type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 IL-KUMMISSJONI EWROPEA
 Brussell, 26.5.2016
 COM(2016) 286 final
 2016/0150(NLE)
 Proposta għal
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-KUNSILL
 dwar il-pożizzjoni li għandha tiġi adottata f’isem l-Unjoni Ewropea fil-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija Ekonomika bejn l-Istati tal-CARIFORUM, minn naħa, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra, rigward it-twaqqif ta’ Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd
 MEMORANDUM TA’ SPJEGAZZJONI
 1.KUNTEST TAL-PROPOSTA
 Raġunijiet u għanijiet tal-proposta
 Il-proposta mehmuża għal Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill tikkostitwixxi l-istrument legali għat-twaqqif ta’ Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd fil-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija Ekonomika (FSE), iffirmat fil-15 ta’ Ottubru 2008 bejn l-Istati tal-CARIFORUM, min naħa, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra. Il-Ftehim japplika b'mod provviżorju mid-29 ta' Diċembru 2008.
 L-agrikoltura u s-sajd huma qasam importanti tal-Ftehim, u skont l-Artikolu 230(4) tal-FSE UE-CARIFORUM, jista' jitwaqqaf kwalunkwe kumitat speċjali sabiex jiġu ttratti b'aktar effiċjenza l-kwistjonijiet marbutin mal-implimentazzjoni ta’ dan il-Ftehim. Dan il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd se jkun magħmul minn rappreżentanti tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea, minn naħa, u rappreżentanti tad-Direttorat tal-CARIFORUM u tal-Istati Firmatarji tal-CARIFORUM min-naħa l-oħra.
 Il-Kumitat Speċjali għandu jiġi stabbilit b’deċiżjoni tal-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE (magħmul minn rappreżentanti tal-Partijiet f’livell ta’ uffiċjali għolja). F’dan ir-rigward, id-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill proposta tinkludi bħala anness, l-abbozz tad-Deċiżjoni li l-Partijiet qablu dwarha waqt il-ħames laqgħa annwali tal-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE li seħħet f’Guyana fl-14 ta’ Lulju 2015.
 Konsistenza ma’ dispożizzjonijiet ta’ politika eżistenti fil-qasam ta’ politika
 Il-FSE UE-CARIFORUM jinkludi kapitolu speċifiku ddedikat għall-kwistjonijiet dwar l-agrikoltura u s-sajd.
 Konsistenza ma' politiki oħrajn tal-Unjon
 It-twqqif ta’ dan il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd huwa konsistenti u ħa inkonsiderazzjoni l-konklużjoni tal-aħħar żewġ laqgħat annwali tal-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE li seħħew fi Brussell fl-2014 u f’Guyana fl-2015.
 2.
 BAŻI ĠURIDIKA, SUSSIDJARJETÀ U PROPORZJONALITÀ
 Bażi ġuridika
 Il-bażi ġuridika għal din id-deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill hija t-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea, u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 207 flimkien mal-Artikolu 218(9) tiegħu.
 Sussidjarjetà (għal kompetenza mhux esklużiva)
 Il-politika kummerċjali komuni, f'konformità mal-Artikolu 3 tat-TFUE, hija definita bħala kompetenza esklużiva tal-Unjoni.
 Proporzjonalità
 Din il-proposta hi meħtieġa sabiex jiġi stabbilit kwalunkwe kumitat speċjali, kif stabbilit fl-Artikolu 230(4) tat-test tal-FSE UE-CARIFORUM u fir-regoli ta’ proċedura tal-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE.
 Għażla tal-istrument
 Din il-proposta hija skont l-Artikolu 218(5) TFUE, li jipprevedi l-adozzjoni ta' deċiżjonijiet mill-Kunsill dwar ftehimiet internazzjonali. Ma jeżisti l-ebda strument ġuridiku ieħor li jista' jintuża sabiex jintlaħaq l-objettiv espress f'din il-proposta.
 3.
 RIŻULTATI TAL-EVALWAZZJONIJIET EX POST, KONSULTAZZJONIJIET MAL-PARTIJIET IKKONĊERNATI U VALUTAZZJONIJIET TAL-IMPATT
 Evalwazzjonijiet ex post / kontrolli tal-idoneità tal-leġiżlazzjoni eżistenti
 Mhux applikabbli.
 Konsultazzjonijiet mal-partijiet ikkonċernati
 Mhux applikabbli.
 Ġbir u użu tal-kompetenzi
 Mhux applikabbli.
 Valutazzjoni tal-impatt
 Mhux applikabbli.
 Idoneità regolatorja u simplifikazzjoni
 Il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd mhuwiex soġġett għal proċeduri ta’ REFIT; ma jdaħħalx lill-Unjoni fi spejjeż; u ma jqajjem l-ebda kwistjoni mill-perspettiva tal-ambjent diġitali.
 Drittijiet fundamentali
 Il-proposta ma għandhiex konsegwenzi għall-protezzjoni tad-drittijiet fundamentali fl-Unjoni.
 4.
 IMPLIKAZZJONIJIET BAĠITARJI
 It-twaqqif ta’ dan il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd ma għandu l-ebda implikazzjoni baġitarja.
 5.
 ELEMENTI OĦRAJN
 Il-pjanijiet għall-implimentazzjoni u l-arranġamenti ta’ monitoraġġ, ta’ evalwazzjoni u ta’ rappurtar
 Dan il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd se jkun magħmula minn rappreżentanti tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea, minn naħa, u minn rappreżentanti tad-Direttorat tal-CARIFORUM u tal-Istati Firmatarji tal-CARIFORUM min-naħa l-oħra.
 Id-dokumenti ta’ spjegazzjoni (għad-direttivi)
 Mhux applikabbli.
 Spjegazzjoni dettaljata tad-dispożizzjonijiet speċifiċi tal-proposta
 Il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd se jeżamina mill-ġdid l-aspetti kollha tal-Kapitolu 5 ("l-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd") tat-Titolu I, tal-Parti II, tal-FSE UE-CARIFORUM, kif ukoll kull aspett ieħor tal-Ftehim relatat mal-agrikoltura u mas-sajd.
 2016/0150 (NLE)
 Proposta għal
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-KUNSILL
 dwar il-pożizzjoni li għandha tiġi adottata f’isem l-Unjoni Ewropea fil-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija Ekonomika bejn l-Istati tal-CARIFORUM, minn naħa, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra, rigward it-twaqqif ta’ Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd
 IL-KUNSILL TAL-UNJONI EWROPEA,
 Wara li kkunsidra t-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea, u b'mod partikolari l-Artikolu 207 flimkien mal-Artikolu 218(9) tiegħu,
 Wara li kkunsidra l-proposta tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea,
 Billi:
 (1)Il-Ftehim ta' Sħubija Ekonomika bejn l-Istati tal-CARIFORUM, minn naħa, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra
 1
 ("il-Ftehim"), ġie ffirmat fil-15 ta' Ottubru 2008, u mid-29 ta' Diċembru 2008 ġie applikat provviżjorjament.
 (2)Skont l-Artikolu 230(4) tal-Ftehim, il-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE jista’ jistabbilixxi u jissorvelja kull kumitat speċjali sabiex jitratta kwistjonijiet li jaqgħu taħt il-kompetenza tiegħu.
 (3)Sabiex jintlaħqu l-objettivi previsti fl-Artikolu 37 tal-Ftehim, għandu jitwaqqaf Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd sabiex jitratta b’mod aktar effiċenti l-kwistjonijiet relatati ma’ dawn il-kwistjonijiet, kif ġie mifthiem waqt laqgħat preċedenti tal-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE.
 (4)Huwa xieraq li tkun stabbilita l-pożizzjoni li għandha tiġi adottata f’isem l-Unjoni fil-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE rigward it-twaqqif ta’ Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd.
 (5)Il-pożizzjoni tal-Unjoni fil-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE għandha għalhekk tkun ibbażata fuq l-abbozz mehmuż tad-Deċiżjoni,
 ADOTTA DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:
 Artikolu 1
 Il-pożizzjoni li għandha tiġi adottata f’isem l-Unjoni fil-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija Ekonomika bejn l-Istati tal-CARIFORUM, minn naħa, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra, rigward it-twaqqif ta’ Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd għandha tiġi bbażata fuq l-abbozz tad-deċiżjoni, mehmuż ma' din id-deċiżjoni, tal-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE.
 Bidliet żgħar fl-abbozz tad-Deċiżjoni jista' jkun hemm qbil dwarhom mir-rappreżentanti tal-Unjoni fil-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE, mingħajr ma tkun meħtieġa deċiżjoni oħra tal-Kunsill.
 Artikolu 2
 Din id-Deċiżjoni tidħol fis-seħħ fil-jum tal-adozzjoni tagħha.
 Magħmul fi Brussell,
 Għall-Kunsill
 Il-President
 (1)
 ĠU L 289, 30.10.2008, p. 3.
 ---documentbreak---
 IL-KUMMISSJONI EWROPEA
 Brussell, 26.5.2016
 COM(2016) 286 final
 ANNESS
 tal-
 Proposta għal Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill
 dwar il-pożizzjoni li għandha tiġi adottata f’isem l-Unjoni Ewropea fil-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE tal-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija Ekonomika bejn l-Istati tal-CARIFORUM, minn naħa, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra, rigward it-twaqqif ta’ Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd
 ABBOZZ
 ID-DEĊIŻJONI NRU.../2016 TAL-KUMITAT GĦALL-KUMMERĊ U GĦALL-IŻVILUPP CARIFORUM-UE
 stabbilit fi ħdan il-Ftehim ta’ Sħubija Ekonomika bejn l-Istati tal-CARIFORUM minn naħa, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra, rigward it-twaqqif ta' Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd
 IL-KUMITAT GĦALL-KUMMERĊ U GĦALL-IŻVILUPP CARIFORUM-UE
 Wara li kkunsidra l-Ftehim ta' Sħubija Ekonomika bejn l-Istati tal-CARIFORUM minn naħa, u l-Komunità Ewropea u l-Istati Membri tagħha, min-naħa l-oħra (“il-Ftehim”), u b'mod partikolari l-Artikolu 230(4)(a) tiegħu,
 Wara li kkunsidra r-Regoli ta’ Proċedura tal-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE, stabbilit mill-Kunsill Konġunt CARIFORUM-UE fis-17 ta’ Mejju 2010 permezz tad-Deċiżjoni Nru 1/2010, u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 11 tagħha,
 Billi:
 Huwa xieraq li jiġi stabbilit Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd sabiex jintlaħqu l-objettivi tad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Ftehim dwar l-agrikoltura u s-sajd,
 IDDEĊIEDA KIF ĠEJ:
 Artikolu 1
 1.Il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd CARIFORUM-UE qiegħed b’dan jiġi stabbilit sabiex iwettaq il-funzjonijiet stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 2.
 2.Il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd CARIFORUM-UE għandu jkun ukoll forum għall-Partijiet sabiex jiskambjaw esperjenzi, informazzjoni u l-aħjar prattiki, u sabiex isseħħ konsultazzjoni dwar il-kwistjonijiet kollha relatati mal-objettivi stabbiliti fil-Kapitolu 5 tat-Titolu I tal-Parti II tal-Ftehim u li huma rilevanti għall-kummerċ bejn il-Partijiet.
 Artikolu 2
 Il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd għandu:
 (a)b'mod ġenerali janalizza mill-qrib l-aspetti kollha tal-Kapitolu 5 - Agrikoltura u Sajd - tat-Titolu I tal-Parti II, tal-Ftehim;
 (b)b'mod ġenerali janalizza mill-qrib l-aspetti l-oħra kollha tal-Ftehim li jirrigwardaw l-agrikoltura u s-sajd, inklużi l-oqsma li ġejjin tat-Titolu I tal-Parti II – il-Kummerċ tal-merkanzija:
 (i)Kapitolu 1 - Il-kwistjonijiet kollha marbutin mal-kummerċ ta’ prodotti agrikoli u tas-sajd, inklużi t-tariffi;
 (ii)Kapitolu 3 - L-Artikolu 28 - Is-sussidji fuq l-esportazzjonijiet agrikoli;
 (iii)Kapitolu 6 - L-ostakli tekniċi għall-kummerċ, f'dak li għandu x'jaqsam ma' prodotti agrikoli u tas-sajd; kif ukoll
 (iv)Kapitolu 7 - Il-miżuri sanitarji u fitosanitarji, f'dak li għandu x'jaqsam ma' prodotti agrikoli u tas-sajd;
 (c)b'mod ġenerali janalizza mill-qrib l-aspetti kollha tat-Titolu IV, il-Kapitolu 2 – L-Innovazzjoni u l-Proprjetà Intelletwali, peress li huma marbutin mal-prodotti agrikoli u tas-sajd, inkluż l-Artikolu 145 - L-indikazzjonijiet ġeografiċi u l-Artikolu 149 - Il-varjetajiet tal-pjanti;
 (d)jimpenja ruħu fi djalogu dwar kwistjonijiet marbutin mal-agrikoltura u mas-sajd, inkluż fl-oqsma li ġejjin:
 (i)il-produzzjoni, il-konsum u l-kummerċ agrikolu kif ukoll dwar l-iżviluppi rispettivi fis-suq tal-prodotti agrikoli u tas-sajd;
 (ii)il-promozzjoni tal-investiment fis-setturi agrikoli, alimentari u tas-sajd inklużi l-attivitajiet fuq skala żgħira, u t-trasferiment tal-għarfien għal dawn is-setturi;
 (iii)il-politiki, il-liġijiet u r-regolamenti dwar l-agrikoltura, l-iżvilupp rurali u s-sajd;
 (iv)il-bidliet istituzzjonali u fil-politika meħtieġa sabiex ikunu sostnuti t-trasformazzjoni tas-setturi agrikoli u tas-sajd kif ukoll il-formulazzjoni u l-implimentazzjoni tal-politiki reġjonali dwar l-agrikoltura, l-ikel, l-iżvilupp rurali u s-sajd sabiex ikun hemm integrazzjoni reġjonali;
 (v)it-teknoloġiji ġodda, ir-riċerka u l-innovazzjoni kif ukoll il-politiki u l-miżuri relatati mal-kwalità; kif ukoll
 (vi)l-iżviluppi fil-politika kummerċjali dwar komoditajiet u prodotti agrikoli tradizzjonali, inklużi l-banana, ir-rum, ir-ross u z-zokkor;
 (e)jassisti lill-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE rigward il-funzjonijiet li ġejjin:
 (i)biex jissorvelja u jkun responsabbli mill-implimentazzjoni tad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Ftehim dwar l-agrikoltura u s-sajd u għall-applikazzjoni xierqa tagħhom, kif ukoll biex jiddiskuti u jirrakkomanda l-prijoritajiet ta’ kooperazzjoni f’dan ir-rigward;
 (ii)biex jissorvelja l-elaborazzjoni ulterjuri tad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Ftehim dwar l-Agrikoltura u s-Sajd, u biex jevalwa r-riżultati miksuba mill-applikazzjoni tiegħu;
 (iii)jieħu azzjoni sabiex jevita tilwim u jsolvi tilwim li jista’ jinqala’ rigward l-interpretazzjoni jew l-applikazzjoni tad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Ftehim dwar l-agrikoltura u s-sajd, skont id-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Parti III tiegħu;
 (iv)biex jiddiskuti u jieħu azzjoni li tista' tiffaċilita l-kummerċ, l-investiment u l-opportunitajiet ta’ negozju fis-setturi tal-agrikoltura u tas-sajd bejn il-Partijiet; kif ukoll
 (v)biex jiddiskuti kwistjonijiet marbutin mad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Ftehim dwar l-agrikoltura u s-sajd u kull kwistjoni li tista’ taffettwa biex l-għanijiet tiegħu jintlaħqu;
 (f)jagħmel rakkomandazzjonijiet lill-Kumitat għall-Kummerċ u għall-Iżvilupp CARIFORUM-UE bl-għan li tittejjeb l-implimentazzjoni u l-operat tad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Ftehim dwar l-agrikoltura u s-sajd.
 Artikolu 3
 Il-Kumitat Speċjali għall-Agrikoltura u għas-Sajd jkun magħmula minn rappreżentanti tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea, minn naħa, u rappreżentanti tad-Direttorat tal-CARIFORUM u tal-Istati Firmatarji tal-CARIFORUM, min-naħa l-oħra.
 Artikolu 4
 Din id-Deċiżjoni tidħol fis-seħħ fil-(...)
 Magħmul fi (...), fi (...) 2016.


type: contracts

text:
25 . 2 . 74 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften Nr. L 53 / 11
 ABKOMMEN
 zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und dem Kaiserreich Äthiopien
 über die Lieferung von Weichweizen im Rahmen der Nahrungsmittelhilfe
 DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN
 einerseits,
 DIE REGIERUNG DES KAISERREICHS ÄTHIOPIEN
 andererseits
 HABEN BESCHLOSSEN, dieses Abkommen zu schließen, und haben dafür als Bevollmächtigte
 ernannt :
 DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN :
 DIE REGIERUNG DES KAISERREICHS ÄTHIOPIEN :
 DIESE SIND WIE FOLGT ÜBEREINGEKOMMEN :
 Artikel I cherung der gelieferten Ware von den Ausladehäfen
 bis zu den Bestimmungsorten zu treffen.
 Im Rahmen ihres Programms für Nahrungsmittel
 hilfe in Form von Getreide für das Jahr 1972/ 1973 Artikel V
 liefert die Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft —
 im folgenden „Gemeinschaft" genannt — dem Kai Das Empfängerland verpflichtet sich, die im Rah
 serreich Äthiopien — im folgenden „Empfänger men der Hilfe gelieferte Ware für Verbraucher
 land" genannt — unentgeltlich 5 000 Tonnen Weich zwecke zu verwenden und unentgeltlich an die not
 weizen . leidende Bevölkerung zu verteilen .
 Artikel II
 Artikel VI
 Der Weichweizen wird cif Ausladehäfen des Empfän
 gerlandes in neuen Jutesäcken mit einem Nettoge Die Vertragsparteien verpflichten sich, bei der
 wicht von je 50 kg geliefert. Durchführung dieses Abkommens jegliche Beein
 trächtigung der normalen Struktur der einheimi
 schen Produktion und des internationalen Handels
 Artikel III
 zu vermeiden . Sie treffen zu diesem Zweck die erfor
 Die Verpflichtungen und Verantwortlichkeiten der derlichen Maßnahmen, um sicherzustellen, daß die
 Gemeinschaft und des Empfängerlandes, insbeson im Rahmen der Hilfe getätigten Lieferungen nicht
 dere betreffend die Lieferung und die Übernahme, an die Stelle der normalerweise ohne diese Lieferun
 sind im Anhang festgelegt, der Bestandteil dieses gen zu erwartenden Handelsgeschäfte treten, son
 Abkommens ist. dern zu diesen hinzukommen .
 Artikel IV Artikel VII
 Das Empfängerland verpflichtet sich, alle erforderli Das Empfängerland trifft alle zweckdienlichen Maß
 chen Vorkehrungen für die Beförderung und Versi nahmen, um folgendes zu verhindern :
 ---pagebreak--- Nr. L 53 / 12 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 25 . 2 . 74
 — die Wiederausfuhr der im Rahmen der Hilfe ge Art, Menge und Qualität der gelöschten Ware
 lieferten Ware sowie daraus hergestellter Erzeug und Zeitpunkt der Beendigung des Löschens ;
 nisse und Nebenerzeugnisse ;
 — alle 3 Monate bis zur vollständigen Verwendung
 — während eines Zeitraums von 6 Monaten nach der im Rahmen der Hilfe gelieferten Mengen :
 der letzten Lieferung die kommerzielle oder verteilte Mengen, Zahl und Art der Empfänger ;
 nichtkommerzielle Ausfuhr inländischer Erzeug Ort und Form der Verteilung.
 nisse gleicher Art wie die im Rahmen der Hilfe
 gelieferte Ware und daraus hergestellter Erzeug Artikel IX
 nisse und Nebenerzeugnisse.
 Auf Ersuchen einer der Vertragsparteien konsultie
 Artikel VIII ren diese einander in allen Fragen der Durchführung
 dieses Abkommens .
 Das Empfängerland verpflichtet sich, die Gemein
 schaft über die Einzelheiten der Durchführung die
 ses Abkommens zu unterrichten . Zu diesem Zweck Artikel X
 macht es der Kommission der Europäischen Gemein-^
 Schäften folgende Angaben : Dieses Abkommen ist in zwei Urschriften abgefaßt,
 jede in dänischer, deutscher, englischer, französi
 — spätestens 30 Tage nach Löschen jeder Ladung : scher, italienischer und niederländischer Sprache,
 Ankunftshafen und Ankunftszeit des Schiffes ; wobei jeder Wortlaut verbindlich ist.
 ANHANG
 In Artikel III des Abkommens vorgesehene Bestimmungen
 Artikel 1
 Die Lieferung ist zu dem Zeitpunkt erfolgt, zu dem im Ausladehafen im Laderaum des
 Schiffes tatsächlich von der Ware Besitz ergriffen worden ist. Zu dem gleichen Zeitpunkt
 geht die Gefahr von der Gemeinschaft auf das Empfängerland über.
 Das Empfängerland trägt sämtliche nach Lieferung der Ware anfallenden Kosten, einschließlich
 Entladekosten (wie Umstaueri, Hieven und Warenabnahme) und etwaige Leichterungskosten.
 Etwaige Überliegegelder oder ein etwaiger Zuschlag für rasches Verladen (dispatch money)
 im Ausladehafen gehen zu Lasten des Empfängerlandes oder werden ihm gutgeschrieben . Die
 im Vertrag zwischen dem in Artikel 5 genannten Bevollmächtigten der Gemeinschaft und
 dem Verkehrsunternehmen festgelegten diesbezüglichen Sätze und Modalitäten müssen zuvor
 von dem Bevollmächtigten und dem in Artikel 5 genannten Empfangsberechtigten des
 Empfängerlandes vereinbart worden sein .
 Artikel 2
 Die Gemeinschaft bezeichnet dem Empfängerland so schnell wie möglich nach Verbringung
 der Ware an Bord das Schiff und gibt gleichzeitig den Verladezeitpunkt, die bei der Verladung
 festgestellte Menge und Qualität der Ware sowie den Ausladehafen bekannt.
 Artikel 3
 Die Gemeinschaft unterrichtet das Empfängerland mindestens 10 volle Tage vorher über
 den mutmaßlichen Tag der Ankunft des Schiffes im Ausladehafen .
 Sie macht in der Charterpartie dem Kapitän zur Auflage, das Empfängerland mindestens
 72 Stunden vorher von dem voraussichtlichen Zeitpunkt der Ankunft des Schiffes im Aus
 lndehafen in Kenntnis zu setzen .
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 2 . 74 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften Nr. L 53 / 13
 Artikel 4
 Bei Lieferung der Ware ist eine Unterschreitung der in Artikel I des Abkommens vorge
 sehenen Liefermenge um 5 °/o zulässig.
 Artikel S
 Zur Durchführung der Bestimmungen dieses Anhangs benennt die Gemeinschaft einen Be
 vollmächtigten, dessen Namen und Anschrift sie dem Empfängerland rechtzeitig mitteilt.
 Das Empfängerland benennt für jeden Ausladehafen einen Empfangsberechtigten und teilt
 dessen Namen und Anschrift vor Durchführung des Abkommens der Gemeinschaft mit.
 Mitteilung betreffend die Unterzeichnung des Lieferabkommens zwischen der
 Furopäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und dem Kaiserreich Äthiopien im Rahmen der
 Nahrungsmittelhilfe
 Das Abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und Äthiopien
 über die Lieferung von Weichweizen im Rahmen der Nahrungsmittelhilfe, dessen Ab
 schluß der Rat am 10. Dezember 1973 beschlossen hat, ist am 20. Dezember 1973
 im Namen des Rates der Europäischen Gemeinschaften vom außerordentlichen und
 bevollmächtigten Botschafter und Präsidenten des Ausschusses der Ständigen Vertreter,
 Herrn Niels Ersboll, sowie vom Generaldirektor für Entwicklungshilfe und Zu
 sammenarbeit der Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, Herrn Hans-Broder
 Krohn,
 und im Namen der Regierung Äthiopiens vom außerordentlichen und bevollmächtigten
 Botschafter und Leiter der Mission dieses Landes bei der EWG , Herrn Michael Imru ,
 in Brüssel unterzeichnet worden .


type: wikipedia

text:
Partidul Național Liberal (abreviat PNL) este un partid politic parlamentar din România, înființat pentru prima dată sub acest nume la 24 mai 1875. Este unul dintre principalele partide din România și totodată cea mai veche formațiune politică din țară.
 Din cele 132 de guverne ale României, 33 au fost conduse de prim-miniștri afiliați acestei formațiuni. De numele și istoria Partidului Național Liberal se leagă cele mai importante evenimente din istoria modernă a României: instaurarea monarhiei constituționale (1866), obținerea independenței de stat (1877), ridicarea României la rang de regat (1881), Războiul de întregire a neamului și crearea României Mari (1918), adoptarea Constituției din 1923, și relansarea economică după criza din 1929–1933. În toată această perioadă, liberalismul a devenit fundamentul ideologic pe care s-a construit România modernă.
 Istoric
 Origini
 Martie 1871, prima tendință de unificare a partidului
 Primii ani ai noului principe Carol I se dovedesc ani de instabilitate politică, în care facțiuni liberale și conservatoare își dispută puterea făcând alianțe și compromisuri de multe ori bizare. În 1867 are loc „Înțelegerea de la Concordia” între facțiunile liberale, cu excepția celei conduse de Ion Ghica. Se alcătuiește pentru prima dată și un program de guvernare numit „Fracțiunea”, un program cu vederi progresiste. Următoarele trei guverne vor fi impuse de acest embrion de partid liberal, care va intra în conflict cu Marile Puteri din cauza politicii sale antisemite. Coagularea liberală determină apariția unei noi facțiuni conservatoare numită „Juna dreaptă” condusă de N. Blaremberg, Aristide Pascal și Petre P. Carp.
 Un moment important al istoriei Partidului Național Liberal îl constituie luna martie a anului 1871, când prin instalarea la putere a noului guvern conservator, liberalii se vedeau aruncați în opoziție. Conștienți de necesitatea combaterii în comun a adversarilor politici, abandonând interesele de grup și rivalitățile dintre personalități, ei au arătat o mai mare dorință de colaborare cu ocazia alegerilor organizate la începutul lui mai de Lascăr Catargiu. Numai că, ingerințele administrative, dar și nemulțumirea unor electori față de radicali și fracționiști îndeosebi, care prin atitudinea lor puseseră în pericol precarul edificiu politic instituit în 1866, asigurau un succes consistent coaliției grupărilor conservatoare, marcându-se astfel un moment important în viața politică românească, prin depășirea instabilității guvernamentale și inaugurarea unei perioade de ordine constituțională și construcție legislativă.
 Pierzând puterea în asemenea împrejurări, cu o poziție șubredă în corpurile legiuitoare, liberalii radicali, în special, își intensifică eforturile în vederea realizării unor acțiuni concertate la scară națională. Deoarece posibilitatea lor de activitate politică se diminuase, nefăcându-se simțită în corpurile legiuitoare unde posedau un număr restrâns de deputați și senatori, liberalii își pun toate nădejdile în presă. Din aceasta intenționau să facă mijlocul principal al activității lor opoziționiste, s-o transforme într-un instrument de modelare a opiniei publice și, totodată, într-o puternică forță de combatere a guvernului conservator. Drept consecință, la 8 noiembrie 1871, era organizat la Iași un congres al presei liberale unde reprezentanți ai unor periodice își propuneau un program comun de acțiune. În temeiul unui asemenea acord între fruntașii presei libere din țară, era organizată o susținută campanie politică prin care se denunțau tranzacțiile economico-financiare oneroase încheiate cu firme străine, injoncțiunile politicii germane, dar și rolul lui Carol I în tutelarea unei asemenea politici.
 24 mai 1875, nașterea Partidului Național Liberal
 Un moment decisiv în cadrul acțiunii liberale l-a constituit campania pentru alegerile parlamentare din aprilie 1875. Hotărâți să acționeze pe aceeași platformă împotriva guvernului conservator, încă de la 4 ianuarie liberalii alcătuiau un comitet central electoral, care își propunea coordonarea activității politice la scara întregii Românii. În aceeași conjunctură, la 23 ianuarie începe editarea unui periodic semnificativ intitulat „Alegătorul liber”, iar două zile mai târziu întemeiau o ligă menită a combate guvernul conservator, liberalii coalizați tipăreau manifeste și broșuri, difuzau programe de acțiune și profesiuni de credință, organizau reuniuni politice în capitală, în diverse alte orașe și chiar la sate, adresându-se direct maselor populare. Această activitate propagandistică crease o stare de spirit de exaltare împotriva „tiraniei boierilor”, reuniunile ținute în săli, în grădini publice și chiar pe străzi răsunând de nemulțumiri exprimate la adresa guvernului conservator, care devenea cu atât mai criticabil cu cât recurgea la forță spre a asigura liniștea publică.
 În ciuda unei intense activități politice, a unei acțiuni combative, deschisă direct nu numai spre electorii din colegii ci și spre masele populare, liberalii coalizați nu reușeau să-și asigure o preponderență în corpurile legiuitoare, rămânând în opoziție. Deveniți mai preocupați de necesitatea închegării unei puternice formațiuni politice, de desăvârșire a procesului de raliere, la 24 mai 1875, fruntași ai diferitelor formațiuni, cărora li se adaugă și disidentul conservator Manolache Costache Epureanu, făceau legământ să acționeze pentru triumful deplin al principiilor liberale în viața politică românească. Ion C. Brătianu, Mihail Kogălniceanu, Ion Ghica, George D. Vernescu, Alexandru G. Golescu, pecetluiau alianța parlamentară printr-o reuniune ținută în casa din stradă Enei, proprietate a maiorului englez Sir Stephen Bartlett Lakeman, stabilit definitiv în România și cunoscut sub numele de Mazar Pașa, prin care puneau bazele Partidului Național Liberal. La 4 iunie 1875, „Alegătorul liber” publica programul acestei puternice formațiuni politice, iar o zi mai târziu, „Românul” insera lista cu numele celor 25 de membri constituiți în Comitet coordonator: V. Arvanezu, Dimitrie I. Berindei, Pană Buescu, Ion C. Brătianu, Dumitru Brătianu, dr. Nae Calinderu, Dimitrie Cariagdi, Ion Câmpineanu, Manolache Costache Epureanu, Nicolae Fleva, Mihail Ferechide, Ion Ghica, Dimitrie Gianni, Alexandru G. Golescu, Constantin Grădișteanu, Mihail Kogălniceanu, Alexandru Lupescu, Constantin Nacu, Remus Opreanu, Pache Protopopescu, C. A. Rosetti, Eugeniu Stătescu, Dimitrie A. Sturdza, George Văcărescu.
 Deși cuprindea toate nuanțele, Partidul Național Liberal se baza în fapt pe puternicele structuri radicale întemeiate anterior de Ion C. Bratianu și C. A. Rosetti. Deși consulul francez releva că șeful unei asemenea formațiuni politice pare a fi Ion Ghica, în realitate beneficiarii unei organizări liberale la scară națională erau cei doi fruntași mai sus-menționați, care prin relațiile lor în decursul lunilor iunie și iulie reușeau să întindă rețeaua de organizații liberale în principalele orașe din țară, atât în Muntenia cât și în Moldova. Fracționiștii din jurul lui N. Ionescu constituiau și ei o puternică organizație la Iași, afiliată la Partidul Național Liberal. În acest fel, până la finele anului 1875, structuri liberale erau implantate nu numai în orașele ci și în statele României. Reuniți sub aceeași conducere, liberalii de toate nuanțele întemeiau astfel cea mai puternică forță politică a României.
 Ion C. Brătianu a fost primul președinte al PNL, până la moartea sa în 1891, urmat de Dumitru Brătianu (1891–1892), Dimitrie A. Sturdza (1892–1909), Ion I. C. Brătianu (1909–1927), Vintilă Brătianu (1927–1930), Ion G. Duca (1930–1933), care a fost asasinat de legionari, și Constantin I. C. Brătianu (1933–1947), care a fost întemnițat de comuniști la penitenciarul Sighet, unde a și murit.
 PNL s-a aflat la guvernare între 1876 și 1888, după care a urmat lunga conducere conservatoare (1888–1895). Perioada Belle Époque s-a aflat din punct de vedere politic sub semnul rotativei guvernamentale, instituită la inițiativa regelui Carol I. În timpul rotativei guvernamentale (1895–1916) la conducerea țării au alternat guverne liberale și conservatoare, pe câte o perioadă de patru ani. Sistemul rotativei nu a mai putut fi utilizat în perioada interbelică, când a avut loc o fărâmițare și radicalizare a scenei politice din România. PNL a format cele mai multe guverne din perioada interbelică și a fost promotorul Constituției din 1923. Liderul opoziției a fost Iuliu Maniu, fost președinte al Consiliului Dirigent al Transilvaniei, apoi președinte al PNȚ.
 Liberalii au continuat, în schimb, să joace un important rol politic, reprezentând în practică cel mai puternic partid politic al perioadei interbelice. Ei au condus neîntrerupt din 1914 și până în 1919 (cu o scurtă întrerupere între martie–noiembrie 1918), când, asemenea altor partide liberale europene, au pierdut alegerile organizate de ei pe baza votului universal.
 După o scurtă perioadă de organizare și de extindere în teritoriile nou alipite, liberalii s-au reîntors la putere, și au guvernat între 1922–1928 (cu o întrerupere între martie 1926 și iunie 1927) și 1933–1937. În perioada 1922–1926 guvernul lui Ion I. C. Brătianu a unificat administrativ și centralizat Regatul României; au fost de asemenea anii refacerii economice și ai aplicării unor reforme, precum introducerea calendarului gregorian și în Vechiul Regat (1919), reforma agrară etc.
 Instaurarea regimului comunist
 După cel de-al Doilea Război Mondial regimul comunist a stopat progresul României în termeni de construcție democratică. Instaurarea unui sistem totalitar a însemnat abolirea pluralismului politic și dizolvarea partidelor politice democratice, inclusiv a PNL, care și-a încetat activitatea în noiembrie 1947. Mulți dintre fruntașii liberali au murit în închisorile comuniste, plătind cu viața credința în principiile democratice și valorile liberale, în vreme ce alții au fost forțați să ia calea exilului. Timp de aproape 50 de ani, liberalii din exil, mulți dintre ei foști lideri ai studenților și tineretului PNL, au continuat să-și promoveze ideile și crezurile și au păstrat viu spiritul PNL.
 După Revoluția din 1989
 1990 este anul „reinventării” liberalismului românesc. 1990 este atât momentul reînființării Partidului Național Liberal, cât și primul an în care valorile și ideile liberale au început să-și facă din nou loc în mentalul colectiv. Reînființat la 15 ianuarie 1990 prin Decizia Civilă nr. 4 a Tribunalului Municipiului București, PNL era continuatorul Partidului Național Liberal constituit în 1875, în condițiile în care grupuri liberale existau în Țările Române încă dinainte de revoluțiile de la 1848. În după-amiaza zilei de 22 decembrie, la domiciliul lui Dan Amedeo Lăzărescu a avut loc „o întâlnire de taină”, în care gazda împreună cu Sorin Bottez și Nicu Enescu au luat decizia reactivării PNL, „prin constituirea într-un viitor cât mai apropiat, a unui comitet de inițiativă”. Din grupul de inițiativă făceau parte Dan Amedeo Lăzărescu, Radu Câmpeanu, I. V. Săndulescu, Nicu Enescu, Dinu Zamfirescu și alții. Majoritatea fondatorilor erau tot foști deținuți politici, dar unii dintre ei au reușit ulterior să emigreze. Radu Câmpeanu se întorsese de la Paris la puțină vreme după 22 decembrie 1989.
 La alegerile din 20 mai 1990, PNL a obținut 39 de mandate parlamentare. La începutul anilor '90 partidul a cunoscut mai multe sciziuni. Prima s-a produs la 23 iulie 1990, când s-a creat Partidul Național Liberal-Aripa Tânără (PNL-AT), din comitetul de inițiativă făcând parte Horia Rusu, Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu, Andrei Chiliman, Radu Boroianu, Dinu Patriciu etc. În aprilie 1991 PNL-AT a semnat Carta pentru Reformă și Democrație și a intrat în guvernul Roman remaniat, cu Dinu Patriciu ca Ministru al Lucrărilor Publice. După căderea guvernului Roman (septembrie 1991), în perioada octombrie 1991–noiembrie 1992, PNL participă la guvernare cu FSN, sub conducerea independentului Theodor Stolojan. PNL a avut în Guvernul Stolojan trei miniștri (George Danielescu – Ministrul Economiei și Finanțelor, Mircea Ionescu-Quintus – Ministrul Justiției și Dan Constantinescu – Ministrul Industriilor), un secretar de stat membru al guvernului (Emil Tocaci – la Ministerul Învățământului și Științei) și șapte subsecretari de stat.
 Pentru a contracara FSN, la 26 noiembrie 1991 s-a constituit Convenția Democrată Română (CDR), pe baza unui protocol semnat de PNȚ-CD, PNL, Partidul Social Democrat Român, Partidul Ecologist Român, Partidul Alianța Civică și Uniunea Democrată Maghiară din România, precum și de alte formațiuni politice și civice din cadrul Forumului Democratic Antitotalitar din România: Partidul Unității Democratice, Uniunea Democrat-Creștină, Alianța Civică, Asociația Foștilor Deținuți Politici din România, Solidaritatea Universitară, Asociația „21 Decembrie”, Mișcarea România Viitoare, Sindicatul Politic „Fraternitatea”, Uniunea Mondială a Românilor Liberi. În aprilie 1992 PNL a hotărât părăsirea CDR, ceea ce a prilejuit o nouă scindare a partidului, din care s-a desprins gruparea denumită Partidul Național Liberal-Convenția Democratică (PNL-CD), sub conducerea lui Niculae Cerveni, care a rămas în cadrul alianței.
 Consiliul pentru Refacerea PNL a reușit în anul 1993 înlăturarea lui Radu Câmpeanu de la conducerea partidului, considerat instrument al foștilor comuniști, respectiv întoarcerea PNL în Convenția Democrată Română.
 Consiliul pentru Refacerea PNL a fost constituit în data de 14 septembrie 1992 de către un grup de deputați și senatori care militau pentru unitatea mișcării liberale, pe atunci zdruncinată după două mari sciziuni ale PNL, generate de poziționarea partidului față de foștii comuniști.
 În iulie 1990, a fost creat Partidul Național Liberal - Aripa Tânără (PNL-AT), care a inclus în statutul său punctul 8 al Proclamației de la Timișoara, care prevedea ca foștii membri ai Partidului Comunist Român și ai Securității să nu aibă dreptul de a candida la funcții publice pe o perioadă de 10 ani, respectiv 3 legislaturi consecutive. În aprilie 1992, s-a desprins Partidul Național Liberal - Convenția Democratică (PNL-CD), după ce președintele partidului, Radu Câmpeanu, a scos PNL din Convenția Democrată Română, coaliția anticomunistă dominată de Corneliu Coposu.
 Consiliul pentru Refacerea PNL a făcut publică o declarație în care se arăta: "Afirmând că un partid politic se prezintă în fața națiunii nu numai cu un program, ci și cu o echipă; Constatând că statutul PNL este nedemocratic și nu respectă tradițiile național-liberale. Constatând, de asemenea, că PNL nu posedă un program adecvat realităților românești și exigențelor liberalismului contemporan;
 Îngrijorat de îndepărtarea masivă a electoratului, inclusiv a propriilor membri, față de PNL, și de izolarea partidului pe plan internațional; Ținând seama de divizarea mișcării liberale; Dând curs puternicului curent al opiniei publice românești, sub deviza: "Un PNL fără Câmpeanu!";
 Consiliul și-a propus și a realizat elaborarea unui statut și a unui program menite să înlăture neajunsurile semnalate, în vederea reunificării forțelor liberale". "Activitatea Consiliului încetează în momentul în care dezideratele sale vor fi realizate".
 "Consiliul pentru Refacerea Partidului Național Liberal sprijină platforma Convenției Democratice și candidatura domnului Emil Constantinescu la Președinția României".
 Din partea PNL declarația a fost semnată de Cristian-Constantin Zăinescu - deputat de Iași (pentru Moldova), Marian Balaban - deputat de Caraș-Severin și Radu Voicu Roșculeț - deputat de Constanța (pentru Muntenia) și Viorica Edelhauser - deputat de Hunedoara (pentru Transilvania). Din partea PL-AT au semnat Rene-Radu Policrat - decanul de vârstă din Camera Deputaților, Dinu Patriciu și Horia Rusu - deputați de Timiș, Nicolae Simescu - deputat de Sibiu și Daniela Crăsnaru - deputat de București iar din partea PNL-CD au semnat Horia-Radu Pascu - deputat de București, Sabin Ivan - senator de Constanța, Dumitru Călueanu - senator de Galați și Mircea Curelea - senator de Sibiu.
 Opțiunea PNL de părăsire a CDR s-a dovedit o eroare strategică, partidul obținând la alegerile din 1992 un rezultat sub pragul electoral de 3% și rămânând în afara Parlamentului. La scurtă vreme după alegeri, pe 28 februarie 1993, Radu Câmpeanu a fost înlăturat de la conducerea PNL, în locul său fiind ales ca președinte Mircea Ionescu-Quintus. Cu un nou statut și un nou program politic, revenit în Convenția Democrată Română, PNL a obținut la alegerile din 1996, un număr de 17 senatori și 27 de deputați.
 În 1998, PNL a fuzionat cu Partidul Alianța Civică (PAC). În martie 1999, PNL a fost admis în Internaționala Liberală, iar președintele partidului devine vicepreședinte al Internaționalei.
 Cu puțin înainte de alegerile din 2000, PNL se retrage din CDR, obligând Convenția să intre în alegeri cu numele CDR 2000 și își prezintă un candidat propriu la alegerile prezidențiale – Theodor Stolojan. Această strategie a dat roade, PNL intrând în parlament cu 13 senatori și 30 de deputați, spre deosebire de CDR, care a decontat nerealizările administrației CDR–PD–UDMR. În 2003, PNL și PD au creat o alianță pentru alegerile din 2004 sub sigla DA (Dreptate și Adevăr). Alianța l-a desemnat pe Theodor Stolojan drept candidat pentru președinția României. Pe 3 octombrie 2004, cu mai putin de două luni înainte de alegeri, Stolojan a declarat că se retrage din cursa electorală invocând probleme de sănătate, renunțând totodată și la președinția PNL. El a delegat atribuțiile de președinte lui Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu, vicepreședinte al partidului. Acesta a devenit prim-ministru pentru mai multe cabinete, până la alegerile parlamentare din 2008.
 În octombrie 2006, un grup de membri și foști membri ai partidului, condus de foștii președinți Theodor Stolojan și Valeriu Stoica, cunoscuți de presă ca apropiați ai președintelui Traian Băsescu și susținători ai apropierii de Partidul Democrat, au lansat așa-numita „Platformă Liberală”, optând să înființeze o altă formațiune politică, PLD, care a avut o viață relativ scurtă, fuzionând ulterior cu PD și formând PDL.
 La alegerile locale din 2008 s-a clasat pe locul al treilea ca număr de voturi obținute (ca. 19%). PNL a obținut conducerea consiliilor județene în cinci județe (Bihor, Brașov, Călărași, Giurgiu și Hunedoara), respectiv mandate de primar în municipiile Bacău, Baia Mare, Câmpulung Moldovenesc, Vatra Dornei, Deva, Giurgiu, Roșiorii de Vede, Medgidia, Oradea, Zalău, Călărași și Oltenița (în alianță cu PNȚ-CD). La alegerile legislative din 2008 s-a clasat pe locul al treilea ca număr de voturi și mandate (93 de mandate). În urma alegerilor și a negocierilor ce au urmat, PNL a intrat în opoziție.
 Evoluții recente
 În martie 2009 Partidul Național Liberal și-a schimbat conducerea în cadrul unui congres extraordinar. Crin Antonescu a fost ales atunci președinte al PNL. Prioritatea noii conduceri a fost constituirea unei alternative politice puternice la guvernul Emil Boc (2) și la guvernul Ungureanu, percepute drept instrumente ale președintelui Traian Băsescu. În 2011, Partidul Național Liberal a format alături de Partidul Conservator (PC) Alianța de Centru Dreapta (ACD). Aceasta și-a unit mai departe forțele cu Partidul Social Democrat, punându-se astfel bazele Uniunii Social Liberale (USL), proiectul politic al opoziției unite. USL a preluat guvernarea României în mai 2012, în urma unei moțiuni de cenzură asupra guvernului Ungureanu, și a câștigat alegerile parlamentare din decembrie 2012. În luna februarie 2014 premierul Victor Ponta (PSD) a refuzat nominalizarea vicepreședintelui PNL Klaus Iohannis în funcția de vicepremier, ceea ce a dus la retragerea miniștrilor PNL din guvern și intrarea în opoziție. Crin Antonescu, președintele PNL, s-a retras de la conducerea Senatului. În urma rezultatului de doar 15% la alegerile europarlamentare din 2014, președintele Crin Antonescu și-a prezentat demisia din funcția de președinte al PNL.
 După alegerile europarlamentare din mai 2014, Partidul Național Liberal și Partidul Democrat Liberal au decis să nominalizeze un candidat comun pentru alegerile prezidențiale din 2014, să fuzioneze în viitor și să devină parte a familiei populare europene. Klaus Iohannis, noul președinte al PNL, a devenit candidatul alianței formate din cele două partide, Alianța Creștin Liberală (ACL). În 16 noiembrie 2014, Klaus Iohannis a fost ales președinte al României, devenind primul președinte liberal din istoria țării. După câștigarea alegerilor prezidențiale, PNL și PDL au fuzionat și au adoptat un nou statut, copreședinți ai noului PNL devenind Alina Gorghiu și Vasile Blaga.
 Ideologie
 Deși este vechi de peste un secol, liberalismul se redefinește în România, ca urmare a schimbărilor din politica internă și din cea europeană. Lungile perioade de fascism și comunism au reprezentat o paranteză istorică. Prin urmare, revoluției liberale nu i s-a pus capăt, ci ea a fost doar întreruptă. Datorita prăbușirii regimului totalitar comunist din România în 1989, care reprezenta varianta radicală, monolitică a stângii, precum și a venirii la putere a FSN (PDSR, PSD), forța hegemonică de stânga, care a oscilat între moștenirea comunistă și redefinirea ca partid social-democrat, PNL și-a afirmat identitatea și programele politico-doctrinare pe partea dreaptă.
 Partidul Național Liberal este promotorul libertății individuale, sociale, economice și politice, prin concepție, prin acțiune și prin tradiție. Partidul Național Liberal este continuatorul gândirii liberale din România.
 În plan personal, Partidul Național Liberal este preocupat în mod deosebit de primatul individului în fața societății, de egalitatea în fața legilor, de garantarea drepturilor și libertăților cetățenești, de toleranța în raport cu convingerile și opțiunile celorlalți.
 În plan social, Partidul Național Liberal are ca obiectiv modernizarea accelerată a societății, scoaterea instituțiilor din autarhie, din conservatorism și imobilism. Partidul Național Liberal optează pentru modernizarea prin stabilitate și pentru coeziune socială, bazată pe reducerea surselor de tensiune, de conflict și de violență.
 În plan economic, Partidul Național Liberal este adeptul declarat al capitalismului, al pieței și al economiei de piață. Partidul Național Liberal se pronunță ferm ca între voința consumatorului, individual sau social, și posibilitățile producătorului să existe doar piața și legile ei specifice de reglementare. În activitatea economică, Partidul Național Liberal susține, de principiu, controlul consumatorului asupra producătorului, îngrădirea prin concurență a monopolului și eliminarea ingerințelor administrației și birocrației în promovarea producției. Partidul Național Liberal se pronunță pentru libera circulație a mărfurilor, capitalului și forței de muncă, pentru limitarea autorităților de reglementare și pentru eliminarea birocrației. În activitatea economică statul trebuie să aibă un rol neînsemnat, relativ subsidiar. Rolul statului rămâne important doar în politica monetară, în alocarea resurselor bugetare pentru obiectivele de interes național și în definirea cadrului legislativ bazat pe garantarea dreptului de proprietate.
 În plan politic, Partidul Național Liberal este ferm atașat valorilor democrației, pluralismului și statului de drept. Pentru promovarea noii clase politice și a partidelor cu responsabilitate politică, Partidul Național Liberal promovează competiția deschisă în viața politică internă.
 Partidul Național Liberal este adversar de principiu al marilor proiecte abstracte, mesianice sau dogmatice{{necesită citare}. El se pronunță contra oricăror forme de extremism sau radicalism, conștient de faptul că nimeni nu dispune de rețete salvatoare sau de „truse universale”.
 Scindări și absorbții
 Partide care s-au scindat din PNL
 Partidul Național Liberal-Aripa Tânără (1990);
 Uniunea Liberală Brătianu (1990);
 Partidul Național Liberal-Convenția Democrată (1991);
 Partidul Național Liberal-Câmpeanu (1995);
 Partidul Liberal Democrat (2006);
 Partidul Liberal Reformator (2014);
 Forța Dreptei (2021).
 Partide absorbite de PNL
 Partidul Socialist Liberal (1990);
 Partidul Progresist Țărănesc (1993);
 Noul Partid Liberal (1993);
 Partidul Liberal ’93 (1998);
 Partidul Alianța Civică (1998);
 Alianța pentru România (2002);
 Uniunea Forțelor de Dreapta (2003);
 Partidul Național Liberal-Câmpeanu (2003);
 Partidul Liberal Democrat (2007);
 Acțiunea Populară (2008);
 Forța Democrată (2012);
 Partidul Democrat Liberal (2014);
 Partidul Liberal Reformator (2015);
 Partidul Popular (2015);
 Partidul Național Democrat (2019);
 Platforma Acțiunea Civică a Tinerilor (2019);
 Partidul Alianța Liberalilor și Democraților (2022).
 PNL în străinătate
 Informații vechi
 Dupa alegerile interne la toate nivelurile din prima jumătate a anului 2017, PNL Diaspora are organizații în mai multe țări:
 Organizația PNL Diaspora Italia este condusă de deputatul Valentin Făgărășean;
 Organizația PNL Diaspora Republica Moldova este condusă de Adrian Dupu;
 Organizația PNL Diaspora Grecia este condusă de Stela Kondili;
 Organizația PNL Diaspora Franța este condusă de Gheorghe Mihoc;
 Organizația PNL Diaspora Irlanda este condusă de Toader Ciuta;
 Organizația PNL Diaspora Portugalia este condusă de Sergiu Senciuc;
 Organizațiile din Spania, Marea Britanie și Germania au conduceri interimare.
 Structura și organizarea PNL
 La nivel național, potrivit dispozițiilor Statutului, organismele de conducere ale Partidului Național Liberal sunt:
 Congresul (Adunarea Generală a delegaților membrilor partidului) este forul suprem de conducere și decizie al Partidului Național Liberal, la nivel național, și se compune din delegații aleși de filialele teritoriale și membrii Delegației Permanente.
 Delegația Permanentă (DP) exercită conducerea partidului dintre Congrese și este compusă din:
 Președintele partidului;
 membrii Consiliului Național Executiv;
 președintele, vicepreședintele și secretarul general ai Senatului PNL;
 parlamentarii;
 parlamentarii europeni;
 miniștrii;
 comisarul european;
 președinții și vicepreședinții Consiliilor Județene membri PNL;
 primarii și viceprimarii municipiilor reședință de județ, de sectoare și primarul și viceprimarul general al municipiului București membri PNL;
 membrii de onoare ai partidului;
 un vicepreședinte și secretarul general ai TNL;
 un vicepreședinte și secretarul general ai OFL;
 un vicepreședinte și secretarul general ai CSL;
 un vicepreședinte și secretarul general ai Ligii Aleșilor Locali PNL;
 președintele structurilor care se ocupă de probleme specifice;
 secretarii generali adjuncți;
 secretarii executivi;
 secretarul pentru relațiile internaționale.
 Consiliul Național Executiv (CNE) este forul de dezbatere și decizie al Partidului Național Liberal între ședințele Delegației Permanente și este compus din:
 Biroul Politic Central;
 președinții filialelor teritoriale care nu sunt membri ai Biroului Politic Central;
 secretarul general PNL;
 președintele TNL, președinta OFL, președintele CSL, președintele LAL și președintele Consiliului de Coordonare al Municipiului București.
 Biroul Politic Central (BPC) asigură conducerea partidului între ședințele Consiliului Național Executiv și ale Delegației Permanente. Este alcătuit din Președinte, foștii președinți și președintele fondator ai partidului, prim-vicepreședinte, 14 vicepreședinți și 15 membri titulari.
 Președintele Partidului Național Liberal este garantul înfăptuirii Programului politic, al respectării și aplicării Statutului și al păstrării identității, unității și prestigiului partidului.
 Secretarul general răspunde de sistemul informațional și de aparatul de lucru și asigură comunicarea dintre organismele de conducere la nivel central și filialele teritoriale și gestiunea patrimoniului partidului. În activitatea sa, secretarul general este ajutat de secretari generali adjuncți și de secretarul pentru relațiile internaționale.
 De asemenea, la nivel național funcționează, pe baza propriilor regulamente, următoarele structuri:
 Senatul partidului este un organism consultativ al Președintelui partidului cu privire la păstrarea și continuarea tradițiilor și la dezvoltarea concepțiilor liberale, precum și la alte probleme de interes;
 Curtea de Onoare și Arbitraj este instanța supremă a partidului având atribuții privind respectarea prevederilor Statutului și a Codului Etic al PNL; soluționarea contestațiilor privind sancțiunile disciplinare; soluționarea contestațiilor privind învestirea candidaților, alegerile interne, alegerea delegaților la Conferințe sau la Congres;
 Comisia Centrală de Cenzori are atribuții de verificare a gestiunii partidului;
 Comisia de Etică avizează la cererea Biroului Politic Central asupra candidaturilor propuse pentru alegerile parlamentare, europene și pentru funcțiile în Guvern și în administrația publică centrală;
 Tineretul Național Liberal coordonează activitatea specifică a structurilor de tineret constituite la nivelul filialelor teritoriale;
 Liga Aleșilor Locali coordonează metodologic activitatea membrilor PNL din administrația publică locală;
 Organizația Femeilor Liberale coordonează activitatea specifică a organizațiilor de femei constituite la nivelul filialelor teritoriale;
 Cluburile Studențești Liberale promovează ideile liberale și programul PNL în mediul studențesc, militează pentru implicarea studenților în viața politică.
 Organizațiile locale ale Partidul Național Liberal au următoarele organisme de conducere:
 Adunarea Generală a membrilor organizației aplică la nivel local măsurile necesare realizării Programului și strategiei partidului;
 Biroul Politic – al secției de votare, de cartier, comunal, orășenesc sau municipal – planifică, conduce, coordonează și monitorizează activitatea organizației locale în intervalul dintre adunările generale.
 Simbol
 Legea din România cere tuturor partidelor să prezinte un semn permanent și un semn electoral permanent. Primul este utilizat pentru identificarea clădirilor și comunicatele de presă ale partidului, iar cel de-al doilea pentru identificarea materialelor electorale ale partidului și a candidaților din buletinul electoral. De obicei, ele diferă ușor.
 Elementul principal al partidului este o săgeată albastră care indică colțul din dreapta sus al unui pătrat galben, și literele „P”, „N” și „L” în albastru, înclinate spre dreapta. Poziția „PNL” față de săgeată depinde de tipul simbolului, așa cum se arată mai jos.
 Președinți
 Ultimele alegeri din PNL pentru președinția partidului: Alegerile interne din Partidul Național Liberal (PNL), 2022
 Rezultate la alegeri
 Alegeri prezidențiale
 Alegeri parlamentare
 Alegeri europarlamentare
 Note
 Legături externe
 Site-ul PNL
 Site-ul TNL
 https://www.pnldiaspora.ro/organizatii/
 Fondări în 1875
 Desființări în 1947
 Fondări în 1989


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
The bill of complaint in this case was filed by the appellant, sister of Wilbur L. Hurley, deceased, against the appellees, brothers of the decedent, and the descendant of a deceased brother, for the purpose of having the property of the decedent, all of which was personalty, declared to be the property of the plaintiff by reason of an alleged gift from the decedent to her in his lifetime.
 The decedent died of pulmonary tuberculosis at Eudowood Sanitarium, on Tuesday, March 19th, 1929, intestate, unmarried, and without issue. The plaintiff and defendants were next of kin. For a number of years prior to his last illness he was employed as a locomotive engineer at the Sparrows Point plant of the Bethlehem Steel Company. He was in good health until April, 1928. Prior to this time he lived with plaintiff, and paid her ten dollars a week board. He seems to have been frugal and to have accumulated a small fortune, amounting to nearly $14,000, of which $10,640.67 was on deposit in four savings banks, $3,000 invested in three Calvert mortgage bonds, and $100 in a Liberty bond.
 On Saturday, March 16th, 1929, the plaintiff and John W. Hurley, one of the defendants, each received a message that their brother was very low and requesting them to come to Eudowood. It does not appear by whom this message was sent. On the same day they went to the hospital; the plaintiff, with her husband, daughter, and her fiance, Forrest Bruce Bevelhimer, arriving a little after 1 P.M., and John W. Hurley between 5 and 6 P.M. The plaintiff and her party remained about half an hour. All of them except plaintiff, who was disqualified, were offered as witnesses of what occurred at that visit. Charles H. Wier, the husband, testified that the decedent went to the hospital in December, 1928, and remained there until his death on March 19th, 1929, at 3 A.M.; that from 1904 until his illness he lived with witness and his wife and was treated like one of the *Page 39
 family; that on the occasion of their visit on March 16th, the decedent talked about the weather, his physical condition, and general topics; that he asked witness to open the drawer of a chiffonier at the foot of his bed and get out several keys, one of which was the key to his lock box at the Provident Savings Bank, in which the bonds were deposited, and the other, the key of a trunk at witness' home; that he told witness to open the trunk, where he would find the bank books, "and I was to make transfer of those bank books to the wife's name, as he absolutely wanted her to have everything, with the exception of the Liberty bond; I was to open up the box and get the Liberty bond out, and use that for my own use, and also the coupons of the Calvert mortgage bonds. * * * And he says to the wife * * * `I have given you the Provident Savings Bank book when I came out here. You have that in your hands.' * * * And the remainder of the bank books he transferred into the wife's name. I says, `All right, Will, I will do so.' In addition to that he presented me with this bill of the hospital. He says, `Herewith you will find bill of the hospital that I have paid up until the 27th. In the future, any other bills for the hospital you will kindly — or you will take care of them for me, Charley.' I said, `All right, sir.'"
 Plaintiff's daughter and son-in-law gave similar testimony about the conversation and the delivery of the keys. The daughter said he told her father "to take the keys and open his trunk and get the bank books out and to settle everything in my mother's name."
 The son-in-law's testimony was that the decedent said to Wier that "he wanted to transfer everything to Mrs. Wier * * * and told him the bank books were in the trunk, and he wanted them transferred. * * * He wanted them transferred as soon as possible. That was his words."
 On Monday, March 18th, at about 9.30 in the morning, Wier, with his son Leroy Wier, returned to the hospital. His testimony is that he said to the sick man, "Well, I have done just what you asked me to, I have brought these assignments out to transfer the bank books in Blanche's name"; and that *Page 40
 he replied: "All right, Charlie, raise me up so I can sign it"; "I raised him up, and he was taken with a spasm of coughing. * * * and he said, `lower me down.' I lowered him down * * * and after a bit, he said, `Wait a minute, now raise me up again,' and when I raised him up this spasm of coughing had left him in such a weakened condition that his hand was shaking, nervous. I said, `Do you want me to sign them?' He said, `yes'; that witness read the assignments to him, and he said `all right'; and I wrote his name; I said, `Now touch the pen and make your mark.' He did." That witness' son witnessed the signature; that there were two nurses and another patient in the room at the time; the name of one of the nurses, he afterwards learned, was Miss Maud Moody, "but I ain't positive of who was the other one"; that he asked one of the nurses to witness the signature, but she said that was against the rules of the hospital. All the assignments were offered in evidence. This visit lasted about fifteen minutes.
 Leroy Wier testified that he accompanied his father on March 18th; that his uncle recognized him and called him by his name; that they talked about the weather and how he was feeling. "And then he asked Dad if he brought those papers that he had him fix up, and Dad told him, `yes.' So he tried to take — raise up to sign the papers, and he could not make it * * * he got a coughing spell, and after that he seemed to be awfully weakened and nervous. * * * He tried to hold the pen in his hand, and he dropped the pen and then Dad took the pen and he placed his hand on it and made the marks. * * * Dad read off the contents of each paper before he had him put his mark on it." That there were two nurses and a young lad on a cot in the room.
 Dr. William A. Bridges, superintendent of the hospital, testifying for plaintiff, produced the chart, which showed that on March 18th the patient's highest temperature was 97 and it dropped to 95; that his respirations in the morning of that day were 30 and later in the evening they came up to 40; that the normal respiration is around 18, and the normal temperature 98.6; that he was catheterized at 4.45 P.M., which *Page 41
 indicated that he was very weak, and his musculature was weak; that his bladder was not capable of emptying itself.
 The defendants offered four witnesses who testified to the condition of the decedent on the 16th and 18th of March.
 John W. Hurley, one of the defendants, testified that he worked in the same shop with his brother for about twenty-four years and saw him every day; that when he saw him on March 16th in the afternoon "there wasn't no conversation held at all. I walked in and spoke to him, and he looked at me a little while, and I asked him if he did not know me, and he said, `no, I didn't any more than know you,' and that is all that was said." That he stayed in the room about three-quarters of an hour; that he was too weak to talk.
 Mrs. Mary E. Wagner testified that she was a graduate nurse and had been in charge of the wards at the hospital for four years at the time decedent was a patient there; that she saw him at least two or three times a day, sometimes more, as much as six or seven times when he became so ill; that he was in bed all the time he was at the hospital; that William Hosler, another patient, had a cot in the same room; that the decedent was delirious about two weeks before he died, off and on; that "the last four days that he lived he was absolutely delirious at all times, because there were times when we had to restrain him in bed. He did not know what he was doing, and he would get up out of bed and wander around the wards, the last four days that he lived. * * * Because he talked irrationally; he did not talk with any sense at all. He was getting out of bed without any reason, falling around the floors, and had to be picked up and put back. That was four days before he died. He did not know how to be tidy of himself, take care of himself; he was not capable of that. He just did not know his whereabouts." That while she was not in the room between 1 and 2 P.M. on March 16th, he was delirious a few minutes before that and had been all the time for four days, and there was no change in his condition.
 James Thompson, an orderly at the hospital, testified that he was on duty on the day previous from 7 A.M. to 7 P.M.; that decedent for a week before he died would not know anybody *Page 42
 who went in the room, and for four days before he died was out of his head all the time; that he knew this because he had to wait on him.
 William Hostler testified that he occupied a cot in the same room; that he remembers some people coming into the room the morning of the day before decedent died; that he did not see him sign any papers or hear any read to him; that about a week before he died he was out of his head.
 We agree with the learned chancellor that, on the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, the alleged gift was not completed on March 16th. Assuming that testimony to be true, it was clearly the intention that the gift should be completed by signing the transfers, which was not done until March 18th, less than eighteen hours before the alleged donor died. So the question is: What was his mental condition at that time? It is hard to reconcile the conduct of plaintiff in taking out letters of administration, as the testimony shows she did, with the theory of an absolute gift by decedent before his death of all his estate to plaintiff. She must have doubted the validity of the gift, or she would not have taken a course which involved the expense of administration, and collateral inheritance tax, besides the loss of the one-fifth interest of the descendants of the deceased brother, who did not sign the alleged release, of which we shall presently speak. It is significant that Miss Maud Moody, a nurse who was in the room at the time the papers were alleged to have been signed, was not produced as a witness, or her deposition taken under a commission, although plaintiff's husband testified as to her residence.
 The chancellor, after reciting the facts above mentioned, said: "Under such circumstances I am unwilling to accept the evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiff as to the mental condition of the decedent at the time the transaction, which is the subject of this suit, was executed, all of whom were directly or indirectly interested, that he was mentally competent, as sufficient to overcome or meet the positive testimony of four entirely disinterested witnesses, who had had a better opportunity of observing his conduct and condition, that he *Page 43
 was not at the time mentally competent." We concur in the chancellor's conclusion.
 But plaintiff contends that the three brothers who signed what is called a "relinquishment" are estopped to contest the claim of plaintiff. The paper which they, together with the widow of a deceased brother, signed (but which was not signed by the descendants of a deceased brother), is:
 "To whom it may concern:
 "We, the brothers and relatives of Wilbur L. Hurley, relinquish all claim to any moneys or other estate held by him at the time of his death in favor of his sister, Blanche S. Weir."
 That is not an agreement. At most, it is a form of waiver without consideration. It is not under seal. It would probably estop them as against an innocent third party. But we are satisfied from the testimony it was induced by misrepresentation by the husband of plaintiff as to its purpose, and intentional concealment as to the value of the estate.
 It was presented to John W. Hurley at plaintiff's home by her husband, while the members of the family were assembled for the funeral. Hurley testifies the paper had been prepared by Wier, who gave it to witness on his arrival and requested him to sign it and to ask the rest to sign it; that Wier said it was "to save court expenses, and if a little bit of money is left we could get it and divide it up and save the court expenses"; that he did not give witness any idea of what the estate amounted to, and witness did not read the paper. The witness and the other signers of the paper all testified that they did not read the paper but signed it on their brother-in-law's representation; that they would not have signed it if they had known that decedent left a substantial estate. Wier seems to have regarded himself, and to have been regarded by his wife's brothers, as the business man of the family, and apparently they all relied on him. The brothers appear to be worthy, industrious people, but with little education. Of course, they should have read the paper. But, as to plaintiff, they had the right to rely upon Wier's representations. He was plaintiff's agent. There is no estoppel *Page 44
 here. McGrath v. Peterson, 127 Md. 412, 96 A. 551, and cases there cited.
 The chancellor believed these witnesses, and we think he was warranted in so doing. Indeed, there is no substantial contradiction, except that Wier testified that, in presenting the paper to John W. Hurley, witness told him "that Wilbur wanted Blanche to have all his estate."
 Even if there had been a valid assignment, it would have availed plaintiff nothing in this case. She could then have asserted her claim in the orphans' court in the distribution of the estate.
 Decree affirmed, with costs to appellee.