text:
 'Αριθ. C 33/2 Επίσημη 'Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων 14. 2. 81
 II
 (Προπαρασκευαστικές πράξεις)
 ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ
 Πρόταση 'Οδηγίας τοϋ" Συμβουλίου περί εναρμονίσεως των νομοθετικών, κανονιστικών καί
 διοικητικών διατάξεων πού άφοροΰν την άσκηση δικαιώματος προσφυγής στον τελωνειακό
 τομέα
 (Υποβληθείσα από τήν 'Επιτροπή στό Συμβούλιο στις 29'Ιανουαρίου1981)
 ΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ ΤΩΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΩΝ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΩΝ, τήν ομοιόμορφη εφαρμογή τών εισαγωγικών ή εξαγω
 γικών δασμών πού άφοροϋν τά εμπορεύματα πού άποτε-
 Έχοντας υπόψη: λοϋν αντικείμενο συναλλαγών μεταξύ τής Κοινότητος
 καί τών τρίτων χωρών'
 τη συνθήκη περί ιδρύσεως της Ευρωπαϊκής Οικονομικής
 Κοινότητος, καί ιδίως τά άρθρα 43 καί 100, δτι ή κοινοτική τελωνειακή ρύθμιση καλύτπει γενικό
 τερα τό σύνολο τών διατάξεων πού άφοροϋν τήν
 τήν πρόταση τής 'Επιτροπής, εισαγωγή εξαγωγή, διαμετακόμιση καί παραμονή τών
 εμπορευμάτων τά όποια άποτελοϋν τό αντικείμενο συν
 τή γνώμη τοϋ Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, αλλαγών μεταξύ τών Κρατών μελών καθώς καί μεταξύ
 αυτών καί τών τρίτων χωρών ότι οί διατάξεις αυτές
 τή γνώμη τής Οικονομικής καί Κοινωνικής 'Επιτροπής, είναι δυνατόν νά προκύψουν είτε άπό τήν εγκαθίδρυση
 τής τελωνειακής ενώσεως αυτής καθ' εαυτής, εϊτε άπό
 'Εκτιμώντας: τήν εφαρμογή τής κοινής αγροτικής πολιτικής-
 δτι ή Κοινότης βασίζεται έπί τελωνειακής ενώσεως, δτι ή εφαρμογή τής κοινοτικής τελωνειακής ρυθμίσεως
 πραγματοποιείται συνήθως μέσω ατομικών αποφάσεων
 πού λαμβάνονται άπό τίς αρμόδιες αρχές τών Κρατών
 δτι ή εγκαθίδρυση αυτής τής τελωνειακής ενώσεως ρυθμί μελών ·
 ζεται, κατ' ουσία, από τόν τίτλο 1 κεφάλαιο 1 τοΟ δευ
 τέρου μέρους τής Συνθήκης* δτι τό τελευταίο αυτό κεφά δτι κατά τό μέτρο πού οί ατομικές αυτές αποφάσεις δύ
 λαιο περιλαμβάνει σύνολο ειδικών διατάξεων, όσον νανται νά μήν είναι σύμφωνες μέ τήν κοινοτική τελω
 άφορα ιδίως τήν κατάργηση τών δασμών μεταξύ τών νειακή ρύθμιση, είναι δυνατό νά θίγουν τά δικαιώματα
 Κρατών μελών, τή θέσπιση καί τήν προοδευτική καί τά έννομα συμφέροντα τών προσώπων πού άφο
 εισαγωγή τοϋ Κοινοΰ Δασμολογίου καθώς καί τίς αυτό ροϋν δτι δικαιολογείται, ώς έκ τούτου, αυτά τά
 νομες τροποποιήσεις ή τίς αναστολές του · πρόσωπα νά έχουν ύπό καλά καθορισμένες προϋποθέ
 σεις, τή δυνατότητα ασκήσεως δικαιώματος προσφυγής
 δτι, άν καί τό άρθρο 27 τής Συνθήκης προβλέπει δτι τά κατά τών αποφάσεων αυτών ·
 Κράτη μέλη, προβαίνουν, πρό τοϋ τέλους τοϋ πρώτου δτι ή άσκηση ενός τέτοιου δικαιώματος προσφυγής απο
 σταδίου καί κατά τό αναγκαίο μέτρο, στην προσέγγιση τελεί σημαντικό στοιχείο γιά τήν ορθή καί ομοιόμορφη
 τών νομοθετικών, κανονιστικών καί διοικητικών διατά εφαρμογή τής κοινοτικής τελωνειακής ρυθμίσεως στό
 ξεων τους στον τελωνειακό τομέα, τό έν λόγω άρθρο δέν σύνολο τής Κοινότητος καθώς καί γιά τήν εξάλειψη τών
 παρέχει, έν τούτοις, στά όργανα τής Κοινότητος τήν στρεβλώσεων στη μεταχείριση τών επιχειρηματιών πού
 εξουσία νά θεσπίζουν σχετικά δεσμευτικές διατάξεις· διαμένουν σ' αυτή ·
 δτι ή είς βάθος εξέταση, στην οποία προέβησαν τά
 Κράτη μέλη, κατέστησε, έν τούτοις, φανερή τήν ανάγκη δτι οί διατάξεις πού ισχύουν στά Κράτη μέλη καί οί
 νά καθορισθούν σέ ορισμένους τομείς, μέ δεσμευτικές όποιες άφοροϋν τό δικαίωμα προσφυγής τών φυσικών ή
 κοινοτικές πράξεις, τά απαραίτητα μέτρα γιά τήν νομικών προσώπων κατά τών αποφάσεων τών τελωνει
 εισαγωγή τελωνειακής ρυθμίσεως πού νά εξασφαλίζει ακών άρχων πού θίγουν τά δικαιώματα ή τά έννομα
 ---pagebreak--- 14.2.81 'Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων Αριθ. C 33/3
 συμφέροντα τους, παρουσιάζουν σημαντικές ανι 2. Κατά τήν έννοια τής παρούσας οδηγίας νοείται ώς:
 σότητες" δτι αυτό ισχύει εξίσου καί γιά τίς προθεσμίες
 εντός των οποίων πρέπει νά ασκηθεί ή προσφυγή, τή α) τελωνειακή ρνθ·μιση, τό σύνολο τών τελωνειακών
 φύση των άρχων οι όποιες έχουν τήν εξουσία νά έκδό- καί γεωργικών διατάξεων πού αφορούν τήν είσα-
 σουν απόφαση έπί τής προσφυγής, τήν αρμοδιότητα των γωγή, τήν εξαγωγή, τή διαμετακόμιση καί τήν παρα
 διοικητικών άρχων καί δικαστικών αρχών αντιστοίχως μονή εμπορευμάτων πού αποτελούν αντικείμενο συ
 οι όποιες θά έκδόσουν απόφαση έπί τής προσφυγής καί, ναλλαγών μεταξύ τών Κρατών μελών καθώς καί
 κυρίως, τίς συνέπειες τής ασκήσεως προσφυγής έπί τής μεταξύ αυτών καί τών τρίτων χωρών, ανεξαρτήτως άν
 -
 εφαρμογής τής προσβαλλομένης αποφάσεως δτι, είναι, πρόκειται γιά κοινοτικές διατάξεις ή γιά εθνικές διατά
 επομένως, απαραίτητο νά καθορισθούν έπί κοινοτικού ξεις πού έχουν θεσπισθεί γιά τήν εφαρμογή τών κοι
 επιπέδου οί προϋποθέσεις ασκήσεως τοϋ δικαιώματος νοτικών διατάξεων. .
 προσφυγής, γιά νά εξασφαλισθούν σέ αυτά τά πρόσωπα
 6) απόφαση, κάθε πράξη, διά τής οποίας ή τελωνειακή
 κατά τό δυνατόν ϊσες δυνατότητες όρΟης εφαρμογής τής
 αρχή αποφασίζει γιά μιά ειδική περίπτωση καί ή
 κοινοτικής τελωνειακής ρυθμίσεως"
 οποία παράγει έννομα αποτελέσματα έπί ενός ή
 δτι, σύμφωνα με τίς αρχές πού ακολουθούνται γενικώς περισσοτέρων προσώπων καθορισμένων, ή πού δύ
 στά περισσότερα Κράτη μέλη καί τήν αποδοχή τών νανται νά καθορισθούν.
 οποίων έχει συστήσει τό Συμβούλιο Τελωνειακής Συνερ γ) τελωνειακή αρχή, κάθε αρχή αρμόδια γιά τήν εφαρ
 γασίας, φαίνεται πρόσφορο νά προβλεφθεί ή δυνατότητα μογή τής τελωνειακής ρυθμίσεως κατά τήν έννοια
 ασκήσεως τοϋ δικαιώματος προσφυγής ενώπιον τής ίδιας τοϋ στοιχείου α), έστω καί άν ή αρχή αύτη δέν υπά
 τής τελωνειακής αρχής, σέ πρώτο στάδιο, καί ενώπιον γεται στην τελωνειακή διοίκηση.
 αρχής ανεξάρτητης άπό τήν τελωνειακή αρχή, σέ δεύ
 τερο στάδιο' δ) πρόσωπο, τόσο ένα φυσικό όσο καί ένα νομικό
 πρόσωπο.
 δτι, έν τούτοις, αν είναι δυνατό νά καθορισθεί ακριβώς
 ή διαδικασία ασκήσεως τοϋ δικαιώματος προσφυγής στό ε) προσφεύγων, τό πρόσωπο πού άσκεΐ τήν προσφυγή.
 πρώτο στάδιο, πρέπει αντιθέτως, στην παρούσα φάση
 τοΰ κοινοτικού δικαίου, νά αφεθεί στά Κράτη μέλη ή
 φροντίδα τής οργανώσεως τής διαδικασίας πού θά "Λρ$ρο 2
 πρέπει νά ακολουθείται γιά τήν άσκηση τοϋ δικαιώ
 ματος προσφυγής στό δεύτερο στάδιο, ώστε νά απο 1. Κάθε πρόσωπο, τοΰ οποίου τά δικαιώματα είναι
 φευχθεί κάθε παρέμβαση στό έργο τών δικαστικών δυνατόν νά θίγονται άπό μία απόφαση σχετική μέ τήν
 άρχων τών Κρατών μελών" εφαρμογή τής τελωνειακής ρυθμίσεως, έχει δικαίωμα νά
 ασκήσει προσφυγή σκοπούσα τήν ακύρωση ή τήν τροπο
 δτι ή παρούσα οδηγία δέν εμποδίζει τους ενδιαφερομέ ποίηση τής αποφάσεως αυτής.
 νους νά καταφύγουν σέ άλλου είδους δράση, τήν οποία
 δύνανται νά αναλάβουν κατ' εφαρμογή τής κοινοτικής
 2. Τό πρόσωπο τό όποιο είχε υποβάλει σχετική
 τελωνειακής ρυθμίσεως κατά ορισμένων αποφάσεων τών
 αίτηση στην αρμόδια τελωνειακή αρχή καί δέν επέτυχε
 αρμοδίων άρχων τών Κρατών μελών" δτι, στίς περιπτώ
 τήν ύπ' αυτής έκδοση αποφάσεως έπί τής αιτήσεως, έχει
 σεις δπου ή τελωνειακή αρχή έχει τό αποκλειστικό
 ομοίως τό δικαίωμα ασκήσεως προσφυγής.
 δικαίωμα νά εκτιμήσει τά πραγματικά γεγονότα έπί τών
 οποίων βασίζεται ή απόφαση της, είναι δυνατόν νά Ή προσφυγή αυτή δύναται νά ασκηθεί μετά τήν εκπνοή
 δοθεί στά Κράτη μέλη ή δυνατότητα νά διαλέξουν τής προθεσμίας, ή οποία έχει ορισθεί σέ κάθε Κράτος
 μεταξύ τής διαδικασίας ή οποία προβλέπεται στην μέλος καί ή οποία δέν δύναται νά υπερβαίνει τους 3
 παρούσα οδηγία καί μιας διαφορετικής διαδικασίας μήνες, μέ τήν επιφύλαξη τής δυνατότητος πού έχει ή
 προσφυγής, τελωνειακή αρχή, ή οποία είναι αρμόδια γιά τήν λήψη
 τής αιτουμένης αποφάσεως καί κατά τό μέτρο πού αυτό
 δικαιολογείται άπό τίς περιστάσεις, νά παρατείνει αύτη
 ΕΞΕΔΩΣΕ ΤΗΝ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΑ ΟΔΗΓΙΑ: τήν προθεσμία ύπό τόν δρο δτι προηγουμένως θά ενη
 μερώνει σχετικά τόν προσφεύγοντα αναφέροντας του
 "Αρΰρο Ι τους λόγους πού επικαλείται προς υποστήριξη τής χορηγή
 σεως τής παρατάσεως αυτής καθώς καί τήν νέα προ
 θεσμία τήν οποία χρειάζεται γιά νά έκδόσει απόφαση
 1. Ή παρούσα οδηγία καθορίζει τους κανόνες πού έπί τής αιτήσεως.
 πρέπει νά περιλαμβάνουν οί νομοθετικές, κανονιστικές
 καί διοικητικές διατάξεις τών Κρατών μελών οί σχετικές
 μέ τό δικαίωμα τών προσώπων τά όποια άφορα μία από 3. Τό δικαίωμα προσφυγής πού αναφέρεται στίς παρα
 φαση σχετική μέ τήν εφαρμογή τής τελωνειακής ρυθμί γράφους 1 καί 2 δύναται νά ασκηθεί:
 σεως, δπως αυτή ορίζεται στην παράγραφο 2 ύπό α), νά — σέ πρώτο στάδιο ενώπιον τής τελωνειακής αρχής πού
 άσκοϋν προσφυγή μέ σκοπό τήν κατάργηση ή τήν ανα ορίζεται γιά τό σκοπό αυτό,
 θεώρηση αυτής τής αποφάσεως καθώς καί μέ τή διαδι
 κασία πού πρέπει νά ακολουθηθεί γιά τήν άσκηση — σέ δεύτερο στάδιο, ενώπιον τής αρχής πού αναφέ
 τέτοιας προσφυγής. ρεται στό άρθρο 12 παράγραφος 1.
 ---pagebreak--- 'Αριθ. C 33/4 'Επίσημη 'Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων 14. 2. 81
 ΤΙΤΛΟΣ Ι Μόλις ή αίτηση υποβληθεί στην προαναφερθείσα αρχή,
 Πρώτο στάδιο τής ασκήσεως τοϋ δικαιώματος προ αυτή τήν διαβιβάζει στην αρμόδια νά αποφασίσει τελω
 σφυγής νειακή αρχή άν ή ίδια δέν έχει ορισθεί ώς τέτοια.
 2. Ή έγγραφη αίτηση πού αναφέρεται στην παρά
 γραφο 1 πρέπει νά περιέχει όλα τά πραγματικά καί
 "Αρφρο 3
 νομικά στοιχεία τά όποια επικαλείται ό προσφεύγων γιά
 νά υποστηρίξει τήν προσφυγή του.
 Οί διατάξεις των άρθρων 4 καί 11 καθορίζουν τους
 κανόνες πού θά πρέπει νά εφαρμόζονται γιά την άσκηση Ό προσφεύγων δύναται, έν τούτοις, ύπό τόν όρο ότι θά
 τοϋ δικαιώματος προσφυγής κατά τό πρώτο στάδιο. τό αναφέρει στην α'ίτησή του, νά προσκομίσει
 συμπληρωματικά στοιχεία εντός προθεσμίας, ή οποία θά
 ορίζεται άπό τήν τελωνειακή αρχή πού είναι αρμόδια νά
 "Αρΰρο 4 αποφασίσει έπί τής προσφυγής. Σέ περίπτωση πού δέν
 προσκομισθούν αυτά τά συμπληρωματικά στοιχεία,
 Τό πρόσωπο, τό όποιο έχει τό δικαίωμα ασκήσεως προ εντός τής έν λόγω προθεσμίας, ή έν λόγω αρχή αποφα
 σφυγής διατηρεί αυτό τό δικαίωμα, έστω καί αν προη σίζει βάσει τών στοιχείων πού έχει στή διάθεση της.
 γουμένως είχε αποδεχθεί τήν απόφαση της τελωνειακής
 αρχής έν όλω ή έν μέρει.
 Τό πρόσωπο αυτό δύναται νά παρίσταται δι' αντι Άρΰ'ρο 7
 προσώπου σέ όλες τίς πράξεις πού άφοροΰν τήν άσκηση Ή άσκηση προσφυγής δέν επιφέρει αναστολή τής εκτελέ
 της προσφυγής καί τήν εξέλιξη της σχετικής διαδικασίας. σεως τής προσβαλλομένης αποφάσεως.
 Έν τούτοις, ή τελωνειακή αρχή δύναται νά αναβάλει, έν
 Άρΰρο 5 όλω ή έν μέρει, τήν εκτέλεση τής αποφάσεως αυτής έάν
 έχει βάσιμους λόγους νά αμφιβάλλει γιά τήν συμφωνία
 1. Ή προσφυγή πρέπει νά ασκηθεί εντός προθεσμίας 2 τής προσβαλλομένης αποφάσεως μέ τήν τελωνειακή ρύθ
 μηνών άπό της κοινοποιήσεως τής αποφάσεως τής τελω μιση. Ή αναβολή τής εκτελέσεως εξαρτάται κατά
 νειακής αρχής. περίπτωση άπό τήν παροχή εγγυήσεως.
 2. Ή προθεσμία πού ορίζεται στην παράγραφο 1 είναι "Αρΰρο 8
 εξάμηνος έφ' όσον τό πρόσωπο πού έχει τό δικαίωμα Ή τελωνειακή αρχή πού είναι αρμόδια, νά αποφασίσει
 ασκήσεως προσφυγής: τά έπί τής προσφυγής, διεξάγει όλες τίς αναγκαίες γιά
 α) δέν είναι τό πρόσωπο είς τό όποιο κοινοποιήθηκε ή τήν έκδοση τής αποφάσεως της έρευνες καί δύναται
 απόφαση, στην περίπτωση αυτή ή προθεσμία αρχίζει ιδίως, έάν τό κρίνει πρόσφορο, νά αναθέτει τήν
 άπό τήν ημερομηνία κοινοποιήσεως τής αποφάσεως περίπτωση σέ ανεξάρτητους εμπειρογνώμονες τής τελω
 στον παραλήπτη νειακής διοικήσεως, προκειμένου νά λάβει τήν γνώμη
 τους.
 6) δέν ενημερώθηκε άπό τήν τελωνειακή αρχή πού
 εξέδωσε τήν απόφαση περί τοϋ δικαιώματος ασκή Ό προσφεύγων υποχρεούται νά βοηθεϊ τήν έν λόγω
 σεως προσφυγής ή ενημερώθηκε εσφαλμένα. αρχή κατά τή συγκέντρωση τών πραγματικών στοιχείων
 καί ίδίως νά τής παρέχει, εντός τών προθεσμιών πού
 αυτή ορίζει, όλες τίς πληροφορίες καί τά έγγραφα τά
 3. Στίς περιπτώσεις πού αναφέρονται στό άρθρο 2
 όποια ευρίσκονται στην διάθεση του καί τά όποια αυτή
 παράγραφος 2, ή προσφυγή πρέπει νά ασκείται εντός
 κρίνει αναγκαία γιά τήν ορθή εκτίμηση τής καταστά
 προθεσμίας 6 μηνών άπό τής εκπνοής τής προθεσμίας
 σεως.
 πού ορίζεται στό δεύτερο εδάφιο τής παραγράφου αυτής.
 "Αρΰ'ρο 9
 4. Οί προθεσμίες οί όποιες ορίζονται στίς προηγού
 Ό προσφεύγων δύναται νά παραιτείται τής προσφυγής
 μενες παραγράφους δέν είναι δυνατόν νά παραταθούν
 του, έφ' όσον δέν έχει εκδοθεί απόφαση έπ' αυτής. Ή
 παρά μόνο άν ό προσφεύγων αποδείξει ότι έμποδίσθηκε
 παραίτηση πρέπει νά γίνει εγγράφως.
 νά ασκήσει εμπροθέσμως τήν προσφυγή λόγω τυχαίου
 γεγονότος ή ανωτέρας βίας.
 Άρ'&ρο 10
 1. Ή τελωνειακή αρχή πού είναι αρμόδια γιά τήν
 "Αρΰρο 6
 έκδοση αποφάσεως έπί τής προσφυγής, εκδίδει έγγραφη
 απόφαση.
 1. Ή άσκηση τής προσφυγής πραγματοποιείται δι'
 υποβολής έγγραφου αιτήσεως στην τελωνειακή αρχή Ή απόφαση αυτή δύναται νά περιλαμβάνει στοιχεία
 πού εξέδωσε τήν απόφαση ή άπό τήν οποία έζητήθη ή περισσότερο δεσμευτικά γιά τόν προσφεύγοντα άπό
 έκδοση αποφάσεως ή σέ κάθε τελωνειακή αρχή, ή οποία εκείνα πού περιέχονται στην απόφαση κατά τής οποίας
 ορίζεται άπό τό ενδιαφερόμενο Κράτος μέλος. ασκήθηκε ή προσφυγή.
 ---pagebreak--- 14.2.81 'Επίσημη 'Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων 'Αριθ. C 33/5
 2. Ή εκδοθείσα απόφαση είναι αιτιολογημένη καί ποτε ενώπιον τής αρμοδίας δικαστικής αρχής
 κοινοποιείται στον προσφεύγοντα. Όταν ή απόφαση σύμφωνα μέ τίς διατάξεις τής νομοθεσίας αυτής·
 είναι δυσμενής γιά τόν προσφεύγοντα, ή αρχή πού αναφέ
 — στή δυνατότητα πού έχουν τά Κράτη μέλη ενώπιον
 ρεται στην παράγραφο 1 ενημερώνει τόν έν λόγω προ
 ειδικευμένης αρχής των οποίων πρέπει νά ασκηθεί τό
 σφεύγοντα περί της δυνατότητος πού τοΟ παρέχεται νά
 δικαίωμα προσφυγής σέ δεύτερο στάδιο, νά προβλέ
 εισέλθει στό δεύτερο στάδιο της ασκήσεως τοϋ δικαιώ
 πουν, σέ ορισμένες περιπτώσεις, ότι ή προσφυγή
 ματος προσφυγής.
 πρέπει νά ασκείται κατ' ευθείαν ενώπιον τής έν λόγω
 "ΑρΦρο 11 αρχής'
 Ή προσφυγή ασκείται δωρεάν. 'Οποιαδήποτε καί αν — στό δικαίωμα πού αναγνωρίζει ή ιταλική νομοθεσία
 είναι ή απόφαση έπί της προσφυγής, τά έξοδα τά όποια στά πρόσωπα, τά όποια άσκησαν ενώπιον τής τελω
 πραγματοποίησε είτε ό προσφεύγων εϊτε ή τελωνειακή νειακής αρχής προσφυγή, ή οποία αποτέλεσε αντικεί
 αρχή έπ' ευκαιρία της εξετάσεως της προσφυγής δέν επι μενο δυσμενοϋς αποφάσεως, νά ασκήσουν προσφυγή
 στρέφονται. ενώπιον τοΰ 'Αρχηγού τοϋ Κράτους σύμφωνα μέ τίς
 διατάξεις τής νομοθεσίας αυτής.
 ΤΙΤΛΟΣ II
 Δεύτερο στάδιο τής ασκήσεως τοϋ δικαιώματος προ "Αρ#ρο 14
 σφυγής Όταν ή τελωνειακή ρύθμιση αναγνωρίζει στίς τελω
 ~Αρ#ρο 12 νειακές αρχές τό αποκλειστικό δικαίωμα εκτιμήσεως
 των πραγματικών περιστατικών έπί των οποίων βασί
 1. Όταν μία προσφυγή πού έχει ασκηθεί ενώπιον τής ζονται οί αποφάσεις τους, οί διατυπώσεις τής ασκήσεως
 τελωνειακής αρχής απορρίπτεται έν δλω ή έν μέρει, ό τής προσφυγής κατά των αποφάσεων αυτών δύνανται νά
 προσφεύγων πρέπει νά έχει τή δυνατότητα νά ασκήσει είναι διάφορες άπό εκείνες πού προβλέπει ή παρούσα
 έκ νέου προσφυγή ενώπιον αρχής ανεξάρτητης άπό τήν οδηγία.
 τελωνειακή αρχή καί ή οποία δύναται, λόγω τής διαρθρώ
 σεως της, νά ασκήσει προσφυγή ενώπιον τοϋ Δικα "Αρ$ρο 15
 στηρίου των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων, βάσει τοϋ Ή υποβολή σέ τελωνειακό γραφείο αιτήσεως γιά επι
 άρθρου 177 τής Συνθήκης. στροφή ή μείωση των εισαγωγικών ή εξαγωγικών
 δασμών κατ' εφαρμογή των διατάξεων τοϋ κανονισμοϋ
 Ή ανεξάρτητη αρχή, ή οποία αναφέρεται στό προηγού
 (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 1430/79 τοϋ Συμβουλίου, τής 2ας 'Ιουλίου
 μενο εδάφιο, δύναται, σύμφωνα μέ τίς διατάξεις πού
 1979 ('), δέν αποτελεί άσκηση προσφυγής κατά τήν
 ισχύουν στά Κράτη μέλη, νά είναι δικαστική ή ειδικευ
 έννοια τής παρούσης οδηγίας.
 μένη αρχή.
 2. Γιά τήν. εφαρμογή των διατάξεων τής παραγράφου Άρ$ρο 16
 1 θεωρείται σάν απορριπτική απόφαση ή έλλειψη αποφά
 σεως έπί τής προσφυγής πού ασκήθηκε ενώπιον τής Ή παρούσα οδηγία δέν δύναται νά εφαρμόζεται στίς
 τελωνειακής αρχής μετά τήν εκπνοή προθεσμίας ή οποία προσφυγές πού ασκούνται μέ σκοπό τήν ακύρωση ή τήν
 ορίζεται σέ κάθε Κράτος μέλος καί ή οποία δέν δύναται αναθεώρηση αποφάσεως, τήν οποία εξέδωσαν οί τελω
 νά είναι μεγαλύτερη των 6 μηνών, μέ τήν επιφύλαξη τής νειακές αρχές βάσει των κατασταλτικών ρυθμίσεων.
 δυνατότητος τής τελωνειακής αρχής, κατά τό μέτρο πού
 τό επιτρέπουν οί περιστάσεις, νά παρατείνει αυτήν τήν "Αρΰρο 17
 προθεσμία ύπό τόν δρο ότι προηγουμένως θά ενη Τά Κράτη μέλη θέτουν σέ ισχύ τίς αναγκαίες διατάξεις
 μερώνει σχετικά τόν προσφεύγοντα, αναφέροντας του γιά νά συμμορφωθούν προς τήν παρούσα οδηγία τό αργό
 τους λόγους πού επικαλείται γιά τή στήριξη τής χορηγή τερο τήν 1η Ιανουαρίου 1983.
 σεως τής παρατάσεως αυτής καθώς καί τή νέα προ
 θεσμία τήν οποία χρειάζεται γιά τήν έκδοση αποφάσεως
 "Αρ&ρο 18
 έπί τής προσφυγής.
 ΤΙΤΛΟΣ III Κάθε Κράτος μέλος ενημερώνει τήν Επιτροπή γιά τίς
 διατάξεις πού θεσπίζει γιά τήν εφαρμογή της παρούσης
 Τελικές διατάξεις οδηγίας.
 "Αρ&ρο 13 Ή 'Επιτροπή διαβιβάζει τίς πληροφορίες αυτές στά άλλα
 Κράτη μέλη.
 Οί διατάξεις τής παρούσας οδηγίας δέν αποτελούν
 εμπόδιο: Άρΰρο 19
 — στό δικαίωμα, πού αναγνωρίζεται άπό τήν νομοθεσία Ή παρούσα οδηγία απευθύνεται στά Κράτη μέλη.
 των Κρατών μελών, σέ κάθε πρόσωπο πού θεωρεί ότι
 θίγεται άπό μία απόφαση σχετική μέ τήν εφαρμογή
 τής τελωνειακής ρυθμίσεως, νά προσφύγει οποτεδή (') ΕΕ αριθ. L 175 τής 12. 7. 1979, σ. 1.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 14.9.2015
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 302/28
 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je 24. srpnja 2015. uputio Cour administrative (Luksemburg) – Adrien Kauffmann protiv Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
 (Predmet C-402/15)
 (2015/C 302/36)
 Jezik postupka: francuski
 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev
 Cour administrative
 Stranke glavnog postupka
 Tužitelj: Adrien Kauffmann
 Tuženik: Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
 Prethodna pitanja
 Treba li radi ispunjavanja zahtjeva nediskriminacije, s obzirom na odredbe članka 7. stavka 2. Uredbe EU 492/2011 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 5. travnja 2011. (1) o slobodi kretanja radnika u Uniji i zajedno s člankom 45. stavkom 2. UFEU-a, prilikom uzimanja u obzir stvarnog stupnja povezanosti nerezidentnog studenta, koji traži financijsku pomoć za visoke studije, s društvom i tržištem rada u Luksemburgu, koji je država članica u kojoj je prekogranični radnik bio zaposlen ili je obavljao svoju djelatnost u uvjetima iz članka 2.a Zakona od 22. lipnja 2000. o državnoj financijskoj pomoći za visoke studije, kako je dopunjen Zakonom od 19. srpnja 2013. kao izravna posljedica presude Suda Europske unije od 20. lipnja 2013. (predmet C-20/12) (2),
 —
 pretpostavku za navedenog studenta da je „dijete” navedenog prekograničnog radnika kvalificirati kao da je on njegov „potomak u izravnoj liniji i prvom stupnju za kojeg je pravno utvrđeno posvojenje” stavljajući naglasak na vezu posvojenja uspostavljenu između studenta i prekograničnog radnika, za koju se pretpostavlja da je temelj predviđene povezanosti, ili
 —
 naglasak valja staviti na činjenicu da prekogranični radnik „nastavlja skrbiti o uzdržavanju studenta”, bez da je nužno da ga pravna veza posvojenja povezuje sa studentom, osobito utvrđivanjem dostatne povezanosti životne zajednice koja je takve naravi da prekograničnog radnika povezuje s jednim od roditelja studenta u odnosu na kojeg je posvojenje pravno utvrđeno?
 —
 treba li u ovom drugom slučaju neobavezan doprinos prekograničnog radnika, kada on nije isključiv nego usporedan s doprinosom jednog ili oba roditelja koji su sa studentom povezani pravnom vezom posvojenja i stoga ga u načelu pravno obvezni uzdržavati, ispunjavati određene kriterije dosljednosti?
 (1) SL L 141, str. 1.; SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 5., svezak 2., str. 264.
 (2) EU:C:2013:411


text:
9.6.2007
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 129/10
 Sag anlagt den 3. april 2007 — Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Den Italienske Republik
 (Sag C-190/07)
 (2007/C 129/18)
 Processprog: italiensk
 Parter
 Sagsøger: Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber (ved C. Cattabriga, som befuldmægtiget)
 Sagsøgt: Den Italienske Republik
 Sagsøgerens påstande
 —
 Det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 2004/117/EF af 22. december 2004 om ændring af direktiv 66/401/EØF, 66/402/EØF, 2002/54/EF, 2002/55/EF og 2002/57/EF for så vidt angår undersøgelser foretaget under officielt tilsyn og ligestilling af frø produceret i tredjelande (1), idet den ikke har vedtaget de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at efterkomme artikel 8 i dette direktiv eller under alle omstændigheder ikke har underrettet Kommissionen herom.
 —
 Den Italienske Republik tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.
 Søgsmålsgrunde og væsentligste argumenter
 Fristen for gennemførelse af direktiv 2004/117/EF udløb den 1. oktober 2005.
 (1) EUT 2005 L 14, s. 18.


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21997D0904(07)
 Afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg nr. 27/97 af 30. april 1997 om ændring af bilag XX (Miljø) til EØS-aftalen
 EF-Tidende nr. L 242 af 04/09/1997 s. 0076 - 0076
 AFGØRELSE TRUFFET AF DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG Nr. 27/97 af 30. april 1997 om ændring af bilag XX (Miljø) til EØS-aftalen DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR -under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde som tilpasset ved protokollen om tilpasning af aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, i det følgende benævnt »aftalen«, særlig artikel 98, ogud fra følgende betragtninger:Bilag XX til aftalen blev ændret ved afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg nr. 82/96 af 13. december 1996 (1);Rådets direktiv 96/61/EF af 24. september 1996 om integreret forebyggelse og bekæmpelse af forurening (2) bør indsættes i aftalen;Rådets direktiv 84/360/EØF af 28. juni 1984 om bekæmpelse af luftforurening fra industrianlæg (3), som indgår i aftalen, ophæves ved Rådets direktiv 96/61/EF med virkning fra samme dato, men elleve år efter sidstnævnte direktivs ikrafttrædelse, og derfor bør direktiv 84/360/EØF slettes i aftalen med virkning fra samme dato -TRUFFET FØLGENDE AFGØRELSE:Artikel 1 Følgende punkt bør indsættes efter punkt 2f (Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1836/93) i bilag XX til aftalen:»2g. 396 L 0061: Rådets direktiv 96/61/EF af 24. september 1996 om integreret forebyggelse og bekæmpelse af forurening (EFT L 257 af 10. 10. 1996, s. 26).«Artikel 2 Punkt 16 (Rådets direktiv 84/360/EØF) slettes med virkning fra den 30. oktober 2007.Artikel 3 Teksterne til direktiv 96/61/EF på islandsk og norsk, som er knyttet som bilag til udgaverne af denne afgørelse på de respektive sprog, er autentiske.Artikel 4 Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 1. maj 1997, forudsat at Det Blandede EØS-Udvalg har modtaget alle fornødne meddelelser i henhold til aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1.Artikel 5 Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i EØS-afsnittet i og EØS-tillægget til De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende.Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 30. april 1997.På Det Blandede EØS-Udvalgs vegneC. DAYFormand(1) EFT L 100 af 17. 4. 1997, s. 71.(2) EFT L 257 af 10. 10. 1996, s. 26.(3) EFT L 188 af 16. 7. 1984, s. 20.


text:
 3.9.2005
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 217/14
 URTEIL DES GERICHTSHOFES
 (Erste Kammer)
 vom 26. Mai 2005
 in der Rechtssache C-465/03 (Vorabentscheidungsersuchen des Unabhängigen Finanzsenats, Außenstelle Linz [Österreich]): Kretztechnik AG gegen Finanzamt Linz (1)
 (Sechste Mehrwertsteuerrichtlinie - Leistungen gegen Entgelt - Ausgabe von Aktien - Börseneinführung eines Unternehmens - Abzugsfähigkeit der Vorsteuer)
 (2005/C 217/27)
 Verfahrenssprache: Deutsch
 In der Rechtssache C-465/03 betreffend ein Vorabentscheidungsersuchen nach Artikel 234 EG, eingereicht vom Unabhängigen Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Österreich), mit Entscheidung vom 20. Oktober 2003, beim Gerichtshof eingegangen am 5. November 2003, in dem Verfahren Kretztechnik AG gegen Finanzamt Linz hat der Gerichtshof (Erste Kammer) unter Mitwirkung des Kammerpräsidenten P. Jann sowie der Richter K. Lenaerts (Berichterstatter), J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič und E. Levits — Generalanwalt: F. G. Jacobs; Kanzler: M.-F. Contet, Hauptverwaltungsrätin — am 26. Mai 2005 ein Urteil mit folgendem Tenor erlassen:
 1.
 Die Ausgabe neuer Aktien stellt keinen Umsatz dar, der in den Anwendungsbereich von Artikel 2 Nummer 1 der Sechsten Richtlinie 77/388/EWG des Rates vom 17. Mai 1977 zur Harmonisierung der Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über die Umsatzsteuern — Gemeinsames Mehrwertsteuersystem: einheitliche steuerpflichtige Bemessungsgrundlage in der durch die Richtlinie 95/7/EG des Rates vom 10. April 1995 geänderten Fassung fällt.
 2.
 Nach Artikel 17 Absätze 1 und 2 der Sechsten Richtlinie 77/388 in der durch die Richtlinie 95/7 geänderten Fassung besteht ein Recht auf Abzug der gesamten Vorsteuer, die die Aufwendungen eines Steuerpflichtigen für die verschiedenen Leistungen belastet, die er im Rahmen einer Ausgabe von Aktien bezogen hat, sofern es sich bei sämtlichen Umsätzen, die dieser Steuerpflichtige im Rahmen seiner wirtschaftlichen Tätigkeit vornimmt, um besteuerte Umsätze handelt.
 (1) ABl. C 47 vom 21.2.2004.


jurisdiction: US

text:
 334 Md. 398 (1994)
 639 A.2d 660
 ALLISON NAILS ET AL.
 v.
 S & R, INC. T/A VOB AUTO SALES.
 No. 44 September Term, 1991.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 April 12, 1994.
 Kevin G. Hessler, argued and on brief (Harvey B. Steinberg, Miller & Steinberg, on brief), Rockville, for petitioners/cross-respondent.
 D. Christopher Ohly, Baltimore, argued and on brief (Thomas J. Zagami, Hazel & Thomas, P.C., Baltimore and Harry C. Storm, Abrams, West & Storm, P.C., Bethesda, on brief), for respondent/cross-petitioner.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE,[*] CHASANOW and KARWACKI, JJ., and CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr.,[**] Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland (Retired, Specially Assigned).
 ELDRIDGE, Judge.
 We issued a writ of certiorari in this civil case to review the holding by the Court of Special Appeals that, when the jury returns a verdict, when the jury is polled, and when the parties and counsel are told that they are excused, the verdict is final and the court has no authority to submit an additional issue to the jury or request further deliberations on a matter even though the jury has remained in the box. An additional issue presented concerns the element of reliance in a fraud action.
 I.
 Allison Nails and Robert Bolton were employees of S & R, Inc., trading as VOB Auto Sales (the dealership). They served as Assistant Service Managers (ASMs), and as such, were each the leader of a team of four or five mechanics.
 Nails was hired as an ASM in 1983 and, except for the period between April and September 1984, served in that position until 1987. Nails was originally hired on a commission basis. Bolton was first hired as an ASM in 1984, and he served as an ASM until July 1987. Bolton was initially paid a flat salary, but he testified at the trial in the instant case that, when he was hired, he was told that his compensation would be changed to a commission system sometime in the future. His compensation was changed to a commission basis in February 1985.
 Nails and Bolton testified that the commission system was explained to them as follows: they were to be paid 5% of the gross dollar value of parts sold and services rendered by their respective teams, calculated on the basis of receipts instead of sales. Commissions were calculated on the basis of receipts so that an ASM would not receive a commission on a job until the dealership was paid; if the dealership never received its money, neither did the ASM.
 Unknown to the ASMs, the dealership deducted 15% from the gross receipts before paying the 5% commission. The ASMs periodically noticed discrepancies between what they thought they should be paid and what they were actually paid. On several occasions, they asked management personnel to explain the perceived discrepancies. Management generally responded that there were outstanding bills, for which commissions were not yet due, and which the ASMs could not properly track. They were not told of the dealership's practice of deducting 15% from the gross receipts.
 The ASMs contend that they first learned of the specific commission practice at a meeting with a new general manager of the dealership in 1987. Another ASM, similarly concerned about discrepancies between his anticipated commissions and his actual commissions, asked why his figures were wrong. The general manager responded that the ASM was failing to deduct 15% from the gross. This comment was apparently met with great surprise by all of the ASMs at the meeting, as this was the first time any of them had heard of this practice.
 Nails and Bolton separately filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County complaints alleging breach of contract and fraud. The cases were consolidated and tried before a jury. The dealership moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs' case, and, after it was denied, renewed the motion at the close of all the evidence. Each time the dealership argued that the plaintiffs had not proven all of the elements of fraud because they failed to prove reliance on the misrepresentation.[1] The dealership also argued that, even if the plaintiffs had established fraud, they were not entitled to punitive damages because they had failed to prove that the dealership acted with actual or implied malice.[2] The trial court reserved ruling on the defendant's motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the evidence, and the court proceeded to instruct the jury.
 After giving the instructions, the court sent the jury to deliberate, providing the jury with two special verdict sheets, one for each plaintiff, containing eighteen questions per sheet. The verdict sheets were virtually identical to those proposed by the dealership. In addition to questions concerning each element of the contract and fraud counts, the verdict sheets included the following three questions bearing on the issue of punitive damages: (1) "Did the fraud arise out of a contractual relationship?" (2) "[D]o you find that defendant acted with actual malice?" and (3) "Do you find that defendant acted with implied malice?"
 The special verdict sheets did not include a question concerning whether the fraud induced the plaintiffs to enter into their employment contracts. The plaintiffs' attorneys noticed the omission and, before the jury had been provided with the verdict sheets, brought it to the attention of the court. The plaintiffs' counsel explained to the court why the omission was significant, arguing that the omission effectively foreclosed part of their case. The court responded: "Right or wrong, I am not changing this. It is going in like it is. You can object to it all you want. I am sorry. To me, it doesn't make a bit of difference. If they come up with an award of punitive damages and answer no implied malice and no actual malice, you are not getting punitive damages, even if they award them." The defense attorney was silent throughout this exchange.
 The court gave the jury the verdict sheets as planned. After deliberating at length, the jurors announced that they had reached their verdicts and returned to the box. The foreperson handed the verdict sheets to the clerk, who read them aloud. The jury answered the questions identically for both plaintiffs. It found, in answer to the questions on the special verdict sheets, that the defendant had knowingly misrepresented a past or present fact, with intent to defraud the plaintiffs. It further found that the plaintiffs justifiably relied on the defendant's misrepresentation and suffered damages as a result. The jury awarded Nails compensatory damages of $11,394.52 and awarded Bolton compensatory damages of $7,686.73. The jury found for the plaintiffs on their contract claims as well, awarding damages in the same amounts.
 As to the punitive damages questions, the jury found that the fraud arose out of a contractual relationship. In response to the question whether the defendants acted with actual malice, the jury said "no." In answer to the question whether the defendants acted with implied malice, however, the jury answered "yes." With respect to the final part of the verdict sheets under the tort counts, the jury awarded punitive damages in the amounts of $100,000.00 for Nails and $100,000.00 for Bolton.
 After the clerk read the verdict sheets aloud, the clerk then asked: "Ladies and gentlemen, your verdict as it will be recorded, is that the verdict of all twelve of you ladies and gentlemen?" The jurors responded affirmatively. The court then said: "Madame Clerk, will you please file the verdict sheets. Counsel and the parties, I will excuse you." The plaintiffs' attorney immediately asked if counsel could approach the bench. The jury remained in the box. During the ensuing bench conference, the plaintiffs' counsel said that the verdicts rendered were exactly the reason why he had believed that it was necessary to include an additional question on fraud inducing the contract. The court replied, "I see what you are saying." The plaintiffs' counsel then proposed to submit a supplemental verdict sheet, asking whether the fraud induced each plaintiff to enter into his or her employment contract. The plaintiffs' lawyer pointed out that the court had instructed the jury that it could award punitive damages if it found that the fraud arose out of the contract and the defendants acted with actual malice, or if the fraud induced the plaintiffs to enter into the contract and the defendants acted with implied malice. Therefore, the plaintiffs' attorney contended, the verdict as returned was an implicit finding that the fraud had induced the contract; submitting an additional question would clarify that implicit finding. Defense counsel objected to the jury being asked to return to the jury room to deliberate on the additional question.
 The court decided to have the jury answer a supplemental verdict sheet. The jury found that both plaintiffs had been induced by fraud to enter into their employment contracts with the dealership. The court then excused the jury.
 The dealership moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial on all counts. At the hearing on this motion, the dealership argued that, because Bolton began his employment with the dealership on a salary basis, he could not have been induced to accept employment with the dealership by the misrepresentation as to its commission policy. Therefore, the dealership argued, any misrepresentation could not have induced Bolton to enter the contract but "arose out of the contract" within the meaning of H & R Block, Inc. v. Testerman, 275 Md. 36, 44-46, 338 A.2d 48, 53 (1975), and Wedeman v. City Chevrolet Co., 278 Md. 524, 528-530, 366 A.2d 7, 10-11 (1976). Consequently, the dealership contended, the jury's finding that the dealership had not acted with actual malice precluded Bolton from receiving punitive damages. The court agreed, holding that, as a matter of law, Bolton had to prove actual malice in order to recover punitive damages, and the court granted the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to Bolton's punitive damages claim. The court denied the motion for new trial, and denied the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to Nails.
 The dealership took an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, arguing, inter alia, that the circuit court erred in submitting the supplemental question to the jury. Bolton cross-appealed, contending that the circuit court erred in granting the dealership's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to his punitive damages claim.
 In a reported opinion, S & R v. Nails, 85 Md. App. 570, 584 A.2d 722 (1991), the Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgments and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial. The intermediate appellate court took the position that it was improper for the circuit court to have submitted the supplemental verdict sheet to the jury. The Court of Special Appeals set forth its holding as follows (85 Md. App. at 585, 584 A.2d at 729):
 "We hold, therefore, that where a jury, which had been properly instructed, returns an apparent verdict, which is taken, the jury is polled, and the parties and counsel are excused, that verdict is final, there being nothing further for the jury to do; at that point, submitting additional issues or requiring further deliberation is no longer an option open to the court."
 The intermediate appellate court further held that the ultimate punitive damages verdicts were ambiguous and inconsistent. The court was of the view that, even if it were appropriate to submit the supplemental verdict sheets to the jury, the supplemental verdicts did not resolve any ambiguities in the initial verdict sheets but, instead, created an inconsistency. The Court of Special Appeals set out and indicated agreement with the following argument by the dealership (85 Md. App. at 589-590, 584 A.2d at 731):
 "`Under the jury's findings that the fraud arose out of a contract and that there was no actual malice, a judgment for the defendant was mandated. Under the answer to the supplemental question, that the fraud induced the contract, coupled with the finding of implied malice, a judgment for each plaintiff was required. The two answers cannot be harmonized, are hopelessly inconsistent, and the trial judge erred in not granting a new trial based on the inconsistency.'"
 The appellate court concluded that a new trial should be ordered.
 The Court of Special Appeals, however, discussed some of the remaining issues for the guidance of the trial court on remand, stating (85 Md. App. at 592, 584 A.2d at 732):
 "We perceive no error in the court's submission of the punitive damages issue to the jury. As we see it, the totality of the circumstances was such as to provide an adequate basis upon which a jury could find malice. Furthermore, notwithstanding [the dealership's] arguments to the contrary, we are satisfied that the essential elements of fraud were sufficiently proven to have required submission of the issue to the jury. We think it important, however, to address the reliance element separately."
 With respect to the "reliance element" of a fraud action, the appellate court went on to state that the "but for" test was required and that the plaintiffs' evidence was sufficient to meet the test. They had each testified that, although they did not know whether they would have taken the job if they had been told the truth about the commission system, the amount of money they would make was important to them. The Court of Special Appeals said that a permissible inference from this and other testimony was that the plaintiffs acted because of the misrepresentation, thus meeting the "but for" requirement. The intermediate appellate court suggested that the "uncertainty expressed in response to a question calling upon the witness to speculate about what he or she would have done is not the equivalent of stating that he or she did not rely on the representation." 85 Md. App. at 594, 584 A.2d at 733-734 (emphasis in original).
 The plaintiffs petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, arguing that it was permissible for the circuit court to submit the supplemental interrogatory to the jury, that the jury's ultimate verdicts were clear, that there was ample evidence for the jury to conclude that the misrepresentations at the time the plaintiffs were hired constituted fraud in the inducement and that such fraud induced each plaintiff to enter the contracts. The plaintiffs sought reinstatement of the jury verdicts, including the punitive damages determinations, as to both Nails and Bolton. The dealership also petitioned for a writ of certiorari, arguing that, in light of the "clear and convincing" standard of proof, there was insufficient evidence of "the reliance element of a fraud claim" to have submitted the fraud count to the jury, particularly when a "plaintiff is unsure of whether he would have acted differently `but for' the ... misrepresentation." We granted both petitions.[3]
 II.
 A.
 This Court has consistently indicated that, in civil cases, a trial judge has the authority to have a jury deliberate further and amend its verdict as long as the jury has not been discharged and left the court room. Thus, in Gaither v. Wilmer, 71 Md. 361, 18 A. 590 (1889), the jury returned an obviously incomplete verdict which purported to "find for the plaintiff" without specifying any amount of damages. Before the jurors had left the court room, the judge asked the attorneys if they would agree to allow the verdict to be completed, but, just as in the instant case, the defendant's attorney refused. The judge then had the clerk hearken and record the verdict, and dismissed the jurors, who then left the jury box. Almost a week later, the judge "amended" the verdict by inserting an amount of damages, and rendered judgment on this "amended" verdict. Although this Court reversed because the trial court should not have inserted an amount "several days after the jury had separated," 71 Md. at 364, 18 A. at 591, the Court continued as follows (71 Md. at 364-365, 18 A. at 591, emphasis added):
 "The defect was discovered by the Judge when the verdict was handed to him before it was recorded, and when the jury were in attendance in open court for the purpose of rendering their verdict. It was then competent for the jury to reject this verdict in toto, and find another, or to vary, or correct it. The Judge, also, could then have sent them to their room, with instructions to correct this defect, whether counsel assented or not; and this was the course that should have been adopted. Edelen v. Thompson, 2 H. & G. 31."
 In Ager v. Baltimore Transit Co., 213 Md. 414, 418, 132 A.2d 469, 471 (1957), the jury deliberated for a lengthy period, returned to the jury box, announced that it was hung, and the trial judge stated: "`I do discharge you from further consideration of the case.'" Before any jurors left the jury box, however, the trial judge changed his mind, decided that the jurors should deliberate further, and sent them to the jury room. In upholding the trial judge's action, this Court stated (213 Md. at 419, 132 A. at 472):
 "It was held in the case of Koontz v. Hammond, 62 Pa. 177, that, although the jury had been ordered discharged, they could still render a verdict as they had not separated or left the court room and their discharge had not been recorded. We think this was a proper ruling. It would seem a vain and futile holding to require the parties to undergo another lengthy trial, with its consequent expense and consumption of time, under the circumstances stated above."
 See Williams v. New York, 153 Md. 102, 107, 137 A. 506, 508 (1927) (holding that it was error for a trial court to reconvene a jury to clarify its verdict after the jury was dismissed, the jurors had left the courtroom, and some of the jurors had left the courthouse); Harris v. Hipsley, 122 Md. 418, 425, 89 A. 852, 854 (1914) ("ordinarily the jury should not be permitted to amend [its] verdict after it has been recorded and the jury dismissed"). See also, e.g., Traylor v. Grafton, 273 Md. 649, 680, 332 A.2d 651, 670 (1975); Bronstein v. American Ice Co., 119 Md. 132, 138, 86 A. 131, 133 (1912). Cf. Hoffert v. State, 319 Md. 377, 390-391, 572 A.2d 536, 543 (1990) (Chasanow, J., dissenting, and pointing out that a reason for ordinarily drawing the line at whether the jurors had dispersed is to guard against them having been subject to outside influence).[4]
 In holding that the jury's initial verdicts in this case became absolutely final when announced, when the jury was polled, and when counsel were told that they were excused, the Court of Special Appeals relied on Hoffert v. State, supra, 319 Md. 377, 572 A.2d 536. The Hoffert case, however, does not support the holding of the Court of Special Appeals in the case at bar.
 Hoffert was a criminal case, in which the defendant was charged with (1) attempted murder in the first degree, (2) attempted murder in the second degree, (3) robbery with a deadly weapon, and (4) use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. The "crime of violence," which was an essential element of the handgun charge, was the attempted murder or the robbery which were charged in the first three counts. The jurors were instructed, properly, that in order to convict Hoffert on the handgun charge, they must find that he was guilty of attempted murder in the first degree, or attempted murder in the second degree, or robbery with a deadly weapon, as charged in one of the first three counts. The jury returned from its deliberations and was asked for its verdicts. The foreman announced a verdict of not guilty on each of the first three counts and said nothing about the fourth count. The clerk then polled each juror to determine if these verdicts were unanimous, and the poll disclosed that they were. The clerk hearkened the jury to the first charge. The judge then addressed the jurors and told them: "Members of the jury, having received your verdicts here today your service in this case is now complete." 319 Md. at 381, 386, 572 A.2d at 538, 540. A juror interrupted the judge, calling attention to the fourth charge. At that point, the judge asked the foreman about the handgun charge, and the foreman indicated a guilty verdict on that charge. A bench conference ensued, at which the prosecutor argued that a verdict on the handgun charge should be taken even if it would be inconsistent with the not guilty verdicts on the first three charges and even if it would violate the court's jury instructions. The judge gave counsel some time to research the matter and sent the jurors back to the jury room. After the recess, the jury was returned to the box, and a verdict was requested on the handgun charge. The foreman announced that the verdict on the handgun charge was "guilty," and a poll of the jurors disclosed that the guilty verdict was unanimous.
 We held in Hoffert that the trial judge erred in having the jury render a verdict on the handgun charge after it had initially rendered its not guilty verdicts. A majority of this Court, in an opinion by Judge Orth, explained (319 Md. at 386, 572 A.2d at 540-541):
 "[The trial judge] was encouraged to travel the primrose path by the prosecutor. What both the judge and the prosecutor overlooked was the effect of the not guilty verdicts on the viability of the trial.
 "When the jury was polled on the verdicts of not guilty on the first three charges, see Md.Rule 4-327(e), and the poll disclosed that the verdicts were unanimous, the verdicts were final. Smith v. State, 299 Md. 158, 164-170, 472 A.2d 988 (1984); Pugh v. State, 271 Md. 701, 705, 319 A.2d 542 (1974). The verdicts were legally proper. They were not contrary to the law and, without more, were in full accord with the judge's instructions which properly reflected the law. Nor were they `ambiguous, inconsistent, unresponsive, or otherwise defective.' See Smith [299 Md.] at 170, 472 A.2d 988. The verdicts stood complete without a verdict on the handgun charge. The guilt stage of the trial was over at that point. The jury had no further function to perform.... In the circumstances, the State was not entitled to a verdict on the handgun charge. It follows that the judge erred in permitting the jury to return a verdict on the fourth count."
 Hoffert is clearly distinguishable from the present case. It was a criminal prosecution and not a civil case. Moreover, the jury's initial verdicts were "not guilty." A majority of this Court believed that the initial verdicts implicated the criminal law principle "that once a verdict of not guilty has been rendered at the conclusion of a criminal trial, that verdict is final." Pugh v. State, 271 Md. 701, 705, 319 A.2d 542, 544 (1974). In addition, the majority in Hoffert was of the view that there was no ambiguity, defect, inconsistency, or incompleteness about the jury's initial verdicts. The initial verdicts were in accordance with the trial judge's instructions and with Maryland law. See Mack v. State, 300 Md. 583, 596, 479 A.2d 1344, 1350 (1984) ("the trial court was required to instruct the jury that the petitioner could not be found guilty of use of a handgun if found not guilty of either of the charged crimes of violence"). The Hoffert majority took the position that, while inconsistent jury verdicts in criminal cases may sometimes be "tolerated," the prosecution has no right to obtain a supplemental inconsistent jury verdict when the initial verdicts were complete, non-defective, unambiguous, consistent, and disposed of the entire case in accordance with the trial judge's instructions and the applicable law.
 Consequently, the reliance by the Court of Special Appeals upon Hoffert was misplaced. Instead, the issue here is governed by this Court's opinions in Ager v. Baltimore Transit Co., supra; Gaither v. Wilmer, supra, and similar cases. In light of the opinions in these cases, we hold that, in a civil case, after a jury has rendered an initial verdict, the trial judge ordinarily may ask the jury to amend, clarify or supplement the verdict in order to resolve an ambiguity, inconsistency, incompleteness, or similar problem with the initial verdict, up until the jury has been discharged and has left the court room.
 B.
 The trial judge's submission of the supplemental verdict sheet to the jury was fully justified in this case. There was a degree of ambiguity and possible inconsistency in the jury's initial verdicts, and the supplemental verdict helped clarify the ambiguity and possible inconsistency. To some extent, the ambiguity in the jury's initial verdicts may have been due to the ambiguity and inconsistency inherent in the now overruled Wedeman v. City Chevrolet Co., supra; H & R Block, Inc. v. Testerman, supra, and their progeny. See Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia, supra, 325 Md. at 453-455, 601 A.2d at 649-650; Schaefer v. Miller, supra, 322 Md. at 313-321, 587 A.2d at 499-503. A brief discussion of the Testerman and Wedeman cases may be helpful.
 In H & R Block, Inc. v. Testerman, supra, 275 Md. at 47-48, 338 A.2d at 54, this Court took the position that where tortious conduct "arose out of a contractual relationship," punitive damages were not recoverable on an "implied malice" basis and that "actual malice" was a prerequisite for the jury to award punitive damages. Punitive damages were sought in that case based upon the defendant's alleged grossly negligent conduct in holding its employees out as qualified tax consultants when they were not qualified, and in inducing the plaintiffs to enter a contract to have the defendant's employees prepare the plaintiffs' income tax returns. This Court held that the allegations of gross negligence and outrageous behavior, while sufficient to constitute "implied malice," did not amount to "actual malice," that the tortious conduct "arose out of a contractual relationship," and that, therefore, punitive damages were not recoverable because of the absence of actual malice.
 About a year after Testerman, this Court in Wedeman v. City Chevrolet Co., supra, 278 Md. at 529-532, 366 A.2d at 11-13, refined its holding in Testerman. Wedeman was a fraud action by an automobile purchaser against the automobile dealer who sold her the car, based on the dealer's misrepresentations that the car had not previously been damaged. The misrepresentations had occurred before the execution of the sales contract and had induced the purchaser to enter the sales contract. The Court of Special Appeals, attempting to apply the Testerman holding, decided that the purchaser was not entitled to punitive damages because there was no evidence of actual malice and because of the nexus between the tortious conduct and the contract. This Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, holding that a tort arises out of a contractual relationship within the meaning of Testerman only when "the contractual relationship preexisted the tortious conduct.... Thus, when one may be induced by fraud to enter into a contract, the tort in that instance cannot be said to arise out of the contractual relationship." 278 Md. at 529, 366 A.2d at 11. The Court in Wedeman held that punitive damages in that case were recoverable upon a showing of implied malice, i.e., conduct "characterized by a wanton or reckless disregard for the rights of others." 278 Md. at 532, 366 A.2d at 13.
 Turning to the case at bar, the jury had been instructed that, under the fraud counts, if the jury found that the fraudulent conduct had occurred after the parties had entered the employment contracts, the fraud would constitute "fraud [which] arises out of a contractual relationship ... [, and] then, in order to award punitive damages, you ladies and gentlemen of the jury must find that the fraud was done with actual malice...." The jury was further instructed that "[i]f the fraud is in the inducement to the contract  that is, there wasn't an original contractual relationship, but in order to induce an individual to ... enter into a contract[,] they make the deliberate misrepresentations ... and that the plaintiffs relied upon them," punitive damages could be awarded if the jury found implied malice. The trial judge went on to define implied malice.[5]
 In light of the instructions and the jury's finding of no actual malice, the jury's award of punitive damages would appear to represent a jury determination that the misrepresentations induced the plaintiffs to enter the employment contracts and thus did not constitute tortious conduct arising out of a contractual relationship. Somewhat inconsistently, however, the jury also found that the tortious conduct arose out of a contractual relationship. Nevertheless, under Wedeman and the trial judge's instructions, if the fraud did arise out of a contractual relationship, it would not have been fraud in the inducement and a finding of actual malice would have been required to support an award of punitive damages. The supplemental verdict sheet, with specific findings by the jury that each of the plaintiffs had been induced by fraud to enter into the employment contracts, clarified the ambiguity in the initial jury verdicts and supported the award of punitive damages.
 II.
 As previously mentioned, the dealership's certiorari petition presented the question of whether there was sufficient evidence of "the reliance element of a fraud claim" to have submitted the fraud count to the jury.
 In order to recover damages in an action for fraud or deceit, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff, (2) that its falsity was either known to the defendant or that the representation was made with reckless indifference as to its truth, (3) that the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, (4) that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and had the right to rely on it, and (5) that the plaintiff suffered compensable injury resulting from the misrepresentation. Everett v. Baltimore Gas & Elec., 307 Md. 286, 300, 513 A.2d 882, 889 (1986); Martens Chevrolet v. Seney, 292 Md. 328, 333-334, 439 A.2d 534, 537-538 (1982); James v. Weisheit, 279 Md. 41, 44-45, 367 A.2d 482, 484-485 (1977); Suburban Mgmt. v. Johnson, 236 Md. 455, 460, 204 A.2d 326, 329 (1964); Schmidt v. Millhauser, 212 Md. 585, 592-593, 130 A.2d 572, 575-576 (1957); Appel v. Hupfield, 198 Md. 374, 378-379, 84 A.2d 94, 95-96 (1951); Gittings v. Von Dorn, 136 Md. 10, 15-16, 109 A. 553, 554-555 (1920); Donnelly v. Baltimore Trust Co., 102 Md. 1, 13, 61 A. 301, 306 (1905); Boulden v. Stilwell, 100 Md. 543, 552, 60 A. 609, 610 (1905); Cahill v. Applegarth, 98 Md. 493, 499-504, 56 A. 794, 795-797 (1904); Robertson v. Parks, 76 Md. 118, 131-133, 24 A. 411, 412-413 (1892); McAleer v. Horsey, 35 Md. 439, 452-454 (1872). As indicated above, the issue raised in the dealership's certiorari petition centers entirely on the fourth element, namely reliance on the misrepresentation.
 In arguing that there was no reliance as a matter of law, the dealership points to the following question which was asked during the cross-examination of the plaintiff Bolton: "if you had been told at the time of hire about the 15 percent, ... you would have still taken the job, would you not?" The same question, in substantially the same wording, was asked of the plaintiff Nails during cross-examination. Each plaintiff answered: "I don't know." The dealership quotes Lustine Chevrolet v. Cadeaux, 19 Md. App. 30, 35, 308 A.2d 747, 751 (1973), to the effect that, in order to establish the "reliance element" of a fraud claim, the plaintiff must show "`that he would not have performed the act ... but for the misrepresentation....'" As in both courts below, the dealership argues in this Court that, because of the plaintiffs' equivocal answers to the above-quoted questions, the "but for" test was not met and, therefore, there was no reliance as a matter of law.
 Of course, if the plaintiff establishes that he was entitled to rely on the misrepresentation and that the misrepresentation was the sole inducement for his action, so that the plaintiff would have acted differently "but for" the misrepresentation, the plaintiff has established the "reliance element" of a fraud claim. Nevertheless, a strict "but for" analysis is not the exclusive test for reliance. This Court has long recognized that the misrepresentation need not have been the only motivation for the plaintiff's actions; it is sufficient that the misrepresentation substantially induced the plaintiff to act. In the leading case of McAleer v. Horsey, supra, 35 Md. at 453, the Court stated that if "the plaintiff mainly and substantially relied upon the fraudulent representation, he will have his action for damages, though he was in part influenced by other causes." See, e.g., Brodsky v. Hull, 196 Md. 509, 515-516, 77 A.2d 156, 159 (1950) (saying, in reference to the reliance element of a fraud claim, that "[a] fact is material if ... its existence or nonexistence is a matter to which a reasonable man would attach importance in determining his choice of action in the transaction"); Ward Development Co. v. Ingrao, 63 Md. App. 645, 655, 493 A.2d 421, 426 (1985).
 The position that the misrepresentation need only be a substantial factor in influencing the plaintiff is reflected in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 546 (1977), which states:
 "The maker of a fraudulent misrepresentation is subject to liability for pecuniary loss suffered by one who justifiably relies upon the truth of the matter misrepresented, if his reliance is a substantial factor in determining the course of conduct that results in his loss."
 Comment b to that section explains:
 "... the plaintiff must have relied upon the misrepresentation in incurring the loss. It is not, however, necessary that his reliance upon the truth of the fraudulent misrepresentation be the sole or even the predominant or decisive factor in influencing his conduct. It is not even necessary that he would not have acted or refrained from acting as he did unless he had relied on the misrepresentation.... It is enough that the representation has played a substantial part, and so has been a substantial factor, in influencing his decision."
 The same point was made by Dean Prosser (William L. Prosser, The Law of Torts, § 108, at 715 (4th ed. 1971)) as follows (footnotes omitted):
 "[I]t is not required that the defendant shall have been the sole cause of the damage; and indeed it is seldom, if ever, that the plaintiff is not influenced to some extent by many other factors, most of which are not connected with the defendant at all. It is enough that the representation has had a material influence upon the plaintiff's conduct, and been a substantial factor in bringing about his action. It is not necessary that the representation be the paramount, or the decisive, inducement which tipped the scales, so long as it plays a substantial part in affecting the plaintiff's decision.... The question becomes one of fact, as to whether substantial weight was given to the representation, and it usually is for the jury."
 See also Restatement, supra, § 538. Cf. Consumer Protection v. Consumer Pub., 304 Md. 731, 780-781, 501 A.2d 48, 74 (1985).
 The evidence in this case discloses that the sum of money withheld from each plaintiff because of the 15% was significant. Moreover, the plaintiffs testified that they were told that their compensation would include 5% of the gross receipts from parts sold and services rendered by their respective teams. Finally, each plaintiff testified that the amount he or she was to be paid was of the "utmost importance" in determining to take the jobs. We agree with the Court of Special Appeals that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to have concluded that each plaintiff relied on the defendant's misrepresentations.[6]
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS VACATED AND CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS WITH DIRECTIONS TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF NAILS AND, AS TO THE PLAINTIFF BOLTON, TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF BOLTON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JURY'S VERDICT. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY THE DEFENDANT.
 NOTES
 [*] McAuliffe, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion.
 [**] Orth, J., retired, and specially assigned, participated in the hearing, conference, decision and adoption of this opinion but died prior to the filing of the opinion.
 [1] Each plaintiff was asked on cross-examination whether he or she would have taken the job had he or she known about the 15% deduction. Each plaintiff answered, "I don't know." The dealership argued that the test for reliance is whether the plaintiff would have acted differently "but for" the misrepresentation. Thus the dealership contended that because of the equivocal answers, the plaintiffs had failed to establish reliance as a matter of law.
 [2] Under our relevant punitive damages holdings, as they existed at the time of the trial, in a case of fraud arising out of a contract and occurring after the contract, a plaintiff was required to show that the defendant acted with actual malice, but in a case of fraud inducing a contract, the plaintiff only had to show that the defendant acted with implied malice. See Wedeman v. City Chevrolet Co., 278 Md. 524, 366 A.2d 7 (1976). See also H & R Block, Inc. v. Testerman, 275 Md. 36, 338 A.2d 48 (1975). But see Schaefer v. Miller, 322 Md. 297, 312-332, 587 A.2d 491, 498-509 (1991) (opinion of Judges Eldridge, Cole and Chasanow). The Wedeman and Testerman cases were overruled in Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia, 325 Md. 420, 452-455, 601 A.2d 633, 648-650 (1991).
 [3] In the circuit court, both parties and the trial judge proceeded as if the punitive damages claims were to be resolved in accordance with the principles set forth in Wedeman v. City Chevrolet Co., supra, and H & R Block, Inc. v. Testerman, supra, and the trial judge instructed the jury in accordance with the Wedeman and Testerman cases. As previously indicated, supra n. 2, the Wedeman and Testerman cases were later questioned by some members of this Court in Schaefer v. Miller, supra, and were overruled in Owens-Illinois v. Zenobia, supra.
 Relying on one of the opinions in Schaefer v. Miller, supra, the dealership in its brief argues that we should not apply the principles of Wedeman and Testerman in this case. Neither party, however, objected at trial to the application of the Wedeman and Testerman cases. As we stated in Zenobia, 325 Md. at 471, 601 A.2d at 658,
 "our overruling of Smith [v. Gray Concrete Pipe Co., 267 Md. 149, 297 A.2d 721 (1972)] and our overruling the `arising out of contract' principle of Testerman and Wedeman shall be retroactive as well as prospective. At the same time, however, a defendant in some other case may not complain about a trial court's application of Smith or the Testerman-Wedeman rule if the defendant failed to object or properly preserve the issue, and if the issue was not raised pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-131(b). See Murphy v. Edmonds, [325 Md. 342, 375, 601 A.2d 102, 118 (1992)] (no party questioned the applicability of the `gross negligence' standard for punitive damages, and the issue was not raised by this Court under Rule 8-131(b); therefore, this Court would not apply a different standard); Boyer v. State, 323 Md. 558, 581 n. 15, 594 A.2d 121, 132 n. 15 (1991) (same)."
 Furthermore, the question of the applicability of the Testerman-Wedeman principles was not raised in either petition for a writ of certiorari. Ordinarily, the Court will only consider issues raised in a petition or cross-petition. See Rule 8-131(b). Consequently, we shall treat this case as governed by the cases concerning punitive damages which, at trial, all parties and the trial judge deemed applicable, even though the holdings of those cases are no longer in effect.
 [4] There is authority that, in some circumstances, it may be permissible to allow a jury to render a verdict after it has disassembled. In Harris v. Hipsley, 122 Md. 418, 89 A. 852 (1914), this Court approved the reassembling of a jury for the purpose of rendering a verdict on the first count of a complaint. While pointing out that "ordinarily the jury should not be permitted to amend [its] verdict after it has been recorded and the jury dismissed," 122 Md. at 425, 89 A. at 854, the Court concluded that "it was proper to have the jury in this case render the verdict directed by the Court on the issue which was not previously rendered simply because it was overlooked." 122 Md. at 427, 89 A. at 854. In Edelen v. Thompson, 2 H. & G. 31, 34 (1827), the jury rendered its verdict, dispersed, and was reconvened the next day to correct the verdict. This court upheld the trial judge's action because the correction occurred "before the verdict [was] recorded."
 [5] The trial judge's instructions concerning these matters are set forth in more detail in the Court of Special Appeals' opinion, S & R v. Nails, 85 Md. App. 570, 588-589, 584 A.2d 722, 730-731 (1991).
 [6] As indicated earlier, in granting the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with regard to the jury's award of punitive damages in favor of the plaintiff Bolton, the circuit court agreed with the defendant's argument that Bolton could not have been induced by the defendant's misrepresentations to enter the employment contract because Bolton began his employment on a salary basis. The effect of the Court of Special Appeals' judgment was to vacate the trial court's grant of the motion with regard to Bolton. The dealership does not in this Court reiterate this specific argument as to Bolton. Nevertheless, the argument is not persuasive. While Bolton's employment did not begin on a commission basis, the evidence was that, at the time he entered into the employment contract, it was represented to him that his compensation would later be changed to a commission basis, and that the commission would be 5% of the gross dollar value of parts sold and services rendered by his team. The jury was entitled to find that the misrepresentation concerning the calculation of Bolton's commission did influence him in entering the employment contract.


type: legislation

text:
 |
 52011PC0938
 Togra le haghaidh RIALACHÁIN Ó PHARLAIMINT NA hEORPA AGUS ÓN gCOMHAIRLE maidir le nósanna imeachta áirithe chun an Comhaontú Cobhsaíochta agus Comhlachais idir na Comhphobail Eorpacha agus a mBallstáit, de pháirt, agus Poblacht na Seirbia, den pháirt eile, a fheidhmiú, agus chun an Comhaontú Eatramhach idir an Comhphobal Eorpach, de pháirt, agus Poblacht na Seirbia, den pháirt eile, a fheidhmiú /* COIM/2011/0938 leagan deireanach - 2011/0465 (COD) */
 MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁINAn 29 Aibreán 2008, síníodh Comhaontú Cobhsaíochta agus Comhlachais i Lucsamburg idir na Comhphobail Eorpacha agus a mBallstáit, de pháirt, agus Poblacht na Seirbia, den pháirt eile. Tiocfaidh sé i bhfeidhm ar an gcéad lá den dara mí tar éis an dáta a dtabharfaidh na páirtithe fógra dá chéile go bhfuil a nósanna imeachta daingniúcháin tugtha chun críche.Maidir leis an gComhaontú Eatramhach idir an Comhphobal Eorpach agus Poblacht na Seirbia, a síníodh ar an dáta céanna chun go bhféadfaí forálacha trádála agus forálacha a bhaineann le trádáil den Chomhaontú Cobhsaíochta agus Comhlachais (CCC) a chur i bhfeidhm go luath, tháinig sé i bhfeidhm ar an 1 Feabhra 2010.Agus é d'aidhm aige go gcuirfear an Comhaontú Eatramhach i bhfeidhm i gceart agus go rianúil, beartaítear Rialachán Cur Chun Feidhme chun rialacha agus nósanna imeachta a leagan síos maidir le rialacha mionsonraithe a ghlacadh do chur chun feidhme forálacha áirithe sna Comhaontuithe sin, mar a rinneadh do CCCanna agus do Chomhaontuithe Eatramhacha roimhe seo.2011/0465 (COD)Togra le haghaidhRIALACHÁIN Ó PHARLAIMINT NA hEORPA AGUS ÓN gCOMHAIRLEmaidir le nósanna imeachta áirithe chun an Comhaontú Cobhsaíochta agus Comhlachais idir na Comhphobail Eorpacha agus a mBallstáit, de pháirt, agus Poblacht na Seirbia, den pháirt eile, a fheidhmiú, agus chun an Comhaontú Eatramhach idir an Comhphobal Eorpach, de pháirt, agus Poblacht na Seirbia, den pháirt eile, a fheidhmiúTÁ PARLAIMINT NA hEORPA AGUS COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe Airteagal 207 de,Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach[1],Tar éis dóibh an dréachtghníomh reachtach a chur chuig na parlaimintí náisiúnta,Ag gníomhú dóibh i gcomhréir leis an ngnáthnós imeachta reachtach[2],De bharr an méid seo a leanas:1. An 29 Aibreán 2008, síníodh Comhaontú Cobhsaíochta agus Comhlachais idir na Comhphobail Eorpacha agus a mBallstáit, de pháirt, agus Poblacht na Seirbia, den pháirt eile (dá gairtear 'CCC' anseo feasta). Tá an CCC á dhaingniú faoi láthair.2. An 29 Aibreán 2008, rinne an Chomhairle Comhaontú Eatramhach ar thrádáil agus ar ábhair a bhaineann le trádáil a thabhairt i gcrích idir an Comhphobal Eorpach, de pháirt, agus Poblacht na Seirbia, den pháirt eile[3], (dá ngairtear 'Comhaontú Eatramhach' anseo feasta) lena bhforáiltear go dtiocfaidh forálacha trádála agus forálacha a bhaineann le trádáil de chuid an CCC i bhfeidhm go luath. Tháinig an Comhaontú Eatramhach i bhfeidhm an 1 Feabhra 2010.3. Is gá rialacha a leagan síos maidir le cur chun feidhme forálacha áirithe den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, chomh maith le nósanna imeachta maidir le rialacha mionsonraithe cur chun feidhme a ghlacadh. Ós rud é gurb ionann, den chuid is mó, forálacha trádála agus forálacha a bhaineann le trádáil sna hionstraimí seo, ba cheart feidhm a bheith ag an Rialachán seo maidir le cur chun feidhme an CCC tar éis dó teacht i bhfeidhm.4. Ar mhaithe le coinníollacha aonfhoirmeacha a áirithiú le haghaidh chur chun feidhme an Chomhaontaithe Eatramhaigh agus an CCC, ba cheart cumhachtaí cur chun feidhme a thabhairt don Choimisiún. Ba cheart na cumhachtaí sin a fheidhmiú i gcomhréir le Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 182/2011 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 16 Feabhra 2011 lena leagtar síos na rialacha agus na prionsabail ghinearálta a bhaineann leis na sásraí maidir le rialú ag na Ballstáit ar fheidhmiú cumhachtaí cur chun feidhme ag an gCoimisiún[4]. I bhfianaise gur cuid den chomhbheartas tráchtála iad na bearta cur chun feidhme, ba cheart an nós imeachta scrúdúcháin a úsáid chun iad a ghlacadh. I gcás ina ndéanann an Comhaontú Eatramhach agus an CCC foráil maidir leis an deis, in imthosca eisceachtúla agus géibheannacha, na bearta is gá chun dul i ngleic leis an staid a chur i bhfeidhm láithreach, ba cheart don Choimisiún na gníomhartha cur chun feidhme sin a ghlacadh láithreach.5. Ordaítear sa CCC agus sa Chomhaontú Eatramhach go bhféadfar táirgí áirithe talmhaíochta agus iascaigh de thionscnamh na Seirbia a allmhairiú isteach san Aontas ar dhleacht chustaim laghdaithe, laistigh de theorainneacha na gcuótaí taraife. Is gá, dá bhrí sin, forálacha a leagan síos lena rialáiltear bainistiú na gcuótaí taraife sin.6. I gcás ina bhfuil gá le bearta cosanta trádála, ba cheart iad a ghlacadh i gcomhréir le Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 260/2009 ón gComhairle an 26 Feabhra 2009 maidir leis na comhrialacha d'allmhairí[5], Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1061/2009 ón gComhairle an 19 Deireadh Fómhair 2009 lena mbunaítear comhrialacha d'onnmhairí[6], Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1225/2009 ón gComhairle an 30 Samhain 2009 maidir le cosaint i gcoinne allmhairí dumpáilte ó thíortha nach baill den Chomhphobal Eorpach iad[7] nó, de réir an cháis, Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 597/2009 ón gComhairle an 11 Meitheamh 2009 maidir le cosaint i gcoinne allmhairí fóirdheontais ó thíortha nach baill den Chomhphobal Eorpach iad[8].7. I gcás ina dtugann Ballstát faisnéis don Choimisiún faoi chalaois a d'fhéadfadh a bheith ann nó faoi mhainneachtain comhar riaracháin a sholáthar, beidh feidhm ag an reachtaíocht ábhartha Aontais, go háirithe Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 515/97 ón gComhairle an 13 Márta 1997 maidir le cúnamh frithpháirteach idir údaráis riaracháin na mBallstát agus maidir le comhar idir na Ballstáit agus an Coimisiún chun a áirithiú go gcuirfear an dlí ar ábhair chustaim agus ar ábhair thalmhaíochta i bhfeidhm i gceart[9].8. Sa Rialachán seo, tá bearta cur chun feidhme don Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus ba cheart, dá bhrí sin, go mbeadh feidhm aige ó theacht i bhfeidhm an Chomhaontaithe Eatramhaigh,TAR ÉIS AN RIALACHÁN SEO A GHLACADH:Airteagal 1ÁbharSa Rialachán seo, leagtar síos rialacha agus nósanna imeachta maidir le rialacha mionsonraithe a ghlacadh, maidir le cur chun feidhme forálacha áirithe den Chomhaontú Cobhsaíochta agus Comhlachais idir na Comhphobail Eorpacha agus a mBallstáit, de pháirt, agus Poblacht na Seirbia, den pháirt eile (dá ngairtear 'CCC' anseo feasta), agus an Comhaontú Eatramhach ar thrádáil agus ar ábhair a bhaineann le trádáil idir an Comhphobal Eorpach, de pháirt, agus Poblacht na Seirbia, den pháirt eile (dá ngairtear 'Comhaontú Eatramhach' anseo feasta).Airteagal 2Lamháltais d'iasc agus do tháirgí iascaighDéanfaidh an Coimisiún rialacha mionsonraithe maidir le cur chun feidhme Airteagal 14 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin Airteagal 29 den CCC, maidir le cuótaí taraife d'iasc agus do tháirgí iascaigh, a ghlacadh i gcomhréir leis an nós imeachta scrúdúcháin atá leagtha amach in Airteagal 13(3).Airteagal 3Laghduithe taraife1. Faoi réir mhír 2, déanfar rátaí dleachta fabhraí a shlánú síos go dtí an chéad ionad deachúlach.2. Más rud é, agus mír 1 á cur i bhfeidhm, gurb ionann toradh ríomh an ráta dleachta fabhraí agus ceann díobh seo a leanas, measfar an ráta fabhrach mar dhíolúine iomlán:a) 1 % nó níos lú i gcás dleachtanna ad valorem , nób) EUR 1 nó níos lú in aghaidh an méid aonair sna dleachtanna sonrachaAirteagal 4Oiriúnuithe teicniúlaI gcás leasuithe agus oiriúnuithe ar fhorálacha arna nglacadh de bhun an Rialacháin seo a raibh gá leo i ngeall ar athruithe ar chóid na hAinmníochta Comhcheangailte agus ar fhoranna TARIC nó a thig as Comhaontuithe nua nó modhnaithe faoi Airteagal 218 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh a bheith tugtha i gcrích idir an tAontas agus Poblacht na Seirbia, déanfar iad a ghlacadh i gcomhréir leis an nós imeachta atá leagtha amach in Airteagal 13(3) nó, de réir an cháis, i leith táirgí talmhaíochta i gcomhréir leis an nós imeachta atá leagtha amach in Airteagal 14(2).Airteagal 5Clásal cosanta ginearáltaGan dochar d'Airteagal 7, i gcás inar gá don Aontas beart a dhéanamh mar a fhoráiltear in Airteagal 26 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin Airteagal 41 den CCC, glacfar é i gcomhréir leis na coinníollacha agus na nósanna imeachta atá leagtha síos i Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 260/2009, mura sonraítear a mhalairt in Airteagal 26 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 41 den CCC.Airteagal 6Clásal ganntanaisGan dochar d'Airteagal 7, i gcás inar gá don Aontas beart a dhéanamh mar a fhoráiltear in Airteagal 27 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 42 den CCC, glacfar é i gcomhréir leis na nósanna imeachta atá leagtha síos i Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1061/2009.Airteagal 7Imthosca eisceachtúla agus géibheannachaI gcás ina dtagann imthosca eisceachtúla agus géibheannacha chun cinn de réir bhrí Airteagal 26(5)(b) agus Airteagal 27(4) den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin Airteagal 41(5)(b) agus Airteagal 42(4) den CCC, féadfaidh an Coimisiún bearta a ghlacadh láithreach mar a fhoráiltear in Airteagal 26 agus Airteagal 27 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 41 agus Airteagal 42 den CCC, i gcomhréir leis an nós imeachta dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 15(2).Airteagal 8Clásal cosanta do tháirgí talmhaíochta agus iascaighD'ainneoin na nósanna imeachta dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 5 agus Airteagal 6, i gcás inar gá don Aontas beart cosanta a dhéanamh mar a fhoráiltear in Airteagal 17(2) nó Airteagal 26 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 32(2) nó Airteagal 41 den CCC, maidir le táirgí talmhaíochta agus iascaigh, déanfaidh an Coimisiún, arna iarraidh sin dó ag Ballstát nó ar a thionscnamh féin, na bearta is gá a chinneadh tar éis dó, i gcás inarb infheidhme, dul ar iontaoibh an nós imeachta atreorúcháin dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 26 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 41 den CCC.Má fhaigheann an Coimisiún iarraidh ó Bhallstát, déanfaidh sé cinneadh fúithi:a) laistigh de thrí lá oibre tar éis an iarraidh a fháil, i gcás nach bhfuil feidhm ag an nós imeachta atreorúcháin dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 26 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 41 den CCC; nób) laistigh de thrí lá ó dheireadh na tréimhse tríocha lá dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 26(5)(a) den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 41(5)(a) den CCC, i gcás ina bhfuil feidhm ag an nós imeachta atreorúcháin dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 26 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 41 den CCC.Glacfaidh an Coimisiún na bearta sin is infheidhme láithreach i gcomhréir leis an nós imeachta dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 14(3).Airteagal 9FaireachasChun críocha Airteagal 17(2) den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin Airteagal 32(2) den CCC, a chur chun feidhme, bunófar faireachas Aontais ar allmhairí earraí atá liostaithe in Iarscríbhinn V de Phrótacal 3. Beidh feidhm ag an nós imeachta atá leagtha síos in Airteagal 308d de Rialachán (CEE) Uimh. 2454/93 ón gCoimisiún an 2 Iúil 1993 lena leagtar síos forálacha maidir le cur chun feidhme Rialachán (CEE) Uimh. 2913/92 ón gComhairle lena mbunaítear Cód Custaim an Chomhphobail[10].Airteagal 10Dumpáil agus fóirdheontasI gcás cleachtais ar dóchúil gur gá don Aontas na bearta dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 25(2) den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 40(2) den CCC, a chur i bhfeidhm ina leith, déanfar bearta frithdhumpála agus/nó frithchúitimh a chinneadh i gcomhréir leis na forálacha atá leagtha síos i Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1225/2009 agus i Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 597/2009 faoi seach.Airteagal 11Iomaíocht1. I gcás cleachtais a mheasann an Coimisiún nach bhfuil sé comhoiriúnach d’Airteagal 38 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin d’Airteagal 73 den CCC, cinnfidh an Coimisiún, tar éis dó an cás a scrúdú ar a thionscnamh féin nó arna iarraidh sin dó ag Ballstát, an beart is iomchuí dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 38 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 73 den CCC, a chinneadh.Déanfar na bearta dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 38(10) den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 73(10) den CCC, a ghlacadh i gcás cabhrach i gcomhréir leis na nósanna imeachta atá leagtha síos i Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 597/2009.2. I gcás cleachtais lena bhféadfaidh Poblacht na Seirbia a chur faoi deara bearta a chur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an Aontas ar bhonn Airteagal 38 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin ar bhonn Airteagal 73 den CCC, cinnfidh an Coimisiún, tar éis dó an cás a scrúdú, cibé atá nó nach bhfuil an cleachtas comhoiriúnach do na prionsabail atá leagtha amach sa Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin sa CCC. I gcás inar gá, déanfaidh sé na cinntí iomchuí ar bhonn critéar a thig as cur i bhfeidhm Airteagal 101, Airteagal 102 agus Airteagal 107 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.Airteagal 12Calaois nó mainneachtain comhar riaracháin a sholátharI gcás ina gcinnfidh an Coimisiún, ar bhonn faisnéise arna soláthar ag Ballstát nó ar a thionscnamh féin, gur comhlíonadh na coinníollacha atá leagtha síos in Airteagal 31 den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 46 den CCC, déanfaidh sé an méid seo a leanas gan mhoill:a) an Chomhairle agus Parlaimint na hEorpa a chur ar an eolas; agusb) fógra faoina chinntí a thabhairt don Choiste Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin don Choiste um Chobhsaíocht agus Comhlachas, mar aon le faisnéis oibiachtúil, agus rachaidh sé i gcomhairle leis an gCoiste Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin leis an gCoiste um Chobhsaíocht agus Comhlachas.Aon rud a fhoilsítear faoi Airteagal 31(5) den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin faoi Airteagal 46(5) den CCC, foilseoidh an Coimisiún in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh é.Féadfaidh an Coimisiún a chinneadh, i gcomhréir leis an nós imeachta comhairleach dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 13(2), cóir fhabhrach ábhartha na dtáirgí dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 31(4) den Chomhaontú Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin in Airteagal 46(4) den CCC, a chur ar fionraí.Airteagal 13An nós imeachta coiste1. Beidh an Coiste um Chód Custaim arna bhunú le hAirteagal 248a de Rialachán (CEE) Uimh. 2913/92 ón gComhairle an 12 Deireadh Fómhair 1992 lena mbunaítear Cód Custaim an Chomhphobail[11] de chúnamh ag an gCoimisiún. Coiste de réir bhrí Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 182/2011 a bheidh sa Choiste sin.2. I gcás ina ndéanfar tagairt don mhír seo, beidh feidhm ag Airteagal 4 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 182/2011.3. I gcás ina ndéanfar tagairt don mhír seo, beidh feidhm ag Airteagal 5 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 182/2011.Airteagal 14Nós imeachta coiste maidir le táirgí talmhaíochta1. Beidh an Coiste Bainistíochta um Chomheagraíocht na Margaí Talmhaíochta arna bhunú le hAirteagal 195 de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1234/2007 lena mbunaítear comheagraíocht na margaí talmhaíochta agus maidir le forálacha sonracha i gcás táirgí áirithe talmhaíochta[12] de chúnamh ag an gCoimisiún. Is é a bheidh sa choiste sin coiste de réir bhrí Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 182/2011.2. I gcás ina ndéanfar tagairt don mhír seo, beidh feidhm ag Airteagal 5 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 182/2011.3. I gcás ina ndéanfar tagairt don mhír seo, beidh feidhm ag Airteagal 8 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 182/2011, i gcomhar le hAirteagal 5 de.Airteagal 15Nós imeachta coiste do bhearta in imthosca eisceachtúla agus géibheannacha1. Beidh an Coiste arna bhunú le hAirteagal 4 de Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 260/2009 de chúnamh ag an gCoimisiún. Coiste de réir bhrí Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 182/2011 a bheidh sa Choiste sin.2. I gcás ina ndéanfar tagairt don mhír seo, beidh feidhm ag Airteagal 8 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 182/2011, i gcomhar le hAirteagal 5 de.Airteagal 16Fógra a thabhairtBeidh an Coimisiún, ag gníomhú dó thar ceann an Aontais, freagrach as fógra a thabhairt don Choiste Eatramhach, agus dá éis sin don Chomhairle Cobhsaíochta agus Comhlachais agus don Choiste um Chobhsaíocht agus Comhlachas, faoi seach, mar a cheanglaítear faoin gComhaontú Eatramhach nó faoin CCC.Airteagal 17Teacht i bhfeidhmTiocfaidh an Rialachán seo i bhfeidhm an fichiú lá tar éis lá a fhoilsithe in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh.Beidh feidhm aige amhail ón 1 Feabhra 2010.Beidh an Rialachán seo ina cheangal go huile agus go hiomlán agus beidh sé infheidhme go díreach i ngach Ballstát.Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,Thar ceann Pharlaimint na hEorpa Thar ceann na ComhairleAn tUachtarán An tUachtarán [1] IO C [... ], [... ] , lch. [... ].[2] IO C [... ], [... ] , lch. [... ].[3] IO L 28, 30.1.2010, lch. 1.[4] IO L 55, 28.2.2011, lch. 13.[5] IO L 84, 31.3.2009, lch. 1.[6] IO L 291, 7.11.2009, lch 1.[7] IO L 343, 22.12.2009, lch. 51.[8] IO L 188, 18.7.2009, lch. 93.[9] IO L 82, 22.3.1997, lch. 1.[10] IO L 253, 11.10.1993, lch. 1.[11] IO L 302, 19.10.1992, lch. 1.[12] IO L 299, 16.11.2007, lch. 1.