type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
This is an action of assumpsit by the appellant against the appellee — the declaration containing six common counts, including one for money had and received by the defendant's testator for the use of the plaintiff. With the declaration was filed an open account by which the defendant is charged with various items, amounting with interest thereon to $45,637.95. The contention of the plaintiff is that he transferred to his father in the autumn of 1899 his merchant tailoring business, including the merchandise, cash, furniture, fixtures and accounts, and assigned a lease to secure an indebtedness due by him to his father, that it was not intended to be an absolute transfer, and, inasmuch as his father was paid in full what he owed him, he was entitled to be repaid the above amount. General issue pleas, together with one of payment and one of the Statute of Limitations, were filed. Issue was finally joined and a trial of the case resulted in a verdict for the defendant. The Court granted a prayer to the effect that *Page 238
 a decree passed by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City on November 12th, 1900, in a case wherein the appellant was plaintiff, and the defendant's testator was defendant, was conclusive against the right of the plaintiff to recover.
 The appellant filed a bill in equity against his father to have the bill of sale, which he had given to secure as he alleged what he owed his father, annulled and set aside, to require an accounting by the defendant, and to compel him to pay over to the plaintiff all sums received by him, and to restore and to deliver unto him the lease, the possession of the premises, and all goods and property of every description taken possession of under the bill of sale. It is conceded that the matters involved in the equity proceeding were the same as are now sued for, and the principal question is whether the decree passed in that case was a final adjudication of the controversy. The appellant contends that the bill was dismissed simply for want of prosecution, while the appellee claims that it was such a final disposition of the case as to make the defense of res adjudicata an absolute bar to this suit.
 The decree was as follows: "The above cause standing ready for hearing and being considered on bill and answer, and the plaintiff not appearing in Court, and no evidence being offered to sustain the allegations of the bill, and the answer of the defendant denying the equities of the bill, it is this 12th day of November, 1900, by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, adjudged, ordered and decreed, that the bill of complaint in this cause, be and the same is hereby dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the costs."
 As it is not denied that the bill in equity was intended to recover the money and property sued for in this case, there is no such question before us as is frequently presented in cases of this character, but it is simply whether that decree was dismissed for want of prosecution, or whether it was an adjudication by the Court of the questions involved, on the pleadings. There can be no doubt that a decision of a case on the pleadings may be as effective a bar, as one on testimony. *Page 239
 If, for example, a case is submitted on bill and answer the averments in the answer are taken as proven, and hence there can be no logical distinction made between the effect of a decree rendered on bill and answer and that of one entered after testimony is taken.
 There are certain general principles on the subject of resadjudicata well established in this State, as well as elsewhere, which should be kept in mind in considering the case. InRoyston v. Horner, 75 Md., on page 565, as well as in other Maryland cases, the rule as stated by JUDGE STORY in his EquityPleading, sec. 793, has been approved, that: "A decree or order dismissing a former bill for the same matter may be pleaded in bar to a new bill, if the dismission was upon the hearing, and was not in terms directed to be without prejudice. But an order of dismission is a bar only where the Court has determined that the plaintiff had no title to the relief sought by his bill; and therefore, an order dismissing a bill for want of prosecution is not a bar to another bill." In Martin v. Evans, 85 Md. 8, the subject was discussed at some length by CHIEF JUDGE McSHERRY, who stated the general rule to be that: "Whenever a decree dismissing a bill in equity fails to restrict its own scope, the presumption, according to the great preponderance of decided cases, is, that the issues raised by the proceedings have been disposed of on their merits, and they therefore become resadjudicata." Amongst other authorities cited by him was 6 Ency.of Pl. and Pr. On pages 992 and 993 of that volume the principle is thus stated: "A dismissal or non-suit may be upon the merits. It then concludes the parties as to all matters involved in the issue, whether they were actually decided or not. * * * At law the presumption is that a non-suit is merely formal unless it be affirmatively shown to have been upon the merits. The same rule appears to apply generally to judgments of dismissal at law. In chancery the opposite rule obtains, and a general decree dismissing a bill will be presumed to have been upon the merits, and a final settlement of the controversy unless the decree was collusive, although *Page 240
 the decree was pronounced by a divided Court. The presumption attaches unless the statements of the record show that the dismissal was for some cause not going to the merits; and of course the whole record may be examined to find out what was actually decided or might have been decided. * * * To obviate the general presumption of dismissal upon the merits, the dismissal should be stated in express terms to be made `without prejudice.' Wherever it is not actually upon the merits, the term is used in order to reserve to the parties the privilege of enforcing their rights by subsequent proceedings and to destroy the effect of dismissal as a bar. An absolute dismissal where the dismissal should have been without prejudice is reversible error; and the appellate Court will either reverse and render a decree `without prejudice' or modify and affirm, or remand the cause with instructions to dismiss without prejudice."
 An order was passed on May 21st, 1900, on the bill filed by the appellant against his father, that a receiver be appointed, unless cause to the contrary be shown on or before the 16th day of June, 1900. That was duly served on the defendant, who filed in due time an answer to the bill of complaint, which also showed cause why a receiver should not be appointed. On September 7th, 1900, a general replication was filed, and on the 10th of that month the defendant filed a petition stating that he desired to examine witnesses in open Court and asking an order for that purpose. An order was passed granting leave to take testimony as prayed, and that it be taken as required by the thirty-fifth rule of the Court. which prescribes the method of taking such testimony. On October 6th, 1900, the defendant filed another petition to the same effect, and the Court passed an order granting leave to take testimony under that rule, and added: "It is further ordered that the taking of said testimony and the final hearing be and the same are hereby set for the 12th day of November, 1900." That order was served on the plaintiff's solicitor on the 9th of October. The docket entries also show this entry: "12 October, 1900. Rule hearing for November *Page 241
 12, 1900. Order fd., copy issued (served on William Colton, solr.)." The next docket entry is that of the decree above set out.
 Rule 3 of the lower Court is as follows: "After the general replication has been entered to the answer of the defendant, or if any issue be joined upon a plea, either party may apply to have the case set for hearing; and unless within five days after service of notice of such application leave to take testimony be asked by either party, the case shall be placed upon the trial calendar and be heard upon the pleadings." The solicitors for the respective parties differ widely as to the proper construction of that rule, and also as to whether it is applicable at all, and, if so, how far applicable to the facts of this case.
 The record shows that a general replication had been entered, and apparently that the defendant did apply to have the case set for hearing. While the petition of October 6th did not ask to have the case set for hearing, the Court did, on the application to take testimony in open Court, order that it be taken, and that there be a hearing on November 12th. But if there is any doubt about the effect of that, the entry of October 12, above set out, would seem to establish that it was set for hearing for November 12. It is true there is no written application for that in the record, but the entry of the rule on October 12th — which was three days after the copy of the order of October 6th was served on the solicitor — is there, and the decree itself states that the case was ready for hearing. If we treat the application to have the case set for hearing as of October 12th, then leave to take testimony was not asked within five days after service of notice of such application, and if we treat it as made on October 6th, application to take testimony was made at the same time. As either party has the right to ask leave to take testimony, while it might be somewhat irregular, it is not perceived how injury is done the other party, if the one who applies to have the case set for hearing at the same time asks leave to take testimony. *Page 242
 The appellant must take one horn or other of the dilemma — either that neither side asked to take testimony, as provided under Rule 3, or that the application of the defendant was sufficient. Accepting the latter view, the next question is as to the construction of the rule as applicable to those conditions. If a case is set for hearing, and leave to take testimony is asked by either party, and neither party takes any, can the Court proceed to hear the case on the pleadings without further delay? We are of the opinion that must be answered in the affirmative. It never could have been intended by the framers of that rule that a party could gain time, simply by asking leave to take testimony and then not taking it. The object of the rule manifestly was to prevent unnecessary delay, but if it must be construed to have such effect as is contended for it, the result would be the very opposite of what was intended. The rule, we think, was intended to give either party the opportunity to take testimony, but if not taken, then to dispose of the case on the pleadings.
 But after all, are we not to be governed by the construction placed on the rule by the judge who passed the decree, if we can ascertain that from the decree, and not by what we may think is a proper construction of the rule? If that judge erroneously construed the rule, and passed a decree which was not authorized, then the remedy of the plaintiff was an appeal. Barrick v.Horner, 78 Md. 259; State, use of Brumer, v. Ramsburg,43 Md. 333. If he passed a decree which would bar the plaintiff from bringing another suit, when he was only authorized to pass one that would be equivalent to dismissing the bill for want of prosecution, the remedy was likewise an appeal. "An absolute dismissal, when the dismissal should have been without prejudice, is reversible error." 6 Ency. of Pl. and Pr., 993. See alsoGriffith v. Fred Co. Bank, 6 G. J. 424; McElderry v.Shipley, 2 Md. 37; McDowell v. Goldsmith, 24 Md. 230, andMiller's Eq. Proc., 332.
 We must therefore ascertain what the judge did by the decree, as what he had the right to do is not now the question. *Page 243
 If the statement "and the plaintiff not appearing in Court and no evidence being offered to sustain the allegations of the bill," had not been inserted there would be but little room to question the effect of the decree, under the decisions in this State. It would then have read: "The above cause standing ready for hearing and being considered on bill and answer, and the answer of the defendant denying the equities of the bill," it is adjudged, ordered, etc. Whatever may be said in Rosse v. Rust, 4 John. Ch. 300, and other cases cited by the appellant, the case ofRoyston v. Horner, supra, would seem to be conclusive of that question in this State. The Court quoted from that decree: "This case being submitted on bill, answer and exhibits by agreement of counsel," and went on to say: "This can mean but one thing, that it was submitted for decision in that way. And, when submitted in that way, the Court upon the answer of the defendant denying the allegations of the bill could do nothing but dismiss it; for when a case is submitted on bill and answer, all the averments of the answer, whether responsive to the allegations of the bill or in avoidance of it, are to be taken as true." And then after indicating that the reason the assent of the parties was referred to in the decree was because the costs were disposed of differently from what is usual in a decree on bill and answer which denies the equity of the bill, the Court said: "It may have been without argument, and it is reasonably inferable that it was; but argument is not necessary to make it a hearing, for itis being heard when what the parties say in the bill and answeris considered by the Court."
 In the decree now under consideration, the Court not only said the case was "standing ready for hearing," but, "being considered on bill and answer," "and the answer of the defendant denying the equities of the bill." It was therefore declared that it was ready for hearing, that it was considered on bill and answer and that the Court found that the answer denied the equities of the bill. Finding those facts the Court was required to dismiss the bill, just as it was in Royston v. *Page 244 Horner. If, as we said in that case, "it is being heard when what the parties say in bill and answer is considered by the Court," how can it be said in view of the recitals in this decree, that there was no hearing? There would seem therefore to be no room to doubt, that unless the omission we made above, in reciting the decree, shows the contrary, the judge intended to make it final, and was passing on the merits as he found them from the bill and answer, and of course he knew the effect of deciding the case on bill and answer to be that he must accept the averments in the answer as true.
 But of course in considering the decree, we cannot ignore the statement referred to — "and the plaintiff not appearing and no evidence being offered" — and must give it its proper effect. Was not that inserted because the judge considered the action already taken as sufficient to authorize testimony to be taken, and hence, as the plaintiff neither appeared nor offered testimony to sustain the allegations of the bill, under the rule of Court, he was required to decide the case on the pleadings? There was perhaps no necessity for referring to the fact that the plaintiff did not appear, but it may have been that it was inserted in the decree to show that the plaintiff did not ask for further time, or that he was not there to attempt to sustain the bill by his testimony. But whatever the reason, if the presumption is as we said in Martin v. Evans, then the mere statement that the plaintiff did not appear in Court cannot overcome the presumption raised by the other terms of the decree. If the bill was dismissed because the plaintiff did not appear, then there was no occasion to consider the case on bill and answer, and particularly not to refer to the fact that they were considered. It would only have been necessary to have said, "the above cause standing ready for hearing, and the plaintiff not appearing in Court, it is adjudged," etc. Or if the judge had supposed that he must dismiss the case for want of prosecution, because the plaintiff did not appear and no testimony was taken, there was no reason to say that he had considered the bill and answer, *Page 245
 for if he treated those reasons as a cause of default simply, there was no occasion to consider the bill and answer.
 It was argued, however, by counsel for appellant that the judge could properly examine the bill and answer, to see whether there was anything in them to require him to retain the bill, but that could only be necessary on a hearing on the bill and answer. If, for example, he had found that the answer admitted such allegations of the bill as entitled the plaintiff to relief he could have granted the relief, although the plaintiff did not appear. If a plaintiff is in such default for not appearing as requires or authorizes the Court to dismiss his bill, he has no right to require the Court to examine the pleadings to see whether he is entitled to relief on them. A defendant in a suit at law may file a plea, which admits the right of the plaintiff to recover something, but if the plaintiff does not appear when the case is called, the defendant may ask to have the case non-prossed. The Court would not examine the papers to see whether the plaintiff was entitled to judgment, but would dismiss the case for the default, if his failure to appear was a default under the rules or practice of the Court. One of the cases relied on by the appellant illustrates the point: In Baird v.Bardwell, 60 Miss. 164, the decree was: "This cause coming on this day to be finally heard, and the said complainant in person or by counsel failing to appear, after being duly called, on motion of counsel for defendant, it is ordered," etc., that the bill be dismissed. The Court said: "The absence of the complainant in no degree affected the right of the defendants to submit the case for final hearing. They had the right to do this, or to have it dismissed for want of prosecution."
 So it seems clear to us that the decree shows on its face that the judge did not intend to dismiss the cause because of the default of the plaintiff, either in not appearing or not offering testimony, but he thought that under his construction of the rule he had the right to decide the case on the pleadings, and did hear it on bill and answer, and having so heard it he decided it on the merits, just as much as if the *Page 246
 allegations in the answer had been sustained by proof. The case of Royston v. Horner, is conclusive of the latter statement, as it was submitted on bill, answer and exhibits, and the decree was held to be a bar to another suit. Indeed, if that were not so, hearing a case on bill and answer would be of little use.
 It may be that the plaintiff could have appeared and dismissed the bill, and thereby relieve himself of the effect of a decree by the Court, but he did not adopt that course, and it is not necessary to decide that question. If he supposed that if he did not appear the case would be dismissed without prejudice, or for want of prosecution on account of not appearing, and not be precluded from bringing another suit, he could have had this decree reviewed on appeal, and, if his present contention had been held to be correct, could have had the decree reversed or modified, but not having done that he is bound by it, as passed.
 The only remaining question is the effect of the alleged promise by the defendant, after she qualified as executrix. It is contended that as there is evidence tending to show that after the decree was granted, the appellee acknowledged that the debt sued for in this case was due, and promised to pay it, the decree is not a bar to this suit, even if it would otherwise be so. It cannot be doubted that a party in whose favor a decree or judgment has been rendered can waive the defense he would be authorized to make, against another suit for the same cause of action. That may be done by not offering the record of the former case in evidence. And we do not deem it necessary to deny that a party who has thus had a decision in his favor may be liable on a subsequent promise to pay the debt. The case of Cook v.Vimont, 22 Kentucky (6 T.B. Monroe).284, is a direct decision in favor of the proposition, although we do not mean to adopt it in all respects. But we have been cited to no case which has gone to the extent of holding that the promise of an executor or administrator, to pay a claim which had been adjudicated and determined in favor of his testator, or intestate, in his lifetime would bind *Page 247
 the estate. This case is as good an illustration of the danger of such a rule as could be given. The testator denied under oath any indebtedness or obligation to the appellant, on account of the claim then and now in controversy, and died on the 27th of January, 1908, — over seven years after the decree was rendered, but the second suit was not brought until after his death. The appellant claims that after his mother became executrix, and while she was living with him, he repeatedly told her about the claim and she said she knew that his father owed it to him, and promised to pay it. He admitted that he had filed a bill of complaint against his mother, asking that she be removed as executrix, and that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the estate. He said: "I filed that bill, but I didn't swear that she was insane. I only meant that she was not capable of taking care of her money and she is not, and she does not know any more than that book about taking care of finances. My mother is wholly incompetent of taking care of her money." Again he said: "I never thought she was insane. I never made such a statement in my life. I meant she was mentally incompetent, and does not know anything about business matters or money matters, and is not able to take care of her money, and I was doing that to try and protect her money." He persuaded her to renounce the will of his father, and the testimony shows that while she lived with him he had considerable influence over her, although at the time of the trial she had nothing to do with him. Of course we are aware that such matters would not necessarily prevent his recovery, if the defendant could be held on her alleged promise, but they strikingly illustrate the danger of permitting an executor to thus bind the estate of the testator. If a party can wait for over eight years after a decree of this kind has been entered before bringing another suit, and then, when the other party to the controversy is dead, rely on a promise of the executor to pay what the testator had declared under oath he did not owe, and what had been adjudicated by a decree of the Court in his favor, there would be no protection to the estate of any decedent, but *Page 248
 especially would that be so when it is admitted by the party seeking to establish a claim that the executrix, upon whose promise he relies, is utterly incapable of attending to business, and could not even take care of her own money. The alleged admission that the debt was due would not only contradict the testator, but in effect would prove him guilty of perjury. It is inconceivable that any jury would believe that the appellee would make such a promise if she understood what it meant, and if the testimony of the appellant as to her competency, was accepted, a jury could not believe she did so understand it, but if there be no other reason for not permitting a claim to be established by the admission or promise of the personal representative of the decedent, when it had been determined to be invalid in his lifetime, public policy would prevent it. In Miller, Admr., v.Dorsey, 9 Md. 317, LeGRAND, C.J., said: "It cannot be pretended that if an administrator should, after acknowledging a claim against the estate of his intestate, discover that it had been paid, he would be debarred from setting up such fact to defeat the claim." In Webster v. LeCompte, Exr., 74 Md. 249, a prayer was offered that if the jury believed that one of the plaintiffs presented the claim to the executor and requested payment of it, and that the defendant promised to pay it if said plaintiff would have it proven and passed, and thereupon he did prove it and have it passed by the Orphans' Court, then the defendant was bound to pay it, and the jury must find for the plaintiffs. The Court in passing on it, after saying that the alleged promise that the executor would pay it was made before he became executor, added: "But an admission or promise by an executor or administrator is not under all circumstances to be regarded as binding and conclusive as against the estate. For though an executor or administrator may recognize a claim as proper to be paid, yet if he afterwards discovers that the claim has no legal foundation, or that it is such as ought not of right and in justice to be charged upon the estate represented by him, no previous recognition or admission by him ought to or can preclude him from making the proper defense, *Page 249
 and with the same effect as if no such previous recognition or admission had occurred. This plain principle of right and justice is fully recognized by this Court in the case of Miller, Admr.,
 v. Dorsey, 9 Md. 317, 323; and applying it here, the Court below could not do otherwise than reject this third prayer of the plaintiffs." That applies with much greater force to a claim such as this which had been adjudicated in favor of the testator, when he was alive and able to defend himself.
 It is true that executors and administrators may revive claims barred by the statute of limitations by promises to pay or acknowledgments of them, but that it is a different question. The claim still exists, and oftentimes justice requires that it be paid, and so with one affected by a discharge in bankruptcy or insolvency. But when a case has been tried on its merits, in the lifetime of the decedent, and decided in his favor, there is no principle of justice which would require or permit his personal representative to bind his estate by admitting the claim to be due or promising to pay it. No estate would be sufficiently protected by the law, if it was permitted. The law does not favor stale claims, especially when made after the death of an alleged debtor, and when one has been passed upon in his lifetime and determined in his favor in such way as to bar further suit upon it, there could be no possible reason why his personal representative should be allowed to become in effect a Court of review, determine that it was a valid claim and then bind the estate on his judgment of its validity. The interests of creditors and distributees of estates should not be jeopardized by establishing such a doctrine, and they, and not the executor, would generally be the sufferers.
 So, without further discussion of the questions involved in this case, we will affirm the judgment.
 Judgment affirmed, the appellant to pay the costs above andbelow. *Page 250


type: wikipedia

text:
1873 (MDCCCLXXIII) je bilo navadno leto, ki se je po gregorijanskem koledarju začelo na sredo, po 12 dni počasnejšem julijanskem koledarju pa na ponedeljek.
 Dogodki
 14. oktober - izide prva številka Slovenca
 Rojstva
 19. marec - Johann Baptist Joseph Maximilian Reger, nemški skladatelj († 1916)
 29. marec - Tullio Levi-Civita, italijanski matematik († 1941)
 1. maj - David Livingstone, škotski misijonar, zdravnik, raziskovalec Afrike, 1. maja najden mrtev (* 1813)
 17. maj - Henri Barbusse, francoski pisatelj, novinar († 1935)
 17. maj - Dorothy Miller Richardson, angleška pisateljica († 1957)
 26. maj - Arthur Robert Hinks, angleški astronom, geograf († 1945)
 22. avgust - Aleksander Aleksandrovič Bogdanov, beloruski revolucionar, filozof in partijski ekonomist († 1928) (j.k. 10. avgust)
 13. september - Constantin Carathéodory, grško-nemški matematik († 1950)
 8. oktober - Ejnar Hertzsprung, danski astronom, kemik († 1967)
 30. oktober - Francisco Indalecio Madero, mehiški državnik, predsednik Mehike († 1913)
 4. november - George Edward Moore, angleški filozof († 1958)
 20. november - William Weber Coblentz, ameriški fizik, astronom († 1962)
 Smrti
 18. januar - Pierre Charles François Dupin, francoski matematik, inženir (* 1784)
 18. april - Justus von Liebig, nemški kemik (* 1803)
 8. maj - John Stuart Mill, angleški filozof (* 1806)
 22. maj - Alessandro Manzoni, italijanski pesnik, pisatelj (* 1785)
 22. maj - Per Georg Scheutz, švedski odvetnik, prevajalec, izumitelj, praračunalnikar (* 1785)
 12. avgust - Janoš Kardoš, slovenski pisatelj, pesnik, prevajalec, politični vodnik na Madžarskem (* 1801)
 23. september - Jean Chacornac, francoski astronom (* 1823)
 14. december - Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz, švicarsko ameriški zoolog, geolog (* 1807)


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 1.4.2014
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 98/3
 SPORAZUM
 v obliki izmenjave pisem med Evropsko unijo in Srednjeafriško republiko o statusu, ki ga ima v Srednjeafriški republiki vojaška misija Evropske unije v Srednjeafriški republiki (EUFOR RCA)
 Bruselj, 10. marca 2014
 Njena ekscelenca gospa Catherine Samba-Panza
 Chef d'État de la transition
 Srednjeafriška republika
 Vaša ekscelenca,
 potem ko je Varnostni svet Združenih narodov sprejel Resolucijo št. 2134(2014), bo Evropska unija v kratkem v Srednjeafriško republiko poslala misijo (EUFOR RCA), ki naj bi pripomogla k utrditvi varnostnih razmer v vaši državi.
 Kot veste, je Srednjeafriška republika 16. aprila 2008 sklenila sporazum o statusu misije Evropske unije, napotene v Čad in Srednjeafriško republiko (EUFOR Tchad/RCA), v skladu z Resolucijo Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov št. 1778(2007).
 Določbe zadevnega sporazuma, ki sicer od odhoda zadnjega vojaka misije EUFOR Tchad/RCA ne velja več, pa v celoti ustrezajo potrebam misije Evropske unije, ki bo napotena v Srednjeafriško republiko.
 Zato predlagam, da se vse določbe iz navedenega sporazuma (členi 1 do 19) uporabijo za EUFOR RCA, pri čemer:
 —
 se vsaka navedba EUFOR v zadevnih členih bere kot sklicevanje na EUFOR RCA;
 —
 so med prevozna sredstva, navedena v členih 1(3)(a), 3(2) in 4(3), vključena prevozna sredstva v lasti nacionalnih kontingentov, ki sestavljajo EUFOR RCA, pa tudi prevozna sredstva, ki jih EUFOR RCA najame ali zakupi;
 —
 se sklicevanje iz člena 1(3)(b) na Resolucijo Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov št. 1778(2007) z dne 25. septembra 2007 bere kot sklicevanje na Resolucijo Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov št. 2134(2014) z dne 28. januarja 2014.
 Prosim, da mi sporočite, ali se strinjate z navedenimi predlogi. Če bo vaš odgovor pozitiven, bo to pismo skupaj z vašim odgovorom veljalo za pravno zavezujoč mednarodni sporazum med Srednjeafriško republiko in Evropsko unijo o statusu misije EUFOR RCA, ki bo začel veljati na datum prejema vašega pisma z odgovorom.
 Sprejmite izraze mojega globokega spoštovanja.
 Za Evropsko unijo
 C. ASHTON
 Catherine Ashton
 Visoka predstavnica Unije za zunanje zadeve in varnostno politiko
 Gospa visoka predstavnica,
 zahvaljujem se vam za pismo z dne 10. marca 2014 o napotitvi misije Evropske unije v Srednjeafriško republiko, ki se glasi:
 „Potem ko je Varnostni svet Združenih narodov sprejel Resolucijo št. 2134(2014), bo Evropska unija v kratkem v Srednjeafriško republiko poslala misijo (EUFOR RCA), ki naj bi pripomogla k utrditvi varnostnih razmer v vaši državi.
 Kot veste, je Srednjeafriška republika 16. aprila 2008 sklenila sporazum o statusu misije Evropske unije, napotene v Čad in Srednjeafriško republiko (EUFOR Tchad/RCA), v skladu z Resolucijo Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov št. 1778(2007).
 Določbe zadevnega sporazuma, ki sicer od odhoda zadnjega vojaka misije EUFOR Tchad/RCA ne velja več, pa v celoti ustrezajo potrebam misije Evropske unije, ki bo napotena v Srednjeafriško republiko.
 Zato predlagam, da se vse določbe iz navedenega sporazuma (členi 1 do 19) uporabijo za EUFOR RCA, pri čemer:
 —
 se vsaka omemba EUFOR v zadevnih členih bere kot sklicevanje na EUFOR RCA;
 —
 so med prevozna sredstva, navedena v členih 1(3)(a), 3(2) in 4(3), vključena prevozna sredstva v lasti nacionalnih kontingentov, ki sestavljajo EUFOR RCA, pa tudi prevozna sredstva, ki jih EUFOR RCA najame ali zakupi;
 —
 se sklicevanje iz člena 1(3)(b) na Resolucijo Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov št. 1778(2007) z dne 25. septembra 2007 bere kot sklicevanje na Resolucijo Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov št. 2134(2014) z dne 28. januarja 2014.
 Prosim, da mi sporočite, ali se strinjate z navedenimi predlogi. Če bo vaš odgovor pozitiven, bo to pismo skupaj z vašim odgovorom veljalo za pravno zavezujoč mednarodni sporazum med Srednjeafriško republiko in Evropsko unijo o statusu misije EUFOR RCA, ki bo začel veljati na datum prejema vašega pisma z odgovorom.“
 V čast mi je, da vam lahko sporočim, da potrjujem predloge iz vašega pisma.
 Sprejmite izraze mojega globokega spoštovanja.
 Za Srednjeafriško republiko
 Catherine SAMBA-PANZA


type: other

text:
Kirby's Epic Yarn -ennakko (Wii) | Muropaketti.com
 Kirby’s Epic Yarn -ennakko (Wii)
 08.09.2010 14:24 | Tero Lehtiniemi
 Nintendon syksy on pullollaan toinen toistaan mielenkiintoisempia pelejä. Ennakoimme jo aiemmin Metroid: Other M:n, Donkey Kong Country Returnsin ja Golden Sunin. Jatkamme jättipelien jälkeen pienemmillä ennakoilla, joista vuorossa hassun Kirby-otuksen uusin seikkailu.
 Kirby on jostain syystä Nintendon vakiosankareista allekirjoittaneen suosikkihahmoja, enkä oikein osaa sanoa miksi. Pullapojan ja pilven yhdistelmältä näyttävä otus on kuitenkin hellyttävyydessään jotain ihan uskomatonta.
 Kun tähän vielä yhdistetään Kirbyn seikkailujen luova ja itseään uudistava kekseliäisyys, ollaan siinä pisteessä kuin ollaan.
 Kirbyn seikkailut ovat kaikki melko persoonallisia, eikä Epic Yarn suinkaan ole poikkeus. Kirbyn Eeppinen Lanka sijoittuu lankojen ja tekstiilien ihmeelliseen mutta silti yllättävään maailmaan. Pelin kentät ja viholliset on piirretty erilaisista langoista, se miten maailma reagoi, on varsin kiehtova. Esimerkiksi taivaalla roikkuvasta langasta vetäminen repii taustasta palasen irti, avaten uuden osan kenttää, bonusesineitä tai muuta vastaavaa. Toisinaan Kirby voi myös muuttua erilaisiksi jättimäisiksi tekstiilihirviöiksi, joista esillä olleessa demossa päästiin tutustumaan jättimäiseen, aseistettuun mech-tyyliseen robottiin.
 Peli kehitettiin alunperin GameCubelle, mutta tämä tosiasia ei onneksi muistuta itsestään kovin usein. Tiukan kaksiulotteinen toteutus on omalla tavallaan todella sympaattinen, ja koko lanka/tekstiilikonsepti on kekseliäisyydessään niin nerokas, että suurempi määrä kikkailua voisi kääntyä itseään vastaan.
 Pikaisen testauksen perusteella en pysty enkä halua sanoa mitään ikävää Epic Yarnista. Se ei demon perusteella ole millään tavalla mullistava tai maata järisyttävä peli, mutta se kuinka perinteistä 2D-tasoloikkaa on piristetty tällaisella idealla, on jälleen hatunnoston arvoinen suoritus. Se, saadaanko ideasta väännettyä jotain vielä raflaavampaa valmiissa pelissä, jää nähtäväksi.
 Tekijä: Good Feel/HAL Laboratory
 Tulossa: Wii
 Blade Kitten -ennakko (PC, PS3, Xbox 360)
 Donkey Kong Country Returns -ennakko (Wii)
 Metroid: Other M -ennakko (Wii)
 Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. 2 -ennakko (PC, PS3, Xbox 360)
 Dead Rising 2: Case Zero (Xbox 360)
 SBK X: Superbike World Championship (PC, PS3, Xbox 360)
 Scott Pilgrim vs The World: The Game (PS3, Xbox 360)
 27.10.2010 21:58 Peter S
 Mutta miksi ihmeessä se tulee tänne tai ylipäänsä eurooppaan vasta ensi vuonna?!! Sattuisiko joku tietämään?
 Nintendolta tuhti peliesittely: näin monipuolinen on Super Mario Maker 2


text:
125/1946 Sb. Zákon o mimoriadnych opatreniach s obore ochranných známok
 125/1946verze 1
 Zákon č. 125/1946 Sb.Zákon o mimoriadnych opatreniach s obore ochranných známok
 Aktuální znění 12.06.1946 (verze 1)
 (1) Ochranné známky, ktoré boly zapísané alebo včas obnovené do 4. mája 1945 včítane u niektorej obchodnej a živnostenskej komory alebo u obchodnej a priemyselnej komory na území Československej republiky, budú požívať ochrany na celom území Československej republiky s prioritou pôvodného zápisu, ak ich chrániteľ prihlási u obchodnej a živnostenskej komory alebo u obchodnej a priemyselnej komory, v obvode ktorej je sídlo podniku v dobe tejto prihlášky.
 (3) Ochranné známky, ktoré nebudú v takto určenej lehote prihlásené, strácajú ochranu.
 Na celom území Československej republiky dosiahnú ochrany s prioritou pôvodného zápisu, ale s výhradou zachovania práv osôb tretích, ochranné známky, ktoré boly zapísané v čase od 30. septembra 1938 do 4. mája 1945 včítane s platnosťou tiež pre niektorú časť územia Československej republiky u iného registračného úradu než u obchodnej a živnostenskej komory alebo u obchodnej a priemyseľnej komory, spomenutej v § 1, ak je sídlo ich podniku na území Československej republiky a ak budú prihlásené k zápisu u teraz príslušnej obchodnej a živnostenskej komory alebo u obchodnej a priemyseľnej komory do dňa, ktorý bude určený vládnym nariadením.
 Prioritné lehoty, ktoré v obore ochranných známok určuje článok 4 Parížskej unijnej úmluvy na ochranu živnostenského vlastníctva, vyhlásenej dňa 5. februára 1933 pod č. 22 Sb., a ktoré boly v behu ešte dňa 29. septembra 1938 alebo prišly do behu po tomto dni, sa predľžujú do dňa, ktorý bude určený vládnym nariadením.
 (1) Ak bolo niekomu zabránené mimoriadnými pomermi, zapríčinenými okupáciou alebo vojnou, aby dodržal lehotu na obnovenie ochrannej známky (§ 16 zákona zo dňa 6. januára 1890, č. 19 r. z., o ochrane známok, v znení predpisov ho meniacich a doplňujúcich), prevedie sa na jeho žiadosť dodatočná obnova známky.
 (2) Žiadosť o dodatočnú obnovu známky sa podá písomne u obchodnej a živnostenskej komory alebo u obchodnej a priemyseľnej komory, príslušnej na obnovu ochrannej známky, v lehote, ktorá bude určená nariadením ako konečná pre prihlášku podľa § 1. V žiadosti musia byť uvedené skutočnosti, o ktoré sa žiadosť opiera, ako aj prostriedky, ktorými tieto skutočnosti majú byť osvedčené. Zároveň so žiadosťou treba zaplatiť taxu za obnovu s príplatkom 50 Kčs. (§ 16, odst. 3, zákona o ochrane známok.)
 (1) Ak bola pre mimoriadne pomery, zapríčinené okupáciou alebo vojnou, zameškaná lehota na podanie žaloby podľa § 4 zákona zo dňa 30. júla 1895, č. 108 r. z., ktorým sa doplňuje resp. mení zákon zo dňa 6. januára 1890 o ochrane známok v znení zákona zo dňa 20. decembra 1932, č. 27 Sb. z roku 1933, možno žalobu podať ešte v lehote, ktorá bude určená vládnym nariadením ako konečná pre prihlášku podľa § 1.
 (2) V žalobe musia byť zároveň uvedené skutočnosti, ktoré zabránily včasnému podaniu žaloby, ako aj prostriedky, ktorými tieto skutočnosti majú byť osvedčené.
 Zákon zo dňa 8. októbra 1940, č. 261 Sl. z., o niektorých opatreniach na ochranu známok, sa zrušuje. Zároveň sa zrušuje použivateľnosť vl. nar. zo dňa 23. januára 1941, č. 98 Sb., o ochrane známok slovenských podnikov.


text:
 26.1.2013
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 26/78
 Prasība, kas celta 2012. gada 28. novembrī — ZZ/Komisija
 (Lieta F-146/12)
 2013/C 26/164
 Tiesvedības valoda — franču
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītāja: ZZ (pārstāvji — S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal un D. Abreu Caldas, avocats)
 Atbildētāja: Eiropas Komisija
 Strīda priekšmets un apraksts
 Prasība atcelt lēmumu par prasītājas pensijas tiesību pārnešanu Savienības pensiju programmā, kurā ir piemēroti jaunie VĪN, kas attiecas uz Civildienesta noteikumu VIII pielikuma 11. un 12. pantu
 Prasītājas prasījumi:
 —
 atzīt Civildienesta noteikumu VIII pielikuma 11. panta 2. punkta Vispārējo īstenošanas noteikumu 9. panta prettiesiskumu;
 —
 atcelt 2012. gada 3. februāra lēmumu piemērot Civildienesta noteikumu VIII pielikuma 11. panta 2. punkta 2011. gada 3. marta Vispārējos īstenošanas noteikumos paredzētos parametrus prasītājas pensijas tiesību pārnešanai;
 —
 piespriest Komisija atlīdzināt tiesāšanās izdevumus.


text:
Oskar Schlemmer, född 4 september 1888 i Stuttgart, död 13 april 1943 i Baden-Baden, var en tysk målare, skulptör, scenograf och formgivare. Åren 1920–1929 var han verksam som lärare eller Meister ["mästare"] vid Bauhaus i Weimar och Bauhaus Dessau. Han utformade inrättningens logotyp. Schlemmer tematiserade i sin konst den mänskliga figurens ställning i rummet. Hans mest kända målning är Bauhaustreppe (1932).
 Biografi
 Barndom
 Oskar Schlemmers föräldrar avled båda omkring år 1900 och Oskar som var yngst av sex syskon, fick bo hos en äldre syster i Göppingen. Han lämnade realskolan 1903 och flyttade tillbaka till Stuttgart. Där gick han i lära som hantverksmässig tecknare hos den ledande intarsiaverkstaden Wölfel & Kiessling. Vid sidan om gick han en kurs i figurteckning och stillära.
 Utbildning och militärtjänstgöring
 Åren 1905–1909 studerade Schlemmer först vid Kunstgewerbeschule, motsvarande konstfack, en termin och därefter vid konsthögskolan Akademie der Bildenden Künste i Stuttgart. Där lärde han bland andra känna Willi Baumeister. År 1910 flyttade han till Berlin, där han målade några av sina första viktiga verk innan han återvände till Stuttgart 1912 som Adolf Hölzels elev. År 1914 inkallades han. Han blev stationerad på västfronten under första världskriget. Han sårades och blev omplacerad till ett läger för den militära kartografienheten i Colmar. Där tjänstgjorde han fram till krigsslutet, då han återvände som elev till Hölzel 1918.
 År 1919 arbetade Schlemmer med skulptur och hade en utställning på Galleri Der Sturm i Berlin.
 Bauhaus
 Åren 1920-1929 undervisade Schlemmer vid Bauhaus i Weimar och Bauhaus Dessau med titeln "mästare" som brukligt var vid denna skola. Helt i enlighet med Bauhausskolans anda eftersträvade han att konstruktivt förenkla bilder. År 1923 blev han även skulpturmästare vid skolans teateravdelning efter att ha varit verksam en tid i dess skulpturverkstad. Hans mest kända verk från denna tid är Triadisches Ballett, där aktörerna är förändrade från normala till geometriska former. Även i Treppenwitz gör artisternas dräkter dem till levande skulpturer, som en del av landskapet.
 Efter Bauhaus
 Efter att ha lämnat Bauhaus 1929 tog Schlemmer en tjänst vid konstakademin i Breslau. Här målade han också sitt kanske mest kända verk, "Bauhaustreppe" (1932). Han tvingades dessvärre lämna akademin efter en kort period, som en följd av dålig samhällsekonomi i efterdyningarna av börskraschen 1929. Han tog sig an en professur vid Berlins statliga skola för fri och tillämpad konst, Vereinigte Staatsschulen für Freie und angewandte Kunst, som han innehade en ännu kortare period fram till början av 1933 då han tvingades avgå på grund av påtryckningar från nazisterna.
 Schlemmer som måltavla för nazister
 Fem NS-utställningar 1933
 Oskar Schlemmers målning Zwei Frauen am Tisch, tillsammans med två litografier, visades på den nazistiska smädeutställningen "Schaufenster" i Dessau redan i mars 1933, och därefter på två liknande utställningar 1937-1938, i Dessau och Hamburg. Målningen noterades som "utplånad" i dåvarande NS-protokoll men den finns sedan 1961 på Galerie Großhennig i Düsseldorf. Målningen Frauentreppe (1925) visades först på "Kulturbolschewistische Bilder" på Städel Museum i Mannheim från april till juni 1933, därefter på bland annat "Mannheimer Schreckenskammer" ["Skräckkammaren i Mannheim"] i Erlangen juli–augusti 1933. Tre litografier av honom,Kopf och blad 11 och 12 ur första portfolion av "Neue europäische Graphik. Meister des staatlichen Bauhauses in Weimar" ["Ny europeisk grafik. Mästare från statliga Bauhaus i Weimar"], visades på den likaså nationalsocialistiskt arrangerade utställningen "Kunst, die nicht aus unserer Seele kam" ["Konst som inte är från vår själ"] på museet i Chemnitz i maj-juni 1933. Målningen Drei Frauen (1924-1925) visades på "Kunst der Geistesrichtung 1918-1933", en tidig variant av Entartete Kunst-utställningar, på Schlesisches Museum der bildenden Künste i Breslau, med början 17 december 1933.
 Statlig konfiskering av verk och 15 NS-utställningar till
 I början av juli 1937 beslagtog så Propagandaministeriet i Nazityskland vad som fanns av Oskar Schlemmer på tyska museer, eftersom det han stod för definierades som entartete Kunst och det skulle inte längre finnas i landet. Det var 15 akvareller, 19 grafiska blad, 20 målningar och 9 teckningar. 1 tuschteckning, Anna Selbdritt und zwei weitere Figuren, som mer liknar en arbetsskiss, visades på den avsiktligt nedsättande utställningen Entartete Kunst i Münchens Hofgartenarkad 19 juli–30 november 1937. Där visades även akvarellen HK (1926), sedan 1991 tillbaka på Kupferstichkabinett i Berlin där den en gång beslagtogs, målningarna Konzentrische Gruppe (1925), Drei Frauen (återigen), Fünfergruppe mit zentraler Aktfigur (1930), som sedan, i likhet med akvarellen Abstrakte Komposition in Weiß och ett par litografier ur portfolion "Neue europäische Graphik" (1921), var med på nästan alla av den efterföljande vandringsutställningens hållplatser fram till 1941 (därefter saknar den proveniens), Fünf Figuren im Raum, Römisches (1925), som idag finns på Kunstmuseum Basel, Frauentreppe (återigen, Kunstmuseum Basel), Sinnender (1925), vars proveniens är okänd därefter.
 Målningen Vorübergehender (1925) visades på smädeutställningen "Bolschewismus ohne Maske" i Berlins riksdagsbyggnad 6 november 1937 – 9 januari 1938. Det är okänt vad som hände med den därefter. Frauenschule (1930) visades enbart på vandringsutställningen hållplats i Hamburg 1938 och finns idag på Kulturhistorisches Museum i Rostock.
 Andra världskriget
 Under andra världskriget arbetade Schlemmer, tillsammans med Willi Baumeister och Georg Muche, vid Institut für Malstoffe i Wuppertal som drevs av filantropen Kurt Herbert. Verkstaden gav honom möjlighet att måla utan rädsla för förföljelse. Hans serie med arton små, mystiska bilder med titeln Fensterbilder (1942) målades medan han tittade ut genom fönstret i sitt hus och observerade grannarna i deras vardagliga uppgifter. Dessa blev hans sista konstverk innan han avled på grund av en hjärtattack på sjukhus i Baden-Baden, endast 54 år gammal.
 Flera av hans målningar gick förlorade under krigets förödelse.
 Eftermäle
 Schlemmers idéer om konst var komplexa och utmanande även för den progressiva Bauhausskolan. Hans arbeten, visades ändå allmänt i både Tyskland och utanför landet. Hans arbete var ett förkastande av ren abstraktion, för att istället bibehålla en känsla av det humana, inte i emotionell mening, utan av den fysiska strukturen av det mänskliga. Han presenterade kroppar som arkitektoniska former och reducerade figurerna till en rytmisk lek mellan konvexa, konkava och plana ytor. Han fascinerades av varje rörelse som kroppen kunde göra och försökte fånga den i sitt arbete. En stor mängd arbeten om Schlemmers teorier om konst har också publicerats.
 En omfattande bok med hans brev och dagboksanteckningar från 1910 till 1943 finns också. Tillsammans med hans dagbok har Schlemmers privata brev till Otto Meyer och Willi Baumeister gett värdefulla insikter om vad som hände på Bauhaus, speciellt genom hans skrifter om hur personal och studenter svarade på de många förändringarna och utvecklingen på skolan.
 Oskar Schlemmer är representerad vid bland annat British Museum, Saint Louis Art Museum,Museum of Modern Art, Metropolitan Museum, National Gallery of Victoria, Smithsonian och Louisiana.
 Galleri
 Källor
 Bra Böckers lexikon, 1979
 Freie Universität Berlin (FUB): Beschlagnahmeinventar Entartete Kunst. (emuseum.campus.fu-berlin.de)
 Om Bauhaus med bilder av Schlemmers kostymer. (thecharnelhouse.org)
 Om Das Triadische Ballett (1922) (Museo Nacional Centro de Arte, Reina Sofia)
 Presentation av Oskar Schlemmer. (archive.org)
 Noter
 Externa länkar
 Representerade vid Museum of Modern Art
 Representerade vid Metropolitan Museum of Art
 Representerade vid British Museum
 Födda 1888
 Avlidna 1943
 Män
 Tyska målare
 Tyska skulptörer
 Personer från Stuttgart
 Personer i Weimarrepubliken
 Konstnärer på Entartete Kunst-utställningar


text:
 Evenimente
 23 mai: Bătălia de la Dandanaqan (Turkmenistan). S-a dat între selgiucizi conduși de Chagri Beg Tughril și Imperiul Ghaznavid, condus de Mas'ud I, încheiată cu victoria selgiucizilor.
 15 august: Regele Duncan I al Scoției este ucis într-o bătălie (la Thorfinn Burghead) împotriva primului său văr și rival, Macbeth al Scoției, care succede la tronul Scoției.
 Nașteri
 27 iunie: Ladislau I al Ungariei, rege al Ungariei (d. 1095)
 iunie: Alfonso VI (cel Curajos), rege al Leonului, Castiliei și Galiciei (d. 1109)
 Decese
 17 martie: Harold Picior-de-Iepure, rege al Angliei (n. 1015)
 15 august: Duncan I al Scoției (n. 1001)
 Vezi și
 Listă de conducători de stat din 1040
 1040


text:
Vasario 5 yra 36-a metų diena pagal Grigaliaus kalendorių. Nuo šios dienos iki metų galo lieka 329 dienos (keliamaisiais metais – 330).
 Informacija
 Šventės
 Katalikų šalys – Šv. Agota;
 Duonos diena.
 Vardadieniai
 Aga – Agata – Agatas – Agatė – Agota – Birenė – Birenis -Birutė – Birutis – Birvyda – Birvydas – Gaudvilas – Gaudvilė – Gaudvina – Gaudvinas – Ilona
 Šią dieną Lietuvoje
 Įvykiai
 1932 – Kaune įkurta Lietuvos darbo jaunimo sąjunga;
 1989:
 atkurta Lietuvos demokratų partija – pirmoji atgimusi partija vis dar sovietų okupuotoje Lietuvoje:
 Vilniaus Arkikatedra atšventinta ir perduota tikintiesiems;
 Išleistas pirmasis legalus žurnalo „Katalikų pasaulis“ numeris, redaguotas kunigo Vaclovo Aliulio;
 2003 – Havajuose vykusiose pasaulio galiūnų čempionate 27 metų biržietis Žydrūnas Savickas užėmė trečią vietą.
 Gimimo dienos
 1848 m. – Pranciškus Augustaitis, lietuvių kunigas, pedagogas, istorikas (m. 1915 m.).
 1876 m. – Aleksandras Bobinskis, Lietuvos karinis veikėjas, pulkininkas (m. 1938 m.).
 1884 m. – Mečislovas Reinys, katalikų dvasininkas, arkivyskupas, teologijos ir filosofijos profesorius, diplomatas, politikas, Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministras, SSRS politinis kalinys, kankinys (m. 1953 m.).
 1885 m. – Julius Gravrogkas, Lietuvos inžinierius mechanikas (m. 1968 m.).
 1891 m. – Jonas Byra, Lietuvos dainininkas (tenoras), pedagogas, chorvedys. (m. 1972 m.).
 1897 m. – Jonas Augustaitis, lietuvių inžinierius statybininkas, visuomenės veikėjas (m. 1978 m.).
 1902 m. – Ona Maksimaitienė-Girčytė, Lietuvos istorikė, humanitarinių mokslų daktarė (m. 1999 m.).
 1903 m. – Antanas Kojelis, vargonininkas, pedagogas ir chorvedys (m. 1976 m.).
 1906 m. – Leonardas Dambriūnas, Lietuvos kalbininkas, visuomenės veikėjas (m. 1976 m.).
 1909 m.:
 Gražina Bacevičiūtė, Lenkijos lietuvių kompozitorė, smuikininkė virtuozė (m. 1969 m.).
 Juozas Jurginis, lietuvių istorikas, LKP veikėjas (m. 1994 m.).
 1923 m.:
 Jonas Gradauskas, Lietuvos gydytojas chirurgas, biomedicinos mokslų daktaras.
 Meilutė Indreikaitė-Biskienė, Biskis, lietuvių gydytoja, JAV lietuvių visuomenės veikėja, medicinos daktarė.
 1927 m.:
 Julijonas Juozas Lozoraitis, Lietuvos teatrologas, kino kritikas (m. 1997 m.).
 Vladas Bartusevičius, lietuvių dirigentas, folklorininkas (m. 1982 m.).
 1929 m. – Elzė Galnaitytė, Lietuvos kalbininkė, humanitarinių mokslų daktarė.
 1931 m. – Aleksandras Mičiūdas, Argentinos lietuvių veikėjas, žurnalistas.
 1936 m. – Antanas Juozas Merčaitis, Lietuvos ekonomistas, statistikas, buvęs LR ekonomikos viceministras, Vilniaus universiteto docentas.
 1937 m.:
 Alberta Natalija Dragūnaitienė, Lietuvos ir Šakių rajono visuomenės bei politinė veikėja.
 Romualdas Šulskis, choro dirigentas ir pedagogas (m. 1995 m.).
 1939 m. – Egidijus Barkauskas, Lietuvos gydytojas chirurgas, habilituotas biomedicinos mokslų daktaras.
 1941 m. – Jonas Kievišas, muzikos pedagogas, socialinių (edukologijos) mokslų daktaras, choro dirigentas.
 1942 m. – Mykolas Tunkevičius, Lietuvos politinis veikėjas.
 1944 m. – Vitas Agurkis, vertėjas.
 1952 m. – Alfridas Navickas, Lietuvos politinis veikėjas.
 1953 m. – Algirdas Vilčinskas, Lietuvos ir Širvintų rajono visuomenės bei politinis veikėjas.
 1954 m. – Jonas Masiokas, Lietuvos ir Panevėžio rajono politinis bei visuomenės veikėjas.
 1957 m. – Pranas Žeimys, Lietuvos ir Palangos miesto politinis bei visuomenės veikėjas.
 1958 m.:
 Algirdas Kederys, Lietuvos ir Prienų rajono politinis bei visuomenės veikėjas.
 Ričardas Anusauskas, fotografas, menininkas, verslininkas.
 1960 m. – Gintarė Skėrytė, Lietuvos operos dainininkė (sopranas).
 1961 m. – Kęstutis Kordušas, Lietuvos ir Raseinių rajono politinis bei visuomenės veikėjas, Tėvynės sąjungos Raseinių rajono skyriaus pirmininkas.
 1963 m.:
 Birutė Mockienė-Petraitytė, chorvedė ir pedagogė.
 Jonas Dalinevičius, kunigas, Lietuvos bažnyčios veikėjas.
 1969 m. – Audrius Skimborauskas, Lietuvos politinis veikėjas, partijos „Jaunoji Lietuva“ valdybos narys, Kauno miesto skyriaus pirmininkas. Kauno m. savivaldybės tarybos Sveikatos komiteto narys.
 1984 m. – Edgaras Česnauskis, Lietuvos futbolininkas, futbolininko Deivido Česnauskio brolis.
 Mirtys
 1908 m. – Liubomiras Gadonas, teisininkas, lietuvių ir lenkų visuomenės veikėjas, publicistas, istorikas (g. 1831 m.).
 1927 m. – Marija Magdalena Eitavičiūtė-Nagevičienė, Lietuvos visuomenės švietėja, spaudos platintoja, pirmojo lietuviško knygyno Kretingoje įkūrėja (g. 1847 m.).
 1941 m. – Jonas Kriaučiūnas, lietuvių spaudos darbuotojas, visuomenės veikėjas (g. 1864 m.).
 1949 m. – Juozas Tallat–Kelpša, vargonininkas, kompozitorius, dirigentas, pedagogas ir kultūros veikėjas (g. 1889 m.).
 1960 m. – Ignas Musteikis, Lietuvos karinis ir valstybės veikėjas, Lietuvos kariuomenės pulkininkas (g. 1890 m.).
 1969 m. – Juozas Balčikonis, kalbininkas, vertėjas (g. 1885 m.).
 1973 m. – Bronius Gertus, Lietuvos karinis veikėjas, Generalinio štabo pulkininkas (g. 1896 m.).
 1976 m. – Stasys Pilka, aktorius (g. 1898 m.).
 1980 m. – Petras Tarulis, prozininkas, spaudos darbuotojas (g. 1896 m.).
 1984 m. – Apolinaras Likerauskas, choro ir orkestro dirigentas, dainininkas (bosas), pedagogas (g. 1895 m.).
 1985 m. – Vladas Ingelevičius, Lietuvos gydytojas, visuomenės veikėjas, sanitarijos pulkininkas (g. 1889 m.).
 1986 m. – Juozas Zdebskis, kunigas, vienas žymiausių XX a. pokario disidentų ir kovotojų už tikinčiųjų teises (g. 1929 m.).
 1988 m. – Edvardas Ramanauskas, Vilniaus Universiteto Chemijos fakulteto dekanas, profesorius (g. 1923 m.).
 2002 m. – Pranas Dauknys, lietuvių kunigas, Australijos lietuvių bendruomenės veikėjas, Lietuvos katalikų mokslų akademijos narys (g. 1920 m.).
 2005 m. – Balys Karalius, Lietuvos agronomas, biomedicinos mokslų daktaras (g. 1931 m.).
 2006 m. – Eduardas Kunavičius, Lietuvos aktorius, režisierius (g. 1926 m.).
 Šią dieną pasaulyje
 Įvykiai
 1816 – Romoje įvyko Dž. Rosinio operos „Sevilijos kirpėjas“ premjera;
 1885 – Įkurta Laisvoji Kongo valstybė, tapusi Belgijos karaliaus Leopoldo II privačia nuosavybe.
 1887 – La Skalos operoje įvyko Džiuzepės Verdžio operos „Otelas“ premjera;
 1930 – San Franciske pradėta Golden State Bridge tilto statyba;
 1986 – 89 metų Edvinas Taunzendas atliko šuolį su parašiutu ir tapo seniausiu parašiutininku žemėje;
 1995 – Kirgizija: pirmieji demokratiniai rinkimai;
 2004 – Latvija: atsistatydino premjerministras Einars Repse.
 Gimimo dienos
 1836 m. – Nikolajus Dobroliubovas, rusų literatūros kritikas, publicistas, revoliucinio judėjimo šalininkas, revoliucinis demokratas (m. 1861 m.).
 1849 m. – Augustas Palmas, darbininkas, Švedijos politinis veikėjas (m. 1922 m.).
 1878 m. – André Citroën, prancūzų išradėjas. Viena įžymiausių XX a. automobilių pramonės asmenybių, kurių veikla lėmė šios pramonės pokyčius. Yra laikomas vienu iš šiuolaikinio automobilių prekybos verslo pradininku (m. 1935 m.).
 1903 m. – Aleksejus Leontjevas, rusų psichologas, pedagogikos mokslų daktaras (m. 1979 m.).
 1904 m. – Ryokichi Minobe, Japonijos politikas, buvęs Tokijo prefektūros gubernatorius (m. 1984 m.).
 1906 m. – John Carradine, amerikiečių aktorius (m. 1988 m.).
 1914 m. – Alan Lloyd Hodgkin, 1963 m. Nobelio fiziologijos ir medicinos premijos laureatas (m. 1998 m.).
 1929 m. – Fredas Zinovacas, istorikas, filosofas, Austrijos visuomenės ir politinis veikėjas.
 1939 m. – Bernhard Dombek, vokiečių teisininkas, advokatas, notaras, buvęs Vokietijos advokatų rūmų pirmininkas (1999–2007).
 1941 m. – Kasparas Filigeris, šveicarų verslininkas, politikas, buvęs Šveicarijos konfederacijos prezidentas.
 1948 m. – Sven-Göran Eriksson, švedų futbolo treneris.
 1954 m. – Klifas Martinezas, kompozitorius, sukūręs garso takelius keliems amerikietiškiems kino filmams, tarp jų 2002 metais išleistam „Soliaris“, bei būgnininkas, grojęs su grupėmis „Red Hot Chili Peppers“, „The Dickies“, „The Weirdos“, taip pat su atlikėjais „Captain Beefheart“ ir Lidija Lanč (Lydia Lunch).
 1964 m. – Duff „Rose“ McKagan, amerikos muzikantas, bei bosistas, kuris yra gerai žinomas savo 30-aisias valdymo metais, kai grojo hard rock’o grupėje Guns N' Roses.
 1968 m. – Markusas Gronholmas, suomių lenktynininkas.
 1975 m. – Giovanni van Bronckhorst, buvęs futbolininkas, Nyderlandų rinktinės gynėjas.
 1976 m. – John Aloisi, futbolininkas, Australijos rinktinės ir Sydney FC klubo puolėjas.
 1977 m. – Andrejs Prohorenkovs, Latvijos futbolininkas, puolėjas.
 1978 m. – Samuel Sánchez González, Ispanijos plento dviratininkas. Dalyvauja klasikinėse kalnų ir etapinėse lenktynėse. 2008 m. Pekino olimpinėse žaidynėse laimėjo aukso medalį dviračių plento varžybose. Iš kitų aukštų Sánchez rezultatų minėtina pergalė 2006 m. Züri-Metzgete varžybose, 3 vieta ir 3 laimėti etapai 2007 m. Vuelta a España varžybose, 3 vieta 2003 ir 2007 m. Vuelta al País Vasco varžybose.
 1980 m. – Robin Vik, Čekų teniso žaidėjas.
 1982 m. – Rogrigas Palasijo, Argentinos futbolininkas. Argentinos futbolo rinktinės ir Genoa klubo puolėjas.
 1984 m. – Karlosas Tevesas, Argentinos futbolininkas. Vienas perspektyviausių Pietų Amerikos puolėjų, šiuo metu žaidžiantis Manchester City klube.
 1985 m. – Krištianas Ronaldas, profesionalus portugalų futbolininkas, žaidžiantis krašto puolėjo pozicijoje Real Madrid klube ir Portugalijos vyrų futbolo rinktinėje.
 1986 m. – Vedranas Čorluka, Kroatijos futbolininkas (gynėjas), žaidžiantis Tottenham Hotspur klube ir Kroatijos futbolo rinktinėje. Su rinktine žaidė 2008-ųjų Europos futbolo čempionate.
 Neaprašyti
 1840 – Džonas B. Dunlop, škotų išradėjas, įkūręs „Dunlop Tyres“ gamyklą, kurioje pradėta gaminti pripučiamas padangas.
 Mirtys
 1925 m. – Aarne Antti Amatus, Suomijos folklorininkas (g. 1867 m.).
 1999 m. – Vasilijus Leontjevas, rusų kilmės JAV ekonomistas ir matematikas (g. 1905 m.).
 2020 m. – Stenlis Koenas, JAV biochemikas ir zoologas, Nobelio fiziologijos ir medicinos premijos laureatas (g. 1922 m.).
 Šaltiniai
 05