type: contracts

text:
 29.10.2019
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 L 276/56
 ODLUKA BR. 2/2019 ODBORA ZA PRIDRUŽIVANJE EU–REPUBLIKA MOLDOVA U SASTAVU ZADUŽENOM ZA TRGOVINU
 od 4. listopada 2019.
 u pogledu ažuriranja Priloga XXVIII.D (Pravila koja se primjenjuju na međunarodni pomorski promet) Sporazumu o pridruživanju između Europske unije i Europske zajednice za atomsku energiju i njihovih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Moldove, s druge strane 2019/1807
 ODBOR ZA PRIDRUŽIVANJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Sporazum o pridruživanju između Europske unije i Europske zajednice za atomsku energiju i njihovih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Moldove, s druge strane, potpisan 27. lipnja 2014. u Bruxellesu, a posebno njegove članke 85., 253., 436., 438. i 449.,
 budući da:
 (1)
 Sporazum o pridruživanju između Europske unije i Europske zajednice za atomsku energiju i njihovih država članica, s jedne strane, i Republike Moldove, s druge strane (dalje u tekstu „Sporazum”), stupio je na snagu 1. srpnja 2016.
 (2)
 Člancima 85. i 253. Sporazuma utvrđuje se da Republika Moldova treba približiti svoje zakonodavstvo aktima EU-a i međunarodnim instrumentima („pravna stečevina Unije”) navedenima u Prilogu XXVIII.D (Pravila koja se primjenjuju na međunarodni pomorski promet) Sporazumu.
 (3)
 Pravna stečevina Unije navedena u Prilogu XXVIII.D razvila se nakon zaključivanja pregovora o Sporazumu u lipnju 2013. Konkretno, Unija je donijela sljedeće akte kojima se provode, mijenjanju, dopunjuju ili zamjenjuju akte navedene u Prilogu XXVIII.D:
 i.
 Provedbena direktiva Komisije 2014/111/EU оd 17. prosinca 2014. o izmjeni Direktive 2009/15/EZ s obzirom na određene kodekse i povezane izmjene određenih konvencija i protokola koje je donijela Međunarodna pomorska organizacija (IMO) (1);
 ii.
 Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) br. 1355/2014 оd 17. prosinca 2014. o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 391/2009 s obzirom na određene kodekse i povezane izmjene određenih konvencija i protokola koje je donijela Međunarodna pomorska organizacija (IMO) (2);
 iii.
 Direktiva 2014/90/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. srpnja 2014. o pomorskoj opremi i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive Vijeća 96/98/EZ (3);
 iv.
 Uredba (EU) 2015/757 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 29. travnja 2015. o praćenju emisija ugljikova dioksida iz pomorskog prometa, izvješćivanju o njima i njihovoj verifikaciji te o izmjeni Direktive 2009/16/EZ (4);
 v.
 Direktiva Komisije 2014/100/EU оd 28. listopada 2014. o izmjeni Direktive 2002/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o uspostavi sustava nadzora plovidbe i informacijskog sustava Zajednice (5);
 vi.
 Direktiva Komisije (EU) 2016/844 od 27. svibnja 2016. o izmjeni Direktive 2009/45/EZ Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća o sigurnosnim pravilima i normama za putničke brodove (6) i Ispravak Direktive Komisije (EU) 2016/844 od 27. svibnja 2016. o izmjeni Direktive 2009/45/EZ Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća o sigurnosnim pravilima i normama za putničke brodove (7);
 vii.
 Direktiva Komisije (EU) 2015/2087 od 18. studenoga 2015. o izmjeni Priloga II. Direktivi 2000/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o lučkim uređajima za prihvat brodskog otpada i ostataka tereta (8);
 viii.
 Direktiva 2013/38/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 12. kolovoza 2013. o izmjeni Direktive 2009/16/EZ o nadzoru države luke (9);
 ix.
 Uredba (EU) br. 1257/2013 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 20. studenoga 2013. o recikliranju brodova i o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 1013/2006 i Direktive 2009/16/EZ (10);
 x.
 Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 428/2010 od 20. svibnja 2010. o provedbi članka 14. Direktive 2009/16/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća u vezi s proširenim inspekcijskim pregledima brodova (11);
 xi.
 Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 801/2010 od 13. rujna 2010. o provedbi članka 10. stavka 3. Direktive 2009/16/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća u vezi s kriterijima države zastave (12);
 xii.
 Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 802/2010 od 13. rujna 2010. o provedbi članka 10. stavka 3. i članka 27. Direktive 2009/16/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća u odnosu na rezultate kompanije, kako je izmijenjena Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) br. 1205/2012 (13);
 xiii.
 Direktiva 2009/17/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o izmjeni Direktive 2002/59/EZ o uspostavi sustava nadzora plovidbe i informacijskog sustava Zajednice (14);
 xiv.
 Direktiva 2009/18/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o određivanju temeljnih načela o istraživanju nesreća u području pomorskog prometa i o izmjeni Direktive Vijeća 1999/35/EZ i Direktive 2002/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća (15);
 xv.
 Direktiva Komisije 2011/15/EU оd 23. veljače 2011. o izmjeni Direktive 2002/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o uspostavi sustava nadzora plovidbe i informacijskog sustava Zajednice (16);
 xvi.
 Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 1286/2011 od 9. prosinca 2011. o donošenju opće metodologije za istraživanje pomorskih nesreća i nezgoda, razvijene u skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 4. Direktive 2009/18/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća (17);
 xvii.
 Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 540/2008 od 16. lipnja 2008. o izmjeni Priloga II. Uredbi (EZ) br. 336/2006 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o provedbi Međunarodnog kodeksa o upravljanju sigurnošću unutar Zajednice, u vezi s obrascima dokumenata (18);
 xviii.
 Direktiva Komisije 2010/36/EU od 1. lipnja 2010. o izmjeni Direktive 2009/45/EZ Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća o sigurnosnim pravilima i normama za putničke brodove (19);
 xix.
 Direktiva Komisije 2005/12/EZ od 18. veljače 2005. o izmjeni priloga I. i II. Direktivi 2003/25/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o posebnim zahtjevima stabiliteta za ro-ro putničke brodove (20);
 xx.
 Uredba (EU) br. 530/2012 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. lipnja 2012. o ubrzanom postupnom uvođenju zahtjeva za dvostrukom oplatom ili ekvivalentnih projektnih zahtjeva za tankere za ulje s jednostrukom oplatom (21);
 xxi.
 Direktiva 2012/35/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 21. studenoga 2012. o izmjeni Direktive 2008/106/EZ o minimalnoj razini osposobljavanja pomoraca (22);
 xxii.
 Direktiva 2002/84/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 5. studenoga 2002. o izmjeni Direktive o pomorskoj sigurnosti i sprečavanju onečišćenja s brodova (23);
 xxiii.
 Direktiva Komisije 2007/71/EZ od 13. prosinca 2007. o izmjeni Priloga II. Direktivi 2000/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o lučkim uređajima za prihvat brodskog otpada i ostataka tereta (24);
 xxiv.
 Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 536/2008 od 13. lipnja 2008. o provedbi članka 6. stavka 3. i članka 7. Uredbe (EZ) br. 782/2003 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o zabrani organokositrenih spojeva na brodovima i o izmjeni te Uredbe (25);
 xxv.
 Direktiva Vijeća 2009/13/EZ od 16. veljače 2009. o provedbi Sporazuma koji su sklopili Udruženje brodovlasnika Europske zajednice (ECSA) i Europski savez transportnih radnika (ETF) o Konvenciji o radu pomoraca iz 2006. i izmjeni Direktive 1999/63/EZ (26);
 (4)
 Republika Moldova nastavlja postupak približavanja svojeg zakonodavstva pravnoj stečevini Unije u skladu s rokovima i prioritetima utvrđenima Prilogom XXVIII.D. Kako bi se osiguralo primjereno približavanje zakonodavstva Republike Moldove pravnoj stečevini Unije, akte navedene u uvodnoj izjavi 3. trebalo bi dodati na popis naveden u Prilogu XXVIII.D te bi trebalo izmijeniti određene rokove kako bi se uzeo u obzir napredak koji je Republika Moldova već ostvarila u procesu približavanja pravnoj stečevini Unije u skladu s člankom 449. Sporazuma.
 (5)
 Člankom 436. stavkom 3. Sporazuma predviđa se da je Vijeće za pridruživanje EU-a i Republike Moldove („Vijeće za pridruživanje”) ovlašteno ažurirati ili izmijeniti priloge Sporazumu.
 (6)
 U skladu s člankom 438. stavkom 2. Sporazuma, Vijeće za pridruživanje može Odboru za pridruživanje delegirati bilo koju od svojih ovlasti, uključujući ovlast za donošenje obvezujućih odluka.
 (7)
 Odlukom br. 3/2014 (27) Vijeće za pridruživanje delegiralo je Odboru za pridruživanje u sastavu zaduženom za trgovinu ovlast za ažuriranje ili izmjene priloga Sporazumu koji se, među ostalim, odnose na poglavlje 6. (Poslovni nastan, trgovina uslugama i elektronička trgovina) glave V. (Trgovina i pitanja povezana s trgovinom) Sporazuma, u mjeri u kojoj u poglavlju 6. ne postoje posebne odredbe u pogledu ažuriranja ili izmjene tih priloga. U poglavlju 6. ne postoje posebne odredbe u pogledu ažuriranja ili izmjene priloga.
 (8)
 Prilog XXVIII.D stoga bi trebalo na odgovarajući način ažurirati,
 DONIO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 Prilog XXVIII.D (Pravila koja se primjenjuju na međunarodni pomorski promet) Sporazumu zamjenjuje se prilogom ovoj Odluci.
 Članak 2.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu na dan donošenja.
 Sastavljeno u Kišinjevu 4. listopada 2019.
 Za Odbor za pridruživanje u sastavu zaduženom za trgovinu
 I. COSTACHI
 Predsjednica
 A. FERNÁNDEZ DÍEZ C. CEBAN
 Tajnici
 (1) SL L 366, 20.12.2014., str. 83.
 (2) SL L 365, 19.12.2014., str. 82.
 (3) SL L 257, 28.8.2014., str. 146.
 (4) SL L 123, 19.5.2015., str. 55.
 (5) SL L 308, 29.10.2014., str. 82.
 (6) SL L 141, 28.5.2016., str. 51.
 (7) SL L 193, 19.7.2016., str. 117.
 (8) SL L 302, 19.11.2015., str. 99.
 (9) SL L 218, 14.8.2013., str. 1.
 (10) SL L 330, 10.12.2013., str. 1.
 (11) SL L 125, 21.5.2010., str. 2.
 (12) SL L 241, 14.9.2010., str. 1.
 (13) SL L 241, 14.9.2010., str. 4.
 (14) SL L 131, 28.5.2009., str. 101.
 (15) SL L 131, 28.5.2009., str. 114.
 (16) SL L 49, 24.2.2011., str. 33.
 (17) SL L 328, 10.12.2011., str. 36.
 (18) SL L 157, 17.6.2008., str. 15.
 (19) SL L 162, 29.6.2010., str. 1.
 (20) SL L 48, 19.2.2005., str. 19.
 (21) SL L 172, 30.6.2012., str. 3.
 (22) SL L 343, 14.12.2012., str. 78.
 (23) SL L 324, 29.11.2002., str. 53.
 (24) SL L 329, 14.12.2007., str. 33.
 (25) SL L 156, 14.6.2008., str. 10.
 (26) SL L 124, 20.5.2009., str. 30.
 (27) Odluka br. 3/2014 Vijeća za pridruživanje EU-a i Republike Moldove od 16. prosinca 2014. o delegiranju određenih ovlasti Vijeća za pridruživanje Odboru za pridruživanje u sastavu za trgovinu (SL L 110, 29.4.2015., str. 40.).
 PRILOG
 „PRILOG XXVIII.D
 PRAVILA KOJA SE PRIMJENJUJU NA MEĐUNARODNI POMORSKI PROMET
 Republika Moldova obvezuje se postupno približiti svoje zakonodavstvo sljedećem aktima EU-a i međunarodnim instrumentima u utvrđenim rokovima.
 Pomorska sigurnost – država zastave/klasifikacijska društva
 Provedbena direktiva Komisije 2014/111/EU оd 17. prosinca 2014. o izmjeni Direktive 2009/15/EZ s obzirom na određene kodekse i povezane izmjene određenih konvencija i protokola koje je donijela Međunarodna pomorska organizacija (IMO)
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Provedbene direktive 2014/111/EU provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 2009/15/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o zajedničkim pravilima i normama za organizacije koje obavljaju pregled i nadzor brodova te za odgovarajuće aktivnosti pomorskih uprava, kako je izmijenjena Provedbenom direktivom Komisije 2014/111/EU
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2009/15/EZ provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) br. 1355/2014 оd 17. prosinca 2014. o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 391/2009 s obzirom na određene kodekse i povezane izmjene određenih konvencija i protokola koje je donijela Međunarodna pomorska organizacija (IMO)
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1355/2014 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba (EZ) br. 391/2009 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o zajedničkim pravilima i normama za organizacije koje obavljaju pregled i nadzor brodova, kako je izmijenjena Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) br. 1355/2014
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EZ) br. 391/2009 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Država zastave
 Direktiva 2009/21/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o ispunjavanju zahtjeva države zastave
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2009/21/EZ provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Nadzor države luke
 Direktiva 2013/38/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 12. kolovoza 2013. o izmjeni Direktive 2009/16/EZ o nadzoru države luke
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2013/38/EU provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba (EU) 2015/757 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 29. travnja 2015. o praćenju emisija ugljikova dioksida iz pomorskog prometa, izvješćivanju o njima i njihovoj verifikaciji te o izmjeni Direktive 2009/16/EZ
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EU) 2015/757 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba (EU) br. 1257/2013 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 20. studenoga 2013. o recikliranju brodova i o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 1013/2006 i Direktive 2009/16/EZ
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EU) br. 1257/2013 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 428/2010 od 20. svibnja 2010. o provedbi članka 14. Direktive 2009/16/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća u vezi s proširenim inspekcijskim pregledima brodova
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EU) br. 428/2010 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 801/2010 od 13. rujna 2010. o provedbi članka 10. stavka 3. Direktive 2009/16/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća u vezi s kriterijima države zastave
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EU) br. 801/2010 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 802/2010 od 13. rujna 2010. o provedbi članka 10. stavka 3. i članka 27. Direktive 2009/16/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća u odnosu na rezultate kompanije izmijenjena Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) br. 1205/2012
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EU) br. 802/2010 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 2009/16/EZ Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o nadzoru države luke, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom 2013/38/EU Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća, Uredbom (EU) 2015/757 Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća i Uredbom (EU) br. 1257/2013 Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća te kako je provedena Uredbom Komisije (EU) br. 428/2010, Uredbom Komisije (EU) br. 801/2010 i Uredbom Komisije (EU) br. 802/2010
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2009/16/EZ provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Nadzor plovidbe
 Direktiva 2009/17/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o izmjeni Direktive 2002/59/EZ o uspostavi sustava nadzora plovidbe i informacijskog sustava Zajednice
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2009/17/EZ provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva Komisije 2011/15/EU оd 23. veljače 2011. o izmjeni Direktive 2002/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o uspostavi sustava nadzora plovidbe i informacijskog sustava Zajednice
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2011/15/EU provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva Komisije 2014/100/EU оd 28. listopada 2014. o izmjeni Direktive 2002/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o uspostavi sustava nadzora plovidbe i informacijskog sustava Zajednice
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2014/100/EU provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 2002/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 27. lipnja 2002. o uspostavi sustava nadzora plovidbe i informacijskog sustava Zajednice i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive Vijeća 93/75/EEZ, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom 2009/17/EZ Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća, Direktivom Komisije 2011/15/EU i Direktivom Komisije 2014/100/EU
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2002/59/EZ provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Istraživanje nesreća
 Direktiva Vijeća 1999/35/EZ od 29. travnja 1999. o sustavu obveznih pregleda radi sigurnog obavljanja linijske plovidbe ro-ro putničkih brodova i brzih putničkih plovila, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom 2009/18/EZ Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 1999/35/EZ provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 1286/2011 od 9. prosinca 2011. o donošenju opće metodologije za istraživanje pomorskih nesreća i nezgoda, razvijene u skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 4. Direktive 2009/18/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EU) br. 1286/2011 provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 2009/18/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o određivanju temeljnih načela o istraživanju nesreća u području pomorskog prometa i o izmjeni Direktive Vijeća 1999/35/EZ i Direktive 2002/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2009/18/EZ provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Odgovornost prijevoznika u prijevozu putnika
 Uredba (EZ) br. 392/2009 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o odgovornosti prijevoznika u prijevozu putnika morem u slučaju nesreća
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EZ) br. 392/2009 provode se u roku od tri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 540/2008 od 16. lipnja 2008. o izmjeni Priloga II. Uredbi (EZ) br. 336/2006 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o provedbi Međunarodnog kodeksa o upravljanju sigurnošću unutar Zajednice, u vezi s obrascima dokumenata
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EZ) br. 540/2008 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba (EZ) br. 336/2006 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 15. veljače 2006. o provedbi Međunarodnog pravilnika o upravljanju sigurnošću unutar Zajednice i o stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 3051/95, kako je izmijenjena kako je izmijenjena Uredbom Komisije (EZ) br. 540/2008
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EZ) br. 336/2006 provode se u roku od dvije godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Tehnička i operativna pravila
 Pomorska oprema
 Direktiva 2014/90/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. srpnja 2014. o pomorskoj opremi i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive Vijeća 96/98/EZ
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2014/90/EU provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Putnički brodovi
 Direktiva Komisije 2010/36/EU od 1. lipnja 2010. o izmjeni Direktive 2009/45/EZ Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća o sigurnosnim pravilima i normama za putničke brodove
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2010/36/EU provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 2009/45/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 6. svibnja 2009. o sigurnosnim pravilima i normama za putničke brodove, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom Komisije 2010/36/EU i Direktivom Komisije (EU) 2016/844
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2009/45/EZ provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva Komisije (EU) 2016/844 od 27. svibnja 2016. o izmjeni Direktive 2009/45/EZ Europskog Parlamenta i Vijeća o sigurnosnim pravilima i normama za putničke brodove
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive (EU) 2016/844 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva Vijeća 1999/35/EZ od 29. travnja 1999. o sustavu obveznih pregleda radi sigurnog obavljanja linijske plovidbe ro-ro putničkih brodova i brzih putničkih plovila
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 1999/35/EZ provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva Komisije 2005/12/EZ od 18. veljače 2005. o izmjeni priloga I. i II. Direktivi 2003/25/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o posebnim zahtjevima stabiliteta za ro-ro putničke brodove
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2005/12/EZ provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 2003/25/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 14. travnja 2003. o posebnim zahtjevima stabiliteta za ro-ro putničke brodove, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom Komisije 2005/12/EZ
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2003/25/EZ provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Tankeri za naftu
 Uredba (EU) br. 530/2012 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. lipnja 2012. o ubrzanom postupnom uvođenju zahtjeva za dvostrukom oplatom ili ekvivalentnih projektnih zahtjeva za tankere za ulje s jednostrukom oplatom;
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EU) br. 530/2012 provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Brodovi za rasuti teret
 Direktiva 2001/96/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 4. prosinca 2001. o utvrđivanju usklađenih zahtjeva i postupaka za siguran ukrcaj i iskrcaj brodova za rasuti teret
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2001/96/EZ provode se u roku od tri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Posada
 Direktiva 2012/35/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 21. studenoga 2012. o izmjeni Direktive 2008/106/EZ o minimalnoj razini osposobljavanja pomoraca
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2012/35/EU provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 2008/106/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 19. studenoga 2008. o minimalnoj razini osposobljavanja pomoraca, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom 2012/35/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2008/106/EZ provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Okoliš
 Direktiva Komisije 2007/71/EZ od 13. prosinca 2007. o izmjeni Priloga II. Direktivi 2000/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o lučkim uređajima za prihvat brodskog otpada i ostataka tereta
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2007/71/EZ provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva Komisije (EU) 2015/2087 od 18. studenoga 2015. o izmjeni Priloga II. Direktivi 2000/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o lučkim uređajima za prihvat brodskog otpada i ostataka tereta
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive (EU) 2015/2087 provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 2000/59/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 27. studenoga 2000. o lučkim uređajima za prihvat brodskog otpada i ostataka tereta, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom Komisije 2007/71/EZ i Direktivom Komisije (EU) 2015/2087
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2000/59/EZ provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 2002/84/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 5. studenoga 2002. o izmjeni Direktive o pomorskoj sigurnosti i sprečavanju onečišćenja s brodova
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2002/84/EZ provode se u roku od pet godina od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba Komisije (EZ) br. 536/2008 od 13. lipnja 2008. o provedbi članka 6. stavka 3. i članka 7. Uredbe (EZ) br. 782/2003 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća o zabrani organokositrenih spojeva na brodovima i o izmjeni te Uredbe
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EZ) br. 536/2008 provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba (EZ) br. 782/2003 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 14. travnja 2003. o zabrani organokositrenih spojeva na brodovima, kako je izmijenjena Uredbom Komisije (EZ) br. 536/2008
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EZ) br. 782/2003 provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Tehnički uvjeti
 Direktiva 2010/65/EU Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 20. listopada 2010. o službenom postupku prijave za brodove koji dolaze u luke i/ili odlaze iz luka država članica i o stavljanju izvan snage Direktive 2002/6/EZ
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2010/65/EU provode se u roku od tri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Socijalni uvjeti
 Direktiva Vijeća 92/29/EEZ od 31. ožujka 1992. o minimalnim sigurnosnim i zdravstvenim zahtjevima za poboljšanje medicinske skrbi na brodovima
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 92/29/EEZ provode se u roku od tri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva Vijeća 1999/63/EZ od 21. lipnja 1999. o Sporazumu o organizaciji radnog vremena pomoraca koji su sklopili Udruženje brodovlasnika Europske zajednice (ECSA) i Savez sindikata transportnih radnika u Europskoj uniji (FST) – Prilog: Europski sporazum o organizaciji radnog vremena pomoraca izmijenjen Direktivom Vijeća 2009/13/EZ
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 1999/63/EZ provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva Vijeća 2009/13/EZ od 16. veljače 2009. o provedbi Sporazuma koji su sklopili Udruženje brodovlasnika Europske zajednice (ECSA) i Europski savez transportnih radnika (ETF) o Konvenciji o radu pomoraca iz 2006. i izmjeni Direktive 1999/63/EZ
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2009/13/EZ provode se u roku od četiri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Direktiva 1999/95/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. prosinca 1999. o provedbi odredaba o radnom vremenu pomoraca na brodovima koji pristaju u lukama Zajednice
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 1999/95/EZ provode se u roku od tri godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Pomorska sigurnost
 Direktiva 2005/65/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 26. listopada 2005. o jačanju sigurnosne zaštite luka
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Direktive 2005/65/EZ (osim onih koje se odnose na preglede Komisije) provode se u roku od dvije godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 Uredba (EZ) br. 725/2004 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 31. ožujka 2004. o jačanju sigurnosne zaštite brodova i luka
 Vremenski raspored: odredbe Uredbe (EZ) br. 725/2004, osim onih koje se odnose na preglede Komisije, provode se u roku od dvije godine od stupanja na snagu ovog Sporazuma.
 ”


type: other

text:
Από 1/3/2011 έως 31/3/2011
 Παρασκευή, 18 Μάρτιος 2011 06:37 Από 1/3/2011 έως 31/3/2011
 (31/3/2011) ΑΝΕΑΕΔ & EUROMIL
 (30/3/2011) Το καθεστώς απασχόλησης των συνταξιούχων...σε δημόσια διαβούλευση
 Για όποιον συνάδελφο ενδιαφέρεται να εκφράσει θέση-άποψη στη διεύθυνση http://www.opengov.gr/minlab/?p=1849&cpage=1#comment-1191, (opengov), σχολιάζουμε το άρθρο 44, αναφορικά με την αναστολή συντάξεων των απασχολουμενων συνταξιούχων του Ιδιωτικού και του ευρύτερου Δημοσιου τομέα.
 (29/3/2011) ΑΝΑΦΟΡΑ ΣΤΗ ΒΟΥΛΗ ΤΩΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ Σύμφωνα με το υπ. αριθμ. 57/15-3-2011 Δελτιο Τύπου της Ανεξάρτητης Ένωσης Αποστράτων Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων, το οποίο και επισυνάπτεται, αναφέρεται το ενφιαφέρον του αναπληρωτη Υπουργού Εθνικής Άμυνας, για τα προβλήματα...... (27/3/2011)Γιατί η Ελλάδα πρέπει να έχει ενεργό ρόλο στη κρίση της Λιβύης.
 'Αρθρο-άποψη του Υποστρατήγου ε.α. ΚΩΣΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ
 Η λεκάνη της Μεσογείου και ιδιαίτερα το ανατολικό αυτής τμήμα έχει διαχρονικά για συγκεκριμένους λόγους κάθε εποχή, ιδιαίτερη στρατηγική βαρύτητα και οπωσδήποτε δεν περιμέναμε τον Τούρκο ΥΠΕΞ ή τον Τούρκο Α/ΓΕΝ να το επισημάνει....
 (25/3/2011) H EΛΛΑΔΑ ΠΟΥ ΑΝΤΙΣΤΕΚΕΤΑΙ
 Η ΕΛΛΑΔΑ ΠΟΥ ΕΠΙΜΕΝΕΙ.....
 ΧΡΟΝΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΟΛΛΑ ===============================================================================
 (24/3/2011)ΑΠΟ ΤΗ ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΣΗ ΜΕΡΙΣΜΑΤΟΥΧΩΝ ΜΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΟΕΔΡΟ ΤΟΥ ΜΤΣ
 ΓΙΑ ΤΟ ΒΟΕΑ
 Μετά από πρωτοβουλία μερισματούχων του ΜΤΣ με θέμα το ΒΟΕΑ, πραγματοποιήθηκε την 23η Μαρτίου 2011 συνάντηση με τον Πρόεδρο του Ταμείου, στον οποίο επιδόθηκε σχετικό ψήφισμα. Τα αιτήματα και οι απαντήσεις- δεσμεύσεις που δόθηκαν είναι όπως παρακάτω:....
 (23/3/2011) Ανοικτη Επιστολή Φορέων Ε.Δ. και Σ.Α. προς Υπουργό Εθνικής Άμυνας
 Αξιότιμε κ. Υπουργέ Σύμφωνα με συνεχώς διασταυρούμενες πληροφορίες και αντίστοιχες ενδείξεις, το Υπουργείο Εθνικής Άμυνας φέρεται να προσανατολίζεται στη συγχώνευση των τριών Μετοχικών Ταμείων των Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων και των Σωμάτων Ασφαλείας, και εν συνεχεία στην υπαγωγή τους στο υπουργείο Εργασίας, σε ένα ευρύτερο σχήμα επικουρικών ταμείων του δημόσιου τομέα....
 Εργασιακό καθεστως Αποστράτων και Αναστολή συντάξεως
 Σύμφωνα με το νόμο 3865/2010 (άρθρο 10), για τους συνταξιούχους του Δημοσίου (και αποστράτους) που εργάζονται ως μισθωτοί ή αυτοαπασχολούνται, προβλέπεται αναστολή καταβολής της σύνταξης η των συντάξεων που λαμβάνουν από οποιαδήποτε πηγή, μέχρι τη συμπλήρωση του 55ου έτους της ηλικίας τους.Για τους στρατιωτικούς συνταξιούχους η αναστολή καταβολής της σύνταξης ισχύει μέχρι τη συμπλήρωση του 53ου έτους της ηλικίας τους.....
 ΔΕΛΤΙΟ ΤΥΠΟΥ ΑΝΕΑΕΔ
 Με μεγάλη μας χαρά, ακούσαμε τον αναπληρωτή Υπουργό Εθνικής Άμυνας, να ενσκήπτει επιτέλους στα προβλήματα των πολιτικών υπαλλήλων του ΥΕΘΑ, οι οποίοι καθομολογούμενα είναι οι χαμηλότερα αμειβόμενοι δημόσιοι υπάλληλοι, κατά τη διάρκεια ομιλίας του στο 10ο συνέδριο της ΠΟΕ-ΥΕΘΑ........... =============================================================================
 (18/3/2011)ΜΙΣΘΟΛΟΓΙΟ ΔΥΟ ΤΑΧΥΤΗΤΩΝ ΣΤΙΣ ΕΝΟΠΛΕΣ ΔΥΝΑΜΕΙΣ; Νέα αγανάκτηση και οργή φέρεται να δημιουργούν στο στράτευμα οι εντεινόμενες φήμες για τη δημιουργία μισθολογίου 2 ταχυτήτων των στρατιωτικών. Φήμες που ήρθαν να επαληθευθούν δια στόματος του υπουργού Εσωτερικών Γιάννη Ραγκούση, στο κεντρικό δελτίο της ΝΕΤ της 15-3-2011. Συγκεκριμένα, επισήμανε πως από το “στρατιωτικό μισθολόγιο” θα εξαιρεθούν κάποιες ειδικότητες, όπως των ένστολων οικονομικών οι οποίοι θα ενταχθούν στα “πολιτικά μισθολόγια” των αντίστοιχων ειδικοτήτων...... Γράφει ο Πάνος Ασπροδίνης , Ιδρυτικό Μέλος της ΑΝΕΑΕΔ. ===============================================================================
 (17/3/2011) Tαγοί.... Άρθρο του μέλους του Δ.Σ. της ΑΝΕΑΕΔ κ. Παναγιωτη Αλεξόπουλου Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι , είμαι της αρχής ότι πρέπει να κινούμαστε επικοινωνιακά κοντά στις απλές σκέψεις του μέσου όρου της μέγιστης πλειοψηφίας του λαού μας, γιατί από αυτόν προερχόμαστε και για αυτόν οφείλουμε να λειτουργούμε. Είναι άλλωστε και συνταγματική επιταγή...... =============================================================================== (15/3/2011)ΟΛΟΙ ΜΑΖΙ ΜΠΟΡΟΥΜΕ... Μέσα σε κλιμα συναίνεσης πραγματοποιήθηκε χθές στο Δημαρχείο Καλλιθέας, η συνάντηση των φορέων των μετόχων και μερισματούχων των Μετοχικών Ταμείων των Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων και Σωμάτων Ασφαλείας. Παρευρέθηκαν μεταξύ άλλων και οι εκπρόσωποι των παρακάτω φορέων : ΣΥΣΜΕΔ, ΠΟΑΞΙΑ, ΠΟΑΣΥ, ΠΟΕΠΛΣ, ΕΑΑΝ, ΕΑΑΛΣ, ΕΣΜΑ, ΚΕΘΑ, ΣΥΝΤΟΝΙΣΤΙΚΟ ΑΣΣΥ, ΣΑΑΥΣ, ΣΑ/ΣΤΥΑ, ΠΜ/ΣΑΣΥ ΠΝ, ΣΑΣΥΔΑ, ΣΑΣΜΥΝ, ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ ΤΑΞΗΣ ΣΣΕ 1976, ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ ΑΠΟΦΟΙΤΩΝ ΑΞΙΩΜΑΤΙΚΩΝ ΣΣΕ 1977 και ΑΝΕΑΕΔ. Κατά την συζήτηση καθομολογήθηκε η υποτίμηση και απαξίωση που αισθανόνται όλοι οι μέτοχοι και μερισματούχοι των Μετοχικών Ταμείων των Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων και των Σωμάτων Ασφαλείας, εκ του γεγονότος ότι συζητούνται ή και δρομολογούνται εξελίξεις που αφορούν τα έννομα συμφέροντα και θιγόμενα δικαιώματά τους, ερήμην τους.....
 ============================================================================== (15/3/2011) ΔΕΛΤΙΟ ΤΥΠΟΥ ΑΝΕΑΕΔ Με μεγάλη μας χαρά, ακούσαμε τον αναπληρωτή Υπουργό Εθνικής Άμυνας, να ενσκήπτει επιτέλους στα προβλήματα των πολιτικών υπαλλήλων του ΥΕΘΑ, οι οποίοι καθομολογούμενα είναι οι χαμηλότερα αμειβόμενοι δημόσιοι υπάλληλοι, κατά τη διάρκεια ομιλίας του στο 10ο συνέδριο της ΠΟΕ-ΥΕΘΑ.Μελετώντας όμως το σύνολο των δηλώσεων και εξαγγελιών του, διαπιστώνεται ένας άκρατος λαϊκισμός και μία εξόφθαλμη προσπάθεια να βάλει και πάλι τους πολιτικούς υπαλλήλους του ΥΕΘΑ απέναντι στους στρατιωτικούς, στα πλαίσια της παγιομένης πολιτικής του διαίρει και βασίλευε........... ==============================================================================
 (14/3/2011) IΣΧΥΣ ΕΝ ΤΗ ΕΝΩΣΕΙ........... Αύριο Τρίτη 15 Μαρτίου 2011 και ώρα 18.00 στην αίθουσα του Δημοτικού Συμβουλίου του Δήμου Καλλιθέας οδός Μαντζαγριωτάκη 76, πραγματοποιείται ευρεία σύσκεψη αντιπροσώπων όλων των φορέων εκπροσώπησης μετόχων και μερισματούχων και των τριών Μετοχικών Ταμείων, όλων των κλάδων των Ε.Δ. και των Σ.Α., με σκοπό: Ø Να διαμορφωθούν ομόφωνα κοινές θέσεις και προτάσεις στη βάση της: o Εξυγίανσης, εξασφάλισης βιωσιμότητας – ανάπτυξης, όλων των Μετοχικών Ταμείων ξεχωριστά και μετά ενοποίησης τους. o Πλήρους αντίθεσης στην «επικουροποίηση» των Ταμείων μας και εκχώρησής τους στο Υπ. Εργασίας. o Εξεύρεσης και θεσμοθέτησης «ανταποδοτικών πόρων» με την ενεργό εμπλοκή της ΕΛ.ΑΣ. και του Λ.Σ., ως ομότιμων εταίρων των Μετοχικών μας Ταμείων. o Δημιουργίας τελικά, ενός ενιαίου Μετοχικού Ταμείου Ε.Δ. και Σ.Α., με ίδιες υποχρεώσεις και ίδια επί «τα βελτίω» δικαιώματα για όλους τους μετόχους – μερισματούχους. Ø Σύνταξης κοινής ανακοίνωσης και αντιστοίχων επιστολών, σε όλους τους αρμόδιους φορείς. Ø Εκπόνησης συγκεκριμένου σχεδίου δράσης. ===============================================================================
 (13/3/2011) Σκέψεις για συζήτηση. Άρθρο του μέλους του Δ.Σ. της ΑΝΕΑΕΔ κ. Παναγιωτη Αλεξόπουλου Κάποιοι ταγοί της χώρας μας εδώ και πολλά χρόνια οργάνωσαν την σημερινή κατάσταση της Ελλάδος. Είναι προφανές ότι εκτελούν εντολές ξένων κέντρων αποφάσεων. Λίγο έως πολύ, οι επαΐοντες τουλάχιστον, γνωρίζουν επακριβώς ποια είναι αυτά τα κέντρα.... ==============================================================================
 (13/3/2011) ΔΕΛΤΙΟ ΤΥΠΟΥ Ν.Δ. ΚΑΙ ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ κ.Σ.ΓΚΙΚΑ ΓΙΑ ΤΗ ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΣΗ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΕΑΕΔ: Συνάντηση με το Διοικητικό Συμβούλιο της ΑΝΕΑΔ, είχαν χθες στη Βουλή, οι εκπρόσωποι του Τομέα Εθνικής Άμυνας της Ν.Δ. Μαργαρίτης Τζίμας, Αλέξανδρος Δερμεντζόπουλος και Στέφανος Γκίκας. Όπως αναφέρεται στο σχετικό δελτίο που εξέδωσε ο Στ. Γκίκας «κατά τη συνάντηση, τέθηκαν μια σειρά από φλέγοντα θέματα όπως η κατάσταση στα Μετοχικά Ταμεία των Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων και ιδιαίτερα του Μετοχικού Ταμείου Στρατού, οι αλλαγές που προωθεί η κυβέρνηση για το ΝΙΜΙΤΣ, η επίδραση του νέου φορολογικού νόμου στα στελέχη των Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων, ο νέος νόμος περί Προμηθειών Αμυντικού Υλικού.......... ==============================================================================
 (12/3/2011) ΤΟ ΣΥΝΤΟΝΙΣΤΙΚΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΤΩΝ ΑΣΣΥ (ΑΝΩΤΕΡΩΝ ΣΤΡΑΤΙΩΤΙΚΩΝ ΣΧΟΛΩΝ ΥΠΑΞΙΩΜΑΤΙΚΩΝ) ΘΑ ΣΥΜΜΕΤΑΣΧΕΙ ΣΕ ΠΛΗΡΗ ΣΥΝΘΕΣΗ ΣΤΗ ΣΥΣΚΕΨΗ ΤΗΣ 15ης ΜΑΡΤΙΟΥ 2011 ..... =============================================================================== (11/3/2011) ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΣΕΙΣ ΜΕ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΑ ΚΑΙ ΛΟΙΠΟΥΣ ΦΟΡΕΙΣ Την 10η Μαρτιου 2011, αντιπροσωπεία της ΑΝΕΑΕΔ, ενημέρωσε στο κοιοβούλιο την ομάδα Αμυνας της Ν.Δ. σχετικά με τα προβλήματα που μαστιζουν αυτη την εποχή το χωρο των αποστράτων Ε.Δ.
 Επίσης την 9η Μαρτίου 2011, μέλη του Δ.Σ. της ΑΝΕΑΕΔ, συνατηθηκαν με εκπροσωπους της ΠΟΑΣΥ και του ΠΟΕΠΛΣ προκειμένου αλληλοενημερωθουν, σχετικά με την πορεία των Μ.Τ. και τους κοινους αγωνες δράσης, που πρέπει να ακολουθησουν.
 Λεπτομέρειες απο τις ανωτέρω συναντησεις εδω.
 (11/3/2011) Επιστολή προς την Υπουργό Εργασίας & Κοινωνικής Ασφάλισης
 Αξιότιμη Κυρία Υπουργέ Με την σχετική μας επιστολή σας εκθέσαμε το υπάρχον πρόβλημα που δημιουργήθηκε από την ψήφιση του Νόμου 3865/2010 (άρθρο 10), αναφορικά με την αυτό-απασχόληση και την απασχόληση στον ιδιωτικό τομέα, των Αποστράτων Στελεχών των ΕΔ......
 (10/3/2011) ΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΑ ΣΤΑ ΜΕΛΗ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΕΑΕΔ ΕΝ ΟΨΕΙ ΦΟΡΟΛΟΓΙΚΩΝ ΥΠΟΧΡΕΩΣΕΩΝ
 (9/3/2011)ΣΥΝΑΝΤΗΣΗ ΣΥΡΙΖΑ ΜΕ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΕΞΑΡΤΗΤΗ ΕΝΩΣΗ ΑΠΟΣΤΡΑΤΩΝ ΕΝΟΠΛΩΝ ΔΥΝΑΜΕΩΝ (ΑΝ.Ε.Α.Ε.Δ.)
 =============================================================================== (5/3/2011) ΚΑΙ ΝΕΕΣ ΠΡΟΣΦΟΡΕΣ ΣΤΑ ΜΕΛΗ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΕΑΕΔ Από την την ================================================================================
 (4/3/2011)H ANEAEΔ ΕΝΗΜΕΡΩΝΕΙ ΤΑ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΑ Στη Βουλή βρέθηκε σήμερα αντιπροσωπεία μελών του Δ.Σ. της ΑΝΕΑΕΔ, ενημερώνοντας τα μέλη των κομμάτων Κ.Κ.Ε. και ΣΥΝΑΣΠΙΣΜΟΥ. Συγκεκριμένα, ενημέρωσαν το βουλευτη του ΚΚΕ κ.Παφίλη, για τα επικαιρα θέματα και προβλήματα των ε.ε. και ε.α. μελών των Ε.Δ. καθως και τους κ.κ. ΛΑΦΑΖΑΝΗ,ΔΡΙΤΣΑ, ΜΑΥΡΟΠΟΥΛΟ και ΝΙΚΑ του ΣΥΝΑΣΠΙΣΜΟΥ
 Από ολους τους ανωτερω φορέις, εισέπραξαν την αλληλεγγυη και συμπαθεια ως προς το δικαιο των αιτημάτων τους, παραλληλα με τη δέσμευση/ υπόσχεση οτι τα αιτηματά τους αυτά, θα προβληθούν άμεσα στο Ελληνικό Κοινοβούλιο. ======================================== ========================================
 "Αιωνία Τους η μνήμη". Θερμά συλλυπητήρια στις οικογένειες των εκλιπόντων Αστυνομικών.....
 (3/3/2011) ΑΝΑΦΟΡΑ ΒΟΥΛΕΥΤΩΝ ΔΗΜ.ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑΣ ΣΤΗ ΒΟΥΛΗ ΤΩΝ ΕΛΛΗΝΩΝ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΕΑΕΔ
 Προς το Προεδρείο της Βουλής των Ελλήνων ΑΝΑΦΟΡΑ Προς τoν κ. Υπουργό Εθνικής Άμυνας Οι βουλευτές Φώτης Κουβέλης, Θανάσης Λεβέντης, Νίκος Τσούκαλης και Γρηγόρης Ψαριανός κατέθεσαν αναφορά με την οποία η Ανεξάρτητη Ένωση Αποστράτων Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων καταθέτει συγκεκριμένες προτάσεις και ζητεί συμμετοχή στη...... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (2/3/2011)H ANEAEΔ ΕΝΗΜΕΡΩΝΕΙ ΤΑ ΚΟΜΜΑΤΑ Στα γραφεία του κομματος ΔΗ.ΣΥ βρέθηκαν 4 μέλη του Δ.Σ. της ΑΝΕΑΕΔ, προκειμένου να ενημερωσουν τα στελέχη του κοαμμάτος αυτού, για το μειζον θέμα των Μετοχικών Ταμειων των Ε.Δ. και των Στρατιωτικών Νοσοσκομέιων. Τα στελέχη της ΑΝΕΑΕΔ τα υποδέχθηκαν και συνομίλησαν για πολλη ώρα μαζί τους οι κ.κ. Μαρκογιαννάκης,Δαμιανός, Κοτσ'ωνης και Γκογκου.Μετα απο ενα εποικοδομητικό διάλογο και απο τις 2 πλευρές , τα μελη του Δ.Σ. της ΑΝΕΑΕΔ, κατέθεσαν πληρη φακελλο με τις θέσεις-απόψεις-προτασεις της Ένωσης, για τα καίρια θέματα της επικαιρότητας και του άρθρου 43 του νεου φοροόγικου νομοσχεδίου. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (1/3/2011) ANAKOINΩΣH THΣ ANEAEΔ ΓIA TO AΡΘΡΟ 43 ΤΟΥ ΝΕΟΥ ΦΟΡΟΛΟΓΙΚΟΥ ΝΟΜΟΣΧΕΔΙΟΥ Τους τίτλους τέλους των Μετοχικών Ταμείων των Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων και του 417 ΝΙΜΤΣ, προοιωνίζει η τροπολογία του άρθρου 43 «Ρυθμίσεις θεμάτων Μετοχικών Ταμείων Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων και Νοσηλευτικού Ιδρύματος Μετοχικού Ταμείου Στρατού» που περιέχεται στο φορολογικό νομοσχέδιο.....
 Διαβάστηκε 1115 φορές Τελευταία τροποποίηση στις Τρίτη, 18 Σεπτέμβριος 2012 06:39 Κατηγορία
 « Από 1/2/2011 έως 28/2/2011 Από 1/4/2011 έως 30/4/2011 »


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 26.5.2014
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 159/24
 Auto del Tribunal General de 21 de marzo de 2014 — Frucona Košice/Comisión
 (Asunto T-11/07 RENV) (1)
 ((«Ayudas de Estado - Alcoholes y bebidas espirituosas - Anulación de una deuda fiscal en el marco de un procedimiento colectivo de insolvencia - Decisión por la que se declara la ayuda incompatible con el mercado común y se ordena su recuperación - Desaparición del interés para ejercitar la acción - Decisión por la que se deroga y sustituye la decisión impugnada - Sobreseimiento»))
 2014/C 159/32
 Lengua de procedimiento: inglés
 Partes
 Demandante: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Eslovaquia) (representantes: K. Lasok, QC, J. Holmes y B. Hartnett, Barristers y O. Geiss, abogado)
 Demandada: Comisión Europea (representantes: L. Armati y K. Walkerová, agentes)
 Parte coadyuvante en apoyo de la demandada: St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. (Bratislava, Eslovaquia) (representante: N. Smaho, abogado)
 Objeto
 Demanda de anulación de la Decisión 2007/254/CE de la Comisión, de 7 de junio de 2006, relativa a la ayuda estatal C 25/2005 (ex NN 21/2005) concedida por la República Eslovaca a Frucona Košice, a.s. (DO 2007, L 112, p. 14).
 Fallo
 1)
 Sobreseer el recurso.
 2)
 La Comisión Europea cargará con sus propias costas y con las de Frucona Košice a.s.
 3)
 St. Nicolaus — trade a.s. cargará con sus propias costas.
 (1) DO C 56, de 10.3.2007


text:
 7.7.2012
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 200/18
 Acțiune introdusă la 26 aprilie 2012 — Verus/OAPI — Maquet (LUCEA LED)
 (Cauza T-186/12)
 2012/C 200/38
 Limba în care a fost formulată acțiunea: germana
 Părțile
 Reclamantă: Verus Eood (Sofia, Bulgaria) (reprezentant: S. Vykydal)
 Pârât: Oficiul pentru Armonizare în cadrul Pieței Interne (mărci, desene și modele industriale)
 Cealaltă parte în procedura care s-a aflat pe rolul camerei de recurs: Maquet SAS (Ardon, Franța)
 Concluziile
 Reclamanta solicită Tribunalului:
 —
 anularea Deciziei Camerei a patra de recurs a Oficiului pentru Armonizare în cadrul Pieței Interne (mărci, desene și modele industriale) din 13 februarie 2012 în cauza R 67/2011-4 și trimiterea cauzei spre rejudecare la camera de recurs,
 —
 obligarea pârâtului la plata cheltuielilor de judecată efectuate în prezenta cauză, precum și cele efectuate în fața camerei de recurs.
 Motivele și principalele argumente
 Solicitantul mărcii comunitare: Maquet SAS.
 Marca comunitară vizată: marca verbală „LUCEA LED” pentru produse din clasa 10.
 Titularul mărcii sau al semnului invocat în procedura opoziției: reclamanta.
 Marca sau semnul invocat: marca verbală „LUCEO” pentru produse din clasele 10, 12 și 28.
 Decizia diviziei de opoziție: admite opoziția.
 Decizia camerei de recurs: admite calea de atac și respinge opoziția.
 Motivele invocate:
 —
 încălcarea articolului 8 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul nr. 207/2009,
 —
 încălcarea articolului 76 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul nr. 207/2009,
 —
 încălcarea articolului 75 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul nr. 207/2009,
 —
 încălcarea normei 6 alineatul (4) din Regulamentul de aplicare nr. 2868/95 coroborat cu Decizia nr. EX-05-5,
 —
 încălcarea articolului 42 din Regulamentul nr. 207/2009.


jurisdiction: US

text:
Mark G. Hranicka v. Chesapeake Surgical, Ltd., et al., No. 83, September Term, 2014
 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – MD. CODE ANN., LABOR & EMPL. (1991, 2008
 REPL. VOL.) § 9-709(b)(3) – STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS – CLAIM FOR
 BENEFITS – ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION – FILING – Court of Appeals held that
 employee’s claim was time-barred under Md. Code Ann., Labor & Empl. (1991, 2008
 Repl. Vol.) § 9-709(b)(3) where claim was electronically submitted to Workers’
 Compensation Commission (“Commission”) before expiration of two-year period, but not
 filed on paper until after expiration of two-year period. Stated otherwise, Court of Appeals
 held that, under relevant statutes and regulations, electronic submission of claim does not
 constitute “filing” pursuant to Code of Maryland Regulations 14.09.02.02A, and
 Commission erred in ruling that date of claim could, for purposes of statute of limitations,
 be date of claim’s electronic submission.
 Circuit Court for Baltimore City
 Case No. 24-C-12-004313
 Argued: May 7, 2015
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
 OF MARYLAND
 No. 83
 September Term, 2014
 ______________________________________
 MARK G. HRANICKA
 v.
 CHESAPEAKE SURGICAL, LTD., ET AL.
 ______________________________________
 Barbera, C.J.
 Harrell
 Battaglia
 Greene
 Adkins
 McDonald
 Watts,
 JJ.
 ______________________________________
 Opinion by Watts, J.
 Barbera, C.J., Greene and McDonald, JJ.,
 concur
 ______________________________________
 Filed: June 18, 2015
 We decide whether an employee’s workers’ compensation claim is time-barred
 under Md. Code Ann., Labor & Empl. (1991, 2008 Repl. Vol.) (“LE”) § 9-709(b)(3), a
 two-year statute of limitations, where the claim is electronically submitted to the Workers’
 Compensation Commission (“the Commission”) before expiration of the two-year period,
 but not filed on paper until after expiration of the two-year period.
 We hold that an employee’s claim is time-barred under LE § 9-709(b)(3) where the
 claim is electronically submitted to the Commission before expiration of the two-year
 period, but not filed on paper with the Commission until after expiration of the two-year
 period. Stated otherwise, we hold that, under the relevant statutes and regulations,
 electronic submission of a claim does not constitute “filing” pursuant to Code of Maryland
 Regulations (“COMAR”) 14.09.02.02A,1 and the Commission erred in ruling that the filing
 date of a claim could, for purposes of the statute of limitations, be the date of the claim’s
 electronic submission.
 BACKGROUND
 First Claim
 This case arises out of a workers’ compensation claim filed by Mark G. Hranicka
 (“Hranicka”), Petitioner, as a result of an injury sustained during a motor vehicle accident
 on January 6, 2010. On January 14, 2010, Chesapeake Surgical, Ltd. (“the Employer”),
 Respondent, prepared a “Workers Compensation—First Report of Injury or Illness.” The
 1
 COMAR 14.09.02.02 was previously codified as COMAR 14.09.01.06 before
 being renumbered without substantive change. To avoid confusion, we refer to the
 regulation’s current version.
 Employer and NorGUARD Insurance Company (“the Insurer”), Respondent, mailed to the
 Commission the First Report of Injury or Illness, which was received and filed by the
 Commission on January 21, 2010.
 On January 14, 2010, Hranicka completed and executed a C-1 Claim Form, which
 was filed on paper with and date stamped by the Commission on January 28, 2010, and
 assigned claim number “W016210.” On February 3, 2010, the Commission issued a
 “Notice of Employee’s Claim” and assigned a “consideration date” of February 24, 2010,
 for Respondents to contest the claim. Respondents contested the claim before the
 consideration date deadline, and the case was set for a hearing before the Commission. On
 May 20, 2010, at the hearing, the parties appeared before the Commission, and Hranicka
 requested that his workers’ compensation claim be withdrawn. On May 24, 2010, the
 Commission ordered that the workers’ compensation claim be withdrawn.
 Second Claim
 Nothing further concerning Hranicka’s workers’ compensation claim occurred until
 2012. On January 17, 2012, Hranicka electronically submitted to the Commission a second
 C-1 Claim Form, identifying the date of the accident as January 6, 2010. The
 Commission’s online program recorded the date and time of the electronic submission at
 the bottom of the second C-1 Claim Form, underneath the signature and date lines, as
 “Received: 1/17/2012 11:26:13 AM.” On January 20, 2012, Hranicka executed two forms:
 (1) the second C-1 Claim Form, which he had electronically submitted on January 17,
 2012; and (2) an “Authorization for Disclosure of Health Information.” On January 24,
 2012, the executed second C-1 Claim Form was filed on paper with and date stamped by
 -2-
 the Commission, and assigned claim number “W032036.” On that same day, January 24,
 2012, the authorization form was filed with the Commission. On January 27, 2012, the
 Commission issued a new “Notice of Employee’s Claim” and assigned a consideration date
 of February 17, 2012, for Respondents to contest the claim. The new “Notice of
 Employee’s Claim” stated that Hranicka’s C-1 Claim Form was received on January 24,
 2012, the date on which the paper copy was filed. On February 12, 2012, Respondents
 contested the claim, contending that the claim was time-barred by LE § 9-709(b)(3).
 On May 31, 2012, the Commission conducted a hearing at which Commissioner
 Cynthia S. Miraglia (“Commissioner Miraglia”) presided. During the hearing,
 Commissioner Miraglia stated:
 [Hranicka]’s claim form came in on the 17th. When an electronic
 claim is filed, we accept the claim for statu[t]e [of limitations] purposes. But
 you cannot file an electronic signature because of the concern of privacy and
 security. So the claim is -- for limitation[s] purposes on the 17th. However,
 we don’t have a final notice until we get in the signed claim forms.
 ***
 But just for everyone’s edification, when an electronic claim form
 comes in to the Commission, that date is the date we use for limitation[s]
 purposes. Now, if you never send in a signed copy, then, obviously, then
 we’re at another issue. But in this case, they clearly did.
 At the conclusion of the hearing, Commissioner Miraglia determined that the claim was
 not time-barred, and on June 12, 2012, issued an order stating the same.
 On June 18, 2012, Respondents filed with the Commission a “Request for
 Rehearing,” arguing that the Commission’s June 12, 2012, decision was “incorrect as a
 matter of law.” On July 11, 2012, the Commission denied the request for rehearing. On
 -3-
 July 18, 2012, Respondents filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City (“the circuit
 court”) a petition for judicial review of the Commission’s June 12, 2012, and July 11, 2012,
 decisions. On February 5, 2013, Respondents filed in the circuit court a motion for
 summary judgment, alleging that Hranicka’s claim was barred by LE § 9-709(b)(3) and
 that, under COMAR 14.09.02.02A, electronic submission of a claim does not constitute
 “filing” of a claim. Hranicka filed a response in opposition to the motion for summary
 judgment as well as a request for a hearing, and the circuit court denied the motion for
 summary judgment.
 Respondents appealed and, in an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals
 reversed, holding that using the electronic submission date of the claim form for purposes
 of the statute of limitations instead of the date that the claim form is filed on paper with
 and date-stamped by the Commission is inconsistent with the Commission’s regulations
 and incorrect as a matter of law.2 Hranicka filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which
 this Court granted. See Hranicka v. Chesapeake Surgical Ltd., 440 Md. 461, 103 A.3d 593
 (2014).
 DISCUSSION
 Hranicka contends that the Court of Special Appeals erred concluding that the
 Commission could not generate a procedural rule to relate claims back to their electronic
 2
 In a concurring opinion, although agreeing that Hranicka’s claim was time-barred
 and that the Commission’s practice of treating electronic submission as filing for purposes
 of the statute of limitations was contrary to law, one judge disagreed with the majority’s
 statement that the Commission’s website makes clear the distinction between electronic
 submission of a claim and filing a claim.
 -4-
 submission dates for purposes of the statute of limitations.3 Hranicka argues that COMAR
 14.09.02.02A does not prohibit the Commission from accepting the date a claim form is
 electronically submitted by a claimant as the filing date. Hranicka asserts that the
 Commission’s website provides instructions indicating that a claim has been “filed” once
 the claim has been submitted electronically. Hranicka maintains that one of the purposes
 of the Commission’s Web-Enabled File Management System is to facilitate the electronic
 filing of workers’ compensation claims.
 Hranicka contends that, given the remedial nature of the Workers’ Compensation
 Act and the principle that the Act should be construed liberally in favor of employees, any
 ambiguity concerning the filing date should be construed in his favor. Hranicka asserts
 that, because Respondents knew of the claim as early as January 6, 2010, when the accident
 occurred, and because Respondents admitted in the circuit court that they were not
 prejudiced between the electronic submission and the paper filing, electronic submission
 of the claim was sufficient.
 Respondents respond that the Court of Special Appeals correctly held that
 Hranicka’s workers’ compensation claim is time-barred.4 Respondents contend that
 COMAR 14.09.02.02A makes clear that electronic submission of a claim form does not
 constitute “filing.” Respondents argue that neither the Workers’ Compensation Act nor
 the Commission’s regulations permit, for purposes of the statute of limitations, a “relation
 3
 The Maryland Association for Justice filed an amicus brief in support of Hranicka.
 4
 The Maryland Defense Counsel, Inc. filed an amicus brief in support of
 Respondents.
 -5-
 back” to the date on which a claimant electronically submitted a claim form. Respondents
 assert that COMAR 14.09.02.02A(4) and (5) require an original signature for the filing of
 any document, and point out that an electronic submission does not contain an original
 signature.
 Generally, in an appeal from judicial review of an agency action, we review the
 agency’s decision directly, not the decision of the circuit court or the Court of Special
 Appeals. See Cosby v. Dep’t of Human Res., 425 Md. 629, 637, 42 A.3d 596, 601 (2012)
 (citations omitted). “We must respect the expertise of the agency and accord deference to
 its interpretation of a statute that it administers[;] however, we may always determine
 whether the administrative agency made an error of law.” Watkins v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Pub.
 Safety and Corr. Servs., 377 Md. 34, 46, 831 A.2d 1079, 1086 (2003) (citations and internal
 quotation marks omitted). The Commission’s decision “is presumed to be prima facie
 correct[.]” LE § 9-745(b)(1). That “presumption[, however,] does not extend to questions
 of law, which we review independently.” Johnson v. Mayor and City Council of Balt., 430
 Md. 368, 376, 61 A.3d 33, 37 (2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “We
 do, though, afford the Commission a degree of deference, as appropriate, in its formal
 interpretations of the Workers’ Compensation Act.” Montgomery Cnty. v. Deibler, 423
 Md. 54, 60, 31 A.3d 191, 194 (2011) (citation omitted).
 We have explained that “[a]n agency’s interpretation of a regulation is a conclusion
 of law[,]” and that “a great deal of deference is owed to an administrative agency’s
 interpretation of its own regulation.” Crofton Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Dep’t of Health &
 Mental Hygiene, Nursing Home Appeal Bd., 413 Md. 201, 215, 991 A.2d 1257, 1265
 -6-
 (2010) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, “[d]espite the
 deference, it is always within our prerogative to determine whether an agency’s
 conclusions of law are correct. Accordingly, we determine whether the [agency]’s
 conclusions are plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Id. at 215, 991 A.2d
 at 1265 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). When we construe an agency’s
 rule or regulation, “the principles governing our interpretation of a statute apply[.]”
 Christopher v. Montgomery Cnty. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 381 Md. 188, 209,
 849 A.2d 46, 58 (2004) (citations omitted). Thus, we look to the regulation’s “plain
 language [as] the best evidence of its own meaning[,]” and “[w]hen the language is clear
 and unambiguous, our inquiry ordinarily ends there.” Id. at 209, 849 A.2d at 58 (citations
 and internal quotation marks omitted).
 Under the Workers’ Compensation Act, “if a covered employee fails to file a claim
 within [two] years after the date of the accidental personal injury, the claim is completely
 barred.” LE § 9-709(b)(3). The two-year limitations period does not begin to run,
 however, if the employer does not fulfill its responsibility to “report [an employee’s]
 accidental personal injury[, where the accidental injury causes the employee to suffer
 disability for more than three days,] to the Commission within [ten] days after receiving
 oral or written notice of the disability[.]” LE § 9-707(a). Indeed, if the employer does not
 report the employee’s accidental personal injury to the Commission within ten days, “the
 claim limitation period in [LE] § 9-709(b)(3) . . . does not begin to run until the employer
 files a report with the Commission in accordance with [LE] § 9-707[.]” LE § 9-708(b).
 Thus, where the employer files a report with the Commission within ten days after
 -7-
 receiving notice of an employee’s disability, the limitations period begins to run as of the
 date of the accidental personal injury. However, where the employer files a report with the
 Commission later than ten days after receiving notice of an employee’s disability, LE § 9-
 708(b) serves to toll the limitations period such that it does not begin to run until the date
 the employer’s report is filed with the Commission.
 Under LE § 9-309(a), the Commission has the authority to “adopt regulations to
 carry out” the Workers’ Compensation Act. To that end, the Commission has promulgated
 certain regulations in Title 14, Subtitle 9 of COMAR. COMAR 14.09.02.02, contained in
 a chapter entitled “Requirements for Filing and Amending Claims,” provides, in relevant
 part:
 A. Claim for Benefits.
 (1) To initiate a claim for benefits, an employee shall file a claim form with
 the Commission.
 ...
 (4) The employee shall sign the claim form certifying that the information
 submitted on the claim form is accurate.
 (5) When completing the claim form, the claimant shall sign an authorization
 for disclosure of health information directing the claimant’s health care
 providers to disclose . . . the claimant’s medical records that are relevant[.]
 ...
 (7) The Commission shall reject and return to the claimant a claim form that
 does not contain a signed authorization for disclosure of health information.
 (8) Date of Filing.
 (a) A claim is considered filed on the date that a completed and
 signed claim form, including the signed authorization for
 -8-
 disclosure of health information, is received by the
 Commission.
 (b) For any claim form that has not been rejected or returned
 as incomplete . . . , the Commission’s date of receipt is
 determined by the date stamp affixed on the claim form.
 (9) Electronic Submission.
 (a) A claim that is submitted electronically is not
 considered filed until the signed claim form, including the
 signed authorization for disclosure of health information,
 is received by the Commission.
 (b) The Commission’s date of receipt is determined by the date
 stamp affixed on the claim form.
 (Emphasis added).
 Other regulations contained in the “General Administrative” chapter of Subtitle 9
 of Title 14 of COMAR discuss the Commission’s electronic system and electronic
 submissions. COMAR 14.09.01.01B(21) defines “‘Web-Enabled File Management
 System’ or ‘WFMS’ [as] the Commission’s subscriber-based web-enabled electronic file
 management system designed to facilitate the filing and adjudication of workers’
 compensation claims.” And COMAR 14.09.01.04A provides that “[f]orms and documents
 may be filed with the Commission by one of the following methods: (1) Electronically
 through the WFMS; (2) In person; or (3) By mail addressed to the Commission’s principal
 office in Baltimore City.” (Paragraph breaks omitted).
 Upon review of the applicable COMAR regulations, even after giving deference to
 the Commission’s interpretation of them, we hold that, pursuant to COMAR 14.09.02.02A,
 a claim is filed with the Commission when the claim is filed on paper with and date-
 -9-
 stamped by the Commission. In other words, pursuant to COMAR 14.09.02.02A,
 electronic submission of a claim does not constitute “filing” of a claim. COMAR
 14.09.01.04A is a general regulation that does not govern the filing of claim forms; the
 more specific provisions of COMAR 14.09.02.02A apply to the filing of claim forms.
 Hranicka’s claim is time-barred under LE § 9-709(b)(3) because it was not filed on paper
 with and date-stamped by the Commission until after expiration of the two-year deadline.
 As such, the Commission erred in ruling that the date of a claim could relate back, for
 purposes of the statute of limitations, to the date of the claim’s electronic submission.
 It is clear that, under the Workers’ Compensation Act and COMAR, an employee
 must “file” a claim, and not simply “submit” a claim through the WFMS, to seek benefits
 for accidental personal injury. See LE § 9-709(b)(3) (“[I]f a covered employee fails to file
 a claim within [two] years after the date of the accidental personal injury, the claim is
 completely barred.” (Emphasis added)); COMAR 14.09.02.02A(1) (“To initiate a claim
 for benefits, an employee shall file a claim form with the Commission.” (Emphasis
 added)). COMAR 14.09.02.02A provides that an electronically submitted claim for
 benefits is not filed until the signed claim form is received and date-stamped by the
 Commission; i.e., the date of the electronic submission is not dispositive. See COMAR
 14.09.02.02A(8)(a)–(b) (“A claim is considered filed on the date that a completed and
 signed claim form . . . is received by the Commission. . . . [T]he Commission’s date of
 receipt is determined by the date stamp affixed on the claim form.”); COMAR
 14.09.02.02A(9)(a)–(b) (“A claim that is submitted electronically is not considered filed
 until the signed claim form . . . is received by the Commission. [] The Commission’s date
 - 10 -
 of receipt is determined by the date stamp affixed on the claim form.”). Plainly put,
 COMAR 14.09.02.02A’s language makes clear that a claim form must be filed on paper
 with and date-stamped by the Commission, and not simply electronically submitted, to
 constitute filing a claim for benefits. Nothing in the Workers’ Compensation Act or
 COMAR permits the Commission to “relate back” the date of a claim to its electronic
 submission date. The Commission erred in utilizing the date that Hranicka electronically
 submitted his claim form “for limitation purposes” instead of the date that the Commission
 date-stamped the paper claim form; the Commission’s determination was plainly erroneous
 and inconsistent with COMAR 14.09.02.02A.5
 It is inconsequential that COMAR 14.09.01.04A provides that “[f]orms and
 documents may be filed with the Commission by one of the following methods: (1)
 Electronically through the WFMS[.]” That regulation concerns “general administrative”
 workings of the Commission and is not specific to the filing of claim forms.6 Instead, it is
 clear from the structure of the regulations that the filing of claims is governed by COMAR
 5
 As to whether the Commission regularly relates back, for purposes of the statute of
 limitations, the date a claim is filed on paper and date-stamped to the date the claim is
 electronically submitted, we have only Commissioner Miraglia’s view on this point.
 Nothing in the record other than Commissioner Miraglia’s ruling here indicates that such
 a practice does, in actuality, exist; and, in any event, such a practice would be contrary to
 the Commission’s own regulations.
 6
 Indeed, as Respondents’ counsel posited at oral argument, with the exception of
 claim forms and accompanying authorization for disclosure of health information forms,
 there are any number of other types of forms that can be electronically filed through the
 WFMS and thus fall within the purview of COMAR 14.09.01.04A. For example,
 according to Respondents’ counsel, parties are permitted to electronically file, without an
 original signature, document corrections, issues, requests for rehearing, requests for
 modification, entries of appearance of counsel, and requests to strike appearance of
 counsel.
 - 11 -
 14.09.02.02, which expressly provides that “[a] claim that is submitted electronically is not
 considered filed until the signed claim form, including the signed authorization for
 disclosure of health information, is received by the Commission.” COMAR
 14.09.02.02A(9)(a) (emphasis added). In any event, the canons of statutory
 interpretation—applicable to interpretation of regulations, see Christopher, 381 Md. at 209,
 849 A.2d at 58 (“[T]he principles governing our interpretation of a statute apply when we
 interpret an agency rule or regulation.” (Citations omitted))—provide that where “two
 statutes, one general and one specific, are found to conflict, the specific statute will be
 regarded as an exception to the general statute[,]” and “[i]n such a situation, the specific
 statute is controlling and the general statute is repealed to the extent of the inconsistency.”
 State v. Ghajari, 346 Md. 101, 116, 695 A.2d 143, 150 (1997) (citations and internal
 quotation marks omitted). Thus, to the extent that COMAR 14.09.02.02A(9) conflicts with
 COMAR 14.09.01.04A(1), the more specific statute—COMAR 14.09.02.02A(9)—
 controls and must be given effect with respect to the filing of claim forms. Because
 COMAR 14.09.02.02A(9) (“A claim that is submitted electronically is not considered filed
 until the signed claim form, including the signed authorization for disclosure of health
 information, is received by the Commission.” (Emphasis added).) is clear and
 unambiguous, our inquiry into the regulation’s meaning ends there, and we need not
 address the regulation’s history. See Christopher, 381 Md. at 209, 849 A.2d at 58 (We
 look to a regulation’s “plain language [as] the best evidence of its own meaning[,]” and
 “[w]hen the language is clear and unambiguous, our inquiry ordinarily ends there.”
 - 12 -
 (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).7
 We reject Hranicka’s contention that the Commission’s website provided
 instructions from which a claimant would have believed his or her claim had been filed
 once the claimant electronically submitted the claim form and sent a signed claim form
 within ten days. In January 2012, the Commission’s website made clear that, to file a claim
 with the Commission, the electronically submitted claim form needed to be printed, signed,
 and mailed to the Commission; in other words, at the time of Hranicka’s electronic
 submission, the Commission’s website unmistakably instructed employees that
 electronically submitting the claim form was insufficient to file the claim form with the
 Commission. Specifically, on the page concerning the filing of a C-1 Claim Form, as of
 January 5, 2012, the Commission’s website provided, in pertinent part, the following
 instructions:
 [] This is the current Employee Claim Form that is required to submit your
 7
 Indeed, for purposes of statutory interpretation, it is only “[i]f, after considering the
 plain language in its ordinary and common sense meaning, two or more equally plausible
 interpretations arise, [] then the general purpose, legislative history, and language of the
 act as a whole is examined in an effort to clarify the ambiguity.” Uninsured Employers’
 Fund v. Danner, 388 Md. 649, 659, 882 A.2d 271, 277 (2005) (citation omitted). Thus, in
 the absence of any ambiguity in the relevant statutes and regulations, we also need not
 address the remedial nature of the Workers’ Compensation Act or construe the statutes and
 regulations liberally in Hranicka’s favor. Hranicka’s counsel acknowledged as much at
 oral argument, stating that the remedial nature of the Workers’ Compensation Act is not
 relevant unless there is an ambiguity and, if there is no ambiguity, then the statute or
 regulation is strictly read and “is what it says it is.” Cf. Buskirk v. C.J. Langenfelder &
 Son, Inc., 136 Md. App. 261, 270, 764 A.2d 857, 862 (2001) (When discussing the
 limitations provision of LE § 9-736, the Court of Special Appeals stated: “Ordinarily,
 remedial legislation is construed liberally in favor of injured employees in order to
 effectuate the legislation’s remedial purpose. This general rule of construction does not
 apply to limitations provisions[.]” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
 - 13 -
 claim to the Commission.
 ...
 [] The Online Employee Claim Form C-1 MUST be completed online – on
 your PC – using Formatta Filler. The form MAY NOT be printed blank and
 completed offline by hand or reused for another claim; such forms are
 returned. The completed/submitted form must be printed ON WHITE
 PAPER –via the SUBMIT button on page 1 of the form- must display the
 date stamp at the bottom of the form, must be signed where indicated on page
 1 and page 2 by the injured worker and must be mailed to the Commission
 in a timely manner (within 10 business days) to file your claim.
 “Employee Claim Form C-1 Online – MD WCC WebForm Instructions” (Jan. 5, 2012),
 available at https://web.archive.org/web/20120105021510/http://www.wcc.state.md.us/W
 FMS/C1_WebForms.html.8 The Commission’s website stated that “Maryland Law
 requires that an Employee Claim Form C-1 signed by the injured worker be sent
 (mailed/delivered) to the Workers’ Compensation Commission to file a claim[,]” and that
 “[i]f you fail to send the signed form to the [Commission], [the Commission] will send you
 a notice that your signed Employee Claim Form C-1 has not been received and you[r] claim
 is not filed.” Id. In January 2012, at the time Hranicka electronically submitted the claim
 form, the Commission’s website also stated, in no uncertain terms:
 If you fail to send your signed form to the [Commission] within 10 days, you
 will receive a notice from the [Commission] stating that your submitted data
 will be deleted and your claim WILL NOT BE FILED if you do not mail a
 properly completed and signed form to the [Commission]. If you do not
 respond as instructed on the Notice, your claim information will be deleted,
 8
 Although the Commission’s website has changed since 2012, the website as it
 existed on January 5, 2012, is still available courtesy of the Wayback Machine, an internet
 database administered and maintained by the Internet Archive, a 501(c)(3) non-profit
 organization that has built an internet library to preserve “historical collections that exist
 in digital format.” “About the Internet Archive,” Internet Archive,
 https://archive.org/about/ (last visited May 20, 2015).
 - 14 -
 your claim will NOT be filed.
 Id. As of March 6, 2012—the next date after January 5, 2012, that the Commission’s
 website was archived and saved—the above-quoted language on the Commission’s website
 had not changed; i.e., the Commission’s website’s instructions on January 17, 2012, when
 Hranicka electronically submitted his claim form, were the same as they had been on
 January 5, 2012. See “Employee Claim Form C-1 Online – MD WCC WebForm
 Instructions,” (Mar. 6, 2012), available at https://web.archive.org/web/20120306171751/h
 ttp://www.wcc.state.md.us/WFMS/C1_WebForms.html. In our view, the instructions on
 the Commission’s website, as they existed at the time Hranicka submitted his claim form
 electronically on January 17, 2012, are consistent with, and reinforce, the regulatory
 language that provides that electronically submitting a claim form does not constitute filing
 of the claim itself.9
 In addition to the unambiguous language of COMAR and the Commission’s
 website’s instructions indicating that a claim form must be filed and not simply
 electronically submitted, COMAR 14.09.02.02A(4) and (5) require that the employee both
 9
 The Commission’s website has since been updated, and currently provides, in
 pertinent part, in red lettering: “Your claim is not filed until you complete the form, submit
 it online then print, sign and mail the form (pages 1 and 2) to the Commission. Your claim
 filed date is the date we have accepted and processed the signed form.” “Employee Claim
 Form C-1 Online – MD WCC WebForm Instructions,” Maryland Workers’ Compensation
 Commission, http://www.wcc.state.md.us/WFMS/C1_WebForms.html (last visited May
 20, 2015). Nonetheless, the Commission’s website still includes much of the language
 that was included on the website in January 2012; thus, although the revisions may further
 clarify the Commission’s website’s instructions, as discussed above, the Commission’s
 website’s instructions in 2012 were unambiguous and provided, as they do now, that
 electronically submitting a claim form is insufficient to file a claim with the Commission.
 - 15 -
 “sign the claim form” and “sign an authorization for disclosure of health information[.]”
 Indeed, under COMAR 14.09.02.02A(7), “[t]he Commission shall reject and return to the
 claimant a claim form that does not contain a signed authorization for disclosure of health
 information.” The same instructions were provided on the website in January 2012. See
 “Employee Claim Form C-1 Online – MD WCC WebForm Instructions,” (Jan. 5, 2012),
 available at https://web.archive.org/web/20120105021510/http://www.wcc.state.md.us/W
 FMS/C1_WebForms.html (“The completed/submitted form must be printed . . . , must be
 signed where indicated on page 1 and page 2 by the injured worker and must be mailed to
 the Commission in a timely manner (within 10 business days) to file your claim. . . . All
 claim forms submitted to the Commission MUST be signed personally by the injured
 worker . . . [and] mailed as soon as possible. . . . An incomplete claim form that does not
 include the signed Authorization for Disclosure of Health Information . . . will be rejected
 and returned to the claimant.”). In other words, electronically submitting the claim form
 is not tantamount to “signing” the claim form or “signing” the authorization for disclosure
 of health information form—two requirements for filing a claim—and the online form does
 not provide for electronic signatures, but instead requires the claimant to print the
 completed/submitted claim form and sign; i.e., an original signature is required.
 We are unpersuaded by Hranicka’s reference to the existence of the Maryland
 Electronic Courts (“MDEC”) Project and similar electronic court case filing systems in
 other jurisdictions, for the proposition that workers’ compensation claim forms may be
 filed electronically. MDEC was implemented after extensive study and substantial
 amendments to the Maryland Rules. Although this Court certainly endorses and supports
 - 16 -
 the advent of electronic filing in Maryland courts, the Commission has not promulgated
 regulations implementing or governing a procedure for the electronic filing of workers’
 compensation claims. Absent such regulations, this Court is unable to determine that
 submission of a claim through the WFMS is the equivalent of electronic filing of a claim,
 and that the date of an electronic filing may be used for purposes of the statute of
 limitations. As a practical matter, without implementing regulations, it is unclear how the
 Commission would handle the required filing of authorization for disclosure of health
 information forms using an electronic filing system; as discussed above, these forms are
 required for filing a claim with the Commission. See COMAR 14.09.02.02A(5), (7). As
 another matter, it is unclear whether the Commission would permit scanned signatures or
 would create an electronic signature process for the filing of claims, which currently must
 be signed by the injured employee and then sent to the Commission. See COMAR
 14.09.02.02A(4). In short, absent regulations governing the electronic filing of claims, this
 Court will not read into the existing regulations procedures for electronic filing of workers’
 compensation claims. To be clear, nothing in this opinion precludes the Commission from
 promulgating new regulations to permit electronic filing of claims, nor are we expressing
 a preference that workers’ compensation claims necessarily be filed in paper form. We
 simply hold that, currently, under COMAR, electronic submission of claim forms does not
 constitute filing.
 Here, it is undisputed that Hranicka was injured in a motor vehicle accident on
 January 6, 2010, that he suffered a disability lasting longer than three days, and that the
 Employer was made aware of the injury and subsequently submitted to the Commission a
 - 17 -
 “First Report of Injury or Illness,” which the Commission received on January 21, 2010.
 In other words, because the Employer’s report was not submitted within ten days after
 receiving notice of Hranicka’s disability, pursuant to LE § 9-708(b), the statute of
 limitations on Hranicka’s claim was tolled until January 21, 2010, at which point the two-
 year clock began to run. Thus, pursuant to LE § 9-709(b)(3), Hranicka had two years from
 the date on which the Commission received the Employer’s “First Report of Injury or
 Illness,” i.e., until January 21, 2012, to “file a claim” with the Commission. The question
 thus becomes whether Hranicka’s second C-1 Claim Form, electronically submitted on
 January 17, 2012, but not filed on paper with and date-stamped by the Commission until
 January 24, 2012, was filed for purposes of the statute of limitations on January 17, 2012,
 thereby making it timely filed, or was filed on January 24, 2012, thereby making it untimely
 filed and barred.
 In agreement with the Court of Special Appeals, we conclude that the clear language
 of COMAR 14.09.02.02A and the Commission’s website’s instructions provided at the
 time of Hranicka’s electronic submission of the second claim—and continue to provide—
 that electronic submission of a claim form does not satisfy the requirement for “filing” a
 claim, and, therefore, the date of electronic submission is not controlling in determining
 whether a claim was filed within the two-year limitations period. Thus, the Commission
 plainly erred in ruling that the filing date of Hranicka’s claim related back, for purposes of
 the statute of limitations, to the date of the claim’s electronic submission.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL
 APPEALS AFFIRMED. PETITIONER TO PAY
 COSTS.
 - 18 -
 Circuit Court for Baltimore City
 Case No. 24-C-12-004313
 Argued: May 7, 2015
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
 OF MARYLAND
 No. 83
 September Term, 2014
 MARK G. HRANICKA
 v.
 CHESAPEAKE SURGICAL, LTD., ET AL.
 Barbera, C.J.
 Harrell
 Battaglia
 Greene
 Adkins
 McDonald
 Watts,
 JJ.
 Concurring Opinion by McDonald, J., which
 Barbera, C.J., and Greene, J., join.
 Filed: June 18, 2015
 I reluctantly concur in the judgment.
 Not all claimants have counsel. Perhaps in light of that, the Legislature has directed
 the Commission to “adopt reasonable and proper regulations to govern the procedures of the
 Commission, which shall be as simple and brief as reasonably possible.” Maryland Code,
 Labor & Employment Article (“LE”), §9-701(a) (emphasis added). That is easier said than
 done, as this case illustrates.
 The Commission has adopted an electronic filing system. In regulation it portrays that
 system as one of three alternative ways of filing forms and documents with the Commission.
 COMAR 14.09.01.04.1 Only a very careful reading of the Commission’s other regulations
 and website reveals that (1) a claimant in fact has no choice but must use the electronic filing
 system to submit a claim form and (2) that submission of a claim form on that system is not
 the filing of a claim. In other words, a claimant must submit the claim both electronically and
 1
 The current regulation reads:
 04 Filing Forms and Documents with the Commission.
 A. Forms and documents may be filed with the Commission by
 one of the following methods:
 (1) Electronically through the [Web-Enabled File
 Management System];
 (2) In person; or
 (3) By mail addressed to the Commission’s principal office
 in Baltimore City.
 COMAR 14.09.01.04 (emphasis added).
 in hard copy to “file” it before the expiration of the two-year period of limitations set forth
 in LE §9-709(b)(3). In this case, Mr. Hranicka submitted the electronic copy in a timely
 manner, but the hard copy was received at the Commission one day late.2
 It is also confusing that, while a regulation defines the date for a claim to be the “date
 stamp affixed on the claim form,”3 the Commission actually “affixes” two different dates to
 the form – one placed in a special box on the bottom of the form as part of the electronic
 filing process, and a second date, apparently placed on the hard copy when it is physically
 received at the Commission. The electronically-affixed date apparently is not the “filing
 date,” although it is the date that the Commission’s website insists must appear on the filed
 copy.4
 2
 The claim had to be filed with the Commission within two years of January 21, 2010.
 Because January 21, 2012 fell on a Saturday, the actual deadline was Monday, January 23,
 2012. See Maryland Code, General Provisions Article, §1-302; Grayson v. State, 354 Md.
 1, 14, 728 A.2d 1280 (1999). According to the electronic time stamp on the claim, Mr.
 Hranicka submitted it on January 17, 2012. The mailed copy was physically stamped in by
 someone at the Commission on Tuesday, January 24, 2012.
 3
 COMAR 14.09.02.02A(9)(b).
 4
 The website currently states, as it did when Mr. Hranicka submitted his claim in
 2012:
 The completed/submitted form must be printed ON WHITE
 PAPER, must display the date stamp at the bottom of the form,
 must be signed where indicated on page 1 and page 2 by the
 injured worker and must be mailed to the Commission in a
 timely manner ( such as within 10 business days) to file your
 claim.”
 (continued...)
 2
 This leads me to second the sentiment expressed by Judge Kehoe in his concurring
 opinion in the unreported decision of Court of Special Appeals in this case:
 In today’s world, and identifying just a few of the myriad
 of transactions that routinely take place over the Internet,
 millions of individuals purchase health and motor vehicle
 insurance, make banking transactions, buy goods and services,
 apply to colleges, and file tax returns by doing essentially what
 Mr. Hranicka did in this case – filling out a form on an Internet
 webpage and then clicking a “submit” or “send” icon. I am not
 at all surprised that Mr. Hranicka failed to grasp that submitting
 a claim form to the Commission is not the same thing as filing
 a claim with the Commission.
 ...
 I understand that the Commission, for reasons of its own,
 prefers claim forms to be submitted both electronically and on
 paper. I concede that a thorough reading of the webpage will
 eventually lead to the realization – counterintuitive to many
 individuals in this era of Internet commerce – that “submitting
 a claim form” is different from “filing a claim” and that, until a
 signed paper copy of the claim form is received by the
 Commission, no claim is filed. But I am at a loss to understand
 why the Commission has chosen to bury this critical information
 in the fine print on its website.
 Chesapeake Surgical, Ltd., et al. v. Hranicka, No. 0327 (Sept. Term, 2013) (concurring
 Opinion by Kehoe, J.), at 1-2.
 4
 (...continued)
 (emphasis added). See (last
 visited June 8, 2015). The date stamp at the bottom of the form is the date added by the
 electronic filing system.
 3
 It appears that, subsequent to the Court of Special Appeals decision and perhaps in
 light of it, the Commission revised its website to make the instructions concerning the filing
 of a hard copy of the electronic submission more prominent.
 At the hearing before the Commission in this case, Commissioner Miraglia outlined
 a very sensible approach under which the date of electronic submission of a claim is
 considered to be the filing date unless the claimant fails to follow through with the claimant’s
 signed form and authorization for disclosure of health information. This approach is similar
 to the treatment of electronic submissions under this Court’s rules for electronic filing in the
 courts. See Maryland Rules 20-202, 20-406. Moreover, identifying the submission of the
 electronic claim form as the key date for limitations purposes would also be consistent with
 the longstanding statutory policy that the Workers Compensation Law is to be “construed as
 liberally in favor of injured employees as its provisions will permit in order to effectuate its
 benevolent purposes,”5 particularly in a case such as this one where the employer concedes
 that Mr. Hranicka suffered a work-related injury and the insurer concedes that it was not
 prejudiced by the fact that the signed hard copy arrived at the Commission one day late.
 While the practice espoused by the Commissioner in this case is in accord with other
 electronic filing systems and serves the underlying policy of the Workers Compensation Act,
 5
 Montgomery County v. Deibler, 423 Md. 54, 61, 31 A.3d 191 (2011) (citations and
 quotation marks omitted).
 4
 the language of the Commission’s regulation that requires a paper submission to “file” a
 claim is an impediment.
 Nothing prevents the Commission from revising its regulations to adopt the approach
 expressed by Commissioner Miraglia. Indeed, it might well help the Commission carry out
 the General Assembly’s direction to adopt procedures “as simple and brief as reasonably
 possible.”
 Chief Judge Barbera and Judge Greene have authorized me to state they join in this
 opinion.
 5


type: wikipedia

text:
Bowling Green è una stazione della metropolitana di New York situata sulla linea IRT Lexington Avenue. Nel 2019 è stata utilizzata da passeggeri. È servita dalla linea 4 sempre e dalla linea 5 sempre tranne di notte.
 Storia
 La stazione fu aperta il 10 luglio 1905. Venne ristrutturata a metà anni 1970.
 Strutture e impianti
 La stazione è sotterranea, ha una banchina laterale, due banchine ad isola e tre binari. La banchina ad isola e il binario più ad ovest non vengono usati dal 1977. Il mezzanino della stazione è posizionato sotto il piano binari e ha tre ingressi, quello ovest è composto da due scale sul lato est dell'incrocio tra Battery Place e Greenwich Street, quello est ha una scala, una scala mobile e un ascensore nei pressi del parco Bowling Green e quello sud è formato da un piccolo fabbricato viaggiatori (Battery Park Control House) all'interno del Battery Park.
 Interscambi
 La stazione è servita da alcune autolinee gestite da MTA Bus, NYCT Bus e NJT Bus. Vicino si trova anche il molo servito dallo Staten Island Ferry che collega Manhattan con Staten Island.
 Stazione traghetto
 Fermata autobus
 Note
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni
 Stazioni della metropolitana di New York
 Linea IRT Lexington Avenue


text:
Da NONNO, 31 Ottobre, 2014
 Ristrutturazione facciata condominiale, balconi aggettanti compresi.
 Premesso che per la facciata e i frontalini dei balconi aggettanti sono da calcolarsi come parte condominiale. Pulitura ringhiere e loro pitturazione, siano a carico dei vari proprietari condominiali come pure la pavimentazione dei balconi.
 La domanda è ; Il palazzo è di 4 piani dove da 2° piano, al 4°, hanno balconi aggettanti, mentre il balcone del 1° piano, pur sporgendo, fa da copertura ai garage sottostanti, quindi soffitto per i garage.
 Premesso che le spese della facciata siano divise secondo tabelle di proprietà condominiale, per quanto riguarda le spese dei sottobalconi, a chi spettano ??, al proprietario del balcone o a chi ne usufruisce della copertura ?.
 Il sottobalcone nel caso di balconi aggettanti è da considerarsi parte comune in quanto essendo costruiti con caratteristiche comuni tra di essi nell'immobile, donano decoro architettonico all'immobile.
 Pertanto essendo considerate parti comuni verranno divisi in base alle tabelle di proprietà.
 La secondo domanda "al proprietario del balcone o a chi ne usufruisce della copertura ?" questo tipo di riparto si applica soltanto nel caso di balconi incassati, in tal caso il calpestio è di competenza del soggetto che ne ha l'utilizzo esclusivo, mentre l'estensione della soletta per il proprietario del piano inferiore ha come scopo quello di copertura.
 La parte frontale del balcone incassato resta di competenza del condominio in quanto rientra nella facciata dell'edificio.
 Però, l'ultima sentenza di cassazione del 12/01/2011 n° 587 e n° 218 del 05/01/2011 dice che il balcone aggettante è di esclusiva proprietà dell'appartamento cui è annesso. Prova ne è che si deve chiedere il permesso del proprietario del balcone aggettante per agganciare le tende parasole. E quindi ?. Solo, al contrario, nei balconi incassati, la parte sottostante viene considerata come copertura dell'inquilino proprietario dell'appartamento. Siamo, come sempre per le leggi italiane, ad interrogarci per capirne l'applicabilità. In attesa di altri interventi,
 Se il balcone è aggettante, il sottobalcone è a carico del proprietario del balcone, se e solo se dovessero esserci dei decori, sarebbe a carico del condominio intero i soli decori e no tutto il sottobalcone.
 Nel caso di balcone aggettante il proprietario è responsabile del sottobalcone solo nel caso in cui il danno derivi da sua negligenza.
 Esempio: "infiltrazioni dal calpestio che inficiano la struttura del sottobalcone".
 In tal caso ne è responsabile il proprietario che ne ha accesso esclusivo in quanto ha cagionato il danno da mancata manutenzione.
 La Cass. Civ. Sez. II, 16.02.2012 n. 2241 ha stabilito che: " i balconi aggettanti, costituendo un prolungamento della corrispondente unità immobiliare, appartengono in via esclusiva al proprietario di questa. A sua volta, i rivestimenti e gli elementi decorativi della parte frontale e di quella inferiore dei balconi "aggettanti" si devono considerare beni comuni a tutti, ex art. 1117 c.c., solo quando s'inseriscono nel prospetto dell'edificio e contribuiscono a renderlo esteticamente gradevole.”
 La giurisprudenza considera la parte esterna del balcone aggettante come parte integrante della facciata in quanto ne ha una stretta inerenza con quest'ultima.
 Pertanto parapetto interno e calpestio competono al proprietario che beneficia dell'affaccio e di conseguenza ne ha un'utilizzo esclusivo mentre la manutenzione degli elementi esterni, facendo parte in senso lato della facciata, sono da ripartirsi tra tutti i condomini, in quanto parti in comune.
 In base alla sentenza che hai citato, le cose non sono come dici tu.
 Il sottobalcone di un balcone aggettante, e' personale e i soli decori condominiali.
 Pertanto parapetto interno e calpestio competono al proprietario che beneficia dell'affaccio e di conseguenza ne ha un'utilizzo esclusivo mentre la manutenzione degli elementi esterni, facendo parte in senso lato della facciata, sono da ripartirsi tra tutti i condomini, in quanto parti in comune...
 "solo quando s'inseriscono nel prospetto dell'edificio e contribuiscono a renderlo esteticamente gradevole", altrimenti anche la manutenzione della parte inferiore è a carico di chi lo calpesta, come dice la sentenza da citata che esprime un principio generale ma nel caso specifico ha ritenuto la manutenzione della parte inferiore a carico di chi lo calpesta:
 "...i rivestimenti e gli elementi decorativi della parte frontale e di quella inferiore dei balconi "aggettanti"si devono considerare beni comuni a tutti, ex art. 1117 c.c., solo quando s'inseriscono nel prospetto dell'edificio e contribuiscono a renderlo esteticamente gradevole (ipotesi non ricorrente nel caso in esame)..."
 A questo link trovi la sentenza integrale:
 http://www.anaci.piemonte.it/riforma/309-balconi/6145-cassazione-civile-sez-ii-sent-16022012-n-2241-il-balcone-%E2%80%9Caggettante%E2%80%9D-%C3%A8-propriet%C3%A0-esclusiva-del-proprietario-del-relativo-appartamento.html
 Tratto da manuale di Rodolfo Cusano (avvocato) Nuovo Condomino
 E chi sarebbe questo Rodolfo Cusano?
 Non è certo Bibbia..................
 Si afferma in generale, senza riportare i riferimenti non vuol dire nulla.
 Il rifermento di legge era stato già stato citato nel post di prima:
 Il testo da cui traggo l'intera pagina è, il nuovo condominio (manuale teorico pratico dopo la riforma del 9/2014 di conversione del decreto "destinazione italia" Autore Rodolfo Cusano(avvocato) editore Simone.
 Credo che il testo sia a questo punto abbastanza esplicativo. Il concetto da analizzare è che il balcone facente parte della facciata dona a quest'ultima un decoro all'immobile pertanto la giurisprudenza e la dottrina considerano la perta esterna del balcone come inerente alla facciata.
 Penso che bisognerebbe imparare a ragionare con la propria testa e non rifarsi a libri di testo che interpretano una sentenza, anche in modo errato.
 Rileggi la sentenza e ragiona con la tua testa senza farti influenzare da questo Cusano.
 Guardate che rivestimenti sono anche gli intonaci e non solo i decori. inotre il sotto balcone essendo visto da tutti quelli che ne sono un piano sotto, o di più sulla strada, è ovvio che si "fondono" con i motivi architettonici dello stabile.
 La cassazione non è legge, ma giurisprudenza, ovvero, orientamento, tendenza, (e come ogni tendenza ovvero moda passa e cambia): fatto sta che alcuni tribunali di merito ribaltano completamente anche le cassazioni
 Se la cassazione andasse a pesca ogni volta che vuole pronunciarsi farebbe al paese un gran favore
 "rivestimento: Il materiale con cui si è ricoperta una superficie, a scopo protettivo o decorativo." - Treccani
 Passo e chiudo............................
 ENZO DALESSA
 Amico Kurt Cobain
 apprezzo la competenza con cui informi molti di noi neofiti della materia.
 Apprezzerei molto se mi erudissi sul da farsi in conseguenza di quanto mi appresto a dirti:
 Nel mio condominio, un condomino (moroso) ha impugnato l'approvazione di 4 bilanci condominiali fatti con notevole ritardo da un amministratore a dir poco incompetente, adducendo motivazioni se pur legittime (a mio parere pretestuose al mancato pagamento delle sue debitorie) tipo quella che non si potevano approvare più bilanci contemporaneamente, che l'Amministratore incapace non aveva assolto all'obbligo di informativa (produzione di documentazione contabile).
 Il Giudice sentenzia il rigetto della domanda del ricorrente in merito all'impossibilità di approvazione di più bilanci contemporaneamente, di contro dichiarazione di nullità degli stessi bilanci perché l'Amministratore non ha adempiuto al diritto di informativa come sopra detto.
 A questo punto credo che per dare un senso alla cosa e risolvere la questione si debba procedere con il nuovo amministratore a fornire tutte le pezze d'appoggio dei bilanci dichiarati nulli al Condomino richiedente; dargli un termine (per es. 10 gg) entro il quale far pervenire le sue determinazioni e procedere alla loro riapprovazione da parte dell'assemblea (perché nulle) e ove mai dovessero sorgere incongruenze contabili, ripartire tali differenze (o ammanchi potenziali "così considerati dal condomino anche quando la voce di spesa è rappresentata non da una fattura") in quote millesimali di proprietà, producendo così per il ricorrente alcuna modifica alle risultanze debitorie che gli riguardano.
 Ultima considerazione, lui sostiene che eventuali differenze, vanno ripartite fra coloro che hanno approvato in prima istanza i vari bilanci.
 Sinceramente sono dell'idea che non bisogna caricare il nuovo amministratore di responsabilità che non sono le sue, in parole povere è il vecchio amministratore che deve fare i bilanci anno per anno, voi controllate anche con l'ausilio di una società di revisione o anche con lo stesso amministratore che dovrebbe subentrare, deliberate e cambiate amministratore.
 Unico problema che il vecchio amministratore sapendo di essere mandato via, faccia le cose con comodo.
 Gentile Kurt Cobain,
 Ti ringrazio per la considerazione inviatami, ma ho omesso di dirti che il vecchio Amministratore è stato dichiarato decaduto (per sentenza del Giudice con altra sentenza già da 2 anni).
 Quello che a me interessava avere un tuo parere era se condividi il da farsi come ti ho esposto, ovvero trasmissione dei vecchi bilanci approvati con relative pezze d'appoggio, riapprovazione degli stessi (in quanto dichiarati nulli per sentenza) e riparto per millesimi di proprietà di eventuali differenze non giustificate, oltre che sulla tesi del condomino opponente secondo il quale anche dopo la riapprovazione dei bilanci in questione, comunque eventuali differenze se ne devono far carico tutti tranne lui.
 Lui è condomino? Si.
 E quindi perchè dovrebbe essere escuso dalla ripartizione?
 lyca dice:
 Veramente la giurisprudenza afferma che la decisione su comunità o meno delle parti di balcone aggettante spetta al giudice di merito adito! Altrimenti chi sarebbe che decide se e quali parti frontali ed inferiori si inseriscono nel prospetto del edificio e.....?
 Modificato 12 Febbraio da claudioalp
 in base a consolidata giurisprudenza di questa Corte (cfr. Cass. n. 568/2000; Cass. n. 14576/2004; Cass. n. 6624/2012 e, da ultimo, Cass. n. 30071/2017), i frontalini dei balconi (siccome configuranti elementi decorativi della facciata del fabbricato comune) devono considerarsi beni comuni, la cui riparazione, perciò, rimane assoggettata ai criteri generali di ripartizione condominiale.
 Modificato 12 Febbraio da Vito46
 NONNO dice:
 Sottobalconi: come imporre il ripristino ?
 Rifacimento sottobalconi
 Sottobalconi, rimozione e ripristino elementi condominiali


text: b'HHS/OIG, Audit - "Report on the Medicare Drug Discount Card\nProgram Sponsor Medco Health Solutions," (A-06-05-00066)\nDepartment of Health and Human Services\nOffice of Inspector General -- AUDIT\n"Report on the Medicare Drug\nDiscount Card Program Sponsor Medco Health Solutions," (A-06-05-00066)\nSeptember 25, 2006\nComplete Text of Report is available in PDF format (675 kb). Copies can also be obtained by contacting the Office of Public Affairs at 202-619-1343.\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY:\nThe objective of our review were to determine whether Medco Health Solutions (Medco) complied with Federal requirements to (1) ensure that beneficiaries did not exceed their transitional assistance (TA) limits, (2) apply TA funds only to covered drugs, (3) pass on negotiated prices to beneficiaries and offer the lower of the negotiated prices or the usual and customary prices, and (4) support the expenditures and withdrawals it reported to CMS. Medco properly recorded on the Transitional Assistance Monthly Expenses and Reconciliation Report the expenditures it made on behalf of beneficiaries and the withdrawals it made, as reflected on its bank deposit records, to recoup the expenditures.\xc2\xa0However, Medco did not have proper procedures in place to ensure that it always complied with Federal requirements to ensure that beneficiaries did not exceed their TA fund limits, apply TA funds only to covered drugs, and pass on negotiated prices to beneficiaries.\xc2\xa0As a result, CMS overpaid Medco $43,103 for beneficiaries who exceeded their TA limits and $125,679 for excluded drugs for the period July 12, 2004, through July 31, 2005.\nWe recommended that Medco:\xc2\xa0reimburse CMS for $43,103; determine whether the amount Medco reimbursed CMS for excluded drugs included any of the $125,679 in TA funds identified in the audit and reimburse the difference; and implement policies and procedures to ensure that it (1) does not pay for statutorily excluded drugs with CMS funds and (2) offers negotiated prices to the beneficiaries.\xc2\xa0Medco agreed that errors had occurred, but did not agree with the dollar amounts we identified.'