type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 EIROPAS KOMISIJA
 Briselē, 13.6.2018
 COM(2018) 459 final
 2018/0242(NLE)
 Priekšlikums
 PADOMES LĒMUMS
 par to, lai Savienības vārdā parakstītu statusa nolīgumu starp Eiropas Savienību un Albānijas Republiku par darbībām, ko Albānijas Republikā veic Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra
 PASKAIDROJUMA RAKSTS
 1.PRIEKŠLIKUMA KONTEKSTS
 •Priekšlikuma pamatojums un mērķi
 Saskaņā ar 54. panta 3. punktu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2016. gada 14. septembra Regulā (ES) 2016/1624 par Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzi
 1
 , Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra var koordinēt operatīvo sadarbību starp dalībvalstīm un trešām valstīm ārējo robežu pārvaldības jomā. Šajā sakarā tā var veikt pasākumus pie ārējām robežām, iesaistot vienu vai vairākas dalībvalstis un kādu trešo valsti, kas ir kaimiņvalsts vismaz vienai no minētajām dalībvalstīm, pēc vienošanās ar minēto kaimiņvalsti, tostarp minētās trešās valsts teritorijā.
 Saskaņā ar Regulas (ES) 2016/1624 54. panta 4. punktu gadījumos, kad ir paredzēts, ka Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes vienības tiks izvietotas trešā valstī darbībās, kurās vienību dalībniekiem būs īstenošanas pilnvaras vai ja citas darbības trešās valstīs to pieprasa, Savienība ar attiecīgo trešo valsti noslēdz statusa nolīgumu.
 Pamatojoties uz Padomes pieņemtajām sarunu norādēm, Eiropas Komisija ar Albānijas Republiku ir risinājusi sarunas par statusa nolīgumu, lai izveidotu tiesisko regulējumu, kas, izstrādājot operatīvos plānus, ļautu nekavējoties rīkoties, ja būs vajadzīga ātra reakcija. Lai gan migrācijas plūsmas šajā reģionā ir daudz mazākas nekā 2015./2016. gadā, organizētās noziedzības tīkli ātri pielāgo jauniem apstākļiem gan savus migrantu kontrabandas maršrutus, gan arī metodes. Noslēdzot šādu statusa nolīgumu, atbildīgās Albānijas iestādes un ES dalībvalstis, ko koordinē Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra, būs daudz labākā situācijā, daudz labāk spēs ātri reaģēt uz šādām iespējamām norisēm.
 Pievienotais priekšlikums Padomes lēmumam ir juridisks instruments, kas vajadzīgs, lai parakstītu statusa nolīgumu starp Eiropas Savienību un Albānijas Republiku.
 Komisija 2017. gada 16. oktobrī saņēma Padomes atļauju sākt sarunas ar Albānijas Republiku par statusa nolīgumu par darbībām, ko Albānijas Republikā veic Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra.
 Sarunas par statusa nolīgumu tika sāktas 2017. gada 13. decembrī, un to otrā kārta notika 2018. gada 31. janvārī. Sarunas tika veiksmīgi pabeigtas ar statusa nolīguma projekta parafēšanu Tirānā 2018. gada 12. februārī, ko veica migrācijas, iekšlietu un pilsonības komisārs D. Avramopoulos un Albānijas Republikas iekšlietu ministrs F. Xhafaj.
 Komisija uzskata, ka Padomes sarunu norādēs izvirzītie mērķi ir sasniegti un statusa nolīguma projekts ir Savienībai pieņemams.
 Dalībvalstis informēja un ar tām apspriedās attiecīgajās Padomes darba grupās.
 •Saskaņotība ar pašreizējiem noteikumiem konkrētajā politikas jomā
 Ir noslēgti divi policijas sadarbības nolīgumi starp Grieķijas un Albānijas iestādēm (Likums 2147/1993 un Likums 2568/1998), kuri ietver informācijas apmaiņu par policijas jautājumiem, to skaitā nelegālo migrāciju. Grieķijas policija un Albānijas iestādes apmainās ar informāciju ar par vispārīgiem jautājumiem saistībā ar smagām un organizētām noziedzīgām pārrobežu darbībām, kā arī par nelegālo imigrantu atpakaļuzņemšanas procedūru.
 Albānija ar Melnkalni un Kosovu
 2* ir noslēgusi nolīgumus par robežkontroli, novērošanu un kopīgām patruļām, un ar bijušo Dienvidslāvijas Maķedonijas Republiku par kopīgām patruļām, bet ar Grieķiju tai vēl nav nolīguma. Albānija ar Itāliju ir noslēgusi nolīgumu par kopīgām patruļām (ar Guardia di Finanza) attiecībā uz jūras robežu.
 Ar protokolu starp Melnkalnes, Albānijas un Kosovas iekšlietu ministrijām* Plavā (Plav) ir izveidots kopīgs policijas sadarbības centrs, kura mērķis ir veicināt pārrobežu sadarbību cīņā pret noziedzību, intensīvāk apmainoties ar operatīvo informāciju un ciešāk koordinējot kopīgus drošības pasākumus. Kopīgo policijas sadarbības centru oficiāli atklāja 2017. gada 30. maijā. Patlaban norit darbs vēl viena centra izveidei pie robežas ar Grieķiju.
 Darba režīmā (tiek atjaunināts), kas ir operatīvās sadarbības pamatā starp Albānijas Republiku un Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzi, īpaši ietverta Albānijas speciālistu regulāra līdzdalība Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūras koordinētās operatīvās darbībās, kā arī to darbība novērotāju statusā dalībvalstu teritorijā.
 •Saskaņotība ar citām Savienības politikas jomām
 Eiropas programma migrācijas jomā balstās uz četriem pīlāriem. Viens no tiem ir robežu pārvaldība. Tas nozīmē labāku ES ārējo robežu pārvaldību, īpaši solidarizējoties ar tām dalībvalstīm, kuras atrodas pie ārējām robežām, un uzlabotu robežšķērsošanas efektivitāti. Pastiprināta Albānijas Republikas robežkontrole pozitīvi ietekmēs arī ES ārējās robežas, īpaši Grieķijas ārējās robežas, kā arī Albānijas Republikas robežas. Turpmāka drošības nostiprināšana pie ārējām robežām ir arī saskaņā ar Eiropas Drošības programmu.
 2.JURIDISKAIS PAMATS, SUBSIDIARITĀTE UN PROPORCIONALITĀTE
 •Juridiskais pamats
 Šā priekšlikuma Padomes lēmumam juridiskais pamats ir LESD 77. panta 2. punkta b) un d) apakšpunkts un 79. panta 2. punkta c) apakšpunkts saistībā ar LESD 218. panta 5. punktu.
 ES kompetence noslēgt statusa nolīgumu ir skaidri paredzēta Regulas (ES) 2016/1624 54. panta 4. punktā, kurā noteikts, ka gadījumos, kad ir paredzēts, ka vienības tiks izvietotas trešā valstī darbībās, kurās vienību dalībniekiem būs īstenošanas pilnvaras vai ja citas darbības trešās valstīs to prasa, Savienība ar attiecīgo trešo valsti noslēdz statusa nolīgumu.
 Saskaņā ar LESD 3. panta 2. punktu Savienības ekskluzīvā kompetencē ir noslēgt starptautisku nolīgumu, ja tā slēgšana ir paredzēta Savienības leģislatīvajā aktā. Regulas (ES) 2016/1624 54. panta 4. punkts paredz šāda statusa nolīguma slēgšanu starp Eiropas Savienību un attiecīgo trešo valsti. Tāpēc pievienotais nolīgums ar Albānijas Republiku ietilpst Eiropas Savienības ekskluzīvā kompetencē.
 •Subsidiaritāte (neekskluzīvas kompetences gadījumā)
 Neattiecas.
 •Proporcionalitāte
 Statusa nolīgums — divpusējas izvietošanas vietā — ko veic dalībvalstis pēkšņa migrantu pieplūduma gadījumā — ļaus Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūrai izvietot Albānijas Republikā Eiropas robežu un krasta apsardzes vienības.
 Tāpēc, lai labāk pārvaldītu Albānijas Republikas robežas, ir vajadzīga vienota pieeja.
 •Juridiskā instrumenta izvēle
 Šis priekšlikums ir saskaņā ar LESD 218. panta 5. punktu, kurā paredzēts, ka Padome pieņem lēmumus par starptautiskiem nolīgumiem. Nav cita juridiska instrumenta, ko varētu izmantot šā priekšlikuma mērķa sasniegšanai.
 3.EX POST IZVĒRTĒJUMU, APSPRIEŠANAS AR IEINTERESĒTAJĀM PERSONĀM UN IETEKMES NOVĒRTĒJUMU REZULTĀTI
 •Ex post izvērtējumi / spēkā esošo tiesību aktu atbilstības pārbaudes
 Neattiecas.
 •Apspriešanās ar ieinteresētajām personām
 Neattiecas.
 •Ekspertu atzinumu pieprasīšana un izmantošana
 Neattiecas.
 •Ietekmes novērtējums
 Sarunām par statusa nolīgumu ietekmes novērtējums nav bijis nepieciešams.
 •Normatīvā atbilstība un vienkāršošana
 Tā kā šis būs jauns nolīgums, nav iespējams veikt esošo instrumentu izvērtējumu vai atbilstības pārbaudes.
 •Pamattiesības
 Statusa nolīguma projektā ir iekļauti noteikumi, kas nodrošina, ka tiek aizsargātas to personu pamattiesības, kuras ietekmē tā personāla darbības, kas piedalās Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūras vadītajā darbībā.
 Noteikumi par pamattiesībām ir sīkāk paskaidroti 5. punktā “Citi elementi”.
 4.IETEKME UZ BUDŽETU
 Statusa nolīgumam kā tādam nav finansiālas ietekmes. Patiesībā izmaksas radīs reālā robežsargu vienību izvietošana, kas notiks, pamatojoties uz operatīvo plānu un attiecīgo dotāciju nolīgumu; tās sedz no Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūras budžeta. Statusa nolīgumā paredzētās turpmākās operācijas finansēs, izmantojot Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūras pašu resursus.
 Finanšu pārskatā, kas pievienots regulas priekšlikumam par Eiropas robežsardzes un krasta apsardzi, tika novērtēts, ka Eiropas robežsardzes un krasta apsardzes izdevumi ciešākai sadarbībai ar trešām valstīm (tostarp iespējamas kopīgas darbības ar kaimiņvalstīm) laikposmam no 2017. gada līdz 2020. gadam vidēji ir 6090 miljoni EUR gadā.
 5.CITI ELEMENTI
 •Īstenošanas plāni un uzraudzības, izvērtēšanas un ziņošanas kārtība
 Komisija nodrošinās statusa nolīguma īstenošanas pienācīgu uzraudzību.
 Albānijas Republika un Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra kopā izvērtē katru kopīgo operāciju vai ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākumu.
 Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra, Albānijas Republika un dalībvalstis, kas piedalās konkrētā darbībā, katras darbības beigās sagatavo ziņojumu par to, kā piemēroti nolīguma noteikumi, tostarp noteikumi par personas datu apstrādi.
 •Paskaidrojošie dokumenti (direktīvām)
 Neattiecas.
 •Konkrētu priekšlikuma noteikumu detalizēts skaidrojums
 Nolīguma piemērošanas joma
 Saskaņā ar šo nolīgumu Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra var izvietot Eiropas robežu un krasta apsardzes vienības, kurām ir īstenošanas pilnvaras Albānijas Republikā, veikt kopīgas operācijas un ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākumus. Veicot īpašu atpakaļnosūtīšanas operāciju, Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes vienībām ir arī atļauts palīdzēt Albānijas Republikai identificēt personas, kuras jāuzņem atpakaļ Albānijas Republikā saskaņā ar
 Nolīgumu starp Eiropas Kopienu un Albānijas Republiku par tādu personu atpakaļuzņemšanu, kuras uzturas nelikumīgi
 3
 .
 Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes vienības var tikt izvietotas Albānijas teritorijā tikai reģionos, kas robežojas ar ES ārējām robežām.
 Operatīvais plāns
 Pirms katras kopīgās operācijas vai ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākuma aģentūrai un Albānijas Republikai ir jāsaskaņo operatīvais plāns. Operatīvais plāns ir jāsaskaņo arī ar dalībvalsti vai dalībvalstīm, kas robežojas ar operācijas norises vietu.
 Plānā detalizēti izklāsta kopīgās operācijas vai ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākuma organizatoriskos un procesuālos aspektus, tostarp situācijas, operatīvā nolūka un mērķu aprakstu un novērtējumu, operatīvo koncepciju, izvietojamā tehniskā aprīkojuma veidu, īstenošanas plānu, sadarbību ar citām trešām valstīm, citām Savienības aģentūrām un struktūrām vai starptautiskajām organizācijām, noteikumus attiecībā uz pamattiesībām, tostarp personas datu aizsardzību, koordinācijas, pavēlniecības, kontroles, saziņas un ziņošanas struktūru, organizatorisko kārtību un loģistiku, kopīgās operācijas vai ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākuma novērtējuma un finansiālos aspektus.
 Vienības dalībnieku uzdevumi un pilnvaras
 Parasti vienības dalībniekiem ir tiesības veikt uzdevumus un izmantot īstenošanas pilnvaras, kas nepieciešamas robežkontrolei un atgriešanas operācijām. Tās ievēro Albānijas Republikas normatīvos aktus.
 Albānijas Republikas teritorijā vienības darbojas tikai saskaņā ar Albānijas Republikas robežsargu vai citu attiecīgo darbinieku norādījumiem un to klātbūtnē; izņēmuma kārtā vienībām var atļaut rīkoties to vārdā.
 Vienības dalībnieki valkā savas uniformas, redzamu personas identifikāciju un zilu rokas apsēju ar Eiropas Savienības un aģentūras atšķirības zīmēm. Lai Albānijas iestādes varētu tos nepārprotami identificēt, tie līdzi nēsā akreditācijas dokumentu.
 Vienības dalībnieki var nēsāt dienesta ieročus, munīciju un aprīkojumu, kā tas atļauts saskaņā ar viņu pašu valsts tiesību aktiem. Albānijas iestādes iepriekš informē aģentūru par atļautajiem dienesta ieročiem, munīciju un aprīkojumu, kā arī par attiecīgo tiesisko regulējumu un to izmantošanas nosacījumiem.
 Vienības dalībnieki ar savas valsts un Albānijas iestāžu piekrišanu Albānijas robežsargu vai citu attiecīgu darbinieku klātbūtnē un saskaņā ar Albānijas tiesību aktiem, var pielietot spēku, tostarp dienesta ieročus, munīciju un aprīkojumu. Albānijas iestādes var atļaut vienības dalībniekiem pielietot spēku arī tad, ja tās robežsargu nav klāt.
 Saskaņā ar nepieciešamības principu Albānijas iestādes var ļaut vienības dalībniekiem piekļūt datubāzēm saskaņā ar Albānijas datu aizsardzības tiesību aktiem.
 Darbības apturēšana un izbeigšana
 Gan aģentūra, gan Albānijas iestādes var apturēt vai izbeigt darbību, ja tās uzskata, ka otra puse neievēro nolīguma noteikumus vai operatīvo plānu.
 Vienības dalībnieku privilēģijas un imunitāte
 Attiecībā uz darbībām, kas veiktas, pildot oficiālas funkcijas (“pildot dienesta pienākumus”), vienības dalībniekiem ir imunitāte pret Albānijas Republikas krimināltiesisko jurisdikciju, bet šāda imunitāte uz tiem neattiecas par pārkāpumiem, kas izdarīti “nepildot dienesta pienākumus”.
 Operatīvajā plānā ir precīzi norādītas darbības, uz kurām attiecas imunitāte pret Albānijas Republikas krimināltiesisko jurisdikciju.
 Gadījumā, ja tiek pausts pieņēmums par iespējamu noziedzīgu nodarījumu, ko izdarījuši vienības dalībnieki, aģentūras izpilddirektors pirms tiesvedības uzsākšanas tiesā tiesai apliecina, vai attiecīgā darbība ir veikta, pildot oficiālas funkcijas. Aģentūras izpilddirektors pieņem lēmumu pēc tam, kad ir rūpīgi pārbaudīts attiecīgās dalībvalsts kompetentās iestādes, kura ir norīkojusi attiecīgo robežsargu vai citu attiecīgo darbinieku, un Albānijas kompetento iestāžu faktu izklāsts. Aģentūras izpilddirektora apliecinājums ir saistošs Albānijas Republikas jurisdikcijā.
 Vienības dalībniekiem piešķirtās privilēģijas un imunitāte pret Albānijas Republikas krimināltiesisko jurisdikciju neatbrīvo tos no piederības dalībvalsts jurisdikcijas.
 Tāds pats regulējums attiecas uz vienības dalībnieku civiltiesisko un administratīvo atbildību.
 Dalībvalsts, kas ir norīkojusi attiecīgo robežsargu vai citu attiecīgo darbinieku, var atcelt vienību dalībnieku imunitāti pret Albānijas Republikas krimināltiesisko, civiltiesisko un administratīvo jurisdikciju. Šādai atcelšanai vienmēr jābūt tūlītējai atcelšanai.
 Nolīgumā ir paredzēts mehānisms kaitējumu atlīdzināšanai. Šāda kompensācijas mehānisma pamatā ir 42. pants Regulā (ES) 2016/1624 par Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzi. Ja kaitējumu ir nodarījis vienības dalībnieks, pildot dienesta pienākumus, atbildīga ir Albānijas Republika. Ja kaitējumu ir nodarījis iesaistītās dalībvalsts vienības dalībnieks, pildot dienesta pienākumus, rupjas nolaidības vai tīša pārkāpuma dēļ vai nepildot dienesta pienākumus, Albānijas Republika var pieprasīt aģentūrai, lai attiecīgā iesaistītā dalībvalsts maksā kompensāciju. Ja kaitējumu ir nodarījis aģentūras personāls, Albānijas Republika var pieprasīt aģentūrai samaksāt kompensāciju.
 Ja Albānijas Republikā kaitējums radies force majeure dēļ, ne Albānijas Republika, ne iesaistītā dalībvalsts, ne aģentūra, nenes nekādu atbildību.
 Vienības dalībniekiem nevar piemērot izpildes pasākumus, izņemot gadījumus, ja pret viņiem sāk civiltiesvedību, kas nav saistīta ar oficiālajām funkcijām.
 Vienības dalībnieku īpašumu, kas vajadzīgs oficiālo funkciju izpildei, nevar arestēt. Uz vienības dalībniekiem civiltiesvedībā neattiecas personas brīvības ierobežojumi vai citi ierobežojoši pasākumi.
 Par aģentūrai sniegtajiem pakalpojumiem vienības dalībnieki ir atbrīvoti no sociālā nodrošinājuma noteikumiem, kas var būt spēkā Albānijas Republikā. Tie Albānijas Republikā ir atbrīvoti arī no jebkāda veida nodokļiem, ko ietur no algas un ienākumiem, kurus tiem maksā aģentūra vai to dalībvalstis, kā arī no ienākumiem, ko viņi saņem ārpus Albānijas Republikas.
 Albānijas iestādes ļauj ievest un izvest priekšmetus vienības dalībnieku personiskām vajadzībām un atbrīvo šādus priekšmetus no visiem muitas nodokļiem, citiem nodokļiem un saistītiem maksājumiem, kas nav maksa par glabāšanu, transportu un tamlīdzīgiem pakalpojumiem.
 Vienības dalībnieku personisko bagāžu var pārbaudīt tikai tad, ja ir pamatotas aizdomas, ka tajā ir priekšmeti, kas nav paredzēti vienības dalībnieka personiskai lietošanai, vai priekšmeti, kuru imports vai eksports Albānijas Republikā ir aizliegts ar likumu vai uz kuriem attiecas tās karantīnas noteikumi. Šādas personīgās bagāžas pārbaudi veic vienīgi attiecīgās vienības dalībnieka(-u) vai aģentūras pilnvarota pārstāvja klātbūtnē.
 Vienības dalībnieku dokumenti, sarakste un īpašums ir neaizskarams, izņemot gadījumus, ja piemēro izpildes pasākumus. Vienības dalībniekiem nav pienākuma sniegt liecības tiesā.
 Akreditācijas dokuments
 Aģentūra, sadarbojoties ar Albānijas Republiku, identificēšanas nolūkos attiecībā pret Albānijas iestādēm, izsniedz vienības dalībniekiem akreditācijas dokumentu, kas apliecina šā dokumenta turētāja tiesības veikt uzdevumus un īstenot pilnvaras, kuras tam piešķirtas ar šo nolīgumu un operatīvo plānu. Akreditācijas dokuments kopā ar derīgu ceļošanas dokumentu vienības dalībniekam ļauj ieceļot Albānijas Republikā bez vīzas vai iepriekšējas atļaujas.
 Pamattiesības
 Veicot uzdevumus un īstenojot pilnvaras, vienības dalībnieki pilnībā ievēro pamattiesības un pamatbrīvības, tostarp attiecībā uz piekļuvi patvēruma procedūrām, cilvēka cieņu, spīdzināšanas un necilvēcīgas vai pazemojošas attieksmes aizliegumu, tiesības uz brīvību, neizraidīšanas principu un kolektīvās izraidīšanas aizliegumu, bērna tiesības un tiesības uz privātās un ģimenes dzīves neaizskaramību. Viņi patvaļīgi nediskriminē personas dzimuma, rases vai etniskās izcelsmes, reliģijas vai pārliecības, invaliditātes, vecuma, dzimumorientācijas vai dzimtes identitātes dēļ. Visi pasākumi, kas skar šīs pamattiesības un pamatbrīvības, ir samērīgi ar šo pasākumu mērķiem un ievēro šo pamattiesību un pamatbrīvību būtību.
 Katrai pusei ir jābūt sūdzību mehānismam, ar kura palīdzību izskatīt iespējamos pamattiesību pārkāpumus, ko izdarījis tās personāls. Aģentūra ir izveidojusi Regulas (ES) 2016/1624 par Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzi 72. pantā minēto sūdzību mehānismu, un tādējādi tā izpilda šo pienākumu. Albānijas Ombuds varētu izskatīt šādus iespējamos pārkāpumus, izņemot gadījumus, ja Albānijas iestādes nolemj izveidot mehānismu, kurš ir īpaši paredzēts tam, lai izskatītu sūdzības, kas iesniegtas saskaņā ar šo nolīgumu.
 Personas datu apstrāde
 Vajadzības gadījumā vienības dalībnieki apstrādā personas datus saskaņā ar aģentūras un ES dalībvalstu noteikumiem. Albānijas iestāžu veiktā personas datu apstrāde notiek saskaņā ar Albānijas tiesību aktiem.
 Aģentūra, iesaistītās dalībvalstis un Albānijas iestādes katras darbības beigās sagatavo kopīgu ziņojumu par vienības dalībnieku veikto personas datu apstrādi. Šo ziņojumu nosūta aģentūras pamattiesību amatpersonai un datu aizsardzības inspektoram. Viņi sniedz ziņojumu aģentūras izpilddirektoram.
 Kompetentās iestādes šā nolīguma īstenošanai
 Albānijas Republikas kompetentā iestāde šā nolīguma īstenošanai ir Iekšlietu ministrija. Eiropas Savienībai tā ir Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra.
 Domstarpības un interpretācija
 Visus jautājumus, kas rodas saistībā ar šā nolīguma piemērošanu, kopīgi izskata Albānijas kompetento iestāžu pārstāvji un aģentūras pārstāvji, konsultējoties ar attiecīgo dalībvalsti vai dalībvalstīm, kas robežojas ar Albānijas Republiku.
 Ja iepriekš nav panākts izlīgums, domstarpības par šā nolīguma interpretāciju vai piemērošanu izšķir tikai sarunu ceļā starp Albānijas Republiku un Eiropas Komisiju, kas apspriežas ar ikvienu dalībvalsti, kas robežojas ar Albānijas Republiku.
 2018/0242 (NLE)
 Priekšlikums
 PADOMES LĒMUMS
 par to, lai Savienības vārdā parakstītu statusa nolīgumu starp Eiropas Savienību un Albānijas Republiku par darbībām, ko Albānijas Republikā veic Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra
 EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME,
 ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Savienības darbību un jo īpaši tā 77. panta 2. punkta b) un d) apakšpunktu un 79. panta 2. punkta c) apakšpunktu saistībā ar 218. panta 5. punktu,
 ņemot vērā Eiropas Komisijas priekšlikumu,
 tā kā:
 (1)Regulas (ES) 2016/1624 54. panta 4. punkts nosaka, ka gadījumos, kad ir paredzēts, ka Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes vienības tiks izvietotas trešā valstī darbībās, kurās vienību dalībniekiem būs īstenošanas pilnvaras vai ja citas darbības trešās valstīs to prasa, Savienība ar attiecīgo trešo valsti noslēdz statusa nolīgumu.
 (2)Padome 2017. gada 16. oktobrī deva Komisijai atļauju sākt sarunas ar Albānijas Republiku par statusa nolīgumu par darbībām, ko Albānijas Republikā veic Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra.
 (3)Sarunas par statusa nolīgumu sāka 2017. gada 13. decembrī, un tās sekmīgi pabeidza 2018. gada 12. februārī, parafējot šo nolīgumu.
 (4)Šis lēmums ir to Šengenas acquis noteikumu pilnveidošana, kuru īstenošanā Apvienotā Karaliste nepiedalās saskaņā ar Padomes Lēmumu 2000/365/EK
 4
 ; tādēļ Apvienotā Karaliste nepiedalās šā lēmuma pieņemšanā, un Apvienotajai Karalistei šis lēmums nav saistošs un nav jāpiemēro.
 (5)Šis lēmums ir to Šengenas acquis noteikumu pilnveidošana, kuru īstenošanā Īrija nepiedalās saskaņā ar Padomes Lēmumu 2002/192/EK
 5
 ; tādēļ Īrija nepiedalās šā lēmuma pieņemšanā, un Īrijai šis lēmums nav saistošs un nav jāpiemēro.
 (6)Saskaņā ar 1. un 2. pantu Protokolā Nr. 22 par Dānijas nostāju, kas pievienots Līgumam par Eiropas Savienību un Līgumam par Eiropas Savienības darbību, Dānija nepiedalās šā lēmuma pieņemšanā, un Dānijai šis lēmums nav saistošs un nav jāpiemēro.
 (7)Statusa nolīgums būtu jāparaksta un nolīgumam pievienotā deklarācija būtu jāapstiprina Savienības vārdā, ņemot vērā tā noslēgšanu vēlāk,
 IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.
 1. pants
 Ar šo atļauj Savienības vārdā parakstīt statusa nolīgumu starp Eiropas Savienību un Albānijas Republiku par darbībām, ko Albānijas Republikā veic Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra, ņemot vērā minētā nolīguma noslēgšanu.
 Nolīguma teksts ir pievienots šim lēmumam.
 2. pants
 Savienības vārdā tiek apstiprinātas šim lēmumam pievienotās deklarācijas.
 3. pants
 Padomes Ģenerālsekretariāts izveido instrumentu, ar ko nolīguma sarunu vadītāja norādītajai(-ajām) personai(-ām) piešķir visas pilnvaras parakstīt minēto nolīgumu, ņemot vērā tā noslēgšanu.
 4. pants
 Šis lēmums stājas spēkā tā pieņemšanas dienā.
 Briselē,
 Padomes vārdā —
 priekšsēdētājs
 (1)
 OV L 251, 16.9.2016., 1. lpp.
 (2)
 *
 Šis nosaukums neskar nostājas par statusu un atbilst ANO Drošības padomes rezolūcijai 1244/1999 un Starptautiskās Tiesas atzinumam par Kosovas neatkarības deklarāciju.
 (3)
 OV L 124, 17.5.2005., 22. lpp.
 (4)
 Padomes Lēmums 2000/365/EK (2000. gada 29. maijs) par Lielbritānijas un Ziemeļīrijas Apvienotās Karalistes lūgumu piedalīties dažu Šengenas acquis noteikumu īstenošanā (OV L 131, 1.6.2000., 43. lpp.).
 (5)
 Padomes Lēmums 2002/192/EK (2002. gada 28. februāris) par Īrijas lūgumu piedalīties dažu Šengenas acquis noteikumu īstenošanā (OV L 64, 7.3.2002., 20. lpp.).
 ---documentbreak---
 EIROPAS KOMISIJA
 Briselē,13.6.2018
 COM(2018) 459 final
 PIELIKUMS
 dokumentam
 PADOMES LĒMUMS
 par to, lai Savienības vārdā parakstītu statusa nolīgumu starp Eiropas Savienību un Albānijas Republiku par darbībām, ko Albānijas Republikā veic Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra
 PIELIKUMS
 Statusa nolīgums
 starp Eiropas Savienību un Albānijas Republiku par darbībām, ko Albānijas Republikā veic Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra
 EIROPAS SAVIENĪBA
 un ALBĀNIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 turpmāk “Puses”,
 TĀ KĀ var rasties situācijas, kurās Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra kā Eiropas Savienības struktūra, turpmāk “aģentūra”, koordinē operatīvo sadarbību starp ES dalībvalstīm un Albānijas Republiku, tostarp operatīvas darbības Albānijas Republikas teritorijā,
 TĀ KĀ būtu jāizveido tiesiskais regulējums statusa nolīguma veidā attiecībā uz situācijām, kad Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūras vienību dalībniekiem var būt īstenošanas pilnvaras Albānijas Republikas teritorijā,
 ŅEMOT VĒRĀ, ka visās Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūras darbībās Albānijas Republikas teritorijā būtu pilnībā jāievēro pamattiesības un starptautiskie tiesību akti, kuriem Albānijas Republika ir puse,
 IR NOLĒMUŠAS NOSLĒGT ŠO NOLĪGUMU.
 1. pants
 Nolīguma piemērošanas joma
 1.Šis nolīgums ietver visus aspektus, kas nepieciešami Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūras darbību veikšanai, kuras varētu norisināties Albānijas Republikas teritorijā un attiecībā uz kurām Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes vienību dalībniekiem ir īstenošanas pilnvaras.
 2.Šo nolīgumu piemēro tikai Albānijas Republikas teritorijā.
 3.Ne šis nolīgums, ne arī darbības, ko veikušas Puses, vai kas veiktas to vārdā, tostarp operatīvo plānu izstrādāšana vai līdzdalība pārrobežu sadarbībā, nekādā veidā neietekmē attiecīgo teritoriju statusu un delimitāciju, uz kuru attiecas starptautiskie tiesību akti.
 2. pants
 Definīcijas
 Nolīgumā piemēro šādas definīcijas:
 1.“darbība” ir kopīga operācija, ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākums vai atgriešanas operācija;
 2.“kopīga operācija” ir darbība, kuras mērķis ir apkarot nelegālo imigrāciju vai pārrobežu noziedzību vai arī pastiprināt tehnisko un operatīvo palīdzību pie Albānijas Republikas robežām ar kaimiņos esošu dalībvalsti un kura norisinās Albānijas Republikas teritorijā;
 3.“ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākums” ir darbība, kuras mērķis ir ātri reaģēt situācijā, kad pastāv konkrētas un nesamērīgi lielas problēmas pie Albānijas Republikas ārējām robežām ar kaimiņos esošu dalībvalsti, un kura uz ierobežotu laiku norisinās Albānijas Republikas teritorijā;
 4.“atgriešanas operācija” ir operācija, kuru koordinē aģentūra, kurā ir iesaistīts vienas vai vairāku dalībvalstu sniegts tehniskais un operatīvais atbalsts un kuras laikā atgriežamās personas no vienas vai vairākām dalībvalstīm piespiedu kārtā vai brīvprātīgi tiek atgrieztas Albānijas Republikā;
 5.“robežkontrole” ir personu kontrole, ko neatkarīgi no visiem pārējiem apsvērumiem veic pie robežas, reaģējot vienīgi uz nodomu šķērsot šo robežu vai jau notikušu šās robežas šķērsošanu, kas ietver robežpārbaudes pie robežšķērsošanas vietām un robežuzraudzību starp robežšķērsošanas vietām;
 6.“vienības dalībnieks” ir vai nu aģentūras darbinieks, vai robežsargu vienības dalībnieks un cits attiecīgais darbinieks no iesaistītajām dalībvalstīm, tostarp robežsargi un citi attiecīgi darbinieki, kurus dalībvalstis norīkojušas uz aģentūru un kuri jāizvieto operācijas laikā;
 7.“dalībvalsts” ir Eiropas Savienības dalībvalsts;
 8.“piederības dalībvalsts” ir dalībvalsts, kuras robežsargs vai cits attiecīgs darbinieks ir vienības dalībnieks;
 9.“personas dati” ir jebkura informācija, kas attiecas uz identificētu vai identificējamu fizisku personu; un identificējama persona ir persona, kuru tieši vai netieši var identificēt, jo īpaši izmantojot tādus identifikatorus kā, piemēram, vārdu, uzvārdu, identifikācijas numuru, atrašanās vietas datus, tiešsaistes identifikatoru vai vienu vai vairākus minētajai personai raksturīgus fiziskās, fizioloģiskās, ģenētiskās, garīgās, ekonomiskās, kultūras vai sociālās identitātes faktorus;
 10.“iesaistītā dalībvalsts” ir dalībvalsts, kas piedalās operācijā Albānijas Republikā, nodrošinot tehnisko aprīkojumu, robežsargus un citus attiecīgus darbiniekus, kas izvietoti kā daļa no vienības;
 11.“aģentūra” ir Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra, kas izveidota ar Regulu (ES) 2016/1624 par Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzi;
 12.“vienības dalībnieku īstenošanas pilnvaras” ir pilnvaras, kas nepieciešamas, lai veiktu uzdevumus saistībā ar operatīvajā plānā paredzētajām robežkontroles un atgriešanas operācijām, ko kā kopīgu rīcību veic Albānijas Republikas teritorijā;
 13.“force majeure” bez ierobežojumiem ietver ikvienu kara darbību (neatkarīgi no tā, vai tā ir deklarēta), iebrukumu, bruņotu konfliktu vai ārvalstu ienaidnieka darbību, blokādi, nemierus, terorismu vai militārā spēka izmantošanu, zemestrīces, plūdus, ugunsgrēku, vētru vai dabas katastrofu un ikvienu notikumu vai apstākli, kas ir analoģisks iepriekšminētajam, ja tāds īstenojas.
 3. pants
 Operatīvais plāns
 1.Operatīvajā plānā, kam ir piekritusi dalībvalsts vai dalībvalstis, kuras robežojas ar operācijas norises vietu, aģentūra un Albānijas Republika vienojas par katru kopīgu operāciju vai ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākumu.
 2.Plānā detalizēti izklāsta kopīgās operācijas vai ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākuma organizatoriskos un procesuālos aspektus, tostarp situācijas, operatīvā nolūka un mērķu aprakstu un novērtējumu, operatīvo koncepciju, izvietojamā tehniskā aprīkojuma veidu, īstenošanas plānu, sadarbību ar citām trešām valstīm, citām Savienības aģentūrām un struktūrām vai starptautiskajām organizācijām, noteikumus attiecībā uz pamattiesībām, tostarp personas datu aizsardzību, koordinācijas, pavēlniecības, kontroles, saziņas un ziņošanas struktūru, organizatorisko kārtību un loģistiku, kopīgās operācijas vai ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākuma novērtējuma un finansiālos aspektus.
 3.Kopīgās operācijas vai ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākuma novērtējumu veic kopīgi ar Albānijas Republiku un aģentūru.
 4. pants
 Vienības dalībnieku uzdevumi un pilnvaras
 1.Vienības dalībniekiem ir tiesības veikt uzdevumus un izmantot īstenošanas pilnvaras, kas nepieciešamas robežkontrolei un atgriešanas operācijām.
 2.Vienības dalībnieki ievēro Albānijas Republikas normatīvos aktus.
 3.Vienības dalībnieki var veikt uzdevumus un īstenot pilnvaras Albānijas Republikas teritorijā tikai saskaņā ar Albānijas Republikas robežsargu vai citu attiecīgu darbinieku norādījumiem un parasti tikai viņu klātbūtnē. Albānijas Republika vienībai vajadzības gadījumā dod norādījumus saskaņā ar operatīvo plānu. Albānijas Republika izņēmuma kārtā var pilnvarot vienības dalībniekus rīkoties tās vārdā.
 Aģentūra ar sava koordinatora palīdzību var paziņot Albānijas Republikai savu viedokli par vienībai sniegtajiem norādījumiem. Tādā gadījumā Albānijas Republika ņem vērā šo viedokli un pēc iespējas to ievēro.Gadījumos, kad vienībai sniegtie norādījumi neatbilst operatīvajam plānam, koordinators nekavējoties ziņo aģentūras izpilddirektoram. Izpilddirektors var veikt atbilstošus pasākumus, tostarp apturēt vai izbeigt operāciju.
 4.Vienības dalībnieki, veicot uzdevumus un īstenojot pilnvaras, valkā savas uniformas. Vienības dalībnieki pie uniformas nēsā arī redzamu personas identifikāciju un zilu rokas apsēju ar Eiropas Savienības un aģentūras atšķirības zīmēm. Identificēšanas nolūkos attiecībā pret Albānijas Republikas valsts iestādēm vienības dalībnieki vienmēr nēsā līdzi 7. pantā minēto akreditācijas dokumentu.
 5.Veicot uzdevumus, vienības dalībnieki var nēsāt dienesta ieročus, munīciju un aprīkojumu, kā tas ir atļauts saskaņā ar piederības dalībvalsts tiesību aktiem. Albānijas Republika pirms vienības dalībnieku izvietošanas informē aģentūru par atļautajiem dienesta ieročiem, munīciju un aprīkojumu, kā arī par attiecīgo tiesisko regulējumu un to izmantošanas nosacījumiem un .
 6.Veicot uzdevumus un īstenojot pilnvaras, vienības dalībniekiem ar piederības dalībvalsts un Albānijas Republikas piekrišanu Albānijas Republikas robežsargu vai citu attiecīgo darbinieku klātbūtnē un saskaņā ar Albānijas Republikas tiesībām ir atļauts pielietot spēku, tostarp dienesta ieročus, munīciju un aprīkojumu. Albānijas Republika var atļaut vienības dalībniekiem pielietot spēku, ja Albānijas Republikas robežsargu vai citu attiecīgo darbinieku nav klāt. Operatīvajā plānā nosaka iestādi, kas piešķir piederības dalībvalsts piekrišanu.
 7.Albānijas Republika var atļaut vienības dalībniekiem piekļūt tās datubāzei, ja tas ir nepieciešams, lai sasniegtu operatīvos mērķus, kas noteikti operatīvajā plānā, un atgriešanas operāciju nolūkos. Vienības dalībnieki izmanto piekļuvi tikai tādiem datiem, kas ir nepieciešami to uzdevumu veikšanai un pilnvaru īstenošanai, kā tas noteikts operatīvajā plānā vai nepieciešams atgriešanas operāciju nolūkos. Albānijas Republika pirms vienības dalībnieku izvietošanas informē aģentūru par valsts datubāzēm, kurām var piekļūt. Šādu piekļuvi veic saskaņā ar Albānijas Republikas datu aizsardzības tiesību aktiem.
 5. pants
 Darbības apturēšana un izbeigšana
 1.Ja Albānijas Republika neievēro šā nolīguma vai operatīvā plāna noteikumus, aģentūras izpilddirektors darbību var apturēt vai izbeigt pēc tam, kad par to rakstiski ir informējis Albānijas Republiku. Izpilddirektors informē Albānijas Republiku par attiecīgajiem iemesliem.
 2.Ja aģentūra vai jebkura iesaistītā dalībvalsts neievēro šā nolīguma vai operatīvā plāna noteikumus, Albānijas Republika darbību var apturēt vai izbeigt pēc tam, kad par to ir rakstiski informējusi aģentūru. Albānijas Republika informē aģentūru par attiecīgajiem iemesliem.
 3.Aģentūras izpilddirektors vai Albānijas Republika var apturēt vai izbeigt darbību jo īpaši gadījumos, kad tiek pārkāptas pamattiesības, netiek ievērots neizraidīšanas princips vai datu aizsardzības noteikumi.
 4.Darbības izbeigšana neietekmē tiesības vai pienākumus, kas rodas, piemērojot šo nolīgumu vai operatīvo plānu pirms šādas izbeigšanas.
 6. pants
 Vienības dalībnieku privilēģijas un imunitāte
 1.Vienības dalībnieku dokumenti, sarakste un īpašums ir neaizskarams, izņemot gadījumus, ja piemēro izpildes pasākumus, kurus atļauts veikt saskaņā ar 7. punktu.
 2.Vienības dalībniekiem ir imunitāte pret Albānijas Republikas krimināltiesisko jurisdikciju par darbībām, kas veiktas, pildot oficiālajās funkcijās paredzētās darbības saskaņā ar operatīvo plānu.
 Gadījumā, ja pastāv pieņēmums, ka vienības dalībnieks ir izdarījis noziedzīgu nodarījumu, nekavējoties informē aģentūras izpilddirektoru un piederības dalībvalsts kompetento iestādi. Pirms tiesvedības sākuma aģentūras izpilddirektors pēc rūpīgas visu piederības dalībvalsts kompetentās iestādes un Albānijas Republikas kompetentās iestādes sniegtā faktu izklāsta izskatīšanas, tiesai apliecina, vai attiecīgā darbība veikta, pildot oficiālajos pienākumos paredzētās darbības saskaņā ar operatīvo plānu. Kamēr tiek gaidīts aģentūras izpilddirektora apliecinājums, aģentūra un piederības dalībvalsts atturas no jebkuriem pasākumiem, kas varētu apdraudēt iespējamo turpmāko vienības dalībnieka kriminālvajāšanu, ko veic Albānijas Republikas kompetentās iestādes.
 Ja darbība veikta, pildot oficiālās funkcijas, tiesvedību nesāk. Ja darbība nav veikta, pildot oficiālās funkcijas, tiesvedību var turpināt. Albānijas Republikas jurisdikcijai aģentūras izpilddirektora apliecinājums ir saistošs. Vienības dalībniekiem piešķirtās privilēģijas un imunitāte pret Albānijas Republikas krimināltiesisko jurisdikciju neatbrīvo tos no piederības dalībvalsts jurisdikcijas.
 3.Vienības dalībniekiem ir imunitāte pret Albānijas Republikas civiltiesisko un administratīvo jurisdikciju par darbībām, kas veiktas, pildot oficiālajās funkcijās paredzētās darbības saskaņā ar operatīvo plānu. Ja kāda tiesa ierosina civiltiesvedību pret vienības dalībniekiem, par to nekavējoties paziņo aģentūras izpilddirektoram un piederības dalībvalsts kompetentajai iestādei. Pirms tiesvedības sākuma aģentūras izpilddirektors pēc rūpīgas visu piederības dalībvalsts kompetentās iestādes un Albānijas Republikas kompetentās iestādes sniegtā faktu izklāsta izskatīšanas, tiesai apliecina, vai vienības dalībnieki ir veikuši attiecīgo darbību, pildot oficiālajās funkcijās paredzētās darbības saskaņā ar operatīvo plānu.
 Ja darbība veikta, pildot oficiālās funkcijas, tiesvedību nesāk. Ja darbība nav veikta, pildot oficiālās funkcijas, tiesvedība var turpināties. Aģentūras izpilddirektora apliecinājums ir saistošs Albānijas Republikas jurisdikcijā. Ja tiesvedību sāk vienības dalībnieks, viņš zaudē imunitāti pret jurisdikciju attiecībā uz visām pretprasībām, kas ir tieši saistītas ar galveno prasību.
 4.Piederības dalībvalsts vajadzības gadījumā var atcelt vienības dalībnieku imunitāti pret Albānijas Republikas krimināltiesisko, civiltiesisko un administratīvo jurisdikciju. Šādai atcelšanai vienmēr jābūt tūlītējai atcelšanai.
 5.Vienības dalībniekiem nav pienākuma sniegt liecības tiesā.
 6.Ja kaitējumu ir nodarījis vienības dalībnieks, pildot oficiālajās funkcijās paredzētas darbības saskaņā ar operatīvo plānu, Albānijas Republika ir atbildīga par jebkuru kaitējumu.
 Ja kaitējums nodarīts rupjas nolaidības vai tīša pārkāpuma dēļ vai ja iesaistītās dalībvalsts vienības dalībnieks darbību nav veicis, pildot oficiālās funkcijas, Albānijas Republika ar izpilddirektora starpniecību var pieprasīt, lai attiecīgā iesaistītā dalībvalsts maksā kompensāciju.
 Ja kaitējums nodarīts rupjas nolaidības vai tīša pārkāpuma dēļ, vai, ja vienības dalībnieks, kurš ir aģentūras darbinieks, darbību nav veicis, pildot oficiālās funkcijas, Albānijas Republika var pieprasīt, lai aģentūra maksā kompensāciju.
 Ja Albānijas Republikā kaitējums radies force majeure dēļ, ne Albānijas Republika, ne iesaistītā dalībvalsts, ne aģentūra, nenes nekādu atbildību.
 7.Vienības dalībniekiem nevar piemērot izpildes pasākumus, izņemot gadījumus, ja pret viņiem sāk civiltiesvedību, kas nav saistīta ar oficiālajām funkcijām.
 Vienības dalībnieku īpašumu, par ko aģentūras izpilddirektors apliecina, ka tas ir vajadzīgs minētā personāla oficiālo funkciju izpildei, nevar arestēt, izpildot tiesas nolēmumu, lēmumu vai rīkojumu. Uz vienības dalībniekiem civiltiesvedībā neattiecas personas brīvības ierobežojumi vai kādi citi ierobežojoši pasākumi.
 8.Vienības dalībnieku imunitāte pret Albānijas Republikas jurisdikciju neatbrīvo tos no attiecīgo piederības dalībvalstu jurisdikcijas.
 9.Attiecībā uz vienības dalībnieku sniegtiem pakalpojumiem aģentūrai vienības dalībnieki ir atbrīvoti no sociālā nodrošinājuma noteikumiem, kas var būt spēkā Albānijas Republikā.
 10.Vienības dalībnieki Albānijas Republikā ir atbrīvoti no jebkāda veida nodokļiem, ko ietur no algas un ienākumiem, kurus tiem maksā aģentūra vai piederības dalībvalstis, kā arī no ienākumiem, ko viņi saņem ārpus Albānijas Republikas.
 11.Albānijas Republika saskaņā ar normatīvajiem aktiem, ko tā var pieņemt, ļauj ievest priekšmetus vienības dalībnieku personiskām vajadzībām un atbrīvo šādus priekšmetus no visiem muitas nodokļiem, citiem nodokļiem un saistītiem maksājumiem, kas nav maksa par glabāšanu, transportu un tamlīdzīgiem pakalpojumiem. Albānijas Republika atļauj arī šādu priekšmetu eksportu.
 12.Vienības dalībnieku personiskā bagāžu var pārbaudīt tikai tad, ja ir pamatotas aizdomas, ka tajā ir priekšmeti, kas nav paredzēti vienības dalībnieka personiskai lietošanai, vai priekšmeti, kuru imports vai eksports Albānijas Republikā ir aizliegts ar likumu vai uz kuriem attiecas tās karantīnas noteikumi. Šādas personīgās bagāžas pārbaudi veic vienīgi attiecīgās vienības dalībnieka(-u) vai aģentūras pilnvarota pārstāvja klātbūtnē.
 7. pants
 Akreditācijas dokuments
 1.Aģentūra sadarbībā ar Albānijas Republiku katram vienības dalībniekam izsniedz dokumentu Albānijas Republikas oficiālajā(-ās) valodā(-ās) un vienā no Eiropas Savienības iestāžu oficiālajām valodām identificēšanas nolūkos attiecībā pret Albānijas Republikas valsts iestādēm un nolūkā apliecināt šāda dokumenta turētāja tiesības veikt uzdevumus un īstenot pilnvaras, kas minētas šā nolīguma 4. pantā un operatīvajā plānā. Dokumentā ir iekļauti šādi dati par dalībnieku: vārds, uzvārds un valstspiederība; dienesta pakāpe vai amata nosaukums; nesen uzņemta fotogrāfija digitālā formātā un uzdevumi, kurus viņš ir pilnvarots veikt izvietošanas laikā.
 2.Akreditācijas dokuments kopā ar derīgu ceļošanas dokumentu vienības dalībniekam ļauj ieceļot Albānijas Republikā bez vīzas vai iepriekšējas atļaujas.
 3.Akreditācijas dokumentu darbības beigās nodod aģentūrai. Par to tiek informētas Albānijas kompetentās iestādes.
 8. pants
 Pamattiesības
 1.Veicot uzdevumus un īstenojot pilnvaras, vienības dalībnieki pilnībā ievēro pamattiesības un pamatbrīvības, tostarp attiecībā uz piekļuvi patvēruma procedūrām, cilvēka cieņu, spīdzināšanas un necilvēcīgas vai pazemojošas attieksmes aizliegumu, tiesības uz brīvību, neizraidīšanas principu un kolektīvās izraidīšanas aizliegumu, bērna tiesības un tiesības uz privātās un ģimenes dzīves neaizskaramību. Veicot uzdevumus un īstenojot pilnvaras, viņi patvaļīgi nediskriminē personas dzimuma, rases vai etniskās izcelsmes, reliģijas vai pārliecības, invaliditātes, vecuma, dzimumorientācijas vai dzimtes identitātes dēļ. Visi pasākumi, ko darbinieki veic, veicot uzdevumus un īstenojot pilnvaras, un kas skar pamattiesības un pamatbrīvības, ir samērīgi ar šo pasākumu mērķiem un ievēro šo pamattiesību un pamatbrīvību būtību.
 2.Ikvienai Pusei ir sūdzību mehānisms, kas vajadzīgs, lai izskatītu iespējamos pamattiesību pārkāpumus, ko tās personāls varētu būt veicis, pildot savas oficiālās funkcijas tādas kopīgas operācijas, ātrās reaģēšanas robežapsardzes pasākuma vai atgriešanas operācijas laikā, uz kuru attiecas šis nolīgums.
 9. pants
 Personas datu apstrāde
 1.Vienības dalībnieki apstrādā personas datus tikai tad, ja tas vajadzīgs, lai veiktu uzdevumus un īstenotu pilnvaras, kas nepieciešams, lai Albānijas Republika, aģentūra vai iesaistītās dalībvalstis to īstenotu.
 2.Personas datu apstrāde Albānijas Republikā notiek saskaņā ar tās tiesību aktiem.
 3.Uz personas datu apstrādi administratīvos nolūkos, ko veic aģentūra un iesaistītā(-ās) dalībvalsts(-is), tostarp nosūtot personas datus uz Albānijas Republiku, attiecas Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2000. gada 18. decembra Regula (EK) Nr. 45/2001 par fizisku personu aizsardzību attiecībā uz personas datu apstrādi Kopienas iestādēs un struktūrās un par šādu datu brīvu apriti, Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 1995. gada 24. oktobra Direktīva 95/46/EK par personu aizsardzību attiecībā uz personas datu apstrādi un šādu datu brīvu apriti, Padomes 2008. gada 27. novembra Pamatlēmums 2008/977/TI par tādu personas datu aizsardzību, ko apstrādā, policijas un tiesu iestādēm sadarbojoties krimināllietās, un aģentūras pieņemtie pasākumi Regulas (EK) Nr. 45/2001 piemērošanai, kā minēts Regulas (ES) 2016/1624 45. panta 2. punktā.
 4.Gadījumā, ja apstrāde ietver personas datu nosūtīšanu, dalībvalstis un aģentūra personas datu nosūtīšanas brīdī uz Albānijas Republiku norāda ikvienu vispārīgu vai konkrētu ierobežojumu piekļuvei šiem datiem vai to izmantošanai, tostarp attiecībā uz pārsūtīšanu, dzēšanu vai iznīcināšanu. Ja vajadzība pēc šādiem ierobežojumiem kļūst acīmredzama pēc personas datu nosūtīšanas, tad tās attiecīgi informē Albānijas Republiku.
 5.Personas datus, kas darbības laikā savākti administratīvos nolūkos, aģentūra, iesaistītās dalībvalstis un Albānijas Republika var apstrādāt atbilstīgi datu aizsardzības jomā piemērojamiem tiesību aktiem.
 6.Aģentūra, iesaistītās dalībvalstis un Albānijas Republika katras darbības beigās izstrādā kopīgu ziņojumu par šā panta 1.–5. punkta piemērošanu. Šo ziņojumu nosūta aģentūras pamattiesību amatpersonai un datu aizsardzības inspektoram. Viņi sniedz ziņojumu aģentūras izpilddirektoram.
 10. pants
 Kompetentās iestādes šā nolīguma īstenošanai
 1.Kompetentā iestāde šā nolīguma īstenošanai Albānijas Republikā ir Iekšlietu ministrija.
 2.Kompetentā iestāde šā nolīguma īstenošanai Eiropas Savienībā ir aģentūra.
 11. pants
 Domstarpības un interpretācija
 1.Visus jautājumus, kas rodas saistībā ar šā nolīguma piemērošanu, kopīgi izskata Albānijas Republikas kompetento iestāžu pārstāvji un aģentūras pārstāvji, konsultējoties ar attiecīgo dalībvalsti vai dalībvalstīm, kas robežojas ar Albānijas Republiku.
 2.Ja iepriekš nav panākts izlīgums, domstarpības par šā nolīguma interpretāciju vai piemērošanu izšķir tikai sarunu ceļā starp Albānijas Republiku un Eiropas Komisiju, kas apspriežas ar ikvienu dalībvalsti, kas robežojas ar Albānijas Republiku.
 12. pants
 Nolīguma stāšanās spēkā, darbības laiks un izbeigšana
 1.Puses apstiprina šo nolīgumu saskaņā ar savām iekšējām juridiskajām procedūrām.
 2.Šis nolīgums stājas spēkā otrā mēneša pirmajā dienā pēc dienas, kad Puses ir paziņojušas viena otrai, ka ir pabeigtas 1. punktā minētās iekšējās juridiskās procedūras.
 3.Šis nolīgums ir spēkā nenoteiktu laiku. Nolīgumu var izbeigt, Pusēm rakstiski vienojoties, vai vienpusēji pēc vienas Puses iniciatīvas. Šādā gadījumā Puse, kas vēlas to apturēt vai izbeigt, par to rakstiski informē otru Pusi. Nolīguma darbība tiek izbeigta otrā mēneša pirmajā dienā, kurš seko paziņojuma sniegšanas mēnesim.
 4.Paziņojumus, kas veikti saskaņā ar šo pantu, nosūta Eiropas Savienības gadījumā Eiropas Savienības Padomes Ģenerālsekretariātam un Albānijas Republikas gadījumā Albānijas Republikas Ārlietu ministrijai.
 Vieta: ..., datums: ....
 Sagatavots divos eksemplāros angļu, bulgāru, čehu, dāņu, franču, grieķu, holandiešu, horvātu, igauņu, itāļu, latviešu, lietuviešu, maltiešu, poļu, portugāļu, rumāņu, slovāku, slovēņu, somu, spāņu, ungāru, vācu, zviedru un albāņu valodā, un visi teksti ir vienlīdz autentiski.
 Paraksti:
 KOPĪGĀ DEKLARĀCIJA ATTIECĪBĀ UZ ISLANDI, NORVĒĢIJU, ŠVEICI UN LIHTENŠTEINU
 Līgumslēdzējas Puses ņem vērā ciešās attiecības starp Eiropas Savienību un Norvēģiju, Islandi, Šveici un Lihtenšteinu, jo īpaši ņemot vērā 1999. gada 18. maija un 2004. gada 26. oktobra nolīgumus par minēto valstu asociēšanu Šengenas acquis īstenošanā, piemērošanā un pilnveidošanā.
 Šādos apstākļos ir vēlams, ka Norvēģijas, Islandes, Šveices un Lihtenšteinas iestādes, no vienas puses, un Albānijas Republika, no otras puses, nekavējoties noslēdz divpusējus nolīgumus par darbībām, ko Albānijas Republikā veic Eiropas Robežu un krasta apsardzes aģentūra, ar tādiem pašiem nosacījumiem kā šajā nolīgumā.


text:
 22.11.2014
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 335/7
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) Nr. 1249/2014 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 21 november 2014
 tot verlening van een vergunning voor inositol als toevoegingsmiddel voor diervoeding voor vis en schaaldieren
 (Voor de EER relevante tekst)
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EG) nr. 1831/2003 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 22 september 2003 betreffende toevoegingsmiddelen voor diervoeding (1), en met name artikel 9, lid 2,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 De verlening van vergunningen voor toevoegingsmiddelen voor diervoeding, met inbegrip van de vergunningsgronden en -procedures, is geregeld bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1831/2003. Artikel 10 van die verordening voorziet in de herbeoordeling van toevoegingsmiddelen waarvoor een vergunning is verleend overeenkomstig Richtlijn 70/524/EEG van de Raad (2).
 (2)
 Voor inositol is overeenkomstig Richtlijn 70/524/EEG een vergunning zonder tijdsbeperking verleend voor gebruik als nutritioneel toevoegingsmiddel voor alle diersoorten in de groep „vitaminen, provitaminen en chemisch duidelijk omschreven stoffen met een soortgelijke werking”. Vervolgens is die stof overeenkomstig artikel 10, lid 1, van Verordening (EG) nr. 1831/2003 als bestaand product opgenomen in het Communautair repertorium van toevoegingsmiddelen voor diervoeding.
 (3)
 Overeenkomstig artikel 10, lid 2, van Verordening (EG) nr. 1831/2003 in samenhang met artikel 7 daarvan werd een aanvraag ingediend voor de herbeoordeling van inositol als toevoegingsmiddel voor diervoeding voor vis, schaaldieren, katten en honden. De aanvrager heeft gevraagd dit toevoegingsmiddel in de categorie „nutritionele toevoegingsmiddelen” in te delen. De krachtens artikel 7, lid 3, van Verordening (EG) nr. 1831/2003 vereiste gegevens en documenten zijn bij de aanvraag verstrekt.
 (4)
 De Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid (EFSA) heeft in haar advies van 9 april 2014 (3) geconcludeerd dat inositol onder de voorgestelde voorwaarden voor gebruik in diervoeding geen ongunstige effecten voor de diergezondheid, de menselijke gezondheid en het milieu heeft. De EFSA heeft ook geconcludeerd dat inositol wordt beschouwd als een effectieve bron van een essentiële micronutriënt voor vis en schaaldieren. Specifieke eisen voor toezicht na het in de handel brengen acht de EFSA niet nodig. Zij heeft ook het rapport over de analysemethode voor de toevoegingsmiddelen voor diervoeding geverifieerd dat door het bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1831/2003 ingestelde referentielaboratorium was ingediend.
 (5)
 Uit de beoordeling van inositol blijkt dat aan de in artikel 5 van Verordening (EG) nr. 1831/2003 vermelde voorwaarden voor de verlening van een vergunning is voldaan. Het gebruik van die stof zoals gespecificeerd in de bijlage bij deze verordening moet daarom worden toegestaan.
 (6)
 Aangezien er geen veiligheidsredenen zijn die de onmiddellijke toepassing van de wijzigingen van de vergunningsvoorwaarden vereisen, moet worden voorzien in een overgangsperiode om de bestaande voorraden van de toevoegingsmiddelen, voormengsels en mengvoeders die deze bevatten, zoals toegestaan bij Richtlijn 70/524/EEG, op te gebruiken.
 (7)
 De in deze verordening vervatte maatregelen zijn in overeenstemming met het advies van het Permanent Comité voor planten, dieren, levensmiddelen en diervoeders,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 Voor de in de bijlage beschreven stof, die behoort tot de categorie „nutritionele toevoegingsmiddelen” en de functionele groep „vitaminen, provitaminen en chemisch duidelijk omschreven stoffen met een gelijkaardige werking”, wordt onder de in de bijlage vastgestelde voorwaarden een vergunning voor gebruik als toevoegingsmiddel voor diervoeding verleend.
 Artikel 2
 De in de bijlage beschreven stof en diervoeders die die stof bevatten die vóór 12 juni 2015 zijn geproduceerd en geëtiketteerd overeenkomstig de voorschriften die vóór 12 december 2014 van toepassing waren, mogen verder in de handel worden gebracht en worden gebruikt totdat de bestaande voorraden zijn uitgeput.
 Artikel 3
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de twintigste dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 21 november 2014.
 Voor de Commissie
 De voorzitter
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) PB L 268 van 18.10.2003, blz. 29.
 (2) Richtlijn 70/524/EEG van de Raad van 23 november 1970 betreffende toevoegingsmiddelen in de veevoeding (PB L 270 van 14.12.1970, blz. 1).
 (3) EFSA Journal 2014;12(5):3671.
 BIJLAGE
 Identificatienummer van het toevoegingsmiddel
 Toevoegingsmiddel
 Samenstelling, chemische formule, beschrijving, analysemethode
 Diersoort of -categorie
 Maximumleeftijd
 Minimumgehalte
 Maximumgehalte
 Overige bepalingen
 Einde van de vergunningperiode
 mg werkzame stof/kg volledig diervoeder met een vochtgehalte van 12
 Nutritionele toevoegingsmiddelen: vitaminen, provitaminen en chemisch duidelijk omschreven stoffen met een gelijkaardige werking
 3a900
 Inositol
 Samenstelling van het toevoegingsmiddel
 Inositol
 Karakterisering van de werkzame stof
 Inositol
 Chemische formule: C6H12O6
 CAS-nr.: 87-89-8
 Inositol, vaste vorm, geproduceerd door chemische synthese.
 Zuiverheidscriteria: ten minste 97 %.
 Analysemethoden
 (1)
 Voor de identificatie van inositol in het toevoegingsmiddel voor diervoeding: vloeistofchromatografie en infraroodabsorptiespectrofotometrie (Ph. Eur. 01/2008:1805).
 Voor de kwantificering van inositol in het toevoegingsmiddel voor diervoeding, voormengsels en diervoeding: analyse van de microbiologische activiteit.
 Vis en schaaldieren
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 In de aanwijzingen voor het gebruik van het toevoegingsmiddel en het voormengsel worden de opslag- en stabiliteitsvoorwaarden aangegeven.
 2.
 Voor de veiligheid: bij hantering moeten ademhalingsbescherming, veiligheidsbril en -handschoenen worden gedragen.
 12 december 2024
 (1) Nadere bijzonderheden over de analysemethoden zijn te vinden op de website van het communautaire referentielaboratorium: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
The appellee, Henry Valentine, was in January, 1914, and for sometime prior thereto, Master of Universal Lodge Number Fourteen, Free and Accepted Masons of the City of Annapolis, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, one of the subordinate lodges of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Maryland.
 On the 13th day of January, 1914, certain members of said subordinate lodge, in a letter addressed to Joseph P. Evans, Master of the Grand Lodge, one of the appellants, preferred charge against the appellee as Master of said subordinate lodge. The charges were that Henry Valentine had called a meeting of the subordinate lodge at Isaac Rebecca Hall, not the place designated in its charter for holding its meetings, and had at such meeting transacted business pertaining to the lodge, without receiving authority from the Grand Master to hold the meeting at such place; and also with "passing an act to purchase a piece of property at the cost of thirty-five hundred dollars ($3,500) and to make a deposit payment of one thousand dollars ($1,000), with the right to give a mortgage for the remaining twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500)." The property so referred to was to be, when purchased, a home for said subordinate lodge.
 Section 6 of Article 1 of the constitution of the Grand Lodge, sub-title "Subordinate Lodges," provides:
 "Nor shall any lodge hold meetings, unless authorized by the Grand Master, in any place other than the one designated in its charter, under the penalty of a forfeiture thereof."
 Section 2 of Article 1 of the same sub-title provides: *Page 507
 "It shall not be competent for a lodge to try its master. Any five members of the lodge or the District Deputy Grand Master may, however, impeach him before the Grand Master, who shall order an investigation of the charges; and if, in his opinion, they are well founded and of a character to justify the proceeding, he may suspend the delinquent and summon him to appear at the ensuing meeting of the Grand Lodge, to show cause why he should not be dealt with according to the regulations and usages in such cases established."
 Upon the receipt of the letter containing the charges mentioned, Joseph P. Evans, Grand Master, appointed a commission, consisting of five Past Masters, to investigate the charges preferred against Valentine, and on January 14th, 1914, the Grand Secretary of the said lodge, wrote Valentine, telling him that charges had been preferred against him to the Grand Master `for a violation of the law and masonic usages in holding a communication outside of the regular place of meeting without a dispensation," and further telling him that the commission would notify him as to the time and place of investigation.
 This the commission did by letter of January 22d 1914, in which he was told that the members of the commission would sit in the City of Annapolis on February 2d 1914, to hear testimony in reference to the charges preferred against him.
 To this letter Valentine replied by letter dated January 25th, in which he told them that he was employed as steward at the Naval Academy Officer's Mess, that on the date mentioned for the hearing he had to serve a supper, where his presence would be required from 8 to 11:30 P.M. and that it would be impossible for him to attend the meeting on the day named, but stated that "any other day will be all right for me. Please arrange and advise me."
 The secretary of the commission wrote Valentine on January 26th acknowledging the receipt of his letter and said to him: *Page 508
 "I shall at once take the matter up with the commission and notify you at the very earliest convenience of whatever day they may set."
 But in a postscript thereto, dated January 29th, the secretary stated that:
 "The commission has instructed me to say to you that under no consideration can they change their date from February 2nd, and shall expect you and your witnesses present."
 On January 30th, Valentine wrote Evans telling him of the engagement which prevented his attending the meeting of the commission on February 2nd and of the letter received from the commission saying they would not change their date of sitting and asked him
 "to please have them, the commission, meet on Tuesday, Feb. 3rd, or Feb. 6th. Either of these days I can and will be glad to meet them. Hoping this meets with your approval."
 On the following day, January 31st, Valentine again wrote the secretary of the commission telling him that it was impossible for him to be present on February 2nd, but saying:
 "I can with pleasure be with you Tuesday, Feb. 3rd, or Feb. 6th. I have referred the matter to the Grand Master. Please confer with him."
 On February 1st, Evans wrote Valentine stating in substance that he very much regretted that he could not have the commission defer their meeting as suggested by him, Valentine, but as the matter was at such time in the hands of the commission and as they had fixed February 2nd, he could not interfere in the matter.
 The meeting of the commission was held on the evening of February 2nd at Annapolis, but Valentine was unable to attend for the reasons previously communicated to the commission. After its meeting at Annapolis on the evening *Page 509
 named, the commission made its report to the Grand Master, in which it is stated
 "that after a very careful review of all the evidence, we find that Brother Henry Valentine, W.M. Universal Lodge Number 14, F. A.M., of Annapolis, Maryland, is guilty of a very grave offense by not complying with the second common laws of Masonry by not being present at the setting of the commission when summoned to do so, also treating the commission with contempt by not sending them a written statement at their place of setting on Feb. 2nd, stating just why he could not be present. Also Brother Henry Valentine we find has commit an offense in the violation of Article 1, § 6, on page 65. Also a violation of Article 7, § 22, page 63, in the Masonic Digest."
 The first of these sections (section 6, Article 1), as we have stated, contains the prohibition against holding meetings in any place other than the one designated in the charter of the lodge without authority from the Grand Master.
 The other (section 22, Article 7) provides:
 "That special committees may be appointed upon any item of business and may consist of as many members as the lodge, in its discretion, may think proper. All committees shall report at the next stated meeting, subsequent to their appointment, and in writing, unless otherwise ordered by the lodge. All committees shall be appointed by the Master. Members who are appointed to serve upon committees shall feel bound in honor to give patient and diligent attention to the business of their appointment, and report their conclusions to the lodge without fear or favor."
 We have stated section 22, Article 7, in full, in order that it may be seen of what specific offenses Valentine was found guilty and for which he was subsequently suspended.
 On February 9th, Joseph P. Evans, Grand Master, wrote Henry Valentine stating that he would visit his lodge on *Page 510
 Tuesday night, February 17th, and ordered him to have his secretary notify all members of said subordinate lodge to be present and also to notify the District Deputy Grand Master of his coming, and that he be present at the meeting. Valentine attended the meeting on February 17th, and his statement of what occurred is as follows: "After the regular routine of business had been completed, the Grand Master, Joseph Evans, was introduced by the Worshipful Master to the lodge and I gave him the chair. * * * After taking the chair he * * * said, Brother Valentine come to the altar; I did so. He said, charges have been preferred against you by members of this lodge and a commission have been appointed to investigate and the charges have been sustained; you are suspended; go out of this lodge. * * * He then said to the Junior Warden call off this lodge from Labor to Refreshment, and * * * to the Junior Deacon, open that door and let Henry Valentine go out of this hall * * *.
 Evans, in speaking of what occurred at the meeting of Feb. 17th said, "on my arrival about eight o'clock, found the lodge opened and in session. * * * I repaired to the Master's station, as is the custom, asked him for his jewel of office, he turned over the same to me, as is the custom, I then asked for the warrant of the lodge, which he refused to give, but after some explanation and a statement as to what I had learned his purpose and motives was, I taken it out of his hand, he very reluctantly turned it loose, it was in a case. I then * * * explained to him that the commission that had been appointed by me to investigate the charges preferred by the members of his lodge had made their report to me and their report sustained the charges and that I was here in the capacity as Grand Master to perform my duty as is the custom, the rules and regulations of the order, which under the circumstances, compel me to suspend him as Master of UniversalLodge until the meeting of the Grand Lodge in Hagerstown, August coming, at its regular sitting, at which time his case would be reported by me to the Grand Lodge. That he was also ordered to be present and if any irregularities or otherwise *Page 511
 he would have ample provision or opportunity to vindicate himself and his case and asked him to please retire from the lodge, whereupon he refused. I ordered the lodge called off and the door opened and demanded that he retire. He refused and I told him I would be compelled to order him forcibly ejected if he did not retire and he still refused. * * * He finally went out."
 On the 13th of April, 1914, the appellee filed his bill of complaint in this cause, in which he stated the facts as we have given them and further alleged therein that the proceedings of the Grand Master, as well as the commission appointed by him to investigate the charges preferred against him, the plaintiff, were utterly null and void, and that "the corporation was without authority either in law or by the usages of said order" to hear the frivolous charges, and to find thereon, as stated herein.
 It likewise alleged that if the action of the said commission and of the said Grand Master of said lodge is sustained, the plaintiff "would be denied the benefit of sick benefits in the event of his sickness and that his family would be denied the benefit of the death burial claim in the event of his death, and that his widow would be denied the benefit of the widow's allowance provided by said order in the event of his death, and that he is denied his rights and privileges as a Mason, and otherwise injured in his good name and reputation as a citizen," etc.
 The prayer of the bill asked that the action of Evans, the Grand Master, "be declared null and void and that he be restored to his rights and privileges as a member of Universal Lodge Number Fourteen, and that the said Grand Master and Universal Lodge Number Fourteen be enjoined from interfering with him in the exercise of his rights as Master of said lodge, and from preventing him from attending the meetings thereof."
 The Court passed an order thereon directing the writ of injunction to be issued, as prayed, unless cause to the contrary be shown, on or before the day therein named. *Page 512
 Evans, the Grand Master, answered the bill, denying that his action in suspending the plaintiff was null and void and alleging that it was in strict accordance with the laws and constitution of the order.
 The other defendant, Universal Lodge Number Fourteen, the subordinate lodge, filed its answer admitting the facts alleged in the bill of complaint and consenting to the granting of the relief prayed.
 While these proceedings were still pending in the Equity Court for Anne Arundel County, the Grand Lodge met in Hagerstown, in August, 1914.
 In the meantime, however, Valentine had employed counsel and had taken an appeal from the action of the Grand Master in suspending him. The regularity and sufficiency of the appeal is not assailed.
 Then Grand Lodge met on the 17th of August. Valentine was there with McGuinn, his counsel, and with witnesses in support of his appeal. The counsel of Valentine testified that when the question of Valentine's suspension was brought before the lodge by the Grand Master, he was not permitted to defend him. He stated that he arrived in Hagerstown on the morning of the 17th of August about noon. "I did not attend the morning session of the Grand Lodge. When I appeared the Grand Lodge had * * * taken a recess. I saw the Grand Master, Joseph P. Evans, and asked him for the personnel of committee that would hear Mr. Valentine's case. He told me that the commission had been appointed but he would not tell me who they were nor when they would meet. He did say to me, however, that you can not appear before that commission representing Brother Valentine, or Mr. Valentine, I don't know which he called him, for I have filed charges against you and you are a criminal, using his exact words, and you can not appear before that commission. I asked him for a copy of the charges that had been filed against me and he said `That is all right.' I said, is it final that I can not represent Mr. Valentine? He said you can not appear before that commission. I then left him and reported the interview *Page 513
 to Mr. Valentine, but before leaving him in order to induce him to reverse his decision, I told him that I had prepared Mr. Valentine's case, that he had retained me to do so and I was there for the purpose of presenting his side of the matter, and it would put him in a very awkward position and he said that it didn't matter. I conversed with Mr. Valentine and told him that I had been rejected as his counsel, and said to him I don't know what to advise you; I can not represent you any further, the Grand Master says I can not."
 Evans, when upon the stand, testified that he did not object to McGuinn's appearing as counsel for Valentine but thought it better that he should not appear for others, against whom charges had been made, in as much as he, McGuinn, was implicated and charged with them in the commission of the offense for which they were to be tried. The charges against them were that they had divulged the secrets of the order when upon the stand as witnesses in the equity case pending in Anne Arundel County, after having been subpoenaed to appear and testify therein.
 Valentine testified that upon being told by his counsel that he was not permitted to defend him he did not enter the hall but remained upon the outside, and did not attend the hearing before the commission but returned to his home. Whatever may have been said and done by the Grand Master in relation to the hearing of the charges before the commission, that is, whether the statements made by McGuinn were true or untrue, it is a conceded fact that the charges submitted to the commission, named at the session of the Grand Lodge, for its consideration, included other charges than those upon which Valentine had been suspended. These charges were presented by the Grand Master at the morning session of the lodge on August 17th, in the absence of both Valentine and his counsel, and were considered by the commission on the afternoon of that day and at the next morning session the result of their investigation was reported to the Grand Lodge, and Valentine was then expelled. Thereafter on that day the *Page 514
 Grand Lodge adjourned. The additional charges were at such time unknown to Valentine or his counsel, as asserted by them, but if known to them, no sufficient opportunity was afforded Valentine to defend against such charges.
 The report of the commission shows that such additional charges were considered and passed upon by them and that upon such charges, with those for which he had been suspended, Valentine was expelled from the order.
 The report stated that they found Valentine guilty of the charges named in the report of the investigating commission, and also "of contumacy in refusing to act knowingly subjection to the Grand Lodge of the jurisdiction of Maryland." The contumacy of which he was found guilty consisted of his invoking the aid of the Equity Court for Anne Arundel County to redress the alleged wrong inflicted upon him by his suspension by the Grand Master.
 Thereafter, the plaintiff amended his bill, by further alleging his wrongful expulsion from the order by the Grand Lodge and asked that it too be made a party defendant to his bill.
 The amended bill was first demurred to, but upon its being overruled, an answer was filed by Evans and the Grand Lodge, in which they allege that the matter of Valentine's expulsion was considered at the session of the Grand Lodge in the presence of his counsel and with the knowledge of both of them, and no protest was made by either; that he failed to exhaust the remedies provided by the order; and further allege that his expulsion "was in conformity with the constitution laws and regulations of the Masonic Fraternity, and in strict regard of every right and privilege of the complainant."
 Much evidence was taken upon the issues framed, and thereupon the Court "adjudged, ordered and decreed that the action of the Most Worshipful United Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Maryland, expelling Henry Valentine, the plaintiff, from Masonry forever, be and the same is hereby declared to be null and void," and the clerk of the *Page 515
 Court was ordered and directed to issue the writ of injunction directed to the said Grand Lodge and to the said Joseph P. Evans, Grand Master thereof, enjoining and strictly forbidding the said Grand Lodge and the said Grand Master thereof from interfering with the plaintiff, Henry Valentine, "in the exercise of such masonic rights and privileges as he would have enjoyed as a member of the order, but for such action of the said * * * Grand Lodge in expelling him from Masonry forever." It is from this order or decree that this appeal is taken.
 The law, applicable to cases of the character of the one before us is now well established in this State. Where it is shown that the proceedings instituted against a member of an association have not been conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules of procedure in such cases, and that in violation of such rules, he has been given no opportunity to appear and defend himself before the tribunal which is to hear and determine the charges preferred against him, the Court when called upon will not hesitate to interfere in his behalf against the invasion of such rights, if it be shown that he has exhausted the remedies furnished him by the association. Grand Lodge v. Lee,128 Md. 42; Zeliff v. Knights of Pythias, 53 N.J.L. 537, and other cases cited in note to McGuinness v. Forresters of America,
 Vol. 3, 211, of Amer. Eng. Annotated cases.
 Section 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution, sub-title "General Regulations," provides:
 "No penalty shall be inflicted by the lodge until after a fair trial and examination of evidence, or confession, the fact of guilt shall be manifest. The manner of trial shall be as follows: The written charge and specification shall be filed with the secretary of the lodge, whose duty it shall be to have a copy thereof delivered to the accused, as also a notice which shall give a reasonable time for the taking of proof to sustain the charges and specifications; also to inform the accused that he may, at the same time and place, offer proof to exculpate himself from such charges, and that the accused *Page 516
 may also have leave to prove at such other time and place as he may designate upon giving reasonable notice to the master or presiding officer of said lodge; for which purpose the lodge shall allow reasonable time, if asked for, and in all cases the whole testimony shall be reduced to writing if not improper to be written, and shall be carefully preserved by the secretary of the lodge."
 And further provides:
 "The object of all Masonic penalties is declared to be twofold, to vindicate the honor of Masonry and to reform the erring brother. The only penalties recognized by this lodge or known to Free Masonry are expulsion, suspension and reprimand.
 "The highest grade of Masonic punishment is expulsion. It is only to be inflicted for aggravated offenses or for contumacy in refusing to acknowledge subjection to the lodge, or for such offenses as are notoriously subversive of the foundations of virtue and morality, and would therefore be calculated to render the Masonic institution contemptible in the eyes of the community."
 As was so well said by JUDGE THOMAS in his opinion, rendered in the lower Court:
 "The only charge preferred against the plaintiff in January, 1914, and the only offense for which he was tried, was that he had violated section 6 of Article 1 by holding a meeting of the lodge at a place other than the place where its regular meetings were held, and the action of the Grand Master in February, 1914, was based upon the findings of a committee appointed by him to investigate that charge, and that was the only offense covered by his appeal to the Grand Lodge from the action of the Grand Master. It appears, however, from the report of the committee of the Grand Lodge that it investigated other and distinct charges against the plaintiff, and that its report and recommendation, which were approved by the Grand Lodge, *Page 517
 were based, at least in part, upon the findings of the committee that he was guilty of such other
 offenses. By the terms of the report it would seem that the committee of the Grand Lodge appointed to investigate the charges against Valentine based its recommendation of expulsion mainly upon its finding that he was guilty of `contumacy' in having taken the lodge into court, and there is no evidence in the case that the plaintiff ever had had any notice that such a charge was to be preferred against him, or that he was given such reasonable opportunity to defend himself against such a charge as the constitution, by-laws and regulations of the order would seem to contemplate.
 "It is not clear from the language of section 1 of Article 5, sub-title `General Regulations,' of the constitution, quoted above, that it was intended to apply to trials in the Grand Lodge, but the justice of that provision would seem equally applicable to such trials. Certainly a member charged with such a serious offense as to warrant his expulsion from the order should be given some notice of the charge and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before the tribunal appointed to try him. Even assuming, according to the contention of the defendants, that the plaintiff was in Hagerstown on the 17th of August, 1914, and then learned for the first time that the charges were preferred against him; that a committee had been appointed to investigate the charges, and that the committee would sit in the afternoon of that day to hear the case; that he did not appear before the committee, and that he did not defend himself in the Grand Lodge against the adoption of the report of the committee, it can not be said that he had such a fair trial as the constitution, rules and regulations of the order provided for, or as justice and fair dealing would require, or, under the circumstances disclosed by the record, that he acquiesced in what was done. Camp No. 6 v. Arrington, 107 Md. 319; Worshipful Grand Lodge v. Lee, 128 Md. 42; Smith v. Merriott, 130 Md. 453; *Page 518 Grand Lodge v. Lee, 131 Md. 681.
 "He should have been given such reasonable notice of the charges preferred against him as would have enabled him to prepare for his trial, and to have appeared with his witnesses and defend himself before the tribunal which was to hear and determine the charges against him, in accordance with the constitution, rules and regulations of the order. That, it would seem upon any view of the evidence contained in the record, was denied the plaintiff, and as no appeal from the action of the Grand Lodge is now provided for in the constitution, rules and regulations of the order, there would be no remedy for the wrong done the plaintiff unless a Court of Equity intervenes to declare the action of the Grand Lodge null and void."
 The order and decree passed by the lower Court was in our opinion properly passed and should be affirmed.
 Order or decree affirmed, with costs. *Page 519


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21978A1130(03)
 Aftale i form af brevveksling mellem Det europæiske økonomiske Fællesskab og Den demokratiske folkerepublik Algeriet vedrørende fastsættelse for perioden 1. november 1978 - 31. oktober 1979 af det tillægsbeløb, som skal fratrækkes den afgift, der anvendes ved indførsel til Fællesskabet af ikke-behandlet olivenolie med oprindelse i Algeriet
 EF-Tidende nr. L 332 af 29/11/1978 s. 0021 - 0022
 ++++ AFTALE i form af brevveksling mellem Det europaeiske oekonomiske Faellesskab og Den demokratiske Folkerepublik Algeriet vedroerende fastsaettelse for perioden 1 . november 1978-31 . oktober 1979 af det tillaegsbeloeb , som skal fratraekkes den afgift , der anvendes ved indfoersel til faellesskabet af ikke-behandlet olivenolie med oprindelse i Algeriet Brev nr . 1 Hr . I bilag B til samarbejdsaftalen og interimsaftalen mellem Det europaeiske oekonomiske Faellesskab og den demokratiske folkerepublik Algeriet bestemmes det med hensyn til ikkebehandlet olivenolie henhoerende under pos . 15.07 A I i den faelles toldtarif , at det beloeb , der skal fratraekkes afgiften i henhold til artikel 16 , stk . 1 , litra b ) , i samarbejdsaftalen og artikel 9 , stk . 1 , litra b ) , i interimsaftalen , forhoejes med et tillaegsbeloeb for at tage hensyn til visse faktorer og afhaengigt af betingelserne paa olivenoliemarkedet ; forhoejelsen sker paa samme vilkaar og efter samme retningslinjer som dem , der er fastsat for anvendelsen af ovennaevnte bestemmelser . For saa vidt angaar perioden 1 . november 1978-31 . oktober 1979 , kan jeg meddele Dem , at Faellesskabet paa baggrund af kriterierne i ovennaevnte bilag , vil traeffe de noedvendige foranstaltninger for , at tillaegsbeloebet fortsat udgoer 10 regningsenheder pr . 100 kg . Jeg beder Dem venligst anerkende modtagelsen af dette brev og over for mig bekraefte Deres regerings tiltraedelse af dets indhold . Modtag , hr . ... , forsikringen om min mest udmaerkede hoejagtelse . Paa Raadet for De europaeiske Faellesskabers vegne Brev nr . 2 Hr . Jeg anerkender herved modtagelsen af Deres brev af dags dato med foelgende ordlyd : " I bilag B til samarbejdsaftalen og interimsaftalen mellem Det europaeiske oekonomiske Faellesskab og Den demokratiske folkerepublik Algeriet bestemmes det med hensyn til ikke-behandlet olivenolie henhoerende under pos . 15.07 A I i den faelles toldtarif , at det beloeb , der skal fratraekkes afgiften i henhold til artikel 16 , stk . 1 , litra b ) , i samarbejdsaftalen og artikel 9 , stk . 1 , litra b ) , i interimsaftalen , forhoejes med et tillaegsbeloeb for at tage hensyn til visse faktorer og afhaengigt af betingelserne paa olivenoliemarkedet ; forhoejelsen sker paa samme vilkaar og efter samme retningslinjer som dem , der er fastsat for anvendelsen af ovennaevnte bestemmelser . For saa vidt angaar perioden 1 . november 1978-31 . oktober 1979 , kan jeg meddele Dem , at Faellesskabet paa baggrund af kriterierne i ovennaevnte bilag , vil traeffe de noedvendige foranstaltninger for , at tillaegsbeloebet fortsat udgoer 10 regningsenheder pr . 100 kg . Jeg beder Dem venligst anerkende modtagelsen af dette brev og over for mig bekraefte Deres regerings tiltraedelse af dets indhold . " Jeg bekraefter , at min regering kan tiltraede det foregaaende . Modtag , hr . ... , forsikringen om min mest udmaerkede hoejagtelse . For regeringen for Den demokratiske folkerepublik Algeriet


type: wikipedia

text:
Sēnes (fungi, mycota) ir atsevišķa organismu grupa jeb valsts. Sēnes nav ne augi, ne dzīvnieki. Atšķirībā no augiem, sēnes nesatur hlorofilu, tādēļ nespēj pašas sev saražot nepieciešamās barības vielas. Šajā aspektā tās vairāk atgādina dzīvniekus, jo pārtiek no jau gatavām citu organismu saražotām organiskajām vielām. Taču sēnēm nav ne nervu, ne orgānu sistēmas, un tām nepiemīt spēja pārvietoties, kas raksturīga dzīvniekiem. Turklāt, sēnes vairojas ar mikroskopisku reproduktīvo vienību palīdzību, kuras sauc par sporām. Sporas pēc savas uzbūves ir daudz vienkāršākas nekā olas vai sēklas un lielākoties sastāv tikai no vienas šūnas. Ar vārdu "sēne" bieži saprot tikai sēnes virszemes reproduktīvo daļu jeb augļķermeni. Taču, tāpat kā ābols vai ķirbis, sēne ir tikai daļa no vesela organisma. Daudzu sēņu uzbūve ir ārkārtīgi smalka un to dzīves cikli ir vieni no vissarežģītākajiem uz mūsu planētas. Precīzs, dabā sastopamo sēņu sugu skaits nav zināms. 2020. gadā dokumentētas vairāk kā 148 000 dažādu sēņu sugu, taču to kopējais skaits uz mūsu planētas tiek lēsts vismaz ap 2500000. Latvijā sastopamas vairāk kā 4000 dažādu sēņu sugu.
 Sēņu klasifikācija pilnībā vēl nav izstrādāta. Ir organismu grupas, kuras dažādi autori liek vai pie sēnēm, vai pie protistiem. Ir liela sēņu grupa Deuteromycetes, apmēram 15000 sugu, kuru taksonomiskais stāvoklis nav skaidrs.
 Tāpat nav skaidrs, kur likt ķērpjus, jo tie nav īsti organismi, bet simbiotiskas grupas, kas sastāv no sēņu un aļģu saaugumiem. Šajā klasifikācijā tie ir pielikti pie sēnēm, jo sēnes ir neatņemams ķērpju elements. Fotosintezējošie komponenti var būt dažādi, gan prokariotiskās zilaļģes, gan eikariotiskās zaļaļģes. Mēdz būt gadījumi, kad vienā ķērpju sugā var būt dažādu sugu aļģes. Pie tam lielākā aļģu daļa dzīvo arī brīvā veidā. Savukārt ķērpjus veidojošās sēnes brīvā veidā nav sastopamas. Tās ir vai nu bazīdijsēnes, vai nu asku sēnes, bet ne sēņu kombinācijas.
 Valsts: Fungi (Sēnes)
 Nodalījums: Basidiomycota (Bazīdijsēnes)
 Nodalījums: Ascomycota (Asku sēnes)
 Nodalījums: Zygomycota (Zigomikotas)
 Nodalījums: Chytridiomycota (Hitridiomikotas)
 Nodalījums: Glomeromycota (Glomeromikotas)
 Nodalījums: Lichenes (Ķērpji)
 Grupa: Deuteromycetes (Nepilnīgi pazīstamo sēņu grupa)
 Bioloģijas zinātnes nozari, kas pēta sēnes, sauc par mikoloģiju.
 Skatīt arī
 Sēne
 Pelējums
 Raugs
 Atsauces
 Ārējās saites


type: other

text:
Avaldustele vastamise seadus – Riigi Teataja
 Avaldustele vastamise seadus
 RT I 1994, 51, 857
 Vastu võetud 27.06.1994
 (õ) 26.11.2008 22:35
 Vabariigi Presidendi 8. juuli 1994. a.
 otsusega nr. 377
 § 1. Käesolev seadus sätestab nende märgukirjade ja avalduste läbivaatamise korra, mille läbivaatamise kord ei ole sätestatud muude seadustega.
 § 2. Käesolevas seaduses käsitletakse termineid järgmises tähenduses:
 1) riigiasutused – seadusandliku ja täidesaatva riigivõimu asutused;
 2) kohalikud omavalitsused – valla- ja linnavolikogud ning valla- (või osavalla) ja linna- või (linnaosa) valitsused.
 § 3. (1) Riigiasutused, kohalikud omavalitsused ja nende ametiisikud on kohustatud neile adresseeritud märgukirjad ja avaldused registreerima ja neile kirjalikult vastama hiljemalt ühe kuu jooksul, arvates avalduse või märgukirja saabumisest. Täiendava uurimise vajadusel võivad riigiasutused, kohalikud omavalitsused ja nende ametiisikud tähtaega pikendada kahe kuuni.
 (2) Riigikogu liikmete märgukirjadele ja avaldustele on riigiasutused, kohalikud omavalitsused ja nende ametiisikud kohustatud vastama 10 päeva jooksul, arvates avalduse või märgukirja saabumisest. Täiendava uurimise vajadusel võivad riigiasutused, kohalikud omavalitsused ja nende ametiisikud tähtaega pikendada kuni ühe kuuni.
 (3) Tähtaja pikendamisel on riigiasutused, kohalikud omavalitsused ja nende ametiisikud kohustatud sellest märgukirja või avalduse esitajat kirjalikult informeerima.
 § 4. Riigiasutused, kohalikud omavalitsused ja nende ametiisikud, kelle pädevusse ei kuulu nendele adresseeritud märgukirjades ja avaldustes tõstatatud küsimuste lahendamine, saadavad need viie päeva jooksul edasi kuuluvuse järgi, informeerides sellest kirjalikult avaldajat. Kui küsimus kuulub kohtu pädevusse, informeeritakse sellest kirjalikult avaldajat ilma avaldust kohtule edasi saatmata.
 § 5. Keelatud on suunata kaebusi sisaldavaid märgukirju lahendamiseks neile organitele või ametiisikutele, kelle tegevuse peale kaevatakse.
 § 6. (1) Riigiasutuste ja kohalike omavalitsuste juhid on kohustatud soovijaid isiklikult vastu võtma selleks ettenähtud ja teatavaks tehtud vastuvõtuaegadel, kuid mitte harvem kui üks kord kuus.
 (2) Isiklikel vastuvõttudel esitatud märgukirjad ja avaldused kuuluvad registreerimisele.
 § 7. (1) Märgukiri või avaldus esitatakse masinakirjas või selgesti loetavas käekirjas.
 (2) Märgukirjas või avalduses peab olema märgitud:
 1) riigiasutuse või kohaliku omavalitsuse nimetus, kuhu märgukiri või avaldus on adresseeritud;
 2) avaldaja nimi, juriidilise isiku nimetus, elu- või asukoht (postiaadress);
 3) märgukirjas esitatava informatsiooni, kaebuse või ettepaneku sisu ja seda põhjustavad asjaolud;
 4) avalduses esitatava pöördumise või taotluse selgelt väljendatud sisu;
 5) võimalusel märgukirja või avaldust kinnitavad dokumendid.
 (3) Märgukirjale või avaldusele kirjutab alla selle esitaja. Juriidilise isiku nimel esitatud märgukirjale või avaldusele kirjutab alla tema juht või muu selleks volitatud ametiisik. Märgukirjale või avaldusele märgitakse selle esitamise kuupäev.
 (4) Kui märgukiri või avaldus esitatakse teise isiku huvides, tuleb märkida ka selle isiku ees- ja perekonnanimi, alaline elu- või asukoht (postiaadress), kelle huvides märgukiri või avaldus esitatakse.
 § 8. Riigiasutustel, kohalikel omavalitsustel ja nende ametiisikutel on märgukirjade ja avalduste läbivaatamisel õigus:
 1) vajaduse korral kontrollida olukorda kohtadel;
 2) välja nõuda täiendavaid dokumente;
 3) kasutada eksperte.
 § 9. (1) Kui avaldaja ei ole nõus tema poolt esitatud märgukirja või avalduse põhjal tehtud otsusega, on tal õigus edasi kaevata kõrgemalseisvale riigiorganile või kohtusse, aga kohaliku omavalitsuse täitevorgani otsuse korral kas vastavale volikogule või kohtusse.
 (2) Avaldaja palvel on riigiasutuse või kohaliku omavalitsuse ametiisik kohustatud selgitama edasikaebamise korda.
 § 10. Märgukirjadele ja avaldustele vastamata jätmise või mittenõuetekohase vastamise eest vastutab ametiisik distsiplinaar- või kohtumenetluse korras.
 § 11. Märgukirjade ja avalduste läbivaatamisega seotud asjaajamise korra kehtestab Vabariigi Valitsus.
 Riigikogu esimees Ülo NUGIS
 Lisatud avaldamisandmed.