jurisdiction: US

text:
 287 Md. 663 (1980)
 414 A.2d 1254
 CECIL M. WIMMER
 v.
 ANNIE LOUISE WIMMER
 [No. 56, September Term, 1979.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided June 4, 1980.
 *664 The cause was argued before SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, ORTH, COLE and DAVIDSON, JJ.
 Henry A. Babcock for appellant.
 Arnold D. Bruckner for appellee.
 COLE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 We are asked to decide, under the circumstances of this case, whether a constructive trust may be impressed upon a one-half interest in real property which constituted the marital domicile of the parties, where the funds to purchase said property resulted solely from the husband's labors and where the wife's contribution to the marriage was solely that of a wife and mother.
 Cecil and Annie Wimmer were married in 1940 and divorced in 1977. During their marriage Cecil was the breadwinner; Annie was the homemaker. He always worked; she never did except for a short period as a babysitter for her daughter. Cecil demonstrated unique business acumen in light of his 4th grade education; Annie, with a 7th grade education, could hardly read and write and depended upon Cecil and her children to explain simple business and financial matters.
 Cecil was a carpenter by trade and specialized in buying, remodeling and selling old houses. In order to obtain the necessary funds to carry out his business, Cecil would oft times find it necessary to borrow money, securing the loans by mortgage notes. Although many of the properties were in his name only, Cecil frequently obtained his wife's signature on these notes.
 *665 The marital home which is the subject of this dispute was purchased by Cecil in 1968 or 1969 and titled in his name alone. Several years after purchasing this house, Cecil borrowed $22,400.00 and secured this loan by granting a mortgage on the house. Annie did not want to sign the mortgage note but Cecil twisted her arm and struck her on the back of the neck thereby forcing her to sign same.
 On the trial Annie testified that during the marriage she thought the subject property had been titled in the joint names of the parties; however, the record does not reveal the basis for her conclusion. Annie also testified that Cecil had used the proceeds of the mortgage loan to purchase houses in his name alone; Cecil contended and produced documentary evidence to establish that the funds were used toward the purchase of property titled in both their names.
 The parties separated in 1974. Annie, who remained in the marital home, assumed the mortgage payments but paid no rent to Cecil. The parties were divorced a vinculo matrimonii in 1977 and all questions relating to property remained unresolved. Thereafter, Annie filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County against Cecil seeking to have the court impress a constructive trust on several properties titled in Cecil's name.[1] The circuit court dismissed the actions against all properties except the marital home upon which the court impressed a constructive trust as to one-half interest. The circuit court found that a confidential relationship existed between the parties and that Cecil was the dominant party. The court further found that Cecil failed to meet the burden imposed upon the dominant party of showing the fairness and reasonableness in the questioned transactions. The court concluded that:
 Mrs. Wimmer had a marital interest in the property, because of many factors, some of which *666 are the fact that they had been married 37 years; that they raised a family; that her efforts had gone into maintenance of the family and education of the children, feeding, clothing and keeping the house clean, and while she worked only a minimal amount and what monies she did earn could not be traced directly to the purchase of 5007, that she, obviously, had a marital interest in it; and, consequently, the Court concludes that a constructive trust had been shown to exist, as far as that property is concerned. [emphasis added].
 From this decree, Cecil appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. That court in an unreported opinion affirmed. Cecil M. Wimmer v. Annie Louise Wimmer, No. 993, September Term, 1978, filed May 10, 1979. We granted Cecil's petition for certiorari.
 Before us Cecil concedes the existence of a confidential relationship, but contends that there is no evidence of fraud, undue influence, or unfair advantage by which he profited. With respect to the purchase of the marital home, Cecil notes that the dwelling was purchased with his own funds; that Annie suffered no loss; and that he did not profit from her. Regarding the encumbrance, Cecil asserts that there is no law to support a theory that because Annie unwillingly signed the mortgage note on his property, some legal right was created in the property to her benefit. In addition Cecil declares that because the proceeds of the loan transaction were used to purchase a property titled in both their names, Annie actually benefitted. Hence, there is no unjust enrichment.
 Annie maintains that there was fraud involved here in Cecil's continuous representations over the years that he was putting all of the properties in both of their names. In addition, Annie contends that there is present in this case the potential for the unjust enrichment of Cecil and for her financial suffering. By signing the mortgage notes, she contends that she has subjected herself to the possibility of financial ruin. Finally, Annie asserts that a constructive *667 trust may be imposed purely on the basis of equity and that the facts here warrant such imposition.
 Annie's theory finds support in some states which hold that upon granting a divorce, the chancellor has the power to make an equitable distribution of property without regard to title. See Freed and Foster, Divorce in the Fifty States: An Overview as of August 1, 1978 [1978] 4 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 4033, 4037. However, this Court has repeatedly said that in the absence of statute the courts of this State are without power to transfer the property of either spouse to the other or to change the parties' rights or estates in that property, notwithstanding a wife's nonmonetary contributions to the marriage. Bender v. Bender, 282 Md. 525, 534, 386 A.2d 772 (1978);[2]Gebhard v. Gebhard, 253 Md. 125, 252 A.2d 171 (1969); Lopez v. Lopez, 206 Md. 509, 112 A.2d 466 (1955); Dougherty v. Dougherty, 187 Md. 21, 48 A.2d 451 (1946).
 Despite the lack of power to transfer the ownership of property from one spouse to the other, a court will, given the proper circumstances, impose a constructive trust thereby transferring the beneficial or equitable interest to the deserving party. Having no claim to the legal title in the marital home, Annie has sought redress for the alleged misrepresentations of Cecil and compensation for her nonmonetary contributions to the marriage by requesting the imposition of a constructive trust in her favor.
 In granting Annie's request for a constructive trust on the marital dwelling, the chancellor did not base his decision upon proof of wrongdoing by Cecil. Rather, he found that *668 Cecil had failed to meet his burden of proving fairness in the context of a confidential relationship with respect to property in which Annie had an interest  that interest being merely what the chancellor termed a "marital interest." It was apparently the chancellor's view that the court could base the imposition of a constructive trust upon a spouse's nonmonetary contributions to the marriage.
 In determining whether the chancellor was correct in his conclusion, we shall decide whether the facts of this case relating to a mortgage transaction warrant the imposition of a constructive trust and whether the chancellor was correct in basing his decision in part on what he termed Annie's marital interest in Cecil's property.
 A constructive trust is the remedy employed by a court of equity to convert the holder of the legal title to property into a trustee for one who in good conscience should reap the benefits of the possession of said property. The remedy is applied by operation of law where property has been acquired by fraud, misrepresentation, or other improper method, or where the circumstances render it inequitable for the party holding the title to retain it. Bowie v. Ford, 269 Md. 111, 304 A.2d 803 (1973); O'Connor v. Estevez, 182 Md. 541, 35 A.2d 148 (1943); Springer v. Springer, 144 Md. 465, 125 A. 162 (1924). The purpose of the remedy is to prevent the unjust enrichment of the holder of the property. Siemiesz v. Amend, 237 Md. 438, 206 A.2d 723 (1965).
 In the ordinary case, there must be clear and convincing evidence not only of wrongdoing, but also of the circumstances which render it inequitable for the holder of the legal title to retain the beneficial interest. Peninsula Meth. Homes v. Cropper, 256 Md. 728, 261 A.2d 787 (1970). However, where a confidential relationship exists, the rules are somewhat different. In the context of the law of constructive trusts, a confidential relationship "exists where one party is under the domination of another, or where, under the circumstances, such party is justified in assuming that the other will not act in a manner inconsistent with his or her welfare." Bass v. Smith, 189 Md. 461, 469, 56 A.2d 800 (1948). A confidential relationship will not be presumed *669 from a marital relationship, but must be established by convincing evidence. Fant v. Duffy, 232 Md. 481, 192 A.2d 293 (1963); Bell v. Bell, 38 Md. App. 10, 379 A.2d 419 (1977). Once a confidential relationship is shown, a presumption arises that confidence was placed in the dominant party and that the transaction complained of resulted from fraud or undue influence and superiority or abuse of the confidential relationship by which the dominant party profited. Wenger v. Rosinsky, 232 Md. 43, 192 A.2d 82 (1963); 21 M.L.E. Trusts § 67 (1962). This presumption shifts the burden to the defendant to show the fairness and reasonableness of the transaction. Sanders v. Sanders, 261 Md. 268, 276, 274 A.2d 383 (1971). The defendant's evidence must be clear, satisfactory, and convincing to overcome the presumption. Rice v. Rice, 184 Md. 403, 411-12, 41 A.2d 371 (1945).
 In those cases in which this Court has approved the imposition of a constructive trust there has been some transaction in which the alleged wrongdoer has acquired property in violation of some agreement or in which another person had some good equitable claim of entitlement to property resulting from the expenditure of funds or other detrimental reliance resulting in unjust enrichment.
 For example, in Springer v. Springer, supra, a father negotiated for and purchased the property in question for the benefit of his family. Because the father was ill, legal title was placed in the name of a son with the understanding that the son would hold it for the benefit of the family. Having obtained the legal title, the son asserted that the property was purchased for him. This Court affirmed the imposition of a constructive trust on behalf of the father holding that where one violates a parol agreement to hold property for the benefit of another and the latter was under the circumstances justified in his belief that the former would carry out the agreement, such violation may be sufficient to raise a constructive trust in favor of the promisee. Like Springer, each of the following cases involved a breach of some parol agreement whereby one party acquired and then inequitably held property resulting in his unjust enrichment. Dove v. White, 211 Md. 228, 126 A.2d 835 *670 (1956); Carter v. Abramo, 201 Md. 339, 93 A.2d 546 (1953); Shives v. Borgman, 194 Md. 29, 69 A.2d 802 (1949); Long v. Huseman, 186 Md. 495, 47 A.2d 75 (1946); Trossbach v. Trossbach, 185 Md. 47, 42 A.2d 905 (1945); O'Connor v. Estevez, supra; Byer v. Szandrowski, 160 Md. 212, 153 A. 49 (1931); Dillfelder v. Winterling, 150 Md. 626, 133 A. 825 (1926); Jasinki v. Stankowski, 145 Md. 58, 125 A. 684 (1924); Ruhe v. Ruhe, 113 Md. 595, 77 A. 797 (1910).
 Unlike the above cases, Wenger v. Rosinsky, supra, did not involve a parol agreement. Here, the Court found that a landlady had failed to meet her burden of showing the fairness and reasonableness of the transaction where she had prevailed upon her boarder, a retired marine sergeant, to transfer most of his funds to her or for her benefit. In Blondell v. Turover, 195 Md. 251, 72 A.2d 697 (1950), the Court imposed a constructive trust on one who acquired property by purchasing it despite his knowledge that the sale was in breach of an option contract in favor of another. A more recent case was Shaffer v. Lohr, 264 Md. 397, 287 A.2d 42 (1972). There a daughter, at the death of her mother, took possession of funds in a savings account titled in both their names. Finding that the funds should have been part of the mother's estate, the Court impressed a constructive trust on behalf of the other daughter. The first daughter was said to have a duty to convey to prevent her own unjust enrichment.
 In contrast to the cases cited above is Wooddy v. Wooddy, 258 Md. 224, 265 A.2d 467 (1970). A constructive trust was sought against a father's life insurance policies as a means of enforcing the father's legal obligation to pay for the education of his children. This Court held that a constructive trust was not a permissible remedy on these facts. The crucial language of the Court was the following:
 But the availability of this remedy is limited to instances where property is acquired by fraud, misrepresentation, duress, or under some other circumstance which makes it inequitable for the person holding title to retain it against another. In *671 the usual case, the person seeking to subject property to a constructive trust has at some time owned it, or had a valid claim to or against it. Here, the insurance policies were solely Dr. Wooddy's, and the fact that he may at one time have designated the children as beneficiaries or intended the policies to be used for their education does not, standing alone, create rights which may be asserted by the children or in their behalf to require him to keep the policies in force or to prevent him from changing the beneficiary he had designated. [258 Md. at 233 (emphasis added)].
 Clearly then in most cases, unless there is an acquisition of property in which another has some good equitable claim, no constructive trust may be imposed. A rule without such limitations would permit the courts to effectively transfer property as a means of attempting to right every wrong. The courts' equitable powers are not so broad.
 Applying these principles to the facts of this case compels the conclusion that this is not a proper case for the imposition of a constructive trust. While the parties agree that there is a confidential relationship and that Cecil is the dominant party, unless there was some transaction by which Cecil acquired some property in which Annie has some bona fide equitable claim, then the trial court erred in shifting the burden to Cecil to prove the fairness and reasonableness of his actions. We are unable to say that this case clearly involves any transaction cognizable for purposes of the law of constructive trusts. With respect to the purchase of the marital home, despite Annie's assertions to the contrary, there is no evidence in the record of any misrepresentations by Cecil as to the title of the property. There are no facts sufficient to explain the basis for Annie's belief or understanding that the property was titled in both names.[3]*672 Moreover, even if there had been a misrepresentation to that effect by Cecil, there was no detrimental reliance by Annie. She neither transferred any funds nor parted with any other property in reliance thereon. In addition, as the house was purchased with Cecil's funds, missing is the indispensable element of unjust enrichment.
 Nor do the circumstances surrounding the obtainment of the mortgage amount to a transaction cognizable for purposes of applying the law of constructive trusts. Annie can point to no property in which she had a claim which Cecil acquired as a result of obtaining the mortgage. While it may be argued that Cecil's reprehensible conduct in inducing Annie to sign the mortgage note resulted in her incurring a liability through his abuse of a confidential relationship and, even if it could be said that such facts constituted the kind of transaction which could potentially support the imposition of a constructive trust, Annie would not be entitled to relief. Again missing is the requisite element of unjust enrichment. In fact, it appears that Annie benefitted by the transaction. The conclusion, we infer from the findings of fact by the chancellor, was that the proceeds of the loan were used to purchase property, the title to which was placed in both their names. Annie, therefore, profited by the transactions.
 The weakness in Annie's position and the error of the courts below can be illuminated by a comparison with cases from other jurisdictions in which courts have imposed a constructive trust in the marital abode. A very recent case is Tomaino v. Tomaino, 68 App. Div.2d 267, 416 N.Y.S.2d 925 (1979), where the husband misled his wife by informing her that there was no need for her name to be on the deed because New York was a community property state. He also induced her to transfer money to him for improvements on *673 the property. Finding that a statement had been made in the context of a confidential relationship upon which the wife relied and the transfer of funds resulting in the husband's unjust enrichment, the court applied a constructive trust.
 In Genter v. Genter, 270 So. 2d 388 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972), the parties, prior to their marriage, borrowed money from the wife's grandmother which was used toward the downpayment on a home. Although the home was placed in the husband's name, there was an understanding that the wife could have an interest in it. In addition, the wife often worked in the husband's business without pay. The court found that the transfer of funds combined with the express parol agreement and unjust enrichment warranted the imposition of a constructive trust.
 Although it involved the marital farm as well as the house, Cline v. Cline, 297 N.C. 336, 255 S.E.2d 399 (1979), is also instructive. After representing to his wife that the farm would be held jointly and that the obligation to pay off the mortgage would be their joint liability, the husband took title in his own name. The court found that in accordance with the understanding, the wife contributed money and labor in an amount equal to one-half the value of the mortgage. It therefore imposed a constructive trust.
 All three of the above cases clearly involve factors not present in this case. Stripped of the elements of wrongdoing, property transfer, and tangible unjust enrichment, Annie's claim is reduced to her contention that she is entitled to part of Cecil's property merely by virtue of their marriage. This according to her own testimony was the real basis of her case:
 Q. So when Cecil purchased these houses in his own name, you were no worse off than you were before. Had you suffered anything by his buying the houses in his own name?
 * * *
 A. I don't think I suffered, but I feel that I am entitled to what belongs to him.
 *674 While the imposition of a constructive trust is a remedy which may be applied to correct a broad spectrum of inequitable conduct, it is not however, a remedy for every moral wrong arising in societal affairs. A court of equity will not deprive one person of property titled in his name and give it to another merely because the latter believes herself to be deserving of it. We hold that the relationship of husband and wife, in and of itself, gives rise to no marital interest in the property of one spouse as against the other and is inadequate to support the imposition of a constructive trust.
 The chancellor's imposition of a constructive trust in the case at bar was erroneous and we, therefore, reverse.
 Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals reversed and case remanded to that court with instructions to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County; appellee to pay the costs.
 NOTES
 [1] At the time the parties separated, Cecil owned seven rental properties and the home of the parties. Four of the properties were titled in their joint names; Annie filed suit to impress a trust on the four properties in his name alone.
 [2] The holding in Bender v. Bender, 282 Md. 525, 534, 386 A.2d 772 (1978) is not a departure from this rule. Bender merely raises a presumption to aid the court in determining the ownership of household goods and furnishings. There is no statutory authority permitting the court to determine the ownership of real property, (title apparently being dispositive in most cases). Similarly, Maryland's new property disposition statute, Maryland Code (1974, 1979 Supp.), §§ 3-6A-01 through 3-6A-07 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, does not permit the court to transfer the ownership of either real or personal property from one spouse to the other. §§ 3-6A-03 and 3-6A-04. The statute does however, permit the court to make an award of money in lieu thereof and to do so in accordance with the announced policy of the legislature which is to give careful consideration to both monetary and nonmonetary contributions by the spouses to the marriage. This statute is of no aid to Annie for it applies only to cases filed after January 1, 1979.
 [3] Annie would also have us consider her assumption of the mortgage payments as evidence that there was an understanding that she would have an interest in the house. Ordinarily, a constructive trust must be established from circumstances surrounding the inception of the transaction and not from subsequent events. Annapolis v. W. Anna. Fire & Imp. Co., 264 Md. 729, 737, 288 A.2d 151 (1972). Subsequent conduct is only relevant to the extent that it reflects upon the intention or purpose of the person sought to be charged at the time the transaction was consummated. Corbett v. Hospelhorn, 172 Md. 257, 191 A. 691 (1937). Annie's assumption of the mortgage does little to support her theory that the parties intended the property to be jointly owned particularly in light of the fact that the assumption appears to be in lieu of rental payments to Cecil.


type: wikipedia

text:
A Hochstuhl vagy Veliki Stol a Karavankák legmagasabb hegye, Szlovénia és Ausztria határán. A népszerűbb hegyek közé tartozik Szlovéniában, melyet fiatalok és idősebbek egyaránt megmásznak a késő nyári időszakban. A déli (szlovén) oldalról könnyen megmászható, viszont az északi (osztrák) oldalról nagyon nehéz útnak számít. Közel a csúcshoz (2174 méteren) található a Prešeren-ház, ahol pihenni, enni vagy aludni is lehet.
 Külső hivatkozások
 Stol – hribi.net
 Karavankák
 Szlovén hegyi ösvény


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 52009PC0259
 Pasiūlymas Tarybos sprendimas leisti Portugalijai taikyti lengvatinį akcizo tarifą autonominiame Madeiros regione pagamintam ir vietoje suvartojamam romui ir likeriams ir autonominiame Azorų salų regione pagamintiems ir vietoje suvartojamiems likeriams ir spiritams /* KOM/2009/0259 galutinis - CNS 2009/0075 */
 [pic] | EUROPOS BENDRIJŲ KOMISIJA |Briuselis, 9.6.2009KOM(2009) 259 galutinis2009/0075 (CNS)PasiūlymasTARYBOS SPRENDIMASleisti Portugalijai taikyti lengvatinį akcizo tarifą autonominiame Madeiros regione pagamintam ir vietoje suvartojamam romui ir likeriams ir autonominiame Azorų salų regione pagamintiems ir vietoje suvartojamiems likeriams ir spiritamsAIŠKINAMASIS MEMORANDUMAS1) PASIŪLYMO APLINKYBĖS- Pasiūlymo pagrindas ir tikslai2002 m. vasario 18 d. Tarybos sprendimu 2002/167/EB[1] Portugalijai leista taikyti lengvatinį akcizo tarifą autonominiame Madeiros regione pagamintam ir vietoje suvartojamam romui ir likeriams ir autonominiame Azorų salų regione pagamintiems ir vietoje suvartojamiems likeriams ir spiritams. Pagal šį sprendimą Portugalija galėjo šiems produktams taikyti akcizo tarifą, mažesnį už visą alkoholiui taikomą tarifą, nustatytą Direktyvos 92/84/EEB[2] 3 straipsnyje, ir mažesnį už minimalų šioje direktyvoje alkoholiui nustatytą akcizo tarifą, tačiau ne daugiau kaip 75 % mažesnį už standartinį nacionalinį alkoholiui taikomą akcizo tarifą. Ši priemonė buvo taikoma nuo 2002 m. sausio 1 d. iki 2008 m. gruodžio 31 d. 2008 m. birželio 16 d. ir 2008 m. birželio 20 d. Portugalija prašė šio leidimo galiojimo terminą pratęsti iki 2013 m. gruodžio 31 d.Atsižvelgdamos į Komisijos tarnybų prašymus, 2008 m. lapkričio 5 d. ir 2009 m. vasario 25 d. Portugalijos institucijos pateikė papildomos informacijos, siekdamos įrodyti, kad norint išlaikyti romo, likerių ir (arba) spiritų gamybą bei susijusią žemės ūkio veiklą lengvatinio akcizo tarifo taikymo laikotarpį būtina pratęsti po 2008 m. pabaigos.Šiuo metu Madeiroje registruotos aštuonios romą ir (arba) likerius gaminančios bendrovės; Azorų salose likerius gamina devynios bendrovės, o spiritus – trisdešimt aštuonios. Numatoma, kad didžiausias gamintojas (romo ir likerių gamintojas Madeiroje) vidutiniškai per metus 2009–2013 m. iš viso pagamins 558,02 hektolitrų gryno alkoholio. 2007 m. ūkinės veiklos vykdytojai autonominiame Madeiros regione iš viso pagamino 1304,99 hl romo ir 419,95 hl likerių (alkoholio koncentracija 100 %). Tais pačiais metais ūkinės veiklos vykdytojai autonominiame Azorų salų regione pagamino 1680 hl likerių (alkoholio koncentracija 20 %) ir 994 hl spiritų (alkoholio koncentracija 37,5–42 %). Beveik visa produkcija parduodama regioninėse rinkose, ir tik nedidelė dalis eksportuojama (±10 % Azorų salose pagaminamų likerių daugiausia eksportuojama į Šiaurės Ameriką).Vietos pramonėje dirba apie 130 darbuotojų Madeiroje ir apie 90 darbuotojų Azorų salose. Madeiroje cukranendrės ir vaisiai auginami bei perdirbami apie 1 000 šeimos žemės ūkio valdų.2007 m. produktų, kuriems taikomas lengvatinis akcizo tarifas, rinkos dalis buvo mažesnė už panašių produktų, importuotų arba tiektų iš kitų Bendrijos vietovių, kurie su jais stipriai konkuruoja, rinkos dalį (20,3 % Madeiroje; 38,9 % Azorų salose). Be to, nepaisant taikomo lengvatinio akcizo tarifo, Madeiroje ir Azorų salose vidutinė mažmeninė vietoje pagaminto romo, likerių arba spiritų pardavimo kaina (įskaitant mokesčius) yra didesnė už panašių produktų, įvežamų iš kitų regionų, kainą.Pagrindiniai sunkumai, kurių patiria romo, likerių ir (arba) spiritų gamintojai yra susiję su papildomomis sąnaudomis, kurios susidaro dėl Sutarties 299 straipsnio 2 dalyje išvardytų veiksnių (t. y. atokumo, izoliuotumo, mažumo, sunkių topografinių ir klimato sąlygų).Žemės ūkio kilmės žaliavos (atsižvelgiant į konkretų atvejį, cukranendrės, vaisiai, augalai, medus, grietinėlė, pienas ir vynas) yra brangesnės nei normaliomis gamybos sąlygomis. Taip yra dėl mažo žemės ūkio valdų dydžio, susiskaidymo ir susijusio žemo mechanizacijos lygio. Be to, dėl topografinių ir klimato sąlygų, dirvožemio ir smulkios gamybos Madeiros produkcija, gaunama perdirbant cukranendres, yra mažesnė už kitų atokiausių regionų produkciją.Į salas įvežant tam tikras žaliavas ir pakavimo medžiagas, kurios negaminamos vietoje, susidaro papildomos sąnaudos, nesusidarančios įvežant tik galutinį produktą. Azorų salų izoliuotumas yra dvejopas, nes salos išsidėsčiusios 600 km ruože, todėl susidaro papildomos vežimo tarp salų išlaidos. Galiausiai, dėl atokumo ir izoliuotumo perdirbimo, gamybos ir pakavimo įrangos vežimas ir įrengimas susijusiose teritorijose yra brangesnis nei žemyne.Kadangi vietos rinka nesuvartoja produkcijos iškart kai ji pagaminama, o ją vartoja visus metus, susidaro papildomos galutinių produktų sandėliavimo išlaidos.Reikia atsižvelgti į kelionės išlaidas, patiriamas lankant tiekėjus ir pirkėjus žemyne, taip pat į papildomas mėginių, skirtų ištirti laboratorijoje, siuntimo išlaidas (Azorų salų atveju).Vieneto sąnaudos padidėja dėl kitų su maža regionine rinka susijusių veiksnių, kaip antai poreikio laikyti dideles žaliavų atsargas ir – kas svarbu – nepalankaus nuolatinių sąnaudų ir produkcijos santykio. Šis nepalankus santykis susijęs su per dideliu įrangos dydžiu ir, tam tikru mastu, su aplinkos apsaugos normų atitikčiai užtikrinti būtinomis išlaidomis. Šiuo atžvilgiu romo gamintojai Madeiroje patiria papildomą naštą, nes yra priversti apmokėti perdirbant cukranendres gaunamų atliekų šalinimo išlaidas, o gamintojai kituose regionuose šiuos šalutinius produktus gali perdirbti.Susiję gamintojai taip pat patiria kitų papildomų išlaidų, kurias patiria visos salų įmonės, ir kurių nepatiria žemyno įmonės; visų pirma – tai darbo užmokestis (minimalus darbo užmokestis šiuose dviejuose susijusiuose regionuose yra 5 % didesnis), taip pat (Madeiros atveju) statybos sąnaudos ir žemės kaina.Siekdamos įrodyti, kad leidžiant taikyti lengvatinį akcizo tarifą nenumatyta nieko, kas nėra būtina siekiant kompensuoti papildomas sąnaudas, kurios susidaro dėl Sutarties 299 straipsnio 2 dalyje išvardytų veiksnių (t. y. atokumo, izoliuotumo, mažumo, sunkių topografinių ir klimato sąlygų, ekonominio priklausomumo nuo keleto produktų), Portugalijos institucijos pateikė su šiais sunkumais susijusių papildomų sąnaudų kiekybinį įvertinimą, kuriame nurodyta, kad produkto vieneto papildomos sąnaudos yra didesnės už atitinkamą akcizo tarifo sumažinimo dydį maždaug 7–19 %.Todėl lengvatinio akcizo tarifo taikymą galima laikyti būtinu šio sektoriaus gamintojams, kad jie galėtų išlaikyti konkurencinę padėtį panašių produktų iš kitų Bendrijos vietovių atžvilgiu.Atsižvelgusi į teisinį tikrumą, kuris reikalingas, kad vietos gamintojai galėtų plėtoti komercinę veiklą, ir į poreikį nustatyti mokesčių lengvatų taikymo terminą, Komisija siūlo leisti lengvatos taikymo terminą pratęsti penkeriems metams. Tačiau siūloma nustatyti reikalavimą, kad iki 2011 m. gruodžio 31 d. Portugalija pateiktų vidurio laikotarpio ataskaitą, kuri leistų Komisijai įvertinti, ar priežastys, dėl kurių leista taikyti lengvatinį tarifą, ir toliau egzistuoja.- Bendrosios aplinkybėsBendrijos sistema, susijusi su alkoholiui ir alkoholiniams gėrimams taikomais akcizais, yra nustatyta dviejose direktyvose. 1992 m. spalio 19 d. Tarybos direktyvoje 92/83/EEB dėl akcizų už alkoholį ir alkoholinius gėrimus struktūrų suderinimo[3] pateiktos produktų, kuriems taikomas akcizas, bendrosios apibrėžtys ir nurodytas akcizo apskaičiavimo būdas bei kriterijai, kuriuos atitinkantiems tam tikriems produktams galima netaikyti akcizo arba jiems gali būti taikomi sumažinti tarifai. Minėtoje Tarybos direktyvoje 92/84/EEB nustatyti kiekvienos kategorijos produktams taikomi minimalūs akcizo tarifai.Sprendimu 2002/167/EB Portugalijai leista taikyti lengvatinį akcizo tarifą autonominiame Madeiros regione pagamintam ir vietoje suvartojamam romui ir likeriams ir autonominiame Azorų salų regione pagamintiems ir vietoje suvartojamiems likeriams ir spiritams. Taikomas lengvatinis akcizo tarifas turi būti ne daugiau kaip 75 % mažesnis už standartinį nacionalinį alkoholiui taikomą akcizo tarifą. Šis sprendimas nustojo galioti 2008 m. gruodžio 31 d.- Pasiūlymo srityje galiojančios nuostatosRemiantis EB sutarties 299 straipsnio 2 dalimi, Sutartis taikoma Prancūzijos užjūrio departamentams, Azorų, Madeiros ir Kanarų saloms (atokiausiems regionams). Tačiau, atsižvelgdama į atokiausių regionų struktūros nulemtą socialinę ir ekonominę padėtį, kurią sunkina jų atokumas, izoliuotumas, mažumas, sunkios topografinės ir klimato sąlygos, ekonominis priklausomumas nuo keleto produktų, ir į tai, kad dėl nuolatinės įvairių šių veiksnių įtakos ribojama šių regionų plėtra, Taryba, remdamasi Komisijos pasiūlymu ir pasikonsultavusi su Europos Parlamentu, kvalifikuota balsų dauguma nustato konkrečias priemones, kuriomis visų pirma siekiama šiems regionams nustatyti EB sutarties, taip pat bendrų politikos sričių taikymo sąlygas.- Derėjimas su kitomis Europos Sąjungos politikos sritimis ir tikslaisNustatant konkrečias priemones, numatytas EB sutarties 299 straipsnio 2 dalyje, būtina atsižvelgti į atokiausių regionų ypatumus ir ribotas galimybes nepažeidžiant Bendrijos teisinės tvarkos, taip pat vidaus rinkos ir bendrų politikos sričių vientisumo ir nuoseklumo. Kaip minėta, leidžiant taikyti mokesčių lengvatą nenumatyta nieko, kas nėra būtina siekiant kompensuoti sunkumus, susijusius su vietoje pagamintais ir suvartojamais atitinkamais produktais. Atsižvelgiant kartu į faktą, kad susijęs kiekis yra nedidelis, o mokesčių lengvata taikoma tik susijusiuose regionuose suvartojamiems produktams, poveikis vidaus rinkai yra labai mažas, todėl minėtas Sutarties 299 straipsnio 2 dalies reikalavimas yra įvykdytas.2) KONSULTACIJOS SU SUINTERESUOTOSIOMIS ŠALIMIS IR POVEIKIO VERTINIMAS- Konsultacijos su suinteresuotosiomis šalimisPortugalijos Vyriausybė pateikė prašymą atsižvelgdama į susijusių ūkinės veiklos vykdytojų reikalavimus.- Tiriamųjų duomenų rinkimas ir naudojimasNepriklausomo tyrimo neprireikė.- Poveikio vertinimasEkonominis pasiūlymo poveikis iš esmės susijęs su romo ir likerių gamintojais Madeiroje ir likerių ir spiritų gamintojais Azorų salose, todėl šį poveikį galima laikyti minimaliu.Jeigu tokiems gamintojams lengvatinis akcizo tarifas nebūtų toliau taikomas, dėl padidėjusios mažmeninės pardavimo kainos šių ūkio sektorių egzistavimui ir išlikimui, taip pat su jais tiesiogiai ir netiesiogiai susijusiam užimtumui galėtų kilti pavojus.3) TEISINIAI PASIŪLYMO ASPEKTAI- Siūlomų veiksmų santraukaSiūloma leisti Portugalijai nuo 2009 m. sausio 1 d. iki 2013 m. gruodžio 31 d. taikyti lengvatinį akcizo tarifą autonominiame Madeiros regione pagamintam ir vietoje suvartojamam romui ir likeriams ir autonominiame Azorų salų regione pagamintiems ir vietoje suvartojamiems likeriams ir spiritams. Lengvatinis tarifas gali būti mažesnis už Direktyvoje 92/84/EEB alkoholiui nustatytą minimalų akcizo tarifą, tačiau negali būti daugiau kaip 75 % mažesnis už standartinį nacionalinį alkoholiui taikomą akcizo tarifą. Tai atitinka Sprendimu 2002/167/EB nuo 2002 m. sausio 1 d. iki 2008 m. gruodžio 31 d. suteikto leidimo sąlygas.- Teisinis pagrindasSutarties 299 straipsnio 2 dalis.- Subsidiarumo principasNuo Sutarties reikalavimų nukrypti leidžiančių nuostatų nustatymas remiantis Sutarties 299 straipsnio 2 dalimi priklauso išimtinei Bendrijos kompetencijai. Todėl subsidiarumo principas netaikomas.- Proporcingumo principasPasiūlymas atitinka proporcingumo principą. Pasiūlyme nenumatyta nieko, kas nėra būtina siekiant kompensuoti dideles sąnaudas, susijusias su romo ir likerių gamyba autonominiame Madeiros regione ir likerių ir spiritų gamyba autonominiame Azorų salų regione (plg. pirmiau pateiktą informaciją).- Pasirinkta priemonėSutarties 299 straipsnio 2 dalyje numatytos atokiausiems regionams skirtos konkrečios priemonės, kurios turi būti priimamos Tarybos sprendimu.4) POVEIKIS BIUDŽETUIPasiūlymas neturi poveikio Bendrijos biudžetui.2009/0075 (CNS)PasiūlymasTARYBOS SPRENDIMASleisti Portugalijai taikyti lengvatinį akcizo tarifą autonominiame Madeiros regione pagamintam ir vietoje suvartojamam romui ir likeriams ir autonominiame Azorų salų regione pagamintiems ir vietoje suvartojamiems likeriams ir spiritamsEUROPOS SĄJUNGOS TARYBA,atsižvelgdama į Europos bendrijos steigimo sutartį, ypač į jos 299 straipsnio 2 dalį,atsižvelgdama į Komisijos pasiūlymą[4],atsižvelgdama į Europos Parlamento nuomonę[5],kadangi:(1) 2002 m. vasario 18 d. Tarybos sprendimu 2002/167/EB[6] Portugalijai leista taikyti lengvatinį akcizo tarifą autonominiame Madeiros regione pagamintam ir vietoje suvartojamam romui ir likeriams ir autonominiame Azorų salų regione pagamintiems ir vietoje suvartojamiems likeriams ir spiritams. Lengvatinio akcizo tarifo taikymas laikytas būtinu šiuos produktus gaminančios ir jais prekiaujančios vietos pramonės išlikimui. Atsižvelgiant į dideles šios veiklos sąnaudas, kurios daugiausia susidaro dėl veiksnių, būdingų atokiausiems regionams (atokumo, izoliuotumo, mažumo, topografinių ir klimato sąlygų), laikyta, kad tik taikant lengvatinį akcizo tarifą vietoje pagaminti ir suvartojami produktai galės toliau vienodomis sąlygomis konkuruoti su panašiais produktais, importuotais ar tiekiamais iš kitų Bendrijos vietovių, ir taip užtikrins pramonės šakų išlikimą. Todėl remdamasi tuo pačiu sprendimu Portugalija galėjo šiems produktams taikyti akcizo tarifą, mažesnį už visą alkoholiui taikomą tarifą, nustatytą Direktyvos 92/84/EEB[7] 3 straipsnyje, ir mažesnį už šioje direktyvoje alkoholiui nustatytą minimalų akcizo tarifą, tačiau ne daugiau kaip 75 % mažesnį už standartinį nacionalinį alkoholiui taikomą akcizo tarifą. Ši priemonė buvo taikoma nuo 2002 m. sausio 1 d. iki 2008 m. gruodžio 31 d.(2) 2008 m. birželio 16 d. ir 2008 m. birželio 20 d. Portugalija prašė tomis pačiomis sąlygomis suteikti leidimą nuo 2009 m. sausio 1 d. iki 2013 m. gruodžio 31 d.(3) Prašomas leidimas gali būti pagrįstai suteiktas, siekiant nepakenkti šių atokiausių regionų vystymuisi. Vietos pramonėje dirba apie 130 darbuotojų Madeiroje ir apie 90 darbuotojų Azorų salose. Madeiroje cukranendrės ir vaisiai auginami bei perdirbami apie 1 000 šeimos žemės ūkio valdų. Dėl sunkumų eksportuoti už šių regionų ribų regioninės rinkos yra vienintelė galima šių produktų pardavimo vieta.(4) Turėtų būti leista toliau taikyti prašomo dydžio lengvatinį akcizo tarifą, kad būtų kompensuota Madeiroje ir Azorų salose pagamintų distiliuotų alkoholinių gėrimų nepalanki konkurencinė padėtis, susidaranti dėl didesnių gamybos ir prekybos sąnaudų.(5) Iš tiesų dėl žemės ūkio valdų mažo dydžio, susiskaidymo ir mažos mechanizacijos žemės ūkio kilmės žaliavos yra brangesnės nei normaliomis gamybos sąlygomis. Be to, dėl topografinių ir klimato sąlygų, dirvožemio ir smulkios gamybos Madeiros produkcija, gaunama perdirbant cukranendres, yra mažesnė nei kituose atokiausiuose regionuose. Į salas įvežant tam tikras žaliavas ir pakavimo medžiagas, kurios negaminamos vietoje, susidaro papildomos sąnaudos, nesusidarančios įvežant tik galutinį produktą. Azorų salų izoliuotumas yra dvejopas, nes salos yra išsidėsčiusios dideliame plote. Dėl įrangos įvežimo ir įrengimo šiuose atokiuose ir izoliuotuose regionuose papildomos sąnaudos dar labiau padidėja. Tas pats pasakytina apie tam tikras būtinas kelionės ir siuntimo į žemyną išlaidas. Taip pat būtinos papildomos galutinių produktų sandėliavimo išlaidos, nes vietos rinka nesuvartoja produkcijos iškart kai ji pagaminama, o ją vartoja visus metus. Mažoje regioninėje rinkoje vieneto sąnaudos padidėja dėl įvairių veiksnių, kaip antai nepalankaus nuolatinių sąnaudų ir produkcijos santykio, susijusio tiek su įranga, tiek su aplinkos apsaugos normų atitikčiai užtikrinti būtinomis išlaidomis. Be to, romo gamintojai Madeiroje turi šalinti perdirbant cukranendres gaunamas atliekas, o gamintojai kituose regionuose šiuos produktus gali perdirbti. Galiausiai, susiję gamintojai taip pat padengia papildomas išlaidas, kurias paprastai patiria vietos ekonomika, visų pirma tai didesnės darbo užmokesčio ir energijos sąnaudos.(6) Nustatant 75 % lengvatinį tarifą nenumatoma nieko, kas nėra būtina siekiant kompensuoti papildomas sąnaudas, kurias dėl minėtų konkrečių Madeiros ir Azorų salų, kaip atokiausių regionų, ypatumų patiria ūkinės veiklos vykdytojai.(7) Išsamiai išnagrinėjus padėtį paaiškėjo, jog norint užtikrinti, kad susijusiuose atokiausiuose regionuose išliktų alkoholio gamybos pramonė, būtina patenkinti Portugalijos prašymą.(8) Kadangi nustatant mokesčių lengvatą nenumatyta nieko, kas nėra būtina siekiant kompensuoti papildomas sąnaudas, susijęs kiekis yra nedidelis, o mokesčių lengvata taikoma tik susijusiuose regionuose suvartosimiems produktams, priemone nepažeidžiamas Bendrijos teisinės tvarkos vientisumas ir nuoseklumas.(9) Palyginus poreikį nustatyti mokesčių lengvatų taikymo terminą ir vietos ūkinės veiklos vykdytojų komercinei veiklai plėtoti būtino saugumo svarbą, leidimą reikėtų suteikti penkerių metų laikotarpiui.(10) Reikėtų užtikrinti, kad susijusias lengvatas Portugalija galėtų taikyti nuo analogiško leidimo, Sprendimu 2002/167/EB suteikto ankstesniam laikotarpiui, galiojimo pabaigos. Todėl prašomas naujasis leidimas turėtų būti suteiktas ir įsigalioti 2009 m. sausio 1 d.(11) Reikėtų nustatyti reikalavimą pateikti vidurio laikotarpio ataskaitą, kad Komisija galėtų įvertinti, ar vis dar laikomasi sąlygų, kuriomis grindžiamas tokios lengvatos suteikimas.(12) Šiuo sprendimu nepanaikinama galimybė taikyti Sutarties 87 ir 88 straipsnius.PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:1 straipsnisNukrypstant nuo Sutarties 90 straipsnio, Portugalijai leidžiama taikyti akcizo tarifą, mažesnį už visą alkoholiui taikomą tarifą, nustatytą 1992 m. spalio 19 d. Direktyvos 92/84/EEB dėl alkoholiui ir alkoholiniams gėrimams taikomų akcizo tarifų suderinimo 3 straipsnyje, autonominiame Madeiros regione pagamintam ir vietoje suvartojamam romui ir likeriams ir autonominiame Azorų salų regione pagamintiems ir vietoje suvartojamiems likeriams ir spiritams.2 straipsnis1 straipsnyje minėta nukrypti leidžianti nuostata taikoma tik:1. Madeiroje:2. 2008 m. sausio 15 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 110/2008 dėl spiritinių gėrimų apibrėžimo, apibūdinimo, pateikimo, ženklinimo ir geografinių nuorodų apsaugos bei panaikinančio Tarybos reglamentą (EEB) Nr. 1576/89[8] II priedo 1 kategorijoje apibrėžtam romui, turinčiam minėto reglamento III priedo 1 kategorijoje nurodytą geografinę nuorodą Rum da Madeira ,3. likeriams ir crème de , kaip apibrėžta Reglamento (EB) Nr. 110/2008 II priedo 32 ir 33 kategorijose, pagamintiems iš regiono vaisių arba augalų;4. Azorų salose:5. likeriams ir crème de , kaip apibrėžta Reglamento (EB) Nr. 110/2008 II priedo 32 ir 33 kategorijose, pagamintiems iš regiono vaisių arba žaliavų;6. spiritams, pagamintiems iš vyno arba vynuogių išspaudų, turintiems Reglamento (EB) Nr. 110/2008 4 ir 6 kategorijose apibrėžtų savybių.3 straipsnis1 straipsnyje minėtiems produktams taikomas lengvatinis akcizo tarifas gali būti mažesnis už Direktyvoje 92/84/EEB alkoholiui nustatytą minimalų akcizo tarifą, tačiau negali būti daugiau kaip 75 % mažesnis už standartinį nacionalinį alkoholiui taikomą akcizo tarifą.4 straipsnisNe vėliau kaip iki 2011 m. gruodžio 31 d. Portugalija išsiunčia Komisijai ataskaitą, kuri leistų Komisijai įvertinti, ar priežastys, dėl kurių leista taikyti lengvatinį tarifą, ir toliau egzistuoja.5 straipsnisŠis sprendimas taikomas nuo 2009 m. sausio 1 d. iki 2013 m. gruodžio 31 d.6 straipsnisŠis sprendimas skirtas Portugalijos Respublikai.Priimta BriuselyjeTarybos varduPirmininkas [1] OL L 055, 2002 2 26, p. 0036–0037.[2] 1992 m. spalio 19 d. Tarybos direktyva 92/84/EEB dėl alkoholiui ir alkoholiniams gėrimams taikomų akcizo tarifų suderinimo (OL L 316, 1992 10 31, p. 29).[3] OL L 316, 1992 10 31, p. 21.[4] OL C , , p. .[5] OL C , , p. .[6] OL L 55, 2002 2 26, p. 36.[7] 1992 m. spalio 19 d. Tarybos direktyva 92/84/EEB dėl alkoholiui ir alkoholiniams gėrimams taikomų akcizo tarifų suderinimo (OL L 316, 1992 10 31, p. 29).[8] OL L 39, 2008 2 13, p. 16.


type: caselaw

text:
 18.1.2016
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 C 16/9
 Arrest van het Hof (Zesde kamer) van 11 november 2015 (verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing ingediend door het Birmingham Employment Tribunal, Verenigd Koninkrijk) — Kathleen Greenfield/The Care Bureau Ltd
 (Zaak C-219/14) (1)
 ((Prejudiciële verwijzing - Sociale politiek - Kaderovereenkomst inzake deeltijdarbeid - Organisatie van de arbeidstijd - Richtlijn 2003/88/EG - Recht op jaarlijkse vakantie met behoud van loon - Berekening van het recht op vakantie in geval van verlenging van de arbeidstijd - Uitlegging van het pro rata temporis-beginsel))
 (2016/C 016/09)
 Procestaal: Engels
 Verwijzende rechter
 Birmingham Employment Tribunal
 Partijen in het hoofdgeding
 Verzoekende partij: Kathleen Greenfield
 Verwerende partij: The Care Bureau Ltd
 Dictum
 1)
 Clausule 4, punt 2, van de op 6 juni 1997 gesloten kaderovereenkomst inzake deeltijdarbeid, die is opgenomen in de bijlage bij richtlijn 97/81/EG van de Raad van 15 december 1997 betreffende de door de Unice, het CEEP en het EVV gesloten raamovereenkomst inzake deeltijdarbeid, zoals gewijzigd bij richtlijn 98/23/EG van de Raad van 7 april 1998, en artikel 7 van richtlijn 2003/88/EG van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 4 november 2003 betreffende een aantal aspecten van de organisatie van de arbeidstijd moeten aldus worden uitgelegd dat de lidstaten bij een verhoging van het aantal door een werknemer gewerkte uren niet verplicht zijn om te bepalen dat het reeds verworven, en eventueel opgenomen, recht op jaarlijkse vakantie met behoud van loon met terugwerkende kracht opnieuw wordt berekend op basis van het nieuwe werkschema van die werknemer. Voor het tijdvak waarin de arbeidstijd is toegenomen, moet echter een nieuwe berekening worden gemaakt.
 2)
 Clausule 4, punt 2, van die kaderovereenkomst en artikel 7 van richtlijn 2003/88 moeten aldus worden uitgelegd dat het recht op jaarlijkse vakantie met behoud van loon volgens dezelfde beginselen moet worden berekend, ongeacht of het gaat om de vaststelling van de vergoeding ter vervanging van niet-opgenomen jaarlijkse vakantie met behoud van loon die is verschuldigd in geval van beëindiging van het dienstverband, dan wel om de vaststelling van het resterende recht op jaarlijkse vakantie met behoud van loon in geval van behoud van het dienstverband.
 (1) PB C 223 van 14.7.2014.