type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 |
 52011PC0620
 Priekšlikums PADOMES LĒMUMS ar ko atbilstoši Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulai (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 atļauj laist tirgū produktus, kas satur ģenētiski modificētu kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23 (DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5), sastāv vai ir ražoti no tās /* COM/2011/0620 galīgā redakcija - 2011/0264 (NLE) */
 PASKAIDROJUMA RAKSTSPievienotais Padomes lēmuma priekšlikums attiecas uz pārtiku un barību, kas satur ģenētiski modificētu kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23 (DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5), sastāv vai ir ražota no tās un par kuru saskaņā ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 par ģenētiski modificētu pārtiku un barību uzņēmums Dow AgroSciences Europe 2005. gada 22. jūnijā Nīderlandes kompetentajai iestādei iesniedza pieprasījumu par laišanu tirgū.Pievienotais priekšlikums attiecas arī uz tādu produktu laišanu tirgū, kas satur kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23 vai sastāv no tās, bet kas nav pārtika un barība, un kas paredzēti tādiem pašiem izmantošanas veidiem kā jebkura cita kokvilna, izņemot audzēšanu.Eiropas Pārtikas nekaitīguma iestāde 2010. gada 15. jūnijā saskaņā ar Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 6. un 18. pantu sniedza labvēlīgu atzinumu. Tā uzskatīja, ka attiecībā uz potenciālo ietekmi uz cilvēku un dzīvnieku veselību vai vidi kokvilna 281-24-236x3006-210-23 ir tikpat droša kā ģenētiski nemodificēta kokvilna. Tāpēc tā secināja, ka maz ticams, ka, laižot tirgū produktus, kas satur kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23, sastāv vai ir ražoti no tās, kā minēts pieteikumā, saistībā ar tās paredzēto izmantošanu tiks negatīvi ietekmēta cilvēku vai dzīvnieku veselība vai vide.Pamatojoties uz šiem apsvērumiem, 2011. gada 9. februārī Pārtikas aprites un dzīvnieku veselības pastāvīgajai komitejai tika iesniegts Komisijas lēmuma projekts, ar ko atļauj laist Savienības tirgū produktus, kas satur ģenētiski modificētu kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23, sastāv vai ir ražoti no tās, lai komiteja par to balsotu. Komiteja nesniedza atzinumu ― 14 dalībvalstis (192 balsis) balsoja par, 10 dalībvalstis (87 balsis) balsoja pret un 3 dalībvalstis (66 balsis) atturējās.Tādējādi atbilstoši Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 35. panta 2. punktam un saskaņā ar 5. pantu Padomes Lēmumā 1999/468/EK, kas grozīts ar Padomes Lēmumu 2006/512/EK, Komisijai jāiesniedz Padomei priekšlikums par veicamajiem pasākumiem, savukārt Padomei trīs mēnešu laikā ar kvalificētu balstu vairākumu jāpieņem lēmums un par to jāinformē Parlaments.2011/0264 (NLE)PriekšlikumsPADOMES LĒMUMSar ko atbilstoši Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulai (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 atļauj laist tirgū produktus, kas satur ģenētiski modificētu kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23 (DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5), sastāv vai ir ražoti no tās(Autentisks ir tikai teksts angļu valodā)(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME,ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Savienības darbību,ņemot vērā Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2003. gada 22. septembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 par ģenētiski modificētu pārtiku un barību[1] un jo īpaši tās 7. panta 3. punktu un 19. panta 3. punktu,ņemot vērā Eiropas Komisijas priekšlikumu,tā kā:1. Uzņēmums Dow AgroSciences Europe saskaņā ar Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 5. un 17. pantu 2005. gada 22. jūnijā iesniedza pieteikumu Nīderlandes kompetentajai iestādei, lai laistu tirgū pārtiku, pārtikas sastāvdaļas un barību, kas satur kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23, sastāv vai ir ražota no tās (“pieteikums”).2. Pieteikums attiecas arī uz tādu produktu laišanu tirgū, kas satur kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23 vai sastāv no tās, bet kas nav pārtika un barība, un kas paredzēti tādiem pašiem izmantošanas veidiem kā jebkura cita kokvilna, izņemot audzēšanu. Tāpēc saskaņā ar Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 5. panta 5. punktu un 17. panta 5. punktu tajā ir iekļauti dati un informācija, kas vajadzīga atbilstoši III un IV pielikumam Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2001. gada 12. marta Direktīvā 2001/18/EK par ģenētiski modificētu organismu apzinātu izplatīšanu vidē un Padomes Direktīvas 90/220/EEK atcelšanu[2], un informācija un secinājumi par riska novērtējumu, kas veikts saskaņā ar Direktīvas 2001/18/EK II pielikumā noteiktajiem principiem. Turklāt tajā, ievērojot Direktīvas 2001/18/EK VII pielikumu, ir iekļauts monitoringa plāns par ietekmi uz vidi.3. Saskaņā Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 6. un 18. pantu Eiropas Pārtikas nekaitīguma iestāde (“ EFSA ”) 2010. gada 15. jūnijā sniedza labvēlīgu atzinumu. Tā uzskatīja, ka attiecībā uz potenciālo ietekmi uz cilvēku un dzīvnieku veselību vai vidi kokvilna 281-24-236x3006-210-23 ir tikpat droša kā ģenētiski nemodificēta kokvilna. Tāpēc tā secināja, ka maz ticams, ka, laižot tirgū produktus, kas satur kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23, sastāv vai ir ražoti no tās, kā minēts pieteikumā (“produkti”), saistībā ar tās paredzēto izmantošanu tiks negatīvi ietekmēta cilvēku vai dzīvnieku veselība vai vide[3].4. Apspriedusies ar valstu kompetentajām iestādēm, kā noteikts minētās regulas 6. panta 4. punktā un 18. panta 4. punktā, EFSA savā atzinumā ņēma vērā visus dalībvalstu uzdotos konkrētos jautājumus un paustās bažas.5. Turklāt šajā atzinumā EFSA secināja, ka pieteikuma iesniedzēja iesniegtais vides monitoringa plāns, kurā ietverts vispārējs uzraudzības plāns, atbilst paredzētajam produktu izmantošanas veidam. Tomēr kokvilnas sēklu fizikālo īpašību un transportēšanas metožu dēļ vispārējas uzraudzības nolūkā EFSA ieteica ieviest konkrētus pasākumus, lai aktīvi uzraudzītu savvaļas kokvilnas augu izplatību reģionos, kur iespējama sēklu izkaisīšana un augu iesakņošanās.6. Lai labāk aprakstītu monitoringa prasības un panāktu atbilstību EFSA ieteikumam, tika grozīts pieteikuma iesniedzēja iesniegtais monitoringa plāns. Tika ieviesti īpaši pasākumi, lai ierobežotu sēklu izkaisīšanos un augu izplatīšanos un apkarotu netīšu kokvilnas populāciju izveidošanos.7. Ņemot vērā šos apsvērumus, produktiem jāpiešķir atļauja.8. Saskaņā ar Komisijas 2004. gada 14. janvāra Regulu (EK) Nr. 65/2004, ar ko nosaka sistēmu ģenētiski modificēto organismu unikālo identifikatoru izveidei un piešķiršanai[4], katram ĢMO piešķirams unikāls identifikators.9. Pamatojoties uz EFSA atzinumu, pārtikai, pārtikas sastāvdaļām un barībai, kas satur kokvilnu 281-24-236x3006-210-23, sastāv vai ir ražota no tās, nav vajadzīgas īpašas marķēšanas prasības, izņemot tās, kas noteiktas Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 13. panta 1. punktā un 25. panta 2. punktā. Tomēr, lai nodrošinātu, ka produkti tiek izmantoti tikai atļaujā noteiktajos veidos saskaņā ar šo lēmumu, marķējot barību, kas satur ĢMO vai sastāv no tiem, un produktus, kas nav pārtika un barība un kas satur ĢMO vai sastāv no tiem, un kam ir pieprasīta atļauja, ir skaidri jānorāda, ka attiecīgos produktus nedrīkst izmantot audzēšanai.10. Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2003. gada 22. septembra Regulas (EK) Nr. 1830/2003, kas attiecas uz ģenētiski modificētu organismu izsekojamību un marķēšanu, kā arī no ģenētiski modificētiem organismiem ražotu pārtikas un lopbarības produktu izsekojamību, un ar ko groza Direktīvu 2001/18/EK[5], 4. panta 6. punktā noteiktas marķēšanas prasības produktiem, kas satur ĢMO vai sastāv no tiem. To produktu izsekojamības prasības, kuri satur ĢMO vai sastāv no tiem, ir izklāstītas minētās regulas 4. panta 1. līdz 5. punktā, un tās pārtikas un barības izsekojamības prasības, kura ražota no ĢMO, izklāstītas minētās regulas 5. pantā.11. Atļaujas turētājam jāiesniedz ikgadēji ziņojumi par to pasākumu īstenošanu un rezultātiem, kuri izklāstīti ietekmes uz vidi monitoringa plānā. Minētie rezultāti jāiesniedz saskaņā ar Komisijas 2009. gada 13. oktobra Lēmumu 2009/770/EK, ar ko atbilstīgi Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīvai 2001/18/EK nosaka standarta ziņojuma paraugus monitoringa rezultātu paziņošanai par to ģenētiski modificētu organismu apzinātu izplatīšanu vidē, kas ir produkti vai iekļauti produktos ar mērķi tos laist tirgū[6]. EFSA atzinumā nav pamatojuma tam, lai izvirzītu īpašus nosacījumus vai ierobežojumus saistībā ar laišanu tirgū un/vai attiecībā uz pārtikas un barības izmantošanu un darbībām ar to, ieskaitot pārtikas un barības izmantošanas uzraudzību pēc laišanas tirgū, kā arī īpašus nosacījumus konkrētu ekosistēmu/vides un/vai ģeogrāfisko teritoriju aizsardzībai, kā paredzēts Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 6. panta 5. punkta e) apakšpunktā un 18. panta 5. punktā.12. Visa attiecīgā informācija par atļauju piešķiršanu produktiem jāiekļauj ģenētiski modificētās pārtikas un barības Kopienas reģistrā, kā paredzēts Regulā (EK) Nr. 1829/2003.13. Šis lēmums ar Bioloģiskās drošības starpniecības centra palīdzību ir jāizziņo valstīm, kuras parakstījušas Kartahenas protokolu par bioloģisko drošību, kas pievienots Konvencijai par bioloģisko daudzveidību, kā noteikts 9. panta 1. punktā un 15. panta 2. punkta c) apakšpunktā Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2003. gada 15. jūlija Regulā (EK) Nr. 1946/2003 par ģenētiski modificētu organismu pārvietošanu pāri robežām[7].14. Par šajā lēmumā paredzētajiem pasākumiem apspriedās ar pieteikuma iesniedzēju.15. Pārtikas aprites un dzīvnieku veselības pastāvīgā komiteja nav sniegusi atzinumu tās priekšsēdētāja noteiktajā termiņā,IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.1. pants Ģenētiski modificēts organisms un unikāls identifikatorsĢenētiski modificētai kokvilnai ( Gossypium hirsutum ) 281-24-236x3006-210-23, kas norādīta šā lēmuma pielikuma b) punktā, saskaņā ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 65/2004 ir piešķirts unikālais identifikators DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5.2. pantsAtļaujaSaskaņā ar šajā lēmumā paredzētajiem nosacījumiem Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 4. panta 2. punkta un 16. panta 2. punkta vajadzībām atļaujas piešķir šādiem produktiem:a) pārtikai un pārtikas sastāvdaļām, kas satur kokvilnu DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5, sastāv vai ir ražota no tās;b) barībai, kas satur kokvilnu DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5, sastāv no tās vai ir ražota no tās;c) produktiem, kas nav pārtika un barība un kas satur kokvilnu DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5 vai sastāv no tās, un kas paredzēti tādai pašai izmantošanai kā jebkura cita kokvilna, izņemot audzēšanu.3. pants Marķēšana1. Ievērojot Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 13. panta 1. punktā un 25. panta 2. punktā un Regulas (EK) Nr. 1830/2003 4. panta 6. punktā noteiktās marķēšanas prasības, “organisma nosaukums” ir “kokvilna”.2. Uz 2. panta b) un c) apakšpunktā minēto produktu, kas satur kokvilnu DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5 vai sastāv no tās, marķējuma un to pavaddokumentos ir frāze “nav paredzēts audzēšanai”.4. pants Ietekmes uz vidi monitorings1. Atļaujas turētājs nodrošina, lai tiktu izveidots un īstenots ietekmes uz vidi monitoringa plāns, kā norādīts pielikuma h) punktā.2. Atļaujas turētājs iesniedz Komisijai ikgadējus ziņojumus par monitoringa plānā izklāstīto pasākumu īstenošanu un rezultātiem saskaņā ar Komisijas Lēmumu 2009/770/EK.5. pantsKopienas reģistrsŠā lēmuma pielikumā izklāstīto informāciju saskaņā ar Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 28. pantu iekļauj ģenētiski modificētās pārtikas un barības Kopienas reģistrā.6. pantsAtļaujas turētājsAtļaujas turētājs ir uzņēmums Dow AgroSciences Europe , Apvienotā Karaliste, kas pārstāv uzņēmumu Mycogen Seeds , Amerikas Savienotās Valstis.7. pantsPiemērošanas termiņšŠo lēmumu piemēro 10 gadus no tā izziņošanas dienas.8. pantsAdresātsŠis lēmums ir adresēts uzņēmumam Dow AgroSciences Europe , European Development Centre , 3 Milton Park , Abingdon , Oxon OX14 4RN, Apvienotā Karaliste.Briselē,Padomes vārdā —priekšsēdētājsPIELIKUMSa) Pieteikuma iesniedzējs un atļaujas turētājsNosaukums: Dow AgroSciences EuropeAdrese: European Development Centre , 3 Milton Park , Abingdon , Oxon OX14 4RN, United Kingdomb) Produktu apzīmējums un specifikācija(1) Pārtika un pārtikas sastāvdaļas, kas satur kokvilnu DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5, sastāv vai ir ražota no tās;(2) barība, kas satur kokvilnu DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5, sastāv no tās vai ir ražota no tās;(3) produkti, kas nav pārtika un barība un kas satur kokvilnu DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5 vai sastāv no tās, un kas paredzēti tādai pašai izmantošanai kā jebkura cita kokvilna, izņemot audzēšanu.Ģenētiski modificēta kokvilna DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5 ( Gossypium hirsutum ), kā aprakstīts pieteikumā, rada Cry1Ac un Cry1F proteīnus, kas nodrošina aizsardzību pret dažiem tauriņu kārtas kaitēkļiem, un PAT proteīnu, ko izmanto kā ģenētisko marķieri un kas piešķir noturību pret glufozinātamonija herbicīdu.c) Marķējums(1) Ievērojot Regulas (EK) Nr. 1829/2003 13. panta 1. punktā un 25. panta 2. punktā un Regulas (EK) Nr. 1830/2003 4. panta 6. punktā noteiktās marķēšanas prasības, “organisma nosaukums” ir “kokvilna”.(2) Uz šā lēmuma 2. panta b) un c) apakšpunktā minēto produktu, kas satur kokvilnu DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5 vai sastāv no tās, marķējuma un to pavaddokumentos ir frāze “nav paredzēts audzēšanai”.d) Noteikšanas metode- Konkrētam gadījumam atbilstoša un reālā laikā izmantota kvantitatīva uz polimerāzes ķēdes reakciju balstīta metode attiecībā uz kokvilnu DAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5;- validēta sēklām Kopienas references laboratorijā, kas izveidota saskaņā ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 1829/2003, publicēta vietnē http://gmo-crl.jrc.ec.europa.eu/statusofdoss.htm;- atsauces materiāls: ERM®-BF422 pieejams Eiropas Komisijas Kopīgā pētniecības centra (KPC) Mērījumu un standartmateriālu institūta ( IRMM ) vietnē: https://irmm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/rmcatalogue.e) Unikālais identifikatorsDAS-24236-5xDAS-21Ø23-5f) Informācija, kas jānodrošina saskaņā ar II pielikumu Kartahenas protokolam par bioloģisko drošību, kurš papildina Konvenciju par bioloģisko daudzveidībuBioloģiskās drošības starpniecības centrs, ieraksta identifikācija: skatīt [ to be completed when notified ].g) Nosacījumi vai ierobežojumi produktu laišanai tirgū, izmantošanai vai darbībām ar tiemNepiemēro.h) Monitoringa plānsIetekmes uz vidi monitoringa plāns atbilstoši Direktīvas 2001/18/EK VII pielikumam.[Saite: internetā publicēts plāns]i) Prasības par uzraudzību pēc produktu laišanas tirgū attiecībā uz pārtikas produkta izmantošanu uzturāNepiemēro.Piezīme. Laika gaitā var būt nepieciešams mainīt saites uz attiecīgajiem dokumentiem. Šādas pārmaiņas tiks publiskotas, atjauninot datus ģenētiski modificētās pārtikas un barības Kopienas reģistrā. [1] OV L 268, 18.10.2003., 1. lpp.[2] OV L 106, 17.4.2001., 1. lpp.[3] http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2010-00863.[4] OV L 10, 16.1.2004., 5. lpp.[5] OV L 268, 18.10.2003., 24. lpp.[6] OV L 275, 21.10.2009., 9. lpp.[7] OV L 287, 5.11.2003., 1. lpp.


type: wikipedia

text:
Le competizioni di tiro con l'arco ai Giochi della III Olimpiade furono 6 eventi, 3 riservati agli uomini e 3 alle donne. Le gare si svolsero il 19 settembre 1904 presso il Francis Field della Washington University di Saint Louis e vi presero parte 29 atleti, tutti provenienti dagli Stati Uniti.
 Medagliere
 Risultati
 York doppio maschile
 Doppio Americano maschile
 Gara a squadre maschile
 Nazionale doppio femminile
 Columbia doppio femminile
 Gara a squadre femminile
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni
 Archery at the 1904 St. Louis Summer Games su Sports-reference.com
 Sport ai Giochi della III Olimpiade
 03


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21996D0307(06)
 Afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg nr. 73/95 af 15. december 1995 om ændring af bilag XIII (transport) til EØS-aftalen
 EF-Tidende nr. L 057 af 07/03/1996 s. 0039 - 0039
 AFGØRELSE TRUFFET AF DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG Nr. 73/95 af 15. december 1995 om ændring af bilag XIII (transport) til EØS-aftalen DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR -under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, som ændret ved protokollen om tilpasning af aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, i det følgende benævnt »aftalen«, særlig artikel 98, ogud fra følgende betragtninger:Bilag XIII til aftalen blev sidst ændret ved afgørelse nr. 60/95 truffet af Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg (1);Rådets resolution 95/C 169/02 af 19. juni 1995 om udflytninger inden for luftfarten (2) bør indarbejdes i aftalen -TRUFFET FØLGENDE AFGØRELSE:Artikel 1 I bilag XIII til aftalen indføjes følgende efter punkt 83 (Rådets resolution 95/C 169/01):»84. 395 Y 0705(02): Rådets resolution 95/C 169/02 af 19. juni 1995 om udflytninger inden for luftfarten (EFT nr. C 169 af 5. 7. 1995, s. 3).«Artikel 2 Den islandske og norske udgave af resolution 95/C 169/02, som er vedlagt som bilag til de pågældende sprogs versioner af denne afgørelse, er autentiske.Artikel 3 Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 1. januar 1996, forudsat at de i aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1 omhandlede notifikationer er blevet meddelt Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg.Artikel 4 Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i EØS-afsnittet i og EØS-tillægget til De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende.Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 15. december 1995.På Det Blandede EØS-Udvalgs vegneE. BERGFormand(1) Endnu ikke offentliggjort i Tidende.(2) EFT nr. C 169 af 5. 7. 1995, s. 3.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 321 Md. 572 (1991)
 583 A.2d 1037
 LESLIE ALLEN BINNIE
 v.
 STATE OF MARYLAND.
 No. 49, September Term, 1990.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 January 10, 1991.
 Jose Felipe Anderson, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, both on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
 Valerie J. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., both on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE and CHASANOW, JJ., ROBERT L. KARWACKI,[*] Judge of the Court of Special Appeals, Specially Assigned, and CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals (retired), Specially Assigned.
 CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Judge, Specially Assigned.
 Judgment was entered in the Circuit Court for Washington County against Leslie Allen Binnie upon his conviction by a jury of the misdemeanor of theft of property having a value of less than $300. Maryland Code (1957, 1987 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 342(a) and (f)(2). In fact, the value of the property was eleven dollars. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment in an unreported opinion. We granted Binnie's petition for a writ of certiorari and denied the State's conditional cross-petition.
 Binnie does not now challenge the proof of either the corpus delicti of the offense or his criminal agency. He seeks, however, a reversal of the judgment by reason of the trial judge's refusal to instruct the jury as he requested.
 The way the State said the incident happened was adduced through the testimony of James Tosadori, a security officer employed by J.C. Penney Co., Inc., at its store in Hagerstown, Maryland. "Security windows" (two-way mirrors) were located in strategic areas high up along the walls inside the store, enabling a clandestine observation of the sales floor. According to Tosadori, he was behind one of the windows, looking down on the "men's area" when he saw Binnie at a rack on which hats were displayed. Binnie took a black hat from the rack and hid it inside his jacket "under his left arm pit, put his hand in his pocket, stood there for a while," then walked through the store, "stopping along the way to browse at stuff but nothing really like he was going to buy, just stopping to look." Tosadori observed Binnie's movements by means of the mirrors and ultimately by direct contact on the sales floor. Tosadori tailed Binnie through the store to the outside. Binnie did not speak to anyone before he took the hat or to anyone after he placed the hat under his jacket. He did not converse at any time with a person in the store, employee, or customer  "[h]e walked straight out." Although there was a cash register near the hat rack, and cash registers along the route Binnie followed in leaving the store, Binnie made no effort to contact the employees who manned them.
 After Binnie left the store, Tosadori stopped him. Tosadori recounted what then ensued.
 I explained to him that I was Officer Tosadori. I was with J.C. Penney's security. I introduced Officer Mayer as the security manager. I said, "We have a problem. We're missing a hat." I asked ... he looked at my i.d. I handed him my i.d. and he looked at it and handed it back to me. I asked him if he would help me find it and he agreed. I said, "Okay let's start looking here." And I reached inside his jacket and from under his underarm I pulled out the black hat.
 * * * * * *
 We said, "Didn't you leave the store without paying for this?" And he said, "Yes." I said, "Well let's go upstairs to our operations manager's office and we have to fill out forms we're going to bar you from the store." He said okay.
 We went upstairs and filled out the forms that we fill out on shoplifters. He admitting to the theft and he said was dumb by doing it but he had done it anyway.
 The form was an acknowledgement that a person "has stolen something from our store," that "they know what they stole and they know it was wrong." Binnie "refused to sign it thinking that he would be giving up his rights."
 Tosadori identified the hat from a photograph and the photograph was admitted in evidence without objection. A price tag containing J.C. Penney's name was prominently attached to the hat. Tosadori pointed out that the tag was "about three inches long and you have your plastic thing" attaching it to the hat. The plastic "gismo" was "about two inches so it's going to hang down so the customer can find the price tag." Tosadori avowed that the hat was never on the floor beneath the rack and that he did not see Binnie "lean down and pick up anything off the floor" near the hat rack. The officer iterated that when apprehended, Binnie admitted he stole the hat and did not indicate in any way that he believed it to be lost or abandoned property. The only explanation Binnie gave for stealing the hat was that "it was dumb, he just wanted the hat and didn't feel like paying for it."
 Binnie's version as to how he came into possession of the hat may in no wise be reconciled with that of Tosadori. Binnie testified that he was in the store to buy some jackets and shirts. He met a friend and chatted with him. Something unusual occurred; he found a hat. His good fortune came about in this manner:
 While I was talking to my friend we were looking through a round rack similar to the one that was already testified, the round rack with the glass plate on top. I believe there was a sale sign sitting on top of it. That particular rack had clothes on it that were for sale and I believe one half had shirts on it and the other half had some jackets on it also for sale.
 He found the hat underneath the rack while he was "leafing through."
 I spread the shirts far enough apart that I was leafing through them like one would on a straight rack and I looked down and right at the base of the leg where it comes down in where the wheels were there was a hat laying on the ground.
 The hat was dirty.
 It looked like it might have been stepped on once or twice.... [I]t was crushed a little bit, the top of it. Usually when they're new they're you know nice and formed and nice and flat. And the top of it was crushed in.
 Binnie said:
 I made a comment to my friend that was standing there about I found a hat. I straightened the dent out and brushed the dirt off and I folded it around a little bit and I tried it on. And I said, "Well even it fits." And I looked for a price tag and there was no price tag visible at that time.
 He admitted that he was familiar with Penney's price tags, and he looked for a tag on the hat but did not see any.
 I looked over the hat and there was no price tag on it. So I was sort of interested you know in why exactly the hat was underneath there. And at the time I was standing about fifteen feet from the sales clerk [manning a cash register] so I turned around and asked her.
 He made no effort to conceal the hat. He walked over to the sales clerk and "asked her if this was a J.C. Penney hat."
 She said she did not know. I then asked her if ... if they sold such hats. She said she did not know but the hat rack was on the other side of the men's department in the corner I was free to go look.
 So Binnie went over to the rack to look "for similar hats or anything identifiable that would slightly relate to the hat [he] had found on the floor to the hats on the rack." Binnie claimed that there were "no hats on the rack that even come close to ... like the one [he] had in his hand. They all had price tags on their hats." So Binnie went back over to the salesperson, "a tall lady," he had just talked to.
 At that time I says, "There was no hats ... there was no price tag on the hat." I explained to her exactly that I had found it on the floor, there was no price tags on it. I went over and looked at the rack. There was no hats like it on the rack and at that point she said, "Well I guess it's yours" very jokingly and she laughed.
 At that point, Binnie said nothing further; "[he] walked out of the store." Binnie's friend had already left Binnie's presence. Binnie was carrying the hat "somewhat folded and just bent up a little bit ... just ... had a good grip on it." "[M]ost definitely," it was visible in his hand. When he was about 15 feet from the exit door of the store, he folded the cap up and stuck it in his pocket. When he reached the sidewalk outside the store, he was stopped by two men who proved to be Tosadori and Mayer, the security manager. They "grabbed" him and "spun [him] around."
 And there wasn't very much communication other than they did identify themselves and there was hardly any conversation. I believe it was Mr. Tosadori was on my left. They spun me around. He had one ... one hand here and the other hand he reached in at my coat and said, "What's this?" And at which time I think the older gentleman said, "You can come on with us."
 Binnie did not resist or try to run; he "was completely cooperative as much as possible." He was taken to the office.
 Once we were inside the office they accused me of stealing the hat. I tried to explain exactly what happened. And the older gentleman was some ... some very much badgering in my opinion that he kept on cutting me off.
 Binnie did not admit stealing the hat and refused to sign the form acknowledging that he stole it. He claimed that he did not see the price tag on the cap until he was in the office. He explained to the jury:
 "The tag apparently was inside of the lip [the sweatband of the cap]." I don't know if anybody has ever worn a baseball cap or had a chance to take a look at one of their son's or whatever. But they have a sweatband like on the inside. Now this particular tag was apparently on the inside of the hat and the tag was on the inside of the lip and therefore it was not visible when you would pick the hat up and look at it. The tag was not visible whatsoever.
 He claimed that the lip or sweatband was wider than the price tag. Binnie avowed that if he had seen the price tag, he would have turned the cap over to the sales clerk. A hat, not exactly like the cap found on Binnie, but "comparable" was admitted in evidence on proffer by the defense for the edification of the jury. Binnie described the clerk to whom he said he talked only as a "tall lady," and, although she wore a name tag, he did not recall her name. He had not seen her or talked to her since that day. His explanation for not attempting to ascertain her identity was that he had been "banned" from the store premises.
 The State is satisfied that "[t]he real issue in this case is whether Binnie was entitled to an instruction under [Code, Art. 27,] § 343(c)(2), providing that it shall be a defense to theft if `[t]he defendant acted in the honest belief that he had the right to obtain or exert control over the property as he did.'" In Sibert v. State, 301 Md. 141, 145-148, 482 A.2d 483 (1984), we traced the history of this affirmative defense fashioned by the Legislature. We observed that the Legislature apparently viewed it as a "claim of right" defense. Id. at 147, 482 A.2d 483. We referred to the Revision of Maryland Theft Laws and Bad Check Laws, 53, ch. 849 of Acts of 1978, Md.Spec.Rpts. (Joint Subcommittee on Theft Related Offenses, Oct. 1978). In Sibert, at 147, 482 A.2d 483, we quoted the observation of the Joint Subcommittee in its elaboration at 53-54 of the claim of right defense:
 The claim of right defense springs from the notion that in cases of common law larceny the defendant must have had an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.... [I]f the defendant can produce evidence that he was acting under an honest belief he had a "claim of right", this will be weighed by the trier of the facts in resolving the issue of whether the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea to commit the offense of theft [emphasis in Sibert].
 We pointed out in Sibert that "[n]either the theft statute nor the accompanying legislative history defines the phrase `honest belief.'" 301 Md. at 149, 482 A.2d 483. Nevertheless, we found it "clear that this defense operates to negate the mens rea for the offense of theft, thereby providing a total defense." Id. We looked to the commentary to the Model Penal Code (Official Draft and Revised Comments, 1980) which served as a model for portions of the Maryland theft statute, and opined that it was "particularly instructive as to the purpose for the inclusion of the honest belief defense in its draft."
 First, the commentary notes that "it seems important to make it clear beyond doubt that an honest belief that the property does not belong to another should be a defense to theft." ... Second, the commentary states that recklessness or negligence should not serve as a basis for theft liability.
 Sibert, 301 Md. at 149, 482 A.2d 483, citing to and quoting from the Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 223.1 at 153-154.
 We first must determine if the evidence adduced at the trial generated a jury issue as to whether Binnie "acted in the honest belief that he had the right to obtain or exert control over the property as he did." It is axiomatic that the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses are always matters for the jury to determine when it is the trier of facts. Perry v. State, 234 Md. 48, 51, 197 A.2d 833 (1964); Duffin v. State, 229 Md. 434, 436, 184 A.2d 624 (1962); Reynolds v. State, 219 Md. 319, 326, 149 A.2d 774 (1959). Cf. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Gilbert, 307 Md. 481, 490, 515 A.2d 454 (1986). In our view, Binnie's testimony was sufficient to support fairly the issue whether he acted in an honest belief within the contemplation of Art. 27, § 343(c)(2). Whether the jury sitting as a trier of fact would lend any credence to Binnie or give any weight to his testimony was for the jury's determination, not that of the trial judge. The contradictions between Binnie's evidence and that of Tosadori went only to the weight of the evidence, not to its sufficiency. Sibert, 301 Md. at 152, 482 A.2d 483. Compare Kucharczyk v. State, 235 Md. 334, 201 A.2d 683 (1964). Simply put, the jury was free to discount or disregard totally Binnie's account of the incident and believe Tosadori's version. It was equally free, however, to discount or totally disregard Tosadori's account and believe Binnie's version. If the jury believed Binnie, the honest belief defense was generated by his testimony and operated as a total defense to the charge. We observe that such an issue may be generated by the testimony of the defendant alone; it is not necessary that his testimony be corroborated. Smith, 302 Md. 175, 180-181, 486 A.2d 196 (1985). We cautioned, quoting Hudson v. State, 381 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla.App. 1980),
 A defendant's testimony may not be totally disregarded merely because he is the defendant. His testimony must be weighed just as that of any other witness.
 Smith, 302 Md. at 181, 486 A.2d 196.
 As the trial judge observed, Binnie's acquisition of the hat "either happened the way the State said or it happened the way [Binnie] said." But the choice of which saga to believe lay with the jury, not the court. In short, under the circumstances and the factual situation presented by Binnie, it was within the province of the jury, not of the court, to determine whether Binnie should benefit from the honest belief defense, regardless of how dubious, suspect, farfetched, and incredible Binnie's account may have appeared to the trial judge.
 Given that the honest belief defense was generated, the next question is whether Binnie was entitled to an instruction on that defense. We are satisfied that the requested instructions covered the honest belief defense. Binnie's counsel argued that defense to the jury. He declaimed that the decisive consideration was how Binnie viewed the situation. He emphasized:
 If [Binnie] acted in good faith and honestly believed that he was entitled to do what he did then I would ask ... I would urge you to find him not guilty.
 Md.Rule 4-325(c) provides:
 The court may, and at the request of any party shall, instruct the jury as to the applicable law. .. .[[1]]
 This Court has held that the word "shall," as employed in the rule, renders the rule mandatory. Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 180, 486 A.2d 196 (1985). We noted in Smith at 179, 486 A.2d 196, quoting Bruce v. State, 218 Md. 87, 97, 145 A.2d 428 (1958), that
 "it is encumbent upon the court, ... when requested in a criminal case, to give an ... instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by evidence."
 In Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550, 573 A.2d 1317 (1990), we held that
 a defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories offered are inconsistent.
 We pointed out that this holding was not only consistent with the requirement of Rule 4-325(c) but also "with the general proposition that a defendant is entitled to an instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by evidence." Id. at 550, 573 A.2d 1317. Judge Wilner, now Chief Judge of the Court of Special Appeals, speaking for a panel of that court, put it this way:
 The "bottom line" is that, if a prima facie case is generated on a particular point of law, the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on that point.
 Wright v. State, 70 Md. App. 616, 620, 522 A.2d 401 (1987). It follows that once the honest belief defense is fairly generated by the evidence, the trial court may not refuse the defendant's request to instruct the jury regarding it. We asserted in Sibert, 301 Md. at 154, 482 A.2d 483:
 [W]hen the legislature explicitly enumerated four defenses to the crime of theft [the honest belief defense was one of them] it intended a defendant to be entitled to a jury instruction on any defense generated by the evidence.
 We hold that the trial judge erred in his failure to give an instruction on the honest belief defense. The judgment of the Court of Special Appeals is reversed. Binnie is entitled to a new trial.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED;
 CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH DIRECTION TO REVERSE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THAT COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL;
 COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY WASHINGTON COUNTY.
 NOTES
 [*] At the time this case was heard and conferenced, Karwacki, J., a judge of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, was specially assigned to this Court. At the time of the decision and adoption of this opinion, he had been commissioned and had qualified as a judge of this Court.
 [1] Md.Rule 4-325(c) further provides that "[t]he court need not grant a requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given." There is no suggestion that the instructions actually given here fairly covered the defense of honest belief.


text:
 30.7.2013
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 203/10
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) št. 731/2013
 z dne 29. julija 2013
 o stosedemindevetdeseti spremembi Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 881/2002 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z mrežo Al-Kaida
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 881/2002 z dne 27. maja 2002 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z mrežo Al-Kaida (1), zlasti člena 7(1)(a) in člena 7a(5) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Priloga I k Uredbi (ES) št. 881/2002 navaja osebe, skupine in subjekte, ki jih zadeva zamrznitev sredstev in gospodarskih virov iz navedene uredbe.
 (2)
 Odbor za sankcije Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov je 22. julija 2013 sklenil s seznama oseb, skupin in subjektov, za katere velja zamrznitev sredstev in gospodarskih virov, črtati eno fizično osebo, potem ko je proučil njeno zahtevo za umik s seznama in celovito poročilo varuha človekovih pravic, pripravljeno na podlagi Resolucije Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov 1904(2009). Poleg tega je 19. julija 2013 sklenil spremeniti en vnos na seznamu.
 (3)
 Prilogo I k Uredbi (ES) št. 881/2002 bi bilo zato treba ustrezno posodobiti –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Priloga I k Uredbi (ES) št. 881/2002 se spremeni v skladu s Prilogo k tej uredbi.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je zavezujoča v celoti in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 29. julija 2013
 Za Komisijo
 V imenu predsednika
 Vodja službe za instrumente zunanje politike
 (1) UL L 139, 29.5.2002, str. 9.
 PRILOGA
 Priloga I k Uredbi (ES) št. 881/2002 se spremeni:
 (1)
 pod naslovom „Fizične osebe“ se črta naslednji vnos:
 „Muhammad ‘Abdallah Salih Sughayr (tudi (a) Muhammad’ Abdallah Salih Al- Sughayir, (b) Muhammad’ Abdallah Salih Al-Sughaier, (c) Muhammad’ Abdallah Salih Al-Sughayer, (d) Mohd Al-Saghir, (e) Muhammad Al- Sugayer, (f) Muhammad ‘Abdallah Salih Al-Sughair, (g) Muhammad ‘Abdallah Salih Al-Sugair, (h) Muhammad ‘Abdallah Salih Al-Suqayr, (i) Mohammad Abdullah S Ssughayer, (j) Abu Bakr, (k) Abu Abdullah). Datum rojstva: 20. 8. 1972. Kraj rojstva: Al-Karawiya, Oneiza, Saudova Arabija. Potni list št.: E864131 (Saudove Arabije, izdan 30. 12. 2001, prenehal veljati 6. 11. 2006). Državljanstvo: Saudove Arabije. Drugi podatki: vpleten v financiranje, dobavo orožja, novačenje in na drugačen način zagotovljeno pomoč skupini Abu Sayyaf Group. Datum določitve iz člena 2a(4)(b): 9. 10. 2007.“;
 (2)
 vnos „Omar Mahmoud Uthman (tudi (a) Al-Samman Uthman, (b) Umar Uthman, (c) Omar Mohammed Othman, (d) Abu Qatada Al- Filistini, (e) Abu Umr Takfiri, (f) Abu Omar Abu Umar, (g) Abu Umar Umar (e) Abu Ismail). Datum rojstva: (a) 30. 12. 1960, (b) 13. 12. 1960. Kraj rojstva: Betlehem, Zahodni breg, palestinsko ozemlje. Državljanstvo: jordansko. Naslov: Združeno kraljestvo (od leta 1993). Drugi podatki: priprt v Združenem kraljestvu med oktobrom 2002 in marcem 2005 ter med avgustom 2005 in junijem 2008. V priporu v Združenem kraljestvu od decembra 2008 (stanje marca 2009). Datum določitve iz člena 2a(4)(b): 17. 10. 2001,“ pod naslovom „Fizične osebe“ se nadomesti z naslednjim:
 „Omar Mahmoud Uthman (tudi (a) Al-Samman Uthman, (b) Umar Uthman, (c) Omar Mohammed Othman, (d) Abu Qatada Al-Filistini, (e) Abu Umr Takfiri, (f) Abu Omar Abu Umar, (g) Abu Umar Umar, (h) Abu Ismail). Datum rojstva: (a) 30. 12. 1960, (b) 13. 12. 1960. Kraj rojstva: Betlehem, Zahodni breg, palestinsko ozemlje. Državljanstvo: jordansko. Naslov: Jordanija (od julija 2013). Datum določitve iz člena 2a(4)(b): 17. 10. 2001.“


text:
 30.10.2020
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 L 360/48
 Saskaņā ar starptautisko publisko tiesību normām juridisks spēks ir tikai ANO EEK dokumentu oriģināliem. Šo noteikumu statuss un spēkā stāšanās datums būtu jāpārbauda ANO EEK statusa dokumenta TRANS/WP.29/343 jaunākajā redakcijā, kas pieejama tīmekļa vietnē: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29fdocstts.html
 ANO noteikumi Nr. 151 – Vienoti noteikumi par transportlīdzekļu apstiprināšanu attiecībā uz aklās zonas informācijas sistēmu velosipēdu konstatēšanai [2020/1596]
 Ar visiem grozījumiem līdz
 noteikumu sākotnējās redakcijas 1. papildinājumam – Spēkā stāšanās datums: 2020. gada 25. septembris
 Šis dokuments ir domāts tikai kā dokumentēšanas rīks. Autentiski un juridiski saistoši dokumenti ir: ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2019/28 un
 ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/18
 SATURS
 NOTEIKUMI
 0.
 Ievads (informācijai)
 1.
 Darbības joma
 2.
 Definīcijas
 3.
 Apstiprinājuma pieteikums
 4.
 Apstiprinājums
 5.
 Specifikācijas
 6.
 Testa procedūra
 7.
 Transportlīdzekļa tipa pārveidojums un apstiprinājuma paplašinājums
 8.
 Ražošanas atbilstība
 9.
 Sankcijas par ražošanas neatbilstību
 10.
 Ražošanas pilnīga izbeigšana
 11.
 Par apstiprināšanas testu veikšanu atbildīgo tehnisko dienestu un tipa apstiprinātāju iestāžu nosaukumi un adreses
 PIELIKUMI
 1.
 Paziņojums
 2.
 Apstiprinājuma marķējuma zīmju izkārtojums
 3.
 Procedūra veiktspējas prasību noteikšanai testa gadījumiem, kuri nav parādīti testa gadījumu tabulā
 0. IEVADS (informācijai)
 0.1.
 Pagriešanās manevriem, kuros saduras kravas automobiļi, kas griežas pa labi, un velosipēdisti, kuri parasti brauc lēnāk vai nepārvietojas, parasti rada nopietnas sekas neaizsargātajiem satiksmes dalībniekiem (VRU). Savulaik VRU drošību paaugstināja ar pārskatāmības uzlabošanu kravas automobiļa vadītājam, palielinot spoguļu skaitu un aprīkojot kravas automobiļus ar sānu drošības konstrukciju. Tā kā negadījumi pagriezienos joprojām notiek un daudzos transportlīdzekļa segmentos ir ieviestas autovadītāja palīgsistēmas, ir pamats šādu palīgsistēmu izmantošanai, lai izvairītos no negadījumiem starp kravas automobiļiem un velosipēdistiem.
 0.2.
 Teorētiski viedokļi liecina, ka satiksmes situāciju, kurās iesaistīti smagi transportlīdzekļi un velosipēdi, kritiskums var būt ievērojams situācijas pārprašanas dēļ no transportlīdzekļu operatoru puses. Atsevišķos gadījumos situācija var izmainīties tik pēkšņi, ka augstas intensitātes brīdinājums, ar kuru iecerēts ierosināt vadītāja reakciju uz situāciju pēc atbilstoša reakcijas laika, nevar tikt savlaicīgi aktivizēts. Vispārīgi vadītāja reakcijas uz jebkādu informāciju (augstas vai zemas intensitātes / brīdinājumu vai informāciju) ir sagaidāmas tikai pēc reakcijas laika. Šis reakcijas laiks ir daudz ilgāks nekā laiks, kas vajadzīgs, lai izvairītos no negadījuma daudzās situācijās – no negadījuma nevar izvairīties par spīti brīdinājumam.
 0.3.
 Augstas intensitātes brīdinājumi braukšanas laikā ir pamatoti tikai tad, ja negadījuma varbūtība ir liela – citos gadījumos transportlīdzekļu vadītāji ir tendēti ignorēt sistēmas trauksmes signālus. Tomēr (zemas intensitātes) informatīvu palīgsistēmu var aktivizēt pietiekami agri, jo tā palīdz vadītājam, nevis kaitina to. Tiek pieņemts, ka aklās zonas palīgsistēmas cilvēka-mašīnas saskarni ir iespējams konstruēt tā, ka tā nekaitina vadītājus, kad šāda informācija nav vajadzīga, piemēram, izvēloties signāla atrašanās vietu ārpus vadītāju primārās uzmanības zonas, tiem skatoties taisni uz priekšu, bet gan zonā, kura ir redzama, kad skatiens pavērsts plānotās kustības virzienā. Vēlama atrašanās vieta, kas atbilst šīm prasībām, atrodas aptuveni 40° pa labi no ass transportlīdzekļa viduslīnijas virzienā, kas iet caur vadītāja acu punktu.
 0.4.
 Tādēļ ANO noteikumos ir prasīta informācijas signāla agrīna aktivizēšana gadījumā, kad velosipēds varētu nonākt kritiskā zonā transportlīdzekļa pasažiera pusē, ja smagais transportlīdzeklis sāktu griezties uz velosipēda pusi, tostarp situācijās, kad pagrieziena veikšanas nolūkā nepieciešams pretpagrieziens (prom no velosipēda). Šis informatīvais palīgsignāls drīkst tikt automātiski aktivizēts vienīgi sistēmas atteices vai netīru sensoru gadījumā; manuāla deaktivācija nedrīkst būt iespējama.
 0.5.
 Turklāt ANO noteikumos ir prasīts atšķirīgs signāls, kas jādod, kad sadursme kļūst neizbēgama, piem., kad tiek konstatēts nepārprotama stūres rata pagriešana vai virzienrādītāju iedarbināšana. Šis papildu brīdinājuma signāls drīkst tikt deaktivēts manuāli vai automātiski; tam jābūt deaktivējamam kopā ar informācijas signālu atteices vai netīru sensoru gadījumā.
 0.6.
 ANO noteikumi nosaka testa procedūru, kurā netiek prasīts faktiski pagriešanās manevri; tas ir pieņemami, jo informācijas signālam jebkurā gadījumā ir jābūt pietiekami agrīnam. Eksperimentāli dati liecina, ka dažiem smago transportlīdzekļu pagriešanās manevriem, īpaši nogriežoties šaurā ielā, ir vajadzīgs pretpagrieziens, kas tiek sākts aptuveni 15 m pirms iebraukšanas šajā ielā, tādēļ šajos noteikumos iekļautajā testa procedūrā prasīta informācijas signāla aktivizēšanās 15 m pirms paredzamā sadursmes punkta.
 0.7
 Šie noteikumi ļauj tehniskajiem dienestiem testēt citas, retāk sastopamas parametru kombinācijas, kas nav noteiktas 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulā. Ir sagaidāms, ka sistēmas kļūs stabilākas, bet tas arī padara testa procedūru sarežģītāku.
 Lai varētu pienācīgi analizēt, vai sistēma iztur vai neiztur 5. punktā noteiktās prasības, ir pievienots 3. pielikums, kurā noteikts, kā aprēķina derīguma un nederīguma vērtības. Tomēr varētu būt iespējamas pretrunīgas prasības, kad informācijas signāls nav atļauts vienā testa gadījumā, bet ir prasīts citā, tieši tādā pašā velosipēda un transportlīdzekļa savstarpējā stāvoklī, taču attiecībā uz atšķirīgiem pieņemtajiem pagrieziena rādiusiem un trieciena vietām (ko sistēma nespēj konstatēt informācijas punktos).
 Tādēļ šāda veida testos “pirmā informācijas punkta” kritērija izvērtēšanu neveic; ir jāuzskata par pietiekamu, ja tiek izturēts nepareizas informācijas tests (ceļa zīme).
 1. DARBĪBAS JOMA
 1.1.
 Šos noteikumus piemēro aklās zonas informācijas sistēmai N2 (ar tehniski pieļaujamo maksimālo masu > 8 t) un N3 kategorijas transportlīdzekļos. N2 (ar tehniski pieļaujamo maksimālo masu ≤ 8 t), M2 un M3 kategorijas transportlīdzekļus drīkst apstiprināt pēc ražotāja pieprasījuma.
 1.2.
 Šo noteikumu prasības ir formulētas attiecināšanai uz labās puses satiksmei konstruētiem transportlīdzekļiem. Kreisās puses satiksmei konstruētiem transportlīdzekļiem šīs prasības piemēro, attiecīgā gadījumā apvēršot kritērijus.
 2. DEFINĪCIJAS
 Šajos noteikumos:
 2.1.
 “transportlīdzekļa tipa apstiprināšana” ir visa procedūra, ar ko Nolīguma puse apliecina, ka transportlīdzekļa tips atbilst šo noteikumu tehniskajām prasībām;
 2.2.
 “transportlīdzekļa tips attiecībā uz tā aklās zonas informācijas sistēmu” ir transportlīdzekļu kategorija, kas neatšķiras tādos būtiskos aspektos kā:
 a)
 ražotāja tirdzniecības nosaukums vai preču zīme;
 b)
 transportlīdzekļa īpašības, kas ietekmē aklās zonas informācijas sistēmas veiktspēju;
 c)
 aklās zonas informācijas sistēmas tips un konstrukcija;
 2.3.
 “aklās zonas informācijas sistēma (BSIS)” ir sistēma vadītāja informēšanai par iespējamu sadursmi ar velosipēdu tuvākajā pusē;
 2.4.
 “reakcijas laiks” ir laiks starp informācijas signāla došanu un vadītāja reakciju;
 2.5.
 “acu atskaites punkts” ir viduspunkts starp diviem punktiem, kuri ir 65 mm atstatu un atrodas 635 mm pa vertikāli virs ECE/TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.6 (1) 1. pielikumā noteiktā atskaites punkta uz vadītāja sēdekļa. Abus punktus savienojošā taisnā līnija ir perpendikulāra transportlīdzekļa vertikālajai vidējai garenplaknei. Abus punktus savienojošā segmenta centrs atrodas vertikālā garenplaknē, kas iet caur vadītājam paredzētās sēdvietas centru, ko noteicis transportlīdzekļa ražotājs;
 2.6.
 “bremzēšanas ceļš” ir attālums, kāds vajadzīgs transportlīdzeklim, lai pilnīgi apstātos pēc aklās zonas informācijas signāla došanas, ņemot vērā reakcijas laiku un bremzēšanas palēninājumu;
 2.7.
 “sadursmes punkts” ir vieta, kur transportlīdzekļa jebkura punkta trajektorija krustotos ar jebkuriem velosipēda punktiem, ja ir sākta transportlīdzekļa pagriešana.
 Teorētiskais, 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlā minētais sadursmes punkts ir punkts, kur sadursme notiktu dotajos testa apstākļos, ja transportlīdzeklis grieztos uz velosipēda pusi, piem., no pretpagrieziena manevra sākuma kā pēdējā informācijas punkta. Jāņem vērā, ka pagriešanās manevrs netiek testēts, jo informācija ir vajadzīga pirms pagriešanās uzsākšanas;
 2.8.
 “pēdējais informācijas punkts (LPI)” ir punkts, kurā ticis dots informācijas signāls. Tas ir punkts pirms transportlīdzekļa sagaidāmās pagriešanās kustības uz velosipēda pusi situācijās, kurās varētu notikt sadursme;
 2.9.
 “tuvā puse” ir transportlīdzekļa puse velosipēda tuvumā. Transportlīdzekļa tuvā puse ir labā puse labās puses satiksmē;
 2.10.
 “informācijas signāls” ir optisks signāls nolūkā informēt transportlīdzekļa vadītāju par tuvumā kustībā esošu velosipēdu;
 2.11.
 “transportlīdzekļa trajektorija” ir visu to pozīciju savienojums, kurās transportlīdzekļa priekšējais labās puses stūris atradies vai atradīsies testa brauciena laikā;
 2.12.
 “velosipēds” ir velosipēda un velosipēdista kopums. Testa gadījumos to imitē, kā turpmāk norādīts 6.5 un 6.6 punktā ar testa ierīci saskaņā ar ISO [CD] 19206-4. Velosipēda atrašanās vietas atskaites punkts ir velosipēda viduslīnijas vistālāk priekšā esošajais punkts;
 2.13.
 “kopējā telpa” ir zona, kurā drīkst tikt parādītas divas vai vairākas informācijas funkcijas (piem., simboli), bet ne vienlaikus;
 2.14
 “intervāls” ir attālums starp transportlīdzekli un velosipēdu transportlīdzekļa tuvajā pusē, kur transportlīdzeklis un velosipēds atrodas paralēli viens otram. Attālumu mēra starp plakni, kas ir paralēla transportlīdzekļa vidējai garenplaknei un skar tā ārējo sānmalu, neņemot vērā netiešās redzamības ierīču izvirzījumus, un velosipēda vidējo garenplakni, no tā atņemot pusi velosipēda platuma, kuru pieņem 250 mm. Transportlīdzekļa ārējo sānmalu ņem vērā tikai 6 m posmā uz aizmuguri no transportlīdzekļa vistālāk priekšā esošā punkta;
 2.15.
 “pirmais informācijas punkts” ir vistālāk priekšā esošais punkts, kurā var tikt dots informācijas signāls. Tas ir pēdējais informācijas punkts un attālums, kāds atbilst 4 sekunžu laikā nobrauktajam, ņemot vērā transportlīdzekļa kustības ātrumu un papildu attālumu, ja trieciena vieta atrodas tuvāk nekā 6 m;
 2.16.
 “transportlīdzekļa priekšējais labās puses stūris” ir tā punkta projekcija uz ceļa virsmas, kurā krustojas transportlīdzekļa sānu plakne (neietverot netiešās redzamības ierīces) un transportlīdzekļa priekšējā plakne (neietverot netiešās redzamības ierīces un jebkādu transportlīdzekļa daļu, kas atrodas augstāk nekā 2,0 m virs zemes);
 2.17.
 “trieciena vieta” ir vieta, kur velosipēds saņem triecienu, transportlīdzekļa labajā pusē attiecībā pret transportlīdzekļa priekšējo labās puses stūri, kad abi transportlīdzekļi ir sasnieguši sadursmes punktu, kā norādīts 1. papildinājuma 3. attēlā;
 2.18.
 “transportlīdzekļa galvenais vadības slēdzis” ir ierīce, ar kuru transportlīdzeklī iebūvēto elektronikas sistēmu no izslēgta stāvokļa, kā tas ir gadījumā, kad transportlīdzeklis stāv bez vadītāja, pārslēdz parastā darba režīmā.
 3. APSTIPRINĀJUMA PIETEIKUMS
 3.1.
 Transportlīdzekļa tipa apstiprinājuma pieteikumu attiecībā uz BSIS iesniedz transportlīdzekļa ražotājs vai tā pilnvarotais pārstāvis.
 3.2.
 Tam pievieno turpmāk minētos dokumentus trīs eksemplāros, un tam jāsatur šāda informācija:
 3.2.1.
 transportlīdzekļa tipa apraksts attiecībā uz 5. punktā minētajām pozīcijām kopā ar rasējumiem mērogā un 6.1. punktā minēto dokumentāciju. Norāda transportlīdzekļa tipu identificējošos numurs un/vai simbolus.
 3.3.
 Apstiprināšanas testus veicošajam tehniskajam dienestam iesniedz apstiprināmo transportlīdzekļa tipu reprezentējošu transportlīdzekli.
 4. APSTIPRINĀJUMS
 4.1.
 Ja apstiprināšanai atbilstīgi šiem noteikumiem iesniegtais transportlīdzekļa tips atbilst 5. punkta prasībām, piešķir šā transportlīdzekļa tipa apstiprinājumu.
 4.2.
 Atbilstību 5. punkta prasībām verificē ar 6. punktā noteikto testa procedūru, taču tā darbība neaprobežojas ar šiem testa apstākļiem.
 4.3.
 Katram apstiprinātajam transportlīdzekļa tipam piešķir apstiprinājuma numuru; tā pirmie divi cipari (00 šiem noteikumiem sākotnējā redakcijā) norāda grozījumu sēriju, kas ietver jaunākos, būtiskos tehniskos grozījumus, kas izdarīti šajos noteikumos līdz apstiprinājuma piešķiršanai. Viena un tā pati Nolīguma puse nedrīkst piešķirt vienu un to pašu numuru tam pašam transportlīdzekļa tipam, kurš ir aprīkots ar cita tipa BSIS, vai citam transportlīdzekļa tipam.
 4.4.
 Paziņojumu par tipa apstiprinājumu vai apstiprinājuma atteikumu vai anulēšanu atbilstīgi šiem noteikumiem nosūta šos noteikumus piemērojošajām Nolīguma pusēm, izmantojot 1. pielikumā dotajam paraugam atbilstošu veidlapu, kopā ar pieteikuma iesniedzēja iesniegtajiem fotoattēliem un/vai rasējumiem formātā, kas nepārsniedz A4 (210 × 297 mm), vai salocītiem līdz šim formātam, un kuri ir pienācīgā mērogā.
 4.5.
 Katram transportlīdzeklim, kas atbilst transportlīdzekļa tipam, kurš apstiprināts atbilstīgi šiem noteikumiem, skaidri redzamā un viegli pieejamā vietā, kas norādīta apstiprinājuma veidlapā, liek 2. pielikumā aprakstītajam paraugam atbilstošu starptautisku apstiprinājuma marķējuma zīmi, ko veido:
 4.5.1.
 aplis, kas aptver burtu “E”, kam seko:
 a)
 apstiprinājumu piešķīrušās valsts pazīšanas numurs (2) un
 b)
 pa labi no šajā punktā aprakstītā apļa – šo noteikumu numurs, aiz tā burts “R”, defise un apstiprinājuma numurs,
 vai
 4.5.2.
 ovāls, kas aptver burtus “UI”, kam seko unikālais identifikators.
 4.6.
 Ja transportlīdzeklis atbilst transportlīdzekļa tipam, kas apstiprināts saskaņā ar vieniem vai vairākiem citiem ANO noteikumiem, kuri pievienoti Nolīgumam kā pielikumi, tad valstī, kas piešķīrusi apstiprinājumu saskaņā ar šiem noteikumiem, 4.5. punktā noteikto simbolu neatkārto. Tādā gadījumā ANO noteikumu un apstiprinājuma numurus un papildu simbolus izvieto vertikālās slejās pa labi no 4.5. punktā noteiktā simbola.
 4.7.
 Apstiprinājuma marķējuma zīmei jābūt skaidri salasāmai un neizdzēšamai.
 4.8.
 Apstiprinājuma marķējuma zīmi liek iespējami tuvu transportlīdzekļa datu plāksnītei vai uz tās.
 5. SPECIFIKĀCIJAS
 5.1.
 Katram transportlīdzeklim, kas aprīkots ar 2.3. punktā dotajai definīcijai atbilstošu BSIS, ir jāatbilst šo noteikumu 5.2. līdz 5.7. punktā ietvertajām prasībām.
 5.2.
 Vispārīgas prasības
 5.2.1.
 BSIS efektivitāti nedrīkst negatīvi neietekmēt magnētiskie vai elektriskie lauki. To pierāda ar atbilstību ANO Noteikumu Nr. 10, kas grozīti ar 04. sērijas vai jebkādiem jaunākiem grozījumiem, tehniskajām prasībām un pārejas noteikumiem.
 5.2.2.
 Izņemot BSIS ārējos elementus, kas ir daļa no citas ierīces, kurai piemēro specifiskas izvirzījuma prasības, BSIS ārējie elementi drīkst izvirzīties līdz 100 mm ārpus transportlīdzekļa platuma.
 5.3.
 Veiktspējas prasības
 5.3.1.
 BSIS ar optisku signālu jāinformē vadītājs par tuvumā esošiem velosipēdiem, kuri varētu tikt apdraudēti potenciālas pagriešanās laikā, lai transportlīdzekli varētu apturēt pirms velosipēda trajektorijas šķērsošanas.
 Tai arī jāinformē vadītājs par velosipēdiem, kuri tuvojas, kad transportlīdzeklis ir nekustīgs, pirms velosipēds sasniedz transportlīdzekļa priekšu, ņemot vērā 1,4 sekunžu reakcijas laiku. To testē saskaņā ar 6.6. punktu.
 BSIS ar optisku signālu, akustisku signālu, haptisku signālu vai šo signālu jebkādu kombināciju jābrīdina vadītājs, ja sadursmes risks palielinās.
 Optiskajam informācijas signālam jādarbojas tikai tik ilgi, kamēr pastāv 5.3.1.4. punktā noteiktie apstākļi. Informācijas signāla deaktivācija, transportlīdzeklim atvirzoties no velosipēda trajektorijas, nav atļauta, kamēr transportlīdzekļa un velosipēda sadursme joprojām ir iespējama gadījumā, ja vadītājs stūrētu atpakaļ uz velosipēda trajektoriju.
 5.3.1.1.
 Informācijas signālam ir jāatbilst 5.4. punktā noteiktajām prasībām.
 5.3.1.2.
 Brīdinājuma signālam ir jāatbilst 5.5. punkta prasībām. To drīkst deaktivēt manuāli. Manuālas deaktivācijas gadījumā tam atkārtoti jāaktivizējas ikreiz, kad ieslēdz transportlīdzekļa galveno vadības slēdzi.
 5.3.1.3.
 BSIS jādarbojas vismaz visos transportlīdzekļa ātrumos no nekustīguma līdz 30 km/h apkārtējās gaismas apstākļos, kas pārsniedz 15 lux.
 5.3.1.4.
 BSIS ir jādod informācijas signāls pēdējā informācijas punktā par velosipēdu, kas pārvietojas ar ātrumu starp 5 km/h un 20 km/h, ja intervāls starp velosipēdu un transportlīdzekli ir starp 0,9 un 4,25 metriem, kas varētu rezultēties velosipēda un transportlīdzekļa sadursmē trieciena vietā no 0 līdz 6 m attiecībā pret transportlīdzekļa priekšējo labās puses stūri, ja transportlīdzekļa vadītājs veiktu tipisku stūrēšanas kustību. Tomēr informācijas signāls netiek prasīts, ja relatīvais attālums garenvirzienā starp velosipēdu un transportlīdzekļa priekšējo labās puses stūri ir lielāks nekā 30 m virzienā uz aizmuguri vai 7 m – uz priekšu.
 Informācijas signāls nedrīkst būt redzams pirms pirmā informācijas punkta. Tam jābūt dotam starp pirmo informācijas punktu un pēdējo informācijas punktu. Pirmo informācijas punktu drīkst aprēķināt jebkurai trieciena vietai, palielinot par starpību starp 6 m un trieciena vietu.
 Tai jādod informācijas signāls arī tad, ja velosipēds tiek konstatēts intervālā starp 0,25 un 0,9 m, tam garenvirzienā atrodoties pie vistālāk priekšā esošā priekšējā riteņa, braucot taisni.
 5.3.1.5.
 Transportlīdzekļa ražotājam jānodrošina, ka ir samazināts kļūdaini pozitīvu brīdinājumu skaits, konstatējot konusus, ceļa zīmes, žogus un stāvošus vieglos pasažieru automobiļus, kas nav VRU objekti. Tomēr tā drīkst dot informācijas signālu, kad sadursme ir neizbēgama.
 5.3.1.6.
 BSIS automātiski jādeaktivējas, ja tā nevar pienācīgi darboties, tādēļ ka tās sensoru ierīces ir netīras ledus, sniega, dubļu vai līdzīga materiāla dēļ vai tādēļ ka apkārtējās gaismas apstākļi ir sliktāki nekā 5.3.1.3. punktā norādītie. Tam jābūt parādītam, kā noteikts 5.6.2. punktā. Tai automātiski atkal jāaktivizējas, kad netīrumi pazūd un normāla funkcionēšana ir verificēta. To testē saskaņā ar 6.9. punkta noteikumiem.
 5.3.1.7.
 BSIS jādrošina vadītājs arī ar atteices brīdinājumu, notiekot BSIS atteicei, kura liedz izpildīt šo noteikumu prasības. Brīdinājumam jābūt tādam, kā norādīts 5.6.1. punktā. To testē saskaņā ar 6.8. punkta noteikumiem (atteices konstatēšanas tests).
 5.3.2.
 Ražotājs, izmantojot dokumentāciju, simulāciju vai jebkādus citus līdzekļus, pierāda tehniskajam dienestam un tipa apstiprinātājai iestādei, ka BSIS darbojas kā noteikts arī attiecībā uz mazākiem velosipēdiem un mazākiem riteņbraucējiem, kas par ne vairāk kā 36 procentiem atšķiras no ISO [CD] 19206-4:2018 noteiktajām vērtībām.
 5.4.
 Informācijas signāls
 5.4.1.
 Aklās zonas informācijai, kas minēta 5.3.1.1. punktā, ir jābūt informācijas signālam, kas ir pamanāms un viegli verificējams, vadītājam atrodoties vadītāja sēdeklī. Šim informācijas signālam jābūt redzamam dienas un nakts laikā.
 5.4.2.
 Informācijas signālu emitējošajai ierīcei jāatrodas tuvajā pusē, lielākā nekā 30° horizontālā leņķī pret transportlīdzekļa vidējai garenplaknei paralēlu asi, kas iet caur acu atskaites punktu. Ja vadītāja sēdvieta atrodas transportlīdzekļa tuvajā pusē, šo vērtību drīkst samazināt.
 5.5.
 Brīdinājuma signāls
 5.5.1.
 Brīdinājuma signālam, kas minēts 5.3.1.2. punktā, jāatšķiras no 5.4. punktā noteiktā informācijas signāla, piem., pēc režīma vai aktivizācijas stratēģijas.
 5.5.2.
 Ir jābūt tā, ka vadītājs var viegli sasaistīt brīdinājuma signālu ar potenciālo sadursmi. Ja brīdinājuma signāls ir optisks signāls, šim signālam jābūt redzamam dienas un nakts laikā.
 5.5.3.
 Brīdinājuma signālam jāaktivizējas ne agrāk kā tad, kad sistēma konstatē iespējamu sadursmi, piem., nodomu griezties uz velosipēda pusi vai transportlīdzekļa un velosipēda trajektoriju krustošanos, virzienrādītāja aktivizēšanu vai tml. Stratēģija jāpaskaidro 6.1. minētajā informācijā. Tā nedrīkst būt atkarīga tikai no virzienrādītāja aktivizēšanas.
 Tehniskajam dienestam jāverificē sistēmas darbība saskaņā ar stratēģiju.
 5.6.
 Atteices brīdinājuma signāli
 5.6.1.
 Atteices brīdinājumam, kas minēts 5.3.1.7. punktā, ir jābūt dzeltenas krāsas optiskam brīdinājuma signālam, un tam jāatšķiras vai jābūt skaidri atšķiramam no informācijas signāla. Atteices brīdinājuma signālam jābūt redzamam dienas un nakts laikā un tādam, ka vadītājs to var verificēt, atrodoties vadītāja sēdeklī.
 5.6.2.
 Optiskajam brīdinājuma signālam, kas minēts 5.3.1.6. punktā, jārāda, ka BSIS ir īslaicīgi nepieejama. Tam ir jāpaliek aktīvam, kamēr BSIS nav pieejama. Šajā nolūkā drīkst izmantot 5.3.1.7. punktā noteikto atteices brīdinājuma signālu.
 5.6.3.
 BSIS optiskajiem atteices brīdinājuma signāliem jāaktivizējas, aktivizējot transportlīdzekļa galveno vadības slēdzi. Šī prasība neattiecas uz brīdinājuma signāliem, kas atrodas kopējā telpā.
 5.7.
 Inspicēšanas līdzekļi
 5.7.1.
 Ir jābūt iespējai pārliecināties par BSIS pareizas darbības statusu, vizuāli vērojot atteices brīdinājuma signāla statusu.
 6. TESTA PROCEDŪRA
 6.1.
 Ražotājam ir jānodrošina dokumentācijas pakete, kas dod piekļuvi sistēmas pamatuzbūvei un attiecīgā gadījumā līdzekļiem, kas to saista ar citām transportlīdzekļa sistēmām. Sistēmas darbībai, tostarp tās sensoru un brīdināšanas stratēģijai jābūt paskaidrotai, un dokumentācijā ir jāapraksta, kā pārbauda sistēmas darbības statusu, tas, vai ir ietekme uz citām transportlīdzekļa sistēmām, un metodi(-es), kas izmantotas tādu situāciju konstatēšanai, kuru rezultātā tiek parādīts atteices brīdinājuma signāls. Dokumentācijas paketei ir jāsniedz tipa apstiprinātājai iestādei pietiekama informācija, lai identificētu visnelabvēlīgāko apstākļu veidu un palīdzētu lēmuma pieņemšanā par tiem.
 6.2.
 Testa apstākļi
 6.2.1.
 Testu veic uz līdzenas, sausas asfalta vai betona virsmas.
 6.2.2.
 Apkārtējā gaisa temperatūrai ir jābūt starp 0° C un 45° C.
 6.2.3.
 Testu veic tādos redzamības apstākļos, kas ļauj droši braukt testam vajadzīgajā ātrumā.
 6.3.
 Transportlīdzekļa stāvoklis
 6.3.1.
 Masa testā
 Transportlīdzekli drīkst testēt jebkādos slogojuma apstākļos, masas sadalījumam starp asīm esot tādam, kā norādījis transportlīdzekļa ražotājs, nepārsniedzot maksimālo pieļaujamo masu uz katras ass. Kad testa procedūra uzsākta, nekādas izmaiņas vairs neveic. Transportlīdzekļa ražotājs ar dokumentācijas palīdzību pierāda, ka sistēma darbojas visos slogojuma apstākļos.
 6.3.2.
 Transportlīdzekli testē ar normāliem braukšanas apstākļiem atbilstošu spiedienu riepās.
 6.3.3.
 Ja BSIS ir aprīkota ar lietotāja regulējamu informācijas laikiestati, 6.5. un 6.6. punktā norādīto testu veic katrā testa gadījumā, informācijas intensitātei esot iestatītai tā, ka informācijas signāls tiek ģenerēts vistuvāk sadursmes punktam, t. i., iestatītai visnelabvēlīgāk. Kad testa procedūra uzsākta, nekādas izmaiņas vairs neveic.
 6.4.
 Atteices optiskā brīdinājuma signāla verifikācijas tests
 6.4.1.
 Transportlīdzeklim esot nekustīgam, pārbauda brīdinājuma signālu atbilstību 5.6. punkta prasībām.
 6.4.2.
 Transportlīdzeklim esot nekustīgam, aktivizē informācijas un brīdinājuma signālus, kā norādīts 5.4. un 5.5. punktā, un verificē signālu atbilstību šajos punktos noteiktajām prasībām.
 6.5.
 Aklās zonas informācijas dinamiskais tests
 6.5.1.
 Izmantojot marķierus un velosipēda imitāciju, izveido koridoru saskaņā ar šo noteikumu 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlu un šo noteikumu 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulā dotajiem papildu izmēriem.
 6.5.2.
 Novieto velosipēda mērķi piemērotā sākuma pozīcijā, kā parādīts šo noteikumu 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlā.
 6.5.3.
 Novieto lokālu ceļa zīmi, kas atbilst Vīnes konvencijā par ceļa zīmēm un signāliem (3) noteiktajai zīmei C14 (ātruma ierobežojums 50 km/h) vai šai zīmei pēc nozīmes tuvāko vietējo zīmi, uz staba pie ieejas koridorā, kas parādīts šo noteikumu 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlā. Zīmes zemākajam punktam jāatrodas 2 m virs testa trases virsmas.
 6.5.4.
 Brauc ar transportlīdzekli pa koridoru ar ātrumu, kas norādīts šo noteikumu 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulā, ievērojot pielaidi ± 2 km/h.
 6.5.5.
 Testa laikā nedarbina virzienrādītājus.
 6.5.6.
 Novieto imitāciju sākumpunktā, kā parādīts šo noteikumu 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlā. Imitāciju pārvieto taisnā līnijā, kā parādīts 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlā. Imitācijas paātrinājumam ir jābūt tādam, ka imitācija sasniedz konkrētā testa gadījuma ātrumu, kā parādīts 1. tabulā, kad nobraukti ne vairāk kā 5,66 m, un pēc paātrināšanās imitācijai jāpārvietojas vienmērīgi vismaz 8 sekundes, ievērojot ātruma pielaidi ± 0,5 km/h. Imitācijai ir jāšķērso līnija A (1. papildinājuma 1. attēls), ievērojot pielaidi ± 0,5 m, tajā pašā laikā, kad transportlīdzeklis šķērso līniju B (1. papildinājuma 1. attēls), ievērojot pielaidi ± 0,5 m.
 Ja paātrinājuma attālumu nevar sasniegt, koriģē velosipēda sākumpunktu un transportlīdzekļa koridora garumu par tādu pašu lielumu.
 Manekena sāniskās novirzes no taisnas līnijas, kas savieno sākotnējo sākumpunktu un teorētisko sadursmes punktu (kā noteikts 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlā), maksimums ir ± 0,2 m.
 6.5.7.
 Verificē, vai aklās zonas informācijas signāls ticis aktivizēts, pirms transportlīdzeklis šķērso šo noteikumu 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlā parādīto līniju C, un vai aklās zonas informācijas signāls nav aktivizēts, pirms transportlīdzeklis šķērso 1. attēlā parādīto līniju D.
 6.5.8.
 Verificē, vai aklās zonas informācijas signāls nav aktivizēts, pabraucot garām ceļa zīmei un kādam no marķieriem, kamēr velosipēda imitācija joprojām ir nekustīga.
 6.5.9.
 Atkārto 6.5.1. līdz 6.5.8. punktu šo noteikumu 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulā parādītajiem testa gadījumiem.
 Ja to uzskata par pamatotu, tehniskais dienests drīkst izraudzīties papildu testa gadījumus, kas atšķiras no 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulā parādītajiem transportlīdzekļa ātruma, velosipēda ātruma un intervāla diapazonos, kā noteikts 5.3.1.3. un 5.3.1.4. punktā.
 Tehniskajam dienestam ir jāpārbauda, vai parametru kombinācija izvēlētajos testa gadījumos varētu izraisīt velosipēda un transportlīdzekļa sadursmi, trieciena vietai atrodoties 5.3.1.4. punktā norādītajā diapazonā, un jānodrošina transportlīdzekļa kustība ar izvēlēto ātrumu, tam šķērsojot 1. pielikuma 1. attēlā doto līniju C, koriģējot sākotnējos attālumus un koridora garumu transportlīdzeklim un velosipēdam.
 “Pirmā informācijas punkta” kritēriju uzskata par izpildītu, ja ir veikti testa gadījumi, izņemot tos, kas parādīti 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulā.
 6.5.10.
 Tests ir izturēts, ja aklās zonas informācijas signāls ticis aktivizēts visos šo noteikumu 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulā parādītajos testa gadījumos, pirms transportlīdzekļa galējais punkts sasniedzis līniju C, bet ne līdz tam, kad transportlīdzekļa galējais punkts sasniedzis līniju D (sk. 6.5.7. punktu, kur līnija D ir jāņem vērā 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulā doto testu gadījumos), un ja aklās zonas informācijas signāls nav ticis aktivizēts nevienā testa braucienā, kad transportlīdzeklis pabrauc garām ceļa zīmei (sk. 6.5.8. punktu). Tomēr informācijas signāls netiek prasīts, kad relatīvais attālums garenvirzienā starp velosipēdu un transportlīdzekļa priekšējo labās puses stūri ir lielāks nekā 30 m virzienā uz aizmuguri vai 7 m – uz priekšu.
 Attiecībā uz transportlīdzekļa ātrumiem līdz 5 km/h par apmierinošu uzskata informācijas signāla aktivizāciju 1,4 sekundes pirms velosipēds sasniedzis teorētisko sadursmes punktu, kā norādīts 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlā.
 Attiecībā uz transportlīdzekļa ātrumiem, kas lielāki nekā 25 km/h, kad bremzēšanas ceļš pārsniedz 15 m, 1. papildinājuma 1. attēlā noteiktajam dc jābūt tādam, kā noteikts 1. papildinājuma 2. tabulā.
 6.6.
 Aklās zonas informācijas statiskie testi
 6.6.1.
 1. veida statiskais tests
 Testējamo transportlīdzekli atstāj nekustīgu. Tad virza velosipēda imitāciju perpendikulāri transportlīdzekļa vidējai garenplaknei, trieciena vietai atrodoties 1,15 m priekšpus vistālāk priekšā esošā transportlīdzekļa punkta, ar ātrumu 5 ± 0,5 km/h un intervālu 0,2 m, kā parādīts 1. papildinājuma 2. attēlā.
 Tests ir izturēts, ja aklās zonas informācijas signāls ticis aktivizēts vismaz tad, kad attālums starp velosipēdu un transportlīdzekli ir 2 m.
 6.6.2.
 2. veida statiskais tests
 Testējamo transportlīdzekli atstāj nekustīgu. Tad virza velosipēda imitāciju ar ātrumu 20 ± 0,5 km/h paralēli transportlīdzekļa vidējai garenplaknei, ieturot intervālu 2,75 ± 0,2 m, kā parādīts 1. papildinājuma 2. attēlā. Velosipēdam būtu jāpārvietojas ar konstantu ātrumu vismaz 44 m pirms pabraukšanas garām transportlīdzekļa vistālāk priekšā esošajam punktam.
 Tests ir izturēts, ja aklās zonas informācijas signāls aktivizējas vismaz tad, kad velosipēds atrodas 7,77 m atstatu no transportlīdzekļa vistālāk priekšā esošā punkts projekcijas uz velosipēda kustības līnijas.
 6.7.
 Ražotājs, izmantojot dokumentāciju, simulāciju vai citus līdzekļus, pierāda tehniskajam dienestam un apstiprinātājai iestādei, ka aklās zonas informācijas signāls netiek aktivizēts, kā aprakstīts 6.5.10. punktā, kad transportlīdzeklis pabrauc garām jebkādam citam parastam, nekustīgam objektam, kas nav ceļa zīme. Jo īpaši jāņem vērā stāvoši vieglie pasažieru automobiļi un satiksmes organizācijas konusi.
 6.8.
 Atteices konstatēšanas tests
 6.8.1.
 Simulē BSIS atteici, piemēram, atvienojot no strāvas avota jebkuru BSIS sastāvdaļu vai atvienojot jebkuru elektrisko savienojumu starp BSIS sastāvdaļām. Imitējot BSIS atteici, nedrīkst atvienot 5.6.1. punktā minētā atteices brīdinājuma signāla elektriskos savienojumus.
 6.8.2.
 Atteices brīdinājuma signālam, kas minēts 5.3.1.7. punktā un noteikts 5.6.1. punktā, jāaktivizējas un jāpaliek aktivizētam, kamēr transportlīdzeklis pārvietojas, un tam atkārtoti jāaktivizējas ikreiz, kad aktivizē transportlīdzekļa galveno vadības slēdzi, pastāvot simulētajai atteicei.
 6.9.
 Automātiskas deaktivācijas tests
 6.9.1.
 Jebkuru no sistēmas sensoru ierīcēm padara pilnīgi netīru ar vielu, kas salīdzināma ar sniegu, ledu vai dubļiem (t.i., uz ūdens bāzes). BSIS automātiski jādeaktivējas, šo stāvokli norādot, kā noteikts 5.6.2. punktā.
 6.9.2.
 Sistēmas sensoru ierīces pilnībā attīra no netīrumiem un atkārtoti aktivizē transportlīdzekļa galveno vadības slēdzi. BSIS automātiski jāaktivizējas pēc braukšanas laika, kas nepārsniedz 60 sekundes.
 7. TRANSPORTLĪDZEKĻA TIPA PĀRVEIDOJUMS UN APSTIPRINĀJUMA PAPLAŠINĀJUMS
 7.1.
 Par šo noteikumu 2.2. punktā definētā transportlīdzekļa tipa jebkādu pārveidojumu paziņo tipa apstiprinātājai iestādei, kas apstiprinājusi transportlīdzekļa tipu. Tipa apstiprinātāja iestāde tad drīkst vai nu:
 7.1.1.
 uzskatīt, ka veiktajiem pārveidojumiem nav nelabvēlīgas ietekmes uz apstiprinājuma piešķiršanas nosacījumiem, un piešķirt apstiprinājuma paplašinājumu;
 7.1.2.
 vai uzskatīt, ka izdarītie pārveidojumi ietekmē apstiprinājuma piešķiršanas nosacījumus, un pieprasīt jaunus testus vai papildu pārbaudes pirms apstiprinājuma paplašinājuma piešķiršanas.
 7.2.
 Par apstiprinājuma apstiprināšanu vai atteikšanu, norādot pārveidojumus, informē šos noteikumus piemērojošās Nolīguma puses saskaņā ar 4.4. punktā noteikto procedūru.
 7.3.
 Tipa apstiprinātāja iestāde informē par paplašinājumu pārējās Nolīguma puses, izmantojot šo noteikumu 1. pielikumā redzamo paziņojuma veidlapu. Tā katram paplašinājumam piešķir sērijas numuru, kas zināms kā paplašinājuma numurs.
 8. RAŽOŠANAS ATBILSTĪBA
 8.1.
 Ražošanas atbilstības procedūrām ir jāatbilst vispārīgajiem noteikumiem, kas noteikti Nolīguma (E/ECE/TRANS/505/Rev.3) 2. pantā un 1. pielikumā, un atbilst šādām prasībām:
 8.2.
 atbilstīgi šiem noteikumiem apstiprinātu transportlīdzekli ražo tā, ka tas atbilst apstiprinātajam tipam, izpildot 5. punkta prasības;
 8.3.
 apstiprinājumu piešķīrusī apstiprinātāja iestāde jebkurā laikā drīkst verificēt katrā ražotnē piemērojamās atbilstības kontroles metodes. Šādu inspicēšanu normālais biežums ir reize divos gados.
 9. SANKCIJAS PAR RAŽOŠANAS NEATBILSTĪBU
 9.1.
 Apstiprinājumu, kas atbilstīgi šiem noteikumiem piešķirts attiecībā uz transportlīdzekļu tipu, drīkst anulēt, ja netiek izpildītas 8. punktā noteiktās prasības.
 9.2.
 Ja Nolīguma puse anulē tās iepriekš piešķirtu apstiprinājumu, tā nekavējoties par to informē pārējās šos noteikumus piemērojošās Nolīguma puses, izmantojot šo noteikumu 1. pielikumā dotajam paraugam atbilstošu paziņojuma veidlapu.
 10. RAŽOŠANAS PILNĪGA IZBEIGŠANA
 Ja apstiprinājuma turētājs pilnībā izbeidz atbilstīgi šiem noteikumiem apstiprināta transportlīdzekļa tipa ražošanu, tas par to informē apstiprinājumu piešķīrušo tipa apstiprinātāju iestādi, kura savukārt nekavējoties par to informē pārējās šos noteikumus piemērojošās Nolīguma puses, izmantojot šo noteikumu 1. pielikumā dotajam paraugam atbilstošu paziņojuma veidlapu.
 11. PAR APSTIPRINĀJUMA TESTU VEIKŠANU ATBILDĪGO TEHNISKO DIENESTU UN TIPA APSTIPRINĀTĀJU IESTĀŽU NOSAUKUMI UN ADRESES
 Šos noteikumus piemērojošās Nolīguma puses paziņo Apvienoto Nāciju Organizācijas Sekretariātam tehnisko dienestu, kuri atbildīgi par apstiprināšanas testu veikšanu, un tipa apstiprinātāju iestāžu, kas piešķir apstiprinājumu un kurām jānosūta apstiprinājuma piešķiršanu, paplašināšanu, atteikumu vai anulēšanu apliecinošas veidlapas, nosaukumu un adresi.
 (1) Skatīt Konsolidētās rezolūcijā par transportlīdzekļu konstrukciju (R.E.3) 1. pielikumu, dokuments ECE/TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.6, www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29resolutions.html.
 (2) 1958. gada Nolīguma pušu pazīšanas numuri ir norādīti Konsolidētās rezolūcijas par transportlīdzekļu konstrukciju (R.E.3) 3. pielikumā, dokuments ECE/TRANS/WP.29/78/Rev.6.
 (3) Skatīt ECE/TRANS/196 91. punktu par 1968. gada Konvenciju par ceļa zīmēm un signāliem, Eiropas nolīgumu, kas papildina Konvenciju un Protokolu par ceļa marķējumiem, kas papildina Eiropas nolīgumu
 1. papildinājums
 1. tabula
 Testa gadījumi
 Turpmāk dotajā tabulā detalizēti izklāstīti testa gadījumi, izmantojot šādus mainīgos:
 v
 vehicle
 transportlīdzekļa vienmērīgs kustības ātrums
 v
 bicycle
 velosipēda vienmērīgs kustības ātrums
 d
 a
 velosipēda atrašanās vieta, transportlīdzeklim šķērsojot līniju b
 d
 b
 transportlīdzekļa atrašanās vieta, velosipēdam šķērsojot līniju a
 d
 c
 transportlīdzekļa atrašanās vieta pēdējā informācijas punktā
 d
 d
 transportlīdzekļa atrašanās vieta pirmajā informācijas punktā (d
 c + (6m – trieciena vieta) + 11,11 m attiecībā uz transportlīdzekļa ātrumiem 10 km/h un dc + (6m – trieciena vieta) + 22,22 m attiecībā uz transportlīdzekļa ātrumiem 20 km/h)
 d
 bicycle
 velosipēda sākumpunkts
 l
 corridor
 transportlīdzekļa koridora garums
 d
 corridor
 transportlīdzekļa koridora platums
 d
 lateral
 intervāls starp velosipēdu un transportlīdzekli
 Turpmāk dotie mainīgie neprecizē testa gadījumus, bet ir doti tikai informācijas nolūkā (neietekmējot testa parametrus):
 a)
 trieciena vieta [m], kas norāda trieciena vietu, kurai 1. tabulā dotas aprēķinātās vērtības d
 a un d
 b (d
 d vienmēr aprēķina vai nu trieciena vietai 6 m, vai sinhronizētas kustības sākumpunktam, ja transportlīdzekļa un velosipēda ātrums ir vienāds);
 b)
 pagrieziena rādiuss [m], kas norāda pagrieziena rādiusu, kādam 1. tabulā norādītās aprēķinātās d
 a un d
 b vērtības.
 Testa gadījums
 vbicyclee [km/h]
 vVehicle [km/h]
 dlateral [m]
 da [m]
 db [m]
 dc [m]
 dd [m]
 dbicycle [m]
 lcorridor [m]
 dcorridor [m]
 Tikai informācijas nolūkā (neietekmējot testa parametrus)
 Trieciena vieta [m]
 Pagrieziens rādiuss [m]
 1.
 20
 10
 1,25
 44,4
 15,8
 15
 26,1
 65
 80
 transportlīdzekļa platums + 1 m
 6
 5
 2.
 20
 10
 22
 15
 38,4
 0
 10
 3.
 20
 20
 38,3
 38,3
 -
 6
 25
 4.
 10
 20
 4,25
 22,2
 43,5
 15
 37,2
 0
 25
 5.
 10
 10
 19,8
 19,8
 -
 0
 5
 6.
 20
 10
 44,4
 14,7
 15
 28
 6
 10
 7.
 17,7
 34
 3
 10
 2. tabula
 d
 c ātrumiem, kas lielāki nekā 25 km/h
 Transportlīdzekļa ātrums [km/h]
 dc [m]
 25
 15
 26
 15,33
 27
 16,13
 28
 16,94
 29
 17,77
 30
 18,61
 1. PIELIKUMS
 Paziņojums
 (maksimālais formāts: A4 (210 mm × 297 mm))
 (1)
 Izdevējs: iestādes nosaukums:
 ...
 ...
 par (2):
 apstiprinājuma piešķiršanu,
 apstiprinājuma paplašināšanu,
 apstiprinājuma atteikšanu,
 apstiprinājums anulēšanu
 ražošanas pilnīgu izbeigšanu
 transportlīdzekļa tipam attiecībā uz aklās zonas informācijas sistēmu (BSIS) atbilstīgi ANO Noteikumiem Nr. 151
 Apstiprinājuma Nr.: ...
 1.
 Preču zīme: ...
 2.
 Tips un tirdzniecības nosaukums(-i): ...
 3.
 Ražotāja nosaukums un adrese: ...
 4.
 Ražotāja pārstāvja nosaukums un adrese, ja attiecināms: ...
 5.
 Transportlīdzekļa īss apraksts: ...
 6.
 Transportlīdzekļa iesniegšanas apstiprināšanai datums: ...
 7.
 Apstiprināšanas testus veikušais tehniskais dienests: ...
 8.
 Šā dienesta izdotā ziņojuma datums: ...
 9.
 Šā dienesta izdotā ziņojuma numurs: ...
 10.
 Paplašināšanas pamatojums (attiecīgā gadījumā): ...
 11.
 Apstiprinājums attiecībā uz BSIS piešķirts/atteikts:2
 12.
 Vieta: ...
 13.
 Datums: ...
 14.
 Paraksts: ...
 15.
 Šim paziņojumam pievienoti šādi dokumenti, uz kuriem norādīts iepriekš minētais apstiprinājuma numurs: ...
 16.
 Jebkādas piezīmes: ...
 (1) Tās valsts pazīšanas numurs, kura piešķīrusi, paplašinājusi, atteikusi vai anulējusi apstiprinājumu (apstiprināšanas prasības skatīt noteikumos).
 (2) Lieko svītrot.
 2. PIELIKUMS
 Apstiprinājuma marķējuma zīmju izkārtojums
 (skatīt šo noteikumu 4.5. līdz 4.5.2. punktu)
 a = 8 mm min.
 Šāda apstiprinājuma marķējuma zīme uz transportlīdzekļa norāda, ka attiecīgais transportlīdzekļa tips ir apstiprināts Vācijā (E1) attiecībā uz BSIS atbilstīgi ANO Noteikumiem Nr. 151. Pirmie divi apstiprinājuma numura cipari norāda, ka apstiprinājums piešķirts saskaņā ar Noteikumu Nr. 151 prasībām to sākotnējā redakcijā.
 a = 8 mm min.
 Šāds unikālais identifikators norāda, ka attiecīgais tips ir apstiprināts un ka attiecīgā informācija par šo tipa apstiprinājumu ir pieejama ANO drošajā interneta datubāzē, izmantojot 270650 kā unikālo identifikatoru. Unikālajā identifikatorā jebkādas apstiprinājuma marķējuma sākumā esošas nulles drīkst izlaist.
 3. PIELIKUMS
 Procedūra veiktspējas prasību noteikšanai testa gadījumiem, kuri nav parādīti testa gadījumu tabulā
 Saskaņā ar 6.5.9. punktu tehniskais dienests drīkst testēt 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulā nenorādītus testa gadījumus. Šādā gadījumā tehniskajam dienestam ir pienākums verificēt, ka izvēlētā parametru kombinācija radītu kritisku situāciju. Šajā nolūkā turpmāk izklāstītā procedūra palīdz noteikt prasības veiktspējai.
 d
 a – vērtību d
 a izmanto transportlīdzekļa un velosipēda kustības sihronizēšanai. To aprēķina, reizinot nobraukumu 8 sekundēs nemainīgā ātrumā ar velosipēda ātrumu, kā norādīts tabulā:
 d
 a = 8s • v
 Bicycle
 d
 b – vērtību d
 b izmanto transportlīdzekļa un velosipēda kustības sihronizēšanai. Tas sastāv no trīs daļām. Pirmā daļa atbilst kravas automobiļa nobraukumam 8 sekundēs nemainīgā ātrumā:
 d
 b,1 = 8s • v
 Vehicle
 Otrā daļa koriģē sinhronizāciju, ņemot vērā velosipēda trieciena vietu. To nosaka, izmantojot trieciena vietu L:
 d
 b,2 = L
 Tad trešā daļa ņem vērā kravas automobiļa lielāku pārvietojumu, jo tiek veikta pagriešanās ar nemainīgu rādiusu sadursmes punkta virzienā nevis kustība taisni kā velosipēdam.
 Pagriešanās segmentu aptuveni apraksta konstanta rādiusa aplis, un segments beidzas, līdzko sasniegts vēlamais sāniskais pārvietojums. Tādēļ d
 b jākoriģē par atšķirīgo attālumu, pārvietojoties taisni un nogriežoties.
 To var aprēķināt, izmantojot pagrieziena rādiusu R, sānisko pārvietojumu Y=d
 lateral
 + 0,25 m (attālums no velosipēda viduslīnijas līdz transportlīdzekļa malai) un trieciena vietu L.
 Galīgā d
 b vērtība ir d
 b,1 mīnus abas pārējās daļas d
 b,2 un d
 b,3:
 Vērtība d
 c nosaka pēdējo informācijas punktu. Transportlīdzekļa ātrumam 10 km/h un lielākam tas ir divu vērtību maksimums:
 pirmā vērtība ir iegūta no fiziskiem testa braucieniem un raksturo to, kādā attālumā no sadursmes punkta visagrāk sākusies smagā transportlīdzekļa pagriešanās, un, pagriežoties uz ārpusi, šī vērtība ir:
 15 m.
 Otrā vērtība ir bremzēšanas ceļš, ņemot vērā reakcijas laiku un bremzēšanas palēninājumu a, izmantojot palēninājuma un reakcijas laika parametrus (attiecīgi 5 m/s2 un 1,4 sekundes):
 Tādēļ d
 c nosaka
 Transportlīdzekļa ātrumam, kas ir mazāks nekā 5 km/h, ir pietiekami, ja informācijas signāls tiek dots attālumā, kurš atbilst TTC vērtībai 1,4 sekundes (līdzīgi kā statiskajos testos).
 Visbeidzot, d
 d ir pirmais informācijas punkts. To var aprēķināt, transportlīdzekļa 4 sekunžu ilgam pārvietojumam atbilstošu attālumu pieskaitot d
 c un koriģējot trieciena vietu, ja trieciena vieta nav 6 m:
 d
 d = d
 c + 4s • v
 Vehicle + (6m - trieciena vieta).
 Formulas ļauj pilnībā aizpildīt 1. papildinājuma 1. tabulu testa gadījumiem, kas tajā nav noteikti.


text:
Questa voce raccoglie le informazioni riguardanti l'Unione Sportiva Livorno nelle competizioni ufficiali della stagione 1963-1964.
 Stagione
 La stagione 1963-1964 regala finalmente la Serie B al Livorno guidato dal presidente Arno Ardisson e dal tecnico Guido Mazzetti. Con la coppia d'attacco formata da Giuseppe Virgili e da Luigi Mascalaito autori insieme di 29 reti gli amaranto prendono presto il largo in campionato, contrastati solo dal sorprendente Forlì. Attacco e difesa sono i migliori del torneo con 45 reti realizzate e 18 subite. Come ai vecchi tempi l'Ardenza rimane imbattuta, con 15 vittorie e 2 pareggi e tra le individualità spicca sempre di più quella di Mauro Lessi che sta diventando la bandiera della squadra labronica.
 Rosa
 Risultati
 Serie C Girone B
 Girone di andata
 Girone di ritorno
 Note
 Bibliografia
 Livorno
 1963-1964


text:
28.9.2002 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee C 233/17
 1) N.B. Jackson (trading as Villa Holidays Bal-Inn Villas), Motivi e principali argomenti
 2) Mammee Bay Resorts Ltd, 3) Mammee Bay Club Ltd, 4) The
 Enchanted Garden Resorts & Spa Ltd, 5) Consulting Services
 Ltd, 6) Town & Country Resorts Ltd, la Court of Appeal
 (England & Wales) (Civil Division) ha sottoposto alla Corte Il governo italiano sostiene che la Commissione con l’approva-
 di giustizia delle Comunità europee le seguenti questioni zione del regolamento di attuazione impugnato ha de iure
 pregiudiziali: accordato alle «Menzioni Tradizionali» una protezione limitata
 e contraddittoria, in particolare alle «Menzioni Tradizionali»
 italiane, e ciò in contrasto con i criteri direttivi della normativa
 (1) Se sia contrario alla Convenzione di Bruxelles del 1968 di settore, quali puntualizzati nelle premesse del regolamento
 concernente la competenza giurisdizionale e l’esecuzione (CE) n. 1493/1999 (2) del Consiglio. Tanto ha pregiudicato
 delle decisioni, laddove l’attore sostiene che la giurisdizio- non solo gli sforzi diretti alla riqualificazione del prodotto
 ne sia fondata sull’art. 2, l’esercizio del potere discreziona- comunitario, ma gli stessi interessi dei produttori e dei
 le di un organo giurisdizionale di uno Stato contraente, consumatori, quali riconosciuti dal Trattato, la cui salvaguardia
 consentito dalla propria legge nazionale, di declinare la costituisce la finalità della politica agricola comunitaria e di
 giurisdizione in un procedimento intentato nei confronti una corretta concorrenza.
 di una persona domiciliata in tale Stato a favore degli
 organi giurisdizionali di uno Stato non contraente:
 (1 ) GU L 118, del 4.5.2002, pag. 1 Regolamento (CE) n. 753/2002
 (a) nel caso non sia in questione la giurisdizione di della Commissione, del 29 aprile 2002, che fissa talune modalità
 di applicazione del Regolamento (CE) n. 1493/1999 del Consiglio
 nessun altro Stato contraente;
 per quanto riguarda la designazione, la denominazione, la presen-
 tazione e la protezione di taluni prodotti vitivinicoli.
 (b) se il procedimento non abbia altri elementi di (2 ) GU L 179 del 14.7.1999, pag. 1 Regolamento (CE) n. 1493/1999
 connessione con nessun altro Stato contraente. del Consiglio del 17 maggio 1999 relativo all’organizzazione
 comune del mercato vitivinicolo.
 (2) Se, nel caso in cui la soluzione della questione sub (1)(a)
 o sub (1)(b) sia positiva, la fattispecie configuri una
 violazione in ogni caso o soltanto in presenza di determi-
 nate circostanze, ed in tal caso, di quali.
 Ricorso del Regno di Spagna contro la Commissione delle
 Comunità europee, proposto il 9 agosto 2002
 Ricorso del 25 luglio 2002 contro la Commissione delle (Causa C-287/02)
 Comunità europee presentato dalla Repubblica italiana
 (2002/C 233/28)
 (Causa C-283/02)
 (2002/C 233/27)
 Il 9 agosto 2002 il Regno di Spagna, rappresentato dal sig.ra
 Lourdes Fraguas Gadea, avvocato dello Stato, con domicilio
 eletto in Lussemburgo presso l’Ambasciata di Spagna,
 Il 25 luglio 2002, la Repubblica italiana rappresentata dal prof. 4-6 boulevard E. Servais, ha proposto dinanzi alla Corte
 Umberto Leanza, in qualità di agente, assistito dall’avvocato di giustizia delle Comunità europee un ricorso contro la
 dello Stato Maurizio Fiorilli, ha presentato alla Corte di Commissione delle Comunità europee.
 giustizia delle Comunità europee un ricorso contro la Commis-
 sione delle Comunità europee.
 La ricorrente chiede che la Corte voglia:
 La ricorrente chiede:
 — annullare la decisione impugnata (1) relativamente alle
 rettifiche finanziarie imposte al Regno di Spagna e
 — l’annullamento dell’articolo 24 del regolamento (CE) discusse nella presente domanda;
 n. 753/2002 ( 1) della Commissione del 29 aprile 2002,
 nonché nei limiti di cui alle svolte censure degli allegati A)
 e B) del medesimo regolamento. — condannare l’istituzione convenuta alle spese.


text:
 30.6.2011
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 171/31
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 31/2011,
 1. aprill 2011,
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu II lisa („Tehnilised normid, standardid, katsetamine ja sertifitseerimine”)
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, mida on muudetud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga, edaspidi „leping”, eriti selle artiklit 98,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 Lepingu II lisa on muudetud EMP Ühiskomitee 10. detsembri 2010. aasta otsusega nr 128/2010 (1).
 (2)
 Lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 9. aprilli 2010. aasta määrus (EL) nr 298/2010, millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 1451/2007 seoses biotsiidide turuleviimist võimaldavate erandite kehtivusaja pikendamisega (2).
 (3)
 Lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 20. aprilli 2010. aasta otsus 2010/226/EL Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1907/2006 XVII lisas loetletud lühiahelaliste klooritud parafiinide (SCCP) kasutuspiirangu läbivaatamise kohta (3),
 ON TEINUD JÄRGMISE OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Lepingu II lisa XV peatükki muudetakse järgmiselt.
 1)
 Punktile 12ze (komisjoni määrus (EÜ) nr 1451/2007) lisatakse:
 „ , muudetud järgmise õigusaktiga:
 —
 32010 R 0298: komisjoni määrus (EL) nr 298/2010, 9. aprill 2010 (ELT L 90, 10.4.2010, lk 4).”
 2)
 Punkti 12zw (komisjoni otsus 2010/84/EL) järele lisatakse järgmine punkt:
 „12zx.
 32010 D 0226: komisjoni otsus 2010/226/EL, 20. aprill 2010, Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1907/2006 XVII lisas loetletud lühiahelaliste klooritud parafiinide (SCCP) kasutuspiirangu läbivaatamise kohta. (ELT L 100, 22.4.2010, lk 15).”
 Artikkel 2
 Määruse (EL) nr 298/2010 ja otsuse 2010/226/EL islandi- ja norrakeelne tekst, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasandes, on autentsed.
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus jõustub 2. aprillil 2011 tingimusel, et kõik lepingu artikli 103 lõikes 1 ettenähtud teated on EMP Ühiskomiteele esitatud (4).
 Artikkel 4
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja selle EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 1. aprill 2011
 EMP Ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja kohusetäitja
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ELT L 85, 31.3.2011, lk 11.
 (2) ELT L 90, 10.4.2010, lk 4.
 (3) ELT L 100, 22.4.2010, lk 15.
 (4) Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole nimetatud.