text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 52002PC0224
 Ehdotus neuvoston asetus tiettyjä maatalous- ja teollisuustuotteita koskevien yhteisön autonomisten tariffikiintiöiden avaamisesta ja hallinnoinnista annetun asetuksen (EY) N:o 2505/96 muuttamisesta /* KOM/2002/0224 lopull. */
 Virallinen lehti nro 203 E , 27/08/2002 s. 0179 - 0180
 Ehdotus NEUVOSTON ASETUS tiettyjä maatalous- ja teollisuustuotteita koskevien yhteisön autonomisten tariffikiintiöiden avaamisesta ja hallinnoinnista annetun asetuksen (EY) N:o 2505/96 muuttamisesta(komission esittämä)PERUSTELUT1. Eri jäsenvaltioiden esittämien pyyntöjen johdosta komissio on tarkastellut yhdessä kyseisten valtioiden asiantuntijoiden kanssa mahdollisuutta avata, korottaa ja pidentää tiettyjen teollisuustuotteiden tariffikiintiöiden voimassaoloaikaa.2. Tämä selvitys tehtiin tullitaloustyöryhmän kokouksen yhteydessä ja sen perusteella voitiin todeta, että jäsenvaltiot voivat hyväksyä tässä asetusehdotuksessa tarkoitettuja tuotteita koskevien uusien tariffikiintiöiden avaamisen, tariffikiintiöiden korottamisen ja jatkamisen ja että tämä ei haittaa näiden tuotteiden markkinoita.Tämä on liitteenä olevan asetusehdotuksen tavoite.Ehdotus NEUVOSTON ASETUS tiettyjä maatalous- ja teollisuustuotteita koskevien yhteisön autonomisten tariffikiintiöiden avaamisesta ja hallinnoinnista annetun asetuksen (EY) N:o 2505/96 muuttamisestaEUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, jokaottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen ja erityisesti sen 26 artiklan,ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen,sekä katsoo seuraavaa:(1) Neuvosto on avannut asetuksellaan (EY) N:o 2505/96 [1] yhteisön tariffikiintiöitä tietyille maatalous- ja teollisuustuotteille. Olisi tyydytettävä kyseisten tuotteiden hankintatarpeet yhteisössä mahdollisimman suotuisin edellytyksin. Tämän vuoksi olisi avattava yhteisön tariffikiintiöitä alennetuin tullein tai tulleitta aiheellisten määrien mukaisesti, korotettava tiettyjen voimassa olevien tariffikiintiöiden määrää ja jatkettava niiden voimassaoloa häiritsemättä samalla näiden tuotteiden markkinoita.[1] EYVL L 345, 31.12.1996, s. 1, asetus sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 2559/2001 (EYVL L 344, 28.12.2001, s. 5).(2) Tämän vuoksi asetus (EY) N:o 2505/96 on muutettava,ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN:1 artiklaMuutetaan asetuksen (EY) N:o 2505/96 liite I kiintiökaudeksi 1.1.-30.6.2002 seuraavasti:- tariffikiintiön, jonka järjestysnumero on 09.2935, määräksi tulee 80.000 tonnia.2 artiklaMuutetaan asetuksen (EY) N:o 2505/96 liite I kiintiökaudeksi 1.1.-31.12.2002 seuraavasti:- tariffikiintiön, jonka järjestysnumero on 09.2799, määräksi tulee 50.000 tonnia;- tariffikiintiön, jonka järjestysnumero on 09.2950, määräksi tulee 6.500 tonnia.3 artiklaLisätään asetuksen (EY) N:o 2505/96 liitteeseen I tämän asetuksen liitteessä luetellut tariffikiintiöt 1 päivästä heinäkuuta 2002.4 artiklaTämä asetus tulee voimaan kolmantena päivänä sen jälkeen, kun se on julkaistu Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisessa lehdessä.Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa.Tehty Brysselissä päivänä kuuta .Neuvoston puolestaPuheenjohtajaLIITE>TAULUKON PAIKKA>(a) Tämän erityiskäytön valvomiseksi on sovellettava yhteisön asiaa koskevia määräyksiä.>TAULUKON PAIKKA>LIITEVoimassa vuodesta 1.1.2002:>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Tulojen menetys edelliseen kiintiökauteen verrattuna yhteensä: + 3.219.172 EUR.Voimassa vuodesta 1.7.2002:>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Tulojen menetys edelliseen kiintiökauteen verrattuna yhteensä: + 1.316.625 EUR.PETOSTEN TORJUNTATOIMETTariffikiintiöiden hallinnointia koskevissa säännöksissä säädetään tarvittavista toimenpiteistä petosten ja säännönvastaisuuksien ehkäisemiseksi ja niiltä suojautumiseksi.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 16.1.2010
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 11/26
 Urteil des Gerichts erster Instanz vom 17. November 2009 — Apollo Group/HABM (THINKING AHEAD)
 (Rechtssache T-473/08) (1)
 (Gemeinschaftsmarke - Anmeldung der Gemeinschaftswortmarke THINKING AHEAD - Absolutes Eintragungshindernis - Fehlende Unterscheidungskraft - Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung [EG] Nr. 40/94 [jetzt Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 207/2009])
 2010/C 11/51
 Verfahrenssprache: Englisch
 Parteien
 Klägerin: Apollo Group, Inc. (Phoenix, Arizona, Vereinigte Staaten) (Prozessbevollmächtigte: Rechtsanwälte A. Link und A. Jaeger-Lenz)
 Beklagter: Harmonisierungsamt für den Binnenmarkt (Marken, Muster und Modelle) (Prozessbevollmächtigter: J. Crespo Carrillo)
 Gegenstand
 Klage gegen die Entscheidung der Zweiten Beschwerdekammer des HABM vom 14. August 2008 (Sache R 728/2008-2) betreffend die Anmeldung des Wortzeichens THINKING AHEAD als Gemeinschaftsmarke
 Tenor
 1.
 Die Klage wird abgewiesen.
 2.
 Die Apollo Group, Inc. trägt die Kosten.
 (1) ABl. C 6 vom 10.1.2009.


text:
 23.6.2007
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 140/34
 Acțiune introdusă la 23 aprilie 2007 — Suez/OAPI (Delivering the essentials of life)
 (Cauza T-128/07)
 (2007/C 140/58)
 Limba în care a fost formulată acțiunea: franceza
 Părțile
 Reclamantă: Suez SA (Paris, Franța) (reprezentant: P. Combeau, avocat)
 Pârât: Oficiul pentru Armonizare în cadrul Pieței Interne (mărci, desene și modele industriale)
 Concluziile reclamantei
 —
 anularea deciziei atacate;
 —
 obligarea OAPI la plata cheltuielilor de judecată.
 Motivele și principalele argumente
 Marca comunitară vizată: Marca verbală „Delivering the essentials of life” pentru produse și servicii din clasele 1, 9, 11, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 și 42 (cererea nr. 4 102 497).
 Decizia examinatorului: respinge cererea de înregistrare.
 Decizia camerei de recurs: respinge recursul.
 Motivele invocate: încălcarea articolului 7 alineatul (1) litera (b) din Regulamentul nr 40/94 (1) al Consiliului deoarece, contrar celor constatate de camera de recurs a OAPI în decizia atacată, marca a cărei înregistrare se solicită nu are o conotație strict laudativă și nu descrie o caracteristică sau o calitate a produselor sau a serviciilor pe care trebuie să le desemneze.
 (1) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 40/94 al Consiliului din 20 decembrie 1993 privind marca comunitară (JO L 11, 1994, p. 1).


type: other

text:
Paide üldhariduskoolide hoolekogu moodustamise kord ja töökord – Riigi Teataja
 Paide üldhariduskoolide hoolekogu moodustamise kord ja töökord
 Paide üldhariduskoolide hoolekogu moodustamise kord ja töökord - sisukord
 § 1 Kooli hoolekogu
 § 4 Hoolekogu tööülesanded
 § 5 Hoolekogu juhtimine ja tegevuse planeerimine
 § 7 Hoolekogu koosoleku protokollimine
 § 8 Hoolekogu otsustusvõime
 § 9 Otsuste vastuvõtmine ja täitmine
 § 10 Otsuse vastuvõtmine side- või infotehnoloogiliste vahendite kaudu
 RT IV, 04.10.2018, 15
 Vastu võetud 20.09.2018 nr 51
 § 1. Kooli hoolekogu
 (1) Kooli hoolekogu (edaspidi hoolekogu) on üldhariduskoolis tegutsev alaline organ, kelle ülesanne on jälgida ja planeerida koostöös pedagoogide, kooli pidaja ja lastevanematega kooli õppe- ja kasvatustegevust ning aidata kaasa õppe- ja kasvatustegevuseks paremate tingimuste loomisele.
 (2) Hoolekogu juhindub oma tegevuses põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseadusest, kooli põhimäärusest ja käesolevast korrast.
 (1) Paide Hammerbecki Põhikooli, Paide Hillar Hanssoo Põhikooli ja Roosna-Alliku Põhikooli hoolekogud on vähemalt 9-liikmelised. Hoolekogu koosseisu kuuluvad linnavolikogu esindaja, kaks õpilasesinduse esindajat, õppenõukogu esindaja, õpilaste vanemate esindajad, vilistlaste ja kooli toetavate organisatsioonide esindajad.
 (2) Tarbja Lasteaed-Kooli hoolekogu on vähemalt 9-liikmeline. Hoolekogu koosseisu kuuluvad linnavolikogu esindaja, õpilasesinduse esindaja, vähemalt kaks õppenõukogu esindajat, kellest üks esindab kooli ja teine lasteaia õpetajaid, ning kooli õpilaste vanemate ja lasteaia iga rühma laste vanemate esindaja.
 (3) Paide Täiskasvanute Keskkooli hoolekogu on vähemalt 7-liikmeline. Hoolekogusse kuuluvad linnavolikogu esindaja, kooli õpilasesinduse esindaja, kaks õppenõukogu esindajat, kellest üks esindab põhikooli- ja teine gümnaasiumiastme õpetajaid, kooli toetavate organisatsioonide ja vilistlaste esindajad.
 (1) Hoolekogu koosseisu kinnitab kooli direktori ettepanekul Paide Linnavalitsus kolmeks aastaks.
 (2) Linnavalitsusele kandidaatide esitamisel lähtub direktor järgmistest põhimõtetest:
 1) kooli pidaja esindaja nimetab Paide Linnavolikogu oma otsusega;
 3) vanemate esindajad valitakse kooli hoolekogusse vanemate üldkoosolekul vanemate poolt;
 4) õpilaste esindajad nimetatakse õpilasesinduse poolt;
 5) vilistlaste esindajad kooskõlastatakse vilistlaste organisatsioonidega nende olemasolul;
 (4) Õppenõukogu, vanemate ja õpilaste esindajate valimine toimub lihthäälteenamusega.
 § 4. Hoolekogu tööülesanded
 Põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseaduses sätestatud ülesannete täitmiseks hoolekogu:
 2) kehtestab direktori ettepanekul pedagoogide konkursi läbiviimise korra;
 § 5. Hoolekogu juhtimine ja tegevuse planeerimine
 (3) Hoolekogu koosolekut juhatab hoolekogu esimees, tema äraolekul aseesimees ning protokollib hoolekogu sekretär.
 (5) Hoolekogu töösse võib kaasata arutatavate küsimuste analüüsimiseks ja eksperthinnangute andmiseks vastava ala spetsialiste, moodustada komisjone või töörühmi.
 § 7. Hoolekogu koosoleku protokollimine
 (1) Hoolekogu koosolekul arutatud teemade ning vastuvõetud otsuste kohta koostatakse protokoll, mille allkirjastavad koosoleku juhataja ja protokollija. Protokollija edastab protokolli kooli asjaajamise eest vastutavale töötajale seitsme päeva jooksul hoolekogu koosoleku toimumisest.
 6) koosolekule kutsutud isikute ees- ja perekonnanimed ning nende ametinimetused või esimehe loal koosolekust osavõtnud isikud;
 7) päevakord;
 9) vastuvõetud otsused.
 (3) Protokollile lisatakse hoolekogu liikme kirjalik eriarvamus, kui see on esitatud.
 (4) Hoolekogu protokolle säilitatakse koolis ühtsetel alustel muude kooli dokumentidega.
 § 8. Hoolekogu otsustusvõime
 § 9. Otsuste vastuvõtmine ja täitmine
 (2) Hoolekogu poolt vastu võetud otsused on avalikud.
 (3) Hoolekogu otsuste teatavaks tegemist ja täitmist korraldab kooli direktor.
 § 10. Otsuse vastuvõtmine side- või infotehnoloogiliste vahendite kaudu
 (3) Hoolekogu liige teavitab hoolekogu esimeest oma seisukohast. Otsus loetakse vastuvõetuks, kui otsuse poolt on üle poole hoolekogu liikmetest.
 (4) Hääletustulemused protokollib hoolekogu esimees. Protokoll registreeritakse ning selle allkirjastab hoolekogu esimees. Protokollis tuuakse välja hoolekogu liikmete antud vastuse aeg ja sisu
 Hoolekogu õppeaasta jooksul tehtud töö aruande esitab hoolekogu esimees üks kord õppeaastas kooli vanemate üldkoosolekule.
 (1) Roosna-Alliku Vallavolikogu 30.12.2010 määrus nr 24 „Roosna-Alliku valla munitsipaalharidusasutuste hoolekogude töökord” tunnistatakse kehtetuks.
 (2) Paide Linnavolikogu 27.01.2011 määrus nr 39 „Paide üldhariduskoolide hoolekogu moodustamise kord ja töökord“ tunnistatakse kehtetuks.
 (3) Paide Vallavolikogu 29.11.2012 määrus nr 24 „Kooli hoolekogu tegutsemise kord“ tunnistatakse kehtetuks.


text:
 10.9.2011
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 269/21
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Arbeitsgericht Passau (Nemecko) 16. mája 2011 — Konstantin Toltschin/Kaiser GmbH
 (Vec C-230/11)
 2011/C 269/39
 Jazyk konania: nemčina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Arbeitsgericht Passau
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Žalobca: Konstantin Toltschin
 Žalovaná: Kaiser GmbH
 Prejudiciálne otázky
 1.
 Má sa článok 31 ods. 2 Charty základných práv Európskej únie z 12. decembra 2007, resp. článok 7 ods. 1 smernice Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 2003/88/ES zo 4. novembra 2003 o niektorých aspektoch organizácie pracovného času (1) vykladať v tom zmysle, že bráni takej vnútroštátnej právnej úprave alebo právnej praxi, podľa ktorej v prípade zníženia počtu pracovných dní, ktoré treba odpracovať za týždeň, v dôsledku zákonného skrátenia pracovného času, sa nárok zamestnanca s kratším pracovným časom na platenú dovolenku za kalendárny rok prispôsobí podľa zásady pro rata temporis pomeru počtu pracovných dní za týždeň počas skráteného pracovného času a počtu pracovných dní za týždeň zamestnanca s riadnym pracovným časom, a zamestnanec so skráteným pracovným časom tak bude mať počas skráteného pracovného času primerane znížený nárok na dovolenku?
 2.
 V prípade kladnej odpovede na prvú prejudiciálnu otázku:
 Má sa článok 31 ods. 2 Charty základných práv Európskej únie z 12. decembra 2007, resp. článok 7 ods. 1 smernice Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 2003/88/ES zo 4. novembra 2003 o niektorých aspektoch organizácie pracovného času, vykladať v tom zmysle, že bráni takej vnútroštátnej právnej úprave alebo právnej praxi, podľa ktorej v prípade zníženia počtu pracovných dní, ktoré treba odpracovať za týždeň, na nulu, v dôsledku zákonného skrátenia pracovného času, sa nárok zamestnanca s kratším pracovným časom na platenú dovolenku za kalendárny rok zníži podľa zásady pro rata temporis na nulu, a zamestnancovi s pracovným časom „skráteným na nulu“ tak nárok na dovolenku vôbec nevznikne?
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 299, s. 9; Mim. vyd. 05/004, s. 381.


text:
„Vom relua munca de la zero” - BIHON
 „Vom relua munca de la zero”
 la 10. iulie 2014 15:14
 Echipa de handbal CSM Oradea va juca tot în Divizia A, cu un lot complet restructurat.
 Formaţia CSM Oradea a promovat în sezonul trecut în Liga Naţională după ce a stabilit un record în istoria handbalului orădean, câştigând toate cele 20 de meciuri susţinute în Seria B a Diviziei A. În ciuda acestei performanţe, echipa nu a beneficiat de sprijin financiar din partea clubului, fiind nevoită să renunţe la înscrierea în Liga Naţională.
 Majoritatea componenţilor lotului au plecat la alte echipe. Jucătorii Cântec, Amihăesi, Iştoc, Macovei, Avram şi Matei au părăsit formaţia orădeană, iar juniorii Ţirban şi Banciu au abandonat handbalul, preferând să se dedice studiilor. Din lotul sezonului trecut au mai rămas Bistrean, Gale (portari), Nemenco, Babici, Radu, Drăgan, fraţii Farcaş şi Szilágyi. Lotul a fost completat cu următorii jucători: Cristian Suciu (de la Sebeş) – conducător de joc, Cristian Polocoşer (de la U Transilvania Cluj-Napoca) – inter dreapta, Ioan Crăciun – pivot, Angelo Svoboda (ambii de la HC Minuar Baia Mare) – extremă stângă, Răzvan Niţu (de la U Craiova) – inter stânga, Alin Dume – portar şi Adrian Georgel (ambii juniori din pepiniera proprie) – extremă dreaptă.
 Lot mult slăbit
 Antrenorul Sebastian Tudor a avut şi el o ofertă de la echipa Potaissa Turda, unde ar fi urmat să devină „secundul” lui Horaţiu Gal, dar a preferat să rămână la CSM Oradea şi să reia munca de la capăt. „Mie îmi pare rău de situaţia în care a ajuns echipa, practic am muncit degeaba un an de zile. Mă bucur că o parte din jucătorii cu care am lucrat în sezonul trecut au ajuns la echipe din Liga Naţională. Înseamnă că s-a muncit bine şi acei jucători au crescut în valoare. Regret însă că ei nu vor juca în Liga Naţională cu CSM Oradea, aşa cum ne-am dorit cu toţii la începutul campionatului. Acum suntem nevoiţi să reluăm munca practic de la zero, pentru că avem un lot aproape nou. Este însă un lot mult mai subţire atât din punct de vedere numeric, cât şi valoric”, ne-a declarat antrenorul orădean.
 Promovarea, mai dificilă
 Sebastian Tudor avertizează că obiectivul promovării va fi mult mai greu de îndeplinit în sezonul care urmează. „Conducerea clubului ne-a fixat ca obiectiv promovarea în Liga Naţională. De data aceasta va fi însă mult mai dificil faţă de ediţia trecută, pentru că seria va fi mai redutabilă. Potaissa Turda şi Politehnica Timişoara şi-au făcut echipe secunde, care vor activa în seria noastră şi tot aici va juca HC Caraş Severin Reşiţa, care şi-a păstrat o bună parte din jucătorii din Liga Naţională. Au rămas mai departe Clujul şi Piteştiul, echipe incomode care se pot bate şi ele la promovare. Noi în schimb suntem mult slăbiţi faţă de ediţia precedentă. Dacă vom termina turul pe unul din primele locuri, ar trebui să ne întărim lotul cu trei-patru jucători de valoare şi abia atunci am putea emite pretenţii la promovarea în Liga Naţională”, a explicat antrenorul CSM Oradea.
 Taguri: csm oradea, divizia A, handbal masculin


type: contracts

text:
 7.9.2006
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 245/40
 BESLUIT VAN HET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER Nr. 70/2006
 van 2 juni 2006
 tot wijziging van bijlage XXI (Statistiek) bij de EER-Overeenkomst
 HET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER,
 Gelet op de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte, gewijzigd bij het Protocol tot aanpassing van de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte, hierna „de Overeenkomst” genoemd, en met name op artikel 98,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Bijlage XXI bij de Overeenkomst werd gewijzigd bij Besluit nr. 52/2006 van het Gemengd Comité van de EER van 28 april 2006 (1).
 (2)
 Verordening (EG) nr. 1552/2005 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 7 september 2005 betreffende de statistiek van bij- en nascholing in ondernemingen (2) moet in de Overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (3)
 Verordening (EG) nr. 1553/2005 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 7 september 2005 inzake de communautaire statistiek van inkomens en levensomstandigheden (3) moet in de Overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (4)
 Verordening (EG) nr. 1722/2005 van de Commissie van 20 oktober 2005 betreffende de beginselen voor de schatting van woondiensten ten behoeve van Verordening (EG, Euratom) nr. 1287/2003 van de Raad betreffende de harmonisatie van het bruto nationaal inkomen tegen marktprijzen (EU-SILC) (4) moet in de Overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (5)
 Aanbeveling COM (2005) 217 van de Commissie van 25 mei 2005 over de onafhankelijkheid, integriteit en verantwoordingsplicht van de nationale en communautaire statistische instanties (5) moet in de Overeenkomst worden opgenomen,
 BESLUIT:
 Artikel 1
 Bijlage XXI bij de Overeenkomst wordt als volgt gewijzigd:
 1.
 Na punt 18p (Verordening (EG) nr. 13/2005 van de Commissie) wordt het volgende punt ingevoegd:
 „18q.
 32005 R 1552: Verordening (EG) nr. 1552/2005 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 7 september 2005 betreffende de statistiek van bij- en nascholing in ondernemingen (PB L 255 van 30.9.2005, blz. 1).
 De bepalingen van de verordening worden voor de toepassing van de Overeenkomst als volgt aangepast:
 Deze verordening is niet van toepassing op Liechtenstein.”
 2.
 Na punt 18i (Verordening (EG) nr. 1177/2003 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad) wordt het volgende toegevoegd:
 „, gewijzigd bij:
 —
 32005 R 1553: Verordening (EG) nr. 1553/2005 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 7 september 2005 (PB L 255 van 30.9.2005, blz. 6).”
 3.
 Na punt 19t (Verordening (EG) nr. 1161/2005 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad) wordt het volgende punt ingevoegd:
 „19u.
 32005 R 1722: Verordening (EG) nr. 1722/2005 van de Commissie van 20 oktober 2005 betreffende de beginselen voor de schatting van woondiensten ten behoeve van Verordening (EG, Euratom) nr. 1287/2003 van de Raad betreffende de harmonisatie van het bruto nationaal inkomen tegen marktprijzen (PB L 276 van 21.10.2005, blz. 5).”
 4.
 Na punt 17b (Verordening (EG) nr. 831/2002 van de Commissie) wordt het volgende ingevoegd:
 „BESLUITEN WAARVAN DE OVEREENKOMSTSLUITENDE PARTIJEN NOTA DIENEN TE NEMEN
 De overeenkomstsluitende partijen nemen nota van de inhoud van de volgende besluiten:
 17c.
 52005 PC 0217: Aanbeveling COM (2005) 217 van de Commissie van 25 mei 2005 over de onafhankelijkheid, integriteit en verantwoordingsplicht van de nationale en communautaire statistische instanties (PB C 172 van 12.7.2005, blz. 22).”
 Artikel 2
 De in het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie bekend te maken teksten in de Noorse taal van Verordening (EG) nr. 1552/2005 en in de IJslandse en Noorse taal van de Verordeningen (EG) nr. 1553/2005, (EG) nr. 1722/2005 en Aanbeveling COM (2005) 217 zijn authentiek.
 Artikel 3
 Dit besluit treedt in werking op 3 juni 2006, op voorwaarde dat alle in artikel 103, lid 1, van de Overeenkomst bedoelde kennisgevingen aan het Gemengd Comité van de EER hebben plaatsgevonden (6).
 Artikel 4
 Dit besluit wordt bekendgemaakt in het EER-gedeelte van en in het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 2 juni 2006.
 Voor het Gemengd Comité van de EER
 De voorzitter
 R. WRIGHT
 (1) PB L 175 van 29.6.2006, blz. 103.
 (2) PB L 255 van 30.9.2005, blz. 1.
 (3) PB L 255 van 30.9.2005, blz. 6.
 (4) PB L 276 van 21.10.2005, blz. 5.
 (5) PB C 172 van 12.7.2005, blz. 22.
 (6) Geen grondwettelijke vereisten aangegeven.


type: wikipedia

text:
Der Präsident des Bundespolizeipräsidiums ist Leiter des Bundespolizeipräsidiums in Deutschland. „Präsident des Bundespolizeipräsidiums“ ist sowohl eine Amtsbezeichnung als auch ein statusrechtliches Amt. Er ist ein politischer Beamter. Das Amt wurde im Rahmen der Neustrukturierung geschaffen und ersetzte den vormaligen Inspekteur der Bundespolizei zum 1. Januar 2008. Das Amt wurde am 1. März 2008 mit Matthias Seeger besetzt. Dieser wurde im Juli 2012 in den einstweiligen Ruhestand versetzt. Am 1. August 2012 übernahm Dieter Romann das Amt, der als Verwaltungsjurist zuvor nicht Polizeivollzugsbeamter war.
 Der Präsident des Bundespolizeipräsidiums ist Polizeivollzugsbeamter des Bundes, wenn das letzte Amt, das er vor der Verleihung dieses Amtes innehatte, ebenfalls das eines Polizeivollzugsbeamten war.
 Während der Inspekteur der Bundespolizei Unterabteilungsleiter der ehemaligen Unterabteilung B II des Bundesinnenministeriums war, leitet der Präsident das Bundespolizeipräsidium als Oberbehörde des Bundes, in die im Rahmen der Organisationsreform einige Aufgaben, die im Bundesministerium des Innern angesiedelt waren, übergegangen sind. Somit ist er Vorgesetzter aller Angehörigen der Bundespolizei in der Oberbehörde Bundespolizeipräsidium sowie der diesem nachgeordneten Bundespolizeidirektionen und der Bundespolizeiakademie. Er erfüllt mit dem Amt unter anderem die berufliche Funktion des Grenzbeauftragten des Innenministeriums.
 Das Amt ist Besoldungsgruppe B 9 zugeordnet und höher bewertet als das bis 2008 bestehende Amt des Inspekteurs der Bundespolizei (BesGr. B 7 BBesG).
 Siehe auch
 Amtsbezeichnungen der Bundespolizei
 Einzelnachweise
 Amtsbezeichnung der deutschen Polizei
 Berufliche Funktion der Polizei
 Bundespolizei (Deutschland)


text:
Is teanga Astrálach é Guugu Yimidhirr. Tá sé mar theanga ag muintir Guugu Yimidhirr, atá ina gcónaí in aice le Cooktown i dtuaisceart Queensland.
 Gramadach
 Cosúil le teangacha Astrálacha eile, tá moirfeolaíocht áinsíoch ag forainmneacha Ghuugu Yimidhirr ach tá moirfeolaíocht oibríoch ag ainmfhocail eile. Is é sin le rá, tá an fhoirm chéanna ag ábhar bhriathair neamhaistrigh le hábhar bhriathair aistrigh más forainm é an t-ábhar, ach an fhoirm chéanna le cuspóir bhriathair aistrigh más ainmfhocal é.
 Cibé ceann d'fhorainmneacha nó ainmfhocail a úsáidtear, is é gnáth-ord na habairte ná Ainmní Cuspóir Briathar, ach is féidir ord focail eile a úsáid chomh maith.
 Samplaí
 Tagann an focal Béarla kangaroo ó Ghuugu Yimidhirr gangurru (/ɡaŋʊrʊ/).
 Tagairtí
 Teangacha na hAstráile


type: legislation

text:
 17.12.2020
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 426/18
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2020/2119 AL COMISIEI
 din 16 decembrie 2020
 privind reînnoirea autorizării preparatului de acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină ca aditiv pentru hrana tuturor speciilor de porcine (înțărcate), a puilor de carne, a puicuțelor de ouă, a tuturor speciilor aviare minore de carne și a tuturor speciilor aviare minore de ouă și de abrogare a Regulamentelor (UE) nr. 1117/2010 și (UE) nr. 849/2012 (titularul autorizației: Vetagro SpA)
 (Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 22 septembrie 2003 privind aditivii din hrana animalelor (1), în special articolul 9 alineatul (2),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003 prevede autorizarea aditivilor destinați utilizării în hrana animalelor, precum și motivele și procedurile de acordare și de reînnoire a unor astfel de autorizații.
 (2)
 Preparatul de acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină a fost autorizat ca aditiv destinat hranei pentru animale timp de 10 ani pentru purceii înțărcați, prin Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1117/2010 al Comisiei (2), și pentru puii de carne, puicuțele de ouă, toate speciile aviare minore de carne și de ouă, precum și pentru alte suide înțărcate decât Sus scrofa domesticus, prin Regulamentul (UE) nr. 849/2012 al Comisiei (3).
 (3)
 În conformitate cu articolul 14 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003, titularul autorizației respective a depus o cerere de reînnoire a autorizării preparatului de acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină pentru toate speciile de porcine (înțărcate), puii de carne, puicuțele de ouă, toate speciile aviare minore de carne și de ouă, solicitând ca aditivul respectiv să fie încadrat în categoria „aditivi zootehnici”. Cererea respectivă a fost însoțită de informațiile și de documentele necesare în temeiul articolului 14 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003.
 (4)
 În avizul său din 17 martie 2020 (4), Autoritatea Europeană pentru Siguranța Alimentară (denumită în continuare „autoritatea”) a concluzionat că, în condițiile de utilizare propuse, preparatul de acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină nu are niciun efect advers asupra sănătății animalelor, asupra siguranței consumatorilor sau asupra mediului. Autoritatea a concluzionat, de asemenea, că aditivul este considerat potențial iritant pentru piele și pentru ochi și sensibilizant pentru piele și pentru căile respiratorii. Prin urmare, Comisia consideră că este necesar să fie luate măsuri adecvate de protecție pentru a preveni efectele negative asupra sănătății umane, îndeosebi în ceea ce îi privește pe utilizatorii aditivului.
 (5)
 Evaluarea preparatului de acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină arată că sunt îndeplinite condițiile de autorizare prevăzute la articolul 5 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003. În consecință, autorizarea acestui aditiv ar trebui reînnoită.
 (6)
 Ca urmare a reînnoirii autorizării preparatului de acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină ca aditiv pentru hrana animalelor, ar trebui abrogate Regulamentele (UE) nr. 1117/2010 și (UE) nr. 849/2012.
 (7)
 Deoarece nu există motive de siguranță care să impună aplicarea imediată a modificărilor condițiilor de autorizare a preparatului de acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină, este adecvat să se prevadă o perioadă de tranziție pentru a permite părților interesate să se pregătească pentru a îndeplini noile cerințe care decurg din autorizare.
 (8)
 Măsurile prevăzute în prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comitetului permanent pentru plante, animale, produse alimentare și hrană pentru animale,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Se reînnoiește autorizarea preparatului specificat în anexă, aparținând categoriei „aditivi zootehnici” și grupei funcționale „alți aditivi zootehnici”, sub rezerva îndeplinirii condițiilor prevăzute în anexa respectivă.
 Articolul 2
 Regulamentele (UE) nr. 1117/2010 și (UE) nr. 849/2012 se abrogă.
 Articolul 3
 Preparatul de acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină, astfel cum este prevăzut în Regulamentele (UE) nr. 1117/2010 și (UE) nr. 849/2012, preamestecurile și hrana combinată pentru animale care conțin respectivul aditiv, produse și etichetate înainte de 6 ianuarie 2021 în conformitate cu normele aplicabile înainte de 6 ianuarie 2021, pot continua să fie introduse pe piață și să fie utilizate până la epuizarea stocurilor existente.
 Articolul 4
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a douăzecea zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 16 decembrie 2020.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) JO L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 29.
 (2) Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1117/2010 al Comisiei din 2 decembrie 2010 privind autorizarea unui preparat din acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină ca aditiv pentru hrana purceilor înțărcați (titularul autorizației: Vetagro SpA) (JO L 317, 3.12.2010, p. 3).
 (3) Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 849/2012 al Comisiei din 19 septembrie 2012 privind autorizarea preparatului din acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină ca aditiv furajer pentru puii pentru îngrășare, puicuțele crescute pentru ouat, toate speciile aviare minore pentru îngrășare și crescute pentru ouat și suidele înțărcate, altele decât Sus scrofa domesticus (titular al autorizației: Vetagro S.p.A) (JO L 253, 20.9.2012, p. 8).
 (4) EFSA Journal 2020;18(4):6063.
 ANEXĂ
 Numărul de identificare al aditivului
 Numele titularului autorizației
 Aditivul
 Compoziția, formula chimică, descrierea, metoda de analiză
 Specia sau categoria de animale
 Vârsta maximă
 Conținutul minim
 Conținutul maxim
 Alte dispoziții
 Sfârșitul perioadei de autorizare
 mg/kg de aditiv în hrana completă pentru animale cu un conținut de umiditate de 12 %
 Categoria aditivilor zootehnici. Grupa funcțională: alți aditivi zootehnici (îmbunătățirea parametrilor de performanță)
 4d3
 Vetagro SpA
 Preparat protejat de acid citric, acid sorbic,
 timol și vanilină
 Compoziția aditivului
 Preparat din microsfere protejate care conțin acid citric, acid sorbic, timol și vanilină cu un conținut minim de:
 Acid citric: 25 g/100 g
 Timol: 1,7 g/100 g
 Acid sorbic: 16,7 g/100 g
 Vanilină: 1 g/100 g
 Pui de carne
 Puicuțe de ouă
 Toate speciile aviare minore de carne și de ouă
 -
 200
 -
 1.
 În instrucțiunile de utilizare a aditivului și a preamestecului trebuie indicate condițiile de depozitare și stabilitatea la tratament termic.
 2.
 Instrucțiunile de utilizare trebuie să includă următorul text: „Nu trebuie depășit conținutul maxim total de diferite surse de acid citric și acid sorbic în hrana completă pentru animale.”
 3.
 Pentru utilizatorii aditivului și ai preamestecurilor, operatorii din sectorul hranei pentru animale trebuie să stabilească proceduri operaționale și măsuri organizatorice pentru a contracara riscurile potențiale care rezultă din utilizarea lor: iritant pentru piele și pentru ochi și sensibilizant pentru piele. În cazul în care respectivele riscuri nu pot fi eliminate sau reduse la minimum prin astfel de proceduri și măsuri, aditivul și preamestecurile trebuie utilizate cu echipamente de protecție individuală, inclusiv cu echipamente de protecție pentru piele, ochi și aparatul respirator.
 6.1.2031
 Caracterizarea substanței active
 Acid citric C6H8O7 (puritate ≥ 99,5 %)
 Acid 2-hidroxi-1,2,3-propantricarboxilic, număr CAS 77-92-9, anhidru
 Acid sorbic C6H8O2 (puritate ≥ 99,5 %)
 Acid 2,4-hexadienoic, număr CAS 110-44-1
 Timol (puritate ≥ 98 %)
 5-metil-2-(1-metiletil)fenol, număr CAS 89-83-8
 Vanilină (puritate ≥ 99,5 %)
 4-hidroxi-3-metoxibenzaldehidă, număr CAS 121-33-5)
 Toate speciile de porcine (înțărcate)
 1 000
 Metoda analitică
 (1)
 Determinarea acidului sorbic și a timolului în aditivul furajer, preamestecuri și furaje:
 —
 Cromatografie lichidă de înaltă performanță în fază inversă cu detecție cu ultraviolete/cu grup de diode (RP-HPLC-UV/DAD)
 Determinarea acidului citric în aditiv și preamestecuri:
 —
 Cromatografie lichidă de înaltă performanță în fază inversă cu detecție cu ultraviolete/cu grup de diode
 (RP-HPLC-UV/DAD) Determinarea acidului citric în hrana pentru animale:
 —
 determinare enzimatică a conținutului de acid citric – metodă spectrometrică NADH (forma redusă a nicotinamid adenin dinucleotidei)
 -
 (1) Detaliile metodelor analitice sunt disponibile la următoarea adresă a laboratorului de referință: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports


text:
 3.12.2016
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 329/70
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) 2016/2120 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 2 december 2016
 tot wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 voor wat de in artikel 3, lid 1, vermelde bepalingen betreft
 (Voor de EER relevante tekst)
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EG) nr. 552/2004 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 10 maart 2004 betreffende de interoperabiliteit van het Europese netwerk voor luchtverkeersbeheer („de interoperabiliteitsverordening”) (1), en met name artikel 3, lid 5,
 Na raadpleging van het Comité voor het gemeenschappelijk luchtruim,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 In artikel 2, lid 2, punt 16, van Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 van de Commissie (2) wordt verwezen naar definities als omschreven in volume 1 van de „ICAO Procedures for Operational Services — Aircraft Operations” (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168), en meer bepaald naar de vierde editie van 1993 waarin amendement nr. 13 is opgenomen. Sinds de vaststelling van Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 heeft de ICAO dat document gewijzigd en de vijfde editie van 2006, inclusief amendement nr. 6, aangenomen.
 (2)
 In de bijlage bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 wordt verwezen naar bepalingen als omschreven in ICAO bijlage 2 — „Rules of the Air”, en meer bepaald de tiende editie van juli 2005, inclusief alle amendementen tot en met nr. 42. Sinds de vaststelling van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 428/2013 van de Commissie (3) zijn de gemeenschappelijke luchtverkeersregels, als vastgesteld in Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 923/2012 van de Commissie (4), toepasselijk geworden en onlangs verder geactualiseerd bij Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2016/1185 van de Commissie (5). Die gemeenschappelijke luchtverkeersregels betreffen met name, in deel 4 van de bijlage bij Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 923/2012, de bepalingen inzake vliegplannen en vervangen bijgevolg de vroegere verwijzingen naar ICAO-bijlage 2.
 (3)
 In de bijlage bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 wordt verwezen naar bepalingen als omschreven in de „ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Air Traffic Management” (PANS-ATM, Doc 4444), en meer bepaald naar de 15e editie van 2007 waarin amendement nr. 4 is opgenomen. Sinds de vaststelling van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 428/2013 heeft de ICAO dat document gewijzigd, meest recentelijk door amendement nr. 6 op te nemen. In de bijlage bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 wordt ook verwezen naar bepalingen als omschreven in de „ICAO Regional Supplementary Procedures” (Doc 7030), en meer bepaald naar de vijfde editie van 2008 waarin amendement nr. 7 is opgenomen. Sinds de vaststelling van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 428/2013 heeft de ICAO dat document gewijzigd, meest recentelijk door amendement nr. 9 op te nemen.
 (4)
 De verwijzingen in Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 naar ICAO-bijlage 2, Doc 8168, Doc 4444 en Doc 7030 moeten worden geactualiseerd om de lidstaten de mogelijkheid te geven aan hun internationale wettelijke verplichtingen te voldoen en overeenstemming te verzekeren met het internationale regelgevingskader van de ICAO.
 (5)
 Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 dient derhalve dienovereenkomstig te worden gewijzigd,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 wordt als volgt gewijzigd:
 1)
 In artikel 2, lid 2, wordt punt 16 vervangen door:
 „16) „terminalprocedures”: de standaardvertrek- en aankomstroutes voor instrumentvluchten, als omschreven in „ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation Services — Aircraft Operations” (PANS-OPS, Doc 8168 — Volume 1 — Vijfde editie — 2006, inclusief alle amendementen tot en met nr. 6).”.
 2)
 De bijlage wordt vervangen door de tekst van de bijlage bij deze verordening.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de twintigste dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 2 december 2016.
 Voor de Commissie
 De voorzitter
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) PB L 96 van 31.3.2004, blz. 26.
 (2) Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 van de Commissie van 4 juli 2006 tot vaststelling van de vereisten inzake de procedures voor vliegplannen in de aan de vlucht voorafgaande fase in het gemeenschappelijke Europese luchtruim (PB L 186 van 7.7.2006, blz. 46).
 (3) Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 428/2013 van de Commissie van 8 mei 2013 houdende wijziging van Verordening (EG) nr. 1033/2006 voor wat de in artikel 3, lid 1, vermelde ICAO-bepalingen betreft en houdende intrekking van Verordening (EU) nr. 929/2010 (PB L 127 van 9.5.2013, blz. 23).
 (4) Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 923/2012 van de Commissie van 26 september 2012 tot vaststelling van gemeenschappelijke luchtverkeersregels en operationele bepalingen betreffende luchtvaartnavigatiediensten en -procedures en tot wijziging van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 1035/2011 en Verordeningen (EG) nr. 1265/2007, (EG) nr. 1794/2006, (EG) nr. 730/2006, (EG) nr. 1033/2006 en (EU) nr. 255/2010 (PB L 281 van 13.10.2012, blz. 1).
 (5) Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2016/1185 van de Commissie van 20 juli 2016 tot wijziging van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 923/2012 wat betreft de actualisering en voltooiing van de gemeenschappelijke luchtverkeersregels en operationele bepalingen betreffende luchtvaartnavigatiediensten en -procedures (SERA deel C) en tot intrekking van Verordening (EG) nr. 730/2006 (PB L 196 van 21.7.2016, blz. 3).
 BIJLAGE
 „BIJLAGE
 Bepalingen waarnaar wordt verwezen in artikel 3, lid 1
 1.
 Deel 4 van de bijlage bij Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 923/2012 van de Commissie (1).
 2.
 Hoofdstuk 4, punt 4.4 („Flight plans”) en hoofdstuk 11, punt 11.4.2.2 („Movement messages”) van ICAO PANS-ATM Doc. 4444 (15e editie van 2007, inclusief alle amendementen tot en met nr. 6).
 3.
 Hoofdstuk 2 („Flight plans”) en hoofdstuk 6, punt 6.12.3 („Boundary estimates”) van de „Regional Supplementary Procedures”, Doc. 7030, European (EUR) Regional Supplementary Procedures (vijfde editie van 2008, inclusief alle amendementen tot en met nr. 9).
 (1) Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 923/2012 van de Commissie van 26 september 2012 tot vaststelling van gemeenschappelijke luchtverkeersregels en operationele bepalingen betreffende luchtvaartnavigatiediensten en -procedures en tot wijziging van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 1035/2011 en Verordeningen (EG) nr. 1265/2007, (EG) nr. 1794/2006, (EG) nr. 730/2006, (EG) nr. 1033/2006 en (EU) nr. 255/2010 (PB L 281 van 13.10.2012, blz. 1).”


text:
 EUROOPA KOMISJON
 Brüssel,11.8.2021
 COM(2021) 474 final
 2021/0268(NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS,
 millega määratakse kindlaks Euroopa Liidu nimel EMP ühiskomitees võetav seisukoht seoses EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 (koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust) muutmisega (Erasmus+)
 (EMPs kohaldatav tekst)
 SELETUSKIRI
 1.Kavandatav reguleerimisese
 Käesolev ettepanek käsitleb otsust, millega määratakse kindlaks liidu nimel EMP ühiskomitees võetav seisukoht seoses ühiskomitees vastu võetava otsusega, mis käsitleb EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 (koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust) muutmist
 2.Ettepaneku taust
 2.1.EMP leping
 Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepinguga (edaspidi „EMP leping“) tagatakse EMP kodanikele ja ettevõtjatele siseturul võrdsed õigused ja kohustused. Sellega nähakse ette nelja vabadust käsitlevate ELi õigusaktide kohaldamine kõigis 30 EMP riigis, mille hulka kuuluvad ELi liikmesriigid, Norra, Island ja Liechtenstein. Lisaks hõlmab EMP leping koostööd muudes olulistes valdkondades, nagu teadus- ja arendustegevus, haridus, sotsiaalpoliitika, keskkond, tarbijakaitse, turism ning kultuur, mis on koondatud ühisnimetuse „kõrvalmeetmed ja horisontaalpoliitika“ alla. Leping jõustus 1. jaanuaril 1994. Euroopa Liit koos liikmesriikidega on lepingu osaline.
 2.2.EMP ühiskomitee
 EMP ühiskomitee vastutab EMP lepingu rakendamise eest. Tegemist on foorumiga, kus vahetatakse arvamusi EMP lepingu toimimise kohta. Otsused võetakse vastu konsensuse alusel. Vastavalt Lissaboni lepingule vastutab EMPga seotud küsimuste koordineerimise eest ELi poolel Euroopa välisteenistus.
 2.3.EMP ühiskomitee kavandatav õigusakt
 EMP ühiskomitee võtab eeldatavasti vastu EMP ühiskomitee otsuse (edaspidi „kavandatav õigusakt“), millega muudetakse EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust.
 Kavandatava õigusakti eesmärk on laiendada EMP lepingu lepinguosaliste koostööd nii, et see hõlmaks EMP EFTA riikide osalemist Erasmuse programmis. Seetõttu tuleb EMP lepingusse inkorporeerida Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 20. mai 2021. aasta määrus (EL) 2021/817, millega luuakse liidu haridus- ja koolitus-, noorte- ning spordiprogramm „Erasmus+“ ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EL) nr 1288/2013
 1
 .
 Kooskõlas ELi eelarvepoliitikaga on ELi tegevuses võimalik osaleda ainult juhul, kui on tasutud vastav osamakse. Makse võib teha aga alles pärast käesoleva nõukogu otsuse eelnõu vastuvõtmist ja pärast seda, kui Euroopa Komisjon on esitanud EMP EFTA riikidele ELi rahastamisnõude.
 Seetõttu kohaldatakse ühiskomitee otsuse eelnõu tagasiulatuvalt alates 1. jaanuarist 2021, et katta 1. jaanuari 2021 ja makse saamise vaheline ajavahemik. Tagasiulatuvus ei mõjuta asjaomaste isikute õigusi ja kohustusi ning selle kohaldamisel peetakse kinni õiguspärase ootuse põhimõttest.
 Vastavalt EMP lepingu artiklitele 103 ja 104 muutub kavandatav õigusakt osaliste jaoks siduvaks.
 3.Liidu nimel võetav seisukoht
 Komisjon esitab nõukogule EMP ühiskomitee otsuse eelnõu, et nõukogu võtaks selle vastu kui liidu seisukoha. Komisjon loodab, et ta saab esitada selle seisukoha EMP ühiskomitees esimesel võimalusel.
 Lisatud EMP ühiskomitee otsuse eelnõu sisu ja laadi ei saa pidada pelgalt tehnilisteks korrektsioonideks nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 2894/94 artikli 1 lõike 3 tähenduses. Seetõttu võtab liidu seisukoha vastu nõukogu.
 4.Õiguslik alus
 4.1.Menetlusõiguslik alus
 4.1.1.Põhimõtted
 Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu (edaspidi „ELi toimimise leping“) artikli 218 lõikega 9 on ette nähtud otsused, millega „kehtestatakse lepingus sätestatud organis liidu nimel võetavad seisukohad, kui asjaomasel organil tuleb vastu võtta õigusliku toimega akte, välja arvatud õigusaktid, millega täiendatakse või muudetakse lepingu institutsioonilist raamistikku“.
 Mõiste „õigusliku toimega aktid“ hõlmab akte, millel on õiguslik toime asjaomase organi suhtes kehtiva rahvusvahelise õiguse normide alusel. Siia kuuluvad ka sellised õiguslikud vahendid, mis ei ole rahvusvahelise õiguse kohaselt siduvad, aga mis „võivad mõjutada otsustavalt liidu seadusandja vastu võetud õigusaktide sisu“
 2
 .
 4.1.2.Kohaldamine käesoleval juhtumil
 EMP ühiskomitee on lepinguga, täpsemalt EMP lepinguga loodud organ. Õigusakt, mille EMP ühiskomitee peab vastu võtma, on õigusliku toimega akt. Kavandatav õigusakt on rahvusvahelise õiguse alusel siduv kooskõlas EMP lepingu artiklitega 103 ja 104.
 Kavandatud aktiga ei täiendata ega muudeta lepingu institutsioonilist raamistikku. Seega on kavandatava otsuse menetlusõiguslik alus Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõige 9 koostoimes nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 2894/94 (Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu rakendamise korra kohta) artikli 1 lõikega 3.
 4.2.Materiaalõiguslik alus
 4.2.1.Põhimõtted
 ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõike 9 kohase otsuse materiaalõiguslik alus sõltub eelkõige selle kavandatava akti eesmärgist ja sisust, mida liidu nimel võetav seisukoht puudutab. Kui kavandatava õigusaktiga taotletakse kahte eesmärki või reguleeritakse kahte valdkonda ning ühte neist võib pidada peamiseks, samas kui teine on kõrvalise tähtsusega, peab ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõike 9 kohasel otsusel olema üksainus, nimelt peamise või ülekaaluka eesmärgi või valdkonna tõttu nõutav materiaalõiguslik alus.
 Kui kavandatava aktiga taotletakse mitut eesmärki või reguleeritakse mitut valdkonda, mis on üksteisega lahutamatult seotud ning millest ükski ei ole võrreldes teistega kõrvalise tähtsusega, tuleb erandina nimetada ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõike 9 kohase otsuse materiaalõigusliku alusena mitu vastavat õiguslikku alust.
 4.2.2.Kohaldamine käesoleval juhtumil
 Kavandatava otsuse materiaalõiguslik alus vastab EMP lepingusse inkorporeeritava õigusakti materiaalõiguslikule alusele.
 Programm „Erasmus+“ põhineb Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu jaotisel „Haridus, kutseõpe, noored ja sport“ (artiklid 165 ja 166).
 Seetõttu moodustavad esildatud otsuse materiaalõigusliku aluse järgmised sätted: Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artiklid 165 ja 166.
 4.3.Kokkuvõte
 Kavandatava otsuse õiguslikuks aluseks peaksid olema ELi toimimise lepingu artiklid 165 ja 166 koostoimes ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõikega 9 ning nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 2894/94 (Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu rakendamise korra kohta) artikli 1 lõikega 3.
 5.Mõju eelarvele
 EMP EFTA riigid toetavad rahaliselt liidu eelarvet. Täpne summa määratakse kindlaks kooskõlas EMP lepingu sätetega pärast käesoleva nõukogu otsuse eelnõu vastuvõtmist.
 6.Kavandatava akti avaldamine
 Kuna EMP ühiskomitee aktiga muudetakse EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust, on asjakohane avaldada see pärast vastuvõtmist Euroopa Liidu Teatajas.
 2021/0268 (NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS,
 millega määratakse kindlaks Euroopa Liidu nimel EMP ühiskomitees võetav seisukoht seoses EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 (koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust) muutmisega
 (Erasmus+)
 (EMPs kohaldatav tekst)
 EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingut, eriti selle artikleid 165 ja 166 koostoimes artikli 218 lõikega 9,
 võttes arvesse nõukogu 28. novembri 1994. aasta määrust (EÜ) nr 2894/94 Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingu rakendamise korra kohta,
 3
 eriti selle artikli 1 lõiget 3,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni ettepanekut
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna leping
 4
 (edaspidi „EMP leping“) jõustus 1. jaanuaril 1994.
 (2)EMP lepingu artikli 98 kohaselt võib EMP ühiskomitee oma otsusega muu hulgas muuta EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31, mis sisaldab sätteid koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust.
 (3)EMP lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EL) 2021/817
 5
 .
 (4)EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 (koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust) tuleks seetõttu vastavalt muuta.
 (5)EMP ühiskomitees võetav liidu seisukoht peaks seega põhinema käesoleva otsuse lisas esitatud EMP ühiskomitee otsuse eelnõul,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Seisukoht, mis võetakse liidu nimel EMP ühiskomitees seoses EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 (koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust) muutmise ettepanekuga, põhineb käesolevale otsusele lisatud EMP ühiskomitee otsuse eelnõul.
 Artikkel 2
 Käesolev otsus jõustub selle vastuvõtmise päeval.
 Brüssel,
 Nõukogu nimel
 eesistuja
 (1)
 ELT L 189, 28.5.2021, lk 1–33.
 (2)
 Euroopa Kohtu 7. oktoobri 2014. aasta otsus kohtuasjas Saksamaa vs. nõukogu, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, punktid 61–64.
 (3)
 EÜT L 305, 30.11.1994, lk 6–8.
 (4)
 EÜT L 1, 3.1.1994, lk 3.
 (5)
 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 20. mai 2021. aasta määrus (EL) 2021/817, millega luuakse liidu haridus- ja koolitus-, noorte- ning spordiprogramm „Erasmus+“ ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EL) nr 1288/2013 (ELT L 189, 28.5.2021, lk 1–33).
 ---documentbreak---
 EUROOPA KOMISJON
 Brüssel,11.8.2021
 COM(2021) 474 final
 LISA
 järgmise dokumendi juurde:
 Ettepanek: NÕUKOGU OTSUS,
 millega määratakse kindlaks Euroopa Liidu nimel EMP ühiskomitees võetav seisukoht seoses EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 (koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust) muutmisega (Erasmus+)
 LISA
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr [...],
 [kuupäev],
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut (edaspidi „EMP leping“), eriti selle artikleid 86 ja 98,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)Asjakohane on laiendada EMP lepingu osaliste koostööd nii, et see hõlmaks Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 20. mai 2021. aasta määrust (EL) 2021/817, millega luuakse liidu haridus- ja koolitus-, noorte- ning spordiprogramm „Erasmus+“ ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EL) nr 1288/2013
 1
 .
 (2)On asjakohane, et EFTA riikide osalemine määrusest (EL) 2021/817 tulenevates meetmetes algaks 1. jaanuaril 2021, sõltumata sellest, millal käesolev otsus vastu võetakse või kas käesoleva otsuse kohaldamiseks vajalike põhiseadusest tulenevate võimalike nõuete täitmisest teatatakse pärast 10. juulit 2021.
 (3)EFTA riikides moodustatud üksused peaksid saama osaleda meetmetes, mille võtmist alustatakse enne käesoleva otsuse jõustumist. Pärast 1. jaanuari 2021 võetud meetmete kulusid võib käsitada rahastamiskõlblikena samadel tingimustel nagu ELi liikmesriikides moodustatud üksuste kulusid, eeldusel, et käesolev otsus jõustub enne asjaomaste meetmete lõpuleviimist.
 (4)EFTA riikide ning nende asutuste, ettevõtete, organisatsioonide ja kodanike Euroopa Liidu programmides osalemise tingimused on sätestatud EMP lepingus, eriti selle artiklis 81.
 (5)Seepärast tuleks EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 vastavalt muuta, et kõnealune laiendatud koostöö saaks toimuda alates 1. jaanuarist 2021,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 EMP lepingu protokolli nr 31 artiklit 4 muudetakse järgmiselt.
 1.lõike 2p järele lisatakse järgmine lõige:
 „2q.EFTA riigid osalevad alates 1. jaanuarist 2021 järgmises Euroopa programmis:
 –32021 R 0817: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 20. mai 2021. aasta määrus (EL) 2021/817, millega luuakse liidu haridus- ja koolitus-, noorte- ning spordiprogramm „Erasmus+“ ning tunnistatakse kehtetuks määrus (EL) nr 1288/2013 (ELT L 189, 28.5.2021, lk 1).
 Pärast 1. jaanuari 2021 alustatud meetmete kulusid võib käsitada alates nende asjaomases toetuslepingus või toetuse andmise otsuses sätestatud alguskuupäevast rahastamiskõlblikena nendes sätestatud tingimustel, eeldusel, et EMP ühiskomitee [kuupäev] 2021. aasta otsus nr XX/2021 [käesolev otsus] jõustub enne nende meetmete lõpuleviimist.“
 2.Lõike 3 tekst asendatakse järgmisega:
 „EFTA riigid osalevad lõigetes 1, 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g, 2h, 2i, 2j, 2k, 2l, 2m, 2n, 2o, 2p ja 2q osutatud programmide ja meetmete rahastamises vastavalt lepingu artikli 82 lõike 1 punktile a.“
 Artikkel 2
 Käesolev otsus jõustub järgmisel päeval pärast seda, kui kõik EMP lepingu
 2* artikli 103 lõike 1 kohased teated on edastatud.
 Seda kohaldatakse alates 1. jaanuarist 2021.
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, [...].
 EMP ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja
 [...]
 EMP ühiskomitee
 sekretärid
 [...]
 (1)
 ELT L 189, 28.5.2021, lk 1–33.
 (2)
 *
 [Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole nimetatud.] [Põhiseadusest tulenevad nõuded on nimetatud.]


text:
 22.6.2017
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 161/66
 ROZHODNUTIE SPOLOČNÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 č. 278/2015
 z 30. októbra 2015,
 ktorým sa mení príloha XIII (Doprava) k Dohode o EHP [2017/1067]
 SPOLOČNÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 so zreteľom na Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore (ďalej len „Dohoda o EHP“), a najmä na jej článok 98,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) 2015/1536 zo 16. septembra 2015, ktorým sa mení nariadenie (EÚ) č. 1321/2014, pokiaľ ide o zosúladenie pravidiel zachovania letovej spôsobilosti s nariadením (ES) č. 216/2008, kritickú údržbu a monitorovanie zachovania letovej spôsobilosti lietadiel (1), sa má začleniť do Dohody o EHP.
 (2)
 Príloha XIII k Dohode o EHP by sa preto mala zodpovedajúcim spôsobom zmeniť,
 PRIJAL TOTO ROZHODNUTIE:
 Článok 1
 V bode 66q [nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) č. 1321/2014] prílohy XIII k Dohode o EHP sa dopĺňa tento text:
 „, zmenené týmto právnym predpisom:
 —
 32015 R 1536: Nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) 2015/1536 zo 16. septembra 2015 (Ú. v. EÚ L 241, 17.9.2015, s. 16).“
 Článok 2
 Znenie nariadenia (EÚ) 2015/1536 v islandskom a nórskom jazyku, ktoré sa uverejní v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie, je autentické.
 Článok 3
 Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť 1. novembra 2015 pod podmienkou, že boli doručené všetky oznámenia podľa článku 103 ods. 1 Dohody o EHP (*1).
 Článok 4
 Toto rozhodnutie sa uverejní v oddiele EHP Úradného vestníka Európskej únie a v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie.
 V Bruseli 30. októbra 2015
 Za Spoločný výbor EHP
 predsedníčka
 Oda SLETNES
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 241, 17.9.2015, s. 16.
 (*1) Ústavné požiadavky neboli oznámené.


text:
 14.9.2015
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 302/70
 Žaloba podaná dne 9. července 2015 – ZZ v. ESVČ
 (Věc F-101/15)
 (2015/C 302/86)
 Jednací jazyk: francouzština
 Účastníci řízení
 Žalobce: ZZ (zástupci: J.-N. Louis a N. de Montigny, advokáti)
 Žalovaná: Evropská služba pro vnější činnost (ESVČ)
 Předmět a popis sporu
 Zrušení rozhodnutí ESVČ nepovýšit žalobce do platové třídy AD13 v rámci povyšování v roce 2014.
 Návrhová žádání žalobce
 —
 zrušit rozhodnutí ze dne 29. října 2014, kterým se stanoví seznam úředníků povýšených v rámci povyšování v roce 2014 v rozsahu, v jakém v něm není zahrnuto jeho jméno,
 —
 uložit ESVČ náhradu nákladů řízení.


jurisdiction: US

text:
This is an appeal from a decree passed in Circuit Court No. *Page 185
 2, of Baltimore City, dismissing the bill of complaint filed by appellant against the executors of Mrs. Grace Ann Greenway, to require them to pay her a legacy of $1500, which she claims she is entitled to under the last will and testament of Mrs. Greenway. It is conceded that there are sufficient funds in the estate to pay the legacy in full, but the executors contend that the appellant is not entitled to it, under the terms of the will, and that certain parol testimony which they claim must be considered by this Court conclusively establishes their contention. We will first examine the will.
 (1.) After disposing of certain property under the power conferred on her by the will of her father, the late George Brown, and making some bequests of her wearing apparel, jewelry, silverware and other personal property, she directed and empowered her executors to sell her real estate, as soon after her death as practicable, and to convert into cash such of her personal property as they might deem necessary and, after providing for her just debts and funeral expenses, "to dispose of my estate as follows, viz: to pay the following legacies:" She then gave thirteen legacies to relatives and friends and one to the Woman's Industrial Exchange, and under the same "Item" she added; I desire the respectively designated legacies to be paid the following named parties, if they shall be living at the timeof my death, otherwise to constitute a part of the residuum of my estate, viz; To my nephew Eugene Greenway, fifteen thousand dollars; To my maid Elizabeth McCausland, twelve thousand dollars; To my housekeeper Susan Lowe, fifteen hundred dollars," etc. There are fifteen other legacies immediately following those, varying from one hundred dollars to fifteen hundred dollars, which were given to her seamstress, cook, laundress, coachman, butler, waiter, housemaid, dressmaker, her mother's cook and maid servant and several other persons named. The will is dated April 29th, 1899, and at that time Mrs. Lowe, who is the appellant, had been housekeeper for the testatrix for fifteen or sixteen years but left in October, 1899. The testatrix lived until September 9th, 1903. *Page 186
 As the appellant was living at the time of the death of the testatrix it would seem to be too clear for controversy that she is entitled to the legacy left her, as above stated, unless there be something in the will to change, modify or in some way affect that plain language. But after directing her executors to purchase from some responsible insurance company, annuities available one year after her death, for three of her servants, "if they be then living," she concluded this item of her will by the following provision: "I request my executor and executrix to pay in full those legacies hereinbefore provided for the several persons now in my employ and who may constitute myhousehold at the time of my death, as soon thereafter as possible and without regard to the sufficiency of my estate to pay in whole or in part the other legacies and bequests in this my will." The appellees contend, and the Court below decided, that the language italicized by us in the clause last quoted limited the legacies to her employees, previously provided for in the will, to those who were a part of her household at the time of her death, and that inasmuch as the appellant was no longer there and had not been since October, 1899, she is not entitled to the one given her. But it seems to us that such construction is not justified by the language used by the testatrix, under the well established rules of construction applicable to wills. The only limitation upon the right of the legatees to take the legacies respectively given them, used by the testatrix in the clause by which they were given, was: "If they should be livingat the time of my death, otherwise to constitute a part of the residuum of my estate." There is no suggestion that she meant to impose the further condition that they were to constitute her household and still be in her employ at the time of her death. The clause relied on by the appellees speaks for itself as to what the testatrix thereby intended, which evidently was that her executors should pay in full those of her legatees previously mentioned who were in her employ when her will was executed and who constituted her household at the time of her death, as soonas possible after her death and that the legacies *Page 187
 left to such persons should not abate, if her estate was not sufficient to pay all the legacies and bequests given by her will. That is the natural and what seems to us to be the plain meaning of the clause.
 In Hurley v. Rosensteel, decided at October Term, 1906,104 Md. 262, of this Court, we quoted with approval from 1 Jarman onWills, sec. 479, that "where there is a clear gift in a will it cannot afterwards be cut down except by something which with reasonable certainty indicates the intention of the testator to cut it down. It need not (as sometimes stated)be equally clear with the gift. `You are not to institute a comparison between the two clauses as to lucidity.' But the clearly expressed gift naturally requires something unequivocal to show that it does not mean what it says." Applying that to this case, this subsequent clause does not "with reasonable certainty" indicate an intention of the testatrix to take from the appellant what was doubtless intended as a reward for past services and a provision for the comfort and support of this old woman who was then about seventy years of age. It matters not whether the appellant left the services of Mrs. Greenway on account of her health or she was discharged by reason of her habits, as claimed by the appellees, the will of Mrs. Greenway shows too plainly that she was desirous of rewarding the appellant and others who had been faithful in their services to her, to permit a gift made by her to such an one to be revoked by anything less than a clear intention of her part to do so. The testatrix lived over four years after she made her will, and nearly that length of time after the appellant left her employ, and if she had not intended her to be the recipient of her bounty she had ample opportunity to say so in the way the law provides for changing wills. We can have no doubt about her intention, as shown by the will and such evidence explaining the surroundings of the testatrix and the appellant as we can properly consider.
 2. The appellees offered evidence of statements made by the testatrix to show that her intention was to only leave legacies to such of her servants and employes as remained with *Page 188
 her until her death, and even called the scrivener to place his interpretation on the language used in the will on that subject. If such evidence be permissible, or can be considered by a Court called upon to construe a will, then our statutes in reference to the execution and revocation of wills are worse than useless, for they might induce testators to suppose that their devises and bequests were to be governed by what they said in their wills, whilst under that theory of the admissibility of evidence, they would depend upon the recollection, honesty, understanding and intelligence of witnesses, who might be called upon to testify to statements of testators, either before, at the time of or after the execution of their wills. It ought not to be necessary to cite authorities to show that such evidence is not admissible, for they are too numerous and clear to admit of doubt. InZimmerman v. Hafer, 81 Md. 352, the present Chief Judge, in delivering the opinion of the Court, said: "Just as he has written his will, it must stand. What he meant to say must be gathered from what he did say therein, as viewed from the standpoint that he then occupied; and what he did say in the will itself, and not what he previously declared, no matter how unequivocal its import may be, must solve the question before us." In Frick v. Frick, 82 Md. 222, after saying that, in seeking the intention of the testator from the face of the will, it was permissible to ascertain the facts and circumstances respecting the persons and property to which the will relates, we said: "We cannot, however, resort to extrinsic evidence to ascertain from the scrivener what the testator instructed or intended him to say, as was attempted in this case, nor can we accept the declarations of the testator to establish his intention or to aid in the interpretation of the will." And in the late case of Shipley v. Mercantile Trust Company,102 Md. 658, we quoted from 1 Redfield on Wills, 540, that: "The declarations of the testator, whether made before, contemporaneously with, or subsequent to the making of the will cannot be received to affect its construction. This has been repeatedly decided by the American Courts. The declarations of the testator after making his will, *Page 189
 of his purpose and intention therein, are not admissible in evidence to control or explain it."
 But it is contended that inasmuch as such evidence is in the record, and no exceptions were filed to it, this Court is required to consider it under the statute, which provides amongst other things that no objections to the admissibility of evidence shall be made in this Court "unless it shall appear by the record that such objection was made by exceptions, filed in the Court from which such appeal shall have been taken." That statute has been applied in a number of cases by this Court and our predecessors, but no case can be found in which it has been extended so far as to require this Court to virtually permit a will to be made for a testator, or to revoke one already made, by parol testimony. By sec. 317 of Art. 93 of the Code, wills executed in this State, disposing of either real or personal property are required to be in writing, signed by the testator or by some one for him in his presence and by his express direction and to be attested and subscribed in his presence by two or more credible witnesses, "or else they shall be utterly void and ofnone effect." By sec. 318 no will, or any clause thereof, can be revoked otherwise than by some other will or codicil in writing, or other writing declaring the same, or by its destruction by the testator or in his presence and by his direction and consent, and the new will, codicil, etc., are required to be executed with the same formalities as the will intended to be revoked. Yet if the theory of the appellees be correct, parol evidence of witnesses, if not properly excepted to could change the entire legal effect of a will, or a clause thereof, as shown by what the testator had said therein, and this Court would be helpless and would be required to accept the parol evidence to the extent of altering the will, although it would be in the teeth of these provisions of our testamentary laws, which are intended to protect wills by safeguards suggested by experience. If all the devisees and legatees mentioned in a will desired to change it, or some part of it, it would be possible under such a theory for some to proceed against the others for a construction of it, take testimony *Page 190
 to which no one would file exceptions and thereby require this Court to accept it, in construing the will.
 In Sewell v. Slingluff, 57 Md. 537, Mrs. Slingluff made a will leaving all her property to her mother. Parol evidence was offered to prove that the testatrix had delivered it to her husband with the request, understanding and direction that it was not to be taken or probated as her will in case she died leaving issue, but in such event it should be inoperative so that her estate should pass as if it had never been executed. She died leaving issue and a bill was filed to enjoin her mother from offering said paper for probate. This Court said: "To allow the parol declarations of the testatrix, whether made before, after, or at the time of the execution of the will, to render that will inoperative at some future time, and in the event of some future contingency, would be nothing more or less than to allow a parol revocation of it. It makes no difference that we can see, whether such revocation is called a revocation or by some other name." In passing on the question, the Court said: "Wills are more especially guarded and protected by the law, than any other instruments. They are guarded in their inception by the formalities required by our statute, and after they are made they are equally guarded by our statute, which points out the only mode by which they can be revoked or annulled." Yet under the appellee's theory the provision in this will, which we have determined above is sufficient to entitle the appellant to a legacy of $1,500, could be rendered inoperative by parol proof of a contrary intention expressed by the testatrix. If the testatrix had expressed an intention to revoke the legacy, even by a paper writing, written and signed by her, it could not have had that effect, unless it complied with the requirements of the statute as to attestation, etc., and no Court would have been justified in holding that such a writing had that effect notwithstanding there was no exception to the introduction of it in evidence. That would be so, simply because it would not be such a paper writing as could revoke a will, or any part of it, and upon what principle can it be held that parol evidence, although not excepted to, *Page 191
 could have such effect? In short, the law does not permit parol evidence to alter, or revoke a will, executed as required by the statute, yet that would be the effect of the appellees' contention, if sustained.
 In Shreve v. Shreve, 43 Md. 382, testimony was taken of parol declarations by the testatrix after she had made the will as to its effect and her intentions in executing it, and it was contended that, as the testimony was not excepted to in the Court below, it could be resorted to by this Court in ascertaining the rights of the parties and must be allowed its full force. This Court said on page 393 that: "All this testimony was clearly inadmissible to affect the construction of the will or the rights of the infant defendants." It then referred to the fact that the adult defendants had parted with their rights in the property, had no interest in resisting the complainant's claims, and the infants were not represented by counsel, either at the taking of the testimony or at the hearing of the case when exceptions to it ought to have been filed, and said: "Under these circumstances, it would be an unreasonable extension of the doctrine in Gibbs
 v. Gale, to apply it to this case, and we must therefore construe this will by the light afforded by the paper itself."Gibbs v. Gale, 7 Md. 76, was the case relied on by the complainants to sustain their contention, as to the effect of the evidence not being excepted to. It is true that the Court prefaced its conclusion by referring to the circumstances that the infants were not represented by counsel, etc., but the statute, requiring exceptions to be filed in the lower Court, does not make an exception in favor of infants, and if it is applicable to such evidence concerning wills as the appellees contend for in this case, this Court would have been required to consider the evidence in Shreve v. Shreve, and could not have construed the will alone "by the light afforded by the paper itself." That case was referred to at some length in Shipley v.Mercantile Trust Co., supra, although there expections were filed to the testimony objected to. In Frick v. Frick, supra,
 there were no exceptions filed to the evidence, and although the brief for the appellees called attention to that fact we unhesitatingly refused *Page 192
 to resort to extrinsic evidence to ascertain what the testator instructed or intended the scrivener to say and would not accept evidence of the declarations of the testator to establish his intention or to aid in the interpretation of the will. There are doubtless other cases in which this Court has confined itself to the will on such questions, although extrinsic evidence was offered, which was not excepted to, but it would be useless to refer to them, as we are of the opinion that such testimony as we have referred to cannot be permitted to overcome or affect the evidence of the intention of a testator furnished by the will itself which, under the law, must be our guide.
 It may be well to add that the case of Struth v. Decker,100 Md. 375, does not in any way conflict with what we have said. In that case issues were being tried as to the testamentary capacity of the testator, his knowledge of the contents of the paper, whether any part of it was contrary to his instructions or was misunderstood by him, whether its execution was procured by undue influence, etc., but it did not involve, as this case does, the construction of a will or some part thereof. The evidence of Emma Struth was offered as reflecting on some of the issues. Her testimony was clearly hearsay but because it was admitted without objection we said, "it is in the case for all purposes and the Court must give it the same effect as if it had in fact been legally admissible." By that we only meant that it must be given the same effect as if it had not been hearsay, and did not intend to intimate (and no such question was before us) that such evidence could be accepted by the Court to show the intention of a testator when a will, admittedly valid, is being construed, as is being done in the case now before us. When such issues as those referred to above are being tried, evidence of the declarations, etc., of a testator may be admissible, although it would not be in a case such as this.
 It follows that this decree must be reversed.
 Decree reversed, with costs to the appellant, and causeremanded. *Page 193


text:
 16.12.2010
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 L 332/57
 DECISIONE DEL COMITATO MISTO SEE
 N. 107/2010
 del 1o ottobre 2010
 che modifica l’allegato XIII (Trasporti) dell’accordo SEE
 IL COMITATO MISTO SEE,
 visto l’accordo sullo Spazio economico europeo, modificato dal protocollo che adegua l’accordo sullo Spazio economico europeo, in seguito denominato «l’accordo», in particolare l’articolo 98,
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 L’allegato XIII dell’accordo è stato modificato dalla decisione del Comitato misto SEE n. 90/2010 del 2 luglio 2010 (1).
 (2)
 Il regolamento (CE) n. 300/2008 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, dell’11 marzo 2008, che istituisce norme comuni per la sicurezza dell’aviazione civile e che abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 2320/2002 (2) è stato integrato nell’accordo con la decisione del Comitato misto SEE n. 69/2009 del 29 maggio 2009 (3), che prevede adeguamenti nazionali specifici.
 (3)
 Occorre integrare nell’accordo il regolamento (UE) n. 1254/2009 della Commissione, del 18 dicembre 2009, che definisce i criteri per consentire agli Stati membri di derogare alle norme fondamentali comuni per la sicurezza dell’aviazione civile e di adottare misure di sicurezza alternative (4),
 DECIDE:
 Articolo 1
 Dopo il punto 66hc [regolamento (UE) n. 72/2010 della Commissione] dell’allegato XIII dell’accordo viene inserito il seguente punto:
 «66hd.
 32009 R 1254: regolamento (UE) n. 1254/2009 della Commissione, del 18 dicembre 2009, che definisce i criteri per consentire agli Stati membri di derogare alle norme fondamentali comuni per la sicurezza dell’aviazione civile e di adottare misure di sicurezza alternative (GU L 338 del 19.12.2009, pag. 17).
 Ai fini del presente accordo le disposizioni del regolamento si intendono adattate come in appresso:
 Il presente regolamento si applica a decorrere dalla data di entrata in cui entra in vigore l’ultima delle decisioni del Comitato misto SEE che integrano nell’accordo le misure necessarie per l’applicabilità del regolamento (CE) n. 300/2008.»
 Articolo 2
 I testi del regolamento (UE) n. 1254/2009 nelle lingue islandese e norvegese, da pubblicare nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea, fanno fede.
 Articolo 3
 La presente decisione entra in vigore il 2 ottobre 2010, a condizione che al Comitato misto SEE siano pervenute tutte le notifiche previste dall’articolo 103, paragrafo 1, dell’accordo (5).
 Articolo 4
 La presente decisione è pubblicata nella sezione SEE e nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, il 1o ottobre 2010.
 Per il Comitato misto SEE
 Il presidente
 Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON
 (1) GU L 277 del 21.10.2010, pag. 43.
 (2) GU L 97 del 9.4.2008, pag. 72.
 (3) GU L 232 del 3.9.2009, pag. 25.
 (4) GU L 338 del 19.12.2009, pag. 17.
 (5) Non è stata comunicata l’esistenza di obblighi costituzionali.


text:
 13.12.2007
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 328/29
 AZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG
 85/2007 határozata
 (2007. július 6.)
 az EGT-megállapodás VI. mellékletének (Szociális biztonság) módosításáról
 AZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás kiigazításáról szóló jegyzőkönyvvel módosított, az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: a megállapodás) és különösen annak 98. cikkére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A megállapodás VI. mellékletét a 2006. szeptember 22-i 118/2006 EGT-vegyesbizottsági határozat (1) módosította.
 (2)
 Az Európai Közösségek migráns munkavállalók szociális biztonságával foglalkozó igazgatási bizottságának a Tanács 1408/71/EGK és az 574/72/EGK rendeleteinek alkalmazásához szükséges formanyomtatványokról (E 200 sorozat) szóló, 2005. október 6-i 204. számú határozatát (2) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (3)
 Az Európai Közösségek migráns munkavállalók szociális biztonságával foglalkozó igazgatási bizottságának a migráns munkavállalók szociális biztonságával foglalkozó igazgatási bizottság adatfeldolgozási műszaki bizottságának működési rendjéről és összetételéről szóló, 2005. december 15-i 206. számú határozatát (3) bele kell foglalni a megállapodásba.
 (4)
 Az Európai Közösségek migráns munkavállalók szociális biztonságával foglalkozó igazgatási bizottságának 184. és 188. számú, a megállapodásba jelenleg belefoglalt határozatainak helyébe a 204. számú határozata lép.
 (5)
 Az Európai Közösségek migráns munkavállalók szociális biztonságával foglalkozó igazgatási bizottságának 86. és 159. számú, a megállapodásba jelenleg belefoglalt határozatainak helyébe a 206. számú határozata lép,
 A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:
 1. cikk
 A megállapodás VI. melléklete a következőképpen módosul:
 1.
 A 3.43. pont (158. számú határozat), a 3.64. pont (188. számú határozat) és a 3.8. pont (86. számú határozat) szövegét el kell hagyni.
 2.
 A melléklet a 3.78. pontot (202. számú határozat) követően a következő pontokkal egészül ki:
 „3.79.
 32006 D 0613: az Európai Közösségek migráns munkavállalók szociális biztonságával foglalkozó igazgatási bizottságának 2005. október 6-i 204. számú határozata a Tanács 1408/71/EGK és 574/72/EGK rendeletének alkalmazásához szükséges formanyomtatványokról (E 200 sorozat) (HL L 254., 2006.9.16., 1. o.).
 3.80.
 32006 D 0352: az Európai Közösségek migráns munkavállalók szociális biztonságával foglalkozó igazgatási bizottságának 2005. december 15-i 206. számú határozata a migráns munkavállalók szociális biztonságával foglalkozó igazgatási bizottság könyvvizsgáló bizottságának bizottságának működési rendjéről és összetételéről (HL L 130., 2006.5.18., 39. o.).”
 2. cikk
 A 204. és 206. számú határozatnak az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-kiegészítésében közzéteendő izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövege hiteles.
 3. cikk
 Ez a határozat 2007. július 7-én lép hatályba, feltéve, hogy az EGT-Vegyesbizottság a megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdésében előírt összes bejelentést megkapta (4).
 4. cikk
 Ezt a határozatot az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében és EGT-kiegészítésében kell közzétenni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2007. július 6-án.
 az EGT-Vegyesbizottság részéről
 az elnök
 Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON
 (1) HL L 333., 2006.11.30., 42. o.
 (2) HL L 254., 2006.9.16., 1. o.
 (3) HL L 130., 2006.5.18., 39. o.
 (4) Alkotmányos követelmények fennállását nem jelezték.