text:
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,26.2.2020
 COM(2020) 71 final
 2020/0031(NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh ag an 56ú seisiún den Choiste Saineolaithe um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha de chuid na hEagraíochta Idir-rialtasaí um Iompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród i ndáil le leasuithe áirithe ar Aguisín C a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród
 MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁIN
 1.Ábhar an togra
 Baineann an togra seo leis an gcinneadh lena leagtar síos an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais sa Choiste Saineolaithe um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha (“Coiste Saineolaithe RID”) de chuid na hEagraíochta um Iompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród (OTIF) i ndáil le leasuithe áirithe ar na forálacha teicniúla agus riaracháin atá san Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann le hAguisín C a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród (COTIF) atá beartaithe a ghlacadh agus atá le cinneadh ag an gcoiste thuasluaite.
 2.Comhthéacs an togra
 2.1.An Coinbhinsiún maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród (COTIF)
 An Coinbhinsiún maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród (COTIF) an 9 Bealtaine 1980, arna leasú le Prótacal Vilnias an 3 Meitheamh 1999, is comhaontú idirnáisiúnta é inar Páirtithe Conarthacha iad an tAontas agus 26 Bhallstát (is iad an Chipir agus Málta amháin nach bhfuil ina bPáirtithe Conarthacha).
 D’aontaigh an tAontas Eorpach do COTIF trí bhíthin Chinneadh 2013/103/AE ón gComhairle an 16 Meitheamh 2011
 1
 . Is le hIarscríbhinn III a ghabhann leis an gCinneadh sin a shuitear na socruithe inmheánacha le haghaidh na Comhairle, na mBallstát agus an Choimisiúin maidir le himeachtaí OTIF. De réir phointe 3.1 d’Iarscríbhinn III a ghabhann le Cinneadh 2013/103/AE, i gcás ina bhfuil baint ag mír ar an gclár oibre le hábhair a bhfuil inniúlacht eisiach ag an Aontas ina leith, caithfidh an Coimisiún a vóta thar ceann an Aontais.
 2.2.An Rialachán maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta Earraí Contúirteacha d’Iarnród (RID)
 De réir Airteagal 7 de COTIF, cumhdaítear freisin leis an gCoinbhinsiún, inter alia, na hAguisíní dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 6 de. Áirítear leis sin an “Rialachán maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta Earraí Contúirteacha d’Iarnród (RID)”, is é sin Aguisín C a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún. Tá feidhm ag RID a mhéid nach ndéantar dearbhuithe i gcomhréir leis na forálacha ábhartha de COTIF
 2
 .
 Tá sé d’aidhm ag RID rialáil a dhéanamh ar iompar idirnáisiúnta earraí contúirteacha d’iarnród idir na Ballstáit de OTIF a chuireann rialacha RID i bhfeidhm (Stáit Chonarthacha RID)
 3
 .
 2.3.Coiste Saineolaithe RID
 Is comhlacht é Coiste Saineolaithe RID a bunaíodh le hAirteagal 13 (1) d) de COTIF. De réir Airteagal 18 de COTIF, glacfaidh Coiste Saineolaithe RID cinntí ar mholtaí arb é is aidhm dóibh an Coinbhinsiún a mhodhnú. Ionadaithe ó na Ballstáit de OTIF a chuireann RID i bhfeidhm agus ón Aontas Eorpach, is iadsan atá ar an gcoiste sin.
 2.4.An gníomh atá beartaithe ag Coiste Saineolaithe RID
 Le linn an 56ú seisiún de Choiste Saineolaithe RID an 27 Bealtaine 2020, táthar ag súil go nglacfaidh Coiste Saineolaithe RID sraith leasuithe lena dtabharfar an Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann le RID (“an gníomh atá beartaithe”) cothrom le dáta i bhfianaise aon dul chun cinn teicniúil agus eolaíoch.
 Is é is cuspóir don ghníomh atá beartaithe a áirithiú gur go slán sábháilte a iomprófar earraí contúirteacha d’iarnród tríd an méid seo a leanas, i measc rudaí eile, a thabhairt cothrom le dáta: liosta na n‐earraí contúirteacha a cheadaítear a n‐iompar, na treoracha pacála, liosta na gcaighdeán is infheidhme chomh maith le riachtanais theicniúla eile is infheidhme maidir le gabhdáin éagsúla.
 Na forálacha idirnáisiúnta a bhaineann le hiompar earraí contúirteacha, tá siad leagtha síos ag eagraíochtaí idirnáisiúnta éagsúla, amhail OTIF, ach ag Coimisiún Eacnamaíochta na Náisiún Aontaithe don Eoraip (UNECE) freisin agus ag comhlachtaí speisialaithe éagsúla de chuid na Náisiún Aontaithe, amhail an Fochoiste Saineolaithe um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha de chuid Chomhairle Eacnamaíoch agus Shóisialta na Náisiún Aontaithe (ECOSOC). Ós rud é nach mór na rialacha a bheith comhoiriúnach le chéile, cheap na heagraíochtaí atá i mbun na hoibre sin córas idirnáisiúnta casta le haghaidh comhordú agus comhchuibhiú. Déanfar na forálacha a oiriúnú tar éis timthriall dhá bhliain.
 Chuathas i gcomhairle le réimse leathan saineolaithe ón earnáil phoiblí agus ón earnáil phríobháideach nuair a bhí na leasuithe sin á n‐ullmhú. Reáchtáladh na cruinnithe teicniúla seo a leanas nuair a bhí na leasuithe sin á bhforbairt:
 –Fochoiste Saineolaithe ECOSOC na Náisiún Aontaithe um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha:
 (1)le linn an 51ú seisiún de sa Ghinéiv, an 3 - 7 Iúil 2017;
 (2)le linn an 52ú seisiún de sa Ghinéiv, an 27 Samhain - an 6 Nollaig 2017;
 (3)le linn an 53ú seisiún de sa Ghinéiv, an 25 Meitheamh - 4 Iúil 2018;
 (4)le linn an 54ú seisiún de sa Ghinéiv, an 26 Samhain - an 4 Nollaig 2018;
 –Cruinniú Comhpháirteach UNECE-OTIF de chuid Choiste Saineolaithe RID agus na Meithle um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha:
 (1)le linn sheisiún an fhómhair 2018 de sa Ghinéiv, an 17 - 21 Meán Fómhair 2018;
 (2)le linn sheisiún an earraigh 2019 de i mBeirn, an 18 - 22 Márta 2019;
 (3)le linn sheisiún an fhómhair 2019 de sa Ghinéiv, an 17 - 26 Meán Fómhair 2019;
 (4)beidh seisiún eile den Chruinniú Comhpháirteach i mBeirn an 16 - 20 Márta 2020;
 –Buanmheitheal Choiste Saineolaithe RID:
 (1)le linn an 10ú seisiún de in Kraków, an 21 - 23 Samhain 2018;
 (2)le linn an 11ú seisiún de i Vín, an 25 – 29 Samhain 2019.
 Sna cruinnithe sin, rinne saineolaithe na gcoistí thuasluaite anailís agus próiseáil ar na moltaí le haghaidh leasuithe. Den chuid is mó, tugadh tacaíocht d’aon toil don ghníomhaíocht a moladh. Tháinig moltaí áirithe ó thuairim thromlach na saineolaithe.
 Le hAirteagal 38 de COTIF, agus chun críocha fheidhmiú an chirt vótála agus an chirt chun agóid a dhéanamh dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 35§2 agus 35§4, suitear go mbeidh an líon vótaí atá ag eagraíocht réigiúnach lánpháirtíochta eacnamaíche ar nós an Aontais Eorpaigh comhionann leis an líon ball atá inti, agus is Ballstáit den Eagraíocht iad na baill sin freisin.
 I gcomhréir le hAirteagal 35 de COTIF, a luaithe a dhéanfaidh Coiste Saineolaithe RID cinneadh, tiocfaidh na leasuithe i bhfeidhm maidir le gach Páirtí Conarthach an chéad lá den séú mí tar éis don Ard-Rúnaí fógra a thabhairt do na Páirtithe Conarthacha maidir leis na leasuithe. Féadfaidh Páirtí Conarthach agóid a chur le chéile laistigh de thréimhse ceithre mhí ó lá an fhógra. I gcás ina mbeidh agóid déanta ag ceathrú de na Páirtithe Conarthacha i gcoinne leasú, ní thiocfaidh an leasú sin i bhfeidhm.
 Mura n‐ardóidh na páirtithe líon leordhóthanach agóidí, táthar ag súil go dtiocfaidh na leasuithe lena mbaineann faoin togra seo i bhfeidhm an 1 Eanáir 2021, go mbeidh siad ceangailteach ar an Aontas agus ar na Ballstáit agus go mbeidh siad ina gcuid dhílis de acquis an Aontais.
 3.An seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais
 3.1.Inniúlacht eisiach an Aontais.
 San Aguisín a ghabhann le hIarscríbhinn I a ghabhann le Cinneadh 2013/103/AE ón gComhairle an 16 Meitheamh 2011, tá liosta de na hionstraimí de chuid an Aontais lenar fheidhmigh an tAontas a inniúlacht agus a bhí i bhfeidhm tráth thabhairt i gcrích an Chomhaontaithe idir an tAontas agus OTIF. Tá Treoir 2008/68/CE maidir le hiompar intíre earraí contúirteacha
 4
 ar an liosta.
 Déantar foráil in Airteagal 1 de Threoir 2008/68/CE go mbeidh feidhm ag an Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann le RID maidir le hiompar earraí contúirteacha d’iarnród laistigh de na Ballstáit nó eatarthu, seachas na Ballstáit sin nach bhfuil córas iarnróid acu. Déantar foráil in Airteagal 4 de Threoir 2008/68/CE, Airteagal a bhaineann le tríú tíortha, go n‐údarófar “iompar earraí contúirteacha idir na Ballstáit agus tríú tíortha a mhéid a chomhlíonfar riachtanais ADR
 5
 , RID nó ADN
 6
 , mura dtabharfar a mhalairt le fios sna hIarscríbhinní”.
 Chuige sin, cumhachtaíodh an Coimisiún Iarscríbhinn II, Roinn II.1, a ghabhann le Treoir 2008/68/CE a oiriúnú le gníomh tarmligthe, de bhun Airteagal 8 den Treoir sin.
 3.2.An seasamh a ghlacfar
 Is faoi inniúlacht eisiach an Aontais atá aon leasuithe ar RID agus is gá seasamh an Aontas a shuí.
 Déantar foráil maidir le liosta na leasuithe atá beartaithe in Airteagal 1 den Dréachtchinneadh ón gComhairle.
 Mar a luadh cheana, chuathas i gcomhairle le réimse leathan saineolaithe ón earnáil phoiblí agus ón earnáil phríobháideach nuair a bhí na leasuithe sin á n‐ullmhú. Den chuid is mó, socraítear d’aon toil an ghníomhaíocht a moladh.
 De réir phointe 2.4 d’Iarscríbhinn III a ghabhann le Cinneadh 2013/103/AE, an Coiste um iompar earraí contúirteacha, a bunaíodh faoi Threoir 2008/68/CE, rinne sé réamhphlé ar na leasuithe a beartaíodh ag an gcruinniú de an 16 Nollaig 2019 agus bhí gach rannpháirtí sásta leis an moladh.
 Thairis sin, d’eagraigh an Coimisiún cruinnithe comhordúcháin AE ag gach céim de phróiseas idirbheartaíochta na leasuithe sin.
 Meastar gurb iomchuí na leasuithe atá beartaithe ó thaobh iompar sábháilte earraí contúirteacha ar bhealach atá costéifeachtach de, agus dul chun cinn teicneolaíochta á chur san áireamh, agus féadfar tacú leo dá bhrí sin.
 4.Bunús dlí
 4.1.Bunús dlí nóis imeachta
 4.1.1.Prionsabail
 In Airteagal 218(9) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh (CFAE) déantar foráil maidir le cinntí lena leagtar síos “na seasaimh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais i gcomhlacht arna chur ar bun le comhaontú nuair a iarrtar ar an gcomhlacht sin gníomhartha a ghlacadh a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo, seachas gníomhartha lena bhforlíonfar nó lena leasófar creat institiúideach an chomhaontaithe.”
 Áirítear ar na “gníomhartha ... a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo” gníomhartha a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo de bhua na rialacha sin den dlí idirnáisiúnta lena rialaítear an comhlacht i gceist. Áirítear freisin ionstraimí nach bhfuil éifeacht cheangailteach leo faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta, ach a d’fhéadfadh “tionchar cinntitheach a imirt ar ábhar na reachtaíochta a ghlacfaidh reachtas an Aontais Eorpaigh”
 7
 .
 4.1.2.Cur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an gcás seo
 Is é atá sa ghníomh a iarrtar ar Choiste Saineolaithe RID a ghlacadh gníomh a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leis. Beidh an gníomh atá beartaithe ceangailteach ar an Aontas faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 6 de RID, Airteagal ar dá réir is cuid dhílis den Rialachán í an Iarscríbhinn a bheidh le modhnú.
 Ina theannta sin agus de bhun Airteagal 1 de Threoir 2008/68/CE, beidh feidhm ag an Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann le RID maidir le hiompar earraí contúirteacha d’iarnród laistigh de na Ballstáit nó eatarthu, seachas na Ballstáit sin nach bhfuil córas iarnróid acu. Déantar foráil in Airteagal 4 de Threoir 2008/68/CE, Airteagal a bhaineann le tríú tíortha, go n‐údarófar “iompar earraí contúirteacha idir na Ballstáit agus tríú tíortha a mhéid a chomhlíonfar riachtanais ADR, RID nó ADN, mura dtabharfar a mhalairt le fios sna hIarscríbhinní”.
 Leis an ngníomh atá beartaithe ní fhorlíontar creat institiúideach an Chomhaontaithe ná ní leasaítear é.
 Dá bhrí sin, is é Airteagal 218(9) CFAE bunús dlí nóis imeachta an chinnidh atá beartaithe.
 4.2.Bunús dlí substainteach
 4.2.1.Prionsabail
 An bunús dlí substainteach atá le cinneadh faoi Airteagal 218(9) CFAE, braitheann sé go príomha ar chuspóir agus ábhar an ghnímh atá beartaithe agus a bhfuiltear ag glacadh seasamh thar ceann an Aontais ina leith.
 4.2.2.Cur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an gcás seo
 Baineann príomhchuspóir agus ábhar an Chinnidh le hiompar earraí contúirteacha d’iarnród.
 Dá bhrí sin, is é Airteagal 91 CFAE bunús dlí substainteach an chinnidh atá beartaithe.
 4.3.Conclúid
 Is é Airteagal 91 ba cheart a bheith ina bhunús dlí don chinneadh atá beartaithe, i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) CFAE.
 5.Foilsiú an ghnímh atá beartaithe
 Ós rud é go ndéanfar leasú ar an Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann le RID leis an gCinneadh ó Choiste Saineolaithe RID, is iomchuí faisnéis faoi thorthaí an chruinnithe a fhoilsiú in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh tar éis a ghlactha.
 2020/0031 (NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh ag an 56ú seisiún den Choiste Saineolaithe um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha de chuid na hEagraíochta Idir-rialtasaí um Iompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród i ndáil le leasuithe áirithe ar Aguisín C a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród
 TÁ COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,
 Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe Airteagal 91, i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) de,
 Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,
 De bharr an mhéid seo a leanas:
 (1)Is trí bhíthin Chinneadh 2013/103/AE
 8
 1 a d’aontaigh an tAontas don Choinbhinsiún maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród (“COTIF”) an 9 Bealtaine 1980, arna leasú le Prótacal Vilnias an 3 Meitheamh 1999.
 (2)Tá gach Ballstát seachas an Chipir agus Málta ina bhall de COTIF.
 (3)De réir Airteagal 6 de COTIF, déanfar trácht iarnróid idirnáisiúnta agus cead d’ábhar iarnróid sa trácht idirnáisiúnta a rialú le rialacha a liostaítear laistigh den Airteagal seo, go háirithe an “Rialachán maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta Earraí Contúirteacha d’Iarnród (RID)”, is é sin Aguisín C a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún.
 (4)Le Treoir 2008/68/CE ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 9
 2, leagtar síos riachtanais le haghaidh iompar earraí contúirteacha de bhóthar, d’iarnród agus ar uiscebhealaí intíre laistigh de na Ballstáit nó eatarthu le tagairt a dhéanamh do RID.
 (5)De bhun Airteagal 13 (1) (d) de COTIF, féadfaidh an Coiste Saineolaithe um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha (“Coiste Saineolaithe RID”) de chuid na hEagraíochta um Iompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród (OTIF) leasuithe a ghlacadh ar an Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann le RID.
 (6)Ag an 56ú seisiún de Choiste Saineolaithe RID an 27 Bealtaine 2020, glacfaidh siad leasuithe leis an Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann le RID a chur in oiriúint d’aon dul chun cinn eolaíoch agus teicniúil.
 (7)Is iomchuí an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais i gCoiste Saineolaithe RID a leagan síos mar beidh na leasuithe ar RID ceangailteach ar an Aontas.
 (8)Baineann na leasuithe atá beartaithe le caighdeáin theicniúla agus is é is aidhm dóibh a áirithiú gur go sábháilte éifeachtúil a iomprófar earraí contúirteacha, agus dul chun cinn eolaíoch agus teicniúil san earnáil, chomh maith le forbairt substaintí agus earraí nua a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ina mbaol le linn a n‐iompartha, á gcur san áireamh.
 (9)Meastar gurb iomchuí na leasuithe atá beartaithe ó thaobh iompar sábháilte earraí contúirteacha ar bhealach atá costéifeachtach de agus féadfar tacú leo dá bhrí sin.
 TAR ÉIS AN CINNEADH SEO A GHLACADH:
 Airteagal 1
 Leagtar amach san Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann leis an gCinneadh seo an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais ag an 56ú seisiún den Choiste Saineolaithe um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha (“Coiste Saineolaithe RID”) de chuid na hEagraíochta um Iompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród (“OTIF”) faoi chuimsiú an Choinbhinsiúin maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród an 9 Bealtaine 1980, arna leasú le Prótacal Vilnias an 3 Meitheamh 1999.
 Féadfaidh ionadaithe an Aontais i gCoiste Saineolaithe RID mionathruithe a shocrú ar na doiciméid dá dtagraítear san Iarscríbhinn gan cinneadh eile ón gComhairle.
 Airteagal 2
 A luaithe a ghlacfar na cinntí ó Choiste Saineolaithe RID, foilseofar iad in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh agus ba cheart dáta a dteacht i bhfeidhm a bheith luaite leo.
 Airteagal 3
 Dírítear an Cinneadh seo chuig an gCoimisiún.
 Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,
 Thar ceann na Comhairle
 An tUachtarán
 (1)
 Cinneadh 2013/103 ón gComhairle an 16 Meitheamh 2011 maidir le síniú agus tabhairt i gcrích an Chomhaontaithe idir an tAontas Eorpach agus an Eagraíocht Idir-rialtasach um Iompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród maidir le hAontachas an Aontais Eorpaigh leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród (COTIF) an 9 Bealtaine 1980, arna leasú le Prótacal Vilnias an 3 Meitheamh 1999, IO L 51, 23.2.2013, lch. 1.
 (2)
 Airteagal 42(1) de COTIF.
 (3)
 Faoi láthair tá 50 Ballstát OTIF agus 45 Stát Chonarthacha RID ann.
 (4)
 Treoir 2008/68/CE ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 24 Meán Fómhair 2008 maidir le hiompar intíre earraí contúirteacha, IO L 260, 30.9.2008, lch. 13.
 (5)
 An Comhaontú Eorpach maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta Earraí Contúirteacha de Bhóthar, a cuireadh i gcrích sa Ghinéiv an 30 Meán Fómhair 1957.
 (6)
 An Comhaontú Eorpach maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta Earraí Contúirteacha ar Uiscebhealaí Intíre, a tugadh i gcrích sa Ghinéiv an 26 Bealtaine 2000.
 (7)
 Breithiúnas na Cúirte Breithiúnais an 7 Deireadh Fómhair 2014, an Ghearmáin v an Chomhairle, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, míreanna 61 go 64.
 (8)
 1
 Cinneadh 2013/103 ón gComhairle an 16 Meitheamh 2011 maidir le síniú agus tabhairt i gcrích an Chomhaontaithe idir an tAontas Eorpach agus an Eagraíocht Idir-rialtasach um Iompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród maidir le hAontachas an Aontais Eorpaigh leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d’Iarnród (COTIF) an 9 Bealtaine 1980, arna leasú le Prótacal Vilnias an 3 Meitheamh 1999, IO L 51, 23.2.2013, lch. 1.
 (9)
 2
 Treoir 2008/68/CE ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 24 Meán Fómhair 2008 maidir le hiompar intíre earraí contúirteacha, IO L 260, 30.9.2008, lch. 13.
 ---documentbreak---
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,26.2.2020
 COM(2020) 71 final
 IARSCRÍBHINN
 a ghabhann leis an
 gCinneadh ón gComhairle
 maidir leis an seasamh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh ag an 56ú seisiún den Choiste Saineolaithe um Iompar Earraí Contúirteacha de chuid na hEagraíochta Idir-rialtasaí um Iompar Idirnáisiúnta d'Iarnród i ndáil le leasuithe áirithe ar Aguisín C a ghabhann leis an gCoinbhinsiún maidir le hIompar Idirnáisiúnta d'Iarnród
 IARSCRÍBHINN
 Moladh
 Doiciméad tagartha
 Ceist
 Barúlacha
 Seasamh an Aontais
 1.
 OTIF/RID/CE/GTP/2019/6
 Téacsanna comhdhlúite a glacadh ag an gCruinniú Comhpháirteach in 2018 agus in 2019 agus a ghlac Buanmheitheal Choiste Saineolaithe RID i mí na Samhna 2018
 Comhthoil theicniúil ag Buanmheitheal OTIF leis an téacs leasaithe a ghlacadh
 Aontú leis na leasuithe a d’athbhreithnigh an Bhuanmheitheal
 2.
 Idem
 Leasuithe a fágadh lena scrúdú tuilleadh ag an mBuanmheitheal
 -
 -
 3.
 Idem
 Iad siúd a iarann dearcadh coiteann ag Cruinniú Comhpháirteach UNECE – OTIF
 Ní mór iompar ilmhódúil éifeachtúil a éascú
 Aontú leis na leasuithe a moladh ag an gCruinniú Comhpháirteach
 4.
 OTIF/RID/CE/GTP/2019/8
 Forálacha idirthréimhseacha a thabhairt cothrom le dáta
 Comhthoil theicniúil ag Buanmheitheal OTIF leis an téacs leasaithe a ghlacadh
 Aontú leis na leasuithe a d’athbhreithnigh an Bhuanmheitheal
 5.
 OTIF/RID/CE/GTP/2019/10
 107ú seisiún de WP.15 (an Ghinéiv, 11 – 15 Samhain 2019)
 Comhthoil theicniúil ag Buanmheitheal OTIF leis an téacs leasaithe a ghlacadh
 Aontú leis na leasuithe a d’athbhreithnigh an Bhuanmheitheal
 6.
 OTIF/RID/CE/GTP/2019/ INF.4 + INF.10 + INF.12
 Friotaíocht na ndabhachvaigíní in aghaidh brú i gcomhréir le RID 6.8.2.1.2
 Comhthoil theicniúil ag Buanmheitheal OTIF leis an téacs leasaithe a ghlacadh
 Aontú leis na leasuithe a d’athbhreithnigh an Bhuanmheitheal


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 22.12.2015
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 L 334/62
 DECISIÓN No 1/2015 DEL CONSEJO DE ASOCIACIÓN UE-EGIPTO
 de 21 de septiembre de 2015
 que sustituye el Protocolo 4 del Acuerdo Euromediterráneo por el que se establece una Asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Árabe de Egipto, por otra, relativo a la definición del concepto de «productos originarios» y a los métodos de cooperación administrativa [2015/2435]
 EL CONSEJO DE ASOCIACIÓN UE-EGIPTO,
 Visto el Acuerdo Euromediterráneo por el que se establece una Asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Árabe de Egipto, por otra (1), y, en particular, su artículo 27,
 Visto el Protocolo 4 del Acuerdo Euromediterráneo por el que se establece una Asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Árabe de Egipto, por otra, relativo a la definición del concepto de «productos originarios» y a los métodos de cooperación administrativa,
 Considerando lo siguiente:
 (1)
 El artículo 27 del Acuerdo Euromediterráneo por el que se establece una Asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Árabe de Egipto, por otra (en lo sucesivo, «el Acuerdo») se refiere al Protocolo 4 del Acuerdo (en lo sucesivo, «el Protocolo 4»), que establece las normas de origen y prevé la acumulación del origen entre la Unión Europea, Egipto, y otras Partes Contratantes en el Convenio regional sobre las normas de origen preferenciales paneuromediterráneas (2) (en lo sucesivo, «el Convenio»).
 (2)
 El artículo 39 del Protocolo 4 establece que el Consejo de Asociación contemplado en el artículo 74 del Acuerdo podrá decidir modificar las disposiciones del Protocolo.
 (3)
 El Convenio tiene por objeto sustituir los protocolos sobre normas de origen actualmente en vigor en los países de la zona paneuromediterránea por un único acto jurídico.
 (4)
 La Unión y Egipto firmaron el Convenio el 15 de junio de 2011 y el 9 de octubre de 2013, respectivamente.
 (5)
 La Unión y Egipto depositaron sus instrumentos de aceptación ante el depositario del Convenio el 26 de marzo de 2012 y el 23 de abril de 2014, respectivamente. Como consecuencia de ello, en virtud de su artículo 10, apartado 3, el Convenio entró en vigor, en relación con la Unión y Egipto, el 1 de mayo de 2012 y el 1 de junio de 2014, respectivamente.
 (6)
 Por lo tanto, el Protocolo 4 debe ser sustituido por un nuevo Protocolo en el que se haga referencia al Convenio.
 HA ADOPTADO LA PRESENTE DECISIÓN:
 Artículo 1
 El Protocolo 4 del Acuerdo Euromediterráneo por el que se establece una Asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Árabe de Egipto, por otra, relativo a la definición del concepto de «productos originarios» y a los métodos de cooperación administrativa, se sustituye por el texto que figura en el anexo de la presente Decisión.
 Artículo 2
 La presente Decisión entrará en vigor el día de su adopción.
 Se aplicará a partir del 1 de febrero de 2016.
 Hecho en Bruselas, el 21 de septiembre de 2015.
 Por el Consejo de Asociación
 La Presidenta
 F. MOGHERINI
 (1) DO L 304 de 30.9.2004, p. 39.
 (2) DO L 54 de 26.2.2013, p. 4.
 ANEXO
 «PROTOCOLO 4
 relativo a la definición del concepto de “productos originarios” y a los métodos de cooperación administrativa
 Artículo 1
 Normas de origen aplicables
 1. A efectos de la aplicación del presente Acuerdo, serán de aplicación el apéndice I y las disposiciones pertinentes del apéndice II del Convenio regional sobre las normas de origen preferenciales paneuromediterráneas (1) (en lo sucesivo, “el Convenio”).
 2. Todas las referencias al “Acuerdo pertinente” en el apéndice I y en las disposiciones pertinentes del apéndice II del Convenio deberán interpretarse en el sentido de que se refieren al presente Acuerdo.
 Artículo 2
 Solución de litigios
 1. En caso de que surjan diferencias en relación con los procedimientos de comprobación establecidos en el artículo 32 del apéndice 1 del Convenio que no puedan resolverse entre las autoridades aduaneras que soliciten la comprobación y las autoridades aduaneras encargadas de llevarla a cabo, dichas diferencias deberán remitirse al Consejo de Asociación.
 2. En todos los casos, los litigios entre el importador y las autoridades aduaneras del país de importación se resolverán con arreglo a la legislación de dicho país.
 Artículo 3
 Modificaciones del Protocolo
 El Consejo de Asociación podrá decidir modificar las disposiciones del presente Protocolo.
 Artículo 4
 Denuncia del Convenio
 1. En caso de que la Unión Europea o Egipto comunicasen por escrito al depositario del Convenio su intención de denunciarlo de conformidad con su artículo 9, la Unión y Egipto entablarán inmediatamente negociaciones sobre las normas de origen a efectos de la aplicación del presente Acuerdo.
 2. Hasta la entrada en vigor de tales normas de origen recién negociadas, seguirán aplicándose al presente Acuerdo las normas de origen contenidas en el apéndice I del Convenio y, en su caso, las disposiciones pertinentes de su apéndice II, aplicables en el momento de la denuncia. No obstante, desde el momento de la denuncia, las normas de origen contenidas en el apéndice I y, en su caso, las disposiciones pertinentes del apéndice II del Convenio, se interpretarán de forma que se permita la acumulación bilateral entre la Unión Europea y Egipto únicamente.».
 (1) DO L 54 de 26.2.2013, p. 4.


type: legislation

text:
 IL-KUMMISSJONI EWROPEA
 Brussell, 26.6.2020
 COM(2020) 267 final
 2020/0129(NLE)
 Proposta għal
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-KUNSILL
 dwar il-pożizzjoni li għandha tittieħed f’isem l-Unjoni Ewropea fil-Kumitat Konġunt stabbilit skont il-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea minn naħa waħda, u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe min-naħa l-oħra, fir-rigward tal-adozzjoni tal-emendi tal-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim
 MEMORANDUM TA’ SPJEGAZZJONI
 1.Suġġett tal-proposta
 Din il-proposta tikkonċerna deċiżjoni li tistabbilixxi l-pożizzjoni li għandha tittieħed f’isem l-Unjoni fil-Kumitat Konġunt stabbilit skont il-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea minn naħa waħda, u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe min-naħa l-oħra, għall-adozzjoni ta’ deċiżjoni tal-Kumitat Konġunt li temenda l-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim.
 2.Kuntest tal-proposta
 2.1.Il-Ftehim
 Il-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea minn naħa waħda u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe min-naħa l-oħra (“il-Ftehim”), ġie konkluż mill-Komunità Ewropea permezz tad-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill 97/126/KE
 1
 . Il-Ftehim għandu l-għan li jippromwovi, permezz tat-tkabbir tal-kummerċ reċiproku, l-iżvilupp armonjuż tar-relazzjonijiet ekonomiċi bejn il-Komunità u l-Gżejjer Faeroe, jipprovdi kundizzjonijiet ġusti għall-kompetizzjoni fil-kummerċ bejn il-Partijiet u jikkontribwixxi għall-eliminazzjoni ta’ ostakli għall-kummerċ. Il-Ftehim daħal fis-seħħ fl-1 ta’ Jannar 1997.
 2.2.Il-Kumitat Konġunt
 Il-Kumitat Konġunt, stabbilit skont l-Artikolu 31(1) tal-Ftehim, huwa responsabbli għall-amministrazzjoni tal-Ftehim u jiżgura l-implimentazzjoni tajba tiegħu. L-Artikolu 34(1) tal-Ftehim jagħti s-setgħa lill-Kumitat Konġunt biex jemenda d-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Protokolli tal-Ftehim.
 2.3.L-att previst tal-Kumitat Konġunt
 L-Artikolu 36 tal-Ftehim jipprevedi li, fuq talba tal-Gżejjer Faeroe, l-Unjoni se tikkunsidra li ttejjeb il-possibbiltajiet ta’ aċċess għal prodotti speċifiċi u li testendi l-konċessjonijiet tariffarji tagħha għall-prodotti tas-sajd tal-Gżejjer Faeroe.
 F’konformità mar-riżultati tan-negozjati bejn il-Kummissjoni Ewropea u l-Gżejjer Faeroe, il-Kumitat Konġunt se jadotta deċiżjoni rigward l-emendi tal-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim, kif maqbul waqt it-18-il laqgħa tal-Kumitat Konġunt li saret f’Norðragøta, il-Gżejjer Faeroe fid-9 ta’ Ottubru 2019.
 3.Pożizzjoni li għandha tittieħed f’isem l-Unjoni
 L-emendi proposti għandhom l-għan li jżidu l-aċċess għas-suq għaż-żewġ Partijiet, kif maqbul fid-9 ta’ Ottubru 2019 waqt it-18-il laqgħa tal-Kumitat Konġunt. Hemm tliet emendi materjali:
 –Protokoll 1: Jiżdiedu l-aringi żgħar jew il-laċċi koħol friżati jew preservati (il-kodiċijiet NM 0303 53 90 u 1604 13 90) mal-lista ta’ prodotti fit-Tabella I tal-Anness tal-Protokoll 1 tal-Ftehim, li jindika d-dazji doganali preferenzjali u l-kundizzjonijiet oħra li għandhom jiġu applikati fuq l-importazzjoni fil-Komunità ta’ prodotti li joriġinaw minn u li ġejjin mill-Gżejjer Faeroe. L-Unjoni se tapplika dazji żero tal-importazzjoni għal dawn il-prodotti li joriġinaw mill-Gżejjer Faeroe. Il-Gżejjer Faeroe ressqu din it-talba lill-Unjoni skont l-Artikolu 36 tal-Ftehim u l-Partijiet qablu li jemendaw il-Protokoll 1.
 –Protokoll 4: Jitħassru n-nota 1 f’qiegħ il-paġna u l-paragrafu 2 tal-Artikolu 1 tal-Protokoll 4 tal-Ftehim. In-nota 1 f’qiegħ il-paġna fiha restrizzjoni dwar il-glutina miżjuda fl-għalf tal-ħut esportat mill-Gżejjer Faeroe lejn l-Unjoni, li tapplika għall-kodiċijiet NM ex 2309 90 10, ex 2309 90 31 u ex 2309 90 41. Il-paragrafu 2 jirreferi għar-rekwiżiti ta’ ċertifikazzjoni u ta’ kontroll fir-rigward tal-kwota tariffarja stabbilita għall-għalf tal-ħut skont il-kodiċijiet NM ex 2309 90 10, ex 2309 90 31 u ex 2309 90 41. Il-Gżejjer Faeroe inizjalment għamlu t-talba għat-tħassir fil-laqgħa tal-Kumitat Konġunt f’Novembru 2017, bl-argument li l-kompożizzjoni tal-għalf tal-ħut għas-settur tal-akkwakultura kienet żviluppat ħafna, u dan għamel il-glutina komponent aktar importanti.
 –Protokoll 4: Jiżdied artikolu ġdid li jistabbilixxi kwoti tariffarji għal prodotti tal-laħam esportati mill-Unjoni lejn il-Gżejjer Faeroe. Fil-qafas tan-negozjati msemmija hawn fuq, l-Unjoni talbet żieda fl-aċċess għas-suq għall-esportazzjonijiet tal-laħam tan-nagħaġ tal-Unjoni lejn il-Gżejjer Faeroe. Il-Partijiet qablu li jistabbilixxu kwota tariffarja għal firxa ta’ prodotti tan-nagħaġ (il-kodiċijiet NM 0204, 0206 80 99, 0206 90 99, 0210 90 11, 0210 90 60, ex 0210 90 90). Il-kwota tariffarja, li biha se japplika d-dazju żero tal-importazzjoni, se tiġi introdotta gradwalment: 40 tunnellata mill-adozzjoni tal-att previst (jiġifieri mill-2020), u 80 tunnellata wara tliet snin (jiġifieri mill-2023).
 Il-Kummissjoni infurmat lill-Istati Membri dwar l-eżitu ta’ dawn in-negozjati matul il-laqgħa tal-Grupp ta’ Ħidma tal-Kunsill l-Assoċjazzjoni Ewropea tal-Kummerċ Ħieles (EFTA), li saret fl-24 ta’ Ottubru 2019.
 4.Bażi ġuridika
 4.1.Bażi ġuridika proċedurali
 4.1.1.Prinċipji
 L-Artikolu 218(9) tat-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea (it-TFUE) jipprevedi deċiżjonijiet tal-Kunsill li jistabbilixxu “l-pożizzjonijiet li għandhom jiġu adottati f’isem l-Unjoni f’sede stabbilita fi ftehim, meta dik is-sede tintalab tadotta atti li jkollhom effetti legali, sakemm dawn ma jkunux atti li jissupplimentaw jew jemendaw il-qafas istituzzjonali tal-ftehim”.
 Il-kunċett ta’ “atti li jkollhom effetti legali” jinkludi l-atti li jkollhom effetti legali bis-saħħa tar-regoli tad-dritt internazzjonali li jirregolaw il-korp ikkonċernat. Jinkludi wkoll strumenti li ma jkollhomx effett vinkolanti skont id-dritt internazzjonali, iżda li “jistgħu jinfluwenzaw b’mod determinanti l-kontenut tal-leġiżlazzjoni adottata mil-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni”
 2
 .
 4.1.2.Applikazzjoni għal dan il-każ
 Il-Kumitat Konġunt huwa korp stabbilit mill-Ftehim. L-att, li l-Kumitat Konġunt huwa mitlub jadotta, jikkostitwixxi att li jkollu effetti legali. L-att previst se jemenda l-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim skont l-Artikolu 34(1) tal-Ftehim u dawk l-emendi se jkollhom effett vinkolanti fuq il-Partijiet. L-att previst la jissupplimenta u lanqas jemenda l-qafas istituzzjonali tal-Ftehim.
 Għaldaqstant, il-bażi ġuridika proċedurali għad-deċiżjoni proposta hija l-Artikolu 218(9) tat-TFUE.
 4.2.Bażi ġuridika sostantiva
 4.2.1.Prinċipji
 Il-bażi ġuridika sostantiva biex tittieħed deċiżjoni skont l-Artikolu 218(9) tat-TFUE tiddependi primarjament mill-objettiv u mill-kontenut tal-att previst li dwaru tittieħed pożizzjoni f’isem l-Unjoni. Jekk l-att previst ikollu żewġ għanijiet jew żewġ komponenti, u jekk wieħed minn dawn l-għanijiet jew il-komponenti jkun jista’ jiġi identifikat bħala dak ewlieni, filwaqt li l-ieħor ikun sempliċiment wieħed inċidentali, id-deċiżjoni skont l-Artikolu 218(9) tat-TFUE trid tkun imsejsa fuq bażi ġuridika sostantiva waħda, jiġifieri dik meħtieġa mill-għan jew mill-komponent ewlieni jew predominanti.
 4.2.2.Applikazzjoni għal dan il-każ
 L-objettiv u l-kontenut tal-att previst huma relatati mal-politika kummerċjali komuni. Għalhekk, il-bażi ġuridika sostantiva tad-deċiżjoni proposta hija l-Artikolu 207 tat-TFUE.
 4.3.Konklużjoni
 Jenħtieġ li l-bażi ġuridika tad-deċiżjoni proposta tkun l-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 207(4) tat-TFUE flimkien mal-Artikolu 218(9) tiegħu.
 5.Pubblikazzjoni tal-att previst
 Billi l-att tal-Kumitat Konġunt se jemenda l-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim, ikun xieraq li dan jiġi ppubblikat f’Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea, wara l-adozzjoni tiegħu.
 2020/0129 (NLE)
 Proposta għal
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-KUNSILL
 dwar il-pożizzjoni li għandha tittieħed f’isem l-Unjoni Ewropea fil-Kumitat Konġunt stabbilit skont il-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea minn naħa waħda, u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe min-naħa l-oħra, fir-rigward tal-adozzjoni tal-emendi tal-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim
 IL-KUNSILL TAL-UNJONI EWROPEA,
 Wara li kkunsidra t-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea, u b’mod partikolari l-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 207(4), flimkien mal-Artikolu 218(9) tiegħu,
 Wara li kkunsidra l-proposta tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea,
 Billi:
 (1)Il-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea minn naħa waħda u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe min-naħa l-oħra (“il-Ftehim”), ġie konkluż mill-Komunità Ewropea permezz tad-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill 97/126/KE
 3
 u daħal fis-seħħ fl-1 ta’ Jannar 1997.
 (2)Skont l-Artikolu 34 tal-Ftehim, il-Kumitat Konġunt jista’ jemenda d-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Protokolli tal-Ftehim.
 (3)Wara n-negozjati, il-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe u l-Unjoni qablu li jemendaw ċerti dispożizzjonijiet tal-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim. Dawn l-emendi għandhom l-għan li jwessgħu l-ambitu tal-aċċess għas-suq għaż-żewġ Partijiet fi prodotti magħżula.
 (4)Il-Kumitat Konġunt se jadotta deċiżjoni fir-rigward tal-emendi tal-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim.
 (5)Jixraq li tiġi stabbilita l-pożizzjoni li għandha tittieħed f’isem l-Unjoni fil-Kumitat Konġunt, peress li d-deċiżjoni li temenda l-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim se tkun vinkolanti għall-Unjoni,
 ADOTTA DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:
 Artikolu 1
 Il-pożizzjoni li għandha tittieħed f’isem l-Unjoni fil-Kumitat Konġunt fir-rigward tal-emendi tal-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim għandha tkun ibbażata fuq l-abbozz tad-Deċiżjoni tal-Kumitat Konġunt mehmuż ma’ din id-Deċiżjoni.
 Artikolu 2
 Id-deċiżjoni tal-Kumitat Konġunt għandha tiġi ppubblikata f’Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
 Artikolu 3
 Din id-Deċiżjoni hija indirizzata lill-Kummissjoni.
 Magħmul fi Brussell,
 Għall-Kunsill
 Il-President
 (1)
 Id-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill 97/126/KE tas-6 ta’ Diċembru 1996 dwar il-konklużjoni ta’ ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea, minn naħa waħda, u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe, min-naħa l-oħra (ĠU L 53, 22.2.1997, p. 1).
 (2)
 Is-Sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tas-7 ta’ Ottubru 2014, Il-Ġermanja vs Il-Kunsill, fil-kawża C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, il-paragrafi 61 sa 64.
 (3)
 Id-Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill 97/126/KE tas-6 ta’ Diċembru 1996 dwar il-konklużjoni ta’ ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea, minn naħa waħda, u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe, min-naħa l-oħra (ĠU L 53, 22.2.1997, p. 1).
 ---documentbreak---
 IL-KUMMISSJONI EWROPEA
 Brussell, 26.6.2020
 COM(2020) 267 final
 ANNESS
 tal-
 Proposta għal Deċiżjoni tal-Kunsill
 dwar il-pożizzjoni li għandha tittieħed f’isem l-Unjoni Ewropea fil-Kumitat Konġunt stabbilit skont il-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea minn naħa waħda, u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe min-naħa l-oħra, fir-rigward tal-adozzjoni tal-emendi tal-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim
 ABBOZZ
 TAD-DEĊIŻJONI Nru .../... TAL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT KE/GŻEJJER FAEROE
 ta’ ... 2020
 li temenda l-Protokolli 1 u 4 tal-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea, minn naħa waħda, u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe, min-naħa l-oħra
 Il-KUMITAT KONĠUNT,
 Wara li kkunsidraw il-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea, minn naħa waħda, u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe, min-naħa l-oħra
 1
 , u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 34(1) tiegħu,
 Billi:
 (1)Il-Protokoll 1 tal-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea, minn naħa waħda, u l-Gvern tad-Danimarka u l-Gvern Lokali tal-Gżejjer Faeroe, min-naħa l-oħra (“il-Ftehim”) jikkonċerna t-trattament tariffarju u l-arranġamenti applikabbli għal ċerti ħut u prodotti tas-sajd rilaxxati għal ċirkolazzjoni libera fl-Unjoni Ewropea jew importati fil-Gżejjer Faeroe. L-Anness tal-Protokoll 1 jindika d-dazji doganali preferenzjali u l-kundizzjonijiet l-oħra li għandhom jiġu applikati fuq l-importazzjonijiet fl-Unjoni Ewropea ta’ prodotti li joriġinaw minn jew li ġejjin mill-Gżejjer Faeroe.
 (2)Il-Gżejjer Faeroe ressqu talba abbażi tal-Artikolu 36 tal-Ftehim biex il-kodiċijiet NM 0303 53 90 u 1604 13 90 jiżdiedu mal-Anness tal-Protokoll 1 tal-Ftehim. L-Unjoni Ewropea tikkunsidra, wara l-eżami tas-suq rilevanti, li dawn il-prodotti jistgħu jiġu importati mingħajr dazju fl-Unjoni Ewropea u mingħajr restrizzjonijiet kwantitattivi.
 (3)Il-Protokoll 4 tal-Ftehim jikkonċerna d-dispożizzjonijiet speċjali applikabbli għall-importazzjonijiet ta’ ċerti prodotti agrikoli għajr dawk elenkati fil-Protokoll 1.
 (4)Skont l-Artikolu 1 tal-Protokoll 4 tal-Ftehim, l-Unjoni Ewropea inizjalment tat konċessjonijiet tariffarji għall-għalf tal-ħut tal-Gżejjer Faeroe, fir-rigward ta’ kwota tariffarja mingħajr dazju annwali ta’ 5 000 tunnellata. Din il-kwota tariffarja bla dazju ġiet emendata bid-Deċiżjoni Nru 2/98 tal-Kumitat Konġunt KE/Danimarka-Gżejjer Faeroe
 2
 , li żdiedet għal 10 000 tunnellata mill-1 ta’ Jannar 2000 u bid-Deċiżjoni Nru 1/2007 tal-Kumitat Konġunt KE/Danimarka-Gżejjer Faeroe
 3
 , li żdiedet għal 20 000 tunnellata u bil-kundizzjoni li l-għalf tal-ħut li jibbenefika mir-reġim preferenzjali ta’ importazzjoni ma jkollux glutina miżjuda.
 (5)Il-Gżejjer Faeroe talbu li jiġi emendat il-Protokoll 4 tal-Ftehim billi jitneħħew ir-restrizzjonijiet fuq il-glutina miżjuda li tinsab fl-għalf tal-ħut li jibbenefika mit-trattament preferenzjali, peress li l-glutina saret materja prima essenzjali fil-kompożizzjoni tal-għalf tal-ħut.
 (6)L-Artikolu 2 tal-Protokoll 4 tal-Ftehim jelenka l-prodotti li joriġinaw mill-Unjoni Ewropea, li jaqgħu taħt il-Kapitoli 1 sa 24 tas-Sistema Armonizzata, li għalihom il-Gżejjer Faeroe ma jagħtux libertà minn tariffi u dazji meta jiġu importati fil-Gżejjer Faeroe.
 (7)L-Unjoni Ewropea talbet li tinfetaħ kwota tariffarja bla dazju għall-kodiċi NM 0204, 0206 80 99, 0206 90 99, 0210 90 11, 0210 90 60, ex 0210 90 90, li huma elenkati fl-Artikolu 2 tal-Protokoll 4. Il-Gżejjer Faeroe jikkunsidraw li tista’ tingħata kwota tariffarja bla dazju ta’ 80 tunnellata ta’ esportazzjonijiet tal-Unjoni Ewropea ta’ dawn il-prodotti, suġġetti għal perjodu ta’ tranżizzjoni ta’ tliet snin bi kwota tariffarja bla dazju ta’ 40 tunnellata.
 (8)Għalhekk, jenħtieġ li l-Protokolli 1 u 4 jiġu emendati skont dan,
 ADOTTAT DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:
 Artikolu 1
 It-Tabella I fl-Anness tal-Protokoll 1 tal-Ftehim hija emendata kif ġej:
 (1)Bejn il-kodiċi NM 0303 50 98 u l-kodiċi NM 0303 60 11, tiddaħħal ir-ringiela li ġejja:
 “0303 53 90
 – – – Aringi żgħar jew laċċi koħol (Sprattus sprattus)
 0”
 (2)Bejn il-kodiċi NM 1604 12 99 u l-kodiċi NM 1604 19, jiddaħħlu ir-ringieli li ġejjin:
 “1604 13
 1604 13 90
 – – Sardin, sardinelli u aringi żgħar jew laċċi koħol
 – – – Sardin:
 – – – Oħrajn
 0”
 Artikolu 2
 Il-Protokoll 4 tal-Ftehim huwa emendat kif ġej:
 (1)L-Artikolu 1 huwa sostitwit b’dan li ġej:
 “Artikolu 1
 L-Unjoni Ewropea għandha tagħti lill-prodotti li joriġinaw minn u li ġejjin mill-Gżejjer Faeroe l-kwoti tariffarji li ġejjin:
 Kodiċi NM
 Deskrizzjoni
 Rata ta’ dazju
 Kwota tariffarja (TQ) fit-tunnellata
 0204
 0206 80 99
 0206 90 99
 0210 90 11
 0210 90 19
 0210 90 60
 ex 1601
 ex 1602
 Laħam tan-nagħaġ jew tal-mogħoż, frisk, imkessaħ jew iffriżat
 Ġewwieni li jittiekel tan-nagħaġ u l-mogħoż, frisk jew imkessaħ
 Ġewwieni li jittiekel tan-nagħaġ u l-mogħoż, iffriżat
 Laħam tan-nagħaġ jew tal-mogħoż, immellaħ, fis-salmura, imnixxef jew affumikat, bl-għadma
 Laħam tan-nagħaġ jew tal-mogħoż, immellaħ, fis-salmura, imnixxef jew affumikat, mingħajr għadma
 Ġewwieni li jittiekel tal-laħam tan-nagħaġ jew tal-mogħoż, immellaħ, fis-salmura, imnixxef jew affumikat
 Zalzett u prodotti simili, ta’ laħam, ġewwieni tal-laħam jew demm; preparazzjonijiet tal-ikel ibbażati fuq dawn il-prodotti:
 — Tan-nagħaġ u tal-mogħoż
 Laħam, ġewwieni tal-laħam jew demm ieħor preparat jew ppreservat:
 — Tan-nagħaġ u tal-mogħoż
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 20
 ex 2309 90 10
 ex 2309 90 31
 ex 2309 90 41
 Għalf tal-ħut
 0
 20 000
 ”
 (2)Jiżdied l-Artikolu 3 li ġej:
 “Artikolu 3
 Il-Gżejjer Faeroe għandhom jiftħu l-kwoti tariffarji li ġejjin għall-prodotti li joriġinaw minn jew li ġejjin mill-Unjoni Ewropea:
 Kodiċi NM
 Deskrizzjoni
 Rata ta’ dazju
 Kwota tariffarja (TQ) fit-tunnellata
 0204
 0206 80 99
 0206 90 99
 0210 90 11
 0210 90 60
 ex 0210 90 90
 Laħam tan-nagħaġ jew tal-mogħoż, frisk, imkessaħ jew iffriżat
 Ġewwieni li jittiekel tan-nagħaġ u l-mogħoż, frisk jew imkessaħ
 Ġewwieni li jittiekel tan-nagħaġ u l-mogħoż, iffriżat
 Laħam tan-nagħaġ jew tal-mogħoż, immellaħ, fis-salmura, imnixxef jew affumikat, bl-għadma
 Ġewwieni li jittiekel tal-laħam tan-nagħaġ jew tal-mogħoż, immellaħ, fis-salmura, imnixxef jew affumikat
 Dqiq u pasti li jittieklu tal-laħam jew tal-ġewwieni tan-nagħaġ u l-mogħoż
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 40 fl-2020, fl-2021 u fl-2022:
 80 mis-sena 2023
 ”
 (3)L-Anness I jitħassar.
 Artikolu 3
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fil-jum tal-adozzjoni tagħha.
 Magħmul fi ..., ....
 Għall-Kumitat Konġunt
 Il-President
 (1)
 ĠU L 53, 22.2.1997, p. 2.
 (2)
 ĠU L 263, 26.9.1998, p. 37.
 (3)
 ĠU L 275, 19.10.2007, p. 32.


text:
27.6.2019
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 174/17
 EEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMAS
 Nr. 160/2017
 2017 m. rugsėjo 22 d.
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas EEE susitarimo II priedas (Techniniai reglamentai, standartai, bandymai ir sertifikavimas) [2019/1048]
 EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,
 atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau – EEE susitarimas), ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2017 m. liepos 7 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) 2017/1237, kuriuo dėl didžiausio leidžiamo cianido rūgšties kiekio rinkai pateiktuose galutiniam vartotojui skirtuose neperdirbtuose, sveikuose, smulkintuose, maltuose, skaldytuose, kapotuose abrikosų branduoliuose iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1881/2006 (1);
 (2)
 šis sprendimas susijęs su teisės aktais dėl maisto produktų. Teisės aktai dėl maisto produktų netaikomi Lichtenšteinui tol, kol jam taikomas Europos bendrijos ir Šveicarijos Konfederacijos susitarimas dėl prekybos žemės ūkio produktais, kaip nustatyta EEE susitarimo II priedo XII skyriaus įžangoje. Todėl šis sprendimas netaikomas Lichtenšteinui;
 (3)
 todėl EEE susitarimo II priedas turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeistas,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 EEE susitarimo II priedo XII skyriaus 54zzzz punktas (Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1881/2006) papildomas šia įtrauka:
 „—
 32017 R 1237: 2017 m. liepos 7 d. Komisijos reglamentas (ES) Nr. 2017/1237 (OL L 177, 2017 7 8, p. 36).“
 2 straipsnis
 Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede skelbtinas Reglamento (ES) 2017/1237 tekstas islandų ir norvegų kalbomis yra autentiškas.
 3 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja 2017 m. rugsėjo 23 d., jei pateikti visi pranešimai pagal EEE susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį (*1).
 4 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE dalyje ir EEE priede.
 Priimta Briuselyje 2017 m. rugsėjo 22 d.
 EEE jungtinio komiteto vardu
 Pirmininkė
 Sabine MONAUNI
 (1) OL L 177, 2017 7 8, p. 36.
 (*1) Konstitucinių reikalavimų nenurodyta.


type: other

text:
20 Jahre alte Zungenküsse bringen Pädagogen vor Gericht | Strafblog
 Vorheriger Artikel: ← Konfusion im Hamburger Piratenprozess. Keiner weiß, wie ́s weitergeht
 Nächster Artikel: Wenn Unschuldige explodieren! →
 Geschrieben am 28. Februar 2012 von Rainer Pohlen
 Die Schatten der Vergangenheit können verdammt lang sein, wie ein heute 63 Jahre alter Musikpädagoge, der an einer Grundschule im Hamburger Stadtteil Volksdorf unterrichtete, in diesen Tagen schmerzlich feststellen muss. Nach einem Bericht bei spiegel-online soll der Mann in den Jahren 1990 und 1991 bei drei Gelegenheiten zwei damals sechs bzw. sieben Jahre alte Schülerinnen zu einem Zungenkuss gezwungen haben.
 Eine der betroffenen Schülerinnen, die wohl ziemlich traumatisiert gewesen sein muss, hatte die Vorfälle im Jahr 2010, also fast 20 Jahre später, zur Anzeige gebracht. Das brachte dem Lehrer eine Anklage ein, über welche demnächst vor dem Amtsgericht verhandelt wird. Außerdem wurde der Mann vom Dienst suspensiert.
 Der strafrechtliche Laie fragt sich vielleicht, wieso solch ein im Vergleich zu anderen Missbrauchsfällen relativ banaler Fall nach so langer Zeit noch verfolgt werden kann. Hierzu ein paar Erklärungen:
 Nach § 174 StGB wird der sexuelle Missbrauchs eines Kindes mit Freiheitsstrafe zwischen 6 Monaten und 10 Jahren bestraft. Zu klären ist zunächst, ob ein Zungenkuss überhaupt eine unter Strafe gestellte sexuelle Handlung darstellt. Nach § 184f StGB sind sexuelle Handlungen nur solche, die im Hinblick auf das jeweils geschützte Rechtsgut von einiger Erheblichkeit sind. Für den Fall eines erzwungenen Zungenkusses hat das Oberlandesgericht Köln dies in einer nicht unbestritten gebliebenen Entscheidung bejaht. Offensichtlich hat sich die Hamburger Justiz jetzt dieser Einschätzung angeschlossen.
 Nach § 78 Abs. 3 Nr. 3 StGB verjähren Straftaten, die im Höchstmaß mit einer Freiheitsstrafe zwischen 5 und 10 Jahren bedroht sind, nach 10 Jahren. Danach wären die vorliegenden Taten, wenn man sie als tatbestandsmäßig ansieht, eigentlich spätestens 2001 verjährt gewesen. Allerdings bestimmt § 78b Abs. 1 Nr. 1 StGB, dass die Verjährung bei Sexualstraftaten zum Nachteil von Kindern und Jugendlichen bis zur Vollendung ihres 18. Lebensjahres ruht. Für den aktuellen Fall bedeutet dies, dass die Verjährungsfrist erst 2002 zu laufen begonnen hat. Dann nämlich müssten die Tatopfer 18 Jahre alt gewesen sein, wenn ich richtig gerechnet habe. Die im Jahr 2010 erfolgte Strafanzeige war also rechtzeitig, um mit der Bekanntgabe der Einleitung eines Ermittlungsverfahrens die Verjährung zu unterbrechen. Da die absolute Verjährung nach § 78c Abs. 3 StGB erst mit Ablauf der doppelten gesetzlichen Verjährungsfrist, vorliegend also nach 20 Jahren, eintritt und die Zeit der Hemmung der Verjährung in diese Frist nicht eingerechnet wird, können die Zungenküsse also noch eine ganze Zeit lang verfolgt werden.
 Falls das Hamburger Gericht an der Qualifizierung der Zungenküsse als sexuelle Handlungen festhält, droht dem Pädagogen auch nach so langer Zeit noch eine Freiheitsstrafe, die aber wohl zur Bewährung ausgesetzt werden dürfte.
 Von langen Reisen, Nägelkauen und Piraten
 15 Jahre Haft für ́s Haareschneiden – Die spinnen, die Amis ...
 Verfahrensvorbereitung in Wellness-Oase und Saunaclub? Der Mann kennt die ja ganze Akte auswendig, Donnerwetter!
 6 Kommentare zu “20 Jahre alte Zungenküsse bringen Pädagogen vor Gericht”
 28. Februar 2012 at 13:43
 Ihm könnte natürlich zu Hilfe kommen, dass der BGH in NStZ 2012, 33 davon ausgeht, dass es sich bei einem Zungenkuss eben nicht um eine erhebliche Verletzung der geschützten Rechtsgüter handelt. Zwar erging diese Entscheidung zu § 176a StGB, die Argumentation baut aber gleich auf und dürfte insoweit auch übertragbar sein.
 Sadrandsch schreibt:
 28. Februar 2012 at 18:53
 Wie will man ihm das denn heute noch nachweisen?
 28. Februar 2012 at 19:44
 na ja, wenn das vor versammelter Klasse geschah, gibt ́s vielleicht noch Zeugen, die sich erinnern ....
 yah bluez schreibt:
 Wie immer ist das Risiko das der Anzeiger auf sich nimmt gleich Null. Eine gute Methode also um im nachhinein unliebsamen Paukern mal so richtig was reinzudrücken.
 1. März 2012 at 09:58
 Was für ein Unsinn! Entweder der Anzeiger zeigt etwas an, was wirklich verfolgenswert ist, insofern also auch wirklich geschehen sein muss, oder er hat sich das alles ausgedacht. Im ersten Fall, setzt er sich natürlich nur dem Risiko aus, vor Gericht alles erzählen zu müssen (was im Falle des Zungenkusses ja aber nicht allzu schwer wiegt). Im zweiten Fall setzt er sich dem Risiko aus, wegen falscher Verdächtigung verurteilt zu werden. Insofern verstehe ich den Hinweis nicht so recht und frage mich, wo das Problem liegt?
 Christian Lowe schreibt:
 1. März 2012 at 01:05
 Das ein Missbrauch eine schwere Straftat darstellt steht außer Frage, die andere frage die sich mir stellt, warum ist eine anzeige erst nach 20 Jahren erfolgt.?
 Die Unschuldvermutung des Angeklagten sollte hier auch im Vordergrund stehen , ein polizeiliches Führungszeugnis, sein leben in der Vergangenheit Auffälligkeiten sollten für ihn oder gegen ihn sprechen.
 Eine Verurteilung selbst ein Freispruch bedeutet seinen Ruin, dies sollte immer beachtet werden.
 Ich wäre für eine Gesetzesänderung in der Form das falsche Beschuldigungen, die so gravierende Einschnitte in dem leben des Betroffenen darstellen, (..denn den Ruf als kinderfi.. dazustehen wird man auch nach Freispruch nicht mehr los........könnte ja doch was dran sein) hart zu bestrafen.
 Ich denke das Strafmass sollte in de gleichen form wie die fiktive Tat sein und ohne Bewährung ausgesetzt werden.


type: caselaw

text:
 25.6.2005
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 155/4
 Žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce podaná rozhodnutím Conseil d'Etat (Francie), section du contentieux, ze dne 15. prosince 2004 ve věci Société Denkavit International BV a Denkavit France SARL proti Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (Ministerstvu hospodářství, financí a průmyslu)
 (Věc C-170/05)
 (2005/C 155/09)
 Jednací jazyk: francouzština
 Soudnímu dvoru Evropských společenství byla rozhodnutím Conseil d'Etat (Francie), section du contentieux, ze dne 15. prosince 2004 ve věci Denkavit International BV a Denkavit France SARL proti Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (Ministerstvu hospodářství, financí a průmyslu), které došlo kanceláři Soudního dvora dne 8. února 2005, podána žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce.
 Conseil d'Etat (Francie), section du contentieux, žádá Soudní dvůr, aby rozhodl o následujících otázkách:
 1)
 Lze s ohledem na zásadu svobody usazování kritizovat ustanovení, jež daňově zatěžuje mateřskou společnost, která je příjemcem výplaty dividend a která není daňovým rezidentem ve Francii, ale přitom osvobozuje od takového daňového zatížení mateřské společnosti, které jsou daňovým rezidentem ve Francii?
 2)
 Lze takové ustanovení o sražení daně u zdroje samo o sobě kritizovat s ohledem na zásadu svobody usazování, nebo je na místě, pokud daňová smlouva mezi Francií a jiným členským státem, umožňující toto sražení daně u zdroje, upravuje možnost započíst na daň dlužnou v tomto jiném členském státě daň odvedenou podle kritizovaného ustanovení, zohlednit tuto smlouvu pro posouzení slučitelnosti tohoto ustanovení se zásadou svobody usazování?
 3)
 Pokud je zvolena druhá alternativa uvedená v bodě 2, postačuje existence výše zmíněné smlouvy k tomu, aby bylo kritizované ustanovení považováno za pouhý mechanismus rozdělení zdanitelné částky mezi dva dotyčné státy bez dopadu na podniky, nebo musí okolnost, že mateřská společnost, která není daňovým rezidentem ve Francii, nemůže provést započtení stanovené smlouvou, vést k tomu, že toto ustanovení bude považováno za porušení zásady svobody usazování?


text:
 30.12.2006
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 C 326/72
 Recours introduit le 21 novembre 2006 — Espinosa Labella e.a./Commission des Communautés européennes
 (Affaire T-322/06)
 (2006/C 326/149)
 Langue de procédure: l'espagnol
 Parties
 Parties requérantes: Manuel Espinosa Labella e.a. (Almería, Espagne) (représentant: Ma. J. Rovira, avocat)
 Partie défenderesse: Commission des Communautés européennes
 Conclusions des parties requérantes
 —
 annuler l'inclusion du site d'importance communautaire ES 6110014 «Artos de El Ejido» dans la décision de la Commission concernant la région méditerranéenne et ordonner le retrait de ce site de la liste des «sites d'importance communautaire» figurant dans ladite décision;
 —
 à titre subsidiaire, annuler l'inclusion des propriétés situées sur la commune de El Ejido, au nord de Santa María del Águila, dans le site d'importance communautaire susmentionné ou, ce qui est la même chose, annuler l'inclusion des propriétés agricoles situées entre des serres au nord de Santa María del Águila dans le site d'importance communautaire «Artos de El Ejido»;
 —
 condamner la Commission aux dépens.
 Moyens et principaux arguments
 Le recours vise la décision de la Commission du 19 juillet 2006 arrêtant, en application de la directive 92/43/CEE du Conseil, la liste des sites d'importance communautaire pour la région biogéographique méditerranéenne (1), en ce qu'elle classe le site ES 6110014 «Artos de El Ejido» en tant que site d'importance communautaire. Les parties requérantes demandent l'annulation de cette décision dans son intégralité ou, à titre subsidiaire, dans la mesure où la liste en cause inclut certaines propriétés appartenant aux parties requérantes.
 À l'appui de leurs prétentions, les parties requérantes soutiennent ce qui suit:
 —
 La défenderesse n'a pas évalué correctement la proposition du Royaume d'Espagne d'inclure «Artos de El Ejido» dans la liste des sites d'importance communautaire de la région biogéographique méditerranéenne, en violation des dispositions de l'article 4 de la directive 92/43/CEE. À cet égard, les parties requérantes affirment s'être adressées à plusieurs reprises, après avoir eu connaissance de cette proposition, aux responsables de la direction générale «Environnement» de la Commission, en soulignant:
 —
 la forte antropisation des terrains concernés, qui les disqualifie en tant qu'habitat approprié pour les espèces sauvages;
 —
 l'absence de délimitation du site d'importance communautaire censé être déclaré ou, à titre subsidiaire, sa délimitation inadéquate d'après les limites des propriétés privées et non en fonction des caractéristiques naturelles des terrains; et
 —
 l'absence de base scientifique pour la protection de certaines espèces dans des propriétés agricoles situées dans des zones d'agriculture industrielle ou intensive sous serre.
 S'agissant du site d'importance communautaire en cause en l'espèce, la zone concernée n'a pas été sélectionnée correctement, puisque l'administration nationale n'a pas fourni tout l'appui scientifique qu'elle devait apporter. L'administration espagnole n'ayant pas fourni cet appui, la Commission aurait dû l'exiger. Les parties requérantes soulignent à cet égard que la motivation de l'acte par lequel une zone est considérée comme digne de protection doit reposer sur de solides bases scientifiques et que les critères énoncés à l'annexe III de la directive susmentionnée doivent être respectés en toutes circonstances.
 —
 En acceptant qu'il n'y ait pas eu de consultation publique au cours de la procédure d'inclusion de «Artos de El Ejido» dans la liste des sites d'importance communautaire et en ne répondant pas aux lettres des parties requérantes, la défenderesse a violé les règles procédurales élémentaires et placé les parties requérantes dans l'impossibilité de se défendre.
 (1) JO L 259, p. 1.


type: wikipedia

text:
Zoológia alebo zastarano živočíchopis je veda, ktorá študuje živočíchy. Osoba venujúca sa profesionálne zoológii sa nazýva zoológ (zastarano živočíchopisec).
 Delí sa na viacero disciplín:
 Anatómia – veda o vnútornej stavbe tela živočícha.
 Cytológia – skúma bunky, prípadne jednotlivé bunkové organely.
 Embryológia – študuje vývoj zárodku (embrya).
 Etológia – zaoberá sa správaním živočíchov.
 Fyziológia – skúma životné procesy prebiehajúce v tele živočícha.
 Histológia – skúma živočíšne tkanivá.
 Morfológia – zaoberá sa vonkajšou stavbou a tvarom tela živočícha a jeho jednotlivých častí.
 Organológia – skúma jednotlivé orgány, ich špecifickú stavbu a funkciu.
 Taxonómia (systematika) – zaoberá sa triedením živočíchov do kategórií (taxónov) na základe ich fylogenetickej príbuznosti.
 Špecializované zoologické disciplíny
 Helmintológia – veda o červoch.
 Entomológia – veda o hmyze.
 Herpetológia – veda o plazoch a obojživelníkoch.
 Ichtyológia – veda o rybách.
 Malakológia alebo malakozoológia – veda o mäkkýšoch.
 Ornitológia – veda o vtákoch.
 Parazitológia – veda o cudzopasných živočíchoch.
 Pedozoológia – veda o pôdnych živočíchoch.
 Protozoológia – veda o jednobunkových živočíchoch.
 Teriológia alebo mamalógia – veda o cicavcoch.
 Interdisciplinárne vedy
 Ekológia živočíchov – študuje vzťah živočícha k prostrediu.
 Paleontológia – zaoberá sa historickým vývojom živočíchov na Zemi.
 Zoogeografia – skúma zákonitosti rozšírenia živočíchov na zemskom povrchu.
 Zoológia – názory
 Podľa Alberta Veľkého je zoológia náuka o bytostiach oživených absolútnym prameňom života.


text:
 5.6.2010
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 148/28
 Sentenza tal-Qorti Ġenerali tal-21 ta’ April 2010 — Peek & Cloppenburg u van Graaf vs UASI — Queen Sirikit Institute of Sericulture (Thai Silk)
 (Kawża T-361/08) (1)
 (“Trade mark Komunitarja - Proċedimenti ta’ oppożizzjoni - Applikazzjoni għat-trade mark Komunitarja figurattiva Thai Silk - Trade mark nazzjonali figurattiva preċedenti li tirrapreżenta għasfur - Ammissibbiltà tar-rikors - Raġuni relattiva għal rifjut - Probabbiltà ta’ konfużjoni - Artikolu 8(1)(b) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 40/94 (li sar l-Artikolu 8(1)(b) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 207/2009)”)
 2010/C 148/50
 Lingwa tal-kawża: il-Ġermaniż
 Partijiet
 Rikorrenti: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, il-Ġermanja); u van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vjenna, l-Awstrija) (rappreżentanti: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde u J. Pause, avukati)
 Konvenut: L-Uffiċċju għall-Armonizzazzjoni fis-Suq Intern (Trade marks u Disinni) (UASI) (rappreżentant: S. Schäffner, aġent)
 Partijiet oħra fil-proċedimenti quddiem il-Bord tal-Appell tal-UASI, intervenjenti quddiem il-Qorti Ġenerali: The Queen Sirikit Institute of Sericulture, Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand (it-Tajlandja) (Bangkok, it-Tajlandja), ammessi jissostitwixxu l-Office of the Permanent Secretary, The Prime Minister’s Office, Thailand (it-Tajlandja) (rappreżentant: A. Kockläuner, avukat)
 Suġġett
 Rikors ippreżentat kontra d-deċiżjoni tar-Raba’ Bord tal-Appell tal-UASI, tal-10 ta’ Ġunju 2008 (Każ R 1677/2007-4), dwar proċedimenti ta’ oppożizzjoni bejn Peek & Cloppenburg u l-Office of the Permanent Secretary, The Prime Minister’s Office, Thailand.
 Dispożittiv
 (1)
 Ir-rikors huwa miċħud.
 (2)
 Peek & Cloppenburg kif ukoll van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG huma kkundannati għall-ispejjeż.
 (1) ĠU C 301, 22.11.2008


text:
J. M. Coetzee (John Maxwell Coetzee, født 9. februar 1940) er en sydafrikansk forfatter. Den 2. oktober 2003 modtog han som den fjerde afrikaner nobelprisen i litteratur.
 Han blev født i Cape Town som John Michael Coetzee (han ændrede senere sit mellemnavn), og hans yngre år blev delt mellem denne havneby og Worcester. Han studerede ved Cape Towns universitet, hvor han fik en grad i matematik og engelsk.
 I begyndelsen af 1960'erne flyttede han til England, hvor han for en tid arbejdede med computere. Efterfølgende begyndte han studier i litteratur ved Texas universitet, hvorefter han underviste i engelsk og litteratur på New Yorks statsuniversitet i Buffalo indtil 1983.
 I 1984 rejste han retur til Sydafrika til et professorat i engelsk litteratur ved Cape Towns universitet. Ved sin aftrædelse i 2002, flyttede han til Adelaide, Australien hvor han blev ansat ved Adelaides universitet.
 Han blev den første forfatter som blev tildelt Bookerprisen to gange: The Life and Times of Michael K i 1983 og Disgrace i 1999. Da han generelt ikke ønskede at deltage i pressedækningen, deltog han ikke i overrækkelsen. Ud over sine romaner har han også udgivet videnskabelige arbejder samt oversættelser.
 Bibliografi
 Dusklands (1974)
 In the Heart of the Country (1977)
 Waiting for the Barbarians (1980)
 The Life and Times of Michael K (1983)
 Foe (1986) . På dansk 2004 som Mister Fo.
 Boyhood: Scenes from Provincial Life (1998) . På dansk som Drengeår : scener af livet i provinsen.
 Age of Iron (1990)
 The Master of Petersburg (1994). På dansk 1995 fra Hekla (forlag) som Mesteren fra Petersborg ().
 Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship (1997)
 Disgrace (1999) . På dansk som Vanære.
 Youth (2002) . På dansk 2003 som Ungdomsår.
 Stranger Shores: Literary Essays, 1986-1999 (September 2002)
 Elizabeth Costello (2003) . Dansk udgave fra 2004.
 Slow Man (2005)
 Diary of a Bad Year (2007) – Dansk: Dagbog fra et dårligt år (2008)
 Summertime (2009) .
 The Childhood of Jesus (2013)
 Oversættelser
 Landscape with rowers : poetry from the Netherlands, Princeton University Press, (2004) .
 Eksterne henvisninger
 John Maxwell Coetzee på Nobelprize.org
 Skønlitterære forfattere fra Sydafrika
 Nobelprismodtagere i litteratur
 Nobelprismodtagere fra Sydafrika
 Engelsksprogede forfattere


jurisdiction: US

text:
These suits for personal injuries suffered by occupants of a taxicab in a collision accident, and for medical expenses thereby occasioned, were tried by agreement concurrently before the same jury, and resulted in judgments for the plaintiffs, amounting to $2,850, from which the defendant has appealed. The accident occurred on the afternoon of November 23rd, 1935, at the intersection of Presstman Street and Druid Hill Avenue in the City of Baltimore. The injured plaintiffs were passengers in a cab of Gray Taxicab, Inc., which, according to their testimony, was proceeding slowly over the intersection area in an easterly direction, and was more than halfway across, when it was struck by a taxicab of the Yellow Cab Company, which was being driven northwardly at high speed. Markel Service, Inc., an insurance adjustment agency, represented both of the taxicab companies whose cabs were involved in the collision. On the following day one of its adjusters induced the plaintiffs to release Gray Taxicab, Inc., from liability on account of the accident upon the payment of sums aggregating $200. The releases thus procured for that company were pleaded as a defense to these suits brought soon afterwards against the Yellow Cab Company. To the pleas making that defense the plaintiffs replied that the releases were obtained by fraud. Issue was joined also upon the allegation and denial of negligence in the operation of the defendant's cab. It is not disputed that the evidence was legally sufficient for the submission of that question to the jury.
 There are twenty exceptions in the record. The final exception, relating to the prayers, will be first considered.
 Granted prayers of the plaintiffs authorized the jury *Page 392
 to conclude that the Yellow cab did not have the right of way at the time of the accident if the Gray cab was actually crossing the street intersection when the Yellow cab was at such a distance that its movement could not reasonably be supposed to create any danger that the two cabs would collide. Those prayers were criticized for not including the further hypothesis that the Yellow cab was operated over the intervening distance at a "high and unexpected rate of speed." The quoted words were suggested by the opinion in Taxicab Co. v. Ottenritter, 151 Md. 525, 532,135 A. 587, as appropriate for the purposes of an instruction in that case, and were used in a granted prayer which was approved on appeal in Jersey Ice Cream Co. v. Bach, 161 Md. 285,157 A. 277. An instruction comparable to the one now under consideration was held to be too general, in view of the evidence, in Paoliniv. Western Mill Lumber Corp., 165 Md. 45, 166 A. 609. But, as recognized in the cases just cited, and also in Hendler CreameryCo. v. Friedman, 160 Md. 526, 154 A. 93, and Warner v. Markoe,171 Md. 351, 189 A. 260, the propriety of instructions affecting the right of way at street intersections must depend in each case upon its special circumstances. In this case the driver of the Gray cab testified, as a witness for the defendant, that when he arrived at the intersection, going east on Presstman Street, the Yellow cab was "at the end of the next block" to the south on Druid Hill Avenue; that he did not realize how fast the Yellow cab was coming and thought he "had plenty of time to get across"; that the Gray cab had passed beyond the middle of the intersection, moving at a speed of five miles an hour, when the Yellow cab was about thirty-five feet distant; that the Gray cab was struck on its right side at the rear wheel; and that it overturned on its left side about two feet from the north curb of Presstman Street. The witness stated that the Yellow cab was moving "mighty fast" when he observed it a block away, and its high speed is therefore said to have been not "unexpected" within the purview of the opinions in the Ottenritter *Page 393
 and Bach cases. But in view of the Yellow cab's remoteness when the Gray cab entered the intersection, as testified by the witness, and of his statement that there was apparently ample time for him to cross in safety, he could not fairly be charged with the duty of accurately gauging the speed of the Yellow cab or of anticipating that it would be driven unlawfully fast over the intervening distance and into the part of the intersection space over which the Gray cab was then passing. In theOttenritter, Bach, and Paolini cases, the cars approaching from the right were much closer to the street intersection than the Yellow cab is said to have been in this instance, when the other cars involved in those accidents started to cross. The instructions here in question might well have included the additional words to which the appellants have referred, but their omission, under the circumstances of these cases, is not a sufficient ground of reversal.
 It was argued also that the prayers of the plaintiffs in regard to the right of way were defective because they did not refer to the Gray cab driver's duty to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of his passengers. There was no occasion for the prayers on that subject to define such a duty, especially since the suit was not against Gray Taxicab, Inc., but against the Yellow Cab Company, whose driver was alleged to have caused the accident by failure to exercise a proper degree of care for the safety of the Gray cab and its occupants.
 It was testified by the driver of the Yellow cab that, when he came to the intersection he "slowed down"; that the Gray cab had not yet passed the west building line of Druid Hill Avenue; that it was "coming pretty fast" and proceeded over the intersection without any reduction of its speed; that the witness applied his brakes when he saw the Gray cab was not giving him the right of way; and that, as the Yellow cab was "just about stopped," its left front fender was caught by the right rear fender of the Gray cab, which was then swerving toward the north side of the street. By prayers granted *Page 394
 at the defendant's request the jury were instructed in effect that if the two cabs arrived at the intersection about the same time, then, under article 56, section 209, of the Code (Supp. 1935), the Yellow cab had the right of way over the Gray cab, and that if the accident was caused solely by the failure of the Gray cab to yield such right of way, the verdict should be for the defendant. Those prayers were granted expressly in connection with the prayers of the plaintiffs relating to the right of way, and we think that as thus considered the instructions fairly submitted that issue to the jury.
 Other prayers of the defendant corporation proposed to give it the benefit of an absolute right of way in disregard of testimony as to conditions by which the right would properly be qualified. There was no error in the ruling against such instructions.
 The principal argument in the case was concerned with the rulings on prayers in reference to the effect upon this suit of the releases executed by the plaintiffs in favor of Gray Taxicab, Inc. At the request of the plaintiffs, and over the defendant's objection, the jury were instructed that if the collision between the Gray and Yellow cabs was due to negligence on the part of both drivers, the releases offered in evidence were a complete bar to the suits against the Yellow Cab Company, unless they were found by the jury to have been executed as a result of misrepresentation, deception, or fraud practiced upon the plaintiffs by the agent of Gray Taxicab, Inc., in which event they had no such effect. Prayers submitted by the defendant, and refused by the trial court, were based upon the theory that the releases effectually barred recovery against the Yellow Cab Company if negligence in the operation of the Gray cab contributed to the accident in any degree. The court also refused certain prayers of the defendant which would, if granted, have instructed the jury, as a matter of law, or in the alternative have permitted them to find, that the plaintiffs had waived the alleged fraud in the procurement of the releases. The waiver theory was based upon the fact that there had *Page 395
 been no disaffirmance of the releases nor a return of the consideration.
 The testimony of the plaintiffs in reference to the releases was to the following effect: The representative of Markel Service, Inc., first obtained a statement, signed by one of the plaintiffs, as to how the accident happened. That statement fully exonerated the driver of the Gray cab and attributed the collision solely to the Yellow cab driver's negligence. Nevertheless the agent of Markel Service, Inc., offered $200 to the plaintiffs for releases in favor of Gray Taxicab, Inc., assuring them that the responsibility of the Yellow Cab Company would not be thereby affected. The agent stated to the plaintiffs that the Markel Service represented the Gray Taxicab, Inc., but they were not informed that the interests of the Yellow Cab Company in regard to the accident were likewise committed to that organization.
 There was a denial by the agent of his quoted assurance to the plaintiffs that any claim they might have against the Yellow Cab Company would not be affected by the releases, and he contradicted their testimony that one of them signed a statement in which the circumstances of the accident were described. He said that his authority as agent applied only to the settlement of the cases so far as the Gray cab company was concerned, and did not extend to the adjustment of any Yellow Cab Company liability.
 If no negligence in the operation of the Gray cab contributed to the accident, the question as to the effect of the releases upon the suits against the Yellow Cab Company is unimportant.Western Maryland Dairy Corp. v. Brown, 169 Md. 257, 265,181 A. 468; Elling v. Travers, 162 Md. 597, 160 A. 789; Lanasa v.Beggs, 159 Md. 311, 151 A. 21. But even upon the assumption that there was concurrent negligence in the operation of both cabs and that the release of one of the taxicab companies would ordinarily discharge the other also, because there could be only one satisfaction for the same injuries, that principle is not applicable in these cases if the releases *Page 396
 pleaded by the defendant were procured under such circumstances as the plaintiffs described in their testimony. Blinder v.Monaghan, 171 Md. 188 A. 31; Western Maryland Dairy Corp. v.Brown, supra; Elling v. Travers, supra; and McGrath v.Peterson, 127 Md. 412, 96 A. 551. The jury had a right to credit that evidence, and it tended to support a conclusion that the releases were improperly obtained.
 In the belief that they had no claim against the Gray Taxicab, Inc., as they testified, the plaintiffs executed what they regarded as superfluous releases in its favor, with the understanding that their right to sue the Yellow Cab Company would continue to be enforceable. That understanding, the plaintiffs assert, was induced by an agent of an adjustment organization by which, as since revealed, both companies were then represented. There was no evidence of any attempt to effect a settlement with the plaintiffs for the Yellow Cab Company's benefit. But on its behalf in this suit the effort is made to utilize the releases secured for Gray Taxicab, Inc. While the agent of the Markel Service testified that he solicited the releases because he understood the Gray Cab Company to be liable for the injuries suffered in the accident, it could be inferred from the evidence that he may not have considered it exclusively responsible, and the plaintiffs stated that their intention to sue the Yellow Cab Company was impressed upon the agent before the releases were signed. Under such circumstances a representation by the agent that the releases would have no effect upon the liability of the Yellow Cab Company could only be regarded as misleading. In that view, the releases could not be used as a ground of defense in these suits unless there is merit in the contention that the alleged misrepresentation was waived by the failure of the plaintiffs to disaffirm the releases and return the consideration paid for their execution. There was no reason for a disaffirmance of the releases, since the plaintiffs apparently, from their testimony, never had any purpose to include the Gray Cab Company as a defendant in this action or to sue it independently. *Page 397
 The amount paid for its formal exoneration was charged to its separate account by Markel Service, Inc., and we are unable to hold that the Yellow Cab Company's prayers could rightfully condition a recovery by the plaintiffs upon the repayment of a fund, in which it had no interest, to another corporation which is not being sued.
 In none of the rulings on the prayers have we found any error.
 The first evidence exception refers to the refusal of the lower court to declare a mistrial because of a remark by counsel for the plaintiffs. Any prejudicial effect of the remark was corrected by the court's reproof and the counsel's disclaimer.
 When the agent who solicited the releases was being cross-examined, he was asked by whom he was employed. He replied: "Markel Service." He was then asked: "What is Markel Service?" An objection to the question having been overruled, the witness answered: "It is an insurance adjustment agency." The defendant then moved that a mistrial be declared because of the reference made to the fact that it had liability insurance, but the motion was denied. The rule applied in York Ice Machinery Corp. v.Sachs, 167 Md. 113, 173 A. 240, and International Co. v.Clark, 147 Md. 34, 127 A. 647, is invoked in opposition to those rulings, which are the subject of the second and third exceptions. In the present cases a reference to the nature of the Markel organization was practically unavoidable, and the resulting indication that the defendant had insurance protection would not have justified a termination of the trial on that ground, in view of the jury's presumptive knowledge of the legal requirement of public liability insurance for taxicab companies as common carriers. Code (Supp. 1935) art. 56, sec. 187R; art. 23, sec. 361.
 The fourth to fifteenth exceptions, inclusive, and the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth, were reserved because of the admission of testimony that the Yellow Cab Company, as well as Gray Taxicab, Inc., was represented *Page 398
 by the Markel Service. There was no error in those rulings.
 The sixteenth exception refers to another motion that a mistrial be declared, but the court struck out the comments of which the defendant complained, and its ruling on the motion does not appear from the record to have involved an abuse of judicial discretion.
 A review of all the exceptions discloses no sufficient reason for a reversal of the judgments and a remand of the cases for retrial.
 Judgments affirmed, with costs.


text:
 23.8.2018
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 L 215/46
 ETA:N SEKAKOMITEAN PÄÄTÖS
 N:o 249/2016,
 annettu 2 päivänä joulukuuta 2016,
 ETA-sopimuksen liitteen XX (Ympäristö) muuttamisesta [2018/1185]
 ETA:N SEKAKOMITEA, joka
 ottaa huomioon Euroopan talousalueesta tehdyn sopimuksen, jäljempänä ’ETA-sopimus’, ja erityisesti sen 98 artiklan,
 sekä katsoo seuraavaa:
 (1)
 Päätösten 2011/263/EU, 2011/264/EU, 2012/720/EU ja 2012/721/EU muuttamisesta aineiden luokituksessa tapahtuneen kehityksen huomioon ottamiseksi 7 päivänä heinäkuuta 2016 annettu komission päätös (EU) 2016/1796 (1) olisi otettava osaksi ETA-sopimusta.
 (2)
 Sen vuoksi olisi muutettava ETA-sopimuksen liitettä XX,
 ON HYVÄKSYNYT TÄMÄN PÄÄTÖKSEN:
 1 artikla
 Lisätään ETA-sopimuksen liitteessä XX 2e kohtaan (komission päätös 2011/264/EU), 2h kohtaan (komission päätös 2011/263/EU), 2zg kohtaan (komission päätös 2012/720/EU) ja 2zh kohtaan (komission päätös 2012/721/EU) luetelmakohta seuraavasti:
 ”—
 32016 D 1796: komission päätös (EU) N:o 2016/1796, annettu 7 päivänä heinäkuuta 2016 (EUVL L 274, 11.10.2016, s. 55).”
 2 artikla
 Päätöksen (EU) 2016/1796 islanniksi ja norjaksi laaditut tekstit, jotka julkaistaan Euroopan unionin virallisen lehden ETA-täydennysosassa, ovat todistusvoimaisia.
 3 artikla
 Tämä päätös tulee voimaan 3 päivänä joulukuuta 2016, jos kaikki ETA-sopimuksen 103 artiklan 1 kohdan mukaiset ilmoitukset on tehty (*1).
 4 artikla
 Tämä päätös julkaistaan Euroopan unionin virallisen lehden ETA-osastossa ja ETA-täydennysosassa.
 Tehty Brysselissä 2 päivänä joulukuuta 2016.
 ETA:n sekakomitean puolesta
 Puheenjohtaja
 Bergdís ELLERTSDÓTTIR
 (1) EUVL L 274, 11.10.2016, s. 55.
 (*1) Valtiosäännön asettamista vaatimuksista ei ole ilmoitettu.


text:
 14.4.2012
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 C 109/9
 Tribunalens dom av den 28 februari 2012 — Grazer Wechselsitige Versicherung mot kommissionen
 (Mål T-282/08) (1)
 (Statligt stöd - Stöd som de österrikiska myndigheterna beviljat koncernen Grazer Wechselseitige (GRAWE) i samband med privatiseringen av Bank Burgenland - Beslut om att förklara stöd oförenligt med den gemensamma marknaden och om återkrav av stödet - Kriteriet avseende en privatinvesterare i en marknadsekonomi - Tillämpning i en situation där staten agerar i egenskap av säljare - Fastställande av marknadspriset)
 2012/C 109/20
 Rättegångsspråk: tyska
 Parter
 Sökande: Grazer Wechselsitige Versicherung AG (Graz, Österrike) (ombud: advokaten H. Wollmann)
 Svarande: kommissionen (ombud: inledningsvis V. Kreuscitz, N. Kahn och K. Gross, därefter V. Kreuschitz, N. Khan och T. Maxian)
 Saken
 Talan om ogiltigförklaring av kommissionens beslut 2008/719/EG av den 30 april 2008 om det statliga stöd C 56/06 (ex NN 77/06) som Österrike planerar att genomföra till förmån för privatiseringen av Bank Burgenland (EUT L 239, s. 32)
 Domslut
 1.
 Talan ogillas.
 2.
 Grazer Wechselsitige Versicherung AG ska ersätta rättegångskostnaderna.
 (1) EUT C 247, 27.9.2008.


text:
 31.7.2017
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 C 249/27
 Üldkohtu 8. juuni 2017. aasta otsus – Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV versus EUIPO – Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)
 (Kohtuasi T-326/16) (1)
 ((Euroopa Liidu kaubamärk - Kehtetuks tunnistamise menetlus - Euroopa Liidu sõnamärk Tafel - EUIPO apellatsioonikoja otsust tühistava kohtuotsuse täitmine EUIPO poolt - Absoluutne keeldumispõhjus - Määruse (EÜ) nr 207/2009 artikli 52 lõike 1 punkt a ja artikli 7 lõike 1 punkt c - Kirjeldavus - Määruse nr 207/2009 artikli 65 lõige 6 - Pärast seda tehtud otsus, kui Üldkohus varasema otsuse tühistas))
 (2017/C 249/41)
 Kohtumenetluse keel: saksa
 Pooled
 Hageja: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berliin, Saksamaa) (esindajad: advokaadid T. Koerl, E. Celenk ja S. Vollmer)
 Kostja: Euroopa Liidu Intellektuaalomandi Amet (EUIPO) (esindaja: S. Hanne)
 Teine menetluspool apellatsioonikojas, menetlusse astuja Üldkohtus: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Saksamaa) (esindaja: advokaat M. Nitschke)
 Ese
 Hagi EUIPO neljanda apellatsioonikoja 4. aprilli 2016. aasta otsuse (asi R 248/2016-4) peale, mis käsitleb kehtetuks tunnistamise menetlust Tiertafel Deutschland ja Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel vahel.
 Resolutsioon
 1.
 Jätta hagi rahuldamata.
 2.
 Mõista kohtukulud välja Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV-lt.
 (1) ELT C 287, 8.8.2016.


text:
Il-Madonna ta' Coromoto (bl-Ispanjol: Nuestra Señora de Coromoto, magħrufa wkoll bħala Il-Verġni ta' Coromoto) hija immaġini li tingħata ġieħ mill-Kattoliċi li tirrafigura dehra tal-Verġni Marija. Fl-1950 ġiet dikjarata bħala l-patruna tal-Veneżwela.
 Storja
 Meta l-belt ta' Guanare (kapitali tal-istat ta' Portuguesa) twaqqfet fl-1591, it-tribù Indjan li kien jgħix dak ir-reġjun, il-Cospes, ħarab lejn il-ġungla tat-Tramuntana. Kien minn dakinhar li bdiet l-evanġelizzazzjoni ta' dawk l-artijiet. L-ewwel dehra tal-Verġni Marija kienet nhar it-8 ta' Settembru, 1652, fil-foresta fejn kienu ħarbu il-Cospes. Il-Madonna dehret lill-Cacique (il-kap tat-tribù) Coromoto u lil martu u qaltilhom bil-lingwa tagħhom: "Morru fid-dar tal-bojod u saqsuhom biex ixerrdu l-ilma fuqhom sabiex ikunu jistgħu jmorru s-sema". Sussegwentament, Marija saqsiet lilu u lit-tribù sabiex jirċievu l-magħmudija. It-tradizzjoni orali tgħid li Cacique Coromoto irrakonta lill-encomendero don Juan Sánchez dwar din il-viżjoni, fejn qallu biex jipprepara lilu u lit-tribù ħalli jitgħallmu l-katekiżmu u b'hekk ikunu jistgħu jitgħammdu fi żmien tmient ijiem.
 Diversi indiġeni Cospes ikkonvertew u ġew mgħammda, imma mhux il-kap, minħabba li ħassu skomdu li taħt reliġjon ġdida ma kienx se jibqa' l-kap leġittimu tal-poplu tiegħu. Għalhekk ħarab fil-foresta, fejn hemmhekk il-Madonna reġgħet dehritlu. Coromotto, b'suppervja, prova jgħalli idejh sabiex jaqbadha, imma din sparixxiet. Din id-dehra ġiet konfermata minn sinjal mirakoluż magħmul minn fibra tal-injam, li ġew imfittixja u aktar tard instabu. Illum il-ġurnata, din ir-relikwa hi venerata fis-santwarju nazzjonali tal-Madonna ta' Coromotto.
 Cacique Coromoto irrakonta l-istorja fuq kif ġie migdum minn serp velenuż u reġa' lura lejn Guanare imweġġa' u għoddu mejjet, u beda jistaqsi sabiex jiġi mgħammed, magħmudija li saret fir-reġjun ta Barinas. Hu sar Appostlu tal-Kristjaneżmu, u bl-isem Kristjan ta' Anġlu Kustodju u mfejjaq mill-velenu, Coromoto sejjaħ lill-ftit ribelli indiġeni Cospes sabiex jitgħammdu.
 Kanonizzazzjoni
 Fl-1950, il-Papa Piju XII iddikjaraha bħala l-patruna tal-Veneżwela. Il-Papa Ġwanni Pawlu II fiż-żjara tiegħu fis-santwarju Marjan ta' Guanare inkuruna l-istatwa, u l-Papa Benedittu XVI tella' s-Santwarju Nazzjonali tal-Madonna ta' Coromoto għall-grad ta' Bażilika Minuri.
 Ħoloq esterni
 Sit uffiċjali tal-Madonna ta' Coromoto
 VENEZUELA VIRTUAL mipunto.com
 Venezuela Tuya
 Dehriet Marjani
 Knisja Kattolika fil-Veneżwela
 Santwarji Kattoliċi


text:
Appell ippreżentat fit-23 ta Diċembru 2019 minn Carmen Liaño Reig mid-digriet mogħti mill-Qorti Ġenerali (It-Tmien Awla) fl-24 ta’ Ottubru 2019 fil-Kawża T-557/17, Liaño Reig vs SRB
 (Kawża C-947/19 P)
 Appellanti: Carmen Liaño Reig (rappreżentant: F. López Antón, abogado)
 tilqa’ dan l-appell u tannulla d-digriet tal-24 ta’ Ottubru 2019, Liaño Reig vs SRB (T-557/17, mhux ippubblikat, EU:T:2019:771) fir-rigward tad-dikjarazzjoni ta’ inammissibbiltà tar-rikors ippreżentat mir-rikorrenti quddiem il-Qorti Ġenerali u tal-impożizzjoni fuq ir-rikorrenti tal-ispejjeż tas-SRB fil-punti (1) u (3), rispettivament, tad-dispożittiv tad-digriet;
 skont l-ewwel paragrafu tal-Artikolu 61 tal-Istatut tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea, tiddeċiedi b’mod definittiv it-tilwima suġġett tar-rikors ippreżentat mir-rikorrenti quddiem il-Qorti Ġenerali fil-kawża msemmija iktar ’il fuq, u tilqa’ t-talbiet kollha tagħha esposti fir-rikors ippreżentat quddiem il-Qorti Ġenerali, jekk tqis li din it-tilwima qiegħda fi stat li tiġi deċiża jew, jekk le, tibgħat il-kawża lura quddiem il-Qorti Ġenerali sabiex din tagħti deċiżjoni, u tirriżerva d-deċiżjoni fuq l-ispejjeż.
 A) Dwar l-eċċezzjoni ta’ inammissibbiltà tar-rikors ibbażata fuq il-kunsiderazzjoni tal-Qorti Ġenerali li l-annullament parzjali tad-Deċiżjoni ta’ riżoluzzjoni mitlub mir-rikorrenti ma jistax jiġi sseparat mill-kumplament tal-elementi tad-dispożittiv tar-riżoluzzjoni mingħajr ma tiġi affettwata s-sustanza tad-Deċiżjoni ta’ riżoluzzjoni.
 L-argument invokat fil-punt 40 tad-digriet ikkontestat huwa vvizzjat b’nuqqas ta’ motivazzjoni.
 Il-konstatazzjoni invokata fil-punt 40 tad-digriet ikkontestat hija żbaljata u infondata għaliex ma tiħux inkunsiderazzjoni tad-data dwar l-ammonti tal-istrumenti finanzjarji tal-kategorija 2 li għalihom jirreferi l-Artikolu 6(1)(d) tad-Deċiżjoni ta’ riżoluzzjoni u mibdula f’azzjonijiet ta’ Banco Popular.
 Id-digriet ikkontestat ma jiħux inkunsiderazzjoni tal-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja dwar il-fatt li l-modifika tas-sustanza tal-att għandha tiġi evalwata abbażi ta’ kriterju oġġettiv.
 Il-punti 30 u 35 tad-digriet ikkontestat huma vvizzjati b’nuqqas ta’ motivazzjoni dwar l-allegata neċessità ta’ konverżjoni tal-istrumenti finanzjarji kollha tal-kategorija 2 bħala prerekwiżit meħtieġ għall-eżekuzzjoni tal-għodda ta’ riżoluzzjoni li tikkonsisti fil-bejgħ tan-negozju.
 Id-digriet ikkontestat jagħmel żball ta’ liġi meta jibbaża fuq l-offerta ta’ xiri ppreżentata minn Banco de Santander, li ma tagħmilx parti mid-dokumenti fil-proċess.
 Id-digriet ikkontestat għandu żball ta’ liġi għaliex ma jiħux inkunsiderazzjoni, fil-punti 31 u 32 tiegħu, l-allegazzjonijiet tar-rikorrenti dwar l-effiċjenza tal-valutazzjoni 2 u ma jivvalutax id-dokumenti fil-proċess li jakkreditaw dawn l-allegazzjonijiet.
 Il-punt 42 tad-digriet ikkontestat għandu żball ta’ liġi għal nuqqas ta’ motivazzjoni.
 Id-digriet ikkontestat jinjora l-allegazzjoni tar-rikorrenti dwar l-applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 21(1)(c) tar-Regolament Nru 806/2014 dwar l-osservanza tar-rekwiżit ta’ separabbiltà, u għalhekk il-motivazzjoni fil-punt 42 tad-digriet ikkontestat hija żbaljata.
 B) Dwar l-eċċezzjoni ta’ inammissibbiltà tar-rikors ibbażata fuq il-fatt li d-digriet ikkontestat iqis li l-annullament parzjali tad-Deċiżjoni ta’ riżoluzzjoni mitlub mir-rikorrenti huwa kuntrarju għall-prinċipju ta’ ugwaljanza fit-trattament bejn kredituri tal-istess kategorija.
 Id-digriet ikkontestat fil-punti 48 u 51 għandu żball ta’ evalwazzjoni tal-allegazzjonijiet magħmula mir-rikorrenti.
 Il-punti 45 u 46 tad-digriet ikkontestat għandhom żball ta’ liġi għaliex japplikaw indebitament fir-rigward tal-Bonds BPEF il-prinċipju ġenerali ta’ riżoluzzjoni stabbilit fl-Artikolu 15(1)(f) tar-Regolament.
 Id-digriet fil-punti 44 sa 46 u 51 għandu żball ta’ liġi għaliex japplika b’mod żbaljat fir-rigward tal-Bonds BPEF il-prinċipju ta’ ugwaljanza fit-trattament u għandu barra minn hekk motivazzjoni żbaljata.
 C) Dwar l-inammissibbiltà tat-talba għall-annullament tal-valutazzjonijiet 1 u 2
 Id-digriet ikkontestat (fil-punt 55) jimmotiva l-inammissibbiltà tat-talba għall-annullament tal-valutazzjonijiet 1 u 2 biss fuq l-inammissibbiltà tat-talba għall-annullament parzjali tad-Deċiżjoni ta’ riżoluzzjoni magħmula mir-rikorrenti.
 D) Dwar l-inammissibbiltà tat-talba għal kumpens
 Id-digriet ikkontestat (fil-punt 66) jimmotiva l-inammissibbiltà tat-talba għal kumpens magħmula mir-rikorrenti biss fuq l-inammissibbiltà tat-talba għall-annullament tal-konverżjoni tal-Bonds BPEF f’azzjonijiet ta’ Banco Popular.


text:
Åsa Maria Lindhagen, född Jernberg 15 maj 1980 i Norrtälje, Stockholms län, är en svensk civilingenjör och politiker (miljöpartist). Hon var socialborgarråd i Stockholms kommun 2014–2018. I januari 2019 utsågs hon till jämställdhetsminister i regeringen Löfven II. Mellan 5 februari och 30 november 2021 var hon finansmarknadsminister och biträdande finansminister.
 Biografi
 Åsa Lindhagen växte upp i Norrtälje och gick ut från Rodenskolans gymnasium 1999.
 Lindhagen är utbildad till civilingenjör i industriell ekonomi vid Linköpings universitet och tog examen år 2008. Under verksamhetsåret 2005/2006 var hon heltidsarvoderad som kårordförande för Linköpings teknologers studentkår. Under åren 2006–2014 satt hon i Rädda Barnens styrelse. Hon har även varit ledamot i Rädda Barnens Ungdomsförbunds styrelse 2003–2006. Mellan 2008 och 2012 arbetade hon som managementkonsult på EY.
 Lindhagen har två barn från en tidigare relation.
 Politisk karriär
 År 2012 utsågs Lindhagen till gruppledare för Miljöpartiet i Stockholms kommunfullmäktige. Mellan åren 2014 och 2018 var hon socialborgarråd i Stockholms stad. I sin roll som socialborgarråd var hon engagerad för människor på flykt, barns rättigheter och arbete mot våld och förtryck. Hon drev frågor kring ekonomiskt bistånd till papperslösa och stöd till ensamkommande unga.
 Efter riksdagsvalet 2018 blev hon statsrådsersättare för Per Bolund och i januari 2019 utsågs hon till statsråd på arbetsmarknadsdepartementet och fick titeln jämställdhetsminister med ansvar för arbetet mot diskriminering och segregation.
 Den 22 september 2020 meddelade Lindhagen att hon kandiderar i Miljöpartiets språkrörsval 2021 för att efterträda Isabella Lövin som språkrör för partiet. Kandidaturen drogs tillbaka efter att partiets valberedning föreslog Märta Stenevi till nytt kvinnligt språkrör.
 Efter valet 2022 bildade Karin Wanngård i Stockholms stad ett rödgrönt styre med Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet och Miljöpartiet där Lindhagen nu återkommit och blir borgarråd.
 Referenser
 Externa länkar
 Ledamöter av Sveriges riksdag för Miljöpartiet
 Sveriges biträdande finansministrar
 Sveriges jämställdhetsministrar
 Regeringen Löfven II
 Regeringen Löfven III
 Borgarråd i Stockholms stad
 Svenska politiker under 2000-talet
 Personer från Norrtälje
 Födda 1980
 Kvinnor
 Levande personer