kelias organizuotam nusikalstamumui ir jį būtų galima kontroliuoti bei būtų gerinami viešosios tvarkos palaikymo policijos pajėgomis standartai remiantis tarptautiniu mastu pripažintais standartais,(i) bendrą tikslą, kad Priimančioji Šalis sėkmingai siektų galutinės narystės ES,(j) tai, kad privilegijų ir imuniteto paskirtis, kaip numatyta šiame Susitarime, – ne naudos teikimas individualiems asmenims, o siekis užtikrinti veiksmingą ES misijos darbą,(k) tai, kad pagal šio Susitarimo nuostatas Šalių, sudariusių tarptautinius susitarimus ir pasirašiusių kitus tarptautinių tribunolų steigimo tarptautinius dokumentus, įskaitant Tarptautinio baudžiamojo teismo Romos statutą, teisės ir įsipareigojimai nepasikeis,SUSITARĖ:1 straipsnisTaikymo sritis ir sąvokos1. Šio Susitarimo nuostatos ir bet koks Priimančiosios Šalies įsipareigojimas ar bet kokia privilegija, imunitetas, palanki sąlyga arba nuolaida, suteikta EUPOL "Proxima" ar EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams, taikomi tik Priimančiosios Šalies teritorijoje.2. Šiame Susitarime naudojamos tokios sąvokos:(a) EUPOL "Proxima" – tai Europos Sąjungos policijos misija Priimančiojoje Šalyje, įsteigta Europos Sąjungos Tarybos 2003 m. rugsėjo 29 d. Bendrųjų veiksmų aktu 2003/681/BUSP, įskaitant jos sudedamąsias dalis, pajėgas, padalinius, būstines ir darbuotojus, dislokuotus Priimančiosios Šalies teritorijoje ir paskirtus EUPOL "Proxima";(b) "Misijos vadovas" – tai Misijos vadovas ir EUPOL "Proxima" policijos komisaras, kurį skiria Europos Sąjungos Taryba;(c) EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai – tai Misijos vadovas, darbuotojai, kuriuos skiria ES valstybės narės ir valstybės ne ES narės, pakviestos ES dalyvauti EUPOL "Proxima" veikloje, bei tarptautinis personalas, kurį EUPOL "Proxima" pasamdo sutarčių pagrindu, dislokuoti tam, kad parengtų, remtų ir įgyvendintų Misijos veiklą, išskyrus komercinių sutarčių dalyvius ir vietinius darbuotojus;(d) "Būstinė" – tai EUPOL "Proxima" pagrindinė būstinė, įsikūrusi Skopjėje, ir vietinės būstinės ar budėjimo postai po atviru dangumi bet kurioje vietoje;(e) "Siunčiančioji valstybė" – tai bet kuri ES valstybė narė ar valstybė ne ES narė, kuri paskyrė darbuotojus į EUPOL "Proxima";(f) "Patalpos" – tai visi pastatai, infrastruktūra ir žemė, reikalingi EUPOL "Proxima" veiklai vykdyti bei EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams apgyvendinti.2 straipsnisBendrosios nuostatos1. EUPOL "Proxima" ir EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai gerbia Priimančiosios Šalies įstatymus ir norminius teisės aktus, įskaitant tuos, kurie susijęs su aplinkos, gamtos ir kultūros paveldo apsauga, ir nesiima veiksmų ar veiklos, kurie nesuderinami su jų pareigų nešališkumo ir tarptautiniu pobūdžiu ar su šio Susitarimo nuostatomis.2. EUPOL "Proxima" pagal šį Susitarimą funkcijų atlikimo atžvilgiu yra autonominė. Priimančioji Šalis gerbia EUPOL "Proxima" vieningumo ir tarptautinį pobūdį.3. Misijos vadovas praneša Priimančiosios Šalies Vyriausybei apie savo būstinės vietą.4. Misijos vadovas reguliariai ir laiku informuoja Priimančiosios Šalies Vyriausybę apie Priimančiosios Šalies teritorijoje dislokuotų EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojų skaičių, nurodo pavardes, rangus (atitinkamai) ir tautybę, pateikdamas pranešimo sąrašą Priimančiosios Šalies užsienio reikalų ministerijai.3 straipsnisIdentifikavimas1. EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams išduodamos EUPOL "Proxima" asmens tapatybės kortelės, pagal kurias identifikuojama jų tapatybė, ir jie privalo visada jas nešiotis su savimi. Atitinkamoms Priimančiosios Šalies valdžios institucijoms pateikiamas EUPOL "Proxima" asmens tapatybės kortelės pavyzdys.2. Priimančiosios Šalies užsienio reikalų ministerija išduoda asmens tapatybės korteles EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams pagal jų statusą, kaip nurodyta šio Susitarimo 6 straipsnyje.3. EUPOL "Proxima" automobiliai ir kitos transporto priemonės aiškiai paženklinamos EUPOL "Proxima" ženklais, kurių pavyzdžiai pateikiami atitinkamai Priimančiosios Šalies valdžios institucijai.4. EUPOL "Proxima" leidžiama savo pagrindinėje būstinėje ir kitur iškelti ES vėliavą atskirai arba kartu su Priimančiosios Šalies vėliava Misijos vadovo sprendimu. Nacionalines vėliavas ar EUPOL "Proxima" emblemas, kurias sudaro nacionaliniai elementai, galima naudoti EUPOL "Proxima" patalpose, ant automobilių ir uniformų Misijos vadovo sprendimu.5. Ant EUPOL "Proxima" patalpų oficiali institucijos lenta pakabinama su užrašu Priimančiosios šalies oficialiąja kalba tokio paties dydžio rašmenis, kaip ir atitinkamos EUPOL "Proxima" kalbos ar kalbų rašmenys.4 straipsnisSienos kirtimas, judėjimas ir buvimas Priimančiosios Šalies teritorijoje1. EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai, EUPOL "Proxima" priklausantis turtas ir transporto priemonės kerta Priimančiosios Šalies sieną oficialiuose sienos kirtimo punktuose ir tarptautiniais oro erdvės koridoriais.2. Priimančioji Šalis sudaro patogias sąlygas EUPOL "Proxima" ir jos darbuotojams įvažiuoti į Priimančiosios Šalies teritoriją ir iš jos išvykti. Išskyrus pasų kontrolę, įvažiuojantiems į Priimančiosios Šalies teritoriją ir išvykstantiems iš jos EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams, įrodžius jų narystę Misijoje, netaikomos pasų, vizų ir imigracijos taisyklės ir joks kitoks imigracijos patikrinimo būdas.3. EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams netaikomos Priimančiosios Šalies taisyklės, reglamentuojančios užsieniečių registraciją ir kontrolę, tačiau tai nereiškia, kad jiems suteikiama teisė nuolat gyventi ar turėti nuolatinę gyvenamąją vietą Priimančiosios Šalies teritorijoje.4. EUPOL "Proxima" priklausančiam turtui ir transporto priemonėms, įvažiuojančioms į Priimančiosios Šalies teritoriją, kertančioms ją tranzitu ar išvykstančioms iš jos, turint tikslą paremti Misiją, EUPOL "Proxima" išduoda atleidimo pažymėjimą kartu su inventoriaus aprašu. Jokios kitos muitinės dokumentacijos pateikti nereikia. Pažymėjimo kopija perduodama kompetentingoms valdžios institucijoms įvažiuojant į Priimančiosios Šalies teritoriją ar išvykstant iš jos. EUPOL "Proxima" ir Priimančiosios Šalies kompetentingos valdžios institucijos susitaria dėl pažymėjimo formos.5. Automobiliams ir orlaiviams, naudojamiems Misijos įgyvendinimo tikslais, netaikomi vietiniai licencijavimo ar registravimo reikalavimai. Susiję tarptautiniai standartai ir reglamentai ir toliau taikomi.6. EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai gali vairuoti motorines transporto priemones Priimančiosios Šalies teritorijoje, jeigu jie turi galiojančius nacionalinius vairuotojo pažymėjimus. Priimančioji Šalis, netaikydama mokesčio ar rinkliavos, patvirtina EUPOL "Proxima" išduotų vairuotojo pažymėjimų ar leidimų galiojimą.7. EUPOL "Proxima" ir EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams bei jiems priklausantiems automobiliams, orlaiviams ar bet kurios kitos rūšies transporto priemonėms, įrangai ir ištekliams suteikiama galimybė laisvai ir nevaržomai judėti Priimančiosios Šalies teritorijoje, įskaitant jos oro erdvę. Jei reikia, pagal šio Susitarimo 17 straipsnį galima sudaryti techninius susitarimus.8. Šioje Misijoje EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai bei EUPOL "Proxima" įdarbinti vietiniai darbuotojai, keliaujantys, kad atliktų oficialias pareigas, gali naudotis keliais, tiltais ir oro uostais nemokėdami muito mokesčių, rinkliavų, kelio mokesčių, papildomų rinkliavų už naudojimąsi keliais ar tiltais, valstybinių ar kitokios rūšies mokesčių.5 straipsnisEUPOL "Proxima" imunitetas ir privilegijos1. EUPOL "Proxima" suteikiamas statusas, atitinkantis diplomatinės misijos statusą pagal 1961 m. balandžio 18 d. Vienos konvenciją dėl diplomatinių santykių.2. ES misija, jai priklausanti nuosavybė, lėšos ir turtas pagal Vienos konvenciją dėl diplomatinių santykių turi imunitetą Priimančiosios Šalies baudžiamosios, civilinės ir administracinės jurisdikcijos atžvilgiu.3. EUPOL "Proxima" patalpos turi neliečiamybę. Priimančiosios Šalies atstovai į jas negali patekti jokiu metu, išskyrus atvejus, suderintus su Misijos vadovo sutikimu.4. EUPOL "Proxima" patalpoms, jose esantiems baldams ir kitam turtui bei EUPOL "Proxima" transporto priemonėms negali būti taikoma krata, rekvizavimas, areštas ar sunaikinimas.5. EUPOL "Proxima" archyvai ir dokumentai turi neliečiamybę visą laiką.6. EUPOL "Proxima" korespondencijai suteikiamas statusas, atitinkantis oficialios korespondencijos statusą, nustatytą 1961 m. balandžio 18 d. Vienos konvencija dėl diplomatinių santykių.7. EUPOL "Proxima" atleidžiama nuo visų nacionalinių ir komunalinių mokesčių, valstybinių mokesčių ar panašaus pobūdžio mokesčių už importuojamas prekes ir paslaugas bei jos patalpas, jeigu jos naudojamos Misijos tikslams.8. EUPOL "Proxima" taip pat atleidžiama nuo visų nacionalinių ir komunalinių mokesčių, valstybinių mokesčių, įskaitant PVM, ir panašaus pobūdžio mokesčių už vietos rinkoje įsigytas prekes ir suteiktas paslaugas, jeigu jos skirtos Misijos tikslams, arba Priimančioji Šalis juos kompensuoja pagal Priimančiosios Šalies įstatymus.9. Priimančioji Šalis leidžia įvežti prekes Misijos tikslams ir atleidžia nuo visų muito mokesčių, valstybinių mokesčių ir susijusių mokesčių, išskyrus mokesčius už sandėliavimo, pervežimo ir panašias paslaugas.6 straipsnisEUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojų imunitetas ir privilegijos1. EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams, išskyrus administracinį ir techninį personalą, suteikiamos visos privilegijos ir imunitetas, koks yra suteiktas diplomatiniams atstovams pagal 1961 m. balandžio 18 d. Vienos konvenciją dėl diplomatinių santykių, ir tuo remdamosi ES valstybės narės ir kitos Siunčiančiosios valstybės turi jurisdikcijos prioritetą. Tokios privilegijos ir imunitetas suteikiamas šios EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams misijos metu, paskui – atsižvelgiant į oficialius veiksmus, atliktus anksčiau vykdant misiją.2. EUPOL "Proxima" administraciniam ir techniniam personalui suteikiamas statusas, atitinkantis statusą, koks pagal Vienos konvenciją dėl diplomatinių santykių yra suteiktas Siunčiančiosios valstybės administraciniam ir techniniam personalui, įdarbintam diplomatinėje misijoje. Privilegijos ir imunitetas suteikiamas EUPOL "Proxima" administraciniam ir techniniam personalui misijos metu, paskui – atsižvelgiant į oficialius veiksmus, atliktus anksčiau vykdant misiją.3. Gavę Siunčiančiosios valstybės kompetentingos valdžios institucijos aiškų sutikimą, ES Generalinis Sekretorius ir Vyriausiasis įgaliotinis atsisako imuniteto, kuriuo naudojasi EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai, jeigu toks imunitetas trukdo vykdyti teisingumą; imuniteto atsisakoma nepažeidžiant ES interesų.4. EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai turi teisę įvežti be muito mokesčio ar kitokių apribojimų daiktus, reikalingus jų asmeniniam naudojimui, bei tokius daiktus išsivežti. EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai, išskyrus administracinį ir techninį personalą, turi teisę įsigyti be muito mokesčio ar kitokių apribojimų daiktus, reikalingus jų asmeniniam naudojimui, bei tokius daiktus išsivežti; Priimančioji Šalis kompensuoja PVM ir valstybinius mokesčius už vidaus rinkoje įsigytas prekes ar suteiktas paslaugas pagal Priimančiosios Šalies įstatymus.5. EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai atleidžiami nuo Priimančios Šalies taikomų rinkliavų ir valstybinių mokesčių už tarnybines pajamas ir atlyginimus, kuriuos jie gauna dirbdami.Jei kokios nors formos mokesčiai taikomi atsižvelgiant į gyvenimo laikotarpį, laikotarpiai, kurių metu į EUPOL "Proxima" paskirti darbuotojai ir tarptautinis personalas, ES misijos pasamdytas sutarčių pagrindu, gyvena Priimančioje Šalyje tam, kad atliktų savo pareigas, nelaikomi gyvenimo laikotarpiais.7 straipsnisVietiniai darbuotojai, kuriuos įdarbina EUPOL "Proxima"Vietiniams darbuotojams, kuriuos įdarbina EUPOL "Proxima", turintiems Priimančiosios Šalies pilietybę arba nuolat joje gyvenantiems, suteikiamas statusas, kuris atitinka diplomatinėje misijoje dirbančiam vietiniam personalui suteiktą statusą Priimančioje Šalyje pagal Vienos konvenciją dėl diplomatinių santykių.8 straipsnisSaugumas1. Priimančioji Šalis, keik leidžia jos pačios galimybės, visiškai prisiima atsakomybę dėl EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojų saugumo.2. Tuo tikslu Priimančioji Šalis imasi visų reikalingų priemonių užtikrinti EUPOL "Proxima" ir EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojų apsaugą, saugą ir saugumą. Bet kokios specifinės nuostatos, kurias pasiūlo Priimančioji Šalis, prieš įgyvendinimą suderinamos su Misijos vadovu. Priimančioji Šalis be jokio mokesčio leidžia vykdyti ir remia veiksmus, susijusius su EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojų medicinine evakuacija. Jei reikia, sudaromi papildomi susitarimai, kaip nurodyta 17 straipsnyje.3. EUPOL "Proxima" turi teisę Misijos viduje įsteigti ginkluotą apsaugos padalinį, sudarytą apytiksliai iš 30 policijos pareigūnų, kurių užduotis – išskirtiniais atvejais garantuoti tinkamą incidento valdymą, kad būtų užtikrinta EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojų ir Misijoje įdarbintų vietinių darbuotojų bei EUMM ar OSCE darbuotojų apsauga ir pagalba jiems, jei prireiktų.4. Pirmiau minėtas ginkluotos apsaugos padalinys pagal konkrečias taisykles, kurias nustato ES, turi teisę naudoti visas priemones, įskaitant ginklus, reikalingas užduotims įvykdyti. Padalinys neatlieka viešosios tvarkos palaikymo policijos pajėgomis vykdomosios funkcijos.5. Priimančioji Šalis pagal šio straipsnio nuostatas leidžia pirmiau minėtam ginkluotam apsaugos padaliniui savo teritorijoje atlikti veiksmus.6. Parengiami Misijos vadovo ir Priimančiosios Šalies susijusių administracinių valdžios institucijų techninių susitarimų, nurodytų 17 straipsnyje, projektai, kad būtų susitarta dėl praktinių aspektų, susijusių su pirmiau minėto ginkluotos apsaugos padalinio veikla.9 straipsnisUniforma ir ginklai1. EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojai dėvi nacionalinę uniformą arba civilinę aprangą su skiriamąja EUPOL "Proxima" identifikacija.2. Uniformos nešiojimą reglamentuoja taisyklės, patvirtintos Misijos vadovo.3. EUPOL "Proxima" ginkluotos apsaugos padalinio darbuotojai gali nešiotis ginklus ir amuniciją, jei nustatyta vidaus tvarka tai leidžia.10 straipsnisBendradarbiavimas ir galimybė naudotis informacija1. Priimančioji Šalis visomis išgalėmis bendradarbiauja su ES "Proxima" ir ES "Proxima" darbuotojais ir teikia paramą.2. Jeigu paprašoma ir jeigu to reikia EUPOL "Proxima" misijai įvykdyti, Priimančioji Šalis suteikia:- EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams galimybę efektyviai naudotis Priimančiosios Šalies žinioje esančiais pastatais, įrenginiais, vietovėmis ir oficialiomis transporto priemonėmis,- EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojams galimybę efektyviai naudotis savo žinioje esančiais dokumentais, medžiaga ir informacija, kurie svarbūs EUPOL misijos mandatui.3. Misijos vadovas ir Priimančioji Šalis reguliariai konsultuojasi ir imasi reikalingų priemonių, kad kiekviename atitinkamame lygmenyje užtikrintų glaudžius tarpusavio ryšius. Priimančioji Šalis gali skirti už ryšius su EUPOL "Proxima" atsakingą pareigūną.11 straipsnisPriimančiosios Šalies parama ir sutarčių sudarymas1. Priimančioji šalis sutinka, jeigu EUPOL "Proxima" paprašo, padėti surasti tinkamas patalpas.2. Jeigu prašoma, ir yra galimybė, Priimančiajai Šaliai priklausančios patalpos suteikiamos nemokamai.3. Atsižvelgdama į turimas priemones ir galimybes Priimančioji Šalis padės ir teiks paramą ruošiant, steigiant, vykdant ir remiant Misiją. Priimančiosios Šalies pagalba ir parama Misijai teikiama tokiomis pačiomis sąlygomis, kokios nustatytos Priimančiosios Šalies policijos pajėgoms.4. EUPOL "Proxima" visomis išgalėmis stengsis vietos mastu sudarinėti sutartis dėl paslaugų, prekių ir su darbuotojais vadovaudamasi Misijos reikalavimais.12 straipsnisEUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojų mirties atveju1. Misijos vadovas turi teisę pasirūpinti reikalingais formalumais ir sutvarkyti juos dėl bet kurio EUPOL "Proxima" mirusio darbuotojo, taip pat dėl bet kokios asmeninės velionio nuosavybės grąžinimo į tėvynę.2. EUPOL "Proxima" nario mirties atveju autopsija neatliekama negavus Siunčiančiosios valstybės sutikimo arba, jei personalas tarptautinis, negavus valstybės, kurios pilietybę jis turėjo, sutikimo, ir jeigu nedalyvauja EUPOL "Proxima" ir (arba) susijusios valstybės atstovas.13 straipsnisKomunikacijos1. Remiantis susitarimais, kuriuos ketinama sudaryti pagal šio Susitarimo 17 straipsnį, EUPOL "Proxima" turi teisę įrengti radijo siųstuvų ir imtuvų stotis, taip pat palydovines sistemas ir atitinkamais dažniais jomis naudotis.2. EUPOL "Proxima" turi teisę be jokių apribojimų naudotis radijo (įskaitant palydovinį, mobilųjį ar portatyvinį radiją), telefono, telegrafo, faksimiliniu ryšiu ir kitomis priemonėmis, taip pat turi teisę pagal Priimančiosios Šalies norminius teisės aktus EUPOL "Proxima" infrastruktūros viduje ir tarp jos elementų Misijos tikslais įrengti reikalingas priemones, taip pat ir nutiesti kabelius ir antžemines linijas tokioms komunikacijoms prižiūrėti.14 straipsnisIeškiniai mirties, sužalojimo, patirtos žalos ir nuostolių atveju1. Valstybės narės, kitos EUPOL "Proxima" dalyvaujančios valstybės ar ES institucijos nėra įpareigotos atlyginti išlaidas pagal pateiktus ieškinius dėl veiksmų, kurie susiję su visuomenės neramumais, ES misijos ar jos darbuotojų apsauga arba kurie yra susiję su būtiniausia operatyvine veikla.2. Bet kurie kiti su civiline teise susiję ieškiniai, tarp jų vietoje įdarbintų EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojų ieškiniai, kurių šalis yra Misija ar bet kuris jos narys ir kurio atžvilgiu Priimančiosios Šalies teismai neturi jurisdikcijos dėl kurios nors šio Susitarimo nuostatos, tarpininkaujant Priimančiosios Šalies valdžios institucijoms, pateikiami Misijos vadovui ir nagrinėjami remiantis atskirais susitarimais, kaip nurodyta 17 straipsnyje, pagal kurį nustatomos atsilyginimo patenkinant ieškinius ir ieškinių nukreipimo procedūros. Atsilyginimas patenkinant ieškinius bus vykdomas tik gavus išankstinį susijusios valstybės sutikimą.15 straipsnisGinčai1. Visus klausimus, kylančius dėl šio Susitarimo taikymo, svarsto Jungtinė koordinacinė grupė. Šią Grupę sudaro EUPOL "Proxima" ir Priimančiosios Šalies kompetentingų valdžios institucijų atstovai.2. Nepavykus iš anksto susitarti, ginčus dėl šio Susitarimo aiškinimo ir taikymo Priimančioji Šalis ir ES atstovai tarpusavyje sprendžia diplomatinėmis priemonėmis.16 straipsnisKitos nuostatos1. Atvejais, kai šis Susitarimas yra susijęs su EUPOL "Proxima" ir EUPOL "Proxima" darbuotojų imunitetu, privilegijomis ir teisėmis, Priimančiosios Šalies Vyriausybė atsako už tokio imuniteto, privilegijų bei teisių įgyvendinimą ir vykdymą tarpininkaujant Priimančiosios Šalies atitinkamoms vietinėms valdžios institucijoms.2. Nė viena šio Susitarimo nuostata nenumato arba nėra interpretuojama kaip kokių nors teisių, kurios gali būti suteiktos ES valstybei narei, kuriai nors kitai EUPOL "Proxima" remiančiai valstybei ar jų darbuotojams pagal kitus susitarimus, suvaržymas.17 straipsnisPapildomi susitarimaiMisijos vadovas ir Priimančiosios Šalies administracinės valdžios institucijos sudaro tokius papildomus susitarimus, jeigu jų gali prireikti šiam Susitarimui įgyvendinti.18 straipsnisĮsigaliojimas ir nutraukimas1. Šis susitarimas įsigalioja Šalims raštu pranešus apie tai, kad vidaus reikalavimai dėl įsigaliojimo buvo įvykdyti.2. Šis susitarimas gali būti keičiamas Šalių raštiško tarpusavio susitarimo pagrindu.3. Šis susitarimas galioja, kol EUPOL "Proxima" galutinai baigiasi arba visi jos darbuotojai galutinai išvyksta.4. Šį susitarimą galima denonsuoti apie tai raštu pranešant kitai Šaliai. Denonsavimas įsigalioja po 60 dienų nuo pranešimo apie denonsavimą kitai Šaliai.5. Šio susitarimo nutraukimas ar denonsavimas nedaro įtakos jokioms teisėms arba įsipareigojimams, susijusiems su šio Susitarimo vykdymu prieš jo nutraukimą ar denonsavimą.A. Europos Sąjungos laiškasSkopjė, 2003 m. gruodžio 11 d.Buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos VyriausybeiGerbiamasis Pone,Turiu garbę pasiūlyti laikyti, jei tai priimtina Jūsų Vyriausybei, šį laišką ir Jūsų patvirtinimą kartu tolygiais Europos Sąjungos ir Buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos susitarimo dėl Europos Sąjungos policijos misijos statuso ir veiklos Buvusiojoje Jugoslavijos Respublikoje Makedonijoje (EUPOL "Proxima") pasirašymui.Prie šio laiško pridėtas pirmiau minėto Susitarimo tekstas buvo patvirtintas 2003 m. gruodžio 11 d. Europos Sąjungos Tarybos sprendimu.Šis laiškas taip pat yra pranešimas Europos Sąjungos vardu pagal Susitarimo 18 straipsnio 1 dalį.Reiškiu Jums savo didžią pagarbą.Europos Sąjungos vardu+++++ TIFF +++++Alexis BrouhnsES specialusis atstovasB. Buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos laiškas+++++ TIFF +++++Skopjė, 2003 m. gruodžio 11 d.Gerbiamasis Pone,Makedonijos Respublikos Vyriausybės vardu turiu garbę pranešti, kad gavau Jūsų šios dienos laišką dėl Makedonijos Respublikos ir Europos Sąjungos susitarimo dėl Europos Sąjungos policijos misijos statuso ir veiklos Makedonijos Respublikoje (EUPOL "Proxima") pasirašymo kartu su pridėtu Susitarimo tekstu.Laikau šį apsikeitimą laiškais tolygiu Susitarimo pasirašymui.Tačiau pareiškiu, kad Makedonijos Respublika nesutinka su pavadinimu, naudojamu mano šaliai įvardyti pirmiau minėtame Susitarime, kadangi mano šalies konstitucinis pavadinimas yra Makedonijos Respublika.Reiškiu Jums savo didžią pagarbą.Igor DzundevC. Europos Sąjungos laiškasSkopjė, 2003 m. gruodžio 11 d. Buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos VyriausybeiGerbiamasis Pone,Turiu garbę pranešti, kad gavau Jūsų šios dienos laišką.Europos Sąjunga pažymi, kad Europos Sąjungos ir Buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos apsikeitimas laiškais, kuris yra tolygus Europos Sąjungos ir Buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos susitarimo dėl Europos Sąjungos policijos misijos statuso ir veiklos Buvusiojoje Jugoslavijos Respublikoje Makedonijoje (EUPOL "Proxima") pasirašymui, buvo užbaigtas, ir kad to negalima aiškinti kaip fakto, jog Europos Sąjunga sutinka su bet kokios kitokios formos ar turinio pavadinimu nei "Buvusioji Jugoslavijos Respublika Makedonija" arba jį pripažįsta.Reiškiu Jums savo didžią pagarbą.Europos Sąjungos vardu+++++ TIFF +++++Alexis BrouhnsES specialusis atstovas--------------------------------------------------


text:
 6.2.2019
 EN
 Official Journal of the European Union
 L 34/4
 AGREEMENT
 in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco on the amendment of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part
 A. Letter from the Union
 Dear Sir,
 I write with reference to the negotiations that took place as part of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (‘the Association Agreement’), concerning the amendment of certain protocols to the Agreement.
 Following those negotiations, the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco have agreed the following:
 This Agreement is concluded without prejudice to the respective positions of the European Union with regard to the status of Western Sahara and of the Kingdom of Morocco with regard to that region.
 Both parties reaffirm their support for the United Nations process and back the efforts made by the Secretary-General to reach a definitive political settlement in line with the principles and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and based on the Resolutions of the UN Security Council.
 The European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco agreed to insert the joint declaration below, after Protocol 4 to the Association Agreement.
 ‘Joint declaration concerning the application of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (“the Association Agreement”)
 1.
 Products originating in Western Sahara subject to controls by customs authorities of the Kingdom of Morocco shall benefit from the same trade preferences as those granted by the European Union to products covered by the Association Agreement.
 2.
 Protocol 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis for the purposes of defining the originating status of the products referred to in paragraph 1, including with regard to proof of origin (1).
 3.
 The customs authorities of the Member States of the European Union and of the Kingdom of Morocco shall be responsible for ensuring that Protocol 4 is applied to those products.’
 The European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco reaffirm their commitment to applying the protocols in accordance with the provisions of the Association Agreement concerning respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights.
 The insertion of the joint declaration is based on the long-standing special partnership between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, as notably embodied in the advanced status awarded to the Kingdom of Morocco, and on the parties' shared desire to deepen and expand the partnership.
 In this spirit of partnership and in order to allow the parties to assess the impact of the Agreement, particularly on sustainable development and with regard to the advantages for the people concerned and the exploitation of the natural resources of the territories in question, the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco have agreed to exchange information at least once a year by means of the Association Committee.
 The specific arrangements for this evaluation exercise will be determined at a later date before being adopted by the Association Committee at the latest two months after the entry into force of this Agreement.
 This Agreement can be applied provisionally by mutual agreement notified by an exchange of notifications between the parties, with effect from the date of the signature authorised by the Council of the European Union.
 This Agreement takes effect the day after the date on which the parties notify the completion of the internal procedures for its adoption.
 I would be obliged if you would confirm that your Government is in agreement with the above.
 Yours faithfully,
 Съставено в Брюксел на
 Hecho en Bruselas, el
 V Bruselu dne
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am
 Brüssel,
 Έγινε στις Βρυξέλλες, στις
 Done at Brussels,
 Fait à Bruxelles, le
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu
 Fatto a Bruxelles, addì
 Briselē,
 Priimta Briuselyje,
 Kelt Brüsszelben,
 Magħmul fi Brussell,
 Gedaan te Brussel,
 Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia
 Feito em Bruxelas,
 Întocmit la Bruxelles,
 V Bruseli
 V Bruslju,
 Tehty Brysselissä
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den
 За Европейския съюз
 Рог la Unión Europea
 Za Evropskou unii
 For Den Europæiske Union
 Für die Europäische Union
 Euroopa Liidu nimel
 Για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση
 For the European Union
 Pour l'Union européenne
 Za Europsku uniju
 Per l'Unione europea
 Eiropas Savienības vārdā –
 Europos Sąjungos vardu
 Az Európai Unió részéről
 Għall-Unjoni Ewropea
 Voor de Europese Unie
 W imieniu Unii Europejskiej
 Pela União Europeia
 Pentru Uniunea Europeană
 Za Európsku úniu
 Za Evropsko unijo
 Euroopan unionin puolesta
 För Europeiska unionen
 B. Letter from the Kingdom of Morocco
 Dear Sir,
 I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today's date, which reads as follows:
 ‘Dear Sir,
 I write with reference to the negotiations that took place as part of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (‘the Association Agreement’), concerning the amendment of certain protocols to the Agreement.
 Following those negotiations, the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco have agreed the following:
 This Agreement is concluded without prejudice to the respective positions of the European Union with regard to the status of Western Sahara and of the Kingdom of Morocco with regard to that region.
 Both parties reaffirm their support for the United Nations process and back the efforts made by the Secretary-General to reach a definitive political settlement in line with the principles and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and based on the Resolutions of the UN Security Council.
 The European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco agreed to insert the joint declaration below, after Protocol 4 to the Association Agreement.
 ‘Joint declaration concerning the application of Protocols 1 and 4 to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (“the Association Agreement”)
 1.
 Products originating in Western Sahara subject to controls by the customs authorities of the Kingdom of Morocco shall benefit from the same trade preferences as those granted by the European Union to products covered by the Association Agreement.
 2.
 Protocol 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis for the purposes of defining the originating status of the products referred to in paragraph 1, including with regard to proof of origin (2).
 3.
 The customs authorities of the Member States of the European Union and of the Kingdom of Morocco shall be responsible for ensuring that Protocol 4 is applied to those products.’
 The European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco reaffirm their commitment to applying the protocols in accordance with the provisions of the Association Agreement concerning respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights.
 The insertion of the joint declaration is based on the long-standing special partnership between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, as notably embodied in the advanced status awarded to the Kingdom of Morocco, and on the parties' shared desire to deepen and expand the partnership.
 In this spirit of partnership and in order to allow the parties to assess the impact of the Agreement, particularly on sustainable development and with regard to the advantages for the people concerned and the exploitation of the natural resources of the territories in question, the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco have agreed to exchange information at least once a year by means of the Association Committee.
 The specific arrangements for this evaluation exercise will be determined at a later date before being adopted by the Association Committee at the latest two months after the entry into force of this Agreement.
 This Agreement can be applied provisionally by mutual agreement notified by an exchange of notifications between the parties, with effect from the date of the signature authorised by the Council of the European Union.
 This Agreement takes effect the day after the date on which the parties notify the completion of the internal procedures for its adoption.
 I would be obliged if you would confirm that your Government is in agreement with the above.’
 I am able to confirm that my Government is in agreement with the contents of your letter.
 Yours faithfully,
 Съставено в Брюксел на
 Hecho en Bruselas, el
 V Bruselu dne
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am
 Brüssel,
 Έγινε στις Βρυξέλλες, στις
 Done at Brussels,
 Fait à Bruxelles, le
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu
 Fatto a Bruxelles, addì
 Briselē,
 Priimta Briuselyje,
 Kelt Brüsszelben,
 Magħmul fi Brussell,
 Gedaan te Brussel,
 Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia
 Feito em Bruxelas,
 Întocmit la Bruxelles,
 V Bruseli
 V Bruslju,
 Tehty Brysselissä
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den
 За Кралство Мароко
 Por el Reino de Marruecos
 Za Marocké království
 For Kongeriget Marokko
 Für das Königreich Marokko
 Maroko Kuningriigi nimel
 Για το Βασίλειο του Μαρόκου
 For the Kingdom of Morocco
 Pour le Royaume du Maroc
 Za Kraljevinu Maroko
 Per il Regno del Marocco
 Marokas Karalistes vārdā –
 Maroko Karalystės vardu
 A Marokkói Királyság részéről
 Għar-Renju tal-Marokk
 Voor het Koninkrijk Marokko
 W imieniu Królestwa Marokańskiego
 Pelo Reino de Marrocos
 Pentru Regatul Maroc
 Za Marocké kráľovstvo
 Za Kraljevino Maroko
 Marokon kuningaskunnan puolesta
 För Konungariket Marocko
 (1) The Kingdom of Morocco customs authorities shall be responsible for applying the provisions of Protocol 4 for the products referred to in paragraph 1.
 (2) The Kingdom of Morocco customs authorities shall be responsible for applying the provisions of Protocol 4 for the products referred to in paragraph 1.


type: other

text:
IV/01060/2014
 . IV/01060/2014
 Első irat érkezett: 06/02/2014
 Az ügy tárgya: a Kúria Kfv.I.35.353/2013/7. számú ítélete elleni alkotmányjogi panasz (jövedéki adó ügy)
 Az indítványozó - az Abtv. 27. §-a alapján - a Kúria jövedéki adó ügyben hozott közigazgatási határozat bírósági felülvizsgálata tárgyában hozott Kfv.I.35.353/2013/7. számú ítélete alaptörvény-ellenességének megállapítását és megsemmisítését kéri az Alkotmánybíróságtól.
 Az indítványozó kifejti, a Kúria az ügyben irányadó jogszabályi, illetve közösségi jogi rendelkezéseket az Európai Únió Bíróságának (Bíróság) gyakorlatától eltérően értelmezte, továbbá elmulasztotta - amellyel megfosztotta törvényes bírájától - kezdeményezni a Bíróság eljárását, amivel megsértette a tisztességes bírósági eljáráshoz való jogát..
 a Kúria Kfv.I.35.353/2013/7. számú ítélete
 IV_1060_0_2014_inditvany.anonim.pdf
 A határozat száma: 3050/2015. (III. 2.) AB végzés
 Az ABH 2015 tárgymutatója: alapvető alkotmányjogi jelentőségű kérdés (Abtv. 29. §); diszkrecionális döntési jogkör; előzetes döntéshozatali eljárás; tisztességes eljáráshoz való jog
 A határozat kelte: Budapest, 02/23/2015
 2015.02.23 14:00:00 1. öttagú tanács
 3050_2015_végzés.pdf
 Az Alkotmánybíróság a Kúria Kfv.I.35.353/2013/7. számú ítélete alaptörvény-ellenességének megállapítására és megsemmisítésére irányuló alkotmányjogi panaszt visszautasítja.
 [1] 1. Az indítványozó gazdasági társaság az Alkotmánybíróságról szóló 2011. évi CLI. törvény (a továbbiakban: Abtv.) 27. §-a alapján kérte a Kúria Kfv.I.35.353/2013/7. számú ítélete alaptörvény-ellenességének a megállapítását és megsemmisítését, mivel az – az alábbiakban kifejtett – álláspontja szerint sérti az Alaptörvény XXVIII. cikk (1) bekezdésébe foglalt tisztességes eljáráshoz való jogát.
 [2] Az indítványozó fő tevékenységei közé tartozik a raktározás és tárolás, adóraktárában alkoholtermékek tárolására, illetve jövedéki termékekkel folytatott kereskedelemre rendelkezik engedéllyel, melynek birtokában 2007 és 2008 években több alkalommal tárolt GlühWein (forralt bor) és (ízesített bor alapú) Sangria elnevezésű termékeket, amelyeket a jövedéki adóról szóló 2003. évi CXXVII. törvény (a továbbiakban: Jöt.) alapján szőlőborként tüntetett fel nyilvántartásaiban. Az indítványozónál az elsőfokú hatóság a fenti évek vonatkozásában a Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Országos Parancsnoksága (a továbbiakban: VPOP) utasítása alapján felülellenőrzést végzett, amelynek eredményeképp az indítványozó terhére jövedéki adónemben adóhiányt állapított meg mintegy 53,4 millió forint összegben, emiatt adóbírságot szabott ki és késedelmi pótlékot számított fel. A VPOP elnöke az indítványozó fellebbezése folytán eljárva a bírság összegét 49,5 millió forintra változtatta. Az adóhiány megállapításának indokát a vámhatóság szerint az adta, hogy a szőlőborként feltüntetett termékek valójában egyéb bornak minősülnek, amelyeknek más (magasabb) a jövedéki adója.
 [3] A döntés meghozatalát megelőzően a VPOP több tagállami adóhatóságot megkeresett és ennek alapján minősítette a kérdéses termékeket egyéb bornak, mert ezek alkoholtartalma nem kizárólagos erjedéssel keletkezett, hanem a gyártás során alkoholtartalmú aromákat adtak hozzájuk. A vámhatóság hangsúlyozta, hogy a Jöt. adójogi szempontból maga is a fentiek szerint különbözteti meg a szőlőbor és az egyéb bor fogalmát.
 [4] Az indítványozó kérte a hatósági határozat bírósági felülvizsgálatát, de keresetét a Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság 26.K.28.735/2013/2. számú ítéletével elutasította. A bíróság megállapította, a vámhatóság helyesen mutatott rá, hogy a szőlőbor sajátja, hogy annak alkoholtartalma kizárólag erjedés útján keletkezik, míg az eljárásban érintett termékekhez a gyártó alkoholtartalmú aromákat, illetve alkoholban feloldott anyago kat adott. A bíróság ítéletének indokolásában hivatkozott a NAV szakértői intézetének állásfoglalására, amely szerint a kizárólagos erjedés fogalma nem engedi meg az alkoholtartalmú aromák vagy alkoholtartalmú anyagok borhoz való hozzáadását. Az indítványozó által hivatkozott a színezékeken és édesítőszereken kívüli egyéb élelmiszer-adalékanyagokról szóló – 2009. január 20-tól hatálytalan, de az indítványozó szerint ma is hatályos – 95/2/EK Irányelv (a továbbiakban: Irányelv), illetve a – 2011. július 28-tól hatálytalan, de a jelen ügyben az indítványozó által jövedéki szempontból még alkalmazhatónak vélt – Magyar Élelmiszerkönyv közösségi előírások átvételét megvalósító kötelező előírásairól szóló 56/2004. (IV. 24.) FVM rendelet (a továbbiakban: R.) pedig a bíróság álláspontja szerint élelmiszer-biztonsági szempontból szabályozták a kérdést, amely nem befolyásolta az érintett termékek jövedéki besorolását.
 [5] Az indítványozó felülvizsgálati kérelme alapján eljáró Kúria Kfv.I.35.353/2013/7. számú ítéletével hatályában fenntartotta az első fokon eljárt bíróság ítéletét. Az indítványozó felülvizsgálati kérelmében kifogásolta, hogy mind a hatóság, mind a bíróság félreértelmezte a NAV szakértői intézetének vonatkozó állásfoglalását, illetve figyelmen kívül hagyták annak a rá kedvezőbb megállapításait. Az indítványozó azt is sérelmezte, hogy a bíróság nem vette figyelembe az Irányelv és az R. rendelkezéseit. Az indítványozó kérte, hogy a Kúria kezdeményezzen előzetes döntéshozatali eljárást az Európai Unió Bíróságánál (a továbbiakban: EuB), tekintettel arra, hogy a felülvizsgálni kért jogerős bírósági határozat ellentétes az EuB gyakorlatával, így nem egyeztethető össze a közösségi joggal. Álláspontja szerint ugyanis a Jöt. azon értelmezése, amely szerint a szőlőbor alkoholtartalma kizárólag erjedéssel keletkezhet, nem felel meg EuB ítélkezési gyakorlatának, amely szerint a szőlőbor alapú termékekhez adott alkoholban oldott aromák nem változtatják meg annak (vámtarifa szerinti) besorolását, azaz az ilyen adalékkal ellátott termékek is szőlőbornak minősülnek.
 [6] A Kúria támadott határozatával hatályában fenntartotta az elsőfokú bíróság jogerős határozatát, anélkül, hogy helyt adott volna az indítványozó előzetes döntéshozatali eljárás kezdeményezésére irányuló kérelmének. A Kúria ítéletében leszögezte, hogy a perben azt kellett eldöntenie, a kérdéses termékek jövedéki adójának megállapításakor kizárólag a nemzeti jog alkalmazandó, vagy – akár közvetlenül, akár közvetve – figyelembe kell venni az Európai Unió jogát is. A Kúria hangsúlyozta, hogy nem két termék vámjog szerinti tarifális besorolásáról, hanem arról kellett döntenie, hogy a magyar jövedéki törvény alapján milyen mértékű jövedéki adó megfizetésére köteles az indítványozó.
 [7] A Kúria álláspontja szerint a borhoz csak olyan adalékanyagok kerülhetnek hozzáadásra, amelyeket a szakmai szabályok megengednek és céljuk a kizárólagos erjedési folyamat elősegítése. Ehhez képest minden más olyan adalékanyag borhoz adása, amely nem vesz részt az erjedés elősegítésében azt eredményezi, hogy a termék tényleges alkoholtartalma nem kizárólag erjedéssel keletkezik. A jövedéki besorolás csak ezeken az egyértelmű szabályokon alapul, és a Kúria megállapítása szerint mind a vámhatóság, mind az első fokú bíróság helytállóan következtetett arra, hogy a perbeli termékek (Sangria, GlühWein) jövedéki szempontból nem minősülnek szőlőbornak, ezért rájuk nem a kedvezőbb mértékű jövedéki adó vonatkozik. A Kúria azt is megállapította, hogy a hivatkozott EuB döntést azért nem kellett figyelembe vennie, mivel az nem a jövedéki adó meghatározására, hanem a Sangria (közösségi vámjog szerinti) tarifális besorolására vonatkozott.
 [8] Az indítványozó álláspontja szerint azonban a Kúria megsértette az Alaptörvény XXVIII. cikk (1) bekezdése által garantált tisztességes eljáráshoz, pontosabban az abból fakadó törvényes bíróhoz való jogát, azzal, hogy nem kezdeményezett előzetes döntéshozatali eljárást. Az indítványozó hivatkozott az Európai Unió Működéséről szóló szerződés (a továbbiakban: EUMSZ) 267. cikk (3) bekezdésére, amely szerint amennyiben egy tagállam olyan bírósága előtt merül fel az Unió alapszerződéseinek, vagy az uniós intézmények, szervek, hivatalok jogi aktusainak értelmezésével kapcsolatos kérdés, amelynek határozata ellen a nemzeti jog alapján jogorvoslati lehetőség nem áll rendelkezésre, úgy ez a bíróság (a továbbiakban: kötelezett bíróság) köteles előzetes döntéshozatali kérelemmel fordulni az EuB-hez.
 [9] Az indítványozó álláspontja szerint a Kúria mint kötelezett bíróság nem tett eleget az EUMSZ hivatkozott rendelkezésének és a polgári perrendtartásról szóló 1952. évi III. törvény (a továbbiakban: Pp.) 155/A. §-ában foglaltaknak, amikor nem kezdeményezte előzetes döntéshozatali eljárás lefolytatását. Ezzel pedig megfosztotta őt attól a lehetőségtől, hogy ügyében az EuB döntsön, azaz végső soron törvényes bírájától vonta el, tekintettel arra, hogy az uniós jog értelmezése e körben (előzetes döntéshozatal) kizárólag az EuB monopóliuma. Az indítványozó hivatkozott az EuB CILFIT ügyben hozott döntésére is [C-283/81. számú, Srl CILFIT kontra Ministero della Sanità ügyben 1982. október 6-án hozott ítélet (EBHT 1982., 3415, 3428. o.)], amely ugyan lehetővé teszi az előzetes döntéshozatal mellőzését a kötelezett bíróság számára, de csak igen szűk keretek között, nevezetesen akkor, ha (a) a felmerült kérdés az uniós jog szempontjából nem releváns, (b) a kérdésben az EuB már állást foglalt, (c) az uniós jog alkalmazása annyira nyilvánvaló, hogy minden ésszerű kétséget kizár. A jelen ügyben azonban ezen feltételek egyike sem áll fenn – véli az indítványozó – ezért a Kúria nem tekinthetett volna el az előzetes döntéshozatal kezdeményezésétől.
 [10] Mindezekre tekintettel az indítványozó az Alaptörvény 24. cikk (2) bekezdésének d) pontja, valamint az Abtv. 27. §-a alapján kérte a Kúria Kfv.I.35.353/2013/7. számú ítélete alaptörvény-ellenességének a megállapítását és megsemmisítését.
 [11] 2. Az Abtv. 56. § (1) bekezdésében meghatározottak szerint az Alkotmánybíróságnak elsődlegesen az alkotmányjogi panasz befogadhatóságáról szükséges döntenie. Ezért az Alkotmánybíróság elsőként azt vizsgálta, hogy az Abtv. 27. §-a alapján előterjesztett indítvány megfelel-e az alkotmányjogi panasz előterjesztésére vonatkozó, törvényben meghatározott formai és tartalmi követelményeknek.
 [12] Az Abtv. 27. §-a szerint az egyedi ügyben érintett személy (vagy szervezet) az alaptörvény-ellenesnek vélt bírói döntéssel szemben akkor fordulhat az Alkotmánybírósághoz, ha az ügy érdemében hozott döntés, vagy az eljárást befejező egyéb döntés sérti az indítványozó Alaptörvényben biztosított jogát és az indítványozó a jogorvoslati lehetőségeit már kimerítette, vagy nem áll rendelkezésre jogorvoslati lehetőség.
 [13] Az Alkotmánybíróság a Kúria Kfv.I.35.353/2013/7. számú ítélete elleni alkotmányjogi panasz befogadhatóságának vizsgálata során megállapította, hogy az az Abtv. 51–52. §§-ban foglalt formai feltételeknek megfelel. Ezt követően az Alkotmánybíróság azt vizsgálta, hogy az alkotmányjogi panasz megfelel-e a befogadhatóság tartalmi követelményeinek, így különösen az Abtv. 26–27. § és 29–31. § szerinti feltételeknek.
 [14] Az Abtv. 29. §-a szerint az Alkotmánybíróság az alkotmányjogi panaszt a bírói döntést érdemben befolyásoló alaptörvény-ellenesség, vagy az ügyben felmerült alapvető alkotmányjogi jelentőségű kérdés esetén fogadja be. Ezzel kapcsolatban az Alkotmánybíróság a következőket állapította meg.
 [15] Az Alaptörvény XXVIII. cikk (1) bekezdését az indítványozó szerint a Kúria azzal sértette meg, hogy nem tett eleget az indítványozó azon kérelmének, hogy kezdeményezzen előzetes döntéshozatali eljárást az EuB-nál.
 [16] Jelen alkotmányjogi panasz tartalmával kapcsolatos gyakorlatát az Alkotmánybíróság – többek között – a 3028/2014. (II. 17.) AB végzésében összegezte: „Az Abtv. 29. §-a az alkotmányjogi panasz befogadhatóságának további [...] tartalmi feltételeiként határozza meg, hogy az alkotmányjogi panasz a bírói döntést érdemben befolyásoló alaptörvény-ellenességet tartalmazzon, vagy alapvető alkotmányjogi jelentőségű kérdést vessen fel. Az Alkotmánybíróság e feltételekkel összefüggésben emlékeztet arra, hogy az Alkotmánybíróság az Alaptörvény 24. cikk (1) bekezdésének értelmében az Alaptörvény védelmének legfőbb szerve. Ennek megfelelően az Alkotmánybíróság az Alaptörvény 24. cikk (2) bekezdésének d) pontja alapján a bírói döntéseket az alkotmányosság szempontjából ellenőrizheti, és jogköre a bírói döntést érdemben befolyásoló alaptörvény-ellenesség vizsgálatára és kiküszöbölésére korlátozódik, ezért a bírói döntés irányának, a bizonyítékok bírói mérlegelésének és értékelésének, illetve a bírósági eljárás teljes egészének ismételt felülbírálatára már nem rendelkezik hatáskörrel {elsőként lásd: 3231/2012. (IX. 28.) AB végzés, Indokolás [4]}. Az Alkotmánybíróság az Abtv. 27. §-ában szabályozott hatáskörében eljárva a bírói döntés és az Alaptörvény összhangját biztosítja. Ebből következően a bírói döntés alaptörvény-ellenességének vizsgálata során az Alkotmánybíróság attól is tartózkodik, hogy a bíróságok felülbírálati jogköréhez tartozó, szakjogi vagy kizárólag törvényértelmezési kérdésekben állást foglaljon {elsőként lásd: 3003/2012. (VI. 21.) AB végzés, Indokolás [4]}.” {3028/2014. (II. 17.) AB végzés, Indokolás [12]}
 [17] Az Alkotmánybíróság gyakorlata szerint a tisztességes eljáráshoz való alapvető jog lényegét az alkotmányos jelentőségű eljárási szabályok érvényesülésében értelmezi, a bíróságok eljárásának ezen túlmenő elemei, így különösen az adott jogvitáknak – a jogszabályok alkalmazásával, és a bíróság diszkrecionális jogának gyakorlásával történő – mikénti eldöntését nem tekinti alkotmányossági kérdésnek. Jelen ügyben – az alkalmazandó jogszabályok értelmezésével és a ténykérdések figyelembe vételével – az eljáró bíróságnak – a nemzeti jog szerinti törvényes bírónak, azaz hatáskörrel és illetékességgel rendelkező bíróságon működő, előre megállapított ügyelosztási rend alapján kijelölt bírónak – kellett arról döntenie, hogy terheli-e előzetes döntéshozatal-kezdeményezési kötelezettség, vagy mentesül ez alól, így ennek felülvizsgálatára az Alkotmánybíróságnak az Abtv. 29. §-a alapján nincs hatásköre [3110/2014. (IV. 17.) AB végzés, 3165/2014. (V. 23.) AB végzés].
 [18] A perbeli termékek jövedéki besorolásának vizsgálata a konkrét ügyben jogalkalmazási kérdés, jogszabály-értelmezéssel hozott döntés, mely jelen ügyben nem vet fel alkotmányossági kérdést, e döntés felülvizsgálatára az Alkotmánybíróságnak a fentiek szerint nincs hatásköre, mivel csak alkotmányossági kérdésekben dönthet.
 [19] Az Alkotmánybíróság rámutat, hogy a peres felek ugyan indítványozhatják a nemzeti bíróságnál az előzetes döntéshozatal kezdeményezését, azonban a bírót nem köti a felek kérelme, mivel diszkrecionális joga van annak eldöntésére, hogy megkeresi-e a Bíróságot előzetes döntéshozatalt kérve, ahogy azt a már fentebb idézett CILFIT-ügyben a Bíróság megállapította: „a [z EGKSZ] 177. cikk [jelenleg EUMSZ 267. cikk] nem jelent jogorvoslati lehetőséget a felek számára valamely nemzeti bíróság előtt folyamatban lévő ügyben. Az, hogy az egyik fél állítása szerint a jogvita a közösségi jog értelmezésének kérdését veti fel, önmagában nem elegendő tehát ahhoz, hogy az érintett bíróság köteles legyen a kérdést a 177. cikk értelmében felmerült kérdésnek tekinteni. Másrészről – adott esetben – hivatalból is a Bírósághoz fordulhat.” (EBHT 1982., 3415, 3428. o.)
 [20] A fentiek alapján az indítvány a bírói döntést érdemben befolyásoló alaptörvény-ellenességet, vagy alapvető alkotmányjogi jelentőségű kérdést nem vetett fel, így nem felel meg az Abtv. 29. §-ában foglalt befogadási feltételeknek, ezért az Alkotmánybíróság az alkotmányjogi panaszt az Ügyrend 30. § (2) bekezdés a) pontja alapján visszautasította.
 . 06/02/2014
 . 3050/2015. (III. 2.)
 . 02/23/2015


type: legislation

jurisdiction: US

text:
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
 48 CFR Parts 208, 239, 251, and 252
 [DFARS Case 2000-D023]
 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Enterprise Software Agreements
 AGENCY:
 Department of Defense (DoD).
 ACTION:
 Proposed rule with request for comments.
 SUMMARY:
 DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to add policy pertaining to the use of enterprise software agreements for the acquisition of commercial software and software maintenance.
 DATES:
 Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before April 1, 2002, to be considered in the formation of the final rule.
 ADDRESSES:
 Respondents may submit comments directly on the World Wide Web at http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf/pubcomm. As an alternative, respondents may e-mail comments to: dfars@acq.osd.mil. Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D023 in the subject line of e-mailed comments.
 Respondents that cannot submit comments using either of the above methods may submit comments to: Defense Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn: Ms. Susan Schneider, OUSD(AT&L)DP(DAR), IMD 3C132, 3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-3062; facsimile (703) 602-0350. Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D023.
 At the end of the comment period, interested parties may view public comments on the World Wide Web at http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/dar/dfars.nsf.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Ms. Susan Schneider, (703) 602-0326. Please cite DFARS Case 2000-D023.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 A. Background
 This proposed rule adds a new DFARS Subpart 208.74 to address the use of enterprise software agreements for the acquisition of commercial software and software maintenance in accordance with the DoD Enterprise Software Initiative. This initiative promotes the use of enterprise software agreements with contractors that allow DoD to obtain favorable terms and pricing for commercial software and related services. Associated DFARS changes are made in parts 208, 239, 251, and 252.
 This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866, dated September 30, 1993.
 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
 The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because most enterprise software agreements are blanket purchase agreements established under Federal Supply Schedules. Establishment of such agreements is already permitted by section 8.404(b)(4) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has not been performed. Comments are invited from small businesses and other interested parties. Comments from small entities concerning the affected DFARS subparts also will be considered in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Such comments should be submitted separately and should cite DFARS Case 2000-D023 in correspondence.
 C. Paperwork Reduction Act
 The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rule does not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
 List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 208, 239, 251, and 252
 Government procurement.
 Michele P. Peterson,
 Executive Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations Council.
 Therefore, DoD proposes to amend 48 CFR Parts 208, 239, 251, and 252 as follows:
 1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 208, 239, 251, and 252 continues to read as follows:
 Authority:
 41 U.S.C. 421 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.
 PART 208—REQUIRED SOURCES OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES
 2. Section 208.001 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1)(v) to read as follows:
 208.001
 Priorities for use of Government supply sources.
 (a)(1)(v) See Subpart 208.70, Coordinated Acquisition, and Subpart 208.74, Enterprise Software Agreements.
 3. Subpart 208.74 is added to read as follows:
 Subpart 208.74—Enterprise Software Agreements
 Sec.
 208.7400
 Scope of subpart.
 208.7401
 Definitions.
 208.7402
 General.
 208.7403
 Acquisition procedures.
 208.7400
 Scope of subpart.
 This subpart prescribes policy and procedures for acquisition of commercial software and software maintenance, including software and software maintenance that is acquired—
 (a) As part of a system or system upgrade;
 (b) Under a service contract;
 (c) Under a contract administered by another agency;
 (d) Under an interagency agreement; or
 (e) By a contractor that is authorized to order from a Government supply source pursuant to FAR 51.101.
 208.7401
 Definitions.
 As used in this subpart—
 Enterprise software agreement means a blanket purchase agreement or a contract that is used to acquire designated commercial software or related services such as software maintenance.
 Enterprise Software Initiative means an initiative led by the DoD Chief Information Officer to develop processes for DoD-wide software asset management.
 Golden Disk means a purchased license or entitlement to distribute an unlimited or bulk number of copies of software throughout DoD.
 Software product manager means the person who manages an enterprise software agreement.
 208.7402
 General.
 Departments and agencies must fulfill requirements for commercial software and related services, such as software maintenance, in accordance with the DoD Enterprise Software Initiative (ESI). ESI promotes the use of enterprise software agreements (ESA) with contractors that allow DoD to obtain favorable terms and pricing for commercial software and related services.
 208.7403
 Acquisition procedures.
 (a) Requiring officials must obtain commercial software rights or maintenance from available existing DoD inventories (e.g.; Golden Disks and DoD-wide software maintenance agreements) before proceeding with an acquisition. DoD inventories and other ESI information are listed on the ESI website at http://www.don-imit.navy.mil/esi.
 (b) If the required commercial software or related service is not in the DoD inventory, or not on an ESA, the contracting officer or requiring official may fulfill the requirement by other means. Existing ESAs are listed on the ESI website.
 (c) If the commercial software or related service is on an ESA, the contracting officer or requiring official must review the terms and conditions and prices.
 (d) If an ESA's terms and conditions and prices represent the best value to the Government, the contracting officer or the requiring official must fulfill the requirement for supplies or services through the ESA.
 (e) If existing ESAs do not represent the best value to the Government, the software product manager (SPM) must be given an opportunity to provide the same or a better value to the Government under the ESAs before the contracting officer or requiring official may continue with alternate acquisition methods.
 (1) The contracting officer or requiring official must notify the SPM of specific concerns about existing ESA terms and conditions or prices through the ESI webpage.
 (2) The SPM will consider adjusting the ESA terms and conditions or prices to reflect “most favored customer” status.
 (i) Within 3 working days, the SPM will—
 (A) Update the ESA;
 (B) Provide an estimated date by which the update will be accomplished; or
 (C) Inform the contracting officer or requiring official that no change will be made to the ESA.
 (ii) If the SPM informs the contracting officer or requiring official that no change will be made to the ESA terms and conditions or prices, the contracting officer or requiring official may obtain the requirement by other means.
 (iii) If the SPM does not respond within 3 working days or does not plan to adjust the ESA within 90 days, the contracting officer or requiring official may fulfill the requirement by other means.
 (3) A management official designated by the department or agency may waive the requirement to obtain commercial software or related services through an ESA after the steps in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i) of this section are complete.
 PART 239—ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
 4. Subpart 239.1 is added to read as follows:
 Subpart 239.1—General
 Sec.
 239.101
 Policy.
 239.101
 Policy.
 See Subpart 208.74 when acquiring commercial software or software maintenance.
 PART 251—USE OF GOVERNMENT SOURCES BY CONTRACTORS
 5. Section 251.102 is amended as follows:
 a. By revising paragraph (f);
 b. In Table 51-1, by revising paragraph 1., and by adding paragraph 2.c. to read as follows:
 251.102
 Authorization to use Government supply sources.
 (f) The authorizing agency is also responsible for promptly considering requests of the DoD supply source for authority to refuse to honor requisitions from a contractor that is indebted to DoD and has failed to pay proper invoices in a timely manner.
 Table 51-1, Authorization To Purchase From Government Supply Sources
 1. You are hereby authorized to use Government sources in performing Contract No. ____ for [insert applicable military department or defense agency], as follows: [Insert applicable purchasing authority given to the contractor.]
 2. * * *
 c. Enterprise Software Initiative. Place orders in accordance with the terms and conditions of the attached Enterprise Software Agreement(s), or instructions for obtaining commercial software or software maintenance from Enterprise Software Initiative inventories, and this authorization. Attach a copy of this authorization to the order (unless a copy was previously furnished to the Enterprise Software Agreement contractor).
 Insert the following statement in the order:
 This order is placed under written authorization from ____ dated ____(*____). In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions of this order, and those of the Enterprise Software Agreement, the latter will govern.
 PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
 6. Section 252.251-7000 is amended as follows:
 a. By revising the clause date and paragraph (a); and
 b. In paragraph (d)(4) in the last sentence by removing “Such” and adding in its place “The”.
 252.251-7000
 Ordering From Government Supply Sources.
 Ordering From Government Supply Sources (XXX 2002)
 (a) When placing orders under Federal Supply Schedules, Personal Property Rehabilitation Price Schedules, or Enterprise Software Agreements, the Contractor shall follow the terms of the applicable schedule or agreement and authorization. Include in each order:
 (1) A copy of the authorization (unless a copy was previously furnished to the Federal Supply Schedule, Personal Property Rehabilitation Price Schedule, or Enterprise Software Agreement contractor).
 (2) The following statement:
 This order is placed under written authorization from ____ dated ____.
 In the event of any inconsistency between the terms and conditions of this order and those of your Federal Supply Schedule contract, Personal Property Rehabilitation Price Schedule contract, or Enterprise Software Agreement, the latter will govern.
 (3) The completed address(es) to which the Contractor's mail, freight, and billing documents are to be directed.
 [FR Doc. 02-2058 Filed 1-28-02; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 5001-08-U


text:
Jurijs Strods (dzimis ) ir bijušais ekonomikas ministrs, apvienības Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK biedrs. Latvijas Universitātē ieguvis skaitļošanas centra operatora izglītību, Strods strādāja par inženieri-matemātiķi, vēlāk LLU par laborantu. No 1997. līdz 2006. gadam viņš strādāja Jelgavas Domē, bet Jurijs Strods kļuva par ekonomikas ministru Aigara Kalvīša otrajā valdībā. Strods pameta amatu ģimenes apstākļu dēļ. 2007. gada 2. oktobrī viņš kļuva par Jelgavas domes deputātu.
 1961. gadā dzimušie
 Latvijas ekonomikas ministri
 Latvijas Universitātes absolventi


text:
Peter Maag L'enfant Et Les Sortileges on ImportCDs
 {{html ESRB}} {{html Plot}} {{html Release}} {{html UPC}} L'enfant Et Les Sortileges
 Performers: Andr e Aubery Luchini, Andrée Aubery Luchini, Colette Herzog, Coro di Voci Bianche, Derrik Olsen, Fernanda Cadoni, Genevieve Macaux, Mady Mespl, Mady Mesplé, Michel S n chal, Michel Sénéchal, Paola Scanabucci, Pierre Mollet, RAI Chorus, Rome
 Title: L'enfant Et Les Sortileges Release Date: 11/30/2004
 UPC: 600554303925
 Item #: ARE430392
 Tracks 1 Part 1. J'ai Pas Envie de Faire Ma Page 2 Part 1. Votre Serviteur Humble, Bergã ̈Re 3 Part 1. Ding, Ding, Ding! 4 Part 1. How's Your Mug? 5 Part 1. Arriã ̈Re! Je Rã©Chauffe Les Bons 6 Part 1. Adieu, Pastourelles 7 Part 1. Ah! C'est Elle, C'est Elle! 8 Part 1. Deux Robinets Coulent Dans Un Rã©Servoir! 9 Part 1. Oh! Ma Tãate! 10 Part 2. KÃ©, KÃ©, KÃ©, KÃ©, KÃ©, CÃ ́Ã¢C 11 Part 2. Oã1-Es-Tu? 12 Part 2. Danse Des Rainettes 13 Part 2. Sauve-Toi, Sotte! 14 Part 2. Ah! Ah! C'est L'enfant Au Couteau! 15 Part 2. Il Est Bon, L'enfant, Il Est Sage 16 Pavane de la Belle Au Bois Dormant 17 Petit Poucet 18 Laideronette, Impã©Ratrice Des Pagodes 19 Les Entretiens de la Belle Et de la Bãate 20 Le Jardin Fã©Ã©Rique Sign up to receive news and exclusive ImportCDs :


text:
1901 (MCMI) je bilo navadno leto, ki se je po gregorijanskem koledarju začelo na torek. To je bilo prvo leto 20. stoletja.
 Dogodki
 Januar – junij
 1. januar -
 britanske kolonije Novi Južni Wales, Queensland, Južna Avstralija, Tasmanija, Viktorija in Zahodna Avstralija se združijo v Commonwealth Avstralije z Edmundom Bartonom kot prvim ministrskim predsednikom.
 Nigerija postane britanski protektorat.
 22. januar - Viktorija Britanska umre po več kot 63 letih na britanskem prestolu, nasledi jo Edvard VII.
 10. januar - v Teksasu odkrijejo prvi naftni vrelec, začetek naftne mrzlice v ZDA.
 5. februar - podpisan je sporazum, s katerim Združeno kraljestvo prepusti nadzor nad Panamskim prekopom Združenim državam Amerike.
 6. februar - na pariških železniških postajah so postavljene prve javne telefonske govorilnice.
 26. februar -
 druga burska vojna: Buri zavrnejo pogoje premirja na mirovni konferenci v Middelburgu.
 v Pekingu usmrtijo voditelje boksarske vstaje.
 4. marec - ruske oblasti nasilno zatrejo študentske demonstracije v Sankt Peterburgu; predrevolucionarni študentski in delavski protesti potekajo v februarju in marcu po številnih večjih ruskih mestih.
 29. april - v Budimpešti izbruhnejo antisemitski izgredi.
 17. maj - prvi zlom ameriške borze.
 28. maj - William Knox D'Arcy dobi koncesijo za iskanje nafte v Perziji (današnji Iran).
 2. junij - Kacura Taro postane ministrski predsednik Japonske
 12. junij - Kuba postane ameriški protektorat.
 Julij – december
 5. avgust - Peter O'Connor postavi prvi svetovni rekord v skoku v daljino, ki ga priznava Mednarodna atletska zveza.
 6. avgust - Robert Falcon Scott odpluje na ekspedicijo z namenom raziskati Rossovo morje na Antarktiki.
 30. avgust - Hubert Cecil Booth prejme britanski patent za električni sesalnik.
 6. september -
 ameriški anarhist Leon Czolgosz ustreli predsednika Williama McKinleyja v Buffalu in ga smrtno rani.
 z obratovanjem prične ljubljanski tramvaj.
 7. september - s podpisom boksarske listine se uradno konča boksarska vstaja na Kitajskem.
 14. september - Theodore Roosevelt nasledi Williama McKinleyja kot predsednik Združenih držav Amerike.
 28. september - filipinsko-ameriška vojna: filipinski gverilci pobijejo skoraj 50 ameriških vojakov v kraju Balangiga na otoku Samar; na incident se Američani kasneje odzovejo z brutalnim povračilnim napadom na lokalno prebivalstvo.
 2. oktober - britanska Kraljeva vojna mornarica splovi svojo prvo podmornico, HMS Holland 1.
 24. oktober - ameriška učiteljica Annie Edson Taylor se v sodu spusti čez Niagarske slapove in preživi.
 14.–16. november - obsežne poplave prizadenejo večji del ozemlja današnje Slovenije, predvsem Gorenjsko.
 25. november - nemški psihiater Alois Alzheimer prvič pregleda bolnika Augusta Deterja in postavi diagnozo nove bolezni, kasneje po njem poimenovane Alzheimerjeva bolezen.
 10. december - v Stockholmu poteka prva podelitev Nobelovih nagrad, 5 let po smrti Alfreda Nobela.
 12. december - Guglielmo Marconi sprejme prvi čezatlantski radijski signal - črko »S« v Morsejevi abecedi.
 20. december - končana je železniška povezava med Mombaso v Keniji in Kisumujem v Ugandi (danes prav tako na ozemlju Kenije).
 Rojstva
 3. januar - Ngo Dinh Diem, vietnamski politik († 1963)
 14. januar - Alfred Tarski, poljski logik, matematik in filozof († 1983)
 30. januar - Rudolf Caracciola, nemški dirkač († 1959)
 31. januar - Blaž Arnič, slovenski skladatelj († 1970)
 19. februar - Mohamed Nagib, egiptovski politik († 1984)
 28. februar - Linus Carl Pauling, ameriški kemik, dvojni nobelovec († 1994)
 27. marec - Eisaku Sato, japonski politik, nobelovec († 1975)
 13. april - Jacques Lacan, francoski psihoanalitik († 1981)
 29. april - Hirohito, japonski cesar († 1989)
 30. april - Simon Kuznets, belorusko-ameriški ekonomist, nobelovec († 1985)
 7. maj - Gary Cooper, ameriški filmski igralec († 1961)
 17. maj - Werner Egk, nemški skladatelj, dirigent († 1983)
 18. maj - Vincent du Vigneaud, ameriški biokemik, nobelovec († 1978)
 5. junij - Anastazija Romanova, ruska plemkinja in svetnica († 1918)
 6. junij - Sukarno, indonezijski politik († 1970)
 10. junij - Antonín Bečvář, češki astronom († 1965)
 16. junij - Henri Lefebvre, francoski filozof in sociolog († 1991)
 9. julij - Barbara Cartland, angleška pisateljica († 2000)
 2. avgust - Slavko Grum, slovenski dramatik in pisatelj († 1949)
 8. avgust - Ernest Orlando Lawrence, ameriški fizik, nobelovec († 1958)
 20. avgust - Salvatore Quasimodo, italijanski pesnik in prevajalec, nobelovec († 1968)
 26. avgust - Maxwell Davenport Taylor, ameriški general, jezikoslovec, pedagog in diplomat († 1987)
 22. september - Charles Brenton Huggins, kanadsko-ameriški zdravnik, nobelovec († 1997)
 23. september - Jaroslav Seifert, češki pisatelj in novinar, nobelovec († 1986)
 29. september - Enrico Fermi, italijansko-ameriški fizik, nobelovec († 1954)
 19. oktober - Arleigh Albert Burke, ameriški admiral († 1996)
 23. oktober - Kristmann Gudmundsson, islandski književnik († 1983)
 3. november - Leopold III., kralj Belgijcev († 1983)
 22. november - Joaquín Rodrigo, španski skladatelj († 1999)
 23. november - Marieluise Fleißer, nemška pisateljica († 1974)
 5. december -
 Walt Disney, ameriški producent, režiser, scenarist, igralec, animator, podjetnik, vizionar in filantrop († 1966)
 Werner Karl Heisenberg, nemški fizik, filozof, nobelovec († 1976)
 16. december - Margaret Mead, ameriška antropologinja († 1978)
 26. december - Peter van de Kamp, nizozemsko-ameriški astronom († 1995)
 27. december - Marie Magdalene »Marlene« Dietrich, nemško-ameriška filmska igralka in pevka († 1992)
 Smrti
 11. januar - Vasilij Sergejevič Kalinnikov, ruski skladatelj (* 1866)
 14. januar - Charles Hermite, francoski matematik (* 1822)
 21. januar - Elisha Gray, ameriški električni inženir in izumitelj (* 1835)
 22. januar - Viktorija Britanska, kraljica Združenega kraljestva (* 1819)
 27. januar - Giuseppe Verdi, italijanski skladatelj (* 1813)
 11. februar - Milan Obrenović, srbski kralj (* 1854)
 13. marec - Benjamin Harrison, ameriški odvetnik, general in politik (* 1833)
 1. april - François-Marie Raoult, francoski fizik in kemik (* 1830)
 16. april - Henry Augustus Rowland, ameriški fizik, astronom (* 1848)
 30. maj - Victor D'Hondt, belgijski pravnik in matematik (* 1841)
 18. junij - Josip Murn - Aleksandrov, slovenski pesnik (* 1879)
 4. julij - Peter Guthrie Tait, škotski fizik, matematik (* 1831)
 12. avgust - Francesco Crispi, italijanski politik (* 1818)
 5. september - Ignacij Klemenčič, slovenski fizik (* 1853)
 14. september - William McKinley, ameriški politik (* 1843)
 Nobelove nagrade
 fizika: Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen
 kemija: Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff
 fiziologija ali medicina: Emil Adolf von Behring
 književnost: Sully Prudhomme
 mir: Jean Henri Dunant, Frédéric Passy


text: b'b7c, b6\n [-]\n[-]\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n [-] b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 [-]\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n [-] [-]\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\nb7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\x0c\x0c b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n [-] [-]\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n\n\n [-]\nb7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-] [-]\n [-] b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n\x0c b7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6 [-] b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n\n\n\nb7c, b6 [-] b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n [-] b7c, b6\n [-] b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\n\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6 [-]\n\n\n b7c, b6\n [-] b7c, b6 [-]\n\x0c [-] [-] b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\nb7c, b6 [-] [-]\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n\n\n\n [-]\nb7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n[-]\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6 [-]\n [-]\n\n\nb7c, b6 [-] [-]\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n [-]\n\x0c b7c, b6 [-] b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\nb7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6\n [-] [-]\n b7c, b6 [-]\n [-] [-]\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n\n\nb7c, b6\n [-]\n [-] b7c, b6\n [-] [-]\n [-]\n [-]\n b7c, b6 [-]\n [-]\n\x0c b7c, b6\n [-] [-]\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\nb7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-] b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\n\nb7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-] [-]\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-] [-]\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6 [-] [-]\n [-]\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n[-]\n\n\n\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\n\nb7c, b6 [-]\n [-] b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\n [-]\n [-] b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n [-] [-]\n [-]\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n\x0c b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6 [-]\nb7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\nb7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6 [-] [-]\n [-] b7c, b6 [-] [-]\n [-] [-]\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n [-]\n\n\n [-] b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n\x0c b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\nb7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n [-] b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n[-] b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n [-]\nb7c, b6 [-]\n\nb7c, b6\nb7c, b6 [-]\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\nb7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6 [-] b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6 [-]\nb7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\x0cb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 [-]\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\nb7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6\n [-]\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 [-]\nb7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6 [-] b7c, b6\n [-]\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n [-] b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\n [-]\n\nb7c, b6 [-]\n\x0c b7c, b6\n [-]\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-] [-]\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n [-] b7c, b6\n [-]\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n [-]\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n [-]\n\x0c b7c, b6\n[-]\n\n\n\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\nb7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\nb7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\n\x0c b7c, b6\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 [-]\n [-]\n b7c, b6 [-] [-]\n\n\n\n\n b7c, b6 [-]\n\n\n\n b7c, b6\n b7c, b6 b7c, b6\n b7c, b6\nb7c, b6\n\x0c'


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22001D0206(03)
 2001/94/EC: Decision No 1/2001 of the EU-Slovakia Association Council of 18 January 2001 extending the double-checking system established by Decision No 3/97 of the Association Council for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001
 Official Journal L 035 , 06/02/2001 P. 0038 - 0038
 Decision No 1/2001 of the EU-Slovakia Association Councilof 18 January 2001extending the double-checking system established by Decision No 3/97 of the Association Council for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001(2001/94/EC)THE ASSOCIATION COUNCIL,Whereas:(1) The contact group referred to in Article 10 of Protocol 2 of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part, which entered into force on 1 February 1995, met on 22 September 2000 and agreed to recommend to the Association Council established under Article 104 of the Agreement that the double-checking system introduced in 1998 by Decision No 3/97 of the Association Council(1), as last extended by Decision No 1/2000(2) thereof for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2000 should be extended for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001.(2) The Association Council, having been supplied with all relevant information, has agreed with this recommendation,HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1The double-checking system established by Decision No 3/97 shall continue to apply for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2001. In the preamble and Article 1(1) and (3) of the Decision, references to the period 1 January to 31 December 2000 shall be replaced by references to 1 January to 31 December 2001.Article 2This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.It shall apply with effect from 1 January 2001.Done at Brussels, 18 January 2001.For the Association CouncilThe PresidentA. Lindh(1) OJ L 13, 19.1.1998, p. 57.(2) OJ L 67, 15.3.2000, p. 36.


text:
11.3.2006
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 60/11
 DOMSTOLENS DOM
 (Sjette Afdeling)
 af 12. januar 2006
 i sag C-118/05, Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Den Portugisiske Republik (1)
 (Traktatbrud - direktiv 2000/60/EF - Fællesskabets vandpolitiske foranstaltninger - manglende gennemførelse inden for den fastsatte frist)
 (2006/C 60/22)
 Processprog: portugisisk
 I sag C-118/05, angående et traktatbrudssøgsmål i henhold til artikel 226 EF, anlagt den 10. marts 2005, Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber (befuldmægtigede: M. Caeiros og S. Pardo Quintillán) mod Den Portugisiske Republik (befuldmægtiget: L. Fernandes), har Domstolen (Sjette Afdeling), sammensat af afdelingsformanden, J. Malenovský, og dommerne J.-P. Puissochet og A. Ó Caoimh (refererende dommer); generaladvokat: P. Léger; justitssekretær: R. Grass, den 12. januar 2006 afsagt dom, hvis konklusion lyder således:
 1)
 Den Portugisiske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2000/60/EF af 23. oktober 2000 om fastlæggelse af en ramme for Fællesskabets vandpolitiske foranstaltninger, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at efterkomme direktivet.
 2)
 Den Portugisiske Republik betaler sagens omkostninger.
 (1) EUT C 106 af 30.4.2005.


text:
555/2006 Z.z. - Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republi... - SLOV-LEX
 555/2006 Z.z./
 555/2006 Z. z.
 Časová verzia predpisu účinná od 15.10.2006
 z 13. septembra 2006,
 ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky č. 115/2006 Z. z. o minimálnych zdravotných a bezpečnostných požiadavkách na ochranu zamestnancov pred rizikami súvisiacimi s expozíciou hluku
 Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky č. 115/2006 Z. z. o minimálnych zdravotných a bezpečnostných požiadavkách na ochranu zamestnancov pred rizikami súvisiacimi s expozíciou hluku sa mení a dopĺňa takto:
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 2 sa citácia „Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 330/1996 Z. z. o bezpečnosti a ochrane zdravia pri práci v znení neskorších predpisov. Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 272 /1994 Z. z. o ochrane zdravia ľudí v znení neskorších predpisov.“ nahrádza citáciou „Zákon č. 124/2006 Z. z. o bezpečnosti a ochrane zdravia pri práci a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov. Zákon č. 126/2006 Z. z. o verejnom zdravotníctve a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov.“.
 V § 3 ods. 2 sa slová „Závodná zdravotná služba3)“ nahrádzajú slovami „Pracovná zdravotná služba3)“.
 § 26 zákona č. 124/2006 Z. z.“.
 V § 3 ods. 2 sa slovo „povolenie4)“ nahrádza slovami „osvedčenie o odbornej spôsobilosti4)“.
 § 9 zákona č. 126/2006 Z. z.“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 5 sa citácia „§ 8 ods. 1 písm. b) zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 330/1996 Z. z. v znení zákona č. 158/2001 Z. z.“ nahrádza citáciou „§ 6 ods. 1 písm. c) zákona č. 124/2006 Z. z.“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 6 sa citácia „§ 8a ods. 1 písm. c) zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 330/1996 Z. z. v znení zákona č. 158/2001 Z. z.“ nahrádza citáciou „§ 3 písm. c) zákona č. 124/2006 Z. z.“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 8 sa citácia „Napríklad § 18 zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 272/1994 Z. z. v znení neskorších predpisov, zákon č. 95/2000 Z. z. o inšpekcii práce a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov.“ nahrádza citáciou „Napríklad § 37 zákona č. 126/2006 Z. z., zákon č. 125/2006 Z. z. o inšpekcii práce a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 82/2005 Z. z. o nelegálnej práci a nelegálnom zamestnávaní a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov.“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 9 sa citácia „§ 8 zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 330/1996 Z. z. v znení zákona č. 158/2001 Z. z.“ nahrádza citáciou „§ 5 zákona č. 124/2006 Z. z.“.
 V § 4 ods. 1 sa vkladá nová prvá veta, ktorá znie:
 „Riziko, vyplývajúce zamestnancovi z expozície hluku, musí zamestnávateľ odstrániť alebo znížiť na najnižšiu dosiahnuteľnú úroveň s prihliadnutím na technický pokrok a dostupnosť opatrení na odstránenie alebo zníženie hluku predovšetkým pri zdroji hluku.“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 11 sa citácia „§ 8a ods. 3 písm. h) zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 330/1996 Z. z. v znení zákona č. 158/2001 Z. z.“ nahrádza citáciou „§ 6 ods. 1 písm. h) bod 3 zákona č. 124/2006 Z. z.“.
 V § 4 ods. 4 sa slová „tabuľky č. 1“ nahrádzajú slovami „bodu 2“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 14 sa citácia „§ 8b ods. 2 zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 330/1996 Z. z. v znení zákona č. 158/2001 Z. z.“ nahrádza citáciou „§ 7 ods. 5 zákona č. 124/2006 Z. z.“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 15 sa citácia „§ 8e zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 330/1996 Z. z. v znení zákona č. 158/2001 Z. z.“ nahrádza citáciou „§ 10 zákona č. 124/2006 Z. z.“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 16 sa citácia „§ 8a ods. 1 písm. o) zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 330/1996 Z. z. v znení zákona č. 158/2001 Z. z.“ nahrádza citáciou „§ 6 ods. 1 písm. q) zákona č. 124/2006 Z. z.“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 18 sa citácia „§ 18 zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 272/1994 Z. z. v znení neskorších predpisov“ nahrádza citáciou „§ 3 zákona č. 126/2006 Z. z.“.
 Mimoriadne lekárske prehliadky exponovaných zamestnancov navrhne lekár vykonávajúci zdravotný dohľad alebo nariadi orgán verejného zdravotníctva, ak sú na to dôvody dané ochranou ich zdravia.“.
 Zamestnávatelia, ktorí prevádzkujú pracoviská uvedené do prevádzky pred účinnosťou tohto nariadenia vlády, môžu využívať ustanovenie § 4 ods. 4 písm. b) najdlhšie do 28. februára 2007 vrátane.“.
 V poznámke pod čiarou k odkazu 20 sa citácia „Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 272/1994 Z. z. v znení neskorších predpisov.“ nahrádza citáciou „Zákon č. 126/2006 Z. z.“.
 V prílohe č. 1 bode 13 sa slová „podľa bodu 10“ nahrádzajú slovami „podľa bodu 12“.
 V prílohe č. 1 bode 14 sa slová „podľa bodu 10“ nahrádzajú slovami „podľa bodu 12“.
 V prílohe č. 1 bode 19 sa za slová „z prílohy C STN ISO 9612.“ vkladajú slová „Akustika. Pokyny na meranie a hodnotenie hlukovej expozície v pracovnom prostredí“.
 V prílohe č. 1 bod 22 znie:
 Vrcholová hladina C akustického tlaku je hladina určená z maximálneho okamžitého akustického tlaku s frekvenčným vážením C počas meraného intervalu podľa vzťahu
 kde pc(t) je časová funkcia akustického tlaku váženého frekvenčnou váhovou funkciou C.
 Hladina sa získa meraním hladiny C akustického tlaku na zvukomeri pri použití funkcie Peak. Použitie tejto funkcie sa vyjadruje v značke indexom Pk.
 Značka: LCPk
 Jednotka: dB“.
 V prílohe č. 1 bode 25 sa slová „v ktorom okamžitá hodnota akustického tlaku je vyššia ako hodnota LCPk znížená o 20 dB.“ nahrádzajú slovami „ohraničeným poklesom hodnoty LCPk zníženej o 20 dB.“.
 V prílohe č. 1 bode 27 sa slová „najvyššia prípustná hodnota“ nahrádzajú slovami „akčná hodnota expozície hluku alebo limitná hodnota expozície hluku.“.
 V prílohe č. 1 bod 29 znie:
 Akčná hodnota expozície hluku je hodnota určujúcej veličiny hluku, pri ktorej prekročení sa vykonávajú opatrenia na zníženie hluku. V značke veličiny je index a, napr. LAEX,8h,a.
 Horná akčná hodnota expozície hluku a dolná akčná hodnota expozície hluku sú určené na ochranu zdravia zamestnancov, predovšetkým na ochranu sluchu pred počuteľným zvukom. Akčné hodnoty expozície hluku pre skupiny prác sú určené na ochranu zdravia zamestnancov pred nešpecifickými, najmä rušivými a obťažujúcimi účinkami hluku.“.
 V prílohe č. 1 bode 30 v prvej vete sa za slová „Limitná hodnota“ vkladá slovo „expozície“.
 V prílohe č. 2 bod 1 znie:
 Limitné hodnoty expozície, horné akčné hodnoty expozície a dolné akčné hodnoty expozície hluku
 Na ochranu zdravia zamestnancov, predovšetkým z hľadiska ochrany ich sluchu pred počuteľným hlukom, sa ustanovujú limitné hodnoty expozície hluku, horné akčné hodnoty expozície hluku a dolné akčné hodnoty expozície hluku.“.
 Body 1.1. až 1.5. sa nevypúšťajú.
 V prílohe č. 2 bod 2 znie:
 Akčné hodnoty hlukovej expozície pre skupiny prác
 Na ochranu zdravia zamestnancov z hľadiska ochrany pred nešpecifickými, najmä rušivými alebo obťažujúcimi účinkami hluku sa ustanovujú akčné hodnoty normalizovaných hladín hlukovej expozície pre skupiny prác. Hodnotenie podľa tohto odseku sa používa len pre práce, ktoré vyžadujú duševné sústredenie sa alebo sluchovú komunikáciu.“.
 Body 2.1. až 2.5.2. sa nevypúšťajú.
 V prílohe č. 2 tabuľke č. 1 v riadku IV veta znie:
 „Činnosť, pri ktorej sa používajú hlučné stroje a nástroje alebo ktorá je vykonávaná v hlučnom prostredí, vyžaduje aspoň čiastkové sluchové informácie a nespĺňa podmienky zaradenia do skupín I, II alebo III.“.
 Slová „lekárske preventívne prehliadky“ vo všetkých tvaroch sa v celom texte nariadenia vlády nahrádzajú slovami „lekárske preventívne prehliadky vo vzťahu k práci“ v príslušnom tvare.
 Slová „orgán na ochranu zdravia“ vo všetkých tvaroch sa v celom texte nariadenia vlády nahrádzajú slovami „orgán verejného zdravotníctva“ v príslušnom tvare.
 Slová „hlukovej expozície“ vo všetkých tvaroch sa v celom texte nariadenia vlády nahrádzajú slovami „expozície hluku“ v príslušnom tvare.
 115/2006 Z. z. Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky o minimálnych zdravotných a bezpečnostných požiadavkách na ochranu zamestnancov pred rizikami súvisiacimi s expozíciou hluku
 Číslo: 555/2006 Z. z.
 Názov: Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky č. 115/2006 Z. z. o minimálnych zdravotných a bezpečnostných požiadavkách na ochranu zamestnancov pred rizikami súvisiacimi s expozíciou hluku
 Dátum schválenia: 13.09.2006
 Dátum vyhlásenia: 10.10.2006
 Nachádza sa v čiastke: 212/2006
 2. 15.10.2006 -


text:
 28.2.2022
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 55/38
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) 2022/317
 z dne 21. februarja 2022
 o zaščiti iz člena 99 Uredbe (EU) št. 1308/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta za ime „Dehesa Peñalba“ (ZOP)
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 1308/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve trgov kmetijskih proizvodov in razveljavitvi uredb Sveta (EGS) št. 922/72, (EGS) št. 234/79, (ES) št. 1037/2001 in (ES) št. 1234/2007 (1) ter zlasti člena 99 Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 V skladu s členom 97(2) in (3) Uredbe (EU) št. 1308/2013 je Komisija preučila vlogo Španije za registracijo imena „Dehesa Peñalba“ in jo objavila v Uradnem listu Evropske unije (2).
 (2)
 Komisija ni prejela nobenega ugovora v skladu s členom 98 Uredbe (EU) št. 1308/2013.
 (3)
 V skladu s členom 99 Uredbe (EU) št. 1308/2013 bi bilo treba ime „Dehesa Peñalba“ zaščititi in ga vpisati v register iz člena 104 navedene uredbe.
 (4)
 Ukrepi iz te uredbe so v skladu z mnenjem Odbora za skupno ureditev kmetijskih trgov –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Ime „Dehesa Peñalba“ (ZOP) se zaščiti.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 21. februarja 2022
 Za Komisijo
 v imenu predsednice
 Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
 član Komisije
 (1) UL L 347, 20.12.2013, str. 671.
 (2) UL C 398, 1.10.2021, str. 28.


text:
 3.9.2005
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 C 217/14
 EUROOPA KOHTU
 (esimene koda)
 26. mai 2005. aasta otsus
 kohtuasjas C-465/03 (Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz'i eelotsusetaotlus): Kretztechnik AG versus Finanzamt Linz (1)
 (Kuues käibemaksudirektiiv - Teenuste osutamine tasu eest - Aktsiaemissioon - Äriühingu võtmine börsinimekirja - Käibemaksu mahaarvamine)
 (2005/C 217/27)
 Kohtumenetluse keel: saksa
 Kohtuasjas C-465/03, mille esemeks on Euroopa Kohtule EÜ artikli 234 alusel Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz'i (Austria) 20. oktoobri 2003. aasta otsusega esitatud eelotsusetaotlus, mis saabus Euroopa Kohtusse 15. novembril 2003, menetluses Kretztechnik AG v. Finanzamt Linz, tegi Euroopa Kohus (esimene koda), koosseisus: koja esimees P. Jann, kohtunikud K. Lenaerts (ettekandja), J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič ja E. Levits; kohtujurist F. G. Jacobs, kohtusekretär: vanemametnik M.-F. Contet, 26. mail 2005 otsuse, mille resolutiivosa on järgmine:
 1.
 Uute aktsiate emissioon ei kujuta endast nõukogu 17. mai 1977. aasta kuuenda direktiivi 77/388/EMÜ, kumuleeruvate käibemaksudega seotud liikmesriikide õigusaktide ühtlustamise kohta ühine käibemaksusüsteem: ühtne maksubaas, mida on muudetud nõukogu 10. aprilli 1995. aasta direktiiviga 95/7/EÜ, artikli 2 punkti 1 kohaldamisalale vastavat tehingut.
 2.
 Kuuenda direktiivi 77/388, mida on muudetud direktiiviga 95/7, artikli 17 lõiked 1 ja 2 annavad õiguse maha arvata käibemaksu, mis on lisatud maksukohustuslase poolt kantud kuludele erinevate teenuste eest, mis ta omandas aktsiaemissiooni raames, selles osas, milles maksukohustuslase poolt tema majandustegevuse raames tehtud tehingud on tervikuna maksustatavad tehingud.
 (1) ELT C 47, 21.2.2004.