text:
 Důležité právní upozornění
 |
 21997D0904(06)
 Úřední věstník L 242 , 04/09/1997 S. 0075 - 0075
 Rozhodnutí Smíšeného výboru EHPč. 26/97ze dne 30. dubna 1997,kterým se mění příloha XX (Životní prostředí) Dohody o EHPSMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EHP,s ohledem na Dohodu o Evropském hospodářském prostoru ve znění Protokolu o úpravě Dohody o Evropském hospodářském prostoru (dále jen "Dohoda"), a zejména s ohledem na článek 98 této dohody,vzhledem k tomu, že příloha XX Dohody byla změněna rozhodnutím Smíšeného výboru EHP č. 82/96 ze dne 13. prosince 1996 [1];vzhledem k tomu, že rozhodnutí Komise 96/703/ES ze dne 26. listopadu 1996, kterým se stanovují ekologická kritéria pro udělení ekoznačky Společenství chladničkám [2], by mělo být začleněno do Dohody,ROZHODL TAKTO:Článek 1V příloze XX Dohody se za bod 2ek (rozhodnutí Komise 96/467/ES) vkládá nový bod, který zní:"2el. 396 D 0703: Rozhodnutí Komise 96/703/ES ze dne 26. listopadu 1996, kterým se stanovují ekologická kritéria pro udělení ekoznačky Společenství chladničkám (Úř. věst. L 323, 13.12.1996, s. 34)."Článek 2Znění rozhodnutí 96/703/ES v islandském a norském jazyce, která tvoří přílohu odpovídajících jazykových verzí tohoto rozhodnutí, jsou platná.Článek 3Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dnem 1. května 1997 za předpokladu, že Smíšenému výboru EHP jsou učiněna veškerá oznámení podle čl. 103 odst. 1 Dohody.Článek 4Toto rozhodnutí bude zveřejněno v oddíle EHP a v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropských společenství.V Bruselu dne 30. dubna 1997.Za Smíšený výbor EHPpředsedkyněC. Day[1] Úř. věst. L 100, 17.4.1997, s. 71.[2] Úř. věst. L 323, 13.12.1996, s. 34.--------------------------------------------------


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 1.6.2006
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 L 147/28
 DECISÃO DO COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE
 N.o 19/2006,
 de 10 de Março de 2006,
 que altera o Anexo I (Questões Veterinárias e Fitossanitárias) do Acordo EEE
 O COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE,
 Tendo em conta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, alterado pelo Protocolo que adapta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, a seguir designado «o Acordo», nomeadamente o artigo 98.o,
 Considerando o seguinte:
 (1)
 O Anexo I do Acordo foi alterado pela Decisão do Comité Misto do EEE n.o 130/2005 de 21 de Outubro de 2005 (1).
 (2)
 O Regulamento (CE) n.o 1458/2005 da Comissão, de 8 de Setembro de 2005, relativo às autorizações permanentes e provisórias de determinados aditivos e à autorização provisória de novas utilizações de determinados aditivos já autorizados em alimentos para animais (2), deve ser incorporado no Acordo.
 (3)
 O Regulamento (CE) n.o 1459/2005 da Comissão, de 8 de Setembro de 2005, que altera as condições de autorização de vários aditivos para a alimentação animal pertencentes ao grupo dos oligoelementos (3), deve ser incorporado no Acordo,
 DECIDE:
 Artigo 1.o
 No Anexo I do Acordo, a seguir ao ponto 1-ZZN [Regulamento (CE) n.o 1206/2005 da Comissão] do Capítulo II, são inseridos os seguintes pontos:
 «1-ZZO.
 32005 R 1458: Regulamento (CE) n.o 1458/2005 da Comissão, de 8 de Setembro de 2005, relativo às autorizações permanentes e provisórias de determinados aditivos e à autorização provisória de novas utilizações de determinados aditivos já autorizados em alimentos para animais (JO L 233 de 9.9.2005, p. 3).
 1-ZZP.
 32005 R 1459: Regulamento (CE) n.o 1459/2005 da Comissão, de 8 de Setembro de 2005, que altera as condições de autorização de vários aditivos para a alimentação animal pertencentes ao grupo dos oligoelementos (JO L 233 de 9.9.2005, p. 8).»
 Artigo 2.o
 Os textos dos Regulamentos (CE) n.o 1458/2005 e (CE) n.o 1459/2005 nas línguas islandesa e norueguesa, que serão publicados no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia, fazem fé
 Artigo 3.o
 A presente decisão entra em vigor em 11 de Março de 2006, desde que tenham sido efectuadas ao Comité Misto do EEE todas as notificações previstas no n.o 1 do artigo 103.o do Acordo (4).
 Artigo 4.o
 A presente decisão será publicada na Secção EEE e no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Feito em Bruxelas, em 10 de Março de 2006.
 Pelo Comité Misto do EEE
 O Presidente
 R. WRIGHT
 (1) JO L 14 de 19.1.2006, p. 16.
 (2) JO L 233 de 9.9.2005, p. 3.
 (3) JO L 233 de 9.9.2005, p. 8.
 (4) Não são indicados requisitos constitucionais.


type: legislation

text:
 25.3.2015
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 79/60
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) 2015/503
 z dnia 24 marca 2015 r.
 ustanawiające standardowe wartości w przywozie dla ustalania ceny wejścia niektórych owoców i warzyw
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1308/2013 z dnia 17 grudnia 2013 r. ustanawiające wspólną organizację rynków produktów rolnych oraz uchylające rozporządzenia Rady (EWG) nr 922/72, (EWG) nr 234/79, (WE) nr 1037/2001 i (WE) nr 1234/2007 (1),
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) nr 543/2011 z dnia 7 czerwca 2011 r. ustanawiające szczegółowe zasady stosowania rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1234/2007 w odniesieniu do sektorów owoców i warzyw oraz przetworzonych owoców i warzyw (2), w szczególności jego art. 136 ust. 1,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 Rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) nr 543/2011 przewiduje – zgodnie z wynikami wielostronnych negocjacji handlowych Rundy Urugwajskiej – kryteria, na których podstawie Komisja ustala standardowe wartości dla przywozu z państw trzecich, w odniesieniu do produktów i okresów określonych w części A załącznika XVI do wspomnianego rozporządzenia.
 (2)
 Standardowa wartość w przywozie jest obliczana każdego dnia roboczego, zgodnie z art. 136 ust. 1 rozporządzenia wykonawczego (UE) nr 543/2011, przy uwzględnieniu podlegających zmianom danych dziennych. Niniejsze rozporządzenie powinno zatem wejść w życie z dniem jego opublikowania w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Standardowe wartości celne w przywozie, o których mowa w art. 136 rozporządzenia wykonawczego (UE) nr 543/2011, są ustalone w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie z dniem jego opublikowania w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 24 marca 2015 r.
 W imieniu Komisji,
 za Przewodniczącego,
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Dyrektor Generalny ds. Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich
 (1) Dz.U. L 347 z 20.12.2013, s. 671.
 (2) Dz.U. L 157 z 15.6.2011, s. 1.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Standardowe wartości w przywozie dla ustalania ceny wejścia niektórych owoców i warzyw
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Kod CN
 Kod państw trzecich (1)
 Standardowa wartość w przywozie
 0702 00 00
 MA
 91,6
 TR
 115,6
 ZZ
 103,6
 0707 00 05
 JO
 206,0
 MA
 176,1
 TR
 162,7
 ZZ
 181,6
 0709 93 10
 MA
 113,3
 TR
 162,2
 ZZ
 137,8
 0805 10 20
 EG
 44,7
 IL
 71,5
 MA
 53,7
 TN
 54,3
 TR
 70,2
 ZZ
 58,9
 0805 50 10
 TR
 46,6
 ZZ
 46,6
 0808 10 80
 AR
 94,0
 BR
 92,5
 CL
 78,4
 CN
 105,5
 MK
 25,2
 US
 218,4
 ZA
 123,7
 ZZ
 105,4
 0808 30 90
 AR
 108,8
 CL
 139,2
 CN
 102,1
 ZA
 133,1
 ZZ
 120,8
 (1) Nomenklatura krajów ustalona w rozporządzeniu Komisji (UE) nr 1106/2012 z dnia 27 listopada 2012 r. w sprawie wykonania rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (WE) nr 471/2009 w sprawie statystyk Wspólnoty dotyczących handlu zagranicznego z państwami trzecimi, w odniesieniu do aktualizacji nazewnictwa państw i terytoriów (Dz.U. L 328 z 28.11.2012, s. 7). Kod „ZZ” odpowiada „innym pochodzeniom”.


type: caselaw

text:
 28.1.2012
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 25/22
 Uznesenie Súdneho dvora (piata komora) z 22. septembra 2011 (návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgicko) — Hubert Pagnoul/Belgické kráľovstvo
 (Vec C-314/10) (1)
 (Článok 92 ods. 1, článok 103 ods. 1 a článok 104 ods. 3 prvý pododsek rokovacieho poriadku - Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania - Preskúmanie súladu vnútroštátneho pravidla tak s právom Únie, ako aj s vnútroštátnou ústavou - Vnútroštátna právna úprava stanovujúca prednosť incidenčného konania kontroly ústavnosti - Charta základných práv Európskej únie - Potreba spojitosti s právom Únie - Zjavný nedostatok právomoci Súdneho dvora)
 (2012/C 25/37)
 Jazyk konania: francúzština
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Tribunal de première instance de Liège
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobca: Hubert Pagnoul
 Žalované: Belgické kráľovstvo
 Predmet veci
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Výklad článku 6 ZEÚ, článku 267 ZFEÚ a článku 47 Charty základných práv Európskej únie — Povinné predchádzajúce predloženie veci ústavnému súdu vnútroštátnymi súdmi v prípade údajného porušenia základných práv vnútroštátnym zákonom — Súlad vnútroštátneho ustanovenia ukladajúceho toto predchádzajúce predloženie veci s právom Únie — Možnosť vnútroštátnych súdov uskutočniť preskúmanie súladu vnútroštátnych noriem s medzinárodnými zmluvami v prípade, keď ústavný súd rozhodol o zlučiteľnosti predmetného vnútroštátneho zákona so základnými právami zaručenými ústavou
 Výrok
 Súdny dvor Európskej únie zjavne nemá právomoc rozhodnúť o prejudiciálnej otázke, ktorú mu položil Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgicko).
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ C 246, 11.9.2010.


type: other

text:
Det videresolgte sommerhus – U 1993.923 H
 Højesterets dom i sag I 156/1990. Refereret af andre i U 1993.923 H.
 Louise Sandra Clausen Louise Sandra Clausen
 Philip Hundahl Philip Hundahl
 Tema: Hjemmelsmands ugyldighedsindsigelser ved salg af fast ejendom
 En køber (A) købte i januar 1987 et sommerhus. A kom imidlertid i økonomiske problemer, og videresolgte ejendommen til en køber (B) med overtagelsesdag den 1. juli 1987 for 2,125 millioner kr., som skulle berigtiges blandt andet ved optagelse af et ejerskiftelån i B's navn på 1,670 millioner kr.. Den 15. juni 1987 blev der udfærdiget skøde med selskabet C som køber, hvoraf fremgik, at huset var et fritidshus samt at købesummen skulle berigtiges ved, at C overtog ejerskiftelånet, der nu kun var på 1,355 millioner kr.. B var imidlertid fuldmægtig for C. Der blev den 18. juni oprettet en samarbejdsaftale mellem A og B, hvorefter B bl.a. var forpligtet over for A til at betale ejerskiftelånet på 1,355 millioner kr.. Hvad der skulle gælde, såfremt ejerskiftelånet ikke blev hjemtaget, var ikke aftalt. Ved slutseddel af 10. juli 1987 videresolgte C ejendommen til D, hvilket A ikke var vidende om. Dette skete grundet en konkursbegæring mod C, som var indkommet i begyndelsen af juni, hvorfor C forsøgte at skille sig af med værdierne i selskabet. Den 26. oktober 1987 blev C erklæret konkurs med fristdag den 2. oktober 1987. D tilbageskødede ejendommen til C, og A nedlagde påstand mod C's konkursbo om, at ejendommen skulle tilskødes ham, idet han aldrig havde fået noget vederlag for ejendommen. A har nedlagt påstand om, at aftalen mellem ham og C er ugyldig i medfør af aftalelovens § 30, idet B (på vegne af C) ved aftalens indgåelse har udøvet svig, da det må lægges til grund, at det allerede fra begyndelsen var meningen, at A ikke skulle have sine penge. A har ligeledes påberåbt sig aftalelovens §§ 31, 33 og 36. Højesteret bestemmer, at B under konkurs frifindes, således at ejendommen ikke tilbageskødes til A, da ingen af de ovenfor nævnte bestemmelser findes at kunne påberåbes.
 Dommen U 1993.923 H vedrører problemstillingen angående en hjemmelsmands ugyldighedsindsigelser. En hjemmelsmands ugyldighedsindsigelser kan forekomme i mange varianter, herunder i form af aftaleretlige ugyldighedsindsigelser, som dem der blev påberåbt i ovenstående dom. I forbindelse med køb, bevirker sælgerens overgivelse af salgsgenstanden til en køber ikke, at sælgeren mister sin ret, til at påberåbe sig ugyldighedsindsigelser. I forholdet mellem en kreditorer og hjemmelsmanden, kan hertil føjes, at kreditorer som hovedregel ikke kan ekstingvere hjemmelsmandens berettigede indsigelser. Denne hovedregel bygger på et princip om, at såfremt hjemmelsmanden kan gøre en indsigelse gældende over for en aftaleerhverver, skal han også kunne gøre indsigelsen gældende over for aftaleerhververens kreditorer. Til denne hovedregel forekommer muligvis en meget snæver undtagelse, som til dels kan illustreres af U 1993.923 H.
 I U 1993.923 H når Højesteret frem til, at A ikke kan gøre sin indsigelse gældende over for B under konkurs. Denne afgørelse kan imidlertid fortolkes på flere måder:
 Højesteret fremfører, at aftalen mellem A og B ikke kan tilsidesættes på baggrund af aftalelovens §§ 31, 33 og 36. Ydermere tilføjer de, at B har handlet i strid med A's forudsætninger for overdragelsen af ejendommen, ved at videresælge ejendommen, da det stod B klart, at ejerskiftelånet ikke kunne hjemtages som planlagt. Dog mener Højesteret ikke, at A kan gøre de bristede forudsætninger vedrørende det efterfølgende forløb gældende over for C's konkursbo. Såfremt der hermed menes, at A ikke ville kunne gøre den bristede forudsætning gældende direkte over for C, følger dommen hovedreglen, som er nævnt ovenfor, idet A ikke kan gøre en indsigelse gældende over for C's konkursbo, såfremt A heller ikke kunne gøre indsigelsen gældende direkte over for C.
 Såfremt man af Højesterets begrundelse finder, at A kunne gøre indsigelsen gældende over for C men ikke over for C's konkursbo, adskiller dommen sig fra hovedreglen, og udgør en undtagelse hertil. Man kan imidlertid argumentere for, at Højesteret fandt, at forudsætningen kunne gøres gældende over for C, idet Højesteret udtaler, at det for A har været en væsentlig forudsætning, at han såfremt ejerskiftelånet ikke blev hjemtaget, var berettiget til at få ejendommen tilbageskødet. Denne forudsætning har tillige været kendelig for B og må naturligvis tillægges retlig relevans, hvorfor betingelserne for anvendelsen af forudsætningslæren er opfyldt. Såfremt denne fortolkning lægges til grund, er det bemærkelsesværdigt, at den bristede forudsætning ikke kan gøres gældende over for C's konkursbo, men udelukkende over for C. Såfremt man anvender denne fortolkning af Højesterets begrundelse, udgør dommen en undtagelse til hovedreglen om, at kreditorer ikke kan ekstingvere hjemmelsmandens berettigede indsigelser.
 Der er forskellige holdninger til hvorledes dommen skal fortolkes i litteraturen.
 Hovedreglen om at en kreditor ikke kan ekstingvere en hjemmelsmands berettigede indsigelser brydes muligvis af U 1993.923 H. I forbindelse med salget af en ejendom påberåbte sælgeren sig aftalelovens ugyldighedsindsigelser i §§ 31, 33 og 36 over for køberen. Sælgeren påberåbte sig ugyldighed, idet køberen videresolgte ejendommen, da det stod ham klart, at ejerskiftelånet ikke kunne hjemtages, hvilket ellers var forudsat i aftalen mellem sælgeren og køberen. Højesteret udtaler i forbindelse hermed, at sælgeren ikke kan gøre de bristede forudsætninger gældende over for køberens konkursbo. Hvis der hermed menes, at sælgeren derimod godt ville kunne have gjort de bristede forudsætninger gældende over for køberen, men ikke køberens konkursbo, må dommen antages at udgøre en undtagelse til den oven for nævnte hovedregel.


text:
 9.11.2013
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 325/44
 Tožba, vložena 28. avgusta 2013 – Hermann Trollius proti ECHA
 (Zadeva T-466/13)
 2013/C 325/72
 Jezik postopka: angleščina
 Stranki
 Tožeča stranka: Hermann Trollius GmbH (Lauterhofen, Nemčija) (zastopnika: M. Ahlhaus in J. Schrotz, odvetnika)
 Tožena stranka: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
 Predlogi
 Tožeča stranka Splošnemu sodišču predlaga, naj:
 —
 za nična razglasi sklep ECHA št. SME (2013) 0191 z dne 31. januarja 2013 in račun ECHA št. 10035033 z dne 4. februarja 2013; ter
 —
 toženi stranki naloži plačilo vseh stroškov, vključno s stroški, ki so nastali tožeči stranki.
 Tožbeni razlogi in bistvene trditve
 Tožeča stranka v utemeljitev tožbe navaja tri razloge.
 1.
 Prvi tožbeni razlog se nanaša na nepristojnost tožene stranke.
 —
 Tožeča stranka trdi, da tožena stranka ni bila pristojna za sprejetje izpodbijanega sklepa št. SME (2013) 0191, saj naj je niti Uredba (ES) št. 1907/2006 (1) niti Uredba (ES) št. 340/2008 (2) ne bi pooblaščali za izdajo ločene odločbe v zvezi z vprašanjem, ali registracijski zavezanec izpolnjuje MSP merila.
 2.
 Drugi tožbeni razlog se nanaša na kršitev člena 104(1) Uredbe št. 1 z dne 15. aprila 1958 (3).
 —
 Tožeča stranka trdi, da tožena stranka pri celotnem občevanju z njo ni upoštevala obveznosti občevanja z osebo, ki spada pod pristojnost države članice, v uradnem jeziku te države, in da ji je ta kršitev preprečila, da bi izpolnila zahteve v zvezi z dokazovanjem statusa malega podjetja.
 3.
 S tretjim tožbenim razlogom tožeča stranka trdi, da dejansko je majhno podjetje v skladu s Priporočilom Komisije 2003/361/ES (4) in da je torej izpodbijani sklep vsebinsko nepravilen.
 (1) Uredba (ES) št. 1907/2006 Evropskega Parlamenta in Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2006 o registraciji, evalvaciji, avtorizaciji in omejevanju kemikalij (REACH), o ustanovitvi Evropske agencije za kemikalije ter spremembi Direktive 1999/45/ES ter razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 793/93 in Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1488/94 ter Direktive Sveta 76/769/EGS in direktiv Komisije 91/155/EGS, 93/67/EGS, 93/105/ES in 2000/21/(Uredba REACH)
 (2) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 340/2008 z dne 16. aprila 2008 o pristojbinah in taksah, plačljivih Evropski agenciji za kemikalije na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o registraciji, evalvaciji, avtorizaciji in omejevanju kemikalij (REACH)
 (3) Uredba št. 1 o določitvi jezikov, ki se uporabljajo v Evropski gospodarski skupnosti
 (4) Priporočilo Komisije z dne 6. maja 2003 o opredelitvi mikro, majhnih in srednje velikih podjetij


text:
28.5.2009
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 130/12
 EEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMAS
 Nr. 24/2009
 2009 m. kovo 17 d.
 iš dalies keičiantis EEE susitarimo I priedą (Veterinarijos ir fitosanitarijos klausimai)
 EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,
 atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą su pakeitimais, padarytais Protokolu, patikslinančiu Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau – Susitarimas), ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 Susitarimo I priedas buvo iš dalies pakeistas 2009 m. vasario 5 d. EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimu Nr. 2/2009 (1).
 (2)
 Į Susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2008 m. balandžio 25 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 429/2008 dėl išsamių Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1831/2003 įgyvendinimo taisyklių, susijusių su prašymų išduoti leidimą pašarų priedams rengimu ir teikimu bei pašarų priedų vertinimu ir leidimų išdavimu (2).
 (3)
 Į Susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2008 m. birželio 6 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 505/2008 dėl leidimo naujai paskirčiai naudoti 3–fitazę (Natuphos) kaip pašarų priedą (3).
 (4)
 Į Susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2008 m. birželio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 516/2008, iš dalies keičiantis reglamentų (EB) Nr. 1200/2005, (EB) Nr. 184/2007, (EB) Nr. 243/2007, (EB) Nr. 1142/2007, (EB) Nr. 1380/2007 ir (EB) Nr. 165/2008 nuostatas dėl leidimo naudoti tam tikrus priedus gyvūnų mityboje sąlygų (4).
 (5)
 Į Susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2008 m. birželio 17 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 552/2008, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamos Reglamentų (EB) Nr. 2430/1999, (EB) Nr. 2380/2001 ir (EB) Nr. 1289/2004 nuostatos dėl leidimo naudoti tam tikrus priedus gyvūnų mityboje sąlygų (5).
 (6)
 Į Susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2008 m. birželio 17 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 554/2008 dėl leidimo 6-fitazę (Quantum Phytase) naudoti kaip pašarų priedą (6), su pataisymais, padarytais OL L 173, 2008 7 3, p. 31.
 (7)
 Šis sprendimas netaikomas Lichtenšteinui,
 NUSPRENDĖ:
 1 straipsnis
 Susitarimo I priedo II skyrius iš dalies keičiamas taip:
 1.
 1k punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 2430/1999) papildomas šia įtrauka:
 „—
 32008 R 0552: 2008 m. birželio 17 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 552/2008 (OL L 158, 2008 6 18, p. 3).“
 2.
 1y punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 2380/2001) ir 1zy punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1289/2004) papildomi šia įtrauka:
 „su pakeitimais, padarytais:
 —
 32008 R 0552: 2008 m. birželio 17 d. Komisijos reglamentu (EB) Nr. 552/2008 (OL L 158, 2008 6 18, p. 3).“
 3.
 1zzm punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1200/2005) papildomas šia įtrauka:
 „—
 32008 R 0516: 2008 m. birželio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 516/2008 (OL L 151, 2008 6 11, p. 3).“
 4.
 1zzzj punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 184/2007), 1 zzzn punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 243/2007), 1zzzzd punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1142/2007), 1zzzze punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1380/2007) ir 1zzzk punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 165/2008) papildomi taip:
 „su pakeitimais, padarytais:
 —
 32008 R 0516: 2008 m. birželio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentu (EB) Nr. 516/2008 (OL L 151, 2008 6 11, p. 3).“
 5.
 Po 1zzzzo punkto (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 393/2008) įterpiami šie punktai:
 „1zzzzp.
 32008 R 0505: 2008 m. birželio 6 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 505/2008 dėl leidimo naujai paskirčiai naudoti 3-fitazę (Natuphos) kaip pašarų priedą (OL L 149, 2008 6 7, p. 33).
 1zzzzq.
 32008 R 0554: 2008 m. birželio 17 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 554/2008 dėl leidimo 6-fitazę (Quantum Phytase) naudoti kaip pašarų priedą (OL L 158, 2008 6 18, p. 14), su pataisymais, padarytais OL L 173, 2008 7 3, p. 31.“
 6.
 Po 3a punkto (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1436/98) įterpiamas šis punktas:
 „3b.
 32008 R 0429: 2008 m. balandžio 25 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 429/2008 dėl išsamių Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1831/2003 įgyvendinimo taisyklių, susijusių su prašymų išduoti leidimą pašarų priedams rengimu ir teikimu bei pašarų priedų vertinimu ir leidimų išdavimu (OL L 133, 2008 5 22, p. 1).“
 2 straipsnis
 Reglamentų (EB) Nr. 429/2008, Nr. 505/2008, Nr. 516/2008, Nr. 552/2008 ir Nr. 554/2008 su pataisymais, padarytais OL L 173, 2008 7 3, p. 31, tekstai islandų ir norvegų kalbomis, kurie turi būti paskelbti Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede, yra autentiški.
 3 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja 2009 m. kovo 18 d., jei EEE jungtiniam komitetui buvo pateikti visi pranešimai, kurie numatyti Susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalyje (7).
 4 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE skyriuje ir EEE priede.
 Priimta Briuselyje, 2009 m. kovo 17 d.
 EEE jungtinio komiteto vardu
 Pirmininkas
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) OL L 73, 2009 3 19, p. 32.
 (2) OL L 133, 2008 5 22, p. 1.
 (3) OL L 149, 2008 6 7, p. 33.
 (4) OL L 151, 2008 6 11, p. 3.
 (5) OL L 158, 2008 6 18, p. 3.
 (6) OL L 158, 2008 6 18, p. 14.
 (7) Konstituciniai reikalavimai nenurodyti.


text:
6. 4. 74 Journal officiel des Communautés européennes N° C 39/29
 CONSEIL
 ACCORD
 relatif aux échanges avec les pays et territoires d'outre-mer portant sur les produits
 relevant de la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l'acier
 (14 décembre 1970)
 SA M A J E S T É LE ROI DES BELGES,
 LE PRÉSIDENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE FÉDÉRALE D ' A L L E M A G N E ,
 LE PRÉSIDENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE,
 LE PRÉ SIDENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE I T A L I E N N E ,
 S O N ALTESSE ROYALE LE G R A N D - D U C DE L U X E M B O U R G ,
 SA M A J E S T É LA REINE DES PAYS-BAS,
 parties contractantes au traité instituant la C o m m u n a u t é européenne du charbon et de l'acier
 signé à Paris le 17 avril 1951 et dont les États sont ci-après dénommés États membres,
 VU le traité instituant la C o m m u n a u t é européenne du charbon et de l'acier,
 VU le traité instituant la C o m m u n a u t é économique européenne, et n o t a m m e n t son article 232,
 P R E N A N T en considération le fait que le régime d'association entre la C o m m u n a u t é
 économique européenne et les pays et territoires d'outre-mer associés à cette C o m m u n a u t é ,
 ci-après appelés pays et territoires, ne s'applique pas aux produits qui relèvent de la
 C o m m u n a u t é européenne du charbon et de l'acier,
 SOUCIEUX toutefois de maintenir et d'intensifier entre les États membres et les pays et
 territoires les échanges p o r t a n t sur ces produits,
 O N T désigné c o m m e plénipotentiaires:
 SA M A J E S T É LE R O I DES BELGES:
 M . Pierre H A R M E L ,
 ministre des affaires étrangères;
 LE PRÉSIDENT D E LA RÉPUBLIQUE FÉDÉRALE D ' A L L E M A G N E :
 M . Walter SCHEEL,
 ministre des affaires étrangères;
 LE P R É S I D E N T DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE:
 M. Maurice S C H U M A N N ,
 ministre des affaires étrangères;
 ---pagebreak--- N° C 39/30 Journal officiel des Communautés européennes 6. 4. 74
 LE PRÉSIDENT DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE ITALIENNE:
 M. Aldo M O R O ,
 ministre des affaires étrangères;
 SON ALTESSE ROYALE LE G R A N D - D U C DE LUXEMBOURG:
 M. Gaston T H O R N ,
 ministre des affaires étrangères;
 SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE DES PAYS-BAS:
 M. J. M. A. H. LUNS,
 ministre des affaires étrangères;
 LESQUELS, après avoir échangé leurs pleins pouvoirs, reconnus en bonne et due forme,
 S O N T CONVENUS DES DISPOSITIONS QUI SUIVENT:
 Article premier Article 4
 Le présent accord ne modifie pas les dispositions
 Sous réserve des mesures susceptibles d'être prises du traité instituant la Communauté européenne du
 en application du chapitre X du traité instituant la charbon et de l'acier, ni les pouvoirs et compétences
 Communauté européenne du charbon et de l'acier, découlant des dispositions de ce traité.
 les produits qui relèvent de cette Communauté sont
 admis à l'importation dans la Communauté, lorsqu'ils
 sont originaires des pays et territoires, en exemption Article 5
 des droits de douane et taxes d'effet équivalant à
 de tels droits sans que le traitement réservé à ces Le présent accord est approuvé par chaque État
 produits puisse être plus favorable que celui que les signataire conformément aux règles constitutionnelles
 États membres s'accordent entre eux. qui lui sont propres. Le gouvernement de chaque
 État notifie au secrétariat du Conseil des Commu-
 nautés européennes l'accomplissement des procédures
 Article 2 requises pour l'entrée en vigueur du présent accord.
 Celui-ci entre en vigueur le premier jour du mois
 Les produits susvisés originaires des États membres suivant la date à laquelle ont été déposés les instru-
 sont admis à l'importation dans les pays et territoires ments de ratification des États membres.
 en exemption de droits de douane et taxes d'effet
 équivalant à de tels droits ainsi que de restrictions
 quantitatives et mesures d'effet équivalent, dans des Article 6
 conditions analogues à celles qui sont prévues au
 chapitre I du titre I et à l'article 15 paragraphe 1 de Le présent accord vient à expiration le 31 janvier
 la décision relative à l'association des pays et 1975.
 territoires d'outre-mer à la Communauté économique
 européenne, ainsi qu'aux annexes II et III de cette
 décision. Article 7
 Le présent "accord, rédigé en un exemplaire unique
 Article 3 en langues allemande, française, italienne et néer-
 landaise, chacun de ces textes faisant également foi,
 Des consultations ont lieu entre les parties intéressées sera déposé dans les archives du secrétariat du
 dans tous les cas où, de l'avis d'une d'entre elles, Conseil des Communautés européennes qui en remet-
 l'application des dispositions ci-dessus le rend tra une copie certifiée conforme aux gouvernements
 nécessaire. de chacun des États signataires.
 Zu Urkund dessen haben die unterzeichneten Bevollmâchtigten ihre Unterschriften
 unter dieses Abkommen gesetzt.
 En foi de quoi, les plénipotentiaires soussignés ont apposé leurs signatures au bas du
 présent accord.
 ---pagebreak--- 6. 4. 74 Journal officiel des Communautés européennes N° C 39/31
 In fede di che, i plenipotenziari sottoscritto hanno apposto le loro firme in calce al
 présente Accordo.
 Ten blijke waarvan de ondergetekende gevolmachtigden hun handtekening onder dit
 Akkoord hebben gesteld.
 Geschehen zu Brùssel am vierzehnten Dezember neunzehnhundertsiebzig.
 Fait à Bruxelles, le quatorze décembre mil neuf cent soixante-dix.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, addi quattordici dicembre millenovecentosettanta.
 Gedaan te Brussel, de veertiende december negentienhonderd zeventig.
 Pour Sa Majesté le roi des Belges,
 Voor Zijne Majesteit de Koning der Belgen
 P. HARMEL
 Fur den Prâsidenten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
 W. SCHEEL
 Pour le président de la République française
 M. SCHUMANN
 Per il Présidente délia Repubblica italiana
 A. MORO
 Pour Son Altesse Royale le grand-duc de Luxembourg
 G. THORN
 Voor Hare Majesteit de Koningin der Nederlanden
 J. M. A. H. LUNS


text:
 11.7.2016
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 251/3
 Acțiune introdusă la 18 martie 2016 - Comisia Europeană/Republica Elenă
 (Cauza C-160/16)
 (2016/C 251/04)
 Limba de procedură: greaca
 Părțile
 Reclamantă: Comisia Europeană (reprezentanți: G. Zavvos și K. Talabér-Ritz)
 Pârâtă: Republica Elenă
 Concluziile reclamantei
 Reclamanta solicită Curții:
 —
 constatarea faptului că, prin necomunicarea către Comisie a unui raport privind nivelurile optime din punctul de vedere al costurilor, astfel cum impune articolul 5 alineatul (2) din Directiva 2010/31/UE (1) a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 19 mai 2010 privind performanța energetică a clădirilor, astfel cum a fost completat prin Regulamentul delegat (UE) nr. 244/2012 (2) al Comisiei din 16 ianuarie 2012 de stabilire a unui cadru metodologic comparativ de calcul al nivelurilor optime, din punctul de vedere al costurilor, ale cerințelor minime de performanță energetică a clădirilor și a elementelor acestora, Republica Elenă nu și-a îndeplinit obligațiile care îi revin în temeiul acestei dispoziții;
 —
 obligarea Republicii Elene la plata cheltuielilor de judecată.
 Motivele și principalele argumente
 1.
 La 18 martie 2016, Comisia Europeană a formulat o acțiune împotriva Republicii Elene prin care solicită Curții să constate că, prin necomunicarea către Comisie a unui raport privind nivelurile optime din punctul de vedere al costurilor, astfel cum impune articolul 5 alineatul (2) din Directiva 2010/31/UE a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 19 mai 2010 privind performanța energetică a clădirilor, astfel cum a fost completat prin Regulamentul delegat (UE) nr. 244/2012 al Comisiei din 16 ianuarie 2012 de stabilire a unui cadru metodologic comparativ de calcul al nivelurilor optime, din punctul de vedere al costurilor, ale cerințelor minime de performanță energetică a clădirilor și a elementelor acestora, Republica Elenă nu și-a îndeplinit obligațiile care îi revin în temeiul acestei dispoziții.
 2.
 Prin acțiunea formulată, Comisia susține că, în pofida cererilor sale repetate în acest sens, autoritățile elene nu i-au comunicat încă raportul definitiv privind nivelurile optime din punctul de vedere al costurilor ale cerințelor minime de performanță energetică a clădirilor și a elementelor acestora, prin utilizarea cadrului metodologic comparativ stabilit prin Regulamentul delegat (UE) nr. 244/2012 al Comisiei și că, în consecință, există o neîndeplinire a obligațiilor stabilite prin articolul 5 alineatul (2) din Directiva 2010/31/UE.
 (1) JO 2010 L 153, p. 13.
 (2) JO 2012 L 81, p. 18.


text:
 5.12.2009
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 297/33
 Rikors ippreżentat fis-16 ta’ Ottubru 2009 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator vs UASI — Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)
 (Kawża T-417/09)
 2009/C 297/50
 Lingwa tar-rikors: L-Ingliż
 Partijiet
 Rikorrenti: Poslovni Sistem Mercator, d.d. (Ljubljana, is-Slovenja) (rappreżentanti: M. Curell Aguila u J. Güell Serra, avukati)
 Konvenut: L-Uffiċċju għall-Armonizzazzjoni fis-Suq Intern (Trade marks u Disinni)
 Parti oħra quddiem il-Bord tal-Appell: Mercator Multihull, Inc. (Vancouver, il-Kanada)
 Talbiet tar-rikorrenti
 —
 tannulla d-deċiżjoni tal-Ewwel Bord tal-Appell tal-Uffiċċju għall-Armonizzazzjoni fis-Suq Intern (Trade Marks u Disinni) tas-16 ta’ Lulju 2009 fil-Każ R 1031/2008-1;
 —
 tikkundanna lill-UASI għall-ispejjeż.
 Motivi u argumenti prinċipali
 Applikant għat-trade mark Komunitarja: Mercator Multihull, Inc.
 Trade mark Komunitarja kkonċernata: It-trade mark verbali “MERCATOR STUDIOS”, għal prodotti fil-klassi 42
 Proprjetarju tat-trade mark jew tas-sinjal invokat insostenn tal-oppożizzjoni: Ir-rikorrenti
 Trade mark jew sinjal invokat in sostenn tal-oppożizzjoni: Reġistrazzjonijiet fis-Slovenja tat-trade mark figurattiva “Mercator” għal servizzi fil-klassijiet 35, 36, 39, 41 u 42, u għal prodotti fil-klassijiet 1-6, 8-11, 13-34; Reġistrazzjoni fis-Slovenja tat-trade mark figurattiva “Mercator Slovenska Košarica” għal prodotti u servizzi fil-klassijiet 1-6, 8-11, 13-34, 39, 41, 43 u 44; Reġistrazzjonijiet internazzjonali tat-trade mark “Mercator”, għal prodotti fil-klassijiet 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20-33, u għal servizzi fil-klassijiet 36, 41 u 42
 Deċiżjoni tad-Diviżjoni tal-Oppożizzjoni: Oppożizzjoni miċħuda
 Deċiżjoni tal-Bord tal-Appell: Appell miċħud
 Motivi invokati: Ksur tal-Artikoli 8(1)(b) u 8(5) tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill 40/94 (li saru l-Artikoli 8(1)(b) u 8(5) tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill Nru 207/2009) peress li l-Bord tal-Appell naqas li jwettaq analiżi globali tal-fatturi rilevanti u minflok ċaħad l-oppożizzjoni fuq il-bażi li s-servizzi huma differenti, u evalwa b’mod żbaljat l-oppożizzjoni bbażata fuq din id-dispożizzjoni tal-aħħar.


text:
OLG Nürnberg Urteil vom 08.07.2013 - 4 U 414/13 - Warnpflicht bei Installation eines versenkbaren Pollers
 OLG Nürnberg v. 08.07.2013: Zur Warnpflicht des Verkehrssicherungspflichtigen bei Installation eines versenkbaren Pollers
 Das OLG Nürnberg (Urteil vom 08.07.2013 - 4 U 414/13) hat entschieden:
 Es stellt eine Verletzung der Verkehrssicherungspflicht dar, wenn ein zur Sperrung der Einfahrt zu einem Krankenhaus versenkbarer Poller nach der Durchfahrt eines Fahrzeugs automatisch hochfährt und ein weiteres einfahrendes Fahrzeug, dessen Fahrer wegen fehlender Hinweise nicht mit einem hochfahrenden Poller rechnen musste, beschädigt.
 Siehe auch Verkehrssicherungspflicht und Stichwörter zum Thema Schadensersatz und Unfallregulierung
 Gegenstand des Rechtsstreits sind Schadensersatzansprüche des Klägers wegen der Beschädigung eines seiner Dienstfahrzeuge. Der PKW wurde dadurch beschädigt, dass ein versenkbarer Poller im Einfahrtsbereich der Zufahrt zum St.-Anna-Krankenhaus der Beklagten in dem Moment hochfuhr, als der Dienstwagenfahrer der Regierungspräsidentin in das Gelände einfuhr und der PKW sodann mit dem Poller kollidierte.
 Mit Endurteil vom 29.01.2013, auf dessen tatsächliche Feststellungen gemäß § 540 Abs. 1 Nr. 1, Abs. 2, 313 a Abs. 1 ZPO Bezug genommen wird, hat das Landgericht Amberg die Beklagte zur Zahlung von 8.398,58 Euro und damit zum Ersatz von zwei Dritteln des unfallbedingten Schadens des Klägers verurteilt. Zur Begründung hat es ausgeführt, die Beklagte habe ihre Verkehrssicherungspflicht verletzt, da sie keine Vorkehrungen getroffen habe, um die von dem absenkbaren Poller ausgehende Gefahr für einfahrende Fahrzeuge abzuwenden. Andererseits treffe den Dienstwagenfahrer ein mit 1/3 bewertetes Mitverschulden, da er in die Zufahrt eingefahren sei, ohne sich an der Sprechstelle anzumelden oder sich ausdrücklich zu versichern, dass die Einfahrt problemlos möglich sei.
 Gegen dieses Urteil haben die Beklagten Berufung und der Kläger Anschlussberufung eingelegt. Beide Parteien vertiefen im Wesentlichen ihren jeweiligen Standpunkt. Auf die gewechselten Schriftsätze wird insoweit Bezug genommen.
 das Urteil des Landgerichts Amberg vom 29.01.2013 abzuändern, die Klage abzuweisen und die Anschlussberufung des Klägers zurückzuweisen.
 die Berufung der Beklagten zurückzuweisen, das Endurteil des Landgerichts Amberg vom 29.01.2013 abzuändern und die Beklagte zu verurteilen, an die Klägerin 12.597,87 Euro nebst Zinsen in Höhe von 5 Prozentpunkten über dem Basiszinssatz seit 02.08.2011 zu bezahlen.
 Der Senat hat ergänzend Beweis erhoben durch Inaugenscheinnahme der Videoaufzeichnung der im Zufahrtsbereich des Krankenhauses installierten Videoanlage. Die Aufzeichnung dokumentiert filmisch den Hergang des streitgegenständlichen Unfalls. Auf das Sitzungsprotokoll vom 17.06.2013 wird Bezug genommen.
 1. Die zulässige Berufung hat in der Sache keinen Erfolg. Als maßgebliche Ursache für den eingetretenen Schaden am Dienstfahrzeug des Klägers sieht der Senat in Übereinstimmung mit der angegriffenen Entscheidung des Landgerichts die Verletzung der der Beklagten obliegenden Verkehrssicherungspflicht für die Zufahrt des von ihr betriebenen Krankenhauses an.
 a) Mit der Installation eines versenkbaren massiven Pollers im Zufahrtsbereich zum Krankenhausgelände hat die Beklagte aktiv eine erhebliche Gefahrenquelle für den einfahrenden Fahrzeugverkehr geschaffen. Daraus resultiert die Pflicht, insbesondere ortsunkundige Verkehrsteilnehmer durch geeignete Maßnahmen nachhaltig vor der Gefahr des hochfahrenden Pollers zu warnen, beziehungsweise durch technische Mittel zu verhindern, dass der Poller auch dann ausgefahren wird, wenn sich ein Fahrzeug in dessen unmittelbarer Nähe befindet (vgl. hierzu OLG Saarbrücken, Urteil vom 31.08.2004, MDR 2004, 1351).
 Vorliegend hat die Beklagte den einfahrenden Verkehr weder auf die Gefahr des Hochfahrens des versenkten Pollers hingewiesen noch durch geeignete Mittel verhindert, dass der Poller unmittelbar vor dem Dienstwagen ausfuhr. Ein elektromechanisch ausfahrender Poller stellt nach ständiger obergerichtlicher Rechtsprechung eine besondere Gefahrenquelle im Straßenraum dar (vgl. OLG Saarbrücken, Urteil vom 15.05.2012, 4 U 54/11, zitiert nach ibr-online; OLG Hamm, Urteil vom 26.05.2009, NZV 2010, 353; OLG Saarbrücken, Urteil vom 31.08.2004, MDR 2004, 1351; OLG Hamm, Urteil vom 03.07.1998, NJW-RR 1999, 753). Dies resultiert alleine schon daraus, dass selbst ein besonders aufmerksamer Verkehrsteilnehmer nicht damit rechnet oder rechnen muss, dass sich vor ihm plötzlich und ohne wahrnehmbare Beeinflussung von außen inmitten der Fahrbahn ein zuvor für ihn nicht wahrnehmbares, unüberwindbares Hindernis auftut. Dadurch unterscheidet sich ein abgesenkter Poller wesentlich von einem festen Poller oder einer Schranke, die sowohl in herabgelassenem als auch in geöffnetem Zustand für den in das Gelände einfahrenden Verkehr jederzeit als zumindest potentielles Hindernis erkennbar sind, so dass die Verkehrsteilnehmer ihr Fahrverhalten darauf einstellen können.
 Nach Inaugenscheinnahme der vorgelegten Lichtbilder von der Unfallörtlichkeit und der vorliegenden Videoaufzeichnung hat sich der Senat davon überzeugt, dass der abgesenkte Poller für einen herannahenden PKW-Fahrer nicht als potentielles Hindernis wahrnehmbar war und dass - jedenfalls zum Zeitpunkt des streitgegenständlichen Unfalls - weder ein Warnschild noch eine Warnlampe oder eine akustische Warnvorrichtung den einfahrenden Verkehr in irgendeiner Weise auf die mit dem ausfahrenden Poller verbundene Gefahr aufmerksam gemacht hat. Für den ortsunkundigen Verkehrsteilnehmer war es auch nicht erkennbar, dass die in die Sprechsäule integrierten kleinen Lämpchen, die für einen PKH-Fahrer ohnehin erst sichtbar sind, wenn er mit dem Fahrzeug direkt in Höhe der Sprechsäule steht, die Funktion oder Bedeutung haben könnten, ihn vor einem zuvor nicht erkennbaren, unvermittelt die Zufahrt versperrenden Hindernis zu warnen.
 b) Die Beklagte kann sich auch nicht damit entlasten, dass sie an der Zufahrt zum Krankenhausgelände das Verkehrszeichen 250 ("Verbot für Fahrzeuge aller Art") mit dem Zusatzschild "Zufahrt nur für Krankentransporte aller Art und zu den Behindertenparkplätzen (G). Bitte melden Sie sich an der Sprechsäule. Dieser Platz wird videoüberwacht" angebracht hat und das sich auf der Sprechsäule die Aufschrift "Com-Center, bitte läuten, Durchfahrt erst nach Aufleuchten des grünen Lichts" befand. Zum einen muss derjenige, der wie hier die Beklagte aktiv eine besondere Gefahrenquelle schafft, sicherstellen, dass auch eine naheliegende bestimmungswidrige Benutzung der Verkehrsfläche nicht zu einer Schadensverursachung führt (vgl. OLG Saarbrücken, Urteil vom 31.08.2004, a.a.O. , m. w. N.). Zum anderen ist der Fahrer des Dienstwagens nicht unberechtigt in das Krankenhausgelände eingefahren. Bei der Delegation um die Regierungspräsidentin und den Landrat handelte es sich um einen angemeldeten und erwarteten Besuch. Der Fahrer des ersten Dienstwagens meldete den Besuch ordnungsgemäß an der Sprechstelle an, woraufhin der Poller abgesenkt wurde, um der Delegation die Einfahrt zu ermöglichen. Dass der angemeldeten Regierungspräsidentin die Einfahrt auf das Krankenhausgelände mit ihrem Dienstwagen nicht gestattet worden wäre, wird auch von der Beklagten nicht behauptet. Der Dienstwagenfahrer konnte und durfte deshalb davon ausgehen, dass nicht jedes Fahrzeug der Delegation einzeln an der Sprechstelle halten müsse, um sich anzumelden. Den Fahrer des Dienstwagens des Klägers trifft daher an dem Unfall kein (Mit-)Verschulden.
 2. Der Schadensersatzanspruch des Klägers ist auch durch die Betriebsgefahr seines Dienstwagens nicht gemindert, § 7 Abs. 1 StVG i. V. m. § 254 BGB. Nach Inaugenscheinnahme der Videoaufzeichnung ist der Senat zu der Überzeugung gelangt, dass die Kollision mit dem unmittelbar vor dem herannahenden Dienstfahrzeug ausfahrenden Poller für den Fahrer des Dienstwagens unvermeidbar war. Dabei war vorliegend zu berücksichtigen, dass sich für den einfahrenden Verkehr damals - die vorgelegten aktuellen Fotoaufnahmen zeigen, dass der Missstand inzwischen beseitigt worden ist - keinerlei Hinweis auf die Gefahr eines ausfahrenden Pollers fand. In der konkreten Situation ist es deshalb nicht vorwerfbar, dass der Dienstwagenfahrer sein Augenmerk auf den vor ihm rangierenden PKW richtete und anfuhr, als sich auch dieses Fahrzeug wieder in Vorwärtsbewegung befand und die Einfahrt frei machte. Dabei kann es dahinstehen, ob der ausfahrende Poller buchstäblich in letzter Sekunde theoretisch noch im Sichtfeld des Dienstwagenfahrers zu erkennen gewesen wäre, da die Kollision auch dann alleine auf Grund der natürlichen Reaktionszeit des Fahrers objektiv nicht mehr zu vermeiden war.
 3. Auf die Anschlussberufung des Klägers war deshalb das landgerichtliche Urteil abzuändern. Der Kläger hat Anspruch auf Ersatz seines gesamten erstattungsfähigen Unfallschadens, den das Landgericht zutreffend auf insgesamt 12.597,87 Euro berechnet hat. Auf die Ausführungen im Ersturteil wird insoweit Bezug genommen. Anhaltspunkte, die eine hiervon abweichende Beurteilung rechtfertigen könnten, zeigt die Berufung nicht auf.
 4. Der Zinsanspruch ergibt sich aus §§ 286 Abs. 1 Satz 2, 288 Abs. 1 BGB.
 5. Die Beklagte hat als unterlegene Partei gemäß §§ 91, 92 Abs. 2 Nr.1, 97 Abs. 1 ZPO die Kosten beider Rechtszüge zu tragen. Die Zuvielforderung des Klägers in erster Instanz hinsichtlich des Nutzungsentgangs betrug weniger als 5 % des Gesamtstreitwertes, war verhältnismäßig gering und veranlasste nur geringfügig höhere Kosten.
 6. Die Entscheidung zu vorläufigen Vollstreckbarkeit folgt aus §§ 708 Nr. 10, 711, 713 ZPO.
 7. Die Revision war nicht zuzulassen. Gründe, die die Zulassung der Revision gemäß § 543 Abs. 2 Satz 1 ZPO rechtfertigen würden, hat die beklagte Partei nicht aufgezeigt und liegen auch nicht vor. Es handelt sich um eine von besonderen tatsächlichen Umständen gekennzeichnete Einzelfallentscheidung, die von der höchst- oder obergerichtlichen Rechtsprechung nicht abweicht.


jurisdiction: US

text: b'\x0c REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND\n SECONDARY EDUCATION\n DISCRETIONARY GRANTS MONITORING PROCESS\n\n\n\n FINAL AUDIT REPORT\n\n\n\n\n CONTROL NUMBER ED-OIG/A03-A0021\n SEPTEMBER 2001\n\n\n\n\nOur mission is to promote the efficiency, U.S. Department of Education\neffectiveness, and integrity of the Office of Inspector General\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s programs and operations. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania\n\x0c NOTICE:\n\nStatements that financial and/or managerial practices need improvement or\nrecommendations that costs questioned be refunded or unsupported costs\nbe adequately supported, and recommendations for the better use of funds,\nas well as other conclusions and recommendations in this report, represent\nthe opinions of the Office of Inspector General. Determinations on these\nmatters will be made by the appropriate Education Department officials.\nIn accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC \xc2\xa7552), reports\nissued by the Office of Inspector General are available, if requested, to\nmembers of the press and general public to the extent information\ncontained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.\n\x0cReview of the Office of Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Discretionary Grants Monitoring Process Control Number ED-OIG/A03-A0021\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\n\nExecutive Summary 1\n\n\nAudit Results 2\n\n\n Finding No. 1 - OESE should implement a systematic process to\n identify and monitor high-risk grantees 2\n\n Recommendations 4\n\n Finding No. 2 - OESE has not implemented the Departmental Directive\n on monitoring discretionary grants. 5\n\n Recommendation 6\n\nBackground 6\n\n\nObjective, Scope and Methodology 6\n\n\nStatement on Management Controls 7\n\n\nAppendix A: OESE Discretionary Grant Monitoring Methods 8\n\n\nAppendix B: OESE Grant Files Reviewed for Monitoring Documentation 9\n\n\nAppendix C: OESE\xe2\x80\x99s Comments to the Report 10\n\x0cReview of the Office of Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Discretionary Grants Monitoring Process Control Number ED-OIG/A03-A0021\n\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nWe performed an audit of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)\nmonitoring of discretionary grants. The objective of our audit was to evaluate OESE\xe2\x80\x99s\ndiscretionary grant monitoring process for identifying and monitoring high-risk grantees.1\n\nOur review of the OESE discretionary grants monitoring process disclosed that OESE\nprogram offices visited had a process for monitoring discretionary grants, but the process\nneeds improvement. Through interviews with representatives from OESE program\noffices and a review of selected grantees\xe2\x80\x99 files, we found that OESE should implement a\nsystematic process to identify and monitor high-risk grantees. In addition, OESE should\nincorporate into the monitoring process a review of the grantees\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit reports.\nFurthermore, program officials\xe2\x80\x99 monitoring activity should be documented, and\ninformation on grantees designated as high-risk should be shared with other program\noffices.\n\nWe also found that OESE did not prepare a strategic monitoring plan, annual monitoring\nplan or annual monitoring report in accordance with the Departmental Directive,\nMonitoring Discretionary Grants and Cooperative Agreements, issued March 23, 1994.\n\nAn integral part of having an effective discretionary grant monitoring process is OESE\xe2\x80\x99s\nimplementation of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Directive and making available to program officials\nall available information to assist in identifying and monitoring high-risk grantees.\n\nCopies of a draft audit report were provided for OESE\xe2\x80\x99s review and comment. In its\nresponse, OESE concurred with the findings and recommendations detailed in the report.\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Develop a systematic process to identify and monitor high-risk grantees which\n includes a process for program offices to obtain and review grantees\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit\n reports, with findings related to Departmental programs, for use as an indicator to\n identify high-risk grantees.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Include in the monitoring process a provision for documenting the monitoring\n activity.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Implement a system to share information on grantees designated as high-risk between\n program offices.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Implement the requirements in the Departmental Directive, Monitoring Discretionary\n Grants and Cooperative Agreements.\n1\n 34 CFR \xc2\xa7 80.12 states, \xe2\x80\x9ca grantee or subgrantee may be considered \xe2\x80\x98high-risk\xe2\x80\x99 if an awarding agency\ndetermines that grantee or subgrantee: (1) has a history of unsatisfactory performance, or (2) is not\nfinancially stable, or (3) has a management system which does not meet the management standards set forth\nin this part, or (4) has not conformed to terms and conditions of previous awards, or (5) is otherwise not\nresponsible.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n 1\n\x0cReview of the Office of Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Discretionary Grants Monitoring Process Control Number ED-OIG/A03-A0021\n\n\n AUDIT RESULTS\n\nOur review of OESE\xe2\x80\x99s discretionary grants monitoring process disclosed that OESE\nprogram offices visited had a process for monitoring discretionary grants, but the process\nneeds improvement. Through interviews with representatives from OESE program\noffices and a review of selected grantees\xe2\x80\x99 files, we found that OESE should implement a\nsystematic process to identify and monitor high-risk grantees. In addition, OESE should\nincorporate into the monitoring process a review of grantees\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit reports.\nFurthermore, information on grantees designated as high-risk should be shared between\nprogram offices.\n\nWe also found that OESE did not prepare a strategic monitoring plan, annual monitoring\nplan, and annual monitoring report in accordance with the Departmental Directive,\nMonitoring Discretionary Grants and Cooperative Agreements.\n\nCopies of a draft audit report were provided for OESE\xe2\x80\x99s review and comment. In their\nresponse, OESE concurred with the findings and recommendations detailed in the report.\nOESE\xe2\x80\x99s complete response is included as an appendix to this report.\n\n\nFINDING NO. 1 - OESE should implement a systematic process to identify\nand monitor high-risk grantees.\n\n\nThe Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1)\nstate that internal controls should generally be designed to assure that ongoing monitoring\noccurs in the course of normal operations. It is performed continually and is ingrained in\nthe agency\xe2\x80\x99s operations. It includes regular management and supervisory activities,\ncomparisons, reconciliations, and other actions people take in performing their duties. As\nthe stewards of federal education funds, the Department must ensure that federal funds\nare spent appropriately and grant projects\xe2\x80\x99 objectives are being met. OESE needs to\nimplement an office-wide strategy to identify and monitor high-risk grantees to ensure\nthe accountability and effectiveness of discretionary grant programs.\n\nWe performed work on nine discretionary grant programs within OESE and found that\nthere was not a systematic process to identify and monitor high-risk grantees. Discussion\nwith program officials disclosed that, although some grantees were viewed as\nproblematic, they did not have a systematic process for identifying grantees as high risk.\nWe found that only one of the nine programs had designated grantees as high-risk. That\nprogram office identified two grantees as high-risk, one through monitoring activities and\nthe other from a parent\xe2\x80\x99s complaint.\n\nProgram officials also indicated that 34 CFR \xc2\xa780.12, Special grants or subgrant\nconditions for high-risk grantees, provided the guidance necessary to identify and\nmonitor high-risk grantees. However, 34 CFR \xc2\xa780.12 does not establish the procedures\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cReview of the Office of Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Discretionary Grants Monitoring Process Control Number ED-OIG/A03-A0021\n\nfor determining which grantees meet the characteristics set out in the regulation. In\naddition, OMB Circular A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and\nLocal Governments, 2(f) Post-Award Policies - Site Visits and Technical Assistance,\nstates, \xe2\x80\x9cAgencies shall conduct site visits only as warranted by program or project needs.\nTechnical assistance site visits shall be provided only (1) in response to requests from\ngrantees, (2) based on demonstrated program need, or (3) when recipients are designated\n\xe2\x80\x98high risk\xe2\x80\x99 under section [34 CFR \xc2\xa7 80] of the grants management common rule.\xe2\x80\x9d OESE\ndoes not have a process to determine what grantees are high risk or when site visits are\nwarranted.\n\nThe basic process to identify high-risk grantees should include reviewing readily\navailable information pertaining to grantees. Within the Department, this information\nincludes (1) grantees\xe2\x80\x99 annual performance reports; (2) the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Grants\nAdministrative Payment System (GAPS) information pertaining to grantees with\nexcessive drawdowns of federal funds early in the performance period or drawndowns of\nfederal funds on an irregular basis; (3) the results of the principal office\xe2\x80\x99s partnership and\naccountability activities relating to the grantee; (4) information available from the Federal\nAudit Clearinghouse (available on the internet at http://harvester.census.gov/sac/)\nconcerning the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s Single Audit reports; and (5) information on grantees designated\nas high-risk by other program offices. This information can be used in conjunction with\n34 CFR \xc2\xa780.12, which establishes the criteria, special conditions or restrictions, and\nnotification methods for grantee or subgrantees designated as high-risk. Identifying high-\nrisk grantees enables program officials to assign scarce resources for additional\nmonitoring activities of grantees that may require the most assistance.\n\nA review of discretionary grantees\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit reports with findings related to\nDepartmental programs should be incorporated into OESE program offices\xe2\x80\x99\nmonitoring practices.\n\nA tool available to program officials to identify and monitor high-risk grantees is the\nSingle Audit report. A Single Audit is an organization-wide audit of grantees that\nfocuses on their internal controls and compliance with laws and regulations governing\nfederal funds.\n\nWe found that program officials did not use the results of Single Audit reports to oversee\nand monitor grantees. During our conversations with program officials, some officials\nindicated that, if available, they would use information from grantees\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit\nreports to help identify and monitor high-risk grantees. The summary results of most\ngrantees\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit reports are maintained on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse web-\nsite. Although this information is publicly available, it is not widely used by program\nofficials. The same Single Audit report information is gathered by Office of Chief\nFinancial Officer (OCFO) for the Department\xe2\x80\x99s audit resolution process. OCFO only\nshares audit finding information with program officials when the findings are specific to\nthe program and technical in nature. In many cases, discretionary grants do not receive\nSingle Audit coverage because these grants are not considered a major federal program\ndue to the dollar amount of the federal award. Although discretionary grants may not\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cReview of the Office of Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Discretionary Grants Monitoring Process Control Number ED-OIG/A03-A0021\n\nreceive audit coverage, grantees\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit reports contain useful information that\nmay assist program officials in identifying potential high-risk grantees that may require\nadditional monitoring and technical assistance. Grantees\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit reports contain\ninformation on grantees\xe2\x80\x99 financial position, an assessment of their internal and\nmanagement control system, and findings concerning other programs that may indicate\nweakness in their administration of discretionary grants.\n\nInformation on grantees designated as high-risk should be shared between OESE\nprogram offices.\n\nOur review disclosed that when a program office identifies a grantee as high-risk, the\ninformation is not shared with other OESE program offices. Discussions with OESE\nprogram officials disclosed that they were not aware of two Magnet School Assistance\nProgram grantees that were designated high-risk. We found that one of these high-risk\ngrantees received twelve OESE discretionary grants and the other received one. Once a\ngrantee is designated as high-risk, other program offices should be aware of the grantee\xe2\x80\x99s\nhigh-risk status. The other program offices can then perform additional monitoring of\nthese grantees as necessary.\n\nMonitoring activity should be documented.\n\nIn the five OESE program offices visited (nine programs reviewed), we reviewed\nselected grantee files and found that program officials maintained some documentation of\nmonitoring activities. There were wide variations in the level of documentation of\nmonitoring activity contained in grant files reviewed. (See Appendix B: OESE Grant\nFiles Reviewed for Monitoring Documentation.) The level of documentation in the files\nwas based primarily on what the program staff believed to be necessary for monitoring.\nWe also noted that there were no written procedures as to how program staff should be\ndocumenting ongoing monitoring activities.\n\nRecommendations:\n\nWe recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education:\n\n1.1 Develop a systematic process to identify and monitor high-risk grantees, which\n includes a process for program offices to obtain and review grantees\xe2\x80\x99 Single Audit\n reports with findings related to Departmental programs, for use as an indicator to\n identify high-risk grantees.\n\n1.2 Include in the monitoring process a provision for documenting the monitoring\n activity.\n\n1.3 Implement a system to share information on grantees designated as high-risk\n between program offices.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cReview of the Office of Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Discretionary Grants Monitoring Process Control Number ED-OIG/A03-A0021\n\n\n\nFINDING NO. 2 - OESE has not implemented the Departmental Directive on\nmonitoring discretionary grants.\n\n\nThe Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) has not implemented the\nDepartmental Directive on monitoring discretionary grants that requires each principal\noffice to develop and implement strategies for monitoring discretionary grants. The\nDepartmental Directive, Monitoring Discretionary Grants and Cooperative Agreements\n(the Directive) requires each of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s principal offices to prepare:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 A strategic monitoring plan, which covers a 5-year period, identifies key areas of\n improvement, and describes a general framework and approach to monitoring.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 An annual monitoring plan, which describes the specific programs and grantees to be\n monitored, the procedures, budgets, and schedule for the fiscal year.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 An annual monitoring report, which describes the monitoring activities, findings, and\n actions taken during the previous year.\n\nOur review of OESE\xe2\x80\x99s discretionary grants monitoring process disclosed that OESE did\nnot prepare a strategic monitoring plan, annual monitoring plan and annual monitoring\nreport in accordance with the Directive. In the OESE program offices visited, most\nprogram officials indicated that they either were not aware of the Directive or were not\nfully aware of its requirements.\n\nAlthough the Directive was not implemented by OESE, program officials indicated that\nthey nevertheless monitored grantees\xe2\x80\x99 progress throughout the grant period. We found\nthat some programs offices took a proactive approach towards monitoring and developed\na process for monitoring, while other offices monitored grantees in response to problems.\nAlthough these monitoring processes did not meet the requirements of the Directive, it\nindicated that program officials recognized the need for an effective monitoring process.\n\nThe monitoring methods varied among the different program offices visited. Based on\ninterviews with program officials, monitoring methods consist primarily of program\nofficials\xe2\x80\x99 review of performance reports, attendance at conferences and workshops, site-\nvisits, and contact with the grantee. (Appendix A includes a list of monitoring methods\nutilized by the program offices visited.)\n\nWe found that only one program office had a written plan on how the office was going to\nperform discretionary grant monitoring. Although the plan was documented, it did not\nmeet the requirements of the Directive. We also found that in some instances, monitoring\nactivities were inconsistently carried out within the same program office.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cReview of the Office of Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Discretionary Grants Monitoring Process Control Number ED-OIG/A03-A0021\n\nOESE needs to implement the Departmental Directive and to provide a common\nframework for monitoring discretionary grants. Implementing the Directive will\nestablish OESE-wide standards and guidance necessary to ensure that information\nobtained through monitoring will be used to improve the programs\xe2\x80\x99 performance and\nservices, and help to achieve the programs\xe2\x80\x99 legislative intent. Without an effective and\ncommon framework for monitoring, OESE officials are unable to adequately ensure that\nthe Department\xe2\x80\x99s funds are being spent appropriately and grant project goals and\nobjectives are being met.\n\nRecommendation:\n\n2.1 The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education should\n implement the requirements in the Departmental Directive, Monitoring\n Discretionary Grants and Cooperative Agreements.\n\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n\nOESE provides financial assistance to State and local education agencies for maintenance\nand improvement of preschool, elementary and secondary education. OESE annually\ndistributes approximately $1 billion of discretionary grants to eligible grantees. Grantees\ninclude state and local educational agencies, and other applicants. A discretionary grant\nprogram is one that permits the Secretary to use discretionary judgment in selecting\napplications for funding. Most discretionary grant programs are administered directly by\nthe Department.\n\nWe visited the five OESE program offices, which manage the nine programs selected for\nreview. The program offices are responsible for the entire grant process, which includes\nplanning, pre-award, award, post-award, and closeout. Grant monitoring is an integral\npart of the post-award process. Monitoring ensures that grants meet their intended goals\nand objectives and have effective financial management controls.\n\n\n OBJECTIVE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\n\nThe objective of our audit was to evaluate OESE\xe2\x80\x99s discretionary grant monitoring process\nfor identifying and monitoring high-risk grantees. To accomplish our objective, we\ninterviewed officials from OESE program offices that administer discretionary grants.\nWe judgmentally selected nine out of 34 OESE programs: SDFSC, Migrant Education,\nReading Excellence Act, Compensatory Education-Even Start Indian Tribes and Tribal\nOrganizations, Goals 2000, Public Charter Schools, Women\xe2\x80\x99s Educational Equity Act,\nMagnet Schools Assistance and 21st Century Community Learning Centers. In addition,\nwe judgmentally selected a sample of grant files, which we reviewed for documentation\nof monitoring activity. The results are summarized in Appendix B, OESE Grants Files\n\n\n 6\n\x0cReview of the Office of Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Discretionary Grants Monitoring Process Control Number ED-OIG/A03-A0021\n\nReviewed for Monitoring Documentation. We reviewed OESE \xe2\x80\x99s discretionary grant\nmonitoring process for fiscal year 2000, which included grant funds awarded during\nfiscal years 1997 through 1999. In addition, we interviewed officials from OESE\xe2\x80\x99s\nExecutive Office and from the Office of the Chief Financial Officer - Grants Policy and\nOversight Staff (OCFO-GPOS).\n\nTo identify applicable criteria, we interviewed representatives from OCFO-GPOS, which\nhas grant oversight responsibility for the Department.\n\nWe discussed with program officials the methodology they employed to monitor grantees\nand based on information obtained, we developed a chart (Appendix A: OESE\nDiscretionary Grant Monitoring Methods) summarizing the nine programs selected.\n\nWe reviewed the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Performance Reports and Plans and determined that they\ndo not contain Government Performance and Results Act goals and indicators relevant to\nthe objective and scope of our work.\n\nWe conducted on-site fieldwork from November 28, 2000, through January 30, 2001, at\nthe five OESE program offices, which manage the nine programs selected for review, and\nthe OCFO-GPOS office in Washington, DC. The exit conference was held on February\n23, 2001. Our audit was performed in accordance with government auditing standards\nappropriate to the scope of the audit described above.\n\n\n STATEMENT ON MANAGEMENT CONTROLS\n\n\nAs part of our audit, we assessed the system of management controls, policies,\nprocedures and practices applicable to OESE\xe2\x80\x99s monitoring of discretionary grants.\n\nOur assessment was to determine the nature, extent and timing of our substantive review\nto accomplish the audit objectives. For the purpose of this report, we categorized the\nsignificant controls as follows:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Program Offices Monitoring Policies\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reporting of Monitoring Data\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Use of Monitoring Instruments\n\nBecause of the limited nature of our audit, the overall system of management controls\nwas not reviewed and we cannot express an overall opinion on the controls. However,\nwe identified weaknesses in the department\xe2\x80\x99s monitoring of discretionary grants. These\nweaknesses are discussed in further detail in the Audit Results section of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cAppendix A: OESE Discretionary Grant Monitoring Methods\n\n\n\n\n Education \xe2\x80\x93 Even Start\n\n\n\n\n Public Charter Schools\n\n\n\n\n Women\xe2\x80\x99s Educational\n Community Learning\n\n\n\n Goals 2000 Programs\n\n\n\n\n Equity Act Programs\n Tribal Organizations\n\n\n\n\n Assistance Program\n\n\n\n\n Safe and Drug-Free\n Reading Excellence\n\n\n\n\n Migrant Education\n Indian Tribes and\n\n\n\n\n Magnet Schools\n Compensatory\n\n\n\n\n Communities\n Act Program\n\n\n\n\n 21st Century\nMonitoring Method\n\n\n\n\n Schools and\n Programs\n\n\n\n\n Programs\n Program\n\n\n\n\n Centers\nTelephone Contact/\n 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4\nCorrespondence/E-mail\nReview of Performance Reports 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4\n\nSite Visits 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4\n\nWorkshops/Conferences/Meetings 4 4 4 4 4 4 4\n\nReview of Grantee Materials 4 4\n\nTechnical Assistance 4 4 4 4 4\n\nReview of Evaluation Reports 4 4 4\n\nReview of GAPS Data 4 4\n\nReview of Grantee Budgets 4 4\n\nWebsite/listserv 4 4 4\n\n\n4 Indentifies monitoring methods that program officials said were used during the discretionary grants monitoring process.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cAppendix B: OESE Grant Files Reviewed for Monitoring Documentation1\n\n\n\n\n Education \xe2\x80\x93 Even Start\n\n\n\n\n Public Charter Schools\n\n\n\n\n Women\xe2\x80\x99s Educational\n Community Learning\n\n\n\n\n Goals 2000 Programs\n\n\n\n\n Equity Act Programs\n Tribal Organizations\n\n\n\n\n Assistance Program\n\n\n\n\n Safe and Drug-Free\n Reading Excellence\n\n\n\n\n Migrant Education\n Indian Tribes and\n\n\n\n\n Magnet Schools\n Compensatory\n\n\n\n\n Communities\n Act Program\n\n\n\n\n 21st Century\n\n\n\n\n Schools and\n Programs\n\n\n\n\n Programs\n Program\n\n\n\n\n Centers\n\n\n\n\n Total\nGrant Files Reviewed 5 5 5 5 5 14 6 5 10 60\n\n Performance Reports NAa 5 5 5 5 13b 6 5 10 54\n Performance Report\n NA 4 5 5 5 11 6 5 3 44\n Review Notes\nMonitoring Activities\n\n\n\n\n Records of Telephone\n 1 1 -- 2 1 2 -- -- 3 10\n Conversations\n Site Visits 1 3 -- 1 3 -- -- -- 1 9\n\n Correspondence 2 2 2 3 5 3 4 4 4 29\n\n E-mail 4 -- -- 2 2 6 -- -- 4 18\n\n Other2 -- 4 -- 5 4 4 1 1 8 27\n\n\n\n1\n This table presents the number of grant files reviewed for each program office and the number of files containing the documented monitoring activities.\n2\n Other monitoring methods include: grantee evaluations, surveys, reviews of grantees\xe2\x80\x99 budgets, fax messages, memos, and conference/meeting notes.\na\n The first performance period has not ended as of the date of our review, therefore performance reports have not been received by the Department.\nb\n Of the 14 grant files reviewed, one award was a Congressional earmark award that was not subject to continuations, therefore no performance report was\nrequired.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cAppendix C\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c11\n\x0c REPORT DISTRIBUTION LIST\n\n No. of\nAction Official: Copies\n\nMs. Susan B. Neuman 4\nAssistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education\n\nOther ED Officials:\n\nMr. Terry Abbott 1\nChief of Staff, Office of the Secretary\n\nMr. William Hansen 1\nDeputy Secretary, Office of the Deputy Secretary\n\nMr. Eugene W. Hickok 1\nUnder Secretary, Office of the Under Secretary\n\nMr. Mark Carney 1\nOffice of the Chief Financial Officer\n\nMs. Blanca Rodriguez 1\nDirector, Grants Policy and Oversight Staff, Office of the Chief Financial Officer\n\nMr. Charles Miller 1\nSupervisor, Post Audit Group, Office of the Chief Financial Officer\n\nMr. Tom Lyon 1\nNews and Information Dissemination Branch Chief\nOffice of Public Affairs, Office of the Secretary\n\nMr. Philip Rosenfelt 1\nAssistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel\n\nMs. Delores Warner 1\nAudit Liaison, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education\n\nMs. Laurie Rich 1\nAssistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs\n\nOffice of Inspector General (electronically):\n\nInspector General 1\nDeputy Inspector General 1\nAssistant Inspector General for Audit 1\nDeputy Assistant Inspector General for Audit 1\nAssistant Inspector General for Investigations 1\nAssistant Inspector General for Analysis and Inspections 1\nRegional Inspectors General for Audit 1 each\nDirector, State & Local Advisory and Assistance Team 1\nDirector, Non-Federal Audit Team 1\n\x0c'


text:
The plaintiff, Katherine R. Hillwood, was a widow with a daughter, when she was married to Philip M. Hillwood, defendant, on June 24th, 1921. No children were born of this union, and on March 6th, 1929, the plaintiff began a suit to obtain a divorcea mensa et thoro from the defendant with alimony, and to have certain conveyances to the husband of her property annulled, and an accounting had from him of all rents and profits received from the property so *Page 169
 conveyed and of all moneys of the plaintiff which had come in any way into the hands of the defendant. The grounds alleged for the divorce were cruel and vicious conduct, and the conveyances were assailed for fraud and coercion. The parties took testimony before an examiner, and the chancellor passed a decree granting the wife a partial divorce and annulling the conveyances attacked, and awarding the wife an accounting and restitution of all her property which the husband is charged with having taken into his possession.
 The plaintiff, who is fifty-seven years old, left the home of her husband during the first week of January, 1929. She supported her charge of cruelty by her testimony that her husband has struck her in the face on two occasions. The first was in the fall of 1921, and the second time was a year later. This testimony is denied by the husband and is not corroborated, but, if true, the acts were not followed by a cessation of the marital relation, which continued too long after their occurrence not to have been condoned. The wife further testified that, with the spring of 1922, the defendant began to threaten to kill her, but there is nothing in her testimony that tends to establish the threats created any real apprehension of physical danger, or were accompanied or followed by personal violence, until the spring of 1928, when she swears that her husband put poison in her food. The other serious accusation in justification of her leaving her husband is that her health had been impaired by his maltreatment.
 Taking up these questions in their inverse order, but without indulging in a statement and discussion of the testimony on the record, the alleged misconduct of the husband that affected the wife's health was a course of angry words and abusive language and unjustified complaints.
 Marriage imposes upon husband and wife the duty to bear and forbear. Marital neglect, indifference, sallies of passion, harshness and the use of vulgar and abusive language and occasional acts of violence of no serious nature have been repeatedly declared insufficient to justify an abandonment.Hastings v. Hastings, 147 Md. 182; Polley v. Polley, *Page 170 128 Md. 66. The testimony of the wife as to the husband's language is general and indefinite, is uncorroborated, and is denied by the defendant, and so cannot be held sufficiently proved within the requirements of law. Nor is there any corroboration of her statement that her mental and physical condition when she left her home was caused by her husband's alleged conduct. She did not consult a physician until October 26th, 1928, when, upon the advice of her solicitor and as preparatory to her proceedings for a divorce, she saw one to see if she had not been poisoned. The doctor testified that, although in a nervous condition, the plaintiff seemed, physically and organically, to be in good health at the time of her two visits to his office. Neither this nor the evidence of her activity in interviewing prospective witnesses is consistent with the plaintiff's testimony that she was so sick and nervous when she left home that she could hardly stand on her feet. So, the whole testimony leaves the court unconvinced that the husband's demeanor and language had impaired the health of the plaintiff.
 If, as the plaintiff testified, the defendant had put poison in the food of the plaintiff, this act would have been cruelty within the meaning of the law. 1 Bishop on Marriage and Divorce
 (2nd Ed.), sec. 1557. The plaintiff bases her accusation on the fact that during and after the spring of 1928 she would become sick subsequent to eating. She further stated that food, which was left after a meal and put away, when fed to the dog, would affect the dog so that in two weeks he could barely stand on his feet, and that she saw the white crystals glittering on her plate and individual dishes and drinking cup. She swore that the poison was bitter, but was tasteless until it started down the throat, and that her mouth, tongue, and lips were sore all the time he was making her violently ill by administering the poison. Although the conditions and symptoms continued until her complexion became as dark as a mulatto and she could hardly walk by reason of her weakness, the plaintiff made no complaint to her husband, but continued to live with him and exposed herself to the perils of a poisoner's art without consulting a doctor *Page 171
 or setting on foot an investigation until October 26th, 1928, when she went to see a doctor at the suggestion of her solicitor, whom she had employed to obtain a divorce.
 A week after this first visit she paid a second and final one, and brought with her food to be examined, because she said her husband had put in it some poison which she thought was silver salt. Although not a chemist, the doctor did not send her or the food to an expert, but put a portion of the food in a tube and tested it but found no poison. She complained to the doctor that her skin was dark because of a poison which she said her husband had been putting in her food, but the doctor's evidence is that this darkening of the complexion could have been produced by a number of natural causes, and he could not say it was attributable to poisoning. This evidence did not support the plaintiff's theory, but tended to refute her charge that her husband had poisoned the food.
 The plaintiff did the cooking and prepared the meals for the table and had charge of the household affairs. Although she never saw her husband put anything in the food, she is willing to swear that on one occasion in her presence and in that of a neighbor he put something in a dish which made her sick and vomit after she had eaten the food. The neighbor testified to the plaintiff's sickness, but did not say she had seen the defendant put anything in the dish. This episode affords no justifiable inference of guilt. The deduction of the wife is incredible. Even the hardiest and skilfullest poisoner will not be assumed to have sprinkled his poison in the presence of his victim and her friend.
 The husband testified to his complete innocence, and the wife stands alone with no material corroboration. Furthermore, her testimony is conflicting and contradicted in material matters by disinterested witnesses. Her testimony, also, disclosed an animus against the defendant and a desperate determination to secure the return of her property and a divorce from her husband which gravely affect the weight of any statement by her which would make for the success of her objectives. How far she will go to secure favorable testimony *Page 172
 in her litigation is disclosed by her own admission of offers of money to prospective witnesses, and to persons who were not engaged in detective work, if they would secure evidence of infidelity on the part of her husband. She denies that she had any other motive than securing evidence of actual facts, but it was manifestly an improper method to offer a liberal compensation to a party if he could testify to the adulterous conduct of a spouse. Indeed, one of the women approached testified that, at a time when the plaintiff's testimony represented herself as being broken in mental and physical health, the plaintiff was actively engaged in the investigation of her husband's life and in that pursuit visited the witness and offered her $100 if she would testify that her husband had commerce with a married colored woman. Even if the plaintiff's version of her conduct in attempting to secure incriminating evidence be accepted, her acts remain reprehensible, and expose her to condemnation and lessen the weight of her testimony. A careful review of the evidence in the light of the circumstances compels a finding that the plaintiff has failed to establish her right to a divorce.
 2. Although the jurisdiction to award a wife such property or estate as she had when married does not arise under section 39 of article 16 of the Code when a divorce is not decreed, yet a court of equity has jurisdiction under its general powers to annul conveyances and to enforce restitution of property which have been obtained by the husband from the wife by fraud, undue influence or coercion, and the bill of complaint in this cause is framed upon that theory. Reed v. Reed, 109 Md. 690, 692. The law on this subject is familiar. It is that a wife may dispose of her property by gift to her husband as fully and effectually as if the transaction were between persons not occupying that relation, but, because of the natural dominance of the husband and the trust and confidence commonly incident to their union, the gift will be closely, carefully, and vigorously investigated in a court of equity, and be annulled if obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation, or undue influence. Tyson v.Tyson, *Page 173 54 Md. 35, 38-40; Livingston v. Hall, 73 Md. 386; Reed v.Reed, 109 Md. 690.
 At the time of the marriage of the plaintiff and defendant, the latter was practically without property, but the wife was the owner of a farm of 50.89 acres and another one of about 100 acres; and two improved lots on Gay Street in Baltimore City. She still retains title to the larger farm, but four years after their marriage the smaller farm was conveyed to an attorney in order that he might reconvey this farm to the husband and wife as tenants by the entireties, which was done on September 10th, 1925, and the two deeds required for the transfer put upon record on the following day. In January, 1925, the wife sold and she and her husband conveyed the two Gay Street lots; and in May and September, 1928, the husband and wife granted a portion of the smaller farm to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company; and the proceeds of all these transactions were divided. It was not until March 6th, 1929, that the wife filed her bill of complaint to set aside the deeds creating the estate by the entireties and to have restored to her the money received by the husband by way of division and as rents and revenue. The delay does not commend the pending proceedings, but if the burden be imposed upon the husband of affirmatively showing that the deed creating the tenancy by the entireties and the receipt of moneys were severally untaintd by fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion, the record confirms the husband in what he thus acquired.
 The plaintiff is shown by her own statements to be an educated, capable, and resolute woman, and able to withstand the wishes and importunities of her husband and to maintain and protect her rights of property. The conversion by her of an estate in severalty in the smaller farm to one of a tenancy by the entireties was done deliberately, after delay and consideration and in the face of legal advice that it would be advisable to retain the property in her own name. The husband asserts that the change in title was due to his wife's recognition of his services in improving the premises, but, if this were not true, as the wife insists, the circumstances of the *Page 174
 grant show it to have been at least the voluntary gift of a wife, who was neither the victim of the fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation of the husband nor an object of his undue influence or coercion. Again, when the wife sold through a real estate agent the two Gay Street houses for $10,000, and settled by taking $5,000 in money and a ground rent of $5,000, the husband demanded and received for his assent to the sale the sum of $2,500, which was paid him. The wife, however, received $7,500, as $2,500 was paid her and she made a gift of the ground rent of $5,000 to her sister. The division, therefore, was on the basis of one-fourth to the husband and three-fourths to the wife, which was not a disproportionate division, when the husband would have been entitled to one-third of the property if he had survived his wife. Code, art. 93, sec. 126; art. 45, sec. 7. In this transaction the sale was by the wife's real estate agent and was carried through under the professional advice of her own attorney.
 The other transactions of which the wife complains were with the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, which acquired portions of her smaller farm for $30,480, which, after the deduction of $960.85 on account of taxes in arrear, were paid to the husband in three checks aggregating $14,759.57, and to the wife in two checks amounting to $14,759.58. This division was in strict accord with the respective rights of the husband and wife under the deeds creating the tenancy by the entireties. It was, furthermore, an express ratification, after an interval of one week short of three years, of the deed which the wife now assails. Nor did she act hastily in this matter. In May, 1928, the railway company bought a part of the land held by tenancy in entireties on which stood a building. The company agreed to give $1,500 for the building, and paid this amount in full to the husband in May, 1928, and at the same time made a payment on account of the land bought of $500 to the husband and a like amount to the wife. The husband claimed the right to the $1,500 as the builder of the structure sold, but, in the final settlement for the land in September, 1928, this claim of the husband was disallowed and an equal division of the whole purchase price *Page 175
 made by the wife receiving a check for $14, 259.58 as against the check to the husband of $12,759.57. These facts are irrefutably established by the records of the disinterested buyer, and conclusively demonstrate the falsity of the plaintiff's position. In these affairs with the company the plaintiff was represented throughout by able and alert lawyers, and it is idle for her now to protest what she then irrevocably sanctioned. A gift between spouses voluntarily made and devoid of coercion or undue influence is just as valid and binding as a contract between other persons; and a court of equity will not undertake to set aside a valid and completed gift from a wife to the husband, who cannot be compelled to return the money or property given. For the reasons assigned the decree will be reversed, and the cause remanded in order that the bill of complaint may be dismissed.
 Decree reversed, with costs, and cause remanded for a decreein conformity with this opinion.


text:
 8.9.2015
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 L 234/3
 AVTAL
 genom skriftväxling mellan Europeiska unionen och kommissionen för bevarande av sydlig tonfisk (CCSBT) om unionens medlemskap i den utvidgade kommissionen för konventionen för bevarande av sydlig tonfisk
 Bästa mottagare,
 Jag hänvisar till resolutionen om inrättande av en utvidgad kommission och en utvidgad vetenskaplig kommitté (nedan kallad resolutionen), som ändrades vid CCSBT:s 20:e möte i oktober 2013.
 I punkt 6 i resolutionen fastställs att en regional organisation för ekonomisk integration, en enhet eller en fiskeenhet som har fartyg som har fångat sydlig tonfisk någon gång under de senaste tre kalenderåren, får underrätta kommissionens sekretariatschef om sin önskan att bli medlem i den utvidgade kommissionen och den utvidgade vetenskapliga kommittén. För detta ändamål ska CCSBT:s sekretariatschef, på kommissionens vägnar, genomföra en skriftväxling med företrädarna för sådana regionala organisationer för ekonomisk integration, enheter eller fiskeenheter.
 Vad gäller punkt 8 i resolutionen förändras inte EU:s rättigheter till 10 ton för åren 2015–2017.
 Jag skulle vara tacksam om Ni ville bekräfta mottagandet av denna skrivelse och bekräfta att denna och Ert svar utgör ett avtal mellan CCSBT och Europeiska unionen om att Europeiska unionen ska bli medlem i CCSBT:s utvidgade kommission och utvidgade vetenskapliga kommitté i enlighet med bestämmelserna i ovannämnda resolution.
 EU skulle vilja uttrycka sitt fasta åtagande att fortsätta att följa bestämmelserna i CCSBT-konventionen och den utvidgade kommissionens beslut.
 Detta avtal ska tillämpas provisoriskt från och med dagen efter dagen för Ert svar i avvaktan på unionens besked om att de förfaranden som är nödvändiga för avtalets ingående har avslutats.
 Högaktningsfullt,
 För Europeiska unionen
 Jag bekräftar mottagandet av Er skrivelse av dagens datum med följande lydelse:
 ”Jag hänvisar till resolutionen om inrättande av en utvidgad kommission och en utvidgad vetenskaplig kommitté (nedan kallad resolutionen), som ändrades vid CCSBT:s 20:e möte i oktober 2013.
 I punkt 6 i resolutionen fastställs att en regional organisation för ekonomisk integration, en enhet eller en fiskeenhet som har fartyg som har fångat sydlig tonfisk någon gång under de senaste tre kalenderåren, får underrätta kommissionens sekretariatschef om sin önskan att bli medlem i den utvidgade kommissionen och den utvidgade vetenskapliga kommittén. För detta ändamål ska CCSBT:s sekretariatschef, på kommissionens vägnar, genomföra en skriftväxling med företrädarna för sådana regionala organisationer för ekonomisk integration, enheter eller fiskeenheter.
 Vad gäller punkt 8 i resolutionen förändras inte EU:s rättigheter till 10 ton för åren 2015-2017.
 Jag skulle vara tacksam om Ni ville bekräfta mottagandet av denna skrivelse och bekräfta att denna och Ert svar utgör ett avtal mellan CCSBT och Europeiska unionen om att Europeiska unionen ska bli medlem i CCSBT:s utvidgade kommission och utvidgade vetenskapliga kommitté i enlighet med bestämmelserna i ovannämnda resolution.
 EU skulle vilja uttrycka sitt fasta åtagande att fortsätta att följa bestämmelserna i CCSBT-konventionen och den utvidgade kommissionens beslut.
 Detta avtal ska tillämpas provisoriskt från och med dagen efter dagen för Ert svar i avvaktan på unionens besked om att de förfaranden som är nödvändiga för avtalets ingående har avslutats.”
 Jag kan bekräfta att Er skrivelse och detta svar utgör ett avtal mellan CCSBT och Europeiska unionen om att Europeiska unionen ska bli medlem i CCSBT:s utvidgade kommission och utvidgade vetenskapliga kommitté.
 Högaktningsfullt,
 För CCSBT


text:
 7.4.2011
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 93/33
 BESCHLUSS DES GEMEINSAMEN EWR-AUSSCHUSSES
 Nr. 5/2011
 vom 11. Februar 2011
 zur Änderung von Anhang XIII (Verkehr) des EWR-Abkommens
 DER GEMEINSAME EWR-AUSSCHUSS —
 gestützt auf das Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum, geändert durch das Anpassungsprotokoll zum Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum, nachstehend „Abkommen“ genannt, insbesondere auf Artikel 98,
 in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
 (1)
 Anhang XIII des Abkommens wurde durch den Beschluss des Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschusses Nr. 140/2010 vom 10. Dezember 2010 (1) geändert.
 (2)
 Die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 300/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 11. März 2008 über gemeinsame Vorschriften für die Sicherheit in der Zivilluftfahrt und zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2320/2002 (2) wurde durch den Beschluss des Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschusses Nr. 69/2009 vom 29. Mai 2009 (3) mit länderspezifischen Anpassungen in das Abkommen aufgenommen.
 (3)
 Der Beschluss K(2010) 774 endgültig der Kommission vom 13. April 2010 zur Festlegung von detaillierten Maßnahmen für die Durchführung der gemeinsamen Grundstandards für die Luftsicherheit mit Informationen nach Artikel 18 Buchstabe a der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 300/2008 ist in das Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (4)
 Der Beschluss K(2010) 2604 endgültig der Kommission vom 23. April 2010 zur Änderung des Beschlusses 2010/774/EU der Kommission vom 13. April 2010 zur Festlegung von detaillierten Maßnahmen für die Durchführung der gemeinsamen Grundstandards für die Luftsicherheit mit Informationen nach Artikel 18 Buchstabe a der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 300/2008 ist in das Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (5)
 Mit dem Beschluss K(2010) 774 endgültig der Kommission wird die Entscheidung K(2008) 4333 endgültig der Kommission vom 8. August 2008 zur Festlegung zusätzlicher Maßnahmen für die Durchführung der gemeinsamen grundlegenden Normen für die Luftsicherheit aufgehoben, die in das Abkommen aufgenommen wurde und daher aus dem Abkommen zu streichen ist.
 (6)
 Alle für die Anwendung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 300/2008 (4) notwendigen Maßnahmen sind damit in das Abkommen aufgenommen worden und die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 272/2009 der Kommission (5), die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1254/2009 der Kommission (6), die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 72/2010 der Kommission (7) und die Verordnung (EU) Nr. 185/2010 der Kommission (8) sind ab Inkrafttreten dieses Beschlusses anwendbar.
 (7)
 Alle für die Anwendung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 300/2008 notwendigen Maßnahmen sind damit in das Abkommen aufgenommen worden und die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2320/2002des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (9) die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1217/2003 der Kommission (10), die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1486/2003 der Kommission (11), die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1138/2004 der Kommission (12) und die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 820/2008 der Kommission (13) werden mit Inkrafttreten dieses Beschlusses aus dem Abkommen gestrichen —
 BESCHLIESST:
 Artikel 1
 Anhang XIII des Abkommens wird wie folgt geändert:
 1.
 Nach Nummer 66he (Verordnung (EU) Nr. 185/2010 der Kommission) wird Folgendes eingefügt:
 „66hf.
 K(2010) 774 endgültig: Beschluss K(2010) 774 endgültig der Kommission vom 13. April 2010 zur Festlegung von detaillierten Maßnahmen für die Durchführung der gemeinsamen Grundstandards für die Luftsicherheit mit Informationen nach Artikel 18 Buchstabe a der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 300/2008, geändert durch:
 —
 K(2010) 2604 endgültig: Beschluss K(2010) 2604 endgültig der Kommission vom 23. April 2010“
 2.
 Der Text von Nummer 66ia (Entscheidung K(2008) 4333 endgültig der Kommission) wird gestrichen.
 Artikel 2
 Dieser Beschluss tritt am 12. Februar 2011 in Kraft, sofern dem Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss alle Mitteilungen nach Artikel 103 Absatz 1 des Abkommens vorliegen (14).
 Artikel 3
 Dieser Beschluss wird im EWR-Abschnitt und in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht.
 Brüssel, den 11. Februar 2011
 Für den Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss
 Der Vorsitzende m.d.W.d.G.b.
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ABl. L 85 vom 31.3.2011, S. 25.
 (2) ABl. L 97 vom 9.4.2008, S. 72.
 (3) ABl. L 232 vom 3.9.2009, S. 25.
 (4) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 272/2009 der Kommission vom 2. April 2009, Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1254/2009 der Kommission vom 18. Dezember 2009, Verordnung (EU) Nr. 18/2010 der Kommission vom 8. Januar 2010, Verordnung (EU) Nr. 72/2010 der Kommission vom 26. Januar 2010, Verordnung (EU) Nr. 185/2010 der Kommission vom 4. März 2010, Verordnung (EU) Nr. 297/2010 der Kommission vom 9. April 2010, Verordnung (EU) Nr. 357/2010 der Kommission vom 23. April 2010, Verordnung (EU) Nr. 358/2010 der Kommission vom 23. April 2010, Beschluss K(2010) 774 endg. der Kommission vom 13. April 2010 und Beschluss K(2010) 2604 endg. der Kommission vom 23. April 2010.
 (5) ABl. L 91 vom 3.4.2009, S. 7.
 (6) ABl. L 338 vom 19.12.2009, S. 17.
 (7) ABl. L 23 vom 27.1.2010, S. 1.
 (8) ABl. L 55 vom 5.3.2010, S. 1.
 (9) ABl. L 355 vom 30.12.2002, S. 1.
 (10) ABl. L 169 vom 8.7.2003, S. 44.
 (11) ABl. L 213 vom 23.8.2003, S. 3.
 (12) ABl. L 221 vom 22.6.2004, S. 6.
 (13) ABl. L 221 vom 19.8.2008, S. 8.
 (14) Ein Bestehen verfassungsrechtlicher Anforderungen wurde nicht mitgeteilt.


text:
 15.7.2010
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 181/19
 DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALGS AFGØRELSE
 Nr. 51/2010
 af 30. april 2010
 om ændring af bilag XIII (Transport) og bilag XIV (Konkurrence) til EØS-aftalen
 DET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR —
 under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde som ændret ved protokollen om tilpasning af aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, i det følgende benævnt »aftalen«, særlig artikel 98, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Bilag XIII til aftalen blev ændret ved Det Blandede EØS-udvalgs afgørelse nr. 33/2010 af 12. marts 2010 (1).
 (2)
 Bilag XIV til aftalen blev ændret ved afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalgs afgørelse nr. 156/2006 af 8. december 2006 (2).
 (3)
 Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 906/2009 af 28. september 2009 om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 81, stk. 3, på visse kategorier af aftaler, vedtagelser og samordnet praksis mellem linjerederier (konsortier) (3) bør indarbejdes i aftalen.
 (4)
 Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 823/2000 (4), som er indarbejdet i aftalen, udløb den 25. april 2010, og bør derfor udgå af aftalen —
 VEDTAGET DENNE AFGØRELSE:
 Artikel 1
 Følgende punkt indsættes efter punkt 10 (Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2988/74) i bilag XIII til aftalen:
 »10a.
 32009 R 0906: Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 906/2009 af 28. september 2009 om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 81, stk. 3, på visse kategorier af aftaler, vedtagelser og samordnet praksis mellem linjerederier (konsortier) (EUT L 256 af 29.9.2009, s. 31). (5)
 Artikel 2
 I bilag XIV til aftalen foretages følgende ændringer:
 Punkt 11c (Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 823/2000) affattes således:
 »32009 R 0906: Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 906/2009 af 28. september 2009 om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 81, stk. 3, på visse kategorier af aftaler, vedtagelser og samordnet praksis mellem linjerederier (konsortier) (EUT L 256 af 29.9.2009, s. 31).
 Forordningens bestemmelser gælder i forbindelse med aftalen med følgende tilpasning:
 I artikel 1 læses »havne i Fællesskabet« som »havne inden for det område, der omfattes af EØS-aftalen«.«
 Artikel 3
 Teksterne til forordning (EF) nr. 906/2009 på islandsk og norsk, som offentliggøres i EØS-tillægget til Den Europæiske Unions Tidende, er autentiske.
 Artikel 4
 Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 1. maj 2010, forudsat at Det Blandede EØS-udvalg (6) har modtaget alle fornødne meddelelser i henhold til aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1. Den anvendes fra den 26. april 2010.
 Artikel 5
 Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidendes EØS-afsnit og EØS-tillæg.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 30. april 2010.
 På vegne af Det Blandede EØS-udvalg
 Alan SEATTER
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 143 af 10.6.2010, s. 28.
 (2) EUT L 89 af 29.3.2007, s. 31.
 (3) EUT L 256 af 29.9.2009, s. 31
 (4) EFT L 100 af 20.4.2000, s. 24.
 (5) Anført her alene af orienteringshensyn. For så vidt angår anvendelsen, henvises til bilag XIV om konkurrence.«
 (6) Ingen forfatningsmæssige krav angivet.