text:
 7.2.2009
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 32/6
 2008 m. gruodžio 11 d. Teisingumo Teismo (trečioji kolegija) sprendimas bylose (Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris (Prancūzija) prašymai priimti prejudicinį sprendimą) Kip Europe SA, Kip (UK) Ltd, Caretrex Logistiek BV, Utax GmbH (C-362/07), Hewlett Packard International SARL (C-363/07) prieš Administration des douanes — Direction Générale des douanes et droits indirects
 (Sujungtos bylos C-362/07 ir C-363/07) (1)
 (Bendrasis muitų tarifas - Kombinuotoji nomenklatūra - Tarifinis klasifikavimas - Daugiafunkciniai aparatai - Iš lazerinio spausdinimo ir vaizdo skaitymo modulių sudaryti aparatai, turintys kopijavimo funkciją - 8471 pozicija - 9009 pozicija)
 (2009/C 32/10)
 Proceso kalba: prancūzų
 Prašymus priimti prejudicinį sprendimą pateikęs teismas
 Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris
 Šalys pagrindinėje byloje
 Ieškovės: Kip Europe SA, Kip (UK) Ltd, Caretrex Logistiek BV, Utax GmbH (C-362/07), Hewlett Packard International SARL (C-363/07)
 Atsakovė: Administration des douanes — Direction Générale des douanes et droits indirects
 Dalykas
 Prašymas priimti prejudicinį sprendimą — Tribunal d'Instance du VIIême arrondissement de Paris (Prancūzija) — 1987 m. liepos 23 d. Tarybos reglamento (EEB) Nr. 2658/87 dėl tarifų ir statistinės nomenklatūros bei dėl Bendrojo muitų tarifo (OL L 256; 2004 m. specialusis leidimas lietuvių k., 2 sk., 2 t., p. 382) redakcijos, taikomos pagrindinių bylų aplinkybėms, aiškinimas ir 2006 m. kovo 8 d. Reglamento (EB) Nr. 400/2006 dėl tam tikrų prekių klasifikavimo Kombinuotojoje nomenklatūroje (KN) (OL L 70, p. 9) galiojimas — Daugiafunkcinis aparatas, kurį sudaro lazerinis spausdinimo modulis, skaitymo modulis ir kompiuteris — Klasifikavimas 8471 60 40 pozicijoje (automatinio duomenų apdorojimo mašinos) pagal KN 3 bendrosios aiškinimo taisyklės b punktą (spausdinimo funkcija nulemia aparato „esminius požymius“) arba 9009 12 00 pozicijoje (fotokopijavimo aparatai) pagal KN 84 skirsnio 5 pastabos E punktą (aparatas, kuris atskirai atlieka specifinę funkciją, tačiau ne duomenų apdorojimo funkciją, t. y. kopijuoja)
 Rezoliucinė dalis
 1.
 1987 m. liepos 23 d. Tarybos reglamento (EEB) Nr. 2658/87 dėl tarifų ir statistinės nomenklatūros bei dėl Bendrojo muitų tarifo I priede pateikiamos Kombinuotosios nomenklatūros su pakeitimais, padarytais 2005 m. spalio 27 d. Komisijos reglamentu (EB) Nr. 1719/2005, 84 skirsnio 5 pastabos E punktą reikia aiškinti taip, kad „specifinę, tačiau ne duomenų apdorojimo funkciją“ atlieka tik tie automatinio duomenų apdorojimo mašiną kaip sudėtinę dalį turintys arba kartu su tokia mašina veikiantys aparatai, kurių funkcija nepriskiriama duomenų apdorojimui.
 2.
 Jeigu pagrindinėse bylose nagrinėjamų aparatų atliekama kopijavimo funkcija, palyginti su spausdinimo ir vaizdo skaitymo funkcijomis, yra papildoma, šie aparatai turi būti laikomi automatinio duomenų apdorojimo mašinos įrenginiais Reglamento Nr. 2658/87 I priede pateikiamos Kombinuotosios nomenklatūros su pakeitimais, padarytais Reglamentu Nr. 1719/2005, 84 skirsnio 5 pastabos B punkto prasme, kurie, kai pateikiami atskirai, vadovaujantis šio skirsnio 5 pastabos C punktu priskiriami šios nomenklatūros 8471 pozicijai. Tokiu atveju tinkama subpozicija turi būti nustatoma vadovaujantis šios nomenklatūros XVI skyriaus 3 pastaba. Atvirkščiai, jeigu ši kopijavimo funkcija yra tokia pat svarbi kaip ir kitos dvi funkcijos, pagal šios nomenklatūros 3 bendrosios aiškinimo taisyklės b punktą šie aparatai turi būti klasifikuojami pozicijoje, atitinkančioje modulį, kuris nulemia esminius minėtų aparatų požymius. Paaiškėjus, kad to neįmanoma nustatyti, pagal minėtos 3 bendrosios taisyklės c punktą jie turi būti klasifikuojami 9009 pozicijoje.
 3.
 Išnagrinėjus penktuosius klausimus, nebuvo nustatyta nieko, kas turėtų įtakos 2006 m. kovo 8 d. Komisijos reglamento (EB) Nr. 400/2006 dėl tam tikrų prekių klasifikavimo Kombinuotojoje nomenklatūroje priedo 4 punkto galiojimui.
 (1) OL C 269, 2007 11 10.


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22003A0430(01)
 Πρωτόκολλο για την προσαρμογή των εμπορικών πτυχών της Ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας, αφετέρου, ώστε να ληφθούν υπόψη τα αποτελέσματα των διαπραγματεύσεων μεταξύ των μερών για νέες αμοιβαίες γεωργικές παραχωρήσεις
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα αριθ. L 107 της 30/04/2003 σ. 0017 - 0034
 Πρωτόκολλογια την προσαρμογή των εμπορικών πτυχών της Ευρωπαϊκής συμφωνίας σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας, αφετέρου, ώστε να ληφθούν υπόψη τα αποτελέσματα των διαπραγματεύσεων μεταξύ των μερών για νέες αμοιβαίες γεωργικές παραχωρήσειςΗ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΑ, καλούμενη στο εξής "η Κοινότητα",αφενός, καιΗ ΤΣΕΧΙΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ,αφετέρου,Εκτιμώντας τα ακόλουθα:(1) Η Ευρωπαϊκή Συμφωνία σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας, αφετέρου (καλούμενη στο εξής "η Ευρωπαϊκή Συμφωνία"), υπεγράφη στο Λουξεμβούργο στις 4 Οκτωβρίου 1993 και άρχισε να ισχύει την 1η Φεβρουαρίου 1995(1).(2) Το άρθρο 21 παράγραφος 5 της Ευρωπαϊκής Συμφωνίας προβλέπει ότι η Κοινότητα και η Τσεχική Δημοκρατία εξετάζουν στο πλαίσιο του Συμβουλίου Σύνδεσης, ανά προϊόν και σε συστηματική και αμοιβαία βάση, τη δυνατότητα εκατέρωθεν χορήγησης περαιτέρω γεωργικών παραχωρήσεων. Στη βάση αυτή, πραγματοποιήθηκαν μεταξύ των μερών διαπραγματεύσεις, οι οποίες έχουν ήδη ολοκληρωθεί.(3) Οι πρώτες βελτιώσεις του προτιμησιακού γεωργικού καθεστώτος της Ευρωπαϊκής Συμφωνίας προβλέφθηκαν στο πρωτόκολλο για την προσαρμογή των εμπορικών πτυχών της Ευρωπαϊκής Συμφωνίας(2), ώστε να ληφθούν υπόψη η τελευταία διεύρυνση της Κοινότητας και τα αποτελέσματα των διαπραγματεύσεων του Γύρου της Ουρουγουάης της GATT.(4) Δύο ακόμη γύροι διαπραγματεύσεων για τη βελτίωση των εμπορικών γεωργικών παραχωρήσεων ολοκληρώθηκαν, στις 4 Μαΐου 2000 και στις 6 Ιουνίου 2002 αντιστοίχως.(5) Αφενός, το Συμβούλιο αποφάσισε, δυνάμει του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 2434/2000 του Συμβουλίου, της 17ης Οκτωβρίου 2000, περί θεσπίσεως ορισμένων παραχωρήσεων υπό μορφήν κοινοτικών δασμολογικών ποσοστώσεων για ορισμένα γεωργικά προϊόντα και περί προαρμογής ως αυτόνομου και μεταβατικού μέτρου, ορισμένων γεωργικών παραχωρήσεων που προβλέπονται στην Ευρωπαϊκή Συμφωνία με τη Τσεχική Δημοκρατία(3), να εφαρμόσει σε προσωρινή βάση, από την 1η Ιουλίου 2000, τις παραχωρήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Κοινότητας που προκύπτουν από τις διαπραγματεύσεις του γύρου του 2000 και, αφετέρου, η κυβέρνηση της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας θέσπισε νομοθετικές διατάξεις για την εφαρμογή, από την ίδια ημερομηνία, των αντίστοιχων παραχωρήσεων της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας.(6) Οι ανωτέρω παραχωρήσεις θα συμπληρωθούν και θα αντικατασταθούν κατά την ημερομηνία έναρξης ισχύος του παρόντος πρωτοκόλλου από τις παραχωρήσεις που προβλέπονται σε αυτό,ΣΥΜΦΩΝΗΣΑΝ ΤΑ ΕΞΗΣ:Άρθρο 1Το καθεστώς εισαγωγών στην Κοινότητα, που εφαρμόζεται σε ορισμένα γεωργικά προϊόντα καταγωγής Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας, όπως εμφαίνεται στα παραρτήματα A(α) και A(β) του παρόντος πρωτοκόλλου, καθώς και το καθεστώς εισαγωγών στην Τσεχική Δημοκρατία που εφαρμόζεται σε ορισμένα γεωργικά προϊόντα καταγωγής Κοινότητας, όπως ορίζεται στα παραρτήματα Β(α) και Β(β) του παρόντος πρωτοκόλλου, αντικαθιστούν εκείνα των παραρτημάτων ΧΙ και ΧΙΙ που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 21 παράγραφοι 2 και 4, όπως τροποποιήθηκαν, της Ευρωπαϊκής Συμφωνίας. Η συμφωνία μεταξύ της Κοινότητας και της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας σχετικά με αμοιβαίες προτιμησιακές εμπορικές παραχωρήσεις για ορισμένους οίνους, που παρατίθεται στο παράρτημα Γ, αποτελεί αναπόσπαστο μέρος του παρόντος πρωτοκόλλου.Άρθρο 2Tο παρόν πρωτόκολλο αποτελεί αναπόσπαστο μέρος της Ευρωπαϊκής Συμφωνίας. Τα παραρτήματα του παρόντος πρωτοκόλλου αποτελούν αναπόσπαστο μέρος του.Άρθρο 3Tο παρόν πρωτόκολλο εγκρίνεται από την Κοινότητα και την Τσεχική Δημοκρατία σύμφωνα με τις αντίστοιχες διαδικασίες τους. Tα συμβαλλόμενα μέρη λαμβάνουν τα αναγκαία μέτρα για την εφαρμογή του παρόντος πρωτοκόλλου.Tα συμβαλλόμενα μέρη κοινοποιούν αμοιβαία την ολοκλήρωση των προαναφερόμενων διαδικασιών.Άρθρο 4Με την επιφύλαξη της ολοκλήρωσης των διαδικασιών που προβλέπονται στο άρθρο 3, το παρόν πρωτόκολλο αρχίζει να ισχύει την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2003. Εάν οι εν λόγω διαδικασίες δεν ολοκληρωθούν εγκαίρως, αρχίζει να ισχύει την πρώτη ημέρα του πρώτου μήνα που έπεται της κοινοποίησης εκ μέρους των συμβαλλόμενων μερών της ολοκλήρωσης των διαδικασιών.Άρθρο 5Το παρόν πρωτόκολλο συντάσσεται εις διπλούν στην αγγλική, γαλλική, γερμανική, δανική, ελληνική, ισπανική, ιταλική, ολλανδική, πορτογαλική, σουηδική, φινλανδική και τσεχική γλώσσα και όλα τα κείμενα αυτά είναι εξίσου αυθεντικά.Hecho en Bruselas, el veintitrés de abril del dos mil tres./Udfærdiget i Bruxelles den treogtyvende april to tusind og tre./Geschehen zu Brüssel am dreiundzwanzigsten April zweitausendunddrei./Έγινε στις Βρυξέλλες, στις είκοσι τρεις Απριλίου δύο χιλιάδες τρία./Done at Brussels on the twenty-third day of April in the year two thousand and three./Fait à Bruxelles, le vingt-trois avril deux mille trois./Fatto a Bruxelles, addì ventitré aprile duemilatre./Gedaan te Brussel, de drieëntwintigste april tweeduizenddrie./Feito em Bruxelas, em vinte e três de Abril de dois mil e três./Tehty Brysselissä kahdentenakymmenentenäkolmantena päivänä huhtikuuta vuonna kaksituhattakolme./Som skedde i Bryssel den tjugotredje april tjugohundratre./Dáno v Bruselu dne dvacátého tretího dubna roku dva tisíce tri.Por la Comunidad Europea/For Det Europæiske Fællesskab/Für die Europäische Gemeinschaft/Για την Ευρωπαϊκή Κοινότητα/For the European Community/Pour la Communauté européenne/Per la Comunità europea/Voor de Europese Gemeenschap/Pela Comunidade Europeia/Euroopan yhteisön puolesta/På Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar>PIC FILE= "L_2003107EL.001901.TIF">za Ceskou republiku>PIC FILE= "L_2003107EL.001902.TIF">(1) ΕΕ L 360 της 31.12.1994, σ. 2.(2) ΕΕ L 341 της 16.12.1998, σ. 3.(3) ΕΕ L 280 της 4.11.2000, σ. 1.ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ Α(α)Καταργούνται οι εισαγωγικοί δασμοί τους οποίους επιβάλλει η Κοινότητα στα προϊόντα καταγωγής Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας που εμφαίνονται κατωτέρωΚωδικός ΣΟ(1)0101 10 900101 90 300101 90 900104 20 100105 190106 19 100106 39 100205 000206 80 910206 90 910208 10 110208 10 190208 20 000208 30 000208 400208 50 000208 90 100208 90 550208 90 600208 90 950210 99 310307 91 000407 000409 00 000410 00 00060106020603 10 300603 90 0006040701 10 000703 10 110703 10 900703 20 000704 90 100705 19 000705 21 000705 29 000708 10 000708 90 000709 10 000709 20 000709 30 000709 40 000709 51 000709 52 000709 590709 60 100709 60 990709 90 100709 90 200709 90 400709 90 500709 90 600709 90 900710 10 000710 80 590710 80 610710 80 690710 80 700710 80 800710 80 850710 80 950710 90 000711 30 000711 40 000711 51 000711 59 000711 90 100711 90 500711 90 800712 20 000712 31 000712 32 000712 33 000712 39 000712 90 050712 90 300712 90 500712 90 900713 50 000713 900802 12 900802 21 000802 22 000802 31 000802 32 000802 40 000802 90 850805 10 800805 50 900806 200807 11 000807 19 000808 10 100808 20 900809 40 900810 20 900810 30 900810 400810 60 000810 90 950811 10 190811 20 590811 20 900811 90 310811 90 390811 90 500811 90 700811 90 750811 90 800811 90 950812 10 000812 90 100812 90 200812 90 400812 90 500812 90 600812 90 700812 90 990813 10 000813 20 000813 30 000813 40 100813 40 300813 40 950813 50 150813 50 190813 50 310813 50 390813 50 910813 50 990814 00 000901 12 000901 21 000901 22 000901 90 900902 10 000904 12 000904 200905 00 000907 00 000910 40 130910 40 190910 40 900910 91 900910 99 991105 20 001106 10 001106 301208 10 001209 10 001209 21 001209 23 801209 29 501209 29 601209 29 801209 30 001209 911209 99 911209 99 9912101211 90 301212 10 101212 10 991214 90 101302 19 051502 00 901503 00 191503 00 901511 10 901511 90 191511 90 911511 90 991512 11 911512 19 911513 29 191513 29 911513 29 991515 11 001515 191515 211515 291515 90 591518 00 311518 00 391603 00 101605 90 3017032001 90 202001 90 502001 90 702001 90 752001 90 852001 90 91200220032005 90 102005 90 502006 00 912006 00 992007 91 902007 99 102008 11 922008 11 942008 11 962008 11 982008 19 192008 19 932008 19 952008 19 992008 20 192008 20 392008 20 512008 20 592008 20 712008 20 792008 20 912008 20 992008 30 112008 30 312008 30 392008 30 512008 30 552008 30 592008 30 712008 30 752008 30 792008 30 902008 92 722009 31 112009 39 312009 41 102009 49 302009 502009 712009 79 192009 79 302009 79 932009 79 992009 80 192009 80 362009 80 382009 80 502009 80 632009 80 692009 80 712009 80 732009 80 792009 80 882009 80 892009 80 952009 80 962009 80 972009 80 992009 90 192009 90 292009 90 392009 90 412009 90 492009 90 512009 90 592009 90 732009 90 792009 90 952009 90 962009 90 972009 90 982302 50 002306 90 192308 00 90(1) Όπως ορίζεται στον κανονισμό (ΕΚ) αριθ. 2031/2001 της Επιτροπής, της 6ης Αυγούστου 2001, που τροποποιεί το παράρτημα 1 του κανονισμού (ΕΟΚ) αριθ. 2658/87 του Συμβουλίου για τη δασμολογική και τη στατιστική ονοματολογία και το κοινό δασμολόγιο (ΕΕ L 279 της 23.10.2001).ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ A(β)Οι εισαγωγές στην Κοινότητα των ακόλουθων προϊόντων καταγωγής Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας υπόκεινται στις κατωτέρω εμφαινόμενες παραχωρήσεις(ΜΕΚ = δασμός του μάλλον ευνοούμενου κράτους)>ΘΕΣΗ ΠΙΝΑΚΑ>ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ ΣΤΟ ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ A(β)Διακανονισμός ως προς την ελάχιστη τιμή εισαγωγής για ορισμένους μαλακούς καρπούς προς μεταποίηση1. Οι ελάχιστες τιμές εισαγωγής καθορίζονται ως εξής για τα ακόλουθα προϊόντα προς μεταποίηση καταγωγής Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας:>ΘΕΣΗ ΠΙΝΑΚΑ>2. Οι ελάχιστες τιμές εισαγωγής, όπως παρατίθενται στο άρθρο 1, θα τηρούνται ανά αποστολή. Σε περίπτωση που η αξία της διασάφησης είναι χαμηλότερη από την ελάχιστη τιμή εισαγωγής, θα επιβάλλεται αντισταθμιστικός δασμός ίσος προς τη διαφορά μεταξύ της ελάχιστης τιμής εισαγωγής και της αξίας της διασάφησης.3. Εάν οι τιμές εισαγωγής δεδομένου προϊόντος που καλύπτεται από το παρόν προσάρτημα παρουσιάζουν τάση που υποδηλώνει ότι οι τιμές μπορεί να είναι κατώτερες του επιπέδου των ελάχιστων τιμών εισαγωγής στο άμεσο μέλλον, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή θα ενημερώνει τις τσεχικές αρχές προκειμένου να επανορθώσουν την κατάσταση.4. Κατόπιν αίτησης είτε της Κοινότητας είτε της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας, η Επιτροπή Σύνδεσης εξετάζει τη λειτουργία του συστήματος ή την αναθεώρηση του επιπέδου των ελάχιστων τιμών εισαγωγής. Εφόσον ενδείκνυται, η Επιτροπή Σύνδεσης λαμβάνει τις αναγκαίες αποφάσεις.5. Προκειμένου να ενθαρρυνθεί και να προωθηθεί η ανάπτυξη των συναλλαγών και προς αμοιβαίο όφελος όλων των ενδιαφερομένων μερών, θα οργανώνεται συνεδρίαση διαβούλευσης, τρεις μήνες πριν από την έναρξη κάθε έτους εμπορίας στην Κοινότητα. Η εν λόγω συνάντηση για διαβουλεύσεις θα πραγματοποιείται μεταξύ, αφενός, της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής και των ενδιαφερόμενων οργανώσεων ευρωπαίων παραγωγών των οικείων προϊόντων και, αφετέρου, των οργανώσεων των αρχών, παραγωγών και εξαγωγέων όλων των συνδεδεμένων εξαγωγικών χωρών.Κατά τη διάρκεια της εν λόγω συνάντησης για διαβουλεύσεις, θα συζητούνται η κατάσταση της αγοράς μαλακών καρπών και ειδικότερα προβλέψεις για την παραγωγή, κατάσταση αποθεμάτων, εξέλιξη τιμών και πιθανή εξέλιξη αγοράς, καθώς και οι δυνατότητες προσαρμογής της προσφοράς προς τη ζήτηση.ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ Β(α)Καταργούνται οι εισαγωγικοί δασμοί τους οποίους επιβάλλει η Τσεχική Δημοκρατία στα προϊόντα καταγωγής Κοινότητας που εμφαίνονται κατωτέρωΤσεχικός τελωνειακός κωδικός(1)0101 90 110105 19 200105 19 900206 10 100206 10 910206 10 990206 21 000206 22 000206 29 100206 29 990206 30 200206 30 300206 30 800206 41 200206 41 800206 49 200206 49 800206 80 100206 80 910206 80 990206 90 100206 90 910206 90 990407 00 110407 00 190407 00 300407 00 900409 00 000410 00 000601 20 100601 20 300601 20 900602 10 100602 10 900602 20 100602 20 900602 30 000602 40 100602 40 900602 90 100602 90 300602 90 910602 90 990603 90 000604 10 900604 91 210604 91 290604 91 410604 91 490604 91 900604 99 100604 99 900701 10 000703 10 110703 10 900703 20 000704 90 100705 19 000705 21 000705 29 000708 10 000708 90 000709 51 000709 60 100709 60 990709 90 100709 90 600709 90 900710 80 590710 80 700710 80 950710 90 000711 40 000711 90 100711 90 500711 90 800712 20 000712 90 050712 90 110712 90 300712 90 500712 90 900713 10 100713 10 900713 40 000806 200807 11 000807 19 000808 10 100808 20 900809 100809 20 050809 20 950809 300809 40 050810 20 100810 20 900810 30 100810 30 300810 30 900810 40 100810 40 300810 40 500810 40 900811 10 190811 10 900811 20 190811 20 310811 20 390811 20 510811 20 590811 20 900811 90 310811 90 390811 90 500811 90 700811 90 750811 90 800811 90 850811 90 950812 10 000812 90 100812 90 400812 90 500812 90 600812 90 700812 90 9908130901 11 000901 12 000901 21 000901 22 000901 90 100901 90 900904 20 100904 20 300904 20 900909 30 000909 40 001001 10 001105 20 001204 00 901206 00 101207 50 101207 50 901207 91 101207 91 901209 10 001209 21 001209 22 101209 22 801209 23 111209 23 151209 23 801209 24 001209 25 101209 25 901209 26 001209 29 101209 29 501209 29 601209 29 801210 10 001210 20 101210 20 901302 19 051502 00 101502 00 901503 001511 90 191511 90 911511 90 991512 11 911512 19 911513 19 111513 29 191513 29 911513 29 991515 11 001515 19 101515 19 901515 21 101515 21 901515 29 101515 29 901515 90 591518 00 311518 00 391703 10 001703 90 002001 90 202001 90 502001 90 652001 90 702001 90 752001 90 852001 90 912002 10 102002 10 902002 90 112002 90 192002 90 312002 90 392002 90 912002 90 992005 60 002005 90 102005 90 602005 90 702005 90 802006 00 912006 00 992007 99 102008 20 192008 20 392008 20 512008 20 592008 20 712008 20 792008 20 912008 20 992008 30 112008 30 312008 30 392008 30 512008 30 552008 30 592008 30 712008 30 752008 30 792008 30 902008 502008 702008 92 722008 99 412008 99 512009 50 102009 50 902009 612009 712009 79 192009 79 302009 79 932009 79 992009 80 192009 80 362009 80 382009 80 502009 80 632009 80 692009 80 712009 80 732009 80 792009 80 882009 80 892009 80 962009 80 972009 80 992009 90 192009 90 292009 90 392009 90 512009 90 592009 90 952009 90 962009 90 972009 90 98(1) Όπως ορίζεται στο κυβερνητικό διάταγμα της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας αριθ. 480/2001 περί των τελωνειακών δασμών στην Τσεχική Δημοκρατία.ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ Β(β)Οι εισαγωγές στην Τσεχική Δημοκρατία των ακόλουθων προϊόντων καταγωγής Κοινότητας υπόκεινται στις κατωτέρω εμφαινόμενες παραχωρήσεις>ΘΕΣΗ ΠΙΝΑΚΑ>ΠΡΟΣΑΡΤΗΜΑ ΣΤΟ ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ Β(β)>PIC FILE= "L_2003107EL.003102.TIF">>PIC FILE= "L_2003107EL.003201.TIF">ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ ΓΣΥΜΦΩΝΙΑμεταξύ της Ευρωπαϊκής Κοινότητας και της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας σχετικά με αμοιβαίες προτιμησιακές εμπορικές παραχωρήσεις για ορισμένους οίνους1. Οι εισαγωγές στην Κοινότητα των ακόλουθων προϊόντων καταγωγής Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας υπόκεινται στις κατωτέρω εμφαινόμενες παραχωρήσεις:>ΘΕΣΗ ΠΙΝΑΚΑ>2. Η Κοινότητα χορηγεί μηδενικό προτιμησιακό δασμό εντός των δασμολογικών ποσοστώσεων που μνημονεύονται στο σημείο 1, με τον όρο ότι δεν πληρώνονται από την Τσεχική Δημοκρατία επιδοτήσεις κατά την εξαγωγή για τις εξαγωγές των εν λόγω ποσοτήτων.3. Οι εισαγωγές στην Τσεχική Δημοκρατία των ακόλουθων προϊόντων καταγωγής Κοινότητας υπόκεινται στις κατωτέρω εμφαινόμενες παραχωρήσεις:>ΘΕΣΗ ΠΙΝΑΚΑ>4. Η Τσεχική Δημοκρατία χορηγεί μηδενικό προτιμησιακό δασμό εντός των δασμολογικών ποσοστώσεων που μνημονεύονται στο σημείο 3, με τον όρο ότι δεν πληρώνονται από την Κοινότητα επιδοτήσεις κατά την εξαγωγή για τις εξαγωγές των εν λόγω ποσοτήτων.5. Η παρούσα συμφωνία καλύπτει τους οίνουςα) οι οποίοι έχουν παραχθεί από νωπά σταφύλια που έχουν παραχθεί και συγκομισθεί εξ ολοκλήρου στην επικράτεια του εν λόγω συμβαλλόμενου μέρους· καιβ) i) κατάγονται από την Κοινότητα και έχουν παραχθεί σύμφωνα με τους κανόνες που διέπουν τις οινολογικές πρακτικές και μεταποιήσεις που μνημονεύονται στον τίτλο V του κανονισμού (EΚ) αριθ. 1493/1999 του Συμβουλίου, της 17ης Μαΐου 1999, για την κοινή οργάνωση της αμπελοοινικής αγοράς(1),ii) κατάγονται από την Τσεχική Δημοκρατία και έχουν παραχθεί σύμφωνα με τις διαδικασίες που διέπουν τις οινολογικές πρακτικές και τις μεταποιήσεις σύμφωνα με την τσεχική νομοθεσία. Οι εν λόγω οινολογικές πρακτικές πρέπει να συνάδουν προς την κοινοτική νομοθεσία.6. Οι εισαγωγές οίνων στο πλαίσιο των παραχωρήσεων που προβλέπονται στην παρούσα συμφωνία υπάγονται στην υποβολή πιστοποιητικού που εκδίδεται από επίσημο φορέα ο οποίος αναγνωρίζεται αμοιβαία και μνημονεύεται στους καταλόγους που καταρτίζονται από κοινού, ώστε να διασφαλισθεί ότι οι εν λόγω οίνοι συνάδουν προς το σημείο 5 στοιχείο β).7. Τα συμβαλλόμενα μέρη εξετάζουν τη δυνατότητα να χορηγήσουν αμοιβαία περαιτέρω παραχωρήσεις, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη την εξέλιξη του εμπορίου του οίνου μεταξύ των συμβαλλομένων μερών.8. Τα συμβαλλόμενα μέρη διασφαλίζουν ότι τα οφέλη που χορηγούνται αμοιβαία δεν θίγονται από άλλα μέτρα.9. Μετά από αίτημα ενός από τα συμβαλλόμενα μέρη, πραγματοποιούνται διαβουλεύσεις σχετικά με οποιοδήποτε πρόβλημα που αφορά τον τρόπο λειτουργίας της παρούσας συμφωνίας.10. Η παρούσα συμφωνία ισχύει, αφενός, στα εδάφη όπου εφαρμόζεται η συνθήκη για την ίδρυση της Ευρωπαϊκής Κοινότητας και υπό τους όρους που προβλέπει η εν λόγω συνθήκη και, αφετέρου, στο έδαφος της Τσεχικής Δημοκρατίας.(1) ΕΕ L 179 της 14.7.1999, σ. 1· κανονισμός όπως τροποποιήθηκε τελευταία από τον κανονισμό (ΕΚ) αριθ. 2585/2001 (ΕΕ L 345 της 29.12.2001, σ. 10).


type: other

text:
20160328 �饻���M�L�X�s�� 6 ����2 (AVI/�h��/518 MB)-�K�Ū�� �����Τ�
 �L���׾�»�s�� › �L��☞���H���ɰ� › �K�Ū�� › 20160328 �饻���M�L�X�s�� 6 ����2 (AVI/�h��/518 MB)
 20160328 �饻���M�L�X�s�� 6 ����2 (AVI/�h��/518 MB)
 �o��� 2016-3-28 16:16:44
 �i�ɮצW�١j�G ��ҫ��֤k���{�~�� No.15�������J�X�Q�y�����U�e�e�R��- f6 Z. A8 f X6 }Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�ɮפj�p�j�G 1.16 GB6 @" [8 C1 p: t5 H8 O�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׮榡�j�G AVI+ V- b# `8 ]/ ^9 \/ r$ M) J& b% lTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�v��ɶ��j�G 01 : 05 : 43/ ]7 L5 [! \& b6 Z�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�����L�X�j�G �L�X# z* ?; U1 Q& d3 j+ A�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�ɮ׼ƶq�j�G 34 ~9 L, l% T% j5 Z7 QTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i���ɪŶ��j�G BigFile + DataFile+ j2 b& x' S, D8 `Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i����n��j�G K-Lite Codec Pack ; Kmplayer��" Y, l$ K+ H( W! B# fTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�U��覡�j�G �s����U��9 M, _9 T( I3 M# P! y) P�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�����K�X�j�G �L! ^6 j# A0 }' }1 p8 I# kTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�w��Ϥ�j�G ; E. w" E: S" g+ |( ^�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com 3 u! [' c! u- _Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com 1 E$ ?6 K7 Z: Y4 P�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�v����I�j�G' z/ u' L! T ^- b! T; U; s$ e$ xTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com ) _+ P( {" E8 D( }" GTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�BigFile+ m" E2 u Q* i7 Q, V: C) Z�L���׾�
 �L���׾�https://www.bigfile.to/file/fc63szJuXE59/Hey_1118.part1- i- c: Z6 b! ~1 N0 l5 FTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comhttps://www.bigfile.to/file/NTe5EHbtGZmN/Hey_1118.part2/ P4 }0 B9 p9 d+ d�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttps://www.bigfile.to/file/ChrWeWP3rPKd/Hey_1118.part32 |9 F p! l' a) g/ P6 oTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com, r' w& i q$ M% Y* J1 ?9 oTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comDataFile; s) F! V. Q; d�L���׾�
 �L���׾�http://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1UazVNVFEF9/Hey_1118.part1: n8 }* H) m9 w5 r�L���׾�
 �L���׾�http://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1UazVNVGMF9/Hey_1118.part27 f: |- G4 D* y! l: ?) e�L���׾�
 �L���׾�http://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1UazVNVE0F9/Hey_1118.part34 V7 K8 m" x' G7 M; kTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com " F- A3 ^4 q( c' C# S5 Q$ }Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�t�X�k�u�j�G �C�s��来0 r: e+ ^) _/ _, }Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾�; n1 n o* M, }; _& v+ aTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com$ z; s) L6 k$ M0 iTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com------------------------------------$ l: U) x3 j4 c( R4 `: m; @�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�ɮצW�١j�G ǯǵ�����~���㦭�A�k�p�]�I�O���P��q���U���X��v会; M; o0 z! D1 u) B W: b7 qTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�ɮפj�p�j�G 0.99 GB$ w9 ^! K7 x, |3 I4 n( \: CTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׮榡�j�G AVI& c0 n2 ]6 b, S�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�v��ɶ��j�G 00 : 56 : 385 ?; @. ]9 ^& c O�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�����L�X�j�G �L�X) K; D {# f9 ?' S$ TTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׼ƶq�j�G 20 o. ~+ m9 n! B# f! gTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i���ɪŶ��j�G BigFile + DataFile" i$ b& {9 r6 g7 C! y. o�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i����n��j�G K-Lite Codec Pack ; Kmplayer��; a$ m# d& W e* P8 mTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�U��覡�j�G �s����U��/ l( b8 l6 R' E# FTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�����K�X�j�G �L, K7 {: r7 E: |, F) u�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�w��Ϥ�j�G . r3 K9 j& s% l; t1 Y+ x�L���׾�
 �L���׾� " c0 ?5 r2 c/ `�L���׾�
 �L���׾� # e; p6 x) w [1 w2 ~- E" k�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�v����I�j�G, }/ ~ }# N/ @& @Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com 1 j3 }# V8 E( Q, C�L���׾�
 �L���׾�BigFile2 f9 m0 Z5 E V* G" g) wTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�https://www.bigfile.to/file/ZubGPXfmkVYu/Car_032516-125.part15 t4 L* {$ V. [3 Y: E. VTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�https://www.bigfile.to/file/SfG2emxVn7KN/Car_032516-125.part2; n, _3 M1 k1 p! c$ X! p7 P E! }Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com0 X! _5 q0 Q+ ]Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾�DataFile$ R4 a% e( v# }* S% A�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttp://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU...32516-125.part1& y. z1 s" H6 k, ITwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comhttp://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU...32516-125.part27 s# z, C; q9 i1 E* A- J�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com 0 z/ d9 A" a) Y- ] B) ]9 pTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�t�X�k�u�j�G ���A�k�p�]5 e+ e) S5 t! T6 @( gTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�$ t4 P) u3 [ cTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�( n! E' `+ P6 a$ V) sTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com----------------------------------! t* n4 E% n3 L) k4 W2 K {�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�ɮצW�١j�G ��ǵ������3号 ���@���H�j�z �H�ͪ��U3P���X��s1 T$ C& _( t6 m, g) WTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�ɮפj�p�j�G 863 MB4 J. u# ~) j/ ^" [& l* s, d�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׮榡�j�G AVI Q1 _+ P3 \! d6 hTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�v��ɶ��j�G 00 : 47 : 33% o0 t. y# r- b- r+ l* O+ STwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�����L�X�j�G �L�X' x7 L! I4 l% [% L5 ~Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׼ƶq�j�G 2. G$ d3 p5 K# d% m+ H�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i���ɪŶ��j�G BigFile + DataFile! R$ ]2 K2 M. U% B8 ?. L�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i����n��j�G K-Lite Codec Pack ; Kmplayer��4 `# a9 W0 ?# {* ?+ `- Z0 x7 e�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�U��覡�j�G �s����U��8 R( x& J8 X% l$ I�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�����K�X�j�G �L4 {# o+ x K7 W ^7 Z7 u�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�w��Ϥ�j�G 7 F, f5 r! i" C6 N�L���׾�
 �L���׾� 3 y1 X; i% a+ ^% b( ~$ N) ETwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com 9 I0 T4 a/ {0 R( D9 Q+ }�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�v����I�j�G& U3 N* V5 H4 M/ H' J$ D+ a4 \Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com / M7 r9 X, r8 h' v* \% K4 \Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾�BigFile6 c3 F. A7 o( g0 XTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comhttps://www.bigfile.to/file/H6STGRVSxsBu/Zip_13724.part10 t5 B5 ^ I v5 F+ m0 Q4 q) b" v/ l�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttps://www.bigfile.to/file/x2wsX6uy2AgQ/Zip_13724.part29 {9 v; D+ W5 H; z; ~# P/ \5 Z* y# o�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com: g% R7 i6 d. A5 f3 I2 A: H6 UTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comDataFile+ l3 @7 U$ B+ n/ l9 v( J9 @9 n6 Z�L���׾�
 �L���׾�http://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1qQXpNek0F9/Zip_13724.part1: n8 |$ @3 Y) ~. ^5 ?( }7 V+ Z�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttp://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1qQXpNekkF9/Zip_13724.part22 z3 ^' j0 N7 ], LTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com & [+ E( F T6 k$ Y. C, |2 [Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�t�X�k�u�j�G ���@��) n7 {$ N: _" R# D4 i! e# @+ ]: OTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�) t$ r$ X W3 n% X; xTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾� S0 _+ z9 B& M; U�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com---------------------------------1 p6 R0 k7 e7 ]0 k9 y; mTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�ɮצW�١j�G �@�M両断% }5 ^0 r5 a% v+ E8 WTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�ɮפj�p�j�G 1.87 GB2 Z8 f( p9 d( e+ W* m1 B( T7 M; w6 bTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׮榡�j�G AVI% T. H0 @ n) |& g2 L6 J( |Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�v��ɶ��j�G 01 : 45 : 389 ~* D" t1 g+ Q) j4 `& \�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�����L�X�j�G �L�X/ w8 o; J3 B p8 M* }( s- X2 C�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׼ƶq�j�G 4; k; C! V$ `7 |3 [! o�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i���ɪŶ��j�G BigFile + DataFile0 }+ k2 X! q9 a/ q" R/ |) d�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i����n��j�G K-Lite Codec Pack ; Kmplayer��! |' w1 k4 N X" D�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�U��覡�j�G �s����U��8 k& h; Q* X0 wTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�����K�X�j�G �L9 k% M1 {7 a' x" ]. j' i) |4 W, D�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�w��Ϥ�j�G 3 v" ^/ ^" X+ Y. rTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾� * g# |4 E( K8 l/ n& I6 i�L���׾�
 �L���׾� 4 \) s% C( r2 q�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�v����I�j�G: P/ ~% _3 P% Z$ U; `, X, l+ g9 o. E6 Z4 P0 a�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com U9 K3 v R4 s8 |Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comBigFile, i$ p/ e o, D! VTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�https://www.bigfile.to/file/AsFVHtcYznfk/Tok_n1137.part12 I) E( q. P" U9 l& ~1 h�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttps://www.bigfile.to/file/sNrG8GQtPXcC/Tok_n1137.part2- L- |0 ^- d& D7 v" X" t4 bTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�https://www.bigfile.to/file/qFAJPDsMtwAb/Tok_n1137.part3# g) z. G; \2 I/ s) @�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttps://www.bigfile.to/file/pUEgHfuKaTj4/Tok_n1137.part4' w1 N" w2 P5 _5 b* vTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�, e+ h4 e! p0 Y: |- G2 \Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comDataFile3 a5 m; A7 [( U5 _�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttp://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1qRXlOVGcF9/Tok_n1137.part10 ]* l$ k- b& x+ q$ k�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttp://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1qRXlNemcF9/Tok_n1137.part2: N8 k5 |0 r" H7 D9 V�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttp://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1qRXlORGMF9/Tok_n1137.part38 B z5 H0 a9 D' A& D�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttp://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1qRXlOalkF9/Tok_n1137.part46 T8 y2 \# ]- J4 p6 n/ J�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com ; O! `3 I; x6 C' T& }Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�t�X�k�u�j�G �������k��0 G% p4 r8 {3 Y7 I�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com k, ~$ u0 L0 Z: G/ r�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com8 b) i4 |) {3 ~�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com-----------------------------------+ W$ S" P) C+ l, rTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�ɮצW�١j�G ���ݼ��q画���N��ǧ���y������q�F����D�I3 n0 a Q& L8 O�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�ɮפj�p�j�G 474 MB; m8 V& Y1 F" D8 d% }Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׮榡�j�G AVI. H+ C: T# f$ P- k. ?�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�v��ɶ��j�G 00 : 26 : 08* p5 p7 N$ E+ G$ t3 A, r- ~Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�����L�X�j�G �L�X* ~8 U& b7 d: {/ \/ M; ~, A b�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׼ƶq�j�G 1# g% t, \1 F u2 sTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i���ɪŶ��j�G BigFile + DataFile; a! I, r8 O7 i�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i����n��j�G K-Lite Codec Pack ; Kmplayer��# ^+ e0 E: I C# v3 H- y! t�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�U��覡�j�G �s����U��3 u3 }8 I# D, A3 e/ w, f2 QTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�����K�X�j�G �L% w9 l$ O* d$ b1 k�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�w��Ϥ�j�G : U9 ?" k. G' t* }8 f q2 C! VTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾� ! O* u7 `$ g* Z# ?8 O; `6 [�L���׾�
 �L���׾� $ j$ ^. c7 G. X9 u' h hTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�v����I�j�G; E- }( H3 H; U" @0 g+ @�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com 6 T$ N, q) t( v0 ^( w2 b( A�L���׾�
 �L���׾�BigFile; `5 o# t, d( g7 \Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comhttps://www.bigfile.to/file/mnWbxDWSmcHC/Mes_160325_1040_01; G; L& R! h8 Z7 g/ r�L���׾�
 �L���׾�' r( x# }$ A& T( H* o: m�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comDataFile g' R2 u4 z0 E3 V) X�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttp://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU..._160325_1040_016 s/ W4 s0 l0 @8 C% \Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾� 6 }3 B ?* D5 l& o�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�t�X�k�u�j�G �T���l: `4 Y3 c) E3 R/ N+ a8 l�L���׾�
 �L���׾�5 w7 N& M. p1 t! f5 z9 r; fTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾�, r& h0 F+ l2 Z6 ]9 H" I5 F7 G' v; Y�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com--------------------------------3 h/ m- [: C* w* d$ \8 ?Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�ɮצW�١j�G ���Q���f�U�k�l�ե�2�H�V��Ƕǧǿ����# d7 P% ?' e& Y) j8 B- X�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�ɮפj�p�j�G 518 MB# n* d/ T0 e# c( D8 E! |2 ^. {/ N ~Twunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�ɮ׮榡�j�G AVI3 z5 ^ m3 f8 e: j7 S9 GTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�v��ɶ��j�G 00 : 28 : 35/ O' `' d) L; v; Z! iTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�����L�X�j�G �L�X' z/ z m5 c/ l) X�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�ɮ׼ƶq�j�G 1) z8 t7 J9 C+ D& j3 WTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i���ɪŶ��j�G BigFile + DataFile) _& k3 I- c2 n# OTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i����n��j�G K-Lite Codec Pack ; Kmplayer��5 y* H0 L K0 {6 O0 K% S1 b# f�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�U��覡�j�G �s����U��9 f0 l( O. W: h1 mTwunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�����K�X�j�G �L/ [- e2 _; P, |Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾��i�w��Ϥ�j�G % }- f; o* W% X" u$ c+ C0 ]�L���׾�
 �L���׾� 1 X$ a, \' m k( R/ Q3 ?- }Twunbbs.com
 �L���׾� ) G* o! u$ N2 c' {$ yTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�i�v����I�j�G2 m- f7 F* l8 TTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com 1 m1 c- U3 u% U: A�L���׾�
 �L���׾�BigFile. @ b: \3 L s h0 z/ w; ~1 L�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.comhttps://www.bigfile.to/file/jsNcuKrmc32W/100_160325- W" V9 l$ X- d* T/ h�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com. N; R9 L3 d+ _# d& c1 h; RTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comDataFile6 G/ K# ^! |, h' x. QTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.comhttp://www.datafile.com/d/TVRZNU1qRTVOREkF9/100_1603250 B& Z) e) F* o$ G/ w. OTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com - g" c6 ?2 t1 X; L# h6 A2 N�L���׾�
 �L���׾��i�t�X�k�u�j�G Ǥ����, ǵǶǧ! ^" I( Q0 @9 r* O0 {�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�i�K�d�n��j�R$ o3 r$ s& ]! S- W( L dTwunbbs.com
 Twunbbs.com�ȨѺ�����յL����c��欰����o����Q�q�I4 h9 E: b- h3 c% F! n�L���׾�
 Twunbbs.com�Щ�U���24�p�ɥH���N�ɮקR���A����I7 g3 ]. ?/ _7 G; ?$ H0 HTwunbbs.com


type: caselaw

text:
 5.12.2009
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 297/7
 Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia (Sala Tercera) de 15 de octubre de 2009 [petición de decisión prejudicial planteada por el Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Alemania)] — Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley y Cibrián Fernández/Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
 (Asunto C-35/08) (1)
 (Libre circulación de capitales - Bienes inmuebles - Impuesto sobre la renta - Deducción de pérdidas arrendaticias de la renta imponible del sujeto pasivo - Aplicación de una amortización decreciente a los costes de adquisición o de construcción - Trato fiscal más favorable reservado exclusivamente a los bienes inmuebles situados en el territorio nacional)
 2009/C 297/03
 Lengua de procedimiento: alemán
 Órgano jurisdiccional remitente
 Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg
 Partes en el procedimiento principal
 Demandante: Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley y Cibrián Fernández
 Demandada: Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften
 Objeto
 Petición de decisión prejudicial — Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Alemania) — Interpretación de los artículos 18 CE y 56 CE — Normativa nacional en materia de impuesto sobre la renta que limita la posibilidad de deducir las pérdidas resultantes del arrendamiento de bienes inmuebles exclusivamente a las relativas a bienes situados en el territorio nacional y que reserva únicamente a dichos bienes la aplicación de un régimen más favorable de amortización por depreciación.
 Fallo
 El artículo 56 CE se opone a la normativa de un Estado miembro relativa al impuesto sobre la renta que supedita el derecho de las personas físicas residentes e íntegramente sujetas al impuesto a deducir de la base imponible las pérdidas derivadas del arrendamiento de un inmueble en el año en que éstas se producen y a aplicar una amortización decreciente a efectos de determinar los ingresos procedentes de dicho inmueble, a la condición de que éste se encuentre situado en el territorio del citado Estado miembro.
 (1) DO C 92, de 12.4.2008.


text:
 5.5.2014
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 135/21
 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je 5. veljače 2014. uputio Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout (Belgija) – Openbaar Ministerie protiv Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer i dr.
 (Predmet C-56/14)
 2014/C 135/24
 Jezik postupka: nizozemski
 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev
 Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Turnhout
 Stranke glavnog postupka
 Tužitelj: Openbaar Ministerie
 Tuženik: Marc Emiel Melanie De Beuckeleer, Michiel Martinus Zeeuws, Staalbeton NV/SA
 Prethodno pitanje
 Je li obveza prethodne prijave zaposlenika sukladno LIMOSA sustavu, kako je ista utvrđena u člancima 137. do 152. belgijskog Programskog zakona od 27. prosinca 2006., suprotna slobodi pružanja usluga iz članaka 49. UEZ-a i 56. UFEU-a?


text:
 29.3.2016
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 111/43
 Tužba podnesena 13. studenoga 2015. – ZZ i dr. protiv Komisije
 (Predmet F-140/15)
 (2016/C 111/53)
 Jezik postupka: talijanski
 Stranke
 Tužitelj: ZZ i dr. (zastupnik: C. Cortese, avvocato)
 Tuženik: Europska komisija
 Predmet i opis spora
 Poništenje odluke Komisije o izmjeni iznosa mirovine za nadživjele osobe dodijeljene tužitelju i mirovinâ za djecu preminule osobe dodijeljenih njegovo troje djece.
 Tužbeni zahtjev tužiteljâ
 —
 Poništiti obavijest o izmijeni br. 3 voditelja odjela PMO.4 Europske komisije, u kojoj su navedeni novi iznosi mirovine za nadživjele osobe dodijeljene tužitelju i mirovinâ za djecu preminulih osoba dodijeljenih njegovo troje djece, dostavljenu tužitelju 6. veljače 2015., kako je dopunjena obrazloženjem odluke o odbijanju prigovora tijela za imenovanje od 3. kolovoza 2015.;
 —
 Naložiti tuženiku snošenje troškova.


type: wikipedia

text:
Id-Drużin (Għarbi : Durzī درزي, pl. durūz دروز) huma grupp reliġjuż Musulman li jinsabu fis-Sirja, fil-Libanu u f'Iżrael. B'kollox jammontaw għal madwar 588,000 ruħ.
 L-Isem
 Uffiċjalment bl-Għarbi (الموحدون Al Muwaħidun) li tfisser "li jemmnu f'Alla l-Waħdieni" jew Monotejistiċi iżda dan il isem ġie minn Nixtikin Al Durżi, li kien xef ta' din il-minoranzza.
 L-Istorja
 Ir-re Al Ħakim Bi Amr Allah(985 - 1021), hu l-fundatur ta' din ir-reliġjon.
 Il-Fidi
 Il-Konċepiment tad-Dinja
 L-Għarfa ta' Alla
 Il-Monotejiżmu
 L-Inkarnazzjoni
 L-Għarfa tal-Ħames Limiti.
 Reliġjon


text:
C 234/18 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 25.7.98
 La parte demandante solicita al Tribunal de Justicia que: El Industrial Tribunal, Bristol, solicita al Tribunal de Justi-
 cia que se pronuncie sobre la siguiente cuestión:
 Ð Declare que la RepuÂblica HeleÂnica ha incumplido las
 obligaciones que le incumben en virtud del artículo 171 «Cuando
 del Tratado CE al no haber dispuesto las medidas i) un trabajador por cuenta ajena trabaja en un Estado
 necesarias para la ejecución de la sentencia del Tribu- miembro para un empresario constituido como socie-
 nal de Justicia, de 23 de marzo de 1995, en el asunto dad en otro Estado miembro;
 C-365/93 (1) y, en particular, al no haber adoptado y,
 con caraÂcter subsidiario, no haber comunicado a la ii) el empresario tiene una sucursal en el Estado miembro
 Comisión las disposiciones legislativas, reglamentarias en que ejerce su actividad el trabajdor por cuenta
 y administrativas necesarias para atenerse a la totali- ajena, y dicha sucursal estaÂ registrada con arreglo a las
 dad de la Directiva 89/48/CEE del Consejo, de 21 de disposiciones nacionales de adaptación del Derecho
 diciembre de 1988, relativa a un sistema general de interno a la Directiva 89/666/CEE (1) del Consejo
 reconocimiento de los títulos de ensenÄanza superior (UndeÂcima Directiva sobre Derecho de sociedades),
 que sancionan formaciones profesionales de una dura- aunque no estaÂ constituida como sociedad ni tiene per-
 ción mínima de tres anÄos (2). sonalidad jurídica independiente de la del empresario
 en dicho Estado miembro, y
 Ð Condene en costas a la RepuÂblica HeleÂnica.
 iii) tanto el empresario como el trabajador estaÂn obligados
 Motivos y principales alegaciones a pagar cotizaciones a la Seguridad Social en el Estado
 miembro en que ejerce su actividad el trabajador;
 Conforme al artículo 171 del Tratado CE, si el Estado
 miembro no adoptare, dentro del plazo establecido por la con arreglo al artículo 3 de la Directiva 80/987/CEE (2) del
 Comisión, las medidas necesarias para la ejecución de la Consejo, de 20 de octubre de 1980, sobre la aproximación
 sentencia mediante la cual el Tribunal de Justicia declaró de las legislaciones de los Estados miembros relativas a la
 que dicho Estado miembro ha incumplido las obligaciones protección de los trabajadores asalariados en caso de
 que le incumben en virtud del Tratado, la Comisión podraÂ insolvencia del empresario, ¿queÂ institución de garantía
 someter el asunto al Tribunal de Justicia. La Comisión responde de las correspondientes cantidades adeudadas?
 indicaraÂ el importe que considere adecuado a las circuns- a) ¿la institución de garantía del Estado miembro en el
 tancias para la suma a tanto alzado o la multa coercitiva que se solicitó la apertura del procedimiento concur-
 que deba ser pagada por el Estado miembro afectado. La sal? o bien
 no adaptación del ordenamiento jurídico griego a la Direc-
 b) ¿la institución de garantía del Estado miembro en el
 tiva 89/48/CEE constituye una violación de los principios
 que ejerce su actividad el trabajador y en el que el
 fundamentales de la libre circulación de personas y de la
 empresario tiene una presencia comercial perma-
 libre prestación de servicios, habiendo transcurrido ya tres
 nente?»
 anÄos desde que recayó sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia
 en el asunto C-365/93. Teniendo en cuenta la gravedad y
 (1) Directiva 89/666/CEE del Consejo, de 21 de diciembre de
 la duración de la infracción, así como la necesidad de
 1989, UndeÂcima Directiva relativa a la publicidad de las socie-
 garantizar el efecto disuasorio de la sanción, la Comisión dades constituidas en un Estado miembro por determinadas
 solicita al Tribunal de Justicia que imponga una multa formas de sociedades sometidas al Derecho de otro Estado
 coercitiva por importe de 41 000 ECU por cada día de (DO L 395 de 30.12.1989, p. 36).
 demora, calculada a partir del día en que se notificó a la (2) DO L 283 de 20.10.1980, p. 23; EE 05/02, p. 219.
 RepuÂblica HeleÂnica la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia en
 el citado asunto y hasta el día en que cese la infracción.
 (1) Rec. p. I-499. Recurso de casación interpuesto el 25 de mayo de 1998
 (2) DO L 19 de 24.1.1989, p. 16.
 por el Sr. Anthony Goldstein contra la sentencia dictada el
 16 de marzo de 1998 por la Sala Tercera del Tribunal de
 Primera Instancia de las Comunidades Europeas en el
 asunto T-235/95, promovido contra la Comisión de las
 Petición de decisión prejudicial presentada mediante reso- Comunidades Europeas
 lución del Industrial Tribunal Bristol, de fecha 6 de mayo (Asunto C-199/98 P)
 de 1998, en el asunto entre 1) G. Everson y 2) T. J. (98/C 234/36)
 Barrass y 1) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry y 2)
 Bell Lines Ltd. (in liquidation) En el Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas se
 (Asunto C-198/98) ha presentado el 25 de mayo de 1998 un recurso de casa-
 ción formulado por el Sr. Anthony Goldstein, meÂdico,
 (98/C 234/35)
 representado por el Sr. Raymond St John Murphy, Solici-
 tor, de Merriman White, Solicitors, 3 King's Bench Walk,
 Al Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas le ha
 Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7DJ, contra el auto dictado
 sido sometida una petición de decisión prejudicial
 el 16 de marzo de 1998 por la Sala Tercera del Tribunal
 mediante resolución del Industrial Tribunal Bristol, dictada
 de Primera Instancia de las Comunidades Europeas en el
 el 6 de mayo de 1998 en el asunto entre 1) G. Everson y
 asunto T-235/95, promovido contra la Comisión de las
 2) T. J. Barrass y 1) Secretary of State for Trade and
 Comunidades Europeas.
 Industry y 2) Bell Lines Ltd. (in liquidation), y recibida en
 la Secretaría del Tribunal de Justicia el 25 de mayo de La parte recurrente solicita al Tribunal de Justicia de las
 1998. Comunidades Europeas que:


jurisdiction: US

text:
Steven Johnson v. State of Maryland, No. 102, Sept. Term 2013, Opinion by Battaglia, J.
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – PETITION FOR DNA TESTING – SEARCHES FOR
 SCIENTIFIC IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
 Circuit Court properly dismissed a post-conviction petition for DNA testing of scientific
 identification evidence in the State’s possession under Section 8-201 of the Criminal
 Procedure Article of the Maryland Code upon a prima facie showing by the State that it no
 longer possessed the T-shirt and cigarette package sought and, in the case of a “sex crimes
 kit”, that the kit, even had it been found, only included blood drawn from the victim at the
 time of the offense.
 1
 Circuit Court for Charles County
 Case No. K-80-7357
 Argued: October 7, 2014
 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
 OF MARYLAND
 No. 102
 September Term, 2013
 STEVEN M. JOHNSON
 v.
 STATE OF MARYLAND
 Barbera, C.J.
 Harrell
 Battaglia
 Greene
 Adkins
 McDonald
 Watts,
 JJ.
 Opinion by Battaglia, J.
 Filed: November 21, 2014
 2
 Under Section 8-201 of the Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code, 1 a
 person convicted of certain specified crimes2 is permitted to file a petition “for DNA testing
 of scientific identification evidence that the State possesses . . . and that is related to the
 judgment of conviction”.
 In 2011, Steven Johnson filed, pro se, a Motion for New Trial, later referred to as a
 Petition for DNA Testing, in which he requested that the State produce a T-shirt recovered
 from the victim and admitted into evidence in Johnson’s trial in 1980,3 as well as an empty
 cigarette package recovered from the crime scene and a sex crimes kit produced by
 1
 Section 8-201 provides, in relevant part:
 (b) Filing of Petition. Notwithstanding any other law governing
 postconviction relief, a person who is convicted of a violation of § 2-201, §
 2-204, § 2-207, or §§ 3-303 through 3-306 of the Criminal Law Article may
 file a petition: (1) for DNA testing of scientific identification evidence that
 the State possesses as provided in subsection (j) of this section and that is
 related to the judgment of conviction; or (2) for a search by a law
 enforcement agency of a law enforcement data base or log for the purpose of
 identifying the source of physical evidence used for DNA testing.
 ***
 (k) . . . (6): An appeal to the court of appeals may be taken from an order
 entered under this section.
 Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 8-201 (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol., 2011 Supp.). Section
 8-201(b) has remained unchanged to the present.
 2
 Section 8-201 applies to convictions for first degree murder, second degree murder,
 manslaughter, first degree rape, second degree rape, first degree sex offense and second
 degree sex offense.
 3
 Johnson was convicted on October 22, 1980 of first degree sex offense, kidnapping of a
 child under sixteen years of age and assault and battery in the Circuit Court of Charles
 County.
 1
 Physician’s Memorial Hospital,4 the hospital in which the victim had been examined.
 Judge Helen Harrington of the Circuit Court for Charles County, after three hearings,5
 4
 Physician’s Memorial Hospital, located in La Plata, Maryland, changed its name in 1998
 to Civista Health and, in 2011, became affiliated with the University of Maryland Medical
 System and is now also known as the University of Maryland Charles Regional Medical
 Center. History, UM Charles Regional Medical Center,
 http://www.charlesregional.org/fuseaction-AboutUs.showHistory.htm (last visited
 November 20, 2014).
 5
 During the first hearing, the State only had produced a memorandum from a
 representative of the Property Management Unit of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office
 stating that the T-shirt, cigarette package and sex crimes kit could not be found. The State,
 thereafter, was granted a postponement to secure affidavits in compliance with Rule 4-
 706(c)(2)(B) (2011), which states that “if the State asserts that it has been unable to locate
 the evidence, an affidavit containing a detailed description of all steps it took to locate the
 evidence,” must be included in the State’s answer.
 During the second hearing, the State produced affidavits executed by Charles Smith,
 the civilian property custodian of the Sheriff’s Office, and Shelly Herold, a technician in
 the Sheriff’s Office’s Forensic Science Unit. Mr. Smith’s testimony was also adduced.
 Records from the Sheriff’s Office pertaining to property recovered during the investigation
 of the underlying offenses, as well as the Charles County Crime Laboratory’s fingerprint
 analysis and the hospital report completed by the physician who had examined the victim
 after the incident, also were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of the second
 hearing, Judge Harrington raised various questions:
 [THE COURT:] I can’t think of any reason why the investigating officer
 would submit a report saying that a sex crime kit was used and evidence
 collected and turned over to the officer if all they did was draw blood.
 I also can’t think of any reason why the medical reports would list
 evidence box if all they did was draw blood.
 It doesn’t make sense to me and I think there needs to be some further
 investigation to see if there are any records anywhere and I’m suggesting
 checking with Maryland State Police and the FBI to see if anything was
 submitted to either of those facilities for testing at that time.
 ***
 I would also point out that Sergeant John Wood’s signature is all over
 these property papers and I believe he’s still in the area. So I think there
 needs to be a conversation with him to see if he can shed any light as to what
 procedures were being used, what might have happened.
 (continued . . . )
 2
 found that the Charles County Sheriff’s Office no longer had possession of the T-shirt,
 cigarette package and “sex crimes kit”; as to the “sex crimes kit”, she also decided that
 even were the kit to have been produced, it only would have contained blood drawn from
 the victim. Johnson, thereafter, noted a direct appeal to this Court in which he asks us to
 resolve the following question:6
 Did the circuit court err in finding that the State had performed a reasonable
 search for requested evidence which might contain biological identification
 material?
 We shall affirm the Circuit Court’s findings and conclude that the Judge was not clearly
 erroneous when she concluded that the State performed a reasonable search for the
 requested scientific identification evidence and that the evidence no longer existed.
 At the end of three hearings, Judge Harrington stated:
 [THE COURT:] I think there has been a reasonable search. . . .
 And there is no evidence whatsoever that there has been any
 intentional or willful destruction of evidence. It simply doesn’t exist. We
 can’t find it.
 ( . . . continued)
 ***
 I think as regards to Sherry; Shelly Herold’s affidavit I think there’s
 legitimate question exactly how did she go about doing her search; what was
 she looking for.
 At the third hearing, the State offered the testimony of Retired Sergeant John Wood,
 of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office, as one familiar with the Sheriff’s Office’s evidence
 storage protocols at the time of the underlying investigation. Judge Harrington also
 admitted into evidence correspondence from the FBI Crime Laboratory and the Maryland
 State Police Crime Laboratory indicating that neither had received nor tested evidence in
 Johnson’s case.
 6
 See Arrington v. State, 411 Md. 524, 544, 983 A.2d 1071, 1083 (2009) (“[W]e conclude
 that the right of appeal granted in CP Section 8-201(k)(6) is a direct right of appeal to this
 Court, which does not require a litigant to petition for certiorari.”).
 3
 So I have to deny the Motion for a New Trial based on a request for
 post-DNA; post-conviction DNA.
 Judge Harrington also made specific findings that the T-shirt, cigarette package and sex
 crimes kit were no longer in the possession of the Sheriff’s Office and, therefore, were
 unavailable for testing. She had found, at the end of the second hearing, that the Sheriff’s
 Office had twice inventoried all items in its evidence storage area, Building 104, without
 having uncovered the T-shirt, cigarette package or sex crimes kit from which she concluded
 that the evidence sought by Johnson was no longer in the possession of the Sheriff’s
 Office:7
 [THE COURT:] I’m reasonably satisfied that evidence that was in property
 held and transferred from the old units to the new units was inventoried and
 logged in not just once but twice. So I think the loose ends have more to do
 with where else might it be rather than whether things are actually in the
 Sheriff’s possession right now.
 Charles Smith, the civilian property custodian of the Sheriff’s Office, had testified
 at the second hearing and explained that all items of evidence held in Building 104 had
 7
 Judge Harrington, at the third hearing, reiterated her finding that the T-shirt, cigarette
 package and sex crimes kit were not in the Sheriff’s Office’s possession at the time of the
 two inventories of Building 104:
 I have testimony here as to how the search was conducted going
 through each and every evidence box and inventorying it not just once but
 twice when they had to move the location.
 ***
 The property held room was moved to a different location, inventoried on
 the way out, on the way into the new location and then again a couple of
 years later when they had a mold problem they had to unload everything
 and pack it back in.
 4
 been moved twice.8 According to Mr. Smith, the property that had been held in Building
 104 was moved in 2006, when the Sheriff’s Office had been relocated, and again in
 approximately “2008, 2009”, when the building had been emptied in order to enable the
 County to “take care of” a mold problem. Mr. Smith also stated that he perused the
 handwritten inventories compiled during both relocations and had not found any reference
 to the T-shirt, cigarette package or sex crimes kit. Mr. Smith further testified that, prior to
 the second hearing before Judge Harrington, he and others had searched “around the whole
 building” in order to confirm that the T-shirt, cigarette package and sex crimes kit were not
 obtainable.
 Judge Harrington’s conclusion that the State had performed a reasonable search for
 the sex crimes kit at the Sheriff’s Office was based not only on the affidavit and testimony
 regarding Building 104, but also upon another affidavit by Shelly Herold, a technician in
 the Charles County Sheriff’s Office Forensic Science Unit. Ms. Herold affirmed that she
 had searched the Forensic Science Unit’s storage areas for the sex crimes kit, to no avail.9
 8
 Mr. Smith testified that the Sheriff’s Office still possessed other evidence from Johnson’s
 case in Building 104: one “can of White Rose Petroleum Jelly” and one “brown and tan
 checkered shirt”, recovered during the investigation.
 9
 Ms. Herold stated in her affidavit:
 I attempted to locate any evidence in the above case at the Charles County
 Sheriff’s Office Forensic Science Unit with negative results. The F[orensic]
 S[cience] U[nit] short term storage locker, F[orensic] S[cience] U[nit] long
 term storage freezer, and the F[orensic] S[cience] U[nit] long term storage
 refrigerator were all searched with negative results.
 5
 Regarding the sex crimes kit, Judge Harrington also found that Physician’s
 Memorial Hospital did not possess the sex crimes kit and even had the kit been found it
 would have only contained blood drawn from the victim:
 [THE COURT:] There is evidence that there was [a sex crimes kit] but
 there’s no evidence that it was ever logged in to The Sheriff’s Department.
 It apparently does not appear to have been their procedure at that time.
 There’s no information indicating that it has been preserved or kept in
 any refrigerator there. We do have that affidavit from Shelly Herold that
 says that she did a search.
 ***
 [COUNSEL FOR JOHNSON:] If you, if you collect evidence from a rape
 kit by definition you’re gonna have skin cells on it and that’s biological
 material that could be submitted to testing.
 And with respect to the shirt, you know, it’s a kind of ridiculous - -.
 THE COURT: Yeah, as I said it could be there but I, we don’t have any
 evidence that there were . . . [s]kin cells collected at the hospital. There was
 a blood, blood work; blood draw.
 Judge Harrington also relied upon the report compiled by Sergeant George Watts,
 the investigating officer in Johnson’s case, as well as the report completed by the physician
 who had examined the victim at Physician’s Memorial Hospital; both reports had been
 introduced into evidence during the second of the three hearings. The authors of both
 reports noted that the examining physician had handed the sex crimes kit over to Sergeant
 Watts after examining the victim, thereby establishing that the Hospital did not retain the
 sex crimes kit.10
 10
 The language from Charles County Sheriff’s Office’s report was:
 A sex crimes kit was used by the medical staff and evidence was collected.
 The kit was then turned over to the undersigned officer.
 (continued . . . )
 6
 Judge Harrington’s finding that the sex crimes kit had only contained blood taken
 from the victim was based upon the hospital report upon which was written, under the
 heading “Evidence Collected by Examining Physician”, that only “BLOOD” had been
 collected from the victim.11
 Johnson argued both before the trial court as well as before us that, because “the
 victim’s t-shirt, a cigarette package, and a sex crimes kit-did exist at one point”, it is
 “reasonable that all or some of the items [Johnson] now seeks are somewhere in the State’s
 possession.” Johnson asserts that the State must produce “all relevant property logs” from
 the Charles County Sheriff’s Office as part of a reasonable search. Producing the property
 logs, he reasons, would provide his counsel an opportunity to review them with an
 “advocate’s eye” to determine if there were entries missed which could lead to the
 discovery of the missing T-shirt, cigarette package and sex crimes kit.
 ( . . . continued)
 Similarly, the report from Physician’s Memorial Hospital noted:
 10:50pm Collected evidence given to Sheriff Officers
 Sergeant Watts’s signature appears on both the hospital report and the Sheriff’s Office’s
 report.
 11
 The types of evidence that could have been collected from the victim by the examining
 physician and recorded on the hospital report under the heading “EVIDENCE
 COLLECTED BY EXAMINING PHYSICIAN” also were:
 1. CLOTHING 8. HAIR, HEAD-CUT
 2. HAIR, PUBIC-CUT 9. HAIR, HEAD-PULLED
 3. HAIR, PUBIC-PULLED 10. HAIR, HEAD-COMBED
 4. HAIR, PUBIC-COMBED 11. BLOOD
 5. HAIR, ANAL-CUT 12. OTHER
 6. HAIR, ANAL-PULLED
 7. HAIR, ANAL-COMBED
 7
 Johnson also argued before the trial court as well as before us that “evidence,
 testimony, or affidavits as to the procedures in place at the hospital for conducting the
 sexual assault kit” must be produced, because they would demonstrate that more than the
 victim’s blood had been collected, as well as “what was then done with the examination.”
 For support that more than blood drawn from the victim had been collected, Johnson asserts
 that “if a hospital subjected a victim to a sexual assault kit, it would be reasonable to assume
 that, even in 1980, more than just blood was taken”.
 In evaluating whether the State has conducted a reasonable search, we ask whether
 it has “demonstrated sufficiently a prima facie case, either directly or circumstantially, that
 the requested scientific identification evidence no longer exists”. Washington v. State, 424
 Md. 632, 651, 37 A.3d 932, 942 (2012). The Circuit Court’s finding that the State had met
 its burden and shown that the requested evidence no longer exists is reviewed under the
 “clearly erroneous” standard of review. Id., citing Blake v. State, 418 Md. 445, 460, 15
 A.3d 787, 796 (2011) (hereinafter “Blake II”). See also Fuster v. State, 437 Md. 653, 89
 A.3d 1114 (2014); Arey v. State, 422 Md. 328, 29 A.3d 986 (2011) (hereinafter “Arey II”).
 Under the “clearly erroneous” standard, “if there is any competent evidence to support the
 factual findings below, those findings cannot be held to be clearly erroneous.” Washington,
 424 Md. at 651, 37 A.3d at 942, quoting Solomon v. Solomon, 383 Md. 176, 202, 857 A.2d
 1109, 1123 (2004). Based upon the application of these principles, we conclude that Judge
 Harrington did not err in her finding that the State conducted a reasonable search for the
 T-shirt, cigarette package and sex crimes kit. Her decision is supported by undisputed
 8
 evidence that the T-shirt, cigarette package and sex crimes kit could not be located by the
 State.
 Our conclusion that Judge Harrington did not err is guided by our past jurisprudence
 that has refined the standard of what is a reasonable search under Section 8-201. In
 Washington, 424 Md. at 635, 37 A.3d at 933, Washington had sought for testing, under
 Section 8-201, evidence compiled during the investigation that had led to his 1990 rape
 conviction. The circuit court ultimately concluded that “a reasonable search was
 undertaken which included the Wicomico County State’s Attorney’s Office and Sheriff’s
 Office, the Maryland State Police Crime Laboratory, [the hospital in which the victim had
 been examined] and the clerk’s office of the Circuit Court” based upon testimony and
 affidavit that each shelf and box in these locations had been searched for the evidence
 Washington had requested. Id. at 648, 37 A.3d at 941. The hearing judge in Washington
 also determined that “the evidence presented at the hearing showed that the searches for
 evidence related to this case, dating back to 2002, produced no results” and, therefore, “the
 evidence was either lost or destroyed prior to that time.” Id. at 648-49, 37 A.3d at 941.
 We opined in Washington that the circuit court had not erred when it found that the
 State had conducted a reasonable search. We also held that it was irrelevant that the State
 had not introduced the storage protocols of the Sheriff’s Office, because the protocols
 “would only indicate that the requested scientific identification evidence was in the
 possession of the Sheriff’s Office”, which had already been reasonably searched to no
 avail. Id. at 661-62, 37 A.3d at 949.
 9
 Washington informs us that the search conducted here was reasonable, as well as
 that production of the Hospital’s protocols is not required in the present case. Judge
 Harrington determined that the T-shirt, cigarette package and sex crimes kit were no longer
 in the State’s possession based upon Charles Smith’s testimony, from which she found that
 Building 104 had been fully inventoried twice and searched once without having uncovered
 the evidence in question. As in Washington, in which we determined that the search of the
 Sheriff’s Office was reasonable, it was not clearly erroneous for Judge Harrington to
 conclude that the search of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office was reasonable and that the
 Sheriff’s Office no longer possessed the T-shirt, cigarette package or sex crimes kit.
 With respect to the sex crimes kit specifically, Judge Harrington observed that the
 affidavit from Shelly Herold reflected that the kit was not stored within the Charles County
 Sheriff’s Office’s Forensic Science Unit. Judge Harrington also recognized that the sex
 crimes kit had been handed over to Sergeant Watts of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office
 on the evening the victim had been examined based upon reports from Physician’s
 Memorial Hospital and the Sheriff’s Office that had been admitted into evidence. Judge
 Harrington, at the end of the second hearing, noted that neither the Hospital nor the
 Sheriff’s Office possessed the sex crimes kit and instructed the State to explore other
 facilities that may have received the kit, namely the Maryland State Police Crime
 Laboratory and the FBI Crime Laboratory.12 The documentation from the Hospital, the
 12
 A letter from the Maryland State Police and an e-mail from the FBI, admitted into
 evidence as State’s Exhibits 6 and 8, respectively, confirmed that there were no records
 that either entity had received or analyzed anything related to Johnson’s case.
 10
 Sheriff’s Office, the Maryland State Police and the FBI, together with Ms. Herold’s
 affidavit, was prima facie proof that the sex crimes kit was no longer in the possession of
 the State, so that it was not clear error to conclude that the sex crimes kit no longer existed
 thirty-three years after it was removed from Physician’s Memorial Hospital.
 As to Johnson’s assertion that the Hospital’s protocols for collecting and handling
 evidence from a sexual assault victim needed to be produced, because they may have
 shown additional places to search, we have noted that the protocol of a place to be searched
 is immaterial when the hearing judge already has concluded that the location to which the
 protocol was related has been futilely searched. Washington, 424 Md. at 661-62, 37 A.3d
 at 949. In the present case, Judge Harrington relied upon documents admitted into
 evidence, created both by the Charles County Sheriff’s Office and Physician’s Memorial
 Hospital, which conclusively established that the hospital no longer had possession of the
 sex crimes kit. 13
 Our decision in Horton v. State, 412 Md. 1, 985 A.2d 540 (2009), also does not offer
 succor to Johnson with regard to his request for the Hospital’s protocols. In Horton, 412
 Md. at 17, 985 A.2d at 549, we ordered production of protocols only because a “former
 Hospital official had suggested that evidence concerning the victim” could still have been
 stored in the hospital. No such testimony was adduced in the present case.
 13
 Johnson seemingly requests that the Hospital should be tasked with searching for the sex
 crimes kit despite its own report received into evidence reflecting that the kit had been
 turned over to Sergeant George Watts; that undisputed evidence undermines any
 requirement that the hospital perform a search. Horton v. State, 412 Md. 1, 985 A.2d 540
 (2009), discussed infra.
 11
 Here, Johnson merely asserts that “more than just blood was taken”, so that the
 Hospital should be searched or at least queried regarding its protocols for collecting
 specimens in a sex crimes kit. The Hospital report admitted into evidence and relied upon
 by Judge Harrington, however, indicates that only “BLOOD” had been collected from the
 victim and included in the sex crimes kit, which was prima facie proof that only blood was
 taken. Johnson’s mere assertion, without more, that other scientific identification evidence
 was collected does not render the search unreasonable.
 With regard to Johnson’s contention that he should have been provided the Charles
 County Sheriff’s Office’s property logbooks, because his counsel could have reviewed
 them to determine if there were errors in their compilation, we chalk this up again to mere
 speculation, rather than based upon proof of a mistake. We have determined, however,
 that speculation is not sufficient to overcome a prima facie showing that the State followed
 its procedures for storing and maintaining evidence. Blake II, 418 Md. at 461-62, 15 A.3d
 at 797.
 In Blake II, Blake sought for testing, under Section 8-201, evidence from his 1982
 conviction of first degree rape and first degree sex offense. He asserted that evidence from
 his trial may have been held in the State’s Attorney’s Office following his trial and,
 therefore, a reasonable search must have included the State’s Attorney’s Office. We
 rejected Blake’s argument, first opining that it “is reasonable to conclude that the evidence
 sought to be tested was handled in conformity with the routine practice of the Circuit Court
 and the Police Department”; we then acknowledged that a tape recorded statement by the
 prosecutor in Blake’s criminal trial “confirming that Assistant State’s Attorneys did not
 12
 take custody of exhibits at the conclusion of criminal trials” established that the evidence
 was not held by the State’s Attorney. Id. at 460, 462, 15 A.3d at 796, 797. We reasoned
 that, when “it has been established that the prosecutor’s office does not take custody of
 exhibits”, the circuit court could properly deny a request for a search of the prosecutor’s
 office. Id. at 462, 15 A.3d at 797. In the case before us, similarly, the logbooks were
 reviewed, the locations searched and the detail of their compilation and searches were
 produced; Johnson adduced no proof that there were mistakes in the compilation of the
 logbooks and in the locations searched.
 Johnson, however, urges that the State had produced a logbook in Arey II, 422 Md.
 328, 29 A.3d 986 (2011), and so his request for the Charles County Sheriff’s Office’s
 logbooks should have been granted. Whether Arey received a logbook was not in issue in
 Arey II and did not form the basis for any decision by the trial court or this Court. The
 reversal of the trial court’s decision in Arey II resulted from our determination that Arey
 should have had an opportunity in the circuit court to contest evidence adduced by the
 State, which had nothing at all to do with the production of logbooks.
 In conclusion, Judge Harrington’s findings that the State had performed a
 reasonable search for the T-shirt, cigarette pack and sex crimes kit and that they no longer
 were in the possession of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office were not clearly erroneous,
 and we affirm.
 JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT
 COURT FOR CHARLES COUNTY IS
 AFFIRMED. COSTS IN THIS
 COURT TO BE PAID BY
 APPELLANT.
 13


text:
B-medis tai besibalansuojančių medžio tipo duomenų struktūrų grupė, naudojama informatikoje. Ji buvo 1972 pristatyta Rudolfo Bayerio ir E. M. McCreigo. B-medyje įterpimas ir pašalinimas gali būti realizuotas O (lg n), kur n – lentelės įrašų numeris.
 B-medžiai pasižymi tuo kad laikas vidinių elementų apdorojimui yra žymiai mažesnis už laiką reikalingą perrinkti viršūnėms. Dėl šios savybės ši duomenų struktūra yra dažniausiai naudojama duomenų bazių ir failų sistemų realizacijai. Tokiu atveju pasirenkamas aukštos eilės B-medis, kurio viršūnė saugoma operatyvioje atmintyje, o didesnė dalis pomedžių saugoma antrinėje atminties laikmenoje (pavyzdžiui, kietajame diske).
 Savybės
 B-medis dažniausiai apibrėžiamas duomenų elementų ir kiekvienos viršūnės maksimaliu galimų vaikų skaičiumi. Jei tartume, kad L yra mažiausias šiame medyje galimas viršūnės vaikų skaičius, tai didžiausias vaikų skaičius būtų 2L, o duomenų elementų kiekvienoje viršūnėje nuo L-1 iki 2L-1.
 Paprasčiausias B-medžio variantas – 2-3-4 medis, kuriame kiekviena viršūnė gali turėti 2, 3 ar 4 vaikus ir atitinkamai 1, 2 ar 3 duomenų elementus.
 Šaltiniai
 Nuorodos
 Bajerio medis .
 Duomenų struktūros
 Besibalansuojantys medžiai


text:
Andeiglen (Theromyzon tessulatum) er en op til 10 cm lang igle med fire par øjne, der lever i søer. Arter af andeigler findes på den nordlige halvkugle og i Sydamerika.
 Iglen sidder i undervandsvegetationen og venter på, at en vært kommer forbi. Når f.eks. en and stikker hovedet ned i vandet, griber iglen fast i næbbet og bevæger sig ind i andens næsebor og svælg for at suge blod. Hvis værten angribes af mange igler, kan den blive kvalt.
 Æggene lægges i en kokon, der er fastgjort til planter eller sten. Æggene klækker efter ti dage, hvorefter ynglen sidder fastgjort til den voksne igle i 2-4 måneder. Ynglen har brug for et måltid blod for at udvikles. Man mener iglen har brug for tre af den slags måltider for at blive fuldt udvokset. Iglen forlader værten imellem måltiderne og kan derfor undvære et blodmåltid i mindst ni måneder. Andeiglen benytter som navnet antyder, normalt andefugle som værter, men den kan også sætte sig på gnavere
 Referencer
 Ledorme
 Parasitiske ledorme


text:
JURIDICE » Întrebare preliminară cu privire la protecția consumatorului în cazul unui contract de vânzare-cumpărare. UPDATE: Decizia Curții de Justiție
 Întrebare preliminară cu privire la protecția consumatorului în cazul unui contract de vânzare-cumpărare. UPDATE: Decizia Curții de Justiție
 5 iunie 2015: Curtea declară:
 1) Directiva 1999/44/CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 25 mai 1999 privind anumite aspecte ale vânzării de bunuri de consum și garanțiile conexe trebuie interpretată în sensul că instanța națională sesizată cu un litigiu având ca obiect un contract care poate intra în domeniul de aplicare al acestei directive are obligația, de îndată ce dispune de elementele de drept și de fapt necesare în acest scop sau poate să dispună de acestea în urma unei simple cereri de lămuriri, să verifice dacă cumpărătorul poate fi calificat drept consumator în sensul directivei menționate, chiar în cazul în care acesta din urmă nu a invocat calitatea respectivă. (!!!!!) (s.a.-M.M.-B.)
 2) Articolul 5 alineatul (3) din Directiva 1999/44 trebuie interpretat în sensul că trebuie să fie considerat ca o normă echivalentă unei norme naționale care ocupă, în cadrul ordinii juridice interne, rangul de normă de ordine publică și că instanța națională are obligația de a aplica din oficiu orice dispoziție care asigură transpunerea acestuia în dreptul intern.
 3) Articolul 5 alineatul (2) din Directiva 1999/44 trebuie interpretat în sensul că nu se opune unei norme naționale care prevede că, pentru a beneficia de drepturile pe care i le conferă această directivă, consumatorul trebuie să îl informeze pe vânzător despre neconformitate în timp util, cu condiția ca respectivul consumator să dispună, pentru a da informația menționată, de un termen care să nu fie mai scurt de două luni începând de la data la care a constatat această neconformitate, ca informația care trebuie să fie furnizată să aibă ca obiect doar existența neconformității menționate și ca aceasta să nu fie supusă unor norme privind proba care ar face imposibilă sau excesiv de dificilă exercitarea de către consumatorul respectiv a drepturilor sale.
 4) Articolul 5 alineatul (3) din Directiva 1999/44 trebuie interpretat în sensul că norma potrivit căreia se presupune că neconformitatea a existat la momentul livrării bunului:
 – se aplică în cazul în care consumatorul probează că bunul vândut nu este conform cu contractul și că neconformitatea în cauză a apărut, cu alte cuvinte a devenit aparentă din punct de vedere material, în termen de șase luni de la livrarea bunului. Consumatorul nu are obligația de a proba cauza acestei neconformități și nici de a dovedi că originea acesteia este imputabilă vânzătorului;
 – poate fi înlăturată doar dacă vânzătorul dovedește corespunzător cerințelor legale că originea sau cauza neconformității respective constă într‐o împrejurare survenită după livrarea bunului.
 2 decembrie 2013: Judecătorul olandez adresează mai multe întrebări în materia protecției consumatorului în cazul specific al unui contract de vânzare-cumpărare. (C-497/13 Faber)
 1. Neconformitatea bunului livrat și calitatea de consumator
 2. Obligația instanțelor naționale de a examina din oficiu calitatea de consumator a cumpărătorului în cauză
 3. Dispoziție națională care prevede obligația cumpărătorului de a invoca și, în cazul contestării de către vânzător, de a demonstra comunicarea neconformității bunului către vânzător într-un termen rezonabil
 5. Încălcarea principiului efectivității, a directivei sau a altor dispoziții ale dreptului Uniunii
 6. Relevanța reprezentării consumatorului de către un avocat.
 Dispoziții incidente: articolului 1 alineatul (2) litera (a) și a articolului 5 alineatele (2) și (3) din Directiva 1999/44/CE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 25 mai 1999 privind anumite aspecte ale vânzării de bunuri de consum și garanţiile conexe
 (a) consumator înseamnă orice persoană fizică care, în contractele reglementate de prezenta directivă, acționează în scopuri care nu au legătură cu meseria, activitatea comercială sau profesia sa;
 *Atragem atenția asupra ultimei întrebări preliminare, și anume:
 Pentru a răspunde la întrebările precedente este relevant şi aspectul că în prezenta procedură doamna Faber a fost reprezentată de avocat în faţa ambelor instanţe?
 Aflaţi mai mult despre cauza C-497/13 Faber, contract de vanzare-cumparare, Mihaela Mazilu-Babel, neconformitatea bunului livrat, protectia consumatorului
 Au fost scrise până acum 2 de comentarii cu privire la articolul “Întrebare preliminară cu privire la protecția consumatorului în cazul unui contract de vânzare-cumpărare. UPDATE: Decizia Curții de Justiție”
 28.11.2014 la 15:33
 Doamna avocat général Sharpston propune:
 „În situația în care un cumpărător a inițiat o acțiune în despăgubire împotriva unui vânzător în temeiul unor dispoziții din dreptul național care se aplică, inter alia, contractelor încheiate cu consumatorii, fără să susțină în mod expres că are calitatea de consumator, o normă din dreptul procesual național nu poate împiedica instanța națională să examineze dacă acea persoană este în mod efectiv un consumator în sensul Directivei 1999/44 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 25 mai 1999 privind anumite aspecte ale vânzării de bunuri de consum și garanțiile conexe și, în consecință, să aplice legislația națională în domeniul protecției consumatorului interpretată în conformitate cu Directiva 1999/44. Totuși, această cerință este supusă condiției ca elementele de drept și de fapt necesare pentru îndeplinirea acestei sarcini să se afle la dispoziția instanței naționale, fie că elementele respective există deja în dosarul cauzei, fie că instanța națională le poate obține în conformitate cu dreptul procesual național. Instanța națională nu poate depăși limitele litigiului care au fost stabilite de părți. Aceeași obligație de examinare ex officio și aceleași condiții există în cazul unui apel atunci când (i) cel puțin una dintre părți a invocat dispoziții din dreptul național care transpun (cel puțin parțial) Directiva 1999/44 și (ii) în funcție de aspectul dacă o parte are (sau nu are) calitatea de consumator, aceasta poate (sau nu poate) beneficia de protecția sporită pe care o acordă dispozițiile menționate. Faptul că respectivul consumator a fost asistat de un avocat nu modifică această concluzie.
 Principiul efectivității impune examinarea ex officio a articolului 5 alineatul (3), cu condiția ca instanța națională să aibă la dispoziție elementele de drept și de fapt necesare și să nu modifice limitele litigiului care au fost stabilite de părți. În măsura în care articolul 5 alineatul (3) are trăsături similare cu cele ale unei norme de ordine publică potrivit dreptului național, principiul echivalenței poate de asemenea impune ca o instanță națională precum cea din litigiul principal să aplice din oficiu orice dispoziție din dreptul intern care transpune articolul menționat.
 Directiva 1999/44 nu limitează competența statelor membre de a stabili și de a aplica normele în materie de probațiune în ceea ce privește cerința ca, potrivit articolului 5 alineatul (2) din Directiva 1999/44, consumatorul să informeze vânzătorul despre neconformitate, atât timp cât dreptul național (i) prevede un termen care nu este mai scurt de două luni, (ii) nu impune norme care să modifice conținutul obligațiilor instituite de articolul 5 din Directiva 1999/44 și (iii) normele aplicabile nu sunt în alt mod mai puțin favorabile decât cele care reglementează acțiunile întemeiate pe dreptul intern și nu sunt concepute astfel încât să facă practic imposibilă sau excesiv de dificilă exercitarea drepturilor conferite de dreptul Uniunii.
 Articolul 5 alineatul (3) răstoarnă parțial sarcina probei în favoarea consumatorului, care, sub rezerva respectării unui termen, nu trebuie să demonstreze că neconformitatea exista deja atunci când a fost livrat bunul. Astfel, revine totuși acestuia să invoce că bunul livrat nu corespunde așteptărilor sale rezonabile bazate pe contract și pe informațiile enumerate la articolul 2 alineatul (2). Nu este necesar însă ca el să dovedească faptul că îi este imputabil vânzătorului caracterul necorespunzător al bunului.”
 Mai redăm și următoarele paragrafe, importante pentru a arăta analiza pe care avocatul general o face raportat la obligația instanței de a analiza ex officio anumite aspecte ale cauzei:
 47. În acest context, prima și a patra întrebare privesc problema dacă dreptul Uniunii impune ca o instanță națională să examineze din oficiu dacă cumpărătorul este un consumator în sensul Directivei 1999/44 și, prin urmare, dacă această directivă trebuie aplicată (într‐adevăr, instanța națională ar trebui mai întâi să analizeze domeniul de aplicare al directivei, înainte de a aplica în special articolul 5(11), prin interpretarea reglementărilor naționale aplicabile într‐un mod care să fie conform cu această dispoziție). Curtea a confirmat, în cazul legislației în materie de protecție a consumatorului (în special cu privire la clauzele abuzive în contractele încheiate cu consumatorii(12)), incidența principiului potrivit căruia, în lipsa unei armonizări a normelor de procedură, dreptul național continuă să se aplice sub rezerva respectării principiilor efectivității și echivalenței(13). Considerăm că, în prezenta cauză, prima și a treia întrebare privesc în special principiul efectivității și problema dacă jurisprudența Curții, în special cea din domeniul clauzelor abuzive în contractele încheiate cu consumatorii, se aplică prin analogie; în timp ce a patra întrebare poate fi interpretată în sensul că se referă mai mult la principiul echivalenței. În cazul în care există o obligație de a examina ex officio dacă cumpărătorul este un consumator în sensul Directivei 1999/44, atunci, prin intermediul celei de a doua și al celei de a treia întrebări, instanța de trimitere solicită îndrumări referitoare la împrejurările în care o instanță națională are această obligație.
 48. Totuși, a patra întrebare poate fi interpretată și în sensul (mai larg) că instanța de trimitere urmărește să afle dacă, în cazul în care stabilește că doamna Faber a avut calitatea de consumator și constată că ea a informat vânzătorul în timp util despre neconformitate [articolul 7:23 alineatul (1), ultima teză din BW], trebuie să aplice ex officio dispozițiile privind sarcina probei de la articolul 7:18 alineatul (2) din BW, prin care a fost pus transpus articolul 5 alineatul (3) din Directiva 1999/44. Vom aborda și acest aspect al celei de a patra întrebări.
 Cam așa pătrunde dreptul UE pe tărâmul dreptului procesual național. 😉
 05.06.2015 la 09:17
 Foarte, dar foarte importantă această decizie a CJUE în materia protecției consumatorului coroborată cu materia procedurii civile.


type: legislation

text:
 6.2.2020
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 34/25
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2020/160 AL COMISIEI
 din 5 februarie 2020
 privind autorizarea preparatului de ulei de oregano, ulei de chimion, carvacrol, salicilat de metil și L-mentol ca aditiv pentru hrana purceilor înțărcați (titularul autorizației: Biomin GmbH)
 (Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 22 septembrie 2003 privind aditivii din hrana animalelor (1), în special articolul 9 alineatul (2),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003 prevede autorizarea aditivilor destinați utilizării în hrana animalelor, precum și motivele și procedurile de acordare a unor astfel de autorizații.
 (2)
 În conformitate cu articolul 7 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003, a fost depusă o cerere de autorizare a unui preparat de ulei de oregano, ulei de chimion, carvacrol, salicilat de metil și L-mentol. Această cerere a fost însoțită de informațiile și documentele necesare prevăzute la articolul 7 alineatul (3) din regulamentul respectiv.
 (3)
 Cererea respectivă se referă la autorizarea preparatului de ulei de oregano, ulei de chimion, carvacrol, salicilat de metil și L-mentol ca aditiv pentru hrana purceilor înțărcați, urmând să fie clasificat în categoria „aditivi zootehnici”.
 (4)
 Autoritatea Europeană pentru Siguranța Alimentară („autoritatea”) a concluzionat, în avizul ei din 2 aprilie 2019 (2), că, în condițiile de utilizare propuse, preparatul de ulei de oregano, ulei de chimion, carvacrol, salicilat de metil și L-mentol nu are efecte adverse asupra sănătății animalelor, a sănătății umane sau asupra mediului. Autoritatea a concluzionat, de asemenea, că expunerea utilizatorilor prin inhalare este puțin probabilă și că nu s-a putut formula nicio concluzie cu privire la sensibilizarea pielii sau a ochilor. Prin urmare, Comisia consideră că trebuie luate măsuri adecvate de protecție pentru a preveni efectele negative asupra sănătății umane, în special în ceea ce privește utilizatorii aditivului. Autoritatea a concluzionat că aditivul are potențialul de a fi eficace în îmbunătățirea performanțelor zootehnice. Autoritatea nu consideră că sunt necesare cerințe specifice de monitorizare ulterioară introducerii pe piață. În plus, autoritatea a verificat raportul privind metoda de analiză a aditivului destinat hranei pentru animale, transmis de laboratorul de referință înființat prin Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003.
 (5)
 Evaluarea preparatului de ulei de oregano, ulei de chimion, carvacrol, salicilat de metil și L-mentol arată că sunt îndeplinite condițiile de autorizare prevăzute la articolul 5 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1831/2003. În consecință, utilizarea preparatului respectiv trebuie autorizată, astfel cum se specifică în anexa la prezentul regulament.
 (6)
 Măsurile prevăzute în prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comitetului permanent pentru plante, animale, produse alimentare și hrană pentru animale,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Preparatul cu specificațiile din anexă, aparținând categoriei „aditivi zootehnici” și grupei funcționale „alți aditivi zootehnici”, se autorizează ca aditiv destinat hranei pentru animale în condițiile stabilite în anexa respectivă.
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a douăzecea zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 5 februarie 2020.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) JO L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 29.
 (2) EFSA Journal 2019;17(4):5688.
 ANEXĂ
 Numărul de identificare al aditivului
 Numele titularului autorizației
 Aditiv
 Compoziția, formula chimică, descrierea, metoda de analiză
 Specia sau categoria de animale
 Vârsta maximă
 Conținutul minim
 Conținutul maxim
 Alte dispoziții
 Sfârșitul perioadei de autorizare
 mg de aditiv/kg de hrană completă pentru animale, cu un conținut de umiditate de 12 %
 Categoria aditivilor zootehnici. Grupa funcțională: alți aditivi zootehnici (îmbunătățirea performanțelor zootehnice).
 4d19
 Biomin GmbH
 Ulei de oregano, ulei de chimion, carvacrol, salicilat de metil și L-mentol
 Compoziția aditivului
 Preparat de:
 —
 uleiuri esențiale de oregano (Origanum vulgare L.) (60-80 mg/g) și semințe de chimion (Carum carvi L.) (5-10 mg/g),
 —
 carvacrol (60-80mg/g), salicilat de metil (10-40 mg/g) și L-mentol (30-55 mg/g)
 Formă solidă
 Purcei înțărcați
 -
 75
 125
 1.
 A se menționa condițiile de depozitare și stabilitatea la tratament termic în instrucțiunile de utilizare a aditivului și a preamestecurilor.
 2.
 Pentru utilizatorii aditivului și ai preamestecurilor, operatorii din sectorul hranei pentru animale stabilesc proceduri operaționale și măsuri organizatorice pentru a contracara riscurile potențiale care rezultă din utilizarea lor. În cazul în care respectivele riscuri nu pot fi eliminate sau reduse la minimum prin astfel de proceduri și măsuri, aditivul și preamestecurile se utilizează cu echipament de protecție individuală, inclusiv cu echipamente de protecție cutanată și oculară.
 26 februarie 2030
 Caracterizarea substanței active:
 Ulei de oregano (Origanum vulgare L.) (Număr CAS: 8007-11-2) cu un conținut de linalool de 1,8-16 mg/g;
 Ulei din semințe de chimion (Carum carvi L.) (Număr CAS: 8000-42-8) cu un conținut de D-carvonă de 2,5-6,5 mg/g;
 Ulei de carvacrol (Numărul CAS: 499-75-2) ≥ 99 % cu un conținut de carvacrol de 95-140 mg/g (din oregano și carvacrol pur);
 Salicilat de metil (Număr CAS: 119-36-8;
 L-mentol (Număr CAS: 2216-51-8).
 Metoda de analiză
 (1)
 Cuantificarea substanțelor active din aditivul destinat hranei pentru animale: cromatografie în fază gazoasă cuplată cu detecție cu ionizare în flacără (GC-FID)
 (1) Detaliile metodelor de analiză sunt disponibile la următoarea adresă a laboratorului de referință: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports


text:
 30.10.2014
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 310/7
 DECIZIA NR. 66/2014 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 16 mai 2014
 de modificare a anexei I (Chestiuni veterinare și fitosanitare) la Acordul privind SEE
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European („Acordul privind SEE”), în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Decizia de punere în aplicare 2013/709/UE a Comisiei din 2 decembrie 2013 de autorizare a unui laborator din Statele Unite ale Americii pentru a efectua teste serologice de control al eficacității vaccinurilor antirabice (1) trebuie încorporată în Acordul privind SEE.
 (2)
 Această decizie se referă la legislația privind animalele vii, altele decât peștii și animalele de acvacultură. Legislația privind aceste chestiuni nu se aplică Islandei, astfel cum se specifică la punctul 2 din partea introductivă a capitolului I din anexa I la Acordul privind SEE. Prin urmare, această decizie nu se aplică Islandei.
 (3)
 Prezenta decizie se referă la legislația privind chestiunile veterinare. Legislația privind aceste chestiuni nu se aplică Liechtensteinului atât timp cât aplicarea Acordului dintre Comunitatea Europeană și Confederația Elvețiană privind comerțul cu produse agricole se extinde și la Liechtenstein, astfel cum se specifică în adaptările sectoriale ale anexei I la Acordul privind SEE. În consecință, prezenta decizie nu se aplică Liechtensteinului.
 (4)
 Prin urmare, anexa I la Acordul privind SEE trebuie modificată în consecință,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTA DECIZIE:
 Articolul 1
 În anexa I la Acordul privind SEE, capitolul I partea 4.2, după punctul 54a (Decizia de punere în aplicare 2012/304/UE a Comisiei) se inserează următorul punct:
 „54b.
 32013 D 0709: Decizia de punere în aplicare 2013/709/UE a Comisiei din 2 decembrie 2013 de autorizare a unui laborator din Statele Unite ale Americii pentru a efectua teste serologice de control al eficacității vaccinurilor antirabice (JO L 323, 4.12.2013, p. 34).
 Acest act nu se aplică Islandei.”
 Articolul 2
 Textul Deciziei de punere în aplicare 2013/709/UE în limba norvegiană, care urmează să fie publicat în suplimentul SEE la Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, este autentic.
 Articolul 3
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 17 mai 2014, cu condiția să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din Acordul privind SEE (2).
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie se publică în secțiunea SEE și în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 16 mai 2014.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Președintele
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) JO L 323, 4.12.2013, p. 34.
 (2) Nu au fost semnalate obligații constituționale.