jurisdiction: US

text:
 117 S505 IS: Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act
 U.S. Senate
 2021-03-01
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 II117th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 505IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESMarch 1, 2021Mr. Blumenthal (for himself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Brown, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Casey, Ms. Warren, Mr. Booker, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Cantwell, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Reed, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Coons, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Carper, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Peters, Mr. Bennet, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Padilla, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Luján, Mr. Warnock, and Mr. Ossoff) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the JudiciaryA BILLTo amend title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration.1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act.2.PurposesThe purposes of this Act are to—(1)prohibit predispute arbitration agreements that force arbitration of future employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights disputes; and(2)prohibit agreements and practices that interfere with the right of individuals, workers, and small businesses to participate in a joint, class, or collective action related to an employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights dispute.3.Arbitration of employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes(a)In generalTitle 9 of the United States Code is amended by adding at the end the following:4Arbitration of Employment, Consumer, Antitrust, and Civil Rights DisputesSec. 401. Definitions.402. No validity or enforceability.401.DefinitionsIn this chapter—(1)the term antitrust dispute means a dispute—(A)arising from an alleged violation of the antitrust laws (as defined in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)) or State antitrust laws; and(B)in which the plaintiffs seek certification as a class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a comparable rule or provision of State law;(2)the term civil rights dispute means a dispute—(A)arising from an alleged violation of—(i)the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of a State; or(ii)any Federal, State, or local law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, religion, national origin, or any legally protected status in education, employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, veterans or servicemembers, health care, or a program funded or conducted by the Federal Government or a State government, including any law referred to or described in section 62(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including parts of such law not explicitly referenced in such section but that relate to protecting individuals on any such basis; and(B)in which at least 1 party alleging a violation described in subparagraph (A) is an individual (or an authorized representative of an individual), including an individual seeking certification as a class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a comparable rule or provision of State law;(3)the term consumer dispute means a dispute between—(A)1 or more individuals, including an individual who seeks certification as a class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a comparable rule or provision of State law, who seek or acquire real or personal property, services (including services related to digital technology), securities or other investments, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes; and(B)(i)the seller or provider of such property, services, securities or other investments, money, or credit; or(ii)a third party involved in the selling, providing of, payment for, receipt or use of information about, or other relationship to any such property, services, securities or other investments, money, or credit;(4)the term employment dispute—(A)means a dispute between 1 or more individuals (or their authorized representative) and a person arising out of or related to the work relationship or prospective work relationship between them, including a dispute regarding the terms of or payment for, advertising of, recruiting for, referring of, arranging for, or discipline or discharge in connection with, such work, regardless of whether the individual is or would be classified as an employee or an independent contractor with respect to such work; and(B)includes—(i)a dispute arising under any law referred to or described in section 62(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including parts of such law not explicitly referenced in such section but that relate to protecting individuals on any such basis; and(ii)a dispute in which an individual seeks certification as a class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or as a collective action under section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 216(b)), or a comparable rule or provision of State law;(5)the term predispute arbitration agreement means an agreement to arbitrate a dispute that has not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement; and(6)the term predispute joint-action waiver means an agreement, whether or not part of a predispute arbitration agreement, that would prohibit, or waive the right of, one of the parties to the agreement to participate in a joint, class, or collective action in a judicial, arbitral, administrative, or other forum, concerning a dispute that has not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement.402.No validity or enforceability(a)In generalNotwithstanding any other provision of this title, no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to an employment dispute, consumer dispute, antitrust dispute, or civil rights dispute.(b)Applicability(1)In generalAn issue as to whether this chapter applies with respect to a dispute shall be determined under Federal law. The applicability of this chapter to an agreement to arbitrate and the validity and enforceability of an agreement to which this chapter applies shall be determined by a court, rather than an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the party resisting arbitration challenges the arbitration agreement specifically or in conjunction with other terms of the contract containing such agreement, and irrespective of whether the agreement purports to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator.(2)Collective bargaining agreementsNothing in this chapter shall apply to any arbitration provision in a contract between an employer and a labor organization or between labor organizations, except that no such arbitration provision shall have the effect of waiving the right of a worker to seek judicial enforcement of a right arising under a provision of the Constitution of the United States, a State constitution, or a Federal or State statute, or public policy arising therefrom..(b)Technical and conforming amendments(1)In generalTitle 9 of the United States Code is amended—(A)in section 1, by striking of seamen, and all that follows through interstate commerce and inserting of individuals, regardless of whether the individuals are designated as employees or independent contractors for other purposes;(B)in section 2, by inserting or as otherwise provided in chapter 4 before the period at the end;(C)in section 208—(i)in the section heading, by striking Chapter 1; residual application and inserting Application; and(ii)by adding at the end the following: This chapter applies to the extent that this chapter is not in conflict with chapter 4.; and(D)in section 307—(i)in the section heading, by striking Chapter 1; residual application and inserting Application; and(ii)by adding at the end the following: This chapter applies to the extent that this chapter is not in conflict with chapter 4..(2)Table of sections(A)Chapter 2The table of sections for chapter 2 of title 9, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 208 and inserting the following:208. Application..(B)Chapter 3The table of sections for chapter 3 of title 9, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 307 and inserting the following:307. Application..(3)Table of chaptersThe table for chapters of title 9, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:4.Arbitration of employment, consumer, antitrust, and civil rights disputes401.4.Effective dateThis Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply with respect to any dispute or claim that arises or accrues on or after such date.


type: wikipedia

text:
Kárpátalja (ukránul Закарпатська область, vagyis Kárpátontúli terület) Ukrajna nyugati, Romániával, Magyarországgal, Szlovákiával, és egy kis szakaszon Lengyelországgal szomszédos régiója.
 Földrajzi fekvése
 Területe 12 800 km2. Legnagyobb kiterjedése keletről – nyugatra 190 km, északról – délre 90 km. Kárpátalja Ukrajna legnyugatibb területe. Négy országgal határos: északon Lengyelországgal 33,4 km-es szakaszon, nyugaton Szlovákiával 98,9 km, délen Magyarországgal 130 km és Romániával 205,4 km. A Kárpátok bércein a lvivi (Lembergi) (85 km) és az Ivano-frankivszki területekkel (180 km) szomszédos. Szélső pontjai: északon: ÉSz. 49°06' és KH. 22°35' (Keleti-Beszkidek, Patkófalu, Nagybereznai járás), délen: ÉSz. 47°53' és KH. 24°18' (Terebesfehérpataktól 6 km-re, Rahói járás), keleten: ÉSz. 48°27' és KH. 22°09' (Fekete-hegy, Lonka községtől 12 km-re, Rahói járás), nyugaton: ÉSz. 48°04' és KH. 24°38' (1,5 km-re Tiszasalamontól, Ungvári járás). Legnagyobb szélessége észak-déli irányban 135 km, legnagyobb hosszúsága kelet-nyugat irányban közel 205 km. Kárpátalja földrajzi középpontja a Kuk-hegycsúcs közelében található (Szolyvai járás; ÉSz. 48°30' és KH. 23°23').
 A mai Kárpátalja területe 1918-ig Magyarország része volt. Addig Kárpátalja mint önálló történelmi-földrajzi egység nem létezett. Mai területe hat vármegye területéhez tartozott: Ung, Ugocsa, Bereg, Máramaros, Szabolcs és Szatmár.
 Domborzata, geológiai felépítése
 Kárpátalja területének 80%-a hegyvidék. Az Északkeleti-Kárpátoknak az Ung völgyétől a Csornohoráig terjedő része tartozik ide; fontosabb hegyvonulatai: Vihorlát-Gutini-hegyvonulatai, Róna-havas, Borzsa-havas, Keleti-Beszkidek, Csornohora, Máramarosi-havasok. Legmagasabb hegycsúcsok: Hoverla (Hó-vár, 2061 m), Brebeneszkul (2032 m), Csornohorai Pop Iván (Pip Iván, 2029 m), Pietrosz (Kőhavas, 2020 m), Hutin-Temnatik (Ősztető, 2017 m), Rebra (2001 m), Turkul (Bölényhavas, 1932 m), Breszkul (1910 m), Bliznica (Iker-havas, 1880 m). Az Északkeleti-Kárpátok gerincén széles hágók vezetnek át. Az Ung folyó völgyében az Uzsoki-hágó (889 m), a Latorca völgyében a Vereckei-hágó (841 m), a Fekete-Tisza völgyében a Tatár-hágó (961 m). Fontosabb hágók a Vízválasztói-vonulaton még: Kisszolyvai-hágó (1110 m), Toronyai-hágó (931 m).
 A Kárpátaljai-alföld a terület 20%-át teszi ki, átlagos tengerszint feletti magassága 100–200 m. Több részre oszlik: Ungi-sík, Beregi-síkság, Ugocsai-sík. A Huszti-kapun túl, keletre a Máramarosi-medence egy része is Kárpátaljához tartozik, így geopolitikai szempontból még ezt a vidéket is a Kárpátaljai-alföldhöz sorolják. Az alföld mai felszínét a Tisza és mellék folyóinak eróziós és akkumulációs munkája alakította ki.
 Kárpátalja területe gazdag ásványi kincsekben. Legnagyobb értéket a sóbányák képviselnek, amelyek Aknaszlatinán találhatók. Értékesek a barnaszén-, a kaolinlelőhelyek. Kövek közül a mészkő, bazalt, andezit, diabáz előfordulása gyakori, kisebb mennyiségben található márvány, opál, jáspis, a Máramarosi-havasokban a hegyi kristály, az ún. „Máramarosi gyémánt”. Vasércet Munkács környékén (Bilke) bányásztak a 20. századig.
 Vízrajza
 A Kárpátok nyugati oldalán eredő 9429 folyó, patak, ér, forrás vize egyesül a Tiszában. Kárpátalja folyói a Felső-Tisza medencéjének vízrendszeréhez tartoznak, az Északkeleti-Kárpátok homokkő-övezetének bővizű rétegforrásaiból erednek. A fő folyó a Tisza, amely a Máramarosi hegyekben ered, két forráspatakból, a Fekete- és Fehér-Tiszából egyesül. A Tisza 201 km-es szakasza található Kárpátalján jelentősebb mellékfolyói: Borzsa, Nagy-ág (Rika), Talabor (Tereblja), Tarac (Tereszva). A Latorca és az Ung, amely nem közvetlenül ömlik a Tiszába. Kisebb folyók a Zsdenyova, Kis- és Nagy-Pinye, Dusina, Viznicze, Sztara, az Ilosva és Szinyanka. Kárpátalja legjelentősebb tava a Szinevéri-tó, amely 989 m magasan fekszik, vízfelülete 7 hektár, mélysége 16–24 m közötti. Legnagyobb víztározó a Talaboron található (vízfelülete 20 km2).
 A terület nagyon gazdag ásványtartalmú forrásokban, gyógyvizekben. Ásványos források vannak: Uzsokon, Szolyván, Királyfiszálláson, Polenán, Ploszkótelken, Dombostelken, Szarvaskúton, Iványiban, Gyertyánligeten, Visken. Konyhasós forrás az aknaszlatinai, királymezői.
 Jelentős gyógyfürdők találhatók Aknaszlatinán, Kovászón, Polenán, Sajántelepen.
 Éghajlata és talajai
 Kárpátalja éghajlata mérsékelt. A tél enyhe, a középhőmérséklet −2 és −5 °C között változik, tartós hótakaró nem mindig alakul ki. A meleg időszak meghaladja a 9 hónapot. A júliusi középhőmérséklet +20-21 °C. Az évi csapadékmennyiség 600–700 mm, a csapadék zöme nyáron hullik. Tavasszal a sarki eredetű légtömegek fagyokat okoznak, az ősz rendszerint meleg, száraz és napos.
 Az Ukrán-Kárpátok talajai: barna erdei talaj, barna podzolos glejes talaj, barna podzolos talaj, barna réti talaj, hegyi réti talaj és tőzeges talaj. A síkvidéken különböző réti talajok találhatóak.
 Kárpátalja növény és állatvilága
 Növényvilág
 Kárpátalja területén több mint 2000 fafajta és cserje található, melyből 44 faj kipusztuló félben van. A terület 45%-át erdők borítják. Jellemzőek a bükkösök (58%), fenyvesek (31%) , tölgyesek (7%), de található nagy számban még nyárfa, vörösfenyő, égerfa, gyertyán, erdei fenyő, juhar és kőris.
 A növényzetét meghatározza a magassági öveződés. Az alföldi részeken rétek, tölgy és égerfaerdők találhatóak.Az előhegyi területeken (500–700 m-ig) tölgyes-gyertyán erdők találhatóak, az alacsonyhegységi övben (1200 m-ig) bükkösök, bükkös jegenyefenyős és lucfenyős erdők dominálnak, 1500–1600 m-ig tűlevelű erdők találhatóak. A hegységben a következő fafajták találhatóak: jegenyefenyő, vörösfenyő, feketefenyő, erdeifenyő, bükk, tölgy, szilfa, juharfa, kőrisfa, cserfa. A havasokban szegfűfélék, rododendronok, erdélyi ibolya, nárcisz, ciklámen, havasi gyopár található. A síkvidék, a Felső-Tiszavidék növényvilágára jellemző a tölgy-, kőris-, nyárfa, fűzfa, éger-, szilfa. Aljnövényzetként: a galagonya, fagyal, mogyoró, kecskefüzér fordul elő. A jellemző lágyszárúak közül néhány: gyöngyvirág, nárcisz, gólyahír, nyári tőzike, kockás liliom, sáfrány, hóvirág, baracklevelű csengettyűke, ökörfarkkóró.
 Állatvilág
 Kárpátaljai állatvilága nagyon változatos: emlősök (80 faj), madár (280 faj) hüllők (10 faj), kétéltűek (16 faj), halfélék (60 faj) és mészhéjú állatok (csigák, kagylók, rákok; 100 faj). Állatok barna medve, vaddisznó, szarvas, farkas, hiúz, borz, vadmacska, hermelin, nyest, róka, mókus, nagypele, vidra, sas, sólyom, héja, ölyv, vörös kánya, törpesas, vándorsólyom, harkály, bagoly, törpekuvik, fecskék, fácán, fogoly, siketfajd, fürj, rigó, pacsirta, szalakóta, jégmadár, gyurgyalag, hajnalmadár, vetési ludak, lilikek, gémek, búvárok, vöcskök, sirályok, csérek stb.
 Főbb természeti látnivalók
 Vereckei-hágó
 A magyar történelem része. Itt keltek át a Kárpátokon a honfoglaló magyarok. Ez az a vidék, amelyet minden magyar igyekszik legalább egyszer felkeresni. Munkács–Szolyva–Alsóverecke–Verebes útvonalon juthatunk el célunkhoz (kb. 150 km). Attól függően milyen útvonalon szándékozzuk megközelíteni. A Vereckei-hágó a Máramarosi-havasok és a Keleti-Beszkidek közt biztosítja az áthaladást 839 m magasan. Mai szerepe viszont már jelentéktelen. Az 1980-as olimpiára ugyanis új út épült Munkács és Lviv között, ami elkerüli a hágót. Így ma szinte alig van forgalom, főleg a turisták látogatják, az út is eléggé rossz állapotban van. A hágó legmagasabb pontján egy évtizede befejezetlen motel, egy hegyi pásztor szobra (a havasi kürtje félig eltört), egy kereszt és egy buszmegálló található. Ezektől néhány száz méterre egy nagyszerű kilátóponton áll a millecentenáriumi emlékmű.
 Szinevéri-tó
 989 méter magasan a tengerszint fölött, a Tóhegy lábánál található tengerszem kb. 10 ezer évvel ezelőtt keletkezett. Területe 4–7 hektár, közepes mélysége 8–10 m, de 22–25 m mélységet is mértek. A víz hőmérséklete 12–18 °C, itt honos a szivárványos, folyami és tavi pisztráng. A tó környéke természetvédelmi terület, melynek területe 40,4 hektár, s 500–1700 méterrel a tengerszint felett húzódik a Gorgánok hegyeiben, ahol a Tisza jobb oldali mellékfolyója, a Talabor ered.
 Sipot vízesés
 A Nárciszok völgye
 A Nárciszok völgye egyedi botanikai objektum, amelyben Közép-Európa legnagyobb kiterjedésű keskenylevelű nárcisz (Narcissus angustifolius) ültetvénye található. Ez a növény az Alpokban, a Balkánon és a Kárpátokban fordul elő 1100-2060 méteres magasságokban. Az itt élő nárciszok reliktum növényeknek (maradványoknak) számítanak a síkvidéken, ugyanis túlélték a legutolsó jégkorszakot is. A masszívum területén különböző csoportosulásokban élnek: Narcissus angustifolius + Sanguisorba officinalis + Anthoxanthum odoratum, N. angustifolius + Festuca pratensis + Holcus lanatus, Juncus conglomeratus + Filipendula vulgaris + N. angustifolius. A völgyben több mint 400 féle növény található, közöttük olyan ritkaságok is, mint a Achillea salicipholia, Dactylorhisa fuschii, D. majalis, Erytrhonium dens-canis, Gentiana pneumonanthe, Gymnadenia odoratissima, Iris sibirica, Orchis coryophora, O. laxiflora, Potentilla alba stb.
 Képek
 Külső hivatkozások
 Kárpátalja turizmus – Turisztikai oldal
 Kárpátalja képekben – Kárpátalja képtára
 Kárpátalja.lap.hu – Linkgyűjtemény
 Térkép


text:
Marija Šarapova era la detentrice del titolo, ma non partecipa alla competizione a causa della sospensione temporanea.
 In finale Serena Williams ha sconfitto Madison Keys con il punteggio di 7-65, 6-3.
 Teste di serie
 Le prime otto teste di serie ricevono un bye per il secondo turno.
 Serena Williams (campionessa)
 Angelique Kerber (secondo turno)
 Garbiñe Muguruza (semifinale)
 Viktoryja Azaranka (secondo turno)
 Petra Kvitová (secondo turno)
 Simona Halep (secondo turno)
 Roberta Vinci (secondo turno)
 Carla Suárez Navarro (terzo turno)
 Svetlana Kuznecova (quarti di finale)
 Lucie Šafářová (secondo turno)
 Timea Bacsinszky (quarti di finale)
 Venus Williams (secondo turno)
 Ana Ivanović (secondo turno)
 Sara Errani (primo turno)
 Elina Svitolina (primo turno)
 Karolína Plíšková (primo turno)
 Qualificate
 Kiki Bertens (primo turno)
 Mariana Duque Mariño (secondo turno)
 Julia Görges (primo turno)
 Johanna Larsson (primo turno)
 Christina McHale (terzo turno)
 Mónica Puig (secondo turno)
 Alison Riske (primo turno)
 Heather Watson (secondo turno)
 Wild card
 Claudia Giovine (primo turno)
 Karin Knapp (primo turno)
 Francesca Schiavone (primo turno)
 Tabellone
 Parte finale
 Parte alta
 Sezione 1
 Sezione 2
 Parte bassa
 Sezione 3
 Sezione 4
 Collegamenti esterni
 Internazionali d'Italia 2016
 WTA Tour 2016


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 8.4.2006
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 86/32
 Skarga wniesiona w dniu 24 stycznia 2006 — Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandeburg przeciwko Komisji
 (Sprawa T-24/06)
 (2006/C 86/66)
 Język postępowania: niemiecki
 Strony
 Strona skarżąca: Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandeburg (Berlin, Niemcy) (Przedstawiciele: M. Schütte, B. Immenkamp)
 Strona pozwana: Komisja
 Żądania strony skarżącej
 —
 stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji Komisji C(2005) 3903 wersja ostateczna z dnia 9 listopada 2005 r. dotyczącej pomocy państwa na rzecz stworzenia naziemnej telewizji cyfrowej (DVB-T) w landzie Berlin-Brandenburgia;
 —
 obciążenie Komisji kosztami postępowania.
 Zarzuty i główne argumenty
 Skarżąca występuje o stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji Komisji C(2005) 3903 wersja ostateczna z dnia 9 listopada 2005 r. dotyczącej pomocy państwa, którą Republika Federalne Niemiec przyznała na rzecz stworzenia naziemnej telewizji cyfrowej (DVB-T) w landzie Berlin-Brandenburgia. Komisja stwierdziła w zaskarżonej decyzji, że pomoc przyznana przez Republikę Federalna Niemiec na rzecz prywatnych nadawców radiowych będących udziałowcami naziemnej telewizji cyfrowej jest niezgodna ze wspólnym rynkiem i nakazała Republice Federalnej Niemiec zażądanie od beneficjentów zwrotu pomocy przyznanej niezgodnie z prawem. W zaskarżonej decyzji skarżąca została wyraźnie wskazana jako podmiot udzielający pomocy.
 Skarżąca podnosi trzy zarzuty na poparcie swojej skargi.
 Po pierwsze, podnosi ona, że zaskarżona decyzja stanowi naruszenie prawa, gdyż jest niezgodna z przepisami dotyczącymi postępowania. W szczególności Komisja uchybiła swojemu obowiązkowi uzasadnienia przez to, że nie wyjaśniła w sposób zrozumiały dlaczego w niniejszym przypadku należy zakładać istnienie pomocy państwa.
 W drugim zarzucie skarżąca podnosi naruszenie art. 87 WE. Z jednej strony jest przekonana, że nie zachodzi przypadek pomocy w rozumieniu art. 87 ust. 1 WE. Z drugiej natomiast twierdzi, że jeśli jest to faktycznie pomoc, to byłaby ona zgodna ze wspólnym rynkiem zgodnie z art. 87 ust. 3 lit. c) i d).
 Wreszcie, skarżąca uzasadnia swoją skargę tym, że zaskarżona decyzja stanowi naruszenie art. 86 ust. 2 WE, ponieważ jeżeli zachodzi przypadek pomocy, to jest ona zgodna ze wspólnym rynkiem.


text:
The 2002 FA Women's Cup Final was the 32nd final of the FA Women's Cup, England's primary cup competition for women's football teams. The final event was played between Doncaster Belles and Fulham Ladies on 6 May 2002 at Selhurst Park in London. Fulham made its second final appearance, after losing the 2001 final. Doncaster Belles entered a record 13th final having won the trophy on six previous occasions.
 Fulham entered the competition at the third round stage and beat Newport County, Birmingham City, Coventry City, Everton and Charlton Athletic to reach the final. As a top-flight club, Doncaster Belles entered at the fourth round and faced Brighton & Hove Albion, Barry Town, Arsenal and Tranmere Rovers before reaching the final.
 Fulham entered the match as favourites, in a contest billed as a contrast of styles. Watched by a crowd of 10,124 and a BBC television audience of two and a half million, Fulham won the match 2–1, with goals from Rachel Yankey and Katie Chapman. Jody Handley countered for Doncaster Belles.
 Route to the final
 Doncaster Belles
 As Doncaster Belles were an FA Women's Premier League National Division club, they entered the competition in the fourth round; one round later than Fulham. Doncaster Belles' cup run started with a rescheduled trip to the Withdean Stadium to face Brighton & Hove Albion. Despite Brighton taking the lead after only 10 minutes, Doncaster Belles mastered the wet and windy conditions and hit back strongly to win 5–2. In another delayed fixture in the fifth round, Doncaster Belles travelled to Wales to meet Barry Town. The match at Jenner Park was again played in wind and heavy rain. A goal from Jody Handley and a strong midfield performance from debutant Carly Hunt earned a 1–0 win and a quarter final meeting with Arsenal.
 The subsequent 2–1 win over Cup holders Arsenal at Brodsworth Welfare Ground surprised many, who had predicted a repeat of the previous year's Arsenal–Fulham final. Doncaster Belles had gone two goals ahead within the first half hour through Handley and Karen Burke. Although Marieanne Spacey replied for Arsenal, a resilient second half display saw Doncaster Belles end a run of six successive defeats—stretching back almost two years—against their old rivals. The BBC reported that the final whistle was "joyously celebrated" by the Doncaster Belles players. In the semi-final against Tranmere Rovers at Prenton Park, defeat appeared likely when Tranmere went ahead through a 28th–minute penalty and Burke missed a penalty for Doncaster Belles. But Carly Hunt scored an equalising goal from close range, then Tranmere were reduced to ten players when Faye Dunn was shown the red card. England captain Karen Walker secured a 3–1 win and Doncaster Belles' place in the final with two late goals.
 Fulham Ladies
 Fulham's competition began with a trip to fellow Southern Division outfit Newport County. Having already beaten Newport 14–0 in the league, Fulham this time ran 12 unanswered goals past their hapless opponents. "The final score was 12–0 and it could have been more," noted the match report on the Fulham website. In the fourth round Fulham faced a trickier assignment at Birmingham City. Under the leadership of Queens Park Rangers player Marcus Bignot, Birmingham City's young team were top of the Northern Division and had already beaten Doncaster Belles to qualify for the Premier League Cup final, where they would meet Fulham. One goal ahead at half time, Fulham's superior fitness and Marianne Pettersen's eighth hat-trick of the season resulted in a 5–0 win. Bignot lamented "our girls were overawed – they were waiting for Fulham to score."
 In the fifth round Fulham routinely dispatched more Northern Division opposition, Coventry City, with an 11–0 win at Nuneaton's Pingles Stadium. The quarter final meeting with National Division Everton followed a similar pattern to the earlier win over Birmingham. A Margunn Haugenes penalty gave Fulham a one-goal advantage at the interval, before a second half increase in tempo saw them depart Merseyside with a 4–0 win and their place in the semi finals. During the match with Charlton Athletic at Woking's Kingfield Stadium, Pettersen and Kristy Moore put Fulham two goals ahead in the first half, but Charlton reduced the deficit when Astrid Johannessen allowed Fara Williams' tame free kick through her legs. According to The Guardian report, "there was always going to come the time to ask a familiar question: how many would Fulham score?" Pettersen and Moore added another goal each to seal a 4–1 win. Charlton manager Keith Boanas praised the application of his side but admitted they were undone by Fulham's superior fitness.
 Background
 The 2002 final represented a record 13th final appearance for Doncaster Belles and the first since 2000, when they lost 2–1 to Croydon. They had previously won the Women's Cup on six occasions in 1983, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1992, and 1994. The match was Fulham's second time in the final after they lost the previous season's event to Arsenal. A former incarnation of the club, known as Friends of Fulham, had competed in three finals; winning in 1985, but losing in 1989 and 1990. Although the competition had been run by the Women's Football Association (WFA) since 1970, the Football Association (FA) took over in 1993–94. The 2002 final was the 32nd final overall, the ninth to be played under FA control and the first to be shown live on BBC One.
 Despite not yet playing in the FA Women's Premier League National Division, Fulham were already considered "the dominant force in England" by the BBC. In their second year as the only full-time professional women's club in Europe, they had already won that season's FA Women's Premier League Cup by beating Birmingham City 7–1 in the final. In securing the FA Women's Premier League Southern Division championship Fulham beat one team 22–0. The total number of goals they had put past their opponents in 34 league and cup matches stood at 267. Fulham's striker Pettersen—a World Cup winner and Olympic gold medallist with Norway—went into the final looking for her 87th goal of the season. Fulham's Katie Chapman felt the defeat by Arsenal in the previous season's final was extra motivation for her team mates: "At the end of the day we're professional, and we should win. Last year we didn't, and this year we want that FA Cup."
 Norway's Dagbladet reported that Doncaster Belles favoured a typically English style: "heavy, solid and with many long balls." Although the Belles were a completely amateur outfit, the BBC anticipated that they would present a much more difficult challenge than Fulham had been accustomed to that season. In the 2001–02 National Division Doncaster Belles had finished as runners-up for the third season in succession. In the Premier League Cup they suffered a shock semi final defeat by Birmingham City, collapsing from 3–1 ahead to lose 4–3 to the Northern Division leaders. In April 2002 they had "stunningly" inflicted a 4–0 defeat on Arsenal, the eventual champions' first league defeat in over two and a half years. Manager Julie Chipchase accepted that Fulham were favourites but noted the strength of her own squad: "It's an unusual situation for us to go into a match as the underdogs and I am hoping it will work in our favour. The pressure will be on Fulham but they have some excellent international class players just as we do and it will all be down to who performs on the day."
 Match
 Summary
 Doncaster Belles lined up in a traditional 4–4–2 formation. Walker overcame a neck injury to start alongside Handley in attack, with Melanie Garside—who scored the winner in the 2000 semi-final—left on the substitutes' bench alongside veteran Gail Borman. The Hunt twins, signed earlier in the season from Charlton Athletic, were both selected; having brought "grit, commitment and shape" to a previously disorganised team. Experienced defender Mandy Lowe was given a marking job on Pettersen. Fulham fielded a 4–3–3 formation, with Rachel Yankey and Kristy Moore flanking Pettersen in attack. Both teams wore their home kits; Doncaster Belles in yellow and blue, while Fulham lined up in white and black.
 In what the Daily Telegraph called a "breakneck speed" start to the match, Leanne Hall saved a low 20 yard (18m) shot from Rachel McArthur and Moore later kicked over the bar from close range. At the other end of the pitch, early chances included Walker failing to control Exley's through ball, Michelle Barr shooting narrowly over and Astrid Johannessen parrying Carly Hunt's effort. As the match wore on Pettersen was largely subdued by the close attentions of Lowe. Reports in The Guardian, The Independent and the BBC indicate that the physical and direct approach of the Doncaster Belles stifled Fulham's passing game, keeping scoring opportunities at both ends to a minimum.
 Although the teams remained level at the break, Fulham went ahead ten minutes into the second half. Carly Hunt was cautioned for a foul at the edge of the penalty area, then Yankey curled the resultant free kick low around a poorly placed defensive wall and past unsighted Belles goalkeeper Hall. On the hour, with Doncaster Belles still recovering, Chapman volleyed in a second goal for Fulham from 20 yards (18m). Seconds later Burke supplied an accurate cross for Handley to head a reply for Doncaster Belles.
 Doncaster Belles continued to defend but Fulham won 2–1 to collect their first FA Women's Cup and complete a treble; along with their Premier League Cup and Premier League Southern Division wins. Ray Kiddell, Chairman of the FA Women's Committee, presented the cup in bank holiday sunshine.
 Details
 Post-match
 Doncaster Belles striker Walker admitted that Fulham had been the better team, but rejected the idea that the professionals' superior fitness had been decisive: "We matched them for fitness, and that was not the problem. It was the quality which was the difference. They play together week in and week out, and it showed in the end."
 Fulham coach Gaute Haugenes was glad to put the previous year's defeat by Arsenal behind them: "The feeling we had here last year – we didn't want to have that again." He added: "It was a tough game but we expected a tough game. Many people put us as favourites but that is the price you pay for being professional." Midfielder Margunn Haugenes, the manager's wife, told Dagbladet that private celebrations in the Haugenes household were unfit for description in a newspaper.
 The match attracted a crowd of 10,124 and a television audience of two and a half million. In a Parliamentary debate the following week, John Grogan praised the BBC's coverage of the match but expressed regret that Doncaster Belles, "the pride of Yorkshire," had been beaten by a team from London. Sports Minister Richard Caborn agreed that the coverage, along with the contemporaneous film Bend It Like Beckham, would increase participation levels amongst youngsters: "Anything that we can do to encourage such participation must be welcome."
 Footballer Kelly Smith's autobiography, published ten years after the match, stressed the importance of the broadcast coverage: "The FA Women's Cup final was covered live on BBC One as part of the FA's new television deal. It remained on BBC One for seven years. That was a very important step for the game and an important mark of nationwide recognition for the sport."
 During the summer break Doncaster Belles turned semi-professional after securing a major sponsorship deal with Green Flag. After their promotion Fulham beat Doncaster Belles again, 4–0 this time, on the opening day of the 2002–03 league season.
 References
 External links
 The Women's FA Cup official website
 Cup
 Women's FA Cup finals
 Doncaster Rovers Belles L.F.C. matches
 May 2002 sports events in the United Kingdom
 2002 sports events in London


type: other

text:
Skat.dk: Ejendomsvurdering - genoptagelse - årsregulering - grundværdi - fradrag for forbedringer
 31 Oct 2013 11:45
 17 Oct 2013 07:46
 SKM2013.755.HR
 1. afdeling, 355/2012
 Genoptagelse, regulering, grundværdi, forbedringer
 Dommen vedrører genoptagelse af den særlige regulering pr. 1. januar 2003 i et tilfælde, hvor reguleringsåret ligger indenfor genoptagelsesfristen i skatteforvaltningslovens § 33, stk. 2, men hvor de forbedringsarbejder, genoptagelsesanmodningen støttes på, først blev fuldført i 2002, således at den almindelige vurdering for 2002 var korrekt. Ministeriet anerkendte for Højesteret, at der kunne ske genoptagelse af vurderingen pr. 1. oktober 2003, idet denne var en årsomvurdering og ikke en årsregulering.
 Højesteret anførte at SKM2011.1.HR ikke indebærer, at der kan kræves genoptagelse med virkning for et reguleringsår, hvis den ejendomsvurdering, som årsreguleringen er foretaget ud fra, også efter de nye oplysninger, som skatteyderen har fremlagt, må anses for at være materielt korrekt. Under henvisning til, at den almindelige vurdering af 1. januar 2002 ubestridt var korrekt og at der pr. 1. januar 2003 alene skulle foretages en maskinel fremskrivning af grundværdien pr. 1. januar 2002 uden hensyntagen til de forbedringer, der var fuldført i 2002, var reguleringen af grundværdien pr. 1. januar 2003 også korrekt. Appellanten havde derfor ikke krav på at få ansættelsen genoptaget.
 Skatteforvaltningsloven § 33 (dagældende)
 Den juridiske vejledning 2013-2 A.A.8.6
 (advokat Poul Bostrup)
 (kammeradvokaten ved advokat Birgitte Kjærulff Vognsen)
 Poul Søgaard, Thomas Rørdam, Jens Peter Christensen, Lars Hjortnæs og Oliver Talevski.
 I tidligere instans er afsagt dom af Vestre Landsrets 12. afdeling den 18 december 2012.
 Sagen er behandlet skriftligt, jf retsplejelovens § 387.
 Appellanten, H1, har gentaget sin påstand.
 Indstævnte, Skatteministeriet, har påstået stadfæstelse med den ændring, at Skatteministeriet anerkender, at vurderingen pr. 1. oktober 2003 af ejendommen ...1 genoptages.
 Skatteministeriets påstand for Højesteret blev fremsat i svarskriftet og er begrundet i, at Skatteministeriet efter landsrettens dom har konstateret, at vurderingen pr. 1. oktober 2003 var en årsomvurdering.
 Sagen for Højesteret angår, om H1 har krav på, at vurderingen pr. 1. januar 2003 af ejendommen ...1 genoptages med henblik på at opnå fradrag i grundværdien for forbedringer, der blev fuldført i 2002. Skatteministeriet har for Højesteret anerkendt, at vurderingen pr. 1. oktober 2003 genoptages.
 Reglerne om genoptagelse sammenholdt med vurderingsloven
 Det fremgår af dagældende skatteforvaltningslovs § 33, stk. 2, at en klageberettiget, der ønsker at få genoptaget en ejendomsvurdering, senest den 1. maj i det fjerde år efter vurderingsårets udløb skal fremlægge oplysninger af faktisk eller retlig karakter, der kan begrunde ændringen.
 Efter den vurderingslov, der var gældende til og med 2002, blev der foretaget almindelig vurdering af landets ejendomme hvert år pr. 1. januar med ansættelse af ejendomsværdien, grundværdien og eventuelt fradrag i grundværdien for forbedringer. Ved lov nr. 292 af 15. maj 2002 om ændring af vurderingsloven, skattestyrelsesloven og andre skattelove blev denne ordning ændret, således at der med virkning fra 2003 kun skal foretages almindelig vurdering hvert andet år, jf. vurderingslovens § 1. Ved de almindelige vurderinger er vurderingsterminen den 1. oktober i det år, hvori vurderingen foretages, jf. lovens § 2. Året efter den almindelige vurdering skal der i en række tilfælde foretages omvurdering pr. 1. oktober, jf. lovens § 3.
 Hvis der ikke blev foretaget en omvurdering efter § 3, skulle der i det mellemliggende år pr. 1. oktober alene ske en regulering af ejendoms- og grundværdi under hensyn til den ændring af prisforholdene, der var sket siden den seneste almindelige vurdering, jf. dagældende vurderingslovs § 3 A, der nu er ophævet. Efter overgangsbestemmelsen i ændringslovens § 11, stk. 5, skulle der pr. 1. januar 2003 ske en maskinel fremskrivning af ansættelserne af grundværdien under hensyn til den ændring af prisforholdene, der var sket siden den almindelige vurdering pr, 1. januar 2002. Den maskinelt fremskrevne ansættelse af grundværdien skulle lægges til grund ved beregningen af grundskyld for 2004.
 H1 har til støtte for sin påstand henvist til Højesterets dom af 16. december 2010 gengivet i SKM2011.1.HR vedrørende genoptagelse med henblik på at opnå et større fradrag i grundværdien for forbedringer. I denne dom blev det fastslået, at skatteyderen efter skatteforvaltningslovens § 33, stk. 2, også kunne kræve genoptagelse med virkning for et reguleringsår, der lå inden for genoptagelsesfristen, dvs. også et år, hvor der ikke blev foretaget en selvstændig ejendomsvurdering, men alene en årsregulering i henhold til den dagældende § 3 A. Dommen indebærer ikke, at der kan kræves genoptagelse med virkning for et reguleringsår, hvis den ejendomsvurdering, som årsreguleringen er foretaget ud fra, også efter de nye oplysninger, som skatteyderen har fremlagt, må anses for at være materielt korrekt. I denne situation er den grundlæggende betingelse for genoptagelse efter skatteforvaltningslovens § 33, stk. 2, ikke opfyldt, jf. udtrykket
 "fremlægge oplysninger af faktisk eller retlig karakter, der kan begrunde ændringen".
 Parterne er enige om, at den almindelige vurdering pr. 1. januar 2002 af H1s ejendom er korrekt.
 Pr. 1. januar 2003 skulle der ikke gennemføres en almindelig vurdering af ejendommen, men alene en maskinel fremskrivning af ansættelsen af grundværdien under hensyn til den ændring af prisforholdene, der var sket siden den seneste almindelige vurdering pr. 1. januar 2002, jf. ændringslovens § 11, stk. 5. Der skulle i den forbindelse ikke tages hensyn til de forbedringer, der blev fuldført i 2002. Reguleringen af grundværdien pr. 1. januar 2003 er således også korrekt
 Da der hverken pr. 1. januar 2002 eller pr. 1. januar 2003 foreligger en forkert ejendomsvurdering, finder Højesteret, at H1 ikke har krav på, at vurderingen af ejendommen genoptages med virkning fra 1. januar 2003, jf. skatteforvaltningslovens § 33, stk. 2.
 Konklusion og sagsomkostninger
 Højesteret stadfæster herefter dommen med den ændring, at Skatteministeriet skal anerkende, at vurderingen pr. 1, oktober 2003 af ejendommen genoptages.
 Under hensyn til sagens udfald skal ingen af parterne betale sagsomkostninger for landsretten til modparten. I sagsomkostninger for Højesteret skal H1 betale 25.000 kr. til Skatteministeriet til dækning af udgift til advokatbistand.
 Landsrettens dom stadfæstes med den ændring, at Skatteministeriet skal anerkende, at vurderingen pr. 1. oktober 2003 af ejendommen ...1 genoptages.
 I sagsomkostninger for Højesteret skal H1 inden 14 dage efter denne højesteretsdorns afsigelse betale 25.000 kr. til Skatteministeriet. I øvrigt skal ingen af parterne betale sagsomkostninger til modparten.
 Sagsomkostningsbeløbet forrentes efter rentelovens § 8 a.


type: contracts

text:
 26.11.2015
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 311/22
 DECIZIA NR. 271/2014 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 12 decembrie 2014
 de modificare a anexei II (Reglementări tehnice, standarde, încercări și certificare) la Acordul privind SEE [2015/2138]
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European („Acordul privind SEE”), în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 890/2014 al Comisiei din 14 august 2014 de autorizare a substanței active metobromuron, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 al Comisiei (1) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (2)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 891/2014 al Comisiei din 14 august 2014 de aprobare a substanței active aminopiralid, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare, și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 al Comisiei (2) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (3)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 916/2014 al Comisiei din 22 august 2014 de aprobare a substanței de bază zaharoză, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare, și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 al Comisiei (3) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (4)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 917/2014 al Comisiei din 22 august 2014 de aprobare a substanței active Streptomyces lydicus tulpina WYEC 108, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare, și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 (4) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (5)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 918/2014 al Comisiei din 22 august 2014 de modificare a Regulamentului de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 în ceea ce privește condițiile de autorizare a substanței active feromoni de lepidoptere cu catenă liniară (5) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (6)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 921/2014 al Comisiei din 25 august 2014 de modificare a Regulamentului de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 în ceea ce privește condițiile de autorizare a substanței active tebuconazol (6) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (7)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 922/2014 al Comisiei din 25 august 2014 de aprobare a substanței active metaflumizonă, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare, și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 (7) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (8)
 Prin urmare, anexa II la Acordul privind SEE ar trebui modificată în consecință,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTA DECIZIE:
 Articolul 1
 Capitolul XV din anexa II la Acordul privind SEE se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 La punctul 13a [Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 al Comisiei] se adaugă următoarele liniuțe:
 „—
 32014 R 0890: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 890/2014 al Comisiei din 14 august 2014 (JO L 243, 15.8.2014, p. 42);
 —
 32014 R 0891: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 891/2014 al Comisiei din 14 august 2014 (JO L 243, 15.8.2014, p. 47);
 —
 32014 R 0916: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 916/2014 al Comisiei din 22 august 2014 (JO L 251, 23.8.2014, p. 16);
 —
 32014 R 0917: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 917/2014 al Comisiei din 22 august 2014 (JO L 251, 23.8.2014, p. 19);
 —
 32014 R 0918: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 918/2014 al Comisiei din 22 august 2014 (JO L 251, 23.8.2014, p. 24);
 —
 32014 R 0921: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 921/2014 al Comisiei din 25 august 2014 (JO L 252, 26.8.2014, p. 3);
 —
 32014 R 0922: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 922/2014 al Comisiei din 25 august 2014 (JO L 252, 26.8.2014, p. 6).”
 2.
 După punctul 13zzzzf [Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 632/2014 al Comisiei] se inserează următoarele puncte:
 „13zzzzg.
 32014 R 0890: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 890/2014 al Comisiei din 14 august 2014 de autorizare a substanței active metobromuron, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 al Comisiei (JO L 243, 15.8.2014, p. 42).
 13zzzzh.
 32014 R 0891: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 891/2014 al Comisiei din 14 august 2014 de aprobare a substanței active aminopiralid, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare, și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 al Comisiei (JO L 243, 15.8.2014, p. 47).
 13zzzzi.
 32014 R 0916: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 916/2014 al Comisiei din 22 august 2014 de aprobare a substanței de bază zaharoză, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare, și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 al Comisiei (JO L 251, 23.8.2014, p. 16).
 13zzzzj.
 32014 R 0917: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 917/2014 al Comisiei din 22 august 2014 de aprobare a substanței active Streptomyces lydicus tulpina WYEC 108, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare, și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 (JO L 251, 23.8.2014, p. 19).
 13zzzzk.
 32014 R 0922: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 922/2014 al Comisiei din 25 august 2014 de aprobare a substanței active metaflumizonă, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare, și de modificare a anexei la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 (JO L 252, 26.8.2014, p. 6).”
 Articolul 2
 Textele Regulamentelor de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 890/2014, (UE) nr. 891/2014, (UE) nr. 916/2014, (UE) nr. 917/2014, (UE) nr. 918/2014, (UE) nr. 921/2014și (UE) nr. 922/2014 în limbile islandeză și norvegiană, care urmează să fie publicate în suplimentul SEE la Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.
 Articolul 3
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 13 decembrie 2014, cu condiția să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din Acordul privind SEE (8), sau la data intrării în vigoare a Deciziei nr. 203/2014 a Comitetului mixt al SEE din 30 septembrie 2014 (9), oricare dintre aceste date este ulterioară.
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie se publică în secțiunea SEE și în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 12 decembrie 2014.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Președintele
 Kurt JÄGER
 (1) JO L 243, 15.8.2014, p. 42.
 (2) JO L 243, 15.8.2014, p. 47.
 (3) JO L 251, 23.8.2014, p. 16.
 (4) JO L 251, 23.8.2014, p. 19.
 (5) JO L 251, 23.8.2014, p. 24.
 (6) JO L 252, 26.8.2014, p. 3.
 (7) JO L 252, 26.8.2014, p. 6.
 (8) Nu au fost semnalate obligații constituționale.
 (9) JO L 202, 30.7.2015, p. 57.


text:
 18.6.2011
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 179/2
 Rozsudok Súdneho dvora (veľká komora) z 12. apríla 2011 (návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Cour de cassation — Francúzsko) — DHL Express France SAS, predtým DHL International SA/Chronopost SA
 (Vec C-235/09) (1)
 (Duševné vlastníctvo - Ochranná známka Spoločenstva - Nariadenie (ES) č. 40/94 - Článok 98 ods. 1 - Zákaz porušení vyhlásený súdom pre ochranné známky Spoločenstva - Územná pôsobnosť - Donucovacie opatrenia sprevádzajúce takýto zákaz - Účinok na území iných členských štátov, než je členský štát súdu, ktorému bola vec predložená)
 2011/C 179/02
 Jazyk konania: francúzština
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Cour de cassation
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Žalobkyňa: DHL Express France SAS, predtým DHL International SA
 Žalovaná: Chronopost SA
 Predmet veci
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania — Cour de cassation — Výklad článku 98 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 40/94 z 20. decembra 1993 o ochrannej známke spoločenstva (Ú. v. ES L 11, 1994, s. 1; Mim. vyd. 17/001, s. 146), v spojení s článkami 1, 14 a 94 rovnakého nariadenia — Žaloba pre porušenie práv z ochranných známok — Územná pôsobnosť zákazu uloženého súdom pre ochrannú známku Spoločenstva — Možnosť takéhoto súdu spojiť tento zákaz s donucovacími opatreniami uplatniteľnými na území všetkých členských štátov, v ktorých zákaz pokračovať v úkonoch porušovania má právne účinky
 Výrok rozsudku
 1.
 Článok 98 ods. 1 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 40/94 z 20. decembra 1993 o ochrannej známke spoločenstva, zmeneného a doplneného nariadením Rady (ES) č. 3288/94 z 22. decembra 1994, sa má vykladať v tom zmysle, že pôsobnosť zákazu pokračovať v úkonoch, ktoré porušujú alebo hrozia porušením práv z ochrannej známky Spoločenstva, vyhláseného súdom pre ochranné známky Spoločenstva, ktorého právomoc sa zakladá na článku 93 ods. 1 až 4 a článku 94 ods. 1 tohto nariadenia, sa v zásade vzťahuje na celé územie Európskej únie.
 2.
 Článok 98 ods. 1 druhá veta nariadenia č. 40/94, zmeneného a doplneného nariadením č. 3288/94, sa má vykladať v tom zmysle, že také donucovacie opatrenie, akým je penále nariadené súdom pre ochranné známky Spoločenstva na základe jeho vnútroštátneho práva na účely zaručenia rešpektovania ním vyhláseného zákazu pokračovania v úkonoch, ktoré porušujú alebo hrozia porušením práv z ochrannej známky, spôsobuje účinky v iných členských štátoch, než je členský štát tohto súdu, na ktoré sa vzťahuje územná pôsobnosť takéhoto zákazu za podmienok stanovených v kapitole III nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 44/2001 z 22. decembra 2000 o právomoci a o uznávaní a výkone rozsudkov v občianskych a obchodných veciach, pokiaľ ide o uznávanie a výkon súdnych rozhodnutí. V prípade, že vnútroštátne právo niektorého z týchto iných členských štátov neupravuje žiadne donucovacie opatrenie analogické s opatrením nariadeným dotknutým súdom, cieľ tohto donucovacieho opatrenia musí dosiahnuť príslušný súd tohto iného členského štátu uplatnením relevantných ustanovení svojho vnútroštátneho práva tak, aby mohol ekvivalentným spôsobom zaručiť rešpektovania dotknutého zákazu.
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ C 205, 29.8.2009.


type: legislation

text:
 117 HR 1405 IH: To provide a cause of action to remove and bar from holding office certain individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, and for other purposes.
 U.S. House of Representatives
 2021-02-26
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 I117th CONGRESS1st SessionH. R. 1405IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 26, 2021Mr. Cohen introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Oversight and Reform, House Administration, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concernedA BILLTo provide a cause of action to remove and bar from holding office certain individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, and for other purposes.1.Insurrection or rebellion by officeholders(a)In generalNo Officeholder may engage in any insurrection or rebellion.(b)Civil actionThe Attorney General of the United States may bring a civil action for a declaratory judgement and relief described in subsection (c) against any Officeholder who engages in insurrection or rebellion, including any Officeholder who, after becoming an Officeholder, engaged in insurrection or rebellion prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.(c)Relief(1)In generalNotwithstanding any other law, an Officeholder that is found pursuant to an action brought under this section to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion shall be—(A)disqualified from holding any Federal or State office;(B)removed from any Federal or State office held by such Officeholder; and(C)to the extent permitted under the Constitution and except as otherwise provided in this subsection, enjoined from receiving any payment of an annuity or retirement pay under title 5 of the United States Code, protection under section 3056 of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal benefit that would otherwise be received on the basis of such Officeholder previously holding a Federal office.(2)Survivor and beneficiary benefits forfeitNotwithstanding any other law and except as otherwise provided in this subsection, no survivor or beneficiary of a disqualified Officeholder may receive any Federal payment or other Federal benefit on the basis of such disqualified Officeholder previously holding a Federal office.(3)Refund of contributionsFor each benefit enjoined or forfeit under paragraph (1)(C) or (2), the disqualified Officeholder or the survivor or beneficiary of such disqualified Officeholder, as appropriate, shall be refunded an amount equal to the difference between any amounts such disqualified Officeholder paid for or contributed to such benefit less the value of such benefit received (if any) prior to becoming a disqualified Officeholder.(4)ApplicabilityParagraphs (1)(C) and (2) shall apply only with respect to benefits to the extent to which an individual becomes vested in or entitled to after the date of the enactment of this Act.(d)Procedure(1)In generalAny action brought under this section shall be heard and determined by a district court of three judges in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. The chief judge of the United States court of appeals for each circuit shall, to the extent practicable and consistent with the avoidance of unnecessary delay, consolidate, for all purposes, in one district court within that circuit, all actions pending in that circuit under this section. Any party to an action under this section shall be precluded from seeking any consolidation of that action other than is provided in this paragraph. In selecting the district court in which to consolidate such actions, the chief judge shall consider the convenience of the parties and witnesses and efficient conduct of such actions. Any final order or injunction of a United States district court that is issued pursuant to an action brought under this section shall be reviewable by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10 days after such order is entered; and the jurisdictional statement shall be filed within 30 days after such order is entered. No stay of an order issued pursuant to an action brought under this section may be issued by a single Justice of the Supreme Court.(2)Expedited docketIt shall be the duty of a United States district court hearing an action brought under this section and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of any such matter.(3)ForumAny action brought under this section against an Officeholder holding a Federal office shall be brought in the Federal district court for the District of Columbia.(4)Standard of evidenceWith respect to any action brought under this section, the Attorney General shall demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that an Officeholder has engaged in insurrection or rebellion.(e)Removal of disabilities(1)Disqualification from holding office(A)In generalCongress may, upon petition, by a two-thirds vote in each House remove the disability described in subsection (c)(1)(A).(B)Petition rulesThe Senate and the House of Representatives shall each establish rules for the submission and consideration of such petitions.(2)Restoration(A)BenefitsUpon the removal of the disability of an individual under paragraph (1)(A), any benefits lost pursuant to paragraph (1)(C) or (2) of subsection (c) with respect to such individual shall be restored to the appropriate individual, as determined under the laws and regulations providing for such benefit, except that such benefit shall be reduced by the amount paid (if any) under subsection (c)(3) with respect to such benefit.(B)Honors and commemorationsUpon the removal of the disability of an individual under paragraph (1)(A), any honor or commemoration lost and any property renamed pursuant to subsection (f) with respect to such individual shall be restored to the extend practicable. (C)Contracts, grants, loans, and cooperative agreementsUpon the removal of the disability of an individual under paragraph (1)(A), any contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement terminated pursuant to subsection (g) with respect to such individual shall be restored to the extend practicable. (f)Federal honors and commemorations(1)Rescission(A)In generalAny Federal honor or commemoration, including any medal, decoration, or award, awarded to a disqualified Officeholder shall be rescinded. (B)Repayment not requiredNo disqualified Officeholder shall be required to repay to the Federal Government any amounts received as part of any honor or commemoration rescinded under subparagraph (A).(2)Future honors and commemorationsA disqualified Officeholder shall be ineligible to receive any Federal honor or commemoration.(3)RenamingNo Federal building, park, award, or other property of the United States may be named in honor of a disqualified Officeholder and any such property named in honor thereof shall be renamed.(g)Federal contracts, grants, loans, and cooperative agreementsNotwithstanding any other law, a disqualified Officeholder and any entity in which such disqualified Officeholder holds, directly or indirectly, a controlling interest shall be ineligible to—(1)receive any Federal funds under any grant or loan provided or guaranteed by the Federal Government;(2)be awarded a contract by the Federal Government;(3)be a subcontractor, at any tier, under such a contract; or(4)enter into a cooperative agreement with the Federal Government.(h)Insurrection or rebellionPursuant to section 5 of the 14th Amendment, for the purposes of section 3 of the 14th Amendment the term insurrection or rebellion has the meaning given such term in this section.(i)DefinitionsIn this Act:(1)Controlling interestThe term controlling interest means owning, controlling, or holding not less than 20 percent, by vote or value, of the outstanding amount of any class of equity interest in an entity.(2)Disqualified OfficeholderThe term disqualified Officeholder means an Officeholder who is found, pursuant to an action brought under this section, to have engaged in insurrection or rebellion and whose disqualification from holding office under subsection (c)(1)(A) has not been removed pursuant to subsection (e).(3)Equity interestThe term equity interest means—(A)a share in an entity, without regard to whether the share is—(i)transferable; or(ii)classified as stock or anything similar;(B)a capital or profit interest in a limited liability company or partnership; or(C)a warrant or right, other than a right to convert, to purchase, sell, or subscribe to a share or interest described in subparagraph (A) or (B), respectively.(4)Federal officeThe term Federal office means—(A)the office of the President;(B)the office of the Vice President;(C)a Member of Congress;(D)a Justice of the Supreme Court;(E)a Federal court judge;(F)the head of an executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code);(G)a position in the executive branch to which an individual must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate;(H)a position created by Federal law to which an individual is appointed by—(i)an Officeholder holding a Federal office to which such Officeholder was elected; or(ii)an Officeholder who holds a position to which an individual must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate;(I)a position created by Federal law with a non-delegable duty assigned to such position by Federal law;(J)a position in any level of government that has the authority to—(i)create Federal law, including promulgating rules and regulations or issuing binding orders;(ii)provide legally binding interpretations of such law, judicial order, or any administrative order directly reviewable by, or appealable to, a Federal court;(iii)enforce such Federal law, including issuance of citations or fines, affecting custodial arrests, and executing warrants, if such enforcement is a significant component of the duties of the position;(iv)authorize the obligation or expenditure of Federal funds; or(v)award or manage compliance with contracts on behalf of the Federal Government;(K)a position in the Federal Government, civil or military, for which an individual has, pursuant to a requirement of law or custom, taken an oath to the support the Constitution upon assuming such position; or(L)a position that supervises a position described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (K).(5)Insurrection or rebellionThe term insurrection or rebellion means—(A)any violent act, or act supported by a threat of violence, intended to impede any constitutional function of the United States; and (B)any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or incitement of, an act described in subparagraph (A).(6)Member of CongressThe term Member of Congress means Senator or a Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.(7)OfficeholderThe term Officeholder means any individual who—(A)holds or previously held a Federal or State office;(B)is or was an elector for President of the United States; or(C)is or was a member of the armed forces or national guard (as such terms are defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code) and who, as a member, took an oath to support the Constitution.(8)StateThe term State means a States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the territories of the United States.(9)State officeThe term State office means—(A)the office of the chief executive of a State;(B)a member of a State legislature;(C)a Justice or judge of a State court; (D)the head of state executive agency;(E)a position created by State law to which an individual must be elected;(F)a position in a State government to which an individual must be appointed by, or with the consent of, an elected State official of that State or a body of elected or appointed State officials of that State;(G)a position in a State government specifically created by the law of such State;(H)a position in any level of government that has the authority to—(i)create State law, including promulgating rules and regulations or issuing binding orders;(ii)provide legally binding interpretations of such law, judicial order, or any administrative order directly reviewable by, or appealable to, a State court;(iii)enforce such law, including issuance of citations or fines, affecting custodial arrests, and executing warrants, if such enforcement is a significant component of the duties of the position;(iv)authorize the obligation or expenditure of State funds; or(v)award or manage compliance with contracts on behalf of a State;(I)a position in a State government for which an individual has, pursuant to a requirement of law or custom, taken an oath to the support the Constitution upon assuming such position; or(J)a position that supervises a position described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I).2.Former President’s Act benefitsSubsection (f) of the Act entitled An Act to provide retirement, clerical assistants, and free mailing privileges to former Presidents of the United States, and for other purposes, approved August 25, 1958 (commonly known as the Former Presidents Act of 1958; 3 U.S.C. 102 note), is amended—(1)in paragraph (2), by striking ; and and inserting a semicolon;(2)in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting ; and; and(3)by adding at the end the following new paragraph:(4)who is not disqualified pursuant to section 3 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States from holding any civilian or military office of the United States or of any State..3.SeverabilityIf any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.


text:
15 ta’ Ġunju 2011
 Kawża F-17/05 REV
 “Servizz pubbliku — Talba għal reviżjoni ta’ sentenza — Fatt ġdid — Assenza — Inammissibbiltà tat-talba”
 Suġġett: Rikors li permezz tiegħu José António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho jitlob ir-reviżjoni tas-sentenza tat-Tribunal għas-Servizz Pubbliku tat-13 ta’ Diċembru 2006, de Brito Sequeira Carvalho vs Il‐Kummissjoni (F‐17/05).
 Deċiżjoni: It-talba għal reviżjoni hija miċħuda bħala inammissibbli. Ir-rikorrent għandu jbati l-ispejjeż kollha.
 1. Proċedura — Reviżjoni ta’ sentenza — Talba li tikkonċerna sentenza tal-ewwel istanza ssostitwita b’sentenza mogħtija mill-qorti tal-appell — Inammissibbiltà
 2. Proċedura — Reviżjoni ta’ sentenza — Motivi — Motiv ibbażat fuq l-inammissibbiltà tal-appell mis-sentenza li hija s-suġġett tat-talba għal reviżjoni — Inammissibbiltà
 (Statut tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, Artikolu 44)
 3. Proċedura — Reviżjoni ta’ sentenza — Motivi — Talbiet intiżi għall-annullament ta’ deċiżjoni annullata fuq appell — Inammissibbiltà
 4. Proċedura — Reviżjoni ta’ sentenza — Kundizzjonijiet għall-ammissibbiltà tat-talba — Rekwiżiti proċedurali — Konstatazzjoni ta’ rabta bejn il-fatti invokati u l-punti tas-sentenza kkontestata
 (Statut tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, Artikolu 44; Regoli tal-Proċedura tat-Tribunal għas-Servizz Pubbliku, Artikoli 35 u 119(2))
 1. Talbiet għal reviżjoni huma inammissibbli meta sentenza mogħtija mill-qorti ta’ appell tiġi ssostitwita mis-sentenza tal-ewwel istanza li r-reviżjoni tagħha tkun intalbet. Barra minn hekk, meta l-parti li titlob reviżjoni ma tikkontestax is-sentenza mogħtija fuq appell fit-talba tagħha u meta din it-talba hija madankollu ppreżentata wara d-data li fiha ngħatat l-imsemmija sentenza, din it-talba ma tistax titqies li hija intiża sabiex tikseb ir-reviżjoni ta’ din is-sentenza u għaldaqstant ma tistax tagħti lok għal rinviju tal-kawża lill-Qorti Ġenerali tal-Unjoni Ewropea skont l-Artikolu 8(2) tal-Anness I tal-Istatut tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja.
 (ara l-punti 36, 37 u 39)
 Referenza: It-Tribunal għas-Servizz Pubbliku 13 ta’ Diċembru 2006, de Brito Sequeira Carvalho vs Il‐Kummissjoni, F‐17/05
 2. Fil-kuntest tal-proċedura ta’ reviżjoni prevista fl-Artikolu 44 tal-Istatut tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, qorti li ddeċidiet dwar kawża ma tistax tiddeċiedi dwar l-ammissibbiltà tal-appell ippreżentat kontra d-deċiżjoni li hija tkun tat.
 3. Il-proċedura ta’ reviżjoni prevista fl-Artikolu 44 tal-Istatut tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja hija intiża sabiex il-qorti adita tipprovdi soluzzjoni differenti minn dik li hija kienet tat għat-tilwima. Għaldaqstant, din il-proċedura ma tistax tippermetti lill-parti li titlob ir-reviżjoni, filwaqt li t-talbiet tagħha jkunu ntlaqgħu fis-sentenza li fiha ntalbet ir-reviżjoni, tikseb motivazzjoni oħra minbarra dik li tidher fil-motivi tal-imsemmija sentenza. Għalhekk il-parti li titlob reviżjoni ma tistax titlob l-annullament ta’ deċiżjoni annullata fuq appell u li tkun tneħħiet mill-ordinament ġuridiku anki qabel it-tressiq tat-talba għal reviżjoni.
 Referenza: Il-Qorti tal-Prim’Istanza 6 ta’ Marzu 2002, Ojha vs Il‐Kummissjoni, T‐77/99 REV, punt 12, u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata
 4. It-talba għal reviżjoni li tkun nieqsa minn koerenza u minn preċiżjoni li ma tistabbilixxi la rabta suffiċjenti bejn il-fatti invokati u l-punti li fuqhom is-sentenza hija kkontestata u lanqas rabta bejn il-fatti u d-dokumenti intiżi sabiex jistabbilixxu l-eżistenza ta’ dawn il-fatti prodotti, insostenn tat-talba għal reviżjoni, hija inammissibbli. Issa, il-ftuħ ta’ proċedura ta’ reviżjoni skont l-Artikolu 44 tal-Istatut tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja jippresupponi l-iskoperta ta’ elementi ta’ natura fattwali, li seħħew qabel ma ngħatat is-sentenza, iżda li l-parti li titlob ir-reviżjoni ma kellhiex għarfien dwarhom qabel l-imsemmija sentenza.
 Barra minn hekk, mill-Artikolu 119(2) tar-Regoli tal-Proċedura tat-Tribunal għas-Servizz Pubbliku jirriżulta li talba għal reviżjoni għandha tindika, b’mod partikolari, il-provi intiżi sabiex juru li jeżistu fatti li jiġġustifikaw ir-reviżjoni. F’dan ir-rigward, hija l-parti li titlob ir-reviżjoni li għandha tistabbilixxi li hija skopriet il-fatti li jiġġustifikaw, fil-fehma tagħha, ir-reviżjoni tas-sentenza, biss wara l-għoti ta’ din is-sentenza u dan, minkejja l-fatt li l-imsemmija fatti kienu seħħew qabel ma ngħatat din is-sentenza.
 (ara l-punti 50, 51, 54-58)
 Referenza: Il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja 2 ta’ April 2009, Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret vs Il‐Kunsill u Il‐Kummissjoni, C 255/06 P‐REV, punt 22, u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata


text:
Deformácia alebo pretvorenie (pretváranie) je zmena geometrického tvaru (rozmerov) telesa v dôsledku pôsobenia vonkajšej sily.
 Pomerná deformácia
 V teórií tvárnenia sa často používa pojem "pomerná deformácia", čo je číslo vyjadrujúce pomer dvoch čísiel. Prvé číslo (číslo v čitateli) vyjadruje dĺžkovú zmenu rozmeru telesa v smere x alebo y alebo z, resp. jednoducho v určitom smere. Druhé číslo (v menovateli) vyjadruje pôvodnú hodnotu rozmeru v tom istom smere ako číslo v čitateli, teda rozmer pred deformáciou. Tento pomer sa označuje gréckym písmenom , čiže . Ak napríklad ťaháme tyč dochádza k zmene jej dĺžky , čiže sa tyč predĺži (alebo skráti, ak tlačíme) o hodnotu , pomerná deformácia epsilon bude:
 je pôvodná dĺžka (dĺžka pred deformáciou)
 je dĺžka tyče po deformácii.
 Keďže môže byť zmena rozmeru kladná (ťah) alebo záporná (tlak), môže byť aj deformácia číslo kladné alebo záporné, a teda tak vyjadrovať zväčšenie alebo zmenšenie rozmeru v určitom smere.
 Skutočná deformácia
 Často (a to aj v inžinierských výpočtoch) je však namiesto zmluvnej ťažnosti potrebné použiť skutočnú deformáciu. Tá sa počíta nasledovne:
 Pomocou skutočnej deformácie je napr. definovaný koeficient normálovej anizotrópie. Skutočne deformácie možno na rozdiel od dohovorených jednoducho sčítavať.
 Fyzika tuhého telesa
 Mechanika


text:
Náisiúnaí Éireannach a ghlac páirt in Éirí Amach na Cásca sa bhliain 1916 ab ea Mícheál Seosamh Ó Rathaille (22 Aibreán, 1875 - 29 Aibreán, 1916) nó The O'Rahilly ("An Rathailleach"), mar a thugtaí air go minic.
 Fuair sé bás i bpáirc an áir in Éirí Amach na Cásca sa bhliain 1916. Bhí sé ina Phoblachtach díograiseach, agus é ina bhall de Choiste Gnó Chonradh na Gaeilge.
 Bhí sé measartha saibhir, nó nuair a bhí an tÉirí Amach thart, bhí sé le léamh ar an Irish Times go raibh ioncam tráthrialta £900 i ndiaidh na bliana aige, agus é ag caitheamh cuid mhaith de ag tabhairt tacaíochta do chúis na Náisiúnaithe.
 Níos tábhachtaí fós, bhí sé ar dhuine de bhunaitheoirí Óglaigh na hÉireann. Le cabhair Erskine Childers agus na Gearmáine, d'eagraigh sé an chéad lastas arm leis na hÓglaigh a armáil. Raidhfilí Mauser a bhí ann, agus iad le teacht i dtír i mBinn Éadair.
 Luathshaol
 Rugadh Mícheál Seosamh Ó Rathaille ar an 22 Aibreán 1875 i mBéal Átha Longphoirt, Contae Chiarraí. Cailleadh é ar an 29 Aibreán 1916, i mBaile Átha Cliath.
 Fear mór taistil a bhí ann, nó chaith sé conablach deich mbliana sna Stáit Aontaithe agus san Eoraip, sular chuir sé faoi i mBaile Átha Cliath.
 Óglaigh na hÉireann
 Ní raibh an Rathailleach ina bhall de Bhráithreachas na Poblachta, agus dá thoradh sin ní raibh a fhios aige go raibh an tÉirí Amach ar na bacáin. Rinne an Bráithreachas iarracht na pleananna a choinneáil folaithe ar dhaoine mar Bulmer Hobson, Eoin Mac Néill agus Ó Raithille, nó bhí siad den bharúil nár chóir dul chun ceannairce ar na Sasanaigh, mura mbeidís siúd ag iarraidh na hÓglaigh a ionsaí.
 Nuair a fuair Bulmer Hobson amach faoi na pleananna, d'fhuadaigh an Bráithreachas é, ar eagla go sceithfeadh sé orthu, ach ansin, chuala an Rathailleach iomrá ar an bhfuadach. Chuaigh sé go Scoil Éanna le labhairt le Pádraig Mac Piarais. Bhí fearg an domhain air, agus bhagair sé aon duine a lámhach a dhéanfadh iarracht an cleas céanna a imirt airsean. D'éirigh leis an bPiarsach maolú ar a fhearg, ach mar sin féin, bhí sé meáite ar an Éirí Amach a chosc.
 I ndiaidh dó imeacht leis ó scoil an Phiarsaigh, chaith sé an oíche ar fad ag tiomáint timpeall na tíre, agus é ag tabhairt orduithe ó Eoin Mac Néill do cheannairí na nÓglach i Luimneach, i gCorcaigh, i gCiarraí, agus i dTiobraid Árann staonadh ón gcath.
 D'fhill an Rathailleach abhaile agus chuala sé go rachadh an tÉirí Amach ar aghaidh ar aon chaoi, ar Luan na Cásca. Mar sin, d'éirigh leis an tÉirí Amach a stopadh sa tír ar fad, ach amháin i mBaile Átha Cliath féin.
 Eirí Amach na Cásca
 Chuaigh an Rathailleach i dteagmháil leis na ceannairí - an Piarsach, Séamas Ó Conghaile agus an chuid eile acu - le go bhféadfadh sé páirt a ghlacadh sa cheannairc mar sin féin, agus d'ainneoin a chuid iarrachtaí an cheannairc a chur ar ceal, agus d'ainneoin a dhiantuairime go raibh an tÉirí Amach teipthe cibé scéal é,. Cheap an Rathailleach go mba cheart go dtroidfeadh sé in éineacht leis na hÓglaigh, ó chabhraigh sé an oiread sin leis an eagraíocht a chruthú.
 Le linn an Éirí Amach, bhí an Rathailleach ag troid in Ard-Oifig an Phoist, ach ó bhí sé feargach leis na ceannairí i gcónaí, d'fhan sé an chuid ba mhó den am thuas an staighre, le nach gcaithfeadh sé a bheith i dteagmháil leo siúd.
 I ndiaidh an Éirí Amach, dúirt an Dara Leifteanant A.D. Chalmers leis na nuachtáin go raibh an Rathailleach ina cheann mhaith dó. Ar dtús, chuir Mícheál Ó Coileáin, nach raibh ann san am seo ach Captaen óg de chuid na nÓglach, ceangal na gcúig gcaol air agus d'fhág mar sin é i mbosca teileafóin. Trí huaire an chloig ina dhiaidh sin, scaoil na hÓglaigh as an doghrainn é agus thug siad go hArd-Oifig an Phoist é. Nuair a chonaic an Rathailleach é, chuir sé ag coinneáil súile ar an aicsean é, lena chinntiú nach ngoidfeadh aon duine a dhath, agus thug sé rabhadh dá chuid fear féachaint chuige nach ndéanfadh aon duine dochar don tsaighdiúir.
 Bás
 Dé hAoine, an 28ú lá de Mhi Aibreáin, agus Oifig an Phoist trí thine, thairg an Rathailleach grúpa fear a thabhairt leis agus slí éalaithe a fháil. Ag trasnú Shráid Uí Mhórdha dóibh, fuair siad iad féin faoi thine ó mheaisínghunna de chuid na Sasanach. Ghoin an meaisínghunna an Rathailleach go dona, agus thit sé ina chnap ar an tsráid, ar thairseach os comhair dorais éigin. Bhí sé ag cur na sruthanna fola, ach ina dhiaidh sin féin, d'éirigh leis ruathar a thabhairt trasna na sráide, i dtreo Lána Sackville (inniu, Paráid Uí Rathaille). D'aimsigh an meaisínghunna é arís, ansin.
 Tá an dá b'fhéidir ann, ach deirtear go raibh sé ina bheo i gcónaí, naoi n-uaire an chloig i ndiaidh an eachtra seo, ó oíche na hAoine go dtí tráthnóna an tSathairn, nuair a bhí na hÓglaigh tar éis géilleadh do na Sasanaigh cheana féin.
 Tríocha bliain i ndiaidh na n-imeachtaí, breacadh an ráiteas síos ón tiománaí otharchairr Albert Mitchell go raibh sé díreach ag tiomáint, tamall roimh an deireadh seachtaine nó ina thús, nuair a tharraing sáirsint a aird ar chorp a bhí ina luí thíos i ngáitéar Shráid Uí Mhórdha, agus é gléasta i gculaith iathghlas na hÉireann. Is cosúil go raibh an fear ina bheo fós, agus thug Mitchell in amhail é a iompar go dtí an t-otharcharr. Ansin, áfach, tháinig oifigeach Sasanach trasna chuige, agus choisc sé air agus ar a fhoireann baint don fhear. Bhí orthu, mar sin, an fear a fhágáil an áit a raibh sé, agus é ag saothrú an bháis. Tháinig siad ar ais níos déanaí, agus bhí saighdiúir ag gardáil na háite. Dúradh le Mitchell ina dhiaidh sin gurbh é an Rathailleach a bhí ann.
 Adieu
 D'ainneoin an Rathailleach a bheith i bpian mhór agus an bás ag druidim leis, scríobh sé teachtaireacht dheireanach chuig a bhean chéile, Nancy.
 Seo a raibh le léamh ansin: "Scríofa i ndiaidh an urchair a bhuail mé. A ghrá gheal, a Nancy, bhuail urchar mé díreach nuair a bhí mé ag treorú lucht ruathair suas sráid Uí Mhórdha. Fuair mé foscadh i ndoras éigin. Chuala mé fir ag dhíriú orm agus rith mé síos an lána, áit a bhfuil mé anois. Tá níos mó ná piléar amháin ionam, is dóigh liom. Grá mór duit, a mhuirnín, do na buachaillí agus do Neill is d'Anna. Troid mhaith a bhí ann ar aon nós.Le do thoil seol chuig Nannie Uí Rathaille, 40 Páirc Herbert, Baile Átha Cliath. Slán a chailín mo chroí."
 Tagairtí
 Réabhlóidithe Éireannacha
 Daoine as Contae Chiarraí
 Daoine a rugadh i 1875
 Básanna i 1916


text:
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 Fish and Wildlife Service
 50 CFR Part 17
 RIN 1018-AF56
 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Withdrawal of Released Study, Submission of New Report, and Opening of Comment Period on the New Report as it Relates to the Proposed Rule to List the Alabama Sturgeon as Endangered
 AGENCY:
 Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
 ACTION:
 Proposed rule; opening of comment period.
 SUMMARY:
 We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, give notice that we are withdrawing consideration of Dr. Steven Fain's 1999 study, “The Development of a DNA Procedure for the Forensic Identification of Caviar,” from the decision-making process associated with the proposal to list the Alabama sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus suttkusi) as endangered. We are replacing it with a report relevant to the Alabama sturgeon listing process. The report, “Genetic Variation in the River Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus (Acipenseridae) as Inferred from Partial mtDNA Sequences of Cytochrome b,” summarizes information from the retracted study which is specific only to the Alabama sturgeon and its relevancy to the proposed listing. We are accepting comments related specifically to the relationship of this report, as it pertains to the proposed listing of the Alabama sturgeon as endangered. You may also provide comments concerning our decision to withdraw Dr. Steven Fain's 1999 study, “The Development of a DNA Procedure for the Forensic Identification of Caviar” from the decision-making process for listing the Alabama sturgeon as endangered.
 DATES:
 We will accept comments until March 8, 2000.
 ADDRESSES:
 If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods. You may mail or hand-deliver comments to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. You may also comment via the Internet to paul—hartfield@fws.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for comment procedures.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Paul Hartfield (see“ADDRESSES” section), telephone 601/321-1125; facsimile 601/965-4340.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 Background
 On March 26, 1999, we published a rule proposing endangered status for the Alabama sturgeon in the Federal Register (64 FR 14676). On January 11, 2000, we published a notice in the Federal Register (65 FR 1583), to reopen the comment period through February 10, 2000, to make available for comment Dr. Steven Fain's 1999 study, “The Development of a DNA Procedure for the Forensic Identification of Caviar.” With this notice, we are withdrawing from consideration Dr. Steven Fain's 1999 study, “The Development of a DNA Procedure for the Forensic Identification of Caviar.” This study describes a method for identifying the species source of sturgeon/paddlefish caviar in international trade and includes information that is not relevant to the decision to list the Alabama sturgeon as endangered. Nonetheless, The information contained in that study that is relevant to the decision to list the Alabama sturgeon is summarized in this new report, “Genetic Variation in the River Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus (Acipenseridae) as Inferred from Partial mtDNA Sequences of Cytochrome b.” For clarity and ease of understanding, we have added this new report, which describes the amount of genetic variation observed within and between species of the genus Scaphirhynchus, for consideration in the decision-making process, and retracted the more general report that covers identification of the species source of sturgeon/paddlefish caviar in international trade.
 Public Comments Solicited
 We request comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this report and its relation to the proposed rule. You may also provide comments concerning our decision to withdraw Dr. Steven Fain's 1999 study, “The Development of a DNA Procedure for the Forensic Identification of Caviar” from consideration in the decision-making process for the listing of the Alabama sturgeon as endangered.
 Comment Procedures
 Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attention: [Alabama sturgeon]” and your name and return address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly at the address given in the ADDRESSES section or by telephone at 601/965-4900. Finally, you may also hand-deliver comments to the address given in the ADDRESSES Section. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials or organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address. To obtain copies of either of the aforementioned reports, you can download or print one from http://endangered.fws.gov/listing/index.html (under Announcements) or contact Kelly Bibb at 404/679-7132 (phone) or 404/679-7081 (facsimile) to receive a faxed or mailed copy. All questions related to this notice should be directed to Paul Hartfield at the address or phone number listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
 References Cited
 Fain, S.R., J.P. Lemay, J. Shafer, R.M. Hoesch, and B.H. Hamlin. 1999. Unpublished study. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, Ashland, OR. 23 pp. with figures.
 Fain, S.R., B. Hamlin, and D. Straughan. 1999. Unpublished report. Genetic Variation in the River Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus (Acipenseridae) as Inferred from Partial mtDNA Sequences of Cytochrome b. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, Ashland, OR. 14 pp. with figures.
 Author
 The primary author of this notice is Paul Hartfield (see ADDRESSES section).
 Authority
 The authority for this notice is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
 Dated: February 1, 2000.
 Sam D. Hamilton,
 Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
 [FR Doc. 00-2638 Filed 2-4-00; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


text:
 110 HR 6422 IH: Small Business Health Care Relief Act
 U.S. House of Representatives
 2008-06-26
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 I
 110th CONGRESS
 2d Session
 H. R. 6422
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 June 26, 2008
 Mr. Space introduced
 the following bill; which was referred to the
 Committee on Ways and
 Means
 A BILL
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow small
 businesses a refundable income tax credit to offset the cost of providing
 health care coverage for employees.
 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
 Small Business Health Care Relief Act
 of 2008.
 2.Refundable credit
 for small businesses which provide health care coverage for employees
 (a)In
 generalSubpart C of part IV
 of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
 refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 36 as section 37 and by
 inserting after section 35 the following new section:
 36.Small businesses
 providing health care coverage for employees
 (a)In
 generalIn the case of an
 eligible small business, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax
 imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal to the applicable
 percentage of the expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer for qualified
 health care coverage of eligible employees, their spouses, and dependents
 (within the meaning of section 213(a)).
 (b)Applicable
 percentageFor purposes of this section, the term
 applicable percentage means—
 (1)50 percent if
 qualified health care coverage is provided by the taxpayer to an average (on
 days during the taxable year) of 10 or fewer eligible employees of the
 taxpayer,
 (2)25 percent if qualified health care
 coverage is provided by the taxpayer to an average (on such days) of at least
 10 but not more than 25 eligible employees of the taxpayer, and
 (3)15 percent if qualified health care
 coverage is provided by the taxpayer to an average (on such days) of more than
 25 eligible employees of the taxpayer.
 (c)Eligible small
 businessFor purposes of this
 section, the term eligible small business means any taxpayer
 engaged in a trade or business if the taxpayer meets the requirements of the
 following paragraphs:
 (1)50 or fewer
 employees
 (A)In
 generalA taxpayer meets the requirements of this paragraph if
 the taxpayer employs an average of 50 or fewer employees on business days
 during the preceding taxable year.
 (B)Taxpayer not in
 existenceIn any case in
 which the taxpayer is an entity and is not in existence throughout the
 preceding taxable year, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting
 taxable year for preceding taxable year.
 (2)Gross receipts
 limitation
 (A)In
 generalA taxpayer meets the requirements of this paragraph if
 the gross receipts of the taxpayer for the preceding taxable year do not exceed
 $10,000,000.
 (B)Taxpayer not in
 existenceIn any case in
 which the taxpayer is an entity and is not in existence throughout the
 preceding taxable year, subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting
 taxable year for preceding taxable year.
 (C)Special
 rulesFor purposes of subparagraph (A), the rules of
 subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 448(c)(3) shall apply.
 (3)Plan offering
 requirementA taxpayer meets
 the requirements of the paragraph if—
 (A)the taxpayer
 offers qualified health coverage, on the same terms and conditions, to at least
 90 percent of the taxpayer’s eligible employees, and
 (B)such offering is
 made at least annually and at such other times and in such manner as the
 Secretary shall prescribe.
 (4)Plan
 participation requirement
 (A)In
 generalA taxpayer meets the requirements of the paragraph if the
 average daily percentage of eligible employees who are provided with qualified
 health coverage by the taxpayer during the taxable year is not less than such
 average for the preceding taxable year.
 (B)Exceptions
 (i)Not in
 existenceSubparagraph (A) shall not apply if the trade or
 business was not in existence throughout the preceding taxable year.
 (ii)Business
 declineUnder regulations prescribed by the Secretary,
 subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the extent that any reduction in such
 percentage is the result of a reduction in the number of employees of the
 taxpayer on account of a reduction in the gross receipts of the
 taxpayer.
 (5)Minimum employer
 paymentA taxpayer meets the
 requirements of the paragraph if at least 65 percent of the cost of qualified
 health coverage provided to each eligible employee is borne by the employer
 (determined without regard to this section).
 (d)Eligible
 employeesFor purposes of
 this section, the term eligible employee means any employee of the
 taxpayer if—
 (1)such employee is
 not covered under—
 (A)any health plan of the employee’s
 spouse,
 (B)title XVIII, XIX,
 or XXI of the Social Security Act,
 (C)chapter 17 of
 title 38, United States Code,
 (D)chapter 55 of
 title 10, United States Code,
 (E)chapter 89 of
 title 5, United States Code, or
 (F)any other
 provision of law, and
 (2)such employee is
 not a part-time or seasonal employee.
 (e)Qualified health
 coverageFor purposes of this
 section, the term qualified health coverage means coverage under a
 health plan provided by the employer which is substantially equivalent on an
 actuarial basis to coverage provided chapter 89 of title 5, United States
 Code.
 (f)Special
 rulesFor purposes of this
 section—
 (1)Treatment of
 predecessorsAny reference in
 paragraphs (1), (2), and (4) of subsection (c) to an entity shall include a
 reference to any predecessor of such entity.
 (2)Controlled
 groupsAll persons treated as
 a single employer under subsection (b) or (c) of section 52 shall be treated as
 1 person.
 (3)Mergers and
 acquisitionsRules similar to the rules of subparagraphs (A) and
 (B) of section 41(f)(3) shall apply.
 (4)Employee to
 include self-employedThe
 term employee includes an individual who is an employee within the
 meaning of section 401(c)(1) (relating to self-employed individuals).
 (5)Exception for
 amounts paid under salary reduction arrangementsNo amount paid or incurred pursuant to a
 salary reduction arrangement shall be taken into account under subsection
 (a).
 .
 (b)Denial of double
 benefitSection 280C of such
 Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
 (h)Credit for small
 business health insurance expenses
 (1)In
 generalNo deduction shall be
 allowed for that portion of the expenses (otherwise allowable as a deduction)
 taken into account in determining the credit under section 36 for the taxable
 year which is equal to the amount of the credit allowed for such taxable year
 under section 36(a).
 (2)Controlled
 groupsParagraph (3) of subsection (b) shall apply for purposes
 of this
 subsection.
 .
 (c)Technical
 amendments
 (1)Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title
 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting or 36 after
 section 35.
 (2)The table of sections for subpart C of part
 IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
 by striking the item relating to section 36 and inserting the following new
 items:
 Sec. 36. Small businesses providing health
 care coverage for employees.
 Sec. 37. Overpayments of
 tax.
 .
 (d)Effective
 dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable
 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.


text:
Junioarele de la echipa CSM Lugoj 2 au de disputat un meci greu acasă duminica aceasta. Partida programată să înceapă la orele 14:00 se va disputa la Sala Sporturilor “I.K. Ghermănescu” din Lugoj.
 Meciul junioarelor este împotriva fetelor de la CSM Sibiu. Formația oaspete este cu doar un loc în fața echipei noastre în clasamentul Diviziei A2 Vest de volei. Astfel, sibiencele au acumulat 25 de puncte până acum, în timp ce Lugojul are 23 de puncte.
 La ultima partidă disputată, junioarele au pierdut acasă la echipa din topul clasamentului actual. CSM Târgu Mureș a dovedit că își merită locul de fruntașă, obținând victoria în trei seturi. Lugojencele au nevoie de susținere pentru meciul de duminică. Fetele așteaptă fanii voleiului la sală, pentru a le încuraja.
 Senioarele au și ele meci greu acasă cu o zi înainte, sâmbătă, împotriva unei formații pe cât de accesibile, pe atât de imprevizibile.
 Related Topics:csm lugoj 2csm lugoj 2 2019csm sibiudivizia a2junioarelelugojvoleivolei lugoj