text:
It-terminu ante Christum natum (Latin għal qabel Kristu (twieled)), ġeneralment imqassar għal a. Chr. n., a. Ch.n., a. Cn, A.C.N., jew ACN, jindika s-snin ta' qabel it-twelid ta' Ġesù Kristu. Huwa ekwivalenti bil-Latin għall-Ingliż "BC" ("qabel Kristu"). Il-frażi ante Christum natum tidher ukoll imqassra għal ante Christum ("qabel Kristu"), imqassra bl-istess mod għal a. Chr., AC jew AC . Frażi relatata, p. Chr. n., p. Ch. n., jew post Christum natum jikkumplimenta a. Ch. n. u huwa ekwivalenti għal "Anno Domini " (AD), li bil-Malti nsibuha wkoll bħala Wara Kristu (WK)
 Bl-Ingliż, dawn il-frażijiet huma rari u AC, ACN, u ante Christum natum mhumiex fil-Manwal ta’ Stil ta’ Chicago (l-14-il edizzjoni) jew l-American Heritage Dictionary (it-3 edizzjoni). F'lingwi Ewropej oħra, bħat-Taljan ("ac" jew "a. C. "għal avanti Cristo ), verżjoni vernakulari hija t-terminu standard.
 Bil-Malti, il-fażi Qabel Kristu, ħija użata komunament. Din spiss titqassar ukoll għal QK.
 L-istoriku Anglo-Sassonu San (Venerabbli) Bede uża l-frażi Latina ante incarnationis dominicae tempus ("qabel il-ħin ta 'l-Inkarnazzjoni tal-Mulej") fl-assenza tiegħu Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Storja Ekkleżjastika tal-Nies Ingliżi) (Ktieb 1, Kapitolu 2) ta 731 PCN, u b'hekk sar l-ewwel awtur li ddeskriva sena bħala li kienet qabel Kristu. Kemm Dionysius Exiguus kif ukoll San Bede, li kienu familjari max-xogħol tal-ieħor, tennew li Anno Domini 1 jibda fid-data ta' l-Inkarnazzjoni ta ' Ġesù Kristu, madankollu "id-distinzjoni bejn Inkarnazzjoni u Natività ma ġietx imfassla qabel l-aħħar tad-9 seklu, meta f'xi postijiet l epoka tal- Inkarnazzjoni ġiet identifikata mal-konċepiment ta 'Kristu, jiġifieri, l-Annunzjata fil-25 ta' Marzu.
 Referenzi
 Storja
 Kristjaneżmu
 Ħin


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 10.9.2011
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 269/52
 Acțiune introdusă la 1 iulie 2011 — Restoin/OAPI (EQUIPMENT)
 (Cauza T-356/11)
 2011/C 269/116
 Limba de procedură: franceza
 Părțile
 Reclamant: Christian Restoin (Paris, Franța) (reprezentant: A. Alcaraz, avocat)
 Pârât: Oficiul pentru Armonizare în cadrul Pieței Interne (mărci, desene și modele industriale)
 Concluziile
 Reclamantul solicită Tribunalului:
 —
 anularea Deciziei Camerei a patra de recurs din 14 aprilie 2011 în cauza R 1430/2010-4;
 —
 obligarea OAPI la plata cheltuielilor de judecată efectuate de domnul Christian RESTOIN.
 Motivele și principalele argumente
 Marca comunitară vizată: marca verbală „EQUIPMENT” pentru produse și servicii din clasele 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 și 35 — cerere de înregistrare nr. 8 722 076.
 Decizia examinatorului: respinge cererea de înregistrare.
 Decizia camerei de recurs: respinge calea de atac.
 Motivele invocate: încălcarea articolului 7 alineatul (1) litera (b) din Regulamentul nr. 207/2009, în măsura în care semnul solicitat are un caracter distinctiv în raport cu percepția publicului relevant și în raport cu produsele și serviciile pentru care înregistrarea este cerută, precum și încălcarea articolului 75 din regulamentul menționat, în măsura în care motivarea camerei de recurs i) nu poate fi globală, întrucât produsele vizate nu sunt suficient de omogene și ii) nu este coerentă.


text:
 8.4.2006
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 86/27
 Sklep Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 31. januarja 2006 — Schneider Electric proti Komisiji
 (Zadeva T-48/03) (1)
 („Konkurenca - Koncentracije - Ponovni postopek nadzora potem, ko je Sodišče prve stopnje razglasilo ničnost odločbe o prepovedi koncentracije - Uvedba temeljitega preizkusa - Odpoved koncentraciji - Zaključek postopka nadzora - Ničnostna tožba - Akti, ki posegajo v položaj - Pravni interes - Nedopustnost“)
 (2006/C 86/54)
 Jezik postopka: francoščina
 Stranke
 Tožeča stranka: Schneider Electric SA (Rueil-Malmaison, Francija) (zastopniki: sprva A. Winckler, M. Pittie in É de La Serre, nato M. Pittie in A. Winckler, avocats)
 Tožena stranka: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti (zastopniki: sprva P. Oliver in F. Lelièvre, nato P. Oliver in O. Beynet, zastopniki)
 Predmet zadeve
 Predlog za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije z dne 4. decembra 2002 o uvedbi temeljitega preizkusa koncentracije med Schneider in Legrand (zadeva COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II) in odločbe Komisije z dne 13. decembra 2002 o zaključku postopka nadzora te operacije.
 Izrek sklepa
 1)
 Tožba se zavrže kot nedopustna.
 2)
 Tožeča stranka nosi svoje stroške in stroške, ki jih je priglasila Komisija.
 (1) UL C 101, 26.4.2003.


jurisdiction: US

text:
The Belvedere Hotel of Baltimore, owned and operated by the Belvedere Building Company, a corporation, was on February 10th, 1906, decreed by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City to be sold to satisfy a first mortgage thereon held by the Union Trust Company, trustee, and by the same decree, George Blakistone and Edgar G. Miller were appointed receivers to take charge of the property until sold. A second bill was filed by the same plaintiff, as trustee under a second mortgage, on February 14th, 1906, on this hotel, its furniture and equipment, and a decree was passed on the same day for the sale of the furniture and equipment. These two cases were consolidated and on March 10th, 1906, Lawrence Perin, a stockholder of the defendant corporation, filed a bill in the same Court, under Art. 23, secs. 264 and 264A (being the insolvent law of Maryland), alleging the insolvency of the corporation, and that it owed about $24,000 for overdue State and city taxes which it was unable to pay; praying that it be adjudged insolvent, and that it be dissolved, *Page 239
 and its assets distributed to those entitled. On March 21, 1906, these two consolidated cases were consolidated with the last mentioned case of Lawrence Perin against the same defendant, and the same receivers were appointed in the three consolidated cases with all their previous powers, and all such additional powers as could be conferred on receivers of a corporation under the insolvent law, but without prejudice to the rights of the Union Trust Company under the two cases first consolidated. The hotel was subsequently sold July 2d 1907, and this sale was ratified August 20th, 1907, and possession delivered to the purchaser September 1st, 1907. This sale was not made by the receivers, the decree above mentioned authorizing them to sell subject to the mortgage of the Union Trust Company, having been reversed in Union Trust Company v. Belvedere Building Co.,105 Md. 507, and the sale was made under another proceeding for foreclosure of that mortgage. The receivers possession of the property therefor began March 21st, 1906, and terminated Sept. 1st, 1907. The taxes for 1906 were paid by the receivers under an order of Court, and on January 1st, 1907, the State and city taxes for 1907 became due and payable. On December 20th, 1910, the State of Maryland and the City of Baltimore filed a petition in these consolidated cases alleging that the taxes for 1907 had not been entirely paid; that on December 16th, 1910, $22,499.23 was paid on account thereof, the total being $23,176.90, leaving still due and unpaid $677.57, which balance represented penalties and other charges made against said receivers on account of their failure to pay said taxes within the time prescribed by law, and that said receivers refused to pay the same on the ground that said charges could not be lawfully made against them as receivers, and the petitioners prayed an order directing the receivers to pay said balance. An order nisi was passed on this petition and the receivers filed their answer January 7th, 1911, alleging that at no time between January 1st, 1907, and August 20th, 1907 (the date of ratification of said sale) had they in their possession as *Page 240
 receivers, sufficient funds of the defendant corporation to pay taxes for 1907 levied upon the property, and they were never ordered or directed to pay the same, and no application for payment was ever made until December 20th, 1910; that sometimes subsequent to August 1st, 1907, they offered to pay the taxes levied for 1907 with accrued interest thereon, but the city collector demanded the further sum of $677.57 alleged to be for penalties for non-payment of said taxes on or before May 1st and July 1st, 1907, respectively; and being advised that said penalties were not legally chargeable they refused to pay them, or the bills of which they were part, and that the said taxes for 1907 were not paid until December 16, 1910, on which day, by an agreement with the city collector, they paid said taxes in full with interest reserving however the right to the petitioners to submit the liability of the receivers for these penalties to the Court for its determination. Further alleging, the sale of the property and assets of the defendant corporation by the Union Trust Company above mentioned and its ratification August 20th, 1907. Further alleging that on December 24th, 1907, the auditor filed in said Court "The receivers' third account, prepared as of July 1st, 1907, showing a net balance in their hands of $8,169.45," credited there in to the Union Trust Co. to be applied to the 1907 taxes on the hotel property, the receivers being chargeable with the taxes from January 1st, 1907, to July 1st, 1907, the date of the sale of the hotel under foreclosure proceedings. That on the same day the auditor filed an account in said foreclosure proceedings crediting the Union Trust Co. with $9,104.14, "as the proportion of State and city taxes for 1907 allowed the purchaser to July 2d 1907, and charging it with $8,169.45 to be credited on account of 1907 State and city taxes,contra, accrued to July 2d 1907," both of which accounts having been ratified and distribution made thereunder, "by reason of which distribution the receivers have not in their hands any funds belonging to the defendant wherewith to pay said penalties." The matter was heard *Page 241
 on this petition and answer under an agreement of counsel filed December 17, 1910 — that the liability of the receivers for said sum of $677.57 should be submitted to the Circuit Court of Baltimore City for its determination, and on August 1st, 1911, a decree was passed requiring said receivers to pay the same, and this appeal is from that order.
 The appellants contend that this case is governed by theCasualty Company's Case, 82 Md. 535, in which this Court held that no interest should be allowed on the claim for taxes or on any of the other claims filed against the insolvent company.
 The question was disposed of in a very few words, the Court saying: "It is not easy, if indeed it be possible, to place upon a consistent basis many of the decisions in which interest has been allowed or disallowed. Perhaps some of the numerous claims might, in strictness, be entitled to an allowance of interest under ordinary circumstances; but it does not appear that the amounts asserted to be due, have been wrongfully withheld by the Casualty Company. The failure to pay, as far as we can see, has been the result of the company's insolvency. A penalty or damages in the way of interest ought not, therefore, to be added to the sums actually due."
 It does not appear from the opinion in that case whether there was any claim made for a statutory penalty as well as for interest on the taxes, but there is a natural inference from the fact that no mention is made of such a penalty, as well as from the whole tenor of the language we have quoted, that there was no claim made for any statutory penalty. We think it quite clear that the Court, in using that language had not in mind any such penalty.
 In the paragraph of the opinion immediately preceding that part we have quoted, the Court said, "We think no interest should be allowed on the claim for taxes or on any other claim filed against the insolvent company. Whilst not precisely analogous, the case of Hutchinson v. Liverpool, *Page 242 London, and Globe Ins. Co., 153 Mass. 143, supports this conclusion."
 In the Casualty Company's Case all the claims are grouped together and considered upon the same basis as to the allowance of interest, indicating that the Court had in mind, only the allowance of interest, as a matter within the discretion of the tribunal deciding the whole matter in issue, a question which CHIEF JUDGE BUCHANAN said in Newson v. Douglass, 7 H. J. 453, "has been found to be a subject not susceptible of the application of any fixed and general rule of law, each case depending upon its own peculiar circumstances."
 We have carefully examined the case in 153 Mass. supra, and cannot perceive that it is, in any respect, analogous to the case now before us. That was an action brought by a policy holder against the defendant corporation, upon a policy insuring the plaintiff against loss by fire. The head note of that case relating to interest is as follows: "Interest is not allowable on a particular loss under an insurance policy, where the loss is not liquidated, until demand has been made for its payment, although arbitration and limitation clauses, and proofs of loss, have been waived, and a builder's certificate of the amount of loss presented." The Court in its opinion said: "We think the ruling in relation to interest was correct. It is not easy to place upon a consistent basis many of the decisions in which interest has been allowed or disallowed. But in this case it does not appear that the amount to which the plaintiff became entitled under the policy was payable at a fixed time after the loss occurred, or upon a certain event which had to take place, or that the amount has been wrongfully withheld by the defendant or that the sum due was liquidated, or that until the bringing of the action a demand had been made for its payment." From the above citation, it is quite clear that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was not dealing with interest in any other light than as discretionary with the Court, and that that case was cited in the Casualty Company's *Page 243 Case, only with reference to such interest, and not to a statutory penalty.
 Again, in the closing sentence of the passage we have quoted from the opinion in the Casualty Company's Case, we think it is equally clear that the Court merely intended to characterize the claim for interest as in the nature of a penalty for mere detention of money due, and that it had no reference to a statutory penalty for delinquency in payment after a date fixed for the incuring of such penalty upon taxes already overdue. Consequently we do not think that case governs the present. It does appear, moreover, from the opinion in that case, page 565 — that the taxes were overdue when the company's assets passed into the hands of the receivers, a circumstance which materially discriminates that case from the present, and which affords a further reason for not accepting that as satisfactory authority for this contention of the appellants. The appellants also contend, earnestly and ably, that our statutes imposing penalties upon delinquent taxpayers were never designed by the lawmakers to apply to receivers of insolvent corporations in process of dissolution, and for this they cite Central Trust Co. v. NewYork Central H.R.R. Co., 110 Md. 256, where in the course of the opinion, the Court said: "An insolvent corporation in the hands of and operated by a receiver was not in the minds of the framers of the statute when providing for the enforcement of taxes from what may be termed a going corporation."
 In that case there was no penalty sought to be enforced so far as the report discloses. The railroad corporation was insolvent and had been operated for several years by a receiver appointed in proceedings for foreclosure of certain mortgages. He had in his possession funds derived from the operation of the railroad sufficient to pay certain corporation taxes due, and the attorney general filed a petition in the receivership case for an order directing their payment by the receiver. The receiver contended that the corporation alone was answerable for these taxes, or at least that only *Page 244
 such funds as should remain in his hands, after payment of the mortgages, could be applied to those taxes. His argument was that as proceedings to enforce payment of those taxes were provided by the act which imposed them, all other remedies were excluded, and the Supreme Court so held; but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, and ordered payment by the receiver, holding, that while those taxes in a strict technical sense were not liens on the property in the receivers' hands, when first levied, yet under the circumstances of insolvency, etc., the State had a paramount right to collect them from earnings of the property in the receivers' hands. It will thus be seen that the language cited by the appellant from the opinion in that case was used, not to restrict, but to enlarge and extend the application of the ordinary methods for enforcing the payment of taxes due by insolvent corporations in the hands of receivers. We do not think, however, that it is necessary to express any opinion upon this contention of the appellants.
 The appellants further contend that as the collector did not at any time during the receivership, make application to the Court to order payment of these taxes, and took no steps to secure payment thereof, or of the penalty now claimed until long after the receivership terminated, and the disbursement under the order of the Court of all money in their hands, the State and city must be taken to have acquiesced in the situation, and can not now claim these delinquency penalties.
 We think this is sound, and upon that principle this case should be determined.
 When land or other property is under the control of a Court of equity, it has long been settled that the ordinary statutory remedies for the enforcement of taxes levied upon, or payable in respect of, such property, are suspended, and payment must be secured through the power and authority of the equity Court. In such cases, while there is no statute declaring what is the duty of the collector, our decisions do plainly declare that there is a duty imposed upon him in *Page 245
 the premises, and in County Commissioners v. Clarke,36 Md. 219, that duty is stated as follows: "His plain and obvious duty was to apply to the Court for the payment of the taxes due, and as they had full power, the presumption is that they would have directed their payment through their agents, the trustees, in a manner that would have occasioned no unnecessary delay, while at the same time the rights of all parties interested would have been properly protected."
 If the collector, in the case before us, or the State and city had in 1907 upon the refusal of the receivers to pay these penalties — then filed the petition which they waited to file until December 17th, 1910, not only would this question of penalties have been then decided, but the State and city would have received whatever amount was determined to be due three years earlier than they did receive the taxes and interest which have been paid. The receivers recognized the duty imposed upon them by law when they offered to pay the amount they wereadvised by counsel to be due, but the State and city failed to discharge through their agent, the collector, the duty which the Court said in 36 Md., supra, rested upon him, to apply to the Court for the payment of the penalties claimed, as well as the principal and interest offered, and they should abide by the consequences of their own conduct.
 But there is another ground which supports this conclusion. This case being heard on petition and answer, the allegations of fact contained in the answer must be taken as admitted and among these allegations are the following: That on December 24th, 1907, two accounts were filed by the auditor, one in the receivership case, and one in the foreclosure proceedings by the Union Trust Company, in which two accounts these taxes for 1907, withoutincluding these penalties now claimed, were apportioned between the receivers and the purchasers of the property under the foreclosure proceedings, as of the day of sale, July 2d 1907; *Page 246
 both of which accounts have been ratified in due course, without exception being filed thereto by either the State or the city, and that complete distribution has been made thereunder without objection on the part of any party whatever.
 In Marine Bank v. Heller, 94 Md. 213, under an auditor's account distributing certain funds derived from various sources, and in the hands of receivers of an insolvent corporation, a certain sum was allowed for taxes upon the real estate of said corporation, which account was ratified without exception being taken to the allowance of these taxes from that fund. Subsequently the real estate of the corporation was sold, and an account was stated distributing the proceeds thereof among the preferred stockholders of the company, that stock being a statutory lien on the real estate and certain other property. The general creditors excepted to this account, alleging that the taxes had been erroneously allowed in the first account, and should now be deducted from the proceeds of sale of the real estate and be distributed among the general creditors. But it was held that the order ratifying the first account, from which no appeal was taken, constituted an adjudication of all the questions that might have been raised thereunder, and that the general creditors could not claim that the taxes were not properly payable from the fund distributed in that account.
 The Court cited in support of that conclusion, Beloit v.Morgan, 7 Wall. 619; State v. Brown, 64 Md. 199; Trayhern
 v. Colburn, 66 Md. 278; Albert v. Hamilton, 76 Md. 309;Barrick v. Horner, 78 Md. 258, and Robers, Brown Co. v.Citizens' Nat. Bank, 93 Md. 613, and said: "It was certainly within the power of the appellees to file objections to the allowance of these taxes in account A upon the grounds now urged. If they had done so and the decision had been in their favor, it would have protected them unless reversed on appeal. If adverse to them they could have brought it here for review. They have had their day in Court." *Page 247
 We think that principle is conclusive in this case, and require the reversal of an order appealed from.
 Order reversed, and petition dismissed, the appellees to paythe costs above and below.


type: other

text:
mitä pukea häihin? - Jenni Ukkonen
 mitä pukea häihin?
 12.8.2012 Teksti: Jenni Ukkonen
 “Hei! Minulla on syyshäät tiedossa ja olen aivan ulapalla mitä ihmettä sinne pitäisi pukea? Olen 22v ja oma tyylini on klassillisen naisellinen mutta välillä tykkään sähäyttää. Millainen mekon pitää etiketin mukaan olla? Olisiko sinulla vinkkejä/ehdotuksia esim. nelly.comin valikoimasta? Kiiiitos jos ehdit minua auttaa!”Sain vähän aikaa sitten tällaisen kommentin ja vaikka tuolloin vastasinkin etten valitettavasti ole itse ollut nyt aikuisiällä yksissäkään häissä (kaveriiiiit alkakaahan jo pariutua ja mennä naimisiin! :D) enkä täten ole itsekään yhtään perillä virallisista etikeistä, niin ajattelin että katselen nyt kuitenkin vähän vaihtoehtoja, vaikka omaksi huvikseni jos en muuksi... :)Hääpukeutumisesta ekana mulle tulee tietenkin vaan mieleen että valkoinen väri on varattu morsiamelle, paitsi tietenkin jos morsian ilmoittaa toisin. Voisin kuvitella että hääpari ilmoittaa mahdollisesta pukukoodista, jos toivovat vieraiden noudattavan jotain tiettyä kaavaa. Muussa tapauksessa lienee vaan turvallista sanoa että tilanteen arvoa kunnioittava puketuminen on riittävä. Itse esimerkiksi välttelisin liian lyhyttä helmaa ja liian anteliasta kaula-aukkoa.
 , takaa pidempi mekko täältä
 , pitsimekko täältä
 Tuo maksimekko on mielestäni aivan upea, ja sopisi mielestäni oikein hyvin häävieraalle! Maxeihin ei kuitenkaan tule pukeuduttua turhan usein, joten kun kerrankin on mahdollisuus pukeutua näyttävämmin niin miksei? Joku kirkas, nuorekas väri olisi mekolle aivan omiaan!
 Pitsimekko täältä
 , bodycon mekko täältä, peplum-mekko täältä
 Tummansininenkin on loistava värivalinta, klassinen ja arvokas.
 Violetti mekko täältä, harmaa mekko täältä, lilahtava mekko täältä
 Kuuma vinkki: Karen Millenilta löytyy aivan upeita juhlamekkoja, myös häihin mainiosti soveltuvia! Toki ne ovat hieman hintavampia, mutta sen verran ajattomampia että menisivät sitten useammissa juhlissa  Millenin mekoissa on yleensä hieman pidempi helmakin, asia mistä itse oon alkanut nyt pitää toden teolla!
 Satiinimekko täältä, leveähelmainen mekko täältä
 , kynämekko täältä
 Vaikka se valkea väri onkin morsiamelle varattu, niin nuden pitäisi olla ihan vapaata riistaa? Tuo ensimmäinen mekko on mielestäni aivan täydellinen niin malliltaan, materiaaliltaan kuin väriltääkin! Voisin tilata sen vaikka nyt heti itselleni, eikä mulla ole edes mitään juhlia tiedossa 
 Satiinimekko täältä, röyhelökauluksinen mekko täältä, bodycon mekko täältä
 Äsken hehkuttamani nudemekko löytyy myös punaisena  Näiden mallisista mekoista tykkään itse nykyään äärimmäisen paljon, niin naisellisia ja seksikkäitä mutta kuitenkin myös todella tyylikkäitä ja asiallisia!
 Tällaisia valintoja siis täällä! Voi kun pääsisi jo itsekin nauttimaan jonkun läheisen ihanasta päivästä  Ihania hääjuhlia kaikille sellaisiin osallistuville!! :)I was asked how to dress for a wedding and I have to say, I have only been to a wedding once and that was when I was really young, so I have no idea about the proper etiquette and such, but I guess the best thing is to go as the couple asks if they give a dress code in the invitation. Otherwise I’d just dress respecting the occasion. Personally I’d love to wear either a maxi dress or a feminine knee length dress. Looks gorgeous and sexy but shouldn’t overshadow the bride!
 Jenni Ukkonen / 13.8.2012 klo 16:10
 Olisi kyllä ihan loistavaa olla niin näppärä käsistään että pystyisi tekemään tällaisiin tilaisuuksiin itse asunsa!  Hih, ja muakin on jo kauan aikaa houkuttanut päästä häihin juhlimaan, voi kun nyt joku menisi jo naimisiin :D<3
 Anonymous / 12.8.2012 klo 17:18
 Ihan vinkkinä: jos häävieraana nainen pukee punaista päälleen, se tarkoittaa, että on maannut sulhasen kanssa.. 
 Bisquits / 12.8.2012 klo 17:37
 Saatan nyt kuulostaa tädiltä, mutta minusta tuossa ylimmäisessä kollaasissa kaksi viimeistä mekkoa eivät sovi häihin. Erityisesti tuo pitsimekko: kaunis kyllä, mutta kummastakin päästä vähän liian avonainen. Itse pukeutuisin häihin juhlallisesti, mutta en liian antaviin vaatteisiin. Morsiamena en ehkä tykkäisi, jos joku tulisi häihini tuollaisessa baarimekossa. 
 Anonymous / 12.8.2012 klo 20:05
 Punainen mekko naispuolisen häävieraan päällä saattaa herättää pahennusta vanhoissa ihmisissä. Mekon väri kuulemma kertoo kantajan “maanneen” sulhasen kanssa!!! Kuulin tämän vasta muutaman kuukausi sitten ja viimeisimmissä häissä (joissa olin vieraana) minulla oli punainen mekko ylläni!  Mut no problem, sillä kyseiset häät olivat rennot ja noudattivat nykyaikaista etikettiä. Nykyään juhlien etiketit ovat kuitenkin huomattavasti vapaampia kuin ennenvanhaan.  Tulipa jotenki sekava, mutta eiköhän tästä selvää saa... 
 Anonymous / 12.8.2012 klo 20:10
 Myös tummanpunaista kannattaa välttää häissä vieraana ollessaan. Punaiseen pukeutuessaan yrittää muka etikettien mukaan viedä huomion morsiammelta ja vanhan uskomuksen mukaan ilmoittaa myös olevansa sulhasen rakastajatar. 
 Anniina / 12.8.2012 klo 20:36
 Kotiuttaisin tuon Millerin punaisen mekon vaikka heti!
 Joanna / 13.8.2012 klo 00:03
 Mullakin meni hääpukeutumisen ongelmat niin pitkälle, että päivää ennen lentoja Suomeen lentelin paniikissa pitkin Karen Millenin ja Zaran liikkeitä etsiessä ihan mitä tahansa päälle pantavaa :’D Karen Millenillä on kyllä tosi ihania mekkoja aina!
 Itse en näe valkoisen lisäksi myöskään mustaa sopivana häihin, mutta se riippuu varmaan siitä kuinka tarkka isäntäväki on – onhan niitä mustia hääpukujakin.Jouduin kyllä silloin loppukesästä huomaamaan, että kaikki kauneimmat mekot oli aina joko mustia, valkeita, tai mustavalkeita! Sitä pähkäilinkin, että voiko musta ja valkea yhdessä kumota tuon säännön ja olla sitten hyväksytty värikoodi häihin :’D
 Anonymous / 13.8.2012 klo 04:55
 tuolla melko tarkkaa ohjeistusta  http://www.morsiuspari.fi/index.php/fi/haaopas/haaetikettiopas/pukukooditnaiset
 Anonymous / 13.8.2012 klo 05:21
 Nättejä mekkoja  Karen Millenin mekot kyllä houkuttelevat! Punainenhan tarkoittaa perinteisesti, että on joko puutteessa tai maannut sulhasen kanssa, joten en häihin valitsisi punaista mekkoa päälleni. Aika usein hääpuvut ovat murrettuja vaaleita sävyjä (ivory, champagne, oyester, blush...), joten vaikkakin nude olisi vapaata riistaa, välttelisin ihan vaaleita sävyjä mekossa viimeiseen asti. Mieluummin tummempi mekko, kuin ajatuskin siitä, että joku tulkitsisi pukuni yritykseksi viedä huomiota morsiammelta. Pitkät mekot sopivat erinomaisesti iltajuhliin, joten ehkä iltahäihin pukisin maximekon.
 Anonymous / 13.8.2012 klo 06:58
 Tästä tulikin mieleeni, että osaisitko sanoa englantilaisten häiden etiketistä jotain? Jokin päähine on kai pakollinen tai ainakin suotava? Itselläni on englantilaiset häät tulossa kuukauden päästä Bristolissa ja olen kovasti pohtinut asua.
 Jenni Ukkonen / 13.8.2012 klo 08:46
 No enpäs kyllä tiennytkään! Mulle punainen olisi melkein suosikkivärejä, koska miellän sen niin rakkauden väriksi haha 
 Jenni Ukkonen / 13.8.2012 klo 08:47
 No ne voisi olla sitten vaikka joillekin nuoremmille ja lyhyemmille vieraille, jakun kanssa puettavaksi heh :p
 Jenni Ukkonen / 13.8.2012 klo 08:48
 Juu tulikin tuossa jo pariin otteessa, kummallinen uskomus 
 Tuo oli kyllä ihan uutena juttuja, hauska uskomus 
 Jenni Ukkonen / 13.8.2012 klo 08:49
 Eikös ole aika upea!
 Jenni Ukkonen / 13.8.2012 klo 08:50
 Heheh no varmasti ainakin jos tuntee morsiamen paremmin voi kysäistä olisi ok ilmaantua jossain tietyn värisessä mekossa juhliin, vaikka se etiketin kanssa riitelisikin 
 Jenni Ukkonen / 13.8.2012 klo 08:51
 Ahaa okei no toivottavasti linkin löytää mahdollisimman moni kiinnostunut! Kiitos 
 Jenni Ukkonen / 13.8.2012 klo 08:54
 No nämä on vähän niitä mistä ainakin omasta mielestä voi aina keskutella myös morsiamen kanssa mikäli hänet siis tuntee 
 Jenni Ukkonen / 13.8.2012 klo 08:55
 No siitä osaan kyllä valitettavasti sanoa vielä vähemmän, ei muuta kuin googlea selailemaan niin varmaan löytyy infoa 
 Anonymous / 13.8.2012 klo 09:31
 Rakas ystäväni meni naimisiin toukokuun lopussa. Ompelin itselleni mekon näihin kemuihin, vihreän yksihihaisen pitsimekon. Ei ollut kenelläkään samanlaista kun itse teki  Kerrankin sattui hyvä tuuri että samaista mekkoa pääsi käyttämään myös yksissä valmistujaisissa ja rippijuhlissa sitten myöhemmin. Yleensähän ne juhlamekot jää yhen kerran mekoiksi. En tiennytkään että punaisella värillä on tuollainen vanha taru, valkoisen kyllä tiesin ja katsoin vähän pahana kun kyseisissä häissä bestmanin vaimo oli pukeutunut valkoiseen lyhyeen mekkoon. Mutta jos morsianta se ei haitannut, ei se haitannut minuakaan.
 Olin myös ekoissa ystävän häissä ja itkeä vollotin koko kirkkoseremonian ja myöhemmin myös juhlissa. Näiden häiden jälkeen olen sanonut monelle muulle ystävälle että menkää nyt naimisiin niin pääsee juhliin kun häissä on niin kivaa!


type: wikipedia

text:
Хава̀и (, на хавайски Hawaiʻi, произнасяно /haˈwaʔiː/ и /haˈvaʔiː/) е щат в САЩ. Щатът Хаваи е част от по-големия архипелаг на Хавайските острови. Населението на Хаваи е 1 374 810 души (2011). Хаваи са с обща площ от 28 311 km2.
 Хаваи са присъединени като 50-ия щат на Съединените щати на 21 август 1959 г.
 Климатът е тропически, дъждовният сезон е от декември до края на март. Лятото е сравнително топло, средната температура е около 30°, но тъй като влажността на въздуха достига 70%-80%, горещината не се усеща толкова силно. Има две планински вериги, които разхлаждат климата.
 Хаваи заедно с Аризона са двата американски щата, които не ползват лятно часово време. Причина за това е близостта на щата до екватора и малката разлика в дължината на дните през лятото и зимата.
 Тропическият климат, плажовете, активните вулкани и разнообразният релеф правят архипелага популярна дестинация за туристи, сърфисти, биолози и вулканолози. Поради централното му разположение в северната част на Тихия океан и трудовата миграция от 19 век местните традиции са силно повлияни от културите на Северна Америка и Източна Азия. Постоянните жители (наред с многото посетители и американски военнослужещи) са над един милион.
 Официалното прозвище на щата е „щат Алоха“.
 Градове
 Столица, а също така и най-голям град в щата е Хонолулу. Той е и родно място на 44–ия президент на САЩ Барак Обама.
 Други градове:
 Пърл Сити
 Хило
 Кахолуи
 Макауао
 Окръзи
 Щатът Хаваи се състои от 5 окръга:
 Калауао
 Кауаи
 Мауи
 Хаваи
 Хонолулу
 В популярната култура
 В Хаваи са снимани много филми и сериали, сред които Хавайски бряг, Джурасик парк, Изгубени, Потомците, старата и новата версия на Хавай 5-0 и други.
 Вижте също
 Хавайски острови
 Източници
 Външни препратки
 Официален сайт


type: contracts

text:
 15.9.2005
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 L 239/66
 ΑΠΌΦΑΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΜΕΙΚΤΉΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΉΣ ΤΟΥ ΕΟX αριθ. 73/2005,
 της 29ης Απριλίου 2005,
 για την τροποποίηση του πρωτοκόλλου αριθ. 31 της συμφωνίας για τον ΕΟΧ σχετικά με τη συνεργασία σε ειδικούς τομείς εκτός του πλαισίου των τεσσάρων ελευθεριών
 Η ΜΕΙΚΤΗ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΤΟΥ ΕΟΧ,
 Έχοντας υπόψη τη συμφωνία για τον Ευρωπαϊκό Οικονομικό Χώρο, όπως τροποποιήθηκε από το πρωτόκολλο προσαρμογής της συμφωνίας για τον Ευρωπαϊκό Οικονομικό Χώρο, εφεξής «η συμφωνία», και ιδίως τα άρθρα 86 και 98,
 Εκτιμώντας τα ακόλουθα:
 (1)
 Το πρωτόκολλο αριθ. 31 της συμφωνίας τροποποιήθηκε από την απόφαση αριθ. 116/2004 της Μεικτής Επιτροπής του ΕΟΧ της 6ης Αυγούστου 2004 (1).
 (2)
 Κρίνεται σκόπιμο να επεκταθεί η συνεργασία των συμβαλλομένων μερών της συμφωνίας ώστε να συμπεριλάβει την απόφαση αριθ. 593/2004/ΕΚ του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου, της 21ης Ιουλίου 2004, για την τροποποίηση της απόφασης 2000/819/EK του Συμβουλίου σχετικά με ένα πολυετές πρόγραμμα για τις επιχειρήσεις και την επιχειρηματικότητα, ιδίως για τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις (ΜΜΕ) (2001-2005) (2).
 (3)
 Επομένως, το πρωτόκολλο αριθ. 31 της συμφωνίας θα πρέπει να τροποποιηθεί ώστε να καταστεί δυνατή η εν λόγω επέκταση της συνεργασίας από 1ης Ιανουαρίου 2005,
 ΑΠΟΦΑΣΙΖΕΙ:
 Άρθρο 1
 Στην έβδομη περίπτωση του άρθρου 7 παράγραφος 5 (απόφαση 2000/819/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου) του πρωτοκόλλου αριθ. 31 της συμφωνίας, προστίθεται η ακόλουθη υποπερίπτωση:
 «—
 32004 D 0593: Απόφαση αριθ. 593/2004/ΕΚ του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου της 21ης Ιουλίου 2004 (ΕΕ L 268 της 16.8.2004, σ. 3).»
 Άρθρο 2
 Η παρούσα απόφαση αρχίζει να ισχύει την επομένη της τελευταίας κοινοποίησης προς τη Μεικτή Επιτροπή του ΕΟΧ δυνάμει του άρθρου 103 παράγραφος 1 της συμφωνίας (3).
 Εφαρμόζεται από 1ης Ιανουαρίου 2005.
 Άρθρο 3
 Η παρούσα απόφαση δημοσιεύεται στο τμήμα ΕΟΧ και στο συμπλήρωμα ΕΟΧ της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
 Βρυξέλλες, 29 Απριλίου 2005.
 Για τη Μεικτή Επιτροπή του ΕΟΧ
 Ο Πρόεδρος
 Richard WRIGHT
 (1) ΕΕ L 64 της 10.3.2005, σ. 3.
 (2) ΕΕ L 268 της 16.8.2004, σ. 3.
 (3) Δεν έχουν αναφερθεί συνταγματικές απαιτήσεις.


text:
 29.6.2015
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 213/10
 Wyrok Trybunału (druga izba) z dnia 29 kwietnia 2015 r. (wniosek o wydanie orzeczenia w trybie prejudycjalnym złożony przez Bundesverwaltungsgericht – Niemcy) – Bundesrepublik Deutschland/Nordzucker AG
 (Sprawa C-148/14) (1)
 ((Odesłanie prejudycjalne - Środowisko naturalne - Dyrektywa 2003/87/WE - System handlu uprawnieniami do emisji gazów cieplarnianych w Unii - Wyznaczenie zakresu obowiązku zwrotu uprawnień - Sankcje - Artykuł 16 ust. 1 i 3))
 (2015/C 213/14)
 Język postępowania: niemiecki
 Sąd odsyłający
 Bundesverwaltungsgericht
 Strony w postępowaniu głównym
 Strona skarżąca: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
 Strona pozwana: Nordzucker AG
 Sentencja
 Artykuł 16 ust. 3 dyrektywy 2003/87/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 13 października 2003 r. ustanawiającej system handlu przydziałami emisji [uprawnieniami do emisji] gazów cieplarnianych we Wspólnocie oraz zmieniającej dyrektywę Rady 96/61/WE, zmienionej dyrektywą 2004/101/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 27 października 2004 r., należy interpretować w ten sposób, że nie ma on zastosowania do operatora, który dokonuje zwrotu liczby uprawnień do emisji gazów cieplarnianych odpowiadającej podanej w sprawozdaniu ilości emisji z poprzedniego roku, która została poddana kontroli zgodnie z art. 15 tej dyrektywy, w przypadku gdy w wyniku dodatkowej kontroli przeprowadzonej przez właściwy organ krajowy po upływie terminu zwrotu okaże się, że podano zaniżoną ilość emisji, wobec czego liczba zwróconych uprawnień jest niewystarczająca.
 Państwa członkowskie powinny ustanowić kary, które można nałożyć w tego rodzaju sytuacji, zgodnie z art. 16 ust. 1 dyrektywy 2003/87, zmienionej dyrektywą 2004/101.
 (1) Dz.U. C 235 z 21.7.2014.


text:
Amerigo Vespucci (pronunzja bit-Taljan: [ameˈriːɡo veˈsputtʃi]; twieled fid-9 ta' Marzu 1451 – miet fit-22 ta' Frar 1512) kien merkant, esploratur u navigatur Taljan mir-Repubblika ta' Firenze, u li minn ismu oriġina isem l-"Amerka" ta' Fuq u t'Isfel).
 Bejn l-1497 u l-1504, Vespucci pparteċipa f'minn tal-inqas żewġ vjaġġi tal-Epoka tal-Iskoperti, l-ewwel f'isem Spanja (1499-1500) u mbagħad f'isem il-Portugall (1501-1502). Fl-1503 u fl-1505 ġew ippubblikati żewġ kotba żgħar f'ismu, li fihom deskrizzjonijiet imħawra ta' dawn l-esplorazzjonijiet u ta' vjaġġi allegati oħra. Iż-żewġ pubblikazzjonijiet kienu estremament popolari u moqrija b'mod wiesa' fil-biċċa l-kbira tal-Ewropa. Għalkemm l-istoriċi għadhom jiddubitaw min tassew kien l-awtur ta' dawn ir-rakkonti u kemm huma veritieri, dak iż-żmien kienu strumentali biex irawmu l-kuxjenza dwar l-iskoperti l-ġodda u biex saħħew ir-reputazzjoni ta' Vespucci bħala esploratur u navigatur.
 Vespucci saħaq li kien fehem, diġà fl-1501 waqt l-ispedizzjoni Portugiża, li l-Brażil kien jagħmel parti minn kontinent ġdid għall-Ewropej, li hu sejjaħ id-"Dinja l-Ġdida". Dan ispira lill-kartografu Martin Waldseemüller jirrikonoxxi l-kisbiet ta' Vespucci fl-1507 billi uża l-forma Latinizzata ta' isem l-"Amerka" għall-ewwel darba fuq mappa tad-Dinja l-Ġdida. Kartografi oħra għamlu bħalu u sal-1532 l-isem "Amerka" (ta' Fuq u t'Isfel) beda jintuża b'mod permanenti għall-kontinenti li kienu għadhom kemm ġew skoperti.
 Mhuwiex magħruf jekk Vespucci qatt kienx jaf b'dawn l-unuri. Fl-1505, huwa sar ċittadin ta' Kastilja permezz ta' digriet irjali u fl-1508 inħatar għall-kariga l-ġdida ta' piloto mayor (navigatur ewlieni) għall-Casa de Contratación (Kamra tal-Kummerċ) ta' Spanja f'Sivilja, kariga li baqa' jokkupa sa mewtu fl-1512.
 Bijografija
 Vespucci twieled fid-9 ta' Marzu 1451 f'Firenze, belt-stat sinjura fl-Italja u ċ-ċentru tal-arti u tat-tagħlim Rinaxximentali.
 Familja u edukazzjoni
 Amerigo Vespucci kien it-tielet iben ta' Nastagio Vespucci, nutar minn Firenze tax-Xirka ta' dawk li jsarrfu l-flus, u ta' Lisa di Giovanni Mini. Il-familja kienet tirresjedi fid-Distrett ta' Santa Lucia d'Ognissanti flimkien ma' familji oħra tan-nisel ta' Vespucci. Ġenerazzjonijiet iktar bikrin ta' Vespucci kienu ffinanzjaw il-kappella tal-familja fil-Knisja tal-Qaddisin Kollha, u l-Isptar ta' San Giovanni di Dio fil-qrib kien ġie stabbilit minn Simone di Piero Vespucci fl-1380. Il-familja immedjata ta' Vespucci ma tantx kienet tassew sinjura iżda kellha konnessjonijiet politiċi tajbin. In-nannu ta' Amerigo, li wkoll kien jismu Amerigo Vespucci, kien il-kanċillier tal-gvern ta' Firenze, magħruf bħala s-Signoria, għal total ta' 36 sena; filwaqt li Nastagio kien ħadem ukoll fis-Signoria u f'uffiċċji oħra tax-xirkiet. L-iktar ħaġa importanti kienet li l-familja Vespucci kellha relazzjonijiet tajbin ma' Lorenzo de' Medici, il-mexxej setgħan de facto ta' Firenze.
 Iż-żewġ aħwa l-kbar ta' Amerigo, Antonio u Girolamo, intbagħtu l-Università ta' Pisa għall-edukazzjoni tagħhom; Antonio kompla mal-linja ta' missieru u sar nutar, filwaqt li Girolamo daħal mal-Knisja u ngħaqad mal-Kavallieri ta' San Ġwann f'Rodi, il-Greċja. Il-karriera ta' Amerigo kienet inqas ċerta; minflok għamel bħal ħutu u mar l-universitài, huwa baqa' Firenze u ġie mgħallem minn zijuh, Giorgio Antonio Vespucci, patri Dumnikan fil-Monasteru ta' San Mark. B'xorti tajba għal Amerigo, zijuh kien wieħed mill-iżjed studjużi umanisti rinomati f'Firenze dak iż-żmien u pprovdielu edukazzjoni wiesgħa fil-letteratura, il-filosofija, ir-retorika u l-Latin. Huwa ġie introdott ukoll għall-ġeografija u għall-astronomija, li kienu suġġetti li kellhom rwol essenzjali fil-karriera tiegħu. Il-kitbiet li Amerigo ħejja iktar 'il quddiem juru li kien midħla tax-xogħol tal-kożmografi Griegi klassiċi, Tolomew u Strabo, u tax-xogħol iktar reċenti tal-astronomu minn Firenze Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli.
 Karriera bikrija
 Fl-1478, Guido Antonio Vespucci mexxa missjoni diplomatika ta' Firenze f'Pariġi, Franza, u stieden lil kuġinuh iż-żgħir, Amerigo Vespucci, jingħaqad miegħu. Ir-rwol ta' Amerigo mhux ċar, iżda x'aktarx kien assistent jew segretarju privat. Matul il-missjoni wettqu xogħol f'Bologna, f'Milan u f'Lyon. L-objettiv tagħhom f'Pariġi kien li jiksbu l-appoġġ Franċiż għall-gwerra ta' Firenze kontra Napli. Lwiġi XI ma ħax impenji u l-missjoni diplomatika reġgħet lura f'Firenze fl-1481 mingħajr wisq suċċess minkejja l-isforzi tagħhom.
 Wara li reġa' lura minn Pariġi, Amerigo ħadem għal xi żmien ma' missieru u kompla l-istudji tiegħu fix-xjenza. Fl-1482, meta missieru miet, Amerigo mar jaħdem għal Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de' Medici, il-kap ta' fergħa żagħżugħa tal-familja Medici. Minkejja li Amerigo kellu tnax-il sena iktar, kienu studjaw flimkien taħt it-tutela ta' Giorgio Antonio Vespucci. Amerigo għamilha l-ewwel ta' maniġer tal-familja u mbagħad gradwalment ingħata iktar responsabbiltajiet, u beda jieħu ħsieb in-negozju għall-familja kemm fil-pajjiż kif ukoll barra mill-pajjiż. Sadanittant, huwa baqa' interessat fil-ġeografija, u darba minnhom saħansitra xtara mappa għalja magħmula mill-kartografu ewlieni Gabriel de Vallseca.
 Sivilja
 Fl-1488, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco xaba' mill-aġent tan-negozju tiegħu f'Sivilja, Tomasso Capponi. Għalhekk bagħat lil Vespucci biex jinvestiga s-sitwazzjoni u jagħti valutazzjoni ta' sostitut issuġġerit, il-merkant minn Firenze Gianotto Berardi. Is-sejbiet ta' Vespucci ntilfu iżda Capponi reġa' lura Firenze għall-ħabta ta' dak iż-żmien u Berardi ħa l-kariga tiegħu f'Sivilja. Minbarra l-ġestjoni tal-kummerċ tal-familja Medici f'Sivilja, Berardi kellu n-negozju tiegħu fl-iskjavitù tal-Afrikani u tax-xama' u tax-xemgħat għall-vapuri.
 Sal-1492 Vespucci stabbilixxa ruħu b'mod permanenti f'Sivilja. Il-motivazzjonijiet tiegħu għaliex telaq minn Firenze mhumiex ċari; hu baqa' jkollu xi negozju f'isem il-familja Medici iżda kulma jmur beda jinvolvi ruħu fl-attivitajiet l-oħra ta' Berardi, b'mod partikolari l-appoġġ tiegħu għall-vjaġġi ta' Kristofru Kolombu. Barardi investa nofs miljun maravedis fl-ewwel vjaġġ ta' Kolombu, u rebaħ kuntratt potenzjalment li jqalla' ħafna flus biex iwassal il-provvisti lit-tieni flotta kbira ta' Kolombu. Madankollu, il-qligħ ma tantx kien kif mistenni. Fl-1495, Berardi ffirma kuntratt mal-monarkija biex jibgħat 12-il vapur tal-provvisti lejn Hispaniola iżda laħaq miet ħesrem f'Diċembru mingħajr ma ssodisfa t-termini tal-kuntratt.
 Vespucci kien l-eżekutur tat-testment ta' Berardi, u ġabar id-dejn u ħallas l-obbligazzjonijiet pendenti għall-azjenda. Wara l-eżekuzzjoni spiċċa kellu jħallas 140,000 maravedis. Huwa kompla jwassal il-provvisti lill-vapuri li kellhom isalpaw lejn l-Indji tal-Punent, iżda l-opportunitajiet tiegħu bdew jonqsu; l-ispedizzjonijiet ta' Kolombu ma kinux qed iwasslu l-qligħ mistenni, u l-patrun tiegħu, Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco Medici, beda juża aġenti oħra minn Firenze biex jieħdu ħsieb in-negozju tiegħu f'Sivilja.
 Xi żmien wara li stabbilixxa ruħu f'Sivilja, Vespucci żżewweġ mara Spanjola, Maria Cerezo. Ma tantx nafu wisq fuqha; it-testment ta' Vespucci jirreferi għaliha bħala bint il-mexxej militari magħruf Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba. L-istoriku Fernández-Armesto jispekula li jaf kienet wild illeġittimu ta' Gonzalo u konnessjoni utli ħafna għal Vespucci. Hija kienet parteċipant attiv fin-negozju tiegħu u kellha l-prokura għal meta Vespucci ma kienx preżenti.
 Vjaġġi u vjaġġi allegati
 L-evidenza tal-vjaġġi ta' esplorazzjoni ta' Vespucci tikkonsisti kważi għalkollox minn għadd ta' ittri miktuba minnu jew attribwiti lilu. L-istoriċi ma laħqux qbil dwar jekk kienx hu l-awtur tal-ittri, kif ukoll dwar kemm kienu preċiżi u veritieri dawn id-dokumenti. B'hekk, l-opinjonijiet rigward l-għadd ta' vjaġġi li saru, ir-rotot tagħhom, u rwoli u l-kisbiet ta' Vespucci jvarjaw ħafna. Mill-aħħar tas-snin 90 tas-seklu 15, Vespucci pparteċipa f'żewġ vjaġġi lejn id-Dinja l-Ġdida li huma ddokumentati sew storikament. Tnejn oħra ġew allegati iżda l-evidenza tagħhom hija iktar problematika. Tradizzjonalment, il-vjaġġi ta' Vespucci issir referenza għalihom bħala "l-ewwel" sa "ir-raba'", anke mill-istoriċi li ma jaqblux li wieħed jew iktar mill-vjaġġ qatt seħħx.
 Vjaġġ allegat tal-1497-1498
 Ittra indirizzata lill-uffiċjal minn Firenze Piero Soderini, datata fl-1504 u ppubblikata s-sena ta' wara, tgħid li hija rakkont ta' Vespucci dwar vjaġġ lejn id-Dinja l-Ġdida, bit-tluq minn Spanja fl-10 ta' Mejju 1497, u bir-ritorn fil-15 ta' Ottubru 1498. Dan x'aktarx li huwa l-iżjed vjaġġ kontroversjali mill-vjaġġi ta' Vespucci, peress li din l-ittra hija l-unika waħda magħrufa dwar dan il-vjaġġ, u bosta storiċi jiddubitaw li seħħ kif deskritt. Uħud jiddubitaw li Vespucci kien l-awtur filwaqt li oħrajn isostnu li mhijiex ittra preċiża u jsostnu li ġiet iffalsifikata. Oħrajn jindikaw l-inkonsistenzi fin-narrazzjoni tal-vjaġġ, partikolarment ir-rotta allegata, minn ħdejn il-Honduras lejn il-Majjistral għal 870 lega (madwar 5,130 km jew 3,190 mil) — rotta li kieku kienet tgħaddihom mill-Messiku sal-Oċean Paċifiku.
 Ċerti storiċi iktar bikrin, inkluż il-kontemporanju Bartolomé de las Casas, issuspetta li Vespucci inkorpora osservazzjonijiet minn vjaġġ li sar wara f'rakkont fittizju dwar dan il-vjaġġ allegat, sabiex jikseb il-primazija fuq Kolombu u jippożizzjona lilu nnifsu bħala l-ewwel esploratur Ewropew li sab l-art kontinentali. Oħrajn, inkluż l-istudjuż Alberto Magnaghi, issuġġerew li l-ittra lil Solderini ma nkitbitx minn Vespucci, iżda minn xi awtur mhux magħruf li kellu aċċess għall-ittri privati tan-navigatur lil Lorenzo de' Medici dwar l-ispedizzjonijiet tiegħu tal-1499 u tal-1501 lejn l-Amerki, li ma jsemmux vjaġġ fl-1497. L-ittra lil Soderini hija waħda minn tnejn attribwiti lil Vespucci li ġew editjati u ċċirkolati b'mod mifrux matul ħajtu.
 Vjaġġ tal-1499-1500
 Fl-1499, Vespucci ngħaqad ma' spedizzjoni liċenzjata minn Spanja u mmexxija minn Alonso de Ojeda bħala kmandant tal-flotta u minn Juan de la Cosa bħala navigatur ewlieni. L-intenzjoni tagħhom kienet li jesploraw il-kost ta' massa ġdida ta' art li sab Kolombu fit-tielet vjaġġ tiegħu u b'mod partikolari li jinvestigaw sors rikk ta' ġawhar li kien irrapporta Kolombu. Vespucci u l-appoġġaturi tiegħu ffinanzjaw tnejn mill-erba' vapuri fil-flotta żgħira. Ir-rwol tiegħu fil-vjaġġ mhuwiex ċar. Meta kiteb iktar 'il quddiem dwar l-esperjenza tiegħu, Vespucci ta l-impressjoni li kellu rwol ta' tmexxija, iżda dan ma tantx huwa probabbli, minħabba li ma kellux esperjenza. Minflok, jaf għamilha ta' rappreżentant kummerċjali f'isem l-investituri tal-flotta. Snin wara, Ojeda semma li "Morigo Vespuche" kien wieħed mill-piloti tiegħu fl-ispedizzjoni.Il-bastimenti telqu minn Spanja fit-18 ta' Mejju 1499 u l-ewwel waqfu fil-Gżejjer Kanarji qabel ma waslu l-Amerka t'Isfel xi mkien fejn illum hemm is-Suriname jew il-Guyana Franċiża. Minn hemm il-flotta nqasmet: Ojeda baqa' sejjer lejn il-Majjistral fejn illum hemm il-Venezwela b'żewġ vapuri, filwaqt li l-par l-ieħor ta' vapuri salpaw lejn in-Nofsinhar b'Vespucci abbord. L-unika rakkont tal-vjaġġ lejn in-Nofsinhar sar minn Vespucci nnifsu. Huwa assuma li kienu mal-kosta tal-Asja u billi salpaw lejn in-Nofsinhar, skont il-ġeografu Grieg Tolomew, suppost kellhom iduru mal-"Kap ta' Cattigara" mhux identifikat u jaslu fl-Oċean Indjan. Għaddew minn ħdejn żewġ xmajjar enormi (l-Amazon u l-Para) li kienu qed inixxu l-ilma ħelu xi 25 mil (40 km) mill-baħar. Huma baqgħu sejrin lejn in-Nofsinhar għal 40 lega (madwar 240 kilometru jew 150 mil) oħra qabel ma ltaqgħu ma' kurrent avvers qawwi ħafna li ma setgħux isibu tarfu. B'hekk kienu obbligati jduru u l-vapuri salpaw lejn it-Tramuntana lura minn fejn ġew. Minn hemm Vespucci kompla tiela' l-kosta tal-Amerka t'Isfel sal-Gof ta' Paria u tul ix-xatt tal-Venezwela. F'xi punt jaf reġgħu ltaqgħu u ngħaqdu ma' Ojeda iżda l-evidenza mhix ċara. Fl-aħħar tas-sajf iddeċidew li jsalpaw lejn it-Tramuntana fid-direzzjoni tal-kolonja Spanjola ta' Hispaniola fl-Indji tal-Punent biex isewwu l-vapuri tagħhom u jerġgħu jimluhom bil-provvisti qabel ma jmorru lura d-dar. Wara Hispaniola għamlu attakki fil-qosor għall-iskjavi fil-Bahamas, u qabdu 232 nattiv, u mbagħad reġgħu lura lejn Spanja.
 Vjaġġ tal-1501-1502
 Fl-1501, Manwel I tal-Portugall ikkummissjona spedizzjoni biex tiġi investigata massa ta' art 'il bogħod lejn il-Punent fl-Oċean Atlantiku li ltaqa' magħha b'kumbinazzjoni Pedro Álvares Cabral fil-vjaġġ tiegħu madwar l-Afrika lejn l-Indja. Dik l-art eventwalment kienet il-Brażil. Ir-re ried ikun jaf x'kienet tfisser din l-iskoperta l-ġdida u jiddetermina fejn kienet fir-rigward tal-linja stabbilita mit-Trattat ta' Tordesillas. Kwalunkwe art fil-Lvant tal-linja setgħet tittieħed mill-Portugall. Ir-reputazzjoni ta' Vespucci bħala esploratur u navigatur preżunt diġà kienet waslet il-Portugall, u ġie mqabbad mir-re biex ikun il-pilota taħt il-kmand ta' Gonçalo Coelho.Il-flotta ta' tliet vapuri ta' Coelho telqet minn Liżbona f'Mejju 1501. Qabel ma qasmu l-Atlantiku waqfu għall-provvisti f'Cabo Verde, fejn iltaqgħu ma' Cabral fi triqtu lura d-dar mill-vjaġġ tiegħu lejn l-Indja. Din kienet l-istess spedizzjoni li kienet sabet il-Brażil fil-vjaġġ tas-sena ta' qabel. Coelho telaq minn Cabo Verde f'Ġunju, u minn hemm 'il quddiem ir-rakkont ta' Vespucci huwa l-unika wieħed li għad fadal dwar l-esplorazzjonijiet tagħhom. Fis-17 ta' Awwissu 1501, l-ispedizzjoni waslet il-Brażil f'latitudni ta' madwar 6° fin-Nofsinhar. Fl-iżbark inzertat grupp ostili ta' nattivi li qatlu u kielu wieħed mill-membri tal-ekwipaġġ. Iktar lejn in-Nofsinhar tul il-kosta sabu nattivi inqas ostili u setgħu jwettqu xi forma żgħira ta' kummerċ. F'23° fin-Nofsinhar sabu bajja li semmewha Rio de Janeiro għaliex kien l-1 ta' Jannar 1502. Fit-13 ta' Frar 1502, huma telqu mill-kosta biex jerġgħu lura d-dar. Skont l-istimi ta' Vespucci il-latitudni tagħhom kienet 32° fin-Nofsinhar iżda l-esperti issa jistmaw li kienu eqreb il-25° fin-Nofsinhar. Il-vjaġġ tagħhom lejn id-dar mhuwiex ċar peress li Vespucci rreġistra għadd ta' osservazzjonijiet astronomiċi konfużi u d-distanzi li vvjaġġaw.
 Vjaġġ allegat tal-1503-1504
 Fl-1503, Vespucci jaf ipparteċipa fit-tieni spedizzjoni għall-monarkija Portugiża, u mill-ġdid esplora l-kosta tal-Lvant tal-Brażil. Hemm evidenza li sar vjaġġ immexxi minn Coelho għall-ħabta ta' dan iż-żmien iżda ma hemm l-ebda konferma indipendenti li Vespucci ipparteċipa. L-unika sors ta' dan l-aħħar vjaġġ hi l-ittra lil Soderini; iżda bosta studjużi moderni jiddubitaw kemm Vespucci kien l-awtur ta' dik l-ittra u mhuwiex ċert jekk Vespucci għamilx dan il-vjaġġ. Hemm diffikultajiet ukoll bid-dati u d-dettalji rrapportati fir-rakkont ta' dan il-vjaġġ.
 Ritorn lejn Sivilja
 Sal-bidu tal-1505, Vespucci kien lura f'Sivilja. Ir-reputazzjoni tiegħu bħala esploratur u navigatur baqgħet tikber u s-servizz reċenti tiegħu fil-Portugall donnu li ma naffarx lir-Re Ferdinandu. Minflok ir-re kien x'aktarx interessat li jitgħallem dwar il-possibbiltà ta' passaġġ fil-Punent lejn l-Indja. Fi Frar ġie msejjaħ mir-re biex jikkonsultah fuq kwistjonijiet ta' navigazzjoni. Fix-xhur ta' wara ngħata pagamenti mill-monarkija għas-servizzi tiegħu u f'April ġie ddikjarat ċittadin ta' Kastilja u León permezz ta' proklamazzjoni rjali.
 Mill-1505 sa mewtu fl-1512, Vespucci baqa' jagħti servizz lill-monarkija Spanjola. Huwa baqa' jaħdem fl-għoti tal-provvisti lill-vapuri li kienu se jsalpaw lejn l-Indji. Ġie mqabbad ukoll biex jidderieġi vapur bħala parti minn flotta li kellha ssalpa lejn il-"gżejjer tal-ħwawar" iżda l-vjaġġ ippjanat qatt ma seħħ. F'Marzu 1508 ġie nnominat pilota ewlieni tal-Casa de Contratación jew il-Kamra tal-Kummerċ li kienet topera bħala kamra ċentrali tal-kummerċ għall-pussessi ekstra-Ewropej ta' Spanja. Huwa kien jitħallas salarju annwali ta' 50,000 maravedis u 25,000 żejda għall-ispejjeż. Fir-rwol il-ġdid tiegħu, Vespucci kien responsabbli biex jiżgura li l-piloti tal-vapuri kien imħarrġa biżżejjed u liċenzjati qabel ma jbaħħru lejn id-Dinja l-Ġdida. Huwa kellu wkoll jikkompila "mudell ta' mappa" abbażi tal-input mill-piloti li kellhom l-obbligu li jikkondividu dak li tgħallmu wara kull vjaġġ.
 Vespucci kiteb it-testment tiegħu f'April 1511. Huwa ħalla l-biċċa l-kbira tal-patrimonju mudest tiegħu, inkluż ħames skjavi domestiċi, lil martu. Il-ħwejjeġ, il-kotba u t-tagħmir tan-navigazzjoni tiegħu tħallew lin-neputi Giovanni Vespucci. Huwa talab li jindifen skont it-tradizzjoni Franġiskana fil-qabar tal-familja ta' martu. Vespucci miet fit-22 ta' Frar 1512.
 Wara li miet, il-mara ta' Vespucci ngħatat pensjoni annwali ta' 10,000 maravedis li kellhom jitnaqqsu mis-salarju tal-pilota ewlieni li kien is-suċċessur ta' Vespucci. In-neputi tiegħu Giovanni tqabbad jaħdem fil-Casa de Contratación fejn qatta' s-snin ta' wara jispijja f'isem l-istat ta' Firenze.
 Biblijografija
 Arciniegas, Germán (1955). Amerigo and the New World: The Life and Times of Amerigo Vespucci. Traduzzjoni ta' de Onís, Harriet. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN 0374902801.
 Beazley, Charles Raymond (1911). "Vespucci, Amerigo" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 27 (11th ed.). pp. 1053–1054.
 Brinkbaumer, Klaus; Hoges, Clemens (2004). The Voyage of the Vizcaina. Traduzzjoni ta' Streck, Annette. Harcourt. pp. 105–109. ISBN 978-0151011865.
 Diffie, Bailey W.; Winius, George D. (1977). Foundations of the Portuguese Empire 1415–1580. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 456–462.
 Edwards, Charles Lester; Vespucci, Amerigo (2009). Amerigo Vespucci. Viartis. ISBN 978-1906421021.
 Fernández-Armesto, Felipe (2007). Amerigo: The Man Who Gave His Name to America. New York: Random House.
 Formisano, Luciano (1992). Letters from a New World: Amerigo Vespucci's Discovery of America. New York: Marsilio. ISBN 0941419622.
 Lester, Toby (2009). The Fourth Part of the World. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-1416535317.
 Magnaghi, Alberto (1924). Amerigo Vespucci: Studio critico, con speciale riguardo ad una nuova valutazione delle fonti e con documenti inediti tratti dal Codice Vaglienti. Ruma: Treves.
 Markham, Clements R. (1894). The Letters of Amerigo Vespucci, and Other Documents Illustrative of His Career. London: Hakluyt Society. ISBN 978-1108012867.
 Morison, Samuel Eliot (1974). The European Discovery of America: The Southern Voyages, 1492–1616. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 276–312.
 Ober, Frederick A. (1907). Amerigo Vespucci. New York & London: Harper & Brothers. ISBN 978-1503010727.
 Pohl, Frederick J. (1944). Amerigo Vespucci: Pilot Major. New York: Columbia University Press.
 Ray, Kurt (2004). Amerigo Vespucci: Italian Explorer of the Americas. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN 0823936155.
 Schulz, Norbert; Vespucci, Amerigo (2007). Amerigo Vespucci, Mundus Novus (mit Zweittexten). MMO-Verlag. ISBN 978-3981114423.
 Thomas, Hugh (2003). Rivers of Gold. New York: Random House. pp. 269–276. ISBN 0375502041.
 Vespucci, Amerigo (1504). Mundus Novus: Letter to Lorenzo Pietro Di Medici. Traduzzjoni ta' George Tyler. Princeton: Princeton University Press (ippubblikata fl-1916).
 Vigneras, Louis-André (1976). The Discovery of South America and the Andalusian Voyages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226856094.
 Referenzi
 Navigaturi
 Nies Taljani
 Twieldu fl-1451
 Mietu fl-1512
 Esploraturi


text:
The 2014 J3 League (referred to as the 2014 Meiji Yasuda J3 League (2014 明治安田生命J3リーグ) for sponsorship reasons) was the 18th season of the third tier of the Japanese football, and the inaugural season of the professional J3 League. The season commenced on 9 March and will finish on November 23, with a 3-week break after the 17th week matches on 21 and 22 June (except one on 25 June), then will resume from 19 and 20 July, due to prefectural qualifiers, followed by the 1st and 2nd round matches of the 2014 Emperor's Cup scheduled during the intermission.
 Establishment
 After the discussion on J1-J2 Joint Committee on 16 January 2013, all J. League clubs agreed in principle with an establishment of the new league starting 2014. This decision was formally put into force by J. League Council on 26 February executive meeting. The league was planned to launch with 10 teams, but another session of J. League Council in July decided that inaugural season of J3 will feature 12 teams.
 Clubs
 In order to participate, a club must have held an associate membership, or had submitted an application before 30 June 2013, and then passed an inspection in order to obtain a participation licence issued by J. League Council. On November 19, J. League has confirmed the following clubs to participate in the inaugural J3 season:
 On 29 September the J. League licensing board issued J2 licenses to the following clubs: Machida Zelvia, Nagano Parceiro, Zweigen Kanazawa, and Gainare Tottori. Tottori's license was issued provisionally, under conditions of financial improvement before 30 October when the league re-assessed the club's financial stance and confirmed the passage of the licensing.
 Competition rules
 The league will be played in three rounds, each team playing a total of 33 matches. J.League U-22 Selection will play all their matches on the road.
 Each team must feature at least 3 players holding professional contracts. Two foreign players are allowed per team, plus 1 more from the ASEAN partner country of J. League. The matchday roster will consist of 16 players, and up to 5 substitutes will be allowed in a game.
 Promotion and relegation
 Rules for promotion to J2 will be largely similar to those of Japan Football League in the recent seasons: in order to be promoted, a club must hold a J2 license and finish in top 2 of the league. The U-22 team is not eligible for promotion regardless of their final position. The champions will be promoted directly, in exchange to 22nd-placed J2 club; and the runners-up will participate in the playoffs with 21st J2 club. If either or both top 2 finishers are ineligible for promotion, the playoffs and/or direct exchange will not be held in accordance to the exact positions of promotion-eligible clubs.
 No relegation to JFL is planned. Up to 2 clubs may be promoted if they are licensed by J. League for J3 participation and finish in top-4 of JFL.
 Foreign players
 Note:
 A special team, composed of best J1 and J2 youngsters in order to prepare them to 2016 Olympics
 League table
 Results
 Rounds 1–11
 Rounds 12–22
 Rounds 23–33
 J2 promotion playoffs
 2014 J2/J3 Play-Offs (2014 J2・J3入れ替え戦)
 J3 runners-up Nagano Parceiro played the 21st-placed J2 club Kamatamare Sanuki in a two-legged playoffs. The winning club will play in J2 in 2015 season.
 Nagano Parceiro remains in J3 League.Kamatamare Sanuki remains in J2 League.
 Top scorers
 Updated per games played on 23 November 2014
 Source: J. League data
 Attendance
 References
 J3 League seasons
 3


text:
497/2002 Z. z. Vyhláška Ministerstva financií Slovenskej republiky o spôsobe výpočtu a preukazovania solventnosti p... | Aktuálne znenie
 497/2002 Z. z.
 Vyhláška č. 497/2002 Z. z.Vyhláška Ministerstva financií Slovenskej republiky o spôsobe výpočtu a preukazovania solventnosti poisťovne a solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne
 Platnosť od 27.08.2002 do31.07.2004
 Účinnosť od 01.09.2002 do31.07.2004
 Zrušený 441/2004 Z. z.
 § 1 - Spôsob výpočtu a preukazovania solventnosti poisťovne a solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne
 § 2 - Spôsob výpočtu a preukazovania minimálnej miery solventnosti poisťovne a solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne
 § 3 - Vlastné zdroje poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne
 Aktuálne znenie 01.09.2002 - 31.07.2004
 zo 6. augusta 2002
 o spôsobe výpočtu a preukazovania solventnosti poisťovne a solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne
 Ministerstvo financií Slovenskej republiky podľa § 31 ods. 10 písm. a) až e) zákona č. 95/2002 Z. z. o poisťovníctve a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (ďalej len „zákon") ustanovuje:
 Spôsob výpočtu a preukazovania solventnosti poisťovne a solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne
 (1) Základom výpočtu a preukazovania solventnosti poisťovne a solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne sú údaje uvedené v súvahe poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne, vo výkaze ziskov a strát poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne zostavených k 31. decembru predchádzajúceho účtovného obdobia a v analytickej a operatívnej evidencii poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne.
 (2) Výpočet a preukazovanie solventnosti poisťovne a solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne sa vykonáva
 a) osobitne pre životné a neživotné poistenie, ak poisťovňa alebo pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne vykonáva súčasne životné poistenie a neživotné poistenie,
 b) pre poistenie životné, ak poisťovňa alebo pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne vykonáva len životné poistenie,
 c) pre poistenie neživotné, ak poisťovňa alebo pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne vykonáva len neživotné poistenie.
 (3) Poisťovňa a pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú súčasne životné poistenie a neživotné poistenie, robia výpočet a preukazujú svoju solventnosť spôsobom a na tlačive, ktorého vzor je uvedený v prílohe č. 1.
 (4) Poisťovňa a pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú len životné poistenie, robia výpočet a preukazujú svoju solventnosť spôsobom a na tlačive, ktorého vzor je uvedený v prílohe č. 2.
 (5) Poisťovňa a pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú len neživotné poistenie, robia výpočet a preukazujú svoju solventnosť spôsobom a na tlačive, ktorého vzor je uvedený v prílohe č. 3.
 (6) Vysvetlivky k prílohám č. 1 až 3 sú uvedené v prílohe č. 4.
 (7) Na účely preukazovania solventnosti poisťovne a solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne sa údaje uvádzajú v slovenských korunách, pričom údaje sa prepočítavajú kurzom eura, ktorý je vyhlasovaný Národnou bankou Slovenska, platným k 31. decembru predchádzajúceho účtovného obdobia.
 Spôsob výpočtu a preukazovania minimálnej miery solventnosti poisťovne a solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne
 (1) Na účely preukazovania minimálnej miery solventnosti poisťovne a minimálnej miery solventnosti pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne sa za minimálnu mieru solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne považuje vyššia hodnota z vypočítanej miery solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne podľa odseku 2 alebo 3 alebo z hodnoty garančného fondu.1)
 (2) V životnom poistení sa miera solventnosti vypočítava z objemu technických rezerv a z rizikového kapitálu spôsobom uvedeným v prílohách č. 1 a 2. Oddelene od ostatných životných poistení sa vypočítava miera solventnosti v životnom poistení spojenom s investičným fondom. Ak poisťovňa alebo pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne vykonáva aj poistenie pre prípad úrazu alebo choroby, ktoré je pripoistením k životnému poisteniu, miera solventnosti sa vypočítava z objemu hrubého predpísaného poistného tohto poistenia spôsobom uvedeným v prílohách č. 1 a 2.
 (3) V neživotnom poistení je mierou solventnosti vyššia hodnota z hodnôt vypočítaných z objemu hrubého predpísaného poistného v neživotnom poistení a z nákladov na poistné plnenia spôsobom uvedeným v prílohách č. 1 a 3.
 (4) Poisťovňa a pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú súčasne životné poistenie a neživotné poistenie, robia výpočet a preukazujú dodržiavanie minimálnej miery solventnosti spôsobom a na tlačive, ktorého vzor je uvedený v prílohe č. 1.
 (5) Poisťovňa a pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú len životné poistenie, robia výpočet a preukazujú dodržiavanie minimálnej miery solventnosti spôsobom a na tlačive, ktorého vzor je uvedený v prílohe č. 2.
 (6) Poisťovňa a pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú len neživotné poistenie, robia výpočet a preukazujú dodržiavanie minimálnej miery solventnosti spôsobom a na tlačive, ktorého vzor je uvedený v prílohe č. 3.
 (7) Vysvetlivky k prílohám č. 1 až 3 sú uvedené v prílohe č. 4.
 Vlastné zdroje poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne
 (1) Vlastnými zdrojmi poisťovne sú majetkové hodnoty uvedené v odseku 2, znížené o záväzky a položky uvedené v odseku 3, najviac vo výške hodnoty voľných, ničím nezaťažených aktív poisťovne.
 (2) Majetkovými hodnotami sú:
 b) polovica nesplateného základného imania, ak bolo splatených aspoň 30 % základného imania,
 c) rezervný fond,2)
 d) kapitálové fondy, ktorými sú emisné ážio, ostatné kapitálové fondy a oceňovacie rozdiely z podielových cenných papierov a vkladov,
 (3) Záväzkami a položkami znižujúcimi vlastné zdroje sú:
 (4) Vlastnými zdrojmi pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne sú majetkové hodnoty uvedené v odseku 2 písm. c) až e), znížené o záväzky a položky uvedené v odseku 3, najviac vo výške hodnoty voľných, ničím nezaťažených aktív pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne vrátane finančných prostriedkov vo výške jednej štvrtiny garančného fondu1) uložených na samostatnom účte v banke.3)
 Príloha č. 1 k vyhláške č. 497/2002 Z. z.
 Príloha č. 2 k vyhláške č. 497/2002 Z. z.
 Príloha č. 3 k vyhláške č. 497/2002 Z. z.
 Príloha č. 4 k vyhláške č. 497/2002 Z. z.
 VYSVETLIVKY K PRÍLOHÁM Č. 1 AŽ 3
 A. Poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú súčasne životné a neživotné poistenie
 Položka I F (1) Minimálna výška základného imania pre životné poistenie
 V položke I F (1) sa uvádza požadovaná najmenšia výška základného imania pre životné poistenie podľa § 4 ods. 12 písm. a) zákona. Pri pobočke zahraničnej poisťovne sa v tejto položke uvádza 1/4 garančného fondu pre životné poistenie podľa § 31 ods. 3 zákona.
 Položka I F (2) Minimálna výška základného imania pre neživotné poistenie
 V položke I F (2) sa uvádza požadovaná najmenšia výška základného imania pre neživotné poistenie podľa § 4 ods. 12 písm. b) a ods. 13 zákona. Pri pobočke zahraničnej poisťovne sa v tejto položke uvádza 1/4 garančného fondu pre neživotné poistenie podľa § 31 ods. 3 zákona.
 B. Vysvetlivky k výpočtu solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú životné poistenie
 1. Vypĺňanie tlačiva „Výpočet solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú životné poistenie“, sa vzťahuje na poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú výlučne životné poistenie.
 2. K časti I Vlastné zdroje
 2.1. Položka I A (1) Splatené základné imanie
 Položka I A (1) sa vypočíta tak, že od súvahovej položky pasív „Základné imanie“ (súvaha riadok 80, stĺpec 4) sa odpočíta súvahová položka aktív „Pohľadávky z upísaného základného imania“ (súvaha riadok 55, stĺpec 4). Pri pobočke zahraničnej poisťovne sa uvádzajú finančné prostriedky vo výške 1/4 garančného fondu podľa § 31 zákona uložené na samostatnom účte v banke.
 2.2. Položka I A (2) Polovica nesplateného základného imania
 V položke I A (2) sa uvádza polovica súvahovej položky aktív „Pohľadávky z upísaného základného imania“ (súvaha riadok 55, stĺpec 4).
 2.3. Položka I A (3) Fondy nepodliehajúce záväzkom
 V položke I A (3) a) „Rezervný fond“ sa uvádza súvahová položka pasív „Rezervný fond“ (súvaha riadok 84, stĺpec 4).
 Suma uvádzaná pod I A (3) b) „Voľné fondy“ zodpovedá časti súvahovej položky pasív „Ostatné fondy“ (súvaha riadok 85, stĺpec 4 okrem sociálneho fondu a ostatných záväzkových fondov) a jej výpočet sa uvádza v prílohe k tlačivu.
 2.4. Položka I A (4) Nerozdelený zisk minulých rokov
 V položke I A (4) sa uvádza súvahová položka pasív „Nerozdelený zisk minulých rokov“ (súvaha riadok 115, stĺpec 4).
 2.5. Položka I A (5) Iné vlastné fondy
 Pod položkou I A (5) „Iné vlastné fondy“ sa rozumejú časti súvahových položiek „Ostatné kapitálové fondy“ (súvaha riadok 82, stĺpec 4) a „Oceňovacie rozdiely z podielových CP a vkladov“ (súvaha riadok 83, stĺpec 4). Patrí sem aj emisné ážio - súvahová položka „Emisné ážio“ (súvaha riadok 81, stĺpec 4).
 2.6. Položka I A (6) Položky uvedené v súvahe
 Položka I A (6) „Položky uvedené v súvahe“ zahŕňa súvahovú položku „Nehmotný majetok“ (súvaha riadok 11, stĺpec 4), položku „Neuhradená strata minulých rokov“ (súvaha riadok 114, stĺpec 4) a položku „Hospodársky výsledok bežného účtovného obdobia“, ak je záporná, t. j., ak hospodárskym výsledkom je strata (súvaha riadok 116, stĺpec 4 - v tlačive sa hodnota uvádza bez záporného znamienka).
 2.7. Položka I B (7) Rezerva na podiel na zisku (prebytku poistného) pre životné poistenie
 Položka I B (7) „Rezerva na podiel na zisku (prebytku poistného) pre životné poistenie“ je určená na rezervy, ak nepripadá na už určené podiely na prebytku, a možno ju použiť na krytie strát.
 2.8. Položka I C (8) Časť budúcich prebytkov poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne týkajúca sa životného poistenia
 V položke sa uvádza hodnota budúcich prebytkov, ak minimálna miera solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne nebude krytá jej vlastnými prostriedkami A a B.
 2.9. Položka I C (9) Rozdiel medzi čistou a zillmerizovanou rezervou na životné poistenie
 Položka zahŕňa hodnotu obstarávacích nákladov, ktoré boli započítané do poistného, ale v rezerve na životné poistenie neboli zohľadnené alebo len čiastočne zohľadnené zillmerizáciou.
 2.10. Položka I D (10) a (11) Rozdiel z podhodnotenia aktív alebo Rozdiel z nadhodnotenia pasív
 V položke „Rozdiel z podhodnotenia aktív“ sa uvádza rozdiel okamžitej trhovej hodnoty aktív a účtovnej hodnoty týchto aktív. V položke „Rozdiel z nadhodnotenia pasív“ sa uvádza rozdiel okamžitej trhovej hodnoty pasív a účtovnej hodnoty týchto pasív.
 Pri položkách uvedených v bode D ide o také prostriedky, ktoré možno zahrnúť do vlastných zdrojov len vtedy, ak vlastné zdroje poisťovne alebo pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne nestačia na krytie minimálnej miery solventnosti.
 3. K časti II Minimálna miera solventnosti
 3.1. Časť II Odsek I Životné poistenie - prvý výsledok
 Matematické rezervy sa uvádzajú v brutto výškach, t. j. vrátane podielu zaisťovateľa. Ide o technickú rezervu na životné poistenie bez podielov na zisku (prebytku poistného) a o technickú rezervu na poistné budúcich období zníženú o náklady.
 Výpočet hodnôt uvádzaných v položkách (a) a (b) sa uvádza v prílohe k tlačivu.
 Koeficient zaistenia sa vypočítava ako podiel matematických rezerv znížených o podiel zaisťovateľa a celkovej výšky matematických rezerv. Koeficient v (b) sa zaokrúhľuje na dve desatinné miesta.
 Hodnota prvého výsledku sa vykazuje zároveň v časti III „Celkový prehľad“ v riadku 55.
 3.2. Časť II Odsek I Životné poistenie - druhý výsledok
 Hrubý rizikový kapitál sa určuje ako rozdiel dohodnutej poistnej hodnoty splatnej pri vzniku poistnej udalosti v deň výpočtu minimálnej miery solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne vrátane prítomnej hodnoty odložených plnení, pri tej istej úrokovej miere, aká bola použitá pri kalkulácii poistného, a hodnoty existujúcej technickej rezervy na životné poistenie bez podielov na zisku (prebytku poistného), zvýšenej o hodnotu technickej rezervy na poistné budúcich období zníženú o náklady bez odpočítania podielov do zaistenia. Hrubý rizikový kapitál všetkých poistných zmlúv závisí od doby splatnosti poistení pre všetky skupiny zahrnuté pod (a1), (a2) a (a3) a uvádza sa len vtedy, ak je jeho hodnota kladná. V prípade, že je záporná, uvádza sa nula.
 Súčet hodnôt uvedených v bodoch (a1), (a2) a (a3) sa dosadzuje do menovateľa koeficientu zaistenia v (b). V čitateli sa uvádza rizikový kapitál celej poisťovacej činnosti bez zaistenia.
 Tieto hodnoty nie sú uvedené v súvahe. Ich výpočet sa uvádza v prílohe k tlačivu. Koeficient v (b) sa zaokrúhľuje na dve desatinné miesta.
 Hodnota druhého výsledku sa vykazuje zároveň v časti III „Celkový prehľad“ v riadku 56.
 3.3. Odsek II Pripoistenie
 Za doplnkové riziká k životnému poisteniu sa považujú poistenia pre prípad úrazu alebo choroby, ak sú pripoistením k životnému poisteniu podľa Klasifikácie poistných odvetví podľa poistných druhov, ktorá tvorí prílohu k zákonu.
 Základom výpočtu je predpísané hrubé poistné pripadajúce na pripoistenia v poslednom účtovnom roku (mínus storná) bez odpočítania podielov do zaistenia (brutto), ako aj vedľajšie plnenia poistníka vznikajúce pri týchto pripoisteniach. Celková hodnota sa nedá odvodiť iba z ročnej závierky, pretože táto neobsahuje primerané členenie na kapitálové poistenie a dôchodkové poistenie ani poistenie spojené s investičným fondom na jednej strane a pripoistenia na druhej strane. Výpočet položky sa uvádza v prílohe k tlačivu. Pri výpočte sa vychádza zo zaúčtovaného predpísaného hrubého poistného vykazovaného vo výkaze ziskov a strát (výkaz ziskov a strát, riadok 34 a z AE k účtu 621).
 Hodnota uvádzaná v riadku 37 sa rozdeľuje na dve časti. Prvá časť, ktorá predstavuje ekvivalent 10 000 000 EUR v Sk, sa vynásobí 0,18 a uvádza sa v riadku 38, zvyšná časť sa vynásobí 0,16 a uvádza sa v riadku 39 a potom sa uvedené riadky spočítajú a uvedú v riadku 40.
 Ďalším základom výpočtu minimálnej miery solventnosti poisťovne je podiel nákladov na poistné plnenia v pripoisteniach bez zaistenia a celkových nákladov na poistné plnenia v pripoisteniach, ktorý vyplýva z posledného účtovného roku. Údaje, ktoré nie sú uvedené v ročnej závierke, uvádzajú sa len v prílohe k tlačivu. Koeficient v (b) sa zaokrúhľuje na dve desatinné miesta.
 Hodnota výsledku sa vykazuje zároveň v časti III „Celkový prehľad“ v riadku 57.
 3.4. Časť II Odsek III Poistenie spojené s investičným fondom - prvý výsledok
 Minimálna miera solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne sa vypočítava podľa matematických rezerv patriacich k tomuto poisteniu vrátane podielu zaisťovateľa. Tieto hodnoty rezerv sa dosadzujú do menovateľa (celkové technické rezervy), do čitateľa sa dosadzuje výška matematických rezerv po odpočítaní podielu zaisťovateľa. Výpočet tejto hodnoty sa uvádza v prílohe k tlačivu. Dosadenie do položky (a1) sa neuvádza, ak poisťovňa a pobočka zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú životné poistenie, nepreberajú riziko investovania, ale riziko znášajú poistení. V takom prípade sa nevykonáva rozdelenie východiskovej hodnoty podľa zmlúv. Pri ostatných zmluvách je kritériom doba splatnosti viac alebo menej ako päť rokov. Suma, ktorá pripadá na prvú skupinu zmlúv, sa dosadzuje do položky (a2).
 Koeficient v (b) sa zaokrúhľuje na dve desatinné miesta.
 Hodnota prvého výsledku sa vykazuje zároveň v časti III „Celkový prehľad“ v riadku 58.
 3.5. Časť II Odsek III Poistenie spojené s investičným fondom - druhý výsledok
 Ak poisťovne a pobočky zahraničných poisťovní vykonávajú životné poistenie, preberajú pri poisteniach spojených s investičným fondom aj riziko úmrtnosti, takže pre minimálnu mieru solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne je rozhodujúci aj rizikový kapitál celej poisťovacej činnosti bez zaistenia. Pojmy a metóda výpočtu rizikového kapitálu sú rovnaké ako v bode 3.2.
 Hrubý rizikový kapitál pre poistenie spojené s investičným fondom sa dosadzuje do (a) a do menovateľa koeficientu (b), rizikový kapitál bez zaistenia do čitateľa tohto koeficientu.
 Výpočet týchto súm sa nezisťuje zo súvahy, ale sa uvádza v prílohe k tlačivu.
 Hodnota druhého výsledku sa vykazuje zároveň v časti III „Celkový prehľad“ v riadku 59.
 C. Vysvetlivky k výpočtu solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú neživotné poistenie
 1. Vyplnenie tlačiva „Výpočet solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú neživotné poistenie“ sa vzťahuje na poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú výlučne neživotné poistenie.
 Položka I A (1) sa vypočíta tak, že od súvahovej položky pasív „Základné imanie“ (súvaha riadok 80, stĺpec 4) sa odpočíta súvahová položka aktív „Pohľadávky z upísaného základného imania“ (súvaha riadok 55, stĺpec 4).
 Suma uvádzaná pod I A (3) b) „Voľné fondy“ zodpovedá časti súvahovej položky pasív „Ostatné fondy“ (súvaha riadok 85, stĺpec 4 okrem sociálneho fondu a ostatných záväzkových fondov) a jej zloženie sa uvádza v prílohe k tlačivu.
 2.7. Položka I B (7) a (8) Rozdiel z podhodnotenia aktív alebo Rozdiel z nadhodnotenia pasív
 V položke „Rozdiel z podhodnotenia aktív“ sa uvádza rozdiel okamžitej trhovej hodnoty aktív a účtovnej hodnoty týchto aktív.
 V položke „Rozdiel z nadhodnotenia pasív“ sa uvádza rozdiel okamžitej trhovej hodnoty pasív a účtovnej hodnoty týchto pasív.
 Pri položkách uvedených v bode B ide o také prostriedky, ktoré možno zahrnúť do vlastných zdrojov len vtedy, ak vlastné zdroje poisťovne alebo pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne nestačia na krytie jej minimálnej miery solventnosti.
 3.1. Prvý výsledok (index poistného)
 Do položky (a) patrí hodnota predpísaného hrubého poistného (výkaz ziskov a strát, riadok 12, stĺpec 1 - AE k účtu 601).
 Hodnota uvádzaná v riadku 16 sa rozdeľuje na dve časti. Prvá časť, ktorá predstavuje ekvivalent 10 000 000 EUR v Sk, sa vynásobí 0,18 a uvádza sa v riadku 17, zvyšná časť sa vynásobí 0,16 a uvádza sa v riadku 18 a potom sa uvedené riadky spočítajú a uvedú v riadku 19.
 Ďalším základom výpočtu minimálnej miery solventnosti poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne je podiel nákladov na poistné plnenia bez zaistenia a celkových nákladov na poistné plnenia, ktorý vyplýva z posledného účtovného roku. Táto hodnota sa zaokrúhľuje na dve desatinné miesta v položke (b) a jej výpočet sa uvádza v prílohe k tlačivu.
 Hodnota výsledku sa vykazuje zároveň v časti III „Celkový prehľad“ v riadku 34.
 3.2. Druhý výsledok (škodový index)
 Obdobie na výpočet škodového indexu pre tie poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne, v ktorých aspoň 75 % z celkovej činnosti tvoria špeciálne poľnohospodárske poistenia, je sedem rokov. Základom je hodnota predpísaného hrubého poistného. Pre ostatné poisťovne a pobočky zahraničnej poisťovne sa škodový index vypočítava za tri roky. V poisťovni a pobočke zahraničnej poisťovne, ktoré vykonávajú činnosť menej ako tri roky, sa škodový index vypočítava za obdobie ich podnikania.
 Hrubé poistné plnenia sa vypočítavajú ako súčet nákladov na poistné plnenia v neživotnom poistení vrátane podielu zaisťovateľa za posledné tri roky, prípadne za posledných sedem rokov. V položke (a) (2) „Hrubé rezervy na poistné plnenia vytvorené na konci príslušného obdobia“ sa uvádza stav technickej rezervy na poistné plnenie v neživotnom poistení vrátane podielu zaisťovateľa k 31. decembru posledného uzavretého účtovného obdobia. V položke (a) (3) „Hrubé rezervy na poistné plnenia vytvorené na začiatku príslušného obdobia“ sa uvádza stav technickej rezervy na poistné plnenie v neživotnom poistení vrátane podielu zaisťovateľa k 1. januáru trojročného, prípadne sedemročného obdobia. Hodnota uvádzaná v riadku 27 sa rozdeľuje na dve časti. Prvá časť, ktorá predstavuje ekvivalent 7 000 000 EUR v Sk, sa vynásobí 0,26 a uvádza sa v riadku 28, zvyšná časť sa vynásobí 0,23 a uvádza sa v riadku 29 a potom sa uvedené riadky spočítajú a uvedú v riadku 30.
 Nezávisle od dĺžky obdobia, pre ktoré sa vypočítava škodový index, sa určuje podiel nákladov na poistné plnenia bez zaistenia (výkaz ziskov a strát riadok 20, stĺpec 2) a celkových nákladov na poistné plnenia (výkaz ziskov a strát riadok 19, stĺpec 1), a to vždy len na základe výsledku posledného účtovného obdobia. Jeho hodnota sa zaokrúhľuje na dve desatinné miesta.
 Hodnota výsledku sa vykazuje zároveň v časti III „Celkový prehľad“ v riadku 35.
 1) § 31 ods. 3 zákona č. 95/2002 Z. z. o poisťovníctve a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov.
 2) § 67 Obchodného zákonníka v znení neskorších predpisov.
 3) Zákon č. 483/2001 Z. z. o bankách a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov.


type: legislation

text:
 10.11.2015
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 292/4
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2015/2000 AL COMISIEI
 din 9 noiembrie 2015
 de modificare a Regulamentelor (CE) nr. 546/2003, (CE) nr. 1342/2003, (CE) nr. 952/2006, (CE) nr. 826/2008, (CE) nr. 1295/2008, (CE) nr. 1296/2008, (UE) nr. 1272/2009, (UE) nr. 738/2010 și a Regulamentelor de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 și (UE) nr. 511/2012 în ceea ce privește obligațiile de notificare în cadrul organizării comune a piețelor agricole
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1308/2013 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 17 decembrie 2013 de instituire a unei organizări comune a piețelor produselor agricole și de abrogare a Regulamentelor (CEE) nr. 922/72, (CEE) nr. 234/79, (CE) nr. 1037/2001 și (CE) nr. 1234/2007 ale Consiliului, (1) în special articolul 223 alineatul (3),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei (2) stabilește norme comune pentru notificarea către Comisie a informațiilor și a documentelor de către statele membre. Normele respective includ, în special, obligația statelor membre de a utiliza sistemele informatizate puse la dispoziție de către Comisie, precum și validarea drepturilor de acces ale autorităților sau ale persoanelor autorizate să trimită notificări. Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 stabilește și principii comune aplicabile sistemelor informatizate, astfel încât acestea să garanteze autenticitatea, integritatea și lizibilitatea în timp a documentelor, și prevede protecția datelor cu caracter personal. Obligația de a folosi aceste sisteme informatizate ar trebui prevăzută în fiecare regulament care stabilește o obligație specifică de notificare.
 (2)
 Comisia a elaborat un sistem informatizat care-i permite să gestioneze electronic documentele și a procedurile în cadrul propriilor proceduri de lucru interne și al propriilor relații cu autoritățile implicate în politica agricolă comună.
 (3)
 Prin intermediul acestui sistem pot fi îndeplinite o serie de obligații de comunicare și de notificare, în special cele prevăzute în Regulamentele (CE) nr. 546/2003 (3), (CE) nr. 1342/2003 (4), (CE) nr. 952/2006, (5) (CE) nr. 826/2008 (6), (CE) nr. 1295/2008 (7), (CE) nr. 1296/2008 (8), (UE) nr. 1272/2009 (9), (UE) nr. 738/2010 (10) și în Regulamentele de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 (11) și (UE) nr. 511/2012 (12) ale Comisiei.
 (4)
 În vederea unei gestionări eficiente și ținând seama de experiența acumulată, unele obligații privind notificările ar trebui modificate.
 (5)
 Prin urmare, Regulamentele (CE) nr. 546/2003, (CE) nr. 1342/2003, (CE) nr. 952/2006, (CE) nr. 826/2008, (CE) nr. 1295/2008, (CE) nr. 1296/2008, (UE) nr. 1272/2009, (UE) nr. 738/2010 și Regulamentele de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 și (UE) nr. 511/2012 ar trebui modificate în consecință.
 (6)
 Măsurile prevăzute în prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comitetului pentru organizarea comună a piețelor agricole,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 La articolul 1 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 546/2003, alineatul (3) se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „(3) Notificarea menționată la alineatul (1) se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei (13).
 Articolul 2
 La articolul 16 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1342/2003 se adaugă următoarele alineate (3) și (4):
 „(3) Statele membre nu sunt obligate să notifice informațiile menționate la litera (a) punctele (ii) și (iii) și la literele (b) și (c) ale alineatului (1) în cursul perioadelor în care nu este fixată nicio restituire la export, nu este fixată nicio taxă la export sau nu este fixat niciun ajutor alimentar.
 (4) Notificările și comunicările menționate la alineatele (1) și (2) se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei (14).
 Articolul 3
 La articolul 15a din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 952/2006, al doilea paragraf se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „Fiecare stat membru comunică Comisiei, înainte de sfârșitul fiecărei luni, mediile prețurilor colectate la nivel național, precum și cantitățile corespunzătoare totale și abaterile standard. Mediile și abaterile standard se calculează în funcție de cantitățile comunicate de întreprinderi în temeiul paragrafului anterior. Comunicarea se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei (15).
 Articolul 4
 Articolul 12 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 826/2008 se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 alineatele (3) și (4) se înlocuiesc cu următorul text:
 „(3) Notificările prevăzute la alineatul (1), inclusiv notificările «zero», se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009.
 (4) Informații mai detaliate cu privire la notificări se stabilesc în regulamentele de deschidere a procedurii de licitație în cauză.”;
 2.
 alineatul (5) se elimină.
 Articolul 5
 La articolul 9 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1295/2008 se adaugă următorul alineat (5):
 „(5) Notificările menționate la alineatele (2) și (4) se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei (16).
 Articolul 6
 În Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1296/2008, articolul 21a se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „Articolul 21a
 Notificările menționate în prezentul regulament se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei (17).
 Articolul 7
 În Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1272/2009, articolul 58 se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „Articolul 58
 Metodă aplicabilă obligațiilor de notificare
 Notificările menționate în prezentul regulament se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei (18).
 Articolul 8
 La articolul 5 din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 738/2010, se adaugă următorul alineat (10):
 „(10) Notificarea menționată la alineatul (9) se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei (19).
 Articolul 9
 La articolul 146 din Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011, alineatul (3) se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „(3) Notificările prevăzute la articolul 9 alineatul (2), la articolul 18 alineatele (3) și (4), la articolele 97 și 128, la articolul 129 alineatul (1), la articolele 130 și 131, la articolul 134 alineatul (1) și la prezentul articol, precum și cererea prevăzută la articolul 92 alineatul (1) se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009.”
 Articolul 10
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 511/2012 se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 la articolul 1 alineatul (1) se adaugă următoarea literă (d):
 „(d)
 numărul total de organizații de producători, de asociații și organizații interprofesionale recunoscute la sfârșitul anului calendaristic precedent.”;
 2.
 la articolul 3 alineatul (1), litera (a) se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „(a)
 volumul total de lapte crud, precizat per stat membru de producție, livrat pe teritoriile lor în cadrul contractelor negociate de către organizații de producători recunoscute și asociații în conformitate cu articolul 149 alineatul (2) litera (f) din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1308/2013 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului (20) în cursul anului calendaristic precedent, astfel cum a fost notificat autorităților competente în temeiul articolului 2 alineatul (3) din prezentul regulament, indicând numărul organizațiilor și asociațiilor de producători și volumele respective furnizate.
 (20) Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1308/2013 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 17 decembrie 2013 de instituire a unei organizări comune a piețelor produselor agricole și de abrogare a Regulamentelor (CEE) nr. 922/72, (CEE) nr. 234/79, (CE) nr. 1037/2001 și (CE) nr. 1234/2007 ale Consiliului (JO L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671).”;"
 3.
 se introduce următorul articol 5a:
 „Articolul 5a
 Notificările menționate în prezentul regulament, cu excepția celor menționate la articolul 3 alineatul (2), se efectuează în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei (21).
 (21) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei din 31 august 2009 de stabilire a normelor detaliate pentru comunicarea Comisiei de către statele membre a informațiilor și documentelor cu privire la implementarea organizării comune a piețelor, la sistemul de plăți directe, la promovarea produselor agricole și la regimul aplicabil regiunilor ultraperiferice și insulelor mici din Marea Egee (JO L 228, 1.9.2009, p. 3).”"
 Articolul 11
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a treia zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Se aplică de la 16 noiembrie 2015.
 Cu toate acestea, articolul 3 se aplică de la 1 octombrie 2016.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în statele membre în conformitate cu tratatele.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 9 noiembrie 2015.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) JO L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.
 (2) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 792/2009 al Comisiei din 31 august 2009 de stabilire a normelor detaliate pentru comunicarea Comisiei de către statele membre a informațiilor și documentelor cu privire la implementarea organizării comune a piețelor, la sistemul de plăți directe, la promovarea produselor agricole și la regimul aplicabil regiunilor ultraperiferice și insulelor mici din Marea Egee (JO L 228, 1.9.2009, p. 3).
 (3) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 546/2003 al Comisiei din 27 martie 2003 privind anumite comunicări de date referitoare la aplicarea Regulamentelor (CEE) nr. 2771/75, (CEE) nr. 2777/75 și (CEE) nr. 2783/75 ale Consiliului în sectorul ouălor și păsărilor de curte (JO L 81, 28.3.2003, p. 12).
 (4) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1342/2003 al Comisiei din 28 iulie 2003 de stabilire a normelor speciale de aplicare a regimului licențelor de import și de export în sectorul cerealelor și al orezului (JO L 189, 29.7.2003, p. 12).
 (5) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 952/2006 al Comisiei din 29 iunie 2006 de stabilire a normelor de aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 318/2006 al Consiliului în ceea ce privește gestionarea pieței interne a zahărului și regimul cotelor (JO L 178, 1.7.2006, p. 39).
 (6) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 826/2008 al Comisiei din 20 august 2008 de stabilire a normelor comune de acordare a ajutorului pentru depozitarea privată a anumitor produse agricole (JO L 223, 21.8.2008, p. 3).
 (7) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1295/2008 al Comisiei din 18 decembrie 2008 privind importul de hamei din țări terțe (JO L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 45).
 (8) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1296/2008 al Comisiei din 18 decembrie 2008 privind stabilirea normelor de aplicare a contingentelor tarifare la importul de porumb și de sorg în Spania și, respectiv, de porumb în Portugalia (JO L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 57).
 (9) Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1272/2009 al Comisiei din 11 decembrie 2009 de stabilire a normelor de punere în aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1234/2007 al Consiliului cu privire la achiziționarea și vânzarea produselor agricole în cadrul schemei de intervenție publică (JO L 349, 29.12.2009, p. 1).
 (10) Regulamentul (UE) nr. 738/2010 al Comisiei din 16 august 2010 de stabilire a normelor detaliate privind plățile către organizațiile de producători din sectorul hameiului din Germania (JO L 216, 17.8.2010, p. 11).
 (11) Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 543/2011 al Comisiei din 7 iunie 2011 de stabilire a normelor de aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1234/2007 al Consiliului în ceea ce privește sectorul fructelor și legumelor și sectorul fructelor și legumelor prelucrate (JO L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1).
 (12) Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 511/2012 al Comisiei din 15 iunie 2012 privind notificările referitoare la organizațiile de producători și organizațiile interprofesionale, precum și la negocierile și relațiile contractuale, prevăzute în Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1234/2007 pentru sectorul laptelui și al produselor lactate (JO L 156, 16.6.2012, p. 39).


text:
Die Clausewitz-Kaserne ist eine Kaserne der Bundeswehr südöstlich vom Zentrum der Stadt Burg. In der Zeit der DDR trug sie den Namen Waldfrieden-Kaserne. Sie wurde 1993 nach Carl von Clausewitz umbenannt.
 Lage
 Die Clausewitz-Kaserne liegt rund zwei Kilometer nördlich der Bundesautobahn 2. Westlich verläuft die Bundesstraße 246a und befindet sich der Industrie- und Gewerbepark der Stadt Burg. Weiter westlich der B246a liegt der Standortübungsplatz. Im Osten befindet sich Wald und rund vier Kilometer östlich der Ort Grabow. Nördlich besteht eine (Reserve-)Ausfahrt zur L52 mit Fahrtrichtung Burg und Grabow.
 Geschichte
 Die Kaserne wurde bei der Aufrüstung der Wehrmacht ab 1937 erbaut. 1938 wurde mit dem Dienstbetrieb als Fliegerhorst begonnen. 1945 wurde sie nach Kriegszerstörungen teilweise abgerissen. Ab 1946 wurde sie vorübergehend zur Flüchtlingsunterkunft umgebaut. Als Kaserne wurde sie seit 1949 wieder genutzt, zuerst durch die Kasernierte Volkspolizei, dann ab 1956 durch die NVA und seit der Übernahme 1990 durch die Bundeswehr. Sie ist die dritte Kaserne in der Geschichte der Stadt seit 1772 und die letzte in militärischer Nutzung verbliebene.
 Aktuelle Situation
 Stationierte Einheiten / Dienststellen
 Logistikregiment 1
 Logistikbataillon 171 „SACHSEN-ANHALT“ (SKB)
 Logistikzentrum der Bundeswehr (LogZBw) Abteilung IHF, Logistische Steuerstelle Burg (SKB)
 Kraftfahrausbildungszentrum Burg (SKB)
 8./Feldjägerregiment 1 (SKB)
 Sanitätsversorgungszentrum Burg (ZSan)
 Bundeswehr-Dienstleistungszentrum Burg (IUD)
 weitere kleine Dienststellen
 Einrichtungen
 UHG Burg
 OHG Burg
 Ehemalige Einheiten
 Folgende Einheiten der Bundeswehr waren in der Kaserne stationiert:
 Logistiktruppe:
 Logistikregiment 17 "SACHSEN-ANHALT" (SKB) (2002–2012)
 Logistikregiment 41 (H) (1997–2002)
 Nachschub- und Transportregiment 41 (H) (1991–1997)
 Nachschubbataillon 411 (H) (1994–2000)
 Transportbataillon 410 (H) (1992–2003)
 Kraftfahrausbildungszentrum Burg 1 (SKB) (1994–2005)
 Versorgungs- und Ausbildungszentrum 173 (SKB) (2003–2007)
 Feldjägertruppe:
 5./Feldjägerbataillon 351 (SKB) (2006–2014)
 3./Feldjägerbataillon 352 (SKB) (2002–2006)
 5./Feldjägerbataillon 701 (H) (1997–2002)
 5./Feldjägerbataillon 801 (H) (1991–1997)
 Ehemalige Einheiten der Nationalen Volksarmee der DDR
 Folgende Einheiten der NVA waren in der Kaserne stationiert:
 Panzerregiment 1 „Friedrich Wolf“ (1956–1983)
 Aufklärungsbataillon 1 „Dr. Richard Sorge“ (bis 1981)
 Bataillon Chemische Abwehr-1 „Herbert Kittelmann“ (bis 1982)
 Weblinks
 Geschichte der Kaserne in der DDR
 Einzelnachweise
 Kaserne der Bundeswehr
 Kaserne der NVA
 Kaserne in der DDR
 Kaserne in Sachsen-Anhalt
 Bauwerk in Burg (bei Magdeburg)
 Erbaut in den 1940er Jahren
 Carl von Clausewitz als Namensgeber