type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 7.3.2009
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 55/50
 Жалба, подадена на 21 януари 2009 г. — Biocaps/Комисия
 (Дело T-24/09)
 (2009/C 55/89)
 Език на производството: френски
 Страни
 Жалбоподател: Biocaps (Orsay, Франция) (представители: Y.-R. Guillou, H. Speyart и T. Verstraeten, avocats)
 Ответник: Комисия на Европейските общности
 Искания на жалбоподателя
 —
 да се отмени спорното решение; и
 —
 да се осъди Комисията да заплати направените от нея съдебни разноски и тези, направени от жалбоподателя.
 Правни основания и основни доводи
 Жалбоподателят, правен субект, отговорен за стопанисването на Laboratoire Champagnat Desmoulins Philippakis, иска отмяна на Решение C(2008) 6524 на Комисията от 29 октомври 2008 година, с което Комисията разпорежда съгласно член 20, параграф 4 от Регламент No 1/2003 (1) на посочената лаборатория, както и на всички пряко или непряко контролирани от нея субекти, да се подчинят на проверка относно участието им в и/или евентуалното прилагане на споразумения или съгласувани практики, които противоречат на разпоредбите на член 81 ЕО и/или на член 82 ЕО.
 Това поведение по-специално се изразило във формата на решения, които имали за цел да възпрепятстват достъпа на фармацевтите и/или на юридическите лица до пазара на услуги, свързани с медицинските биологични анализи, да ограничат дейността им на този пазар или да ги изключат от него.
 В подкрепа на жалбата си, жалбоподателят посочва едно-единствено правно основание, изведено от нарушение на принципа, според който решенията на общностните институции трябва да бъдат отправени към субекти, които имат правосубектност, тъй като адресатът на спорното решение вече не съществувал към момента на приемането на решението.
 (1) Регламент (ЕО) No 1/2003 на Съвета от 16 декември 2002 година относно изпълнението на правилата за конкуренция, предвидени в членове 81 и 82 от Договора (ОВ L 1, 2003 г., стр. 1; Специално издание на български език, 2007 г., глава 8, том 1, стр. 167).


text:
 15.6.2015
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 C 198/50
 Ordonnance du Tribunal de la fonction publique (3e chambre) du 30 avril 2015 –Maraoud/SEAE
 (Affaire F-71/14) (1)
 ((Fonction publique - Personnel du SEAE - Agent contractuel - Mission dans un État tiers - Accident survenu dans l’exercice des fonctions - Indemnité de conditions de vie - Jours de congés non pris - Prise en charge des soins - Non-respect de la procédure précontentieuse - Irrecevabilité manifeste))
 (2015/C 198/68)
 Langue de procédure: le français
 Parties
 Partie requérante: Hayet Maraoud (Bruxelles, Belgique) (représentants: L. F. de Castro Fernandez et J.-L. Gillain, avocats)
 Partie défenderesse: Service européen pour l'action extérieure (représentants: S. Marquardt et M. Silva, agents)
 Objet de l’affaire
 La demande d’annuler la décision de ne plus verser l’indemnité de condition de vie (ICV), l’indemnité complémentaire (IC) eu égard aux conditions de vie du lieu d’affectation de la requérante et une indemnité journalière (IJ), de payer 49 jours de congé de l'année 2012 non-pris et la demande de réparation du préjudice pour non-assistance et abandon suite à l'accident de travail dont la requérante a été victime.
 Dispositif de l’ordonnance
 1)
 Le recours est rejeté comme manifestement irrecevable.
 2)
 Mme Maraoud supporte ses propres dépens et est condamnée à supporter les dépens exposés par le Service européen pour l’action extérieure.
 (1) JO C 388 du 03/11/2014, p. 29.


jurisdiction: US

text:
 263 Md. 94 (1971)
 282 A.2d 136
 REDDING
 v.
 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND
 [No. 484, September Term, 1970.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided October 14, 1971.
 Motion for rehearing filed November 11, 1971.
 Denied November 17, 1971.
 The cause was argued before HAMMOND, C.J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY and SMITH, JJ.
 Fred R. Joseph, with whom were Karl G. Feissner, William L. Kaplan, Thomas P. Smith, Andrew E. Greenwald, Walter E. Laake and Feissner, Kaplan & Smith on the brief, for appellant.
 Glenn T. Harrell, Jr., and John R. Barr, Associate County Attorneys, with whom was Walter H. Maloney, Jr., County Attorney, on the brief, for appellee.
 BARNES, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 The question presented to us in this appeal is whether the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (McCullough, *96 J.) erred in passing an order on January 4, 1971, declaring an order of the Board of Administrative Appeals for Prince George's County (Board of Appeals), dated June 22, 1970, null and void. The Board of Appeals had, on March 13, 1970, by a vote of two to one, sustained the findings of the Chief of Police dismissing the appellant, Michael D. Redding, from the police force of the county. Later, on the motion of Redding, the Board of Appeals granted a rehearing which was held on May 18, 1970, and thereafter reinstated Redding as a county police officer upon the payment of a $200 fine with suspension for three months from the time of his original dismissal by the Chief of Police.
 Vincent S. Free, Chief of Police of the Police Force of Prince George's County (Chief Free), notified Redding on December 30, 1969, to appear before the Police Trial Board on January 6, 1970, to answer two charges against Redding, as follows:
 "(1) Section 15-14-C-12 Conduct unbecoming an officer on December 20, 1969; wherein you [did] fail to conduct yourself in such a manner as would redound to the credit of the Department.
 "(2) Section 15-14-C-20 You did intentionally violate a law of the State of Maryland, in that you did take, steal, and carry away and convert to your own use one (1) racing type jacket, valued at $8.97, the property of Zayre Corporation."
 After a hearing the Trial Board found Redding not guilty of charge (2) but guilty of charge (1). It recommended to Chief Free that Redding be dismissed from the force. On January 12, 1970, Chief Free notified Redding of the action of the Trial Board and that he concurred in its recommendation that Redding be dismissed from the force. Chief Free also notified Redding that he had five days within which to appeal to the Board of Appeals. Redding took an appeal through counsel and a *97 hearing before the Board of Appeals was held on March 2, 1970. At this hearing all three members of the Board of Appeals were present, i.e., William G. Fawsett, Chairman; Simon M. Pristoop, Vice Chairman and Robert S. Miller, Member. Also present were the following counsel:
 Martin A. Hertz, Assistant County Attorney, Counsel for the Police Department, Robert J. Flynn, Counsel for the Board of Appeals, Fred R. Joseph, Counsel for Redding.
 Mr. Flynn stated on behalf of the Board of Appeals that the procedure to be followed was that counsel for the Police Department would introduce into evidence a tape recording of the proceedings before the Trial Board, the findings of fact by the Trial Board and a summary of evidence  that is, all of the testimony before the Trial Board. He further stated that if counsel for the Police Department wished to put on additional evidence, he could do this; and counsel for Redding could put on whatever defense he might have.
 Then the following appears in the record:
 "MR. JOSEPH: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question of stipulations, may I state at the outset that Officer Redding wants to facilitate matters here as much as possible; get them over with. We have no intention whatsoever of complicating the proceedings. However, it is our feeling that the burden is still upon the County, upon the police, in this case, and that with that burden goes the necessity that they prove their case.
 "Now, there were certain witnesses brought before the Trial Board, Police Board. It is my opinion that a reading of what the police or the County Attorney recalls their statement to be does not present the evidence in the light of that hearing. I think in judging the weight of certain *98 testimony it is necessary to see the individuals and hear from them in person. I state this in regard, most specifically, to the, so to speak, accusing representative of the Zayre's Store, Mr. Friedhoff, who I think does not come out nearly as bad from the reading of the Findings of Fact as he did at the Trial Board.
 "So I would state I would be willing to make certain stipulations. I do not, however, stipulate every single thing in that Finding of Fact as being entirely accurate in the report. May I respectfully state our feeling that the burden is still upon the County, and they must prove the case. We feel we have brought our witnesses and we are willing to go forward."
 * * *
 "CHAIRMAN FAWSETT: You are not objecting to this being admitted in evidence and you don't object to the Board giving whatever consideration or weight that we believe that it deserves?
 "MR. JOSEPH: Right.
 "CHAIRMAN FAWSETT: The only additional evidence that we have will be witnesses that you see fit to call and which you have here tonight?
 "MR. JOSEPH: Correct."
 Mr. Joseph then stated:
 "And I want to make clear that we still feel that the burden is upon the County to prove its case, and that it must do so with evidence. I think it also should be made clear that Officer Redding and his attorney had nothing to do with the preparation of these Findings of Fact nor were we consulted in regard to said preparation."
 After making an opening statement to the Board of Appeals, Mr. Hertz offered the tapes of the proceedings before the Trial Board at its hearing on January 6, 1970, *99 which were received into evidence, without objection, as "County's Exhibit No. 1." Mr. Hertz then offered, without objection, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Trial Board, including a Report of Sergeant Edward J. Armstrong, as "County's Exhibit No. 2," and a Customer's Receipt for $24.95 from Zayre, which was part of the record before the Trial Board, marked "County's Exhibit No. 3."
 Thereafter, Mr. Hertz asked to be excused from the hearing, indicating that he believed the Prince George's County Police Department had established a prima facie case and that he was waiving his right to cross-examine any witnesses offered by Redding. He was excused and thereafter Redding introduced his own and other testimony in his defense.
 In the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the charges against Redding are recited with a list of those members of the Prince George's County Police Department who comprised the Trial Board  a Major, a Captain, a Lieutenant, a Sergeant and a Private. It was also recited that Mr. Hertz and Mr. Joseph were present, representing the Prince George's County Police Department and Redding, respectively. Redding was also present. The testimony of seven witnesses was thereafter summarized.
 Charles R. Friedhoff, Assistant Manager for Suitomat, a leased department at Zayre's Department Store at Capital Heights, testified that he had been employed at that store for approximately one month. His initial contact with Redding was in the Men's Room of the store where Redding was changing his socks. Friedhoff stated that he knew nothing about the socks, as to whether they had been paid for. On December 20, 1969, Friedhoff, as he was leaving the store, was confronted by Redding who asked him about the jacket that had been placed underneath his counter in the Suitomat Department and asked Friedhoff if he would put the jacket in a bag and that Redding would pick it up later. Friedhoff stated that *100 he then went back to the Suitomat Department and told Danny Dyer (James Daniel Dyer, the next witness) to put the jacket in a bag for Officer Redding. Dyer replied that he was not supposed to do this, it being against company regulations and that he could not do it. Friedhoff told Dyer that it was all right, not to "sweat" it, that the officer knew what he was doing. Thereafter, Friedhoff left the store.
 James Daniel Dyer, who had been employed by the Suitomat Department for approximately six weeks as a salesman, stated that it was against company regulations to give anyone any kind of gift. On December 20, 1969, he reported for work and, after straightening up his counter, placed a jacket that was under his counter back on the shelf in the Automotive Department as it had been lying under his counter for a week. Later, he was approached by Friedhoff, who inquired where the coat was. Dyer did not know that he was referring to the jacket he had placed back on the shelf. Friedhoff then went to the Automotive Department, got the jacket and placed it back under the counter. Before Friedhoff left the store, he called Dyer aside and told him to put the jacket in a bag when the officer came back for it and to put the security tape on it and to keep his mouth shut. Dyer stated that by placing the red security tape on the package, it was indicated that the package was paid for. Dyer then told Friedhoff that he should not do this and was told by Friedhoff to keep his mouth shut. Dyer did not comply with Friedhoff's orders because he knew it was wrong. After thinking about the matter and being uncertain about what to do, Dyer called the Manager of the Suitomat Department, Mr. Elman, and related to him what had happened. Mr. Elman said the situation would be taken care of. Dyer understood that Elman had called Mr. Schmidt, Manager of the Zayre Corporation, but did not know of any action taken by Schmidt at that time. Approximately ten minutes later, while Dyer was waiting on customers, Redding walked back to the Suitomat *101 Department and Dyer asked him when he was going to take the jacket. Redding replied, "When do you want me to get it?" and Dyer replied, "as soon as possible." Redding then took a bag, placed the jacket in it, put security tape on the bag and wrote his name on the security tape. He then placed the bag underneath the counter, walked past Dyer and a security guard, Mr. Mason, who was a short distance away. Dyer went over and checked the bag to make sure that he had made no mistake about what he had seen. Later, Redding came back to the Suitomat Department, took the jacket and walked out of the Suitomat Department. On December 31, Dyer talked to Redding at which time Redding stated that he was in trouble and that the jacket, as well as the socks, was a gift to him. Dyer knew nothing about the socks.
 Sergeant Edward J. Armstrong, of the Inspectional Services Division of the Prince George's County Police Department, testified in accordance with his Report on the Redding matter. His full Report was attached, consisting of ten single spaced, letter size pages. From this Report, it appears that William Elman, Manager of the Suitomat Department, had telephoned Mr. Monihan, General Manager of the Zayre Store, who told him that Redding had placed a jacket in a bag from the Automotive Department, placed a red security tape on it and placed the package under the counter of the Suitomat Department. Monihan then called James Thomas, who was in charge of Security for the Zayre Corporation in the Washington District, and gave him this information, and later called him to tell him that Monihan had observed Redding leave the store with a package, go to an automobile and return without the package. Thomas then went to the store, spoke to Monihan who pointed out a row of automobiles, stating that Redding had placed the package in a white car. Thomas then went to the parking lot, looked into the white car (an Austin American) and saw on the front seat a Zayre bag with a red security tape on it, but no receipt. The coat of a Prince George's *102 County Policeman was hanging in the back of the white car. By inquiry, the white car was identified as owned by Redding. Thomas outlined the procedure for employees to make purchases. (Police officers assigned to this detail were considered employees.) All such purchases must be taken through cash register No. 12 where the employee pays for the item purchased and the item is then placed in a regular bag, secured by a red tape approximately one inch wide (a security tape) on which the employee's name is written. Security personnel are thus enabled to check employee purchases. Cash register No. 12 was then checked and no item from Department No. 53, the Automotive Department, for $8.97, the price of the jacket appeared. Then, all cash registers were checked, with the same result. Sergeant Armstrong thereafter interviewed Friedhoff and Dyer. Their statements to him were substantially the same as already set forth. Monihan confirmed the statement made by Thomas. Mr. Mason, the security officer, observed Redding take the bag but had no reason to be suspicious about it because it had the security tape on it. He notified Thomas that he had observed Redding take the bag out.
 In regard to Redding's statement, the Report stated that Redding first related that he placed one bag containing several other bags under the counter of the Suitomat Department about 9:00 p.m. on December 20. Sergeant Armstrong then stated that the matter had been fully investigated and for Redding "to be honest with us." Redding then stated, "Okay, I can't lie too good, I'll be honest with you." He then made a complete admission to Lieutenant Turner and Sergeant Armstrong in regard to what he did. He placed the jacket under the Suitomat counter, placed it in a Zayre bag, put on the security tape, signed his name on the security tape and took the jacket from the premises; he did not pay for it nor did he have permission to take the jacket. He stated that he thought that Friedhoff was giving him the jacket as a gift. He was asked, "Did anyone say to you that the *103 coat was a gift and that you didn't have to pay for it?" to which he replied, "No, I just had the feeling it was a gift." He was asked further, if he thought it was a gift, why did he go to the trouble of putting the jacket in a Zayre bag and placing the security tape on it, to which Redding replied, "I did it right out in the open." Redding stated to Armstrong that upon learning of the investigation on December 22, he hid the jacket but would not state where it was, saying that he would either produce the jacket or make restitution in the amount of the value of the jacket. He volunteered that Friedhoff knew he was going to take the jacket and not pay for it. After the interview, Lieutenant Turner advised Redding that he was suspended for conduct unbecoming to a police officer. A formal notice of suspension was thereafter issued.
 Redding then testified. He stated that he had purchased a coat from the Suitomat Department and that Friedhoff had given him a 20% discount on the coat. A customer's sales slip, No. 27802 in the amount of $24.95, dated "12/12" and signed by Friedhoff was introduced into evidence. He testified that Friedhoff had made him a gift of the jacket in question. The details in regard to placing the jacket under the counter, statements by Friedhoff and other matters were given but the account given by Sergeant Armstrong was in substance confirmed including his original statements and his later statement that it was no use to lie. Redding also stated that he first met Friedhoff when changing socks in the Men's Room. He took the socks because he was in a hurry and did not wish to stand in line to buy things. When he asked Friedhoff where he could pay for them, Friedhoff stated that he would take care of them.
 George Bernard Norris, a private in the Prince George's County Police Department, testified that he had heard Friedhoff state to Redding on December 20 that "your jacket is ready." Later, Redding gave the jacket to Norris to return to the store after Redding had been suspended. Norris stated that Redding "is a good police officer *104 and an asset to the Prince George's County Police Department." Two other privates in the Prince George's County Police Department, Officers Mumaw and Savoy, also testified that Redding was a good police officer and an asset to the force.
 It was noted that the jacket was admitted in evidence as Police Department Exhibit No. 1.
 The conclusion reached by the Trial Board was that Redding was not guilty under Section 15-14, C-20 of intentionally stealing the jacket but was guilty under Section 15-14, C-12 of conduct unbecoming an officer, "* * * by unauthorized conversion to your own use of merchandise which was the property of Zayre's Corporation * * *."
 It was recommended that Redding be dismissed from the Police Department.
 The two tapes  running for some eight hours  have been played to ascertain whether the Findings of Fact were supported by the evidence taken and presented a fair summary of that testimony. In our opinion, the Findings of Fact are supported by the testimony and represent a fair summary of the testimony.
 At the hearing before the Board of Appeals, Redding testified on his own behalf. His testimony is largely cumulative. In regard to the jacket, Redding stated that he had no notice that the Suitomat Department and the Zayre Corporation were not the same. He saw the jacket, liked it and put it under the counter. He told Friedhoff that he wanted the coat, to watch it for him and not to let anyone else buy it. Later, Friedhoff was asked if the jacket was still back there. Friedhoff stated, "Poncho, do you want the jacket?" After Redding answered, "Yes," Friedhoff stated, "O.K. I will go get it ready for you and you go pick it up." When asked, "when did you first see the jacket," Redding replied, "I first saw the jacket about a week or ten days before the 20th before I purchased it, before I took it."
 After he learned that an investigation in regard to the *105 jacket had begun, Redding took it over to his father's house and hid it "because I didn't know what to do." He hid it in a trash can but later got it back. He testified that he had no intention of stealing anything.
 Dyer also testified at the hearing before the Board of Appeals. His testimony was largely a repetition of his testimony before the Trial Board with some additional references to Friedhoff as "a very nasty person" with the reputation of "a very good liar," especially in giving the impression that he owned or was manager of the concession. One of the members of the Board of Appeals asked him: "Did you feel at the time that Officer Redding was stealing this jacket * * *" to which Dyer answered, "The dirty look I gave him would have maybe told him." Officer Norris testified that he had received a gift of gloves from Zayre and that it was usual to give the policemen the same discount as that given other employees. He stated, "If you really want to get into brass technicalities, no police officer is supposed to accept anything."
 Officer Mumaw testified that stores offer discounts to police officers and that at Christmas time he had accepted bottles of liquor from different merchants and a turkey from one man at Thanksgiving time. He thought that Redding's punishment was too harsh.
 Counsel for Redding had noted his contention at the end of the Police Department's case that the Police Department carried the burden of proof and moved that the charges against Redding should be dismissed for the failure of the Police Department to make out a prima facie case. The Board of Appeals declined to so rule and, after Redding had put on his evidence, decided by a two to one vote, by a decision dated March 13, 1970, and received by counsel for Redding on March 23, to sustain the findings of the Chief of Police dismissing Redding.
 On March 30, 1970, Redding filed a Request for a Rehearing before the Board of Appeals and served a copy on counsel for the Police Department. In the Points and *106 Authorities Supporting this Request, Redding stated that he had new evidence to present, i.e., (1) the testimony of James Nelson of the Prince George's County Police Department in regard to the identification of Redding's automobile by a police officer as set forth in Sergeant Armstrong's Report; (2) the testimony of William Elman in regard to Friedhoff; and (3) the testimony of Redding, himself, relating to the use of the jacket in question after taking it from the Zayre store. It was also stated that counsel for Redding wished to emphasize that the hearing before the Board of Appeals is de novo and the issues were to be decided on the basis of the evidence presented and not on the basis of whether the Trial Board had acted within the scope of its discretionary right, which point had not been raised previously at the hearing of the case.
 On April 13, 1970, the Board of Appeals vacated its previous order and in a resolution stated that a final order would be issued upon a rehearing and reconsideration of the appeal. The clerk of the Board of Appeals gave notice on May 8 that a hearing would be held on May 18 at 7:30 p.m. "for the purpose of argument on matters not previously heard before the Board which you [Mr. Joseph, Counsel for Redding] stated were material and relevant to this case."
 On the evening of the hearing on May 18, counsel for the Police Department objected to proceeding with the rehearing because (1) there being no statutory authorization for a rehearing, the proposed rehearing could only be had upon an allegation and a showing by the person applying for the rehearing that there was fraud, surprise, mistake or inadvertence, none of which was alleged or shown and (2) the Board of Appeals decided to grant the rehearing without hearing from the Police Department thereby denying it due process of law. After argument by counsel for the parties, the Board of Appeals  consisting of Vice Chairman Pristoop and Member Miller (Chairman Fawsett having died prior to May 18)  *107 took the matter under advisement with the Board's counsel, Mr. Flynn, and thereafter returned announcing through Mr. Flynn that it would consider Redding's motion as one to take additional testimony due to inadvertence and would deny the motion of the Police Department but would treat it as a motion to strike the testimony at the end of Redding's case.
 The testimony of Officer Nelson was merely cumulative to that produced before the Trial Board. He stated that he was the officer who identified Redding's white automobile and that Redding had told him that Friedhoff had given him the jacket. Elman's testimony was also cumulative. He thought there had been a misunderstanding by Redding that he had been given the jacket; but he could not explain why Zayre filed a complaint against Redding, stating that all he did "was report that something was taken from the store without * * * being paid for." The Board of Appeals declined to hear the testimony of George B. Norris on the ground that he had testified at the last hearing and that the price of the gloves he had received as a gift was not relevant.
 The Police Department then produced Chief Free who testified in regard to the reasons why he sustained the findings of the Trial Board. He stated:
 "* * * I think I have to  I believe my job, or my function, is to put on the road for the people of Prince George's County the finest police department that you can possibly get. I think probably the main thing that an officer must have, the main attribute certainly must be honesty. This is the one thing that he must have is honesty. I felt that Private Redding was dishonest in this instance, and for that reason I felt that he should not be a member of this department.
 "Q. Chief Free, what did you base your conclusion on that he had been dishonest? A. Well, when he actually took the jacket. Now, certainly if someone is going to give you something you *108 don't have to hide it under a counter and then put a certain  put it in a certain bag with a red sticker on it which designates employee, sign your name on it. This was done as a subterfuge. It has to be that way.
 "And then, of course, taking it out and putting it in his car. And then when he was approached after the complaint had been registered by Mr. Monahan, the general manager of the Zayre's Corporation, he was not frank, certainly, with the investigating officers. He told them at first that he had taken a bag containing other bags and placed it under the counter of the Suitomat department of this Zayre department store. He knew nothing of the taking of a jacket. This was his first story.
 "Then he said, `O.K., I can't lie too good. I will be honest with you.' He admitted he had taken the jacket. He placed it in a Zayre bag, sealed it with a red security tape, signed his name on the security tape, and left the premises without paying for the jacket.
 "Now, his excuse was that he thought the jacket was a gift, although no one, including Mr. Friedhoff, had ever told him it was a gift.
 "So far as I am concerned, I honestly believe that this was taken by Private Redding without the knowledge of the people that should have known about it."
 On June 22, 1970, the Board of Appeals filed a resolution overruling the motion to strike and determined that there was a sufficient showing by Redding of inadvertency to warrant a rehearing accepting, without admiting, the Police Department's contention that fraud, surprise, mistake or inadvertency must be shown. Also, on June 22, the Board of Appeals passed an order which, after making certain findings of fact, concluded that (1) Redding exercised indiscretion in his acceptance of the *109 article of clothing, (2) the finding of the Trial Board that Redding was guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer should be affirmed and (3) dismissal was "inappropriately severe for an officer with a previously unblemished record." It ordered that Redding be reinstated on the police force, subject to a $200 fine and a three month suspension commencing on the date of his dismissal by Chief Free and that his pay be retroactive to the date the suspension period terminated.
 On June 26 Chief Free filed a Petition for "Injunction, Mandamus and Such Further Relief as to the Court May Seem Proper" reciting the basic facts and alleging that the Board of Appeals acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reversing its prior decision when there was no error, fraud, mistake or inadvertency shown, but rather a mere change of mind without legal justification. It alleged also that Chief Free had advised Redding on June 26 that he need not report for duty in view of the challenge to the Board's action but that he would be paid his salary in the event the circuit court affirmed the Board's action. The requested relief was that the circuit court issue "a Writ of Mandamus and/or Injunction nullifying the Board of Appeals Order of June 22, 1970" and for a Show Cause Order directing the Board of Appeals to show cause why the order of June 22 should not be nullified and made void. Ultimately, the Board of County Commissioners for Prince George's County was substituted for Chief Free and the case was submitted to Judge McCullough for disposition. Judge McCullough, on January 4, 1971, filed an opinion indicating that the mandamus was a proper form to seek relief under the circumstances of the case and that the Board of Appeals had no authority to grant Redding a rehearing and to reverse its first order. Also on January 4, 1971, the circuit court ordered that the order of the Board of Appeals of June 22, 1970," "which reinstated Defendant Redding on the Police Force be and is hereby declared null and void." An appeal to the Court of Appeals from this order was timely filed by Redding.
 *110 Redding raised two questions before us:
 1. The appellee failed to sustain its burden of proof at the initial hearing before the Board of Appeals.
 2. The lower court erred in ruling that the Order of the Board of Appeals reinstating the Appellant Redding on the Police Force was null and void.
 We now turn to a consideration of these questions.
 (1)
 In our opinion, sufficient evidence was produced by the appellee before the Board of Appeals both to establish a prima facie case and to support the decision of the Board of Appeals of March 13, 1970, sustaining Redding's dismissal from the force.
 As we have already observed, there was ample evidence in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law filed by the Trial Board and in supporting evidence in the tapes to support the decision of March 13, 1970, of the Board of Appeals. There were no objections by counsel for Redding to the admission of the tapes, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the receipt for the purchase of a coat by Redding into evidence before the Board of Appeals. They were, therefore, properly before the Board of Appeals; and, as we have noted, they made out a prima facie case for the Police Department and the County Commissioners. The tapes indicate that counsel for Redding was afforded the right of cross-examination and freely and forcefully availed himself of that right. The Board of Appeals was not bound to accept all or any part of the testimony contained in the tapes or in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It did, however, find this evidence to be probative and the evidence supports the decision of the Board of Appeals. Redding complains that some of the evidence admitted was hearsay; but we have held that such evidence is admissible before an administrative body in contested cases and, indeed, if credible and of sufficient probative force, may be the sole basis for the decision of the administrative *111 body. See Tauber v. County Board of Appeals, 257 Md. 202, 213, 262 A.2d 513, 518 (1970) and prior cases therein cited. In addition, there were no objections to the hearsay evidence taken before the trial board.
 (2)
 We are also of the opinion that the lower court properly ruled that the Board of Appeals had no legal basis for reconsidering or reopening the decision of March 13, 1970, and hence the Board's decision of June 22, 1970, was null and void.
 There is no statute or ordinance which gives the Board of Appeals the power of reconsideration or of rehearing. The common law rule in regard to the power of an administrative body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity is therefore applicable. Our predecessors in Zoning Appeals Board v. McKinney, 174 Md. 551, 564-566, 199 A. 540, 546-547 (1938) indicated that in that type of situation, the administrative body has the right to reconsider a decision if an error has been caused by fraud, surprise, mistake or inadvertence. We cited McKinney with approval in Kay Construction Co. v. County Council for Montgomery County, 227 Md. 479, 177 A.2d 694 (1962); in Schultze v. Montgomery County Planning Board, 230 Md. 76, 185 A.2d 502 (1962); and in Gaywood Community Ass'n v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 246 Md. 93, 227 A.2d 735 (1967). In Kay, Schultze and Gaywood, we pointed out that a mere change of mind, without any intervening change in conditions or other different factors, did not amount to "fraud, mistake, surprise or inadvertence," justifying a rehearing or reconsideration. In the present case, there was no newly discovered evidence and the evidence produced was cumulative as we have observed. Indeed, there was no allegation in the Petition for the Rehearing that the prior decision had resulted from "fraud, mistake, surprise or inadvertence" and the burden of so alleging and proving is upon the person seeking the rehearing or reconsideration. The Board of Appeals sought to indicate that the prior decision was *112 made as a result of "inadvertency," but it clearly was not. There was simply no existing element of the rule and no reconsideration or rehearing could be lawfully held by the Board of Appeals as the lower court properly ruled.
 The form of the "Petition for Injunction, Mandamus and Such Further Relief as to the Court May Seem Proper," Law No. 45,019 gives us some difficulty. The petition is far from a model of careful pleading. Rather, it presents a "shotgun" approach with the hope of the pleader that one shot will hit his opponent and bring him down. We interpret the petition as an action at law for declaratory relief (authorized by the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, Code (1971), Art. 31 A, §§ 1 et seq.) i.e., to declare the order of June 22, 1970, of the Board of Appeals null and void with ancillary relief by way of injunction or mandamus, if required, pursuant to Maryland Rules BF 40, 41, 42 and 43. It can hardly be an action for a writ of mandamus, as such, pursuant to Rules BE 40-46 in that (1) the petition was not verified as required by Rule BE 40 c and (2) there is no prayer for relief setting forth the peremptory form of the writ of mandamus sought. See Rule BE 45. Indeed, the prayer for relief is for declaratory relief and the relief obtained from the lower court was a declaration that the order of June 22, 1970, was null and void. In its opinion, the lower court suggests that a writ of mandamus might issue to compel the Board of Appeals to grant the motion to strike the evidence introduced at the second hearing on behalf of Redding or that the Board be enjoined from attempting to enforce its order of June 22, but the fact is that neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of injunction did issue. Instead, declaratory relief was awarded  properly in our opinion  there being no necessity under the circumstances for issuing writs of mandamus or of injunction.
 Order of January 4, 1971, affirmed, the appellant to pay the costs.


type: other

text:
 Vi testar Huawei P8 - Swedroid
 Recension:Vi testar Huawei P8
 01:09 - 2015-07-12
 Modell Huawei P8 (16GB single SIM)
 Operativsystem Android Lollipop 5.0/med EMUI 3.1
 Pris Från cirka 5 000 kronor
 Webbplats / specifikationer Huawei, Androidenheter
 Diskutera Huawei P8 i Swedroids forum
 Huawei P8 är det senaste tillskottet i Huaweis produktportfölj i femtumsklassen – bredvid Honor 7 – och kompletterar fjolårets populära Ascend Mate 7. Enheten fick butikspremiär i slutet av juni och har ett cirkapris på 4990 kr.
 Tillsammans med P8 har Huawei lanserat två kusiner; dels ”P8 Max” som erbjuder en 6,8′′ stor skärm med snarlik hårdvara, men som ännu inte säljs i Sverige, och dels den lite billigare ”P8 Lite”. Sistnämnda kostar i skrivande stund från 2800 kr och är utrustad med en fem tum stor 720p-upplöst skärm, dubbla SIM-kortplatser och lite enklare hårdvara.
 Genom påkostad design och ett chassi i till större delen metall samt ett åttakärnigt chipp, 3GB RAM, 16GB lagingsminne och en RGBW-kamera med 13MP (F2.0) står det klart att Huawei vill vara med och slåss i toppsegmentet. Telefonen ser mycket riktigt bra ut på pappret, men kan den konkurrera med Samsungs, Sonys och LG:s flaggskepp? Vi hoppas svara på den frågan i den här recensionen.
 Releasedatum Våren 2015
 Processor 2,0GHz octa-core
 Plattform HiSilicon Kirin 930 64-bit
 Grafikkrets Mali-T628 MP4
 Skärmtyp LCD / 16:9 / 74,54 cm2 / ~71,4% av fronten
 Främre kamera 8MP
 Höjd, bredd, djup 144,9 x 72,1 x 6,4mm
 Batteri 2680mAh
 Kommunikation microUSB, Bluetooth 4.1, Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n, dual-band, Wi-Fi Direct, DLNA, hotspot
 Sensorer GPS+GLONASS+BeiDou, accelerometer, gyro, magnetometer, närhetssensor
 FM-radio / NFC Uppgift saknas / Ja
 Övrig info 3,5mm-jack.
 Mer info Mer info om Huawei P8 på Androidenheter.se
 huawei_p8_front_box_stuffings
 huawei_p8_box
 huawei_p8_next_to_box
 huawei_p8_back_next_to_box
 huawei_p8_headphones
 huawei_p8_ac-adapter
 Huawei levererar P8 i en svart, eller kanske mycket mörkt grå, plastlaminerad kartong med ”P8” tryckt på ovansidan. Huawei gjorde på lanseringseventet en stor sak av den lyxiga förpackningen, och vi har inga protester mot detta. Kartongen är till det yttre ganska robust utstrålar en hel del premiumkänsla.
 Då det yttre höljet skjuts av möts vi av in inre plastkartong samt ett plastlock bakom vilket telefonen döljer sig. Till skillnad från gängse standard där telefonens front eller bakstycke är vänt uppåt, har Huawei istället valt att sticka ned telefonen i ett utskuret högblankt hårdplastfack och därmed exponera ena långsidan. Detta är ett mycket unikt sätt att presentera kartongens innehåll, något vi uppskattade.
 Det kan debatteras hur viktigt det är med en lyxig uppackningsupplevelse, men vi på redaktionen tycker definitivt att det är kul när tillverkaren bjuder till lite extra för att göra kundens första ögonblick med telefonen så trevliga som möjligt.
 Då telefonen lyfts ur och det övre facket avlägsnas möts vi av kartongens övriga innehåll prydligt förpackat i två mindre kartongfack. Vår kartong innehåller följande:
 * Huawei P8 (”Champagne Gold”)
 * Laddare (vit, 5V 1A)
 * USB-kabel (vit, cirka 1 meter)
 * Headset (vitt, trådburet, volymknappar)
 * Metallstift för kortslädarna
 Som alltid kan kartongens innehåll variera beroende på återförsäljare, mobiloperatör, särskilda kampanjer och region. Om kartongens innehåll är av stor vikt rekommenderas ni som alltid att kontakta återförsäljaren innan köp.
 Utseende, konstruktion och anslutningar
 huawei_p8_looks_front
 huawei_p8_looks_front_3
 huawei_p8_looks_front_2
 huawei_p8_looks_corner
 huawei_p8_top
 huawei_p8_looks_bottom
 huawei_p8_looks_right_side_2
 huawei_p8_looks_right_side
 huawei_p8_looks_left
 haweu_p8_looks_back
 huawei_p8_looks_logo
 Huawei har lagt mycket krut på det yttre för P8. Telefonen, som i vårt fall har fått färgbenämningen ”Champagne Gold”, har ett gediget så kallat unibodyskal av aluminium och mycket hög passform mellan chassidelarna samt vid knappar och anslutningar. Vi lyckas inte framkalla några som helst missljud i form av knarr eller knak då vi tämligen bryskt bänder och klämmer på enheten. Enheten är som en gedigen bit metall. Detta är HTC One-klass.
 Även om chassi och klappar som sagt håller fantastisk kvalité och passform vill vi ändå påtala den ganska skarpa kanten mellan skärmglas och aluminiumchassit. Detta är sannolikt per design – vi tror inte att det är en fråga om dålig passform – men vi tycker att det känns lite väl vasst mot våra fingrar. Bakstycket har fått aningen mer rundade kanter och telefonen känns därför trots frontglasets vassa kanter bekväm i handen.
 Knapparna (ström och volym, båda placerade på enhetens högra långsida) tycks vara tillverkade av metall och sticker ut en hel del från chassit. Vi uppskattar detta då det innebär att knapparna är lättare att finna i blindo, även med tunna handskar på händerna. Motståndet i knapparna är skapligt högt, vilket hjälper till att motverka oavsiktliga tryck, och klickkänslan är tydlig och distinkt.
 På högersidan, nedanför ovan nämnda knappar, finner vi de två kortslädarna för SIM- och MicroSD-korten, snyggt infällda i aluminiumramen. I telefonens fotände ser vi MicroUSB-porten samt högtalaröppningarna. Vi skriver ”högtalaröppningarna”, men det är egentligen bara en högtalaröppning, till höger, och bakom den vänstra döljer sig samtalsmikrofonen.
 Vänstersidan är helt slät och saknar såväl knappar som anslutningar och kortplatser. På huvudänden återfinns 3,5mm-jacket för externa ljudenheter (såsom hörlurar) samt en liten perforering för en sekundär mikrofon.
 Bakstycket är liksom telefonens sidor av metall, aluminium, och är i princip helt slät. Uppe i vänstra hörnet ser vi kameralinsen samt den tillhörande dubbla LED-blixten. Centrerad på bakstyckets övre halva sitter Huawei-loggan.
 Då vi summerar utseende, material och byggkvalité konstaterar vi at Huawei har byggt en osedvanligt lyxig telefon. Vi vill inte gå så långt som att säga att P8 är riktigt lika välbyggd som HTC One M8/M9, de aningen vassa kanterna kring skärmen drar ner betyget en aning, men P8 är inte långt ifrån. Huawei P8 är bland det mest välbyggda man kan finna på androidmarknaden.
 Samsung Galaxy Note 4 5.7 78.6 153.5 8.5 176 3220
 Motorola Nexus 6 5.96 83.0 159.3 10.1 184 3220
 LG G4 5.5 76.1 148.9 8.9 155 3000
 Sony Xperia Z4 5.2 71.9 146.0 6.9 144 2930
 Sony Xperia Z3+ 5.2 71.9 146.0 6.9 144 2930
 5.2 71.9 144.9 6.4 144 2680
 Samsung Galaxy S6 5.1 70.5 143.4 6.8 138 2550
 Samsung Galaxy S5 5.1 72.5 142.0 8.1 145 2800
 HTC One M9 5.0 69.7 144.6 9.61 157 2840
 I listan ovan är Huawei P8 minst bland 5.2′′-telefonerna men har samtidigt ett lite mindre batteri än LG G4 och Xperia Z3+. Huawei P8 är också tunnast bland de listade enheterna med en imponerande tjocklek på 6.4 mm.
 Huawei har utrustat P8 med en 5,2 tum stor LCD IPS-NEO-skärm med fullHD-upplösning (1080×1920 pixlar). Detta ger en skaplig pixeldensitet, på cirka 424 PPI, och därmed fullt acceptabel skärpa om än inte i nivå med de allra skarpaste skärmarna på marknaden.
 Färgåtergivningen är bra men återigen inte riktigt i nivå med de allra bästa, såsom LG G4 och Samsung Galaxy S6. Kontrast och betraktningsvinklar håller även de hög klass, och även om svärtan i LCD-skärmar i regel lämnar en del att önska i vissa ljusförhållanden lyckas P8:s IPS-NEO-skärm imponera.
 Den maximala ljusstyrkan är riktigt bra och slår såväl HTC One M9 som Samsung Galaxy S5 och LG G4. Reflektionerna i skärmglaset är effektivt minimerade vilket i kombination med ljusstyrkan och kontrasten ger P8 en väldigt god läsbarhet i fullt dagsljus. De minimerade reflektionerna kan sannolikt tillskrivas att Huawei har tagit bort det inre skärmglaset, vilket minimerar reflektioner och gör att pekskärm och display sitter oerhört tätt.
 Pekskärmens precision är hög och skärmen reagerar snabbt och korrekt på pek, svep och nyp. Telefonen levereras med en plastfilm förmonterad på skärmen, vilket förvisso skyddar men samtidigt förtar den härligt halkiga känslan av glid som oleofobiskt (fettavstötande) behandlade glasskärmar bjuder på. Plastfilmen är enkel att ta bort, är ej limmad, men vi törs inte svara på om glaset bakom plastfilmen är oleofobiskt behandlat.
 Om vi skjuter från höften och i korthet sammanfattar P8-skärmen skulle vi vilja säga att bildskärmen med lätthet (pixeldensitet undantaget) slår LG G3 och håller samma klass som i HTC One M9, men kan inte riktigt mäta sig med Sony Xperia Z3+ och absolut inte med fenomenalerna LG G4 och Samsung Galaxy S6. Pekskärmen är lika bra som hos konkurrenterna, men plastfilmen känns som ett steg i fel riktning, även om den lyckligtvis är enkel att avlägsna.
 Huawei P8 erbjuder bra ljud vid samtal – vi hör vår motpart klart och tydligt och vår motpart hör oss klart och tydligt. Ljudnivån är även den fullt godkänd. I ljudligare miljöer fungerar telefonens noise-cancellation även väl och filtrerar effektivt bort störande ljud (den sekundära mikrofonen sitter vid telefonens hörlursport på ovansidan).
 Mottagningen har imponerat i jämförelse med bland annat Xperia Z3 Compact och Samsung Galaxy S6. I regel rapporterar Huawei P8 en något starkare signal än sagda telefoner och är i regel också sist med att tappa mottagningen. Huaweis ”Signal+”-funktion verkar mycket riktigt bidra till att förbättra mottagningen (mer om denna funktion i mjukvarukapitlet nedan).
 Telefonen är utrustad med en monohögtalare som sitter i botten av enheten bredvid samtalsmikrofonen. Vi föredrar i regel frontmonterade högtalare, men placeringen i botten innebär i alla fall att ljudet inte dämpas om telefonen ligger ned, vilket är fallet för exempelvis Honor 6. Högtalaren låter relativt högt och kraftfullt bör inte leda till några missade samtal samtidigt som den fungerar för att lyssna på en podcast med i ett lite tystare rum.
 Huawei P8 kör Android 5.0/Lollipop tillsammans med version 3.1 av tillverkarens egenutvecklade gränssnitt Emotion UI eller EMUI Det skiljer sig inte i större utsträckning från EMUI 3.0 som är den senaste versionen för Ascend Mate 7 och som körs tillsammans med Android 4.0/KitKat.
 En betaversion av Android 5.1 finns tillgänglig och i denna version har Huawei bakat in tap-to-wake vilket gör det möjligt att väcka telefonen genom att dubbeltrycka på skärmen. En funktion vi nästan tar för given idag varför vi uppskattar att Huawei lagt till den, även om den borde funnits där från början.
 Vad beträffar uppdateringar har Huawei varit långsamma med Android Lollipop för både Ascend Mate 7 och Honor 6, som fortfarande inte fått en skarp version även om publika betaversioner nyligen publicerades.
 Låsskärmen erbjuder snabbgenvägar till kameran, ficklampa, mediakontroller och en miniräknare. Till skillnad från många andra Android-tillverkare har Huawei ingen applåda utan alla applikationer hamnar direkt på hemskärmen i samband med installation, vilket i vårt tycke gör det lite svåröverskådligt. Det är dock mycket enkelt att byta hemskärm till exempelvis Google Launcher för den som vill återgå till standardhemskärmen för Android.
 Statusmeddelanden/notifikationer och snabbgenvägar är uppdelade i två flikar. Under genvägar finner de vanligaste alternativen inklusive möjligheten att slå på/stänga av ficklampa och justera displayens ljusintensitet.
 Vid långtryck på hemskärmen ges möjlighet att välja vilken hemskärm som skall vara startskärm och hur många applikationer som skall synas för varje hemskärm (4×5, 5×4, 5×5) samt en panel för att lägga till widgetar.
 De medföljande apparna för kontakt, samtal och SMS smälter väl in med övriga delar av EMUI-gränssnittet och har för vår del fungerat klanderfritt under testets gång.
 Huawei har kraftigt utökat stödet i Android för att begränsa applikationers nätverksåtkomst. Det går att ställa in om applikationer skall få tillgång till nätverket via Wi-Fi, LTE eller inte alls. En funktion som kommer speciellt väl till pass för de som ofta roamar eller har begränsad surfmängd.
 Funktionen ”Skyddade appar” gör det möjligt att begränsa vilka applikationer som tillåts vara aktiva medan skärmen är avstängd. För att spara batteri är det effektivt, men funktionen kan också få oväntade konsekvenser beroende på vilka tjänster/appar som stängs av. Tillåts exempelvis inte Android Wear-appen köra i bakgrunden kan notifikationer utebli etc.
 Huawei har mobilnätverk som kärnverksamhet och detta märks med all önskvärd tydlighet när vi testar Huawei P8. Mottagningen är utomordentlig och allt som oftast finner vi att P8 behåller LTE där både Z3 Compact och Galaxy S6 tappar LTE-mottagningen. Vi finner också att vi kan använda Huawei P8 i miljöer där vi normalt inte har täckning med funktionen ”signal+” aktiv, exempelvis i vår källare.
 Huawei har utrustat P8 med en bakgrundsbelyst kamerasensor av RGBW-typ på 13 megapixlar (motsvarande en maximal bildstorlek på 4160×3120 pixlar). Linsen har ett bländarvärde på f/2.0, vilket ger ett skapligt högt ljusinsläpp men inte riktigt i nivå med Samsung Galaxy S6 (f/1.9) eller LG G4 (f/1.8). Enheten har också optisk bildstabilsering, men saknar fasdetekterande autofokus.
 Kameramjukvaran har en del spännande funktioner. Huawei marknadsförde speciellt funktionen för att ”måla med ljus” i samband med lanseringen av P8 och det innebär att kameran tar en bild med en lång slutartid för att skapa olika ljuseffekter – en funktion som fungerar bäst med stativ.
 Vi är dock inte särskilt imponerade av gränssnittet, det är för enkelt att av misstag byta kameraläge och det är samtidigt klurigt att komma åt de manuella inställningarna (nås endast via inställningsmenyn). Applikationen startar dock snabbt, på mellan 1-1,5 sekunder.
 I det vanliga ”foto-läget”, som också är standard när vi startar kameraprogrammet, är det inte möjligt att välja exempelvis scenläge utan vi är begränsade till att ställa in blixten, välja bland några olika specialeffekter (instagramliknande filter) eller växla mellan främre och bakre kameran. Samsung och LG erbjuder på denna punkt en milsvid bättre användarupplevelse och långt mer funktionell mjukvara.
 Bland olika fotolägena finner vi följande:
 *Försköning (För automatisk retuschering av självporträtt)
 *Ljusmålning (Bakljusspår, Ljusgraffiti, Silkesvatten, Stjärnspår)
 *Foto (standardläget)
 *Videoinspelning
 *Intervall
 *Superkvälläge (Här ges möjlighet att ställa in slutartid och ISO utan att vandra in i undermenyer)
 Enligt Ars Technica kommer sensorn Huawei använder överraskande nog från Sony, som för ett par år sedan introducerade en RGBW-sensor för mobiltelefoner, men som aldrig dök upp i några telefoner; det vill säga förrän nu. Huawei P8 är så vitt vi känner till ensam i smartphonevärlden om att vara utrustad med en RGBW-sensor.
 På pappret sägs RGBW-sensorn borga för bättre detaljrikedom i ljusa partier vid motljusfoto. Traditionella kamerasensorer tenderar att ha problem med just motljusfoto, exempelvis då man fotograferar en mörk byggnad mot en relativt ljus men molnig himmel. Molnen tenderar att delvis eller helt och hållet försvinna in i en helvit överexponering då kameran anstränger sig för att plocka fram detaljer på byggnaden, där fokus ligger. RGBW sägs vidare leda till mindre brus vid fotografering i mörka miljöer.
 Frontkameran är av tradition av ett mindre imponerande snitt än huvudkameran, och P8 är inget undantag. Även om P8:s 8 megapixlar är en skapligt hög upplösning är bildkvalitén och inställningsmöjligheterna precis som på de allra flesta konkurrenterna högst måttliga.
 Huawei P8 vs Sony Xperia Z3 Compact
 Huawei P8 producerar bilder med en mer naturtrogen och neutral färgåtergivning än Xperia Z3 Compact, som drar åt det varmare hållet till den grad att vitt under vissa förutsättningar kan framstå som närmast rosa. I bilden på brandposten råder starkt bakgrundsljus vilket RGBW-sensorn påstås hantera bättre än den traditionella RBG-sensorn, men i detta fall tycker vi att Z3 Compact levererar den bättre bilden. Överlag upplever vi att Z3 Compact gör ett bättre jobb vid större kontrastskillnader och vid motljus.
 I den sista exempelbilden har vi tagit en bild i ett mörkt rum utan blixt. Huawei P8 producerar en mörkare bild med större detaljomfång, men samtidigt med mycket brus i jämförelse med Z3 Compact som visar upp en ljusare bild, men tappar detaljer. Överlag fann vi att Z3 Compact presterade bättre inomhus än P8 Compact trots större ljusinsläpp .
 I den beskärda bilden ovan syns Huawei P8 till vänster och Z3 Compact till höger. Vi kan tydligt urskilja fler detaljer i bilden från Z3 Compact och det gäller också för större delen av bilderna i bildserien ovan.
 Vi har vid ett par tillfällen råkat ut för att telefonen uppfattat våra fingrar som knogar (Knuckle Sense), vilket innebär att skärmen fryser i väntan på att vi skall rita en cirkel kring ett visst område för att ta en skärmdump. Vi har även råkat ut för ett par spontanta omstarter, men dessa verkar ha försvunnit i samband med senaste uppdateringen (B132). I övrigt har telefonen varit relativt buggfri.
 Batteritiden för Huawei P8 är godkänd. Vi klarar oss i regel i en dag, men sällan mer än så under normal användning. Det finns ett antal olika energisparlägen att välja på och som standard körs telefonen i ”smartläget”. Vi upplever dock ingen större skillnad mellan smartläget och prestandaläget vad beträffar batteritiden. I version B132 av mjukvaran tillkom däremot ett nytt läge – ”Uthållighet” – som vi märker större skillnad med. Det finns också ett ultraläge som endast tillåter SMS och telefonsamtal.
 PCMark "Working Life" battery test
 Airplane mode with Wi-Fi enabled, sound disabled, screen brightness ~200 cd/m2
 Huawei Mate 8 4000mAh
 660Minutes
 Huawei P9 Plus 3400mAh
 568Minutes
 548Minutes
 Huawei P9 Lite 3000 mAh
 533Minutes
 528Minutes
 Elephone P8000 4160mAh
 524Minutes
 520Minutes
 Moto X Force 3780 mAh
 511Minutes
 Huawei Honor 7 3100mAh
 501Minutes
 Sony Xperia X 2620 mAh
 482Minutes
 478Minutes
 Sony Xperia Z3+ 2930mAh
 476Minutes
 Moto G 3 2470mAh
 464Minutes
 Galaxy S6 Edge+ 3000mAh
 461Minutes
 LG G5 3000 mAh
 451Minutes
 440Minutes
 OnePlus 2 3300mAh
 421Minutes
 419Minutes
 Huawei Ascend Mate S 2700mAh
 416Minutes
 Huawei P8 2600mAh
 414Minutes
 396Minutes
 HTC One A9 2150mAh
 392Minutes
 386Minutes
 385Minutes
 LG V10 3000mAh
 381Minutes
 361Minutes
 359Minutes
 ASUS ZenPad S 8.0 4000mAh
 344Minutes
 Ulefone BeTouch 2 3050mAh
 Nexus 4 2100mAh
 Time to charge from 0% -> 100% with "in-the-box" AC adapter
 Time to fully charge the device with the included charger.
 Galaxy Galaxy S6 2600mAh
 Google Nexus 6 3220mAh
 LG G3 3000mAh
 Sony Xperia Z5Comp 2700mAh
 Galaxy Note 3 3200mAh
 148Minutes
 179Minutes
 Sony Xperia Z1 3000mAh
 202Minutes
 HTC One M7 2300mAh
 Huawei P8 bygger på en något äldre systemplattform från dotterbolaget HiSilicon vid namn Kirin 930 (dual SIM-varianten har Kirin 935, men den telefonen finns inte i Sverige). Chippet är tillverkat med 28nm tillverkningsteknik och huserar åtta stycken ARM Cortex A53-kärnor.
 Grafikdelen har Huawei/HiSilicon lånat från ARM i form av Mali-T628 MP4. Enheten är vidare utrustad med 3GB LPDDR3-minne och 16GB eMMC 4.5-flashminne. Modemet har stöd för LTE Cat 3 (150Mbps) men saknar förvånansvärt nog 5GHz-stöd via Wi-Fi, vilket alltså innebär att telefonen inte heller är 802.11ac-kompatibel. Det är 802.11 b/g/n som gäller vid 2,4GHz. P8 har också stöd för Bluetooth 4.1.
 Telefonen känns rapp i gränssnittet och det är sällan vi stöter på nämnvärda fördröjningar när vi växlar mellan applikationer. Den blir dock seg i samband med appinstallationer på ett vis som vi inte märker av hos eMMC 5.x-kompatibla enheter. I Chrome är prestandan också fullt godtagbar, men vi noterar en tydlig skillnad i förhållande till Galaxy S6, HTC One M9 och Google Nexus 6 som allt som oftast laddar in sidor snabbare och som också hackar något mindre vid scrollande bland tyngre webbsidor.
 I 3D-spel är det tydligt att Huawei P8 lider av sin lite äldre Mali T628-krets som inte presterar i närheten av vad Adreno 420, 430 eller Mali T760 gör. HTC One M9 är exempelvis markant snabbare i flertalet spel och bjuder på en betydligt bättre spelupplevelse.
 ZenPad S 8.0 4GB
 3907MB
 3708MB
 3663MB
 Elephone P8000 3GB
 2920MB
 Ulefone BeTouch 2 3GB
 2893MB
 2822MB
 2805MB
 2792MB
 Sony Xperia Z5 S810 3GB
 2791MB
 2770MB
 2702MB
 2698MB
 2528MB
 1877MB
 1813MB
 1807MB
 53960MB
 53740MB
 27727MB
 25610MB
 25487MB
 25430MB
 25140MB
 23117MB
 22739MB
 Sony Xperia Z5 S810 32GB
 22580MB
 19670MB
 12750MB
 Elephone P8000 16GB
 11632MB
 11610MB
 Sony Xperia Z3 compact 16GB
 10734MB
 10480MB
 9728MB
 4530MB
 AnTuTu RAM speed
 Sony Xperia Tablet Z4 DDR4
 4912p
 Galaxy S6 DDR4
 Moto X Style DDR3
 4510p
 HTC One M9 DDR4
 LG G4 DDR3
 Sony Xperia Z3 Plus DDR4
 OnePlus 2 DDR4
 ZenPad S 8.0 DDR3
 Google Nexus 6 DDR3
 Sony Xperia Z3 DDR3
 HTC One M8 DDR3
 Ulefone BeTouch 2 DDR3
 Elephone P8000 DDR3
 Huawei Mate S DDR3
 1933p
 Huawei Honor 7 DDR3
 Huawei P8 DDR3
 Samsung Galaxy Note 4 DDR3
 Moto G 3 DDR3
 1534p
 Samsung Galaxy S5 DDR3
 LG Google Nexus 5 DDR3
 Androbench random read MB/s
 Androbench random write MB/s
 Av 3GB RAM är 2792MB tillgängligt enligt Android System Info. Av det medföljande flashminnet på 16GB finns ca 10,5GB kvar för användarens del.
 Galaxy S6 E7420 4x2.1GHz
 5116p
 Galaxy S6 Edge+ E7420 4x2.1GHz
 Huawei Nexus 6P S810 4x2GHz
 4921p
 Sony Xperia Z5 S810 4x2GHz
 Xiaomi RedMi Note 2 MT6795 8x2GHz
 4542p
 OnePlus 2 4x1.8GHz S810
 4501p
 Xperia Tablet Z4 4x2Ghz S810
 4345p
 Ulefone BeTouch 2 8x1.7GHz MT6752
 4151p
 HTC One M9 4x2GHz S810
 Huawei Mate S 4x2.2GHz GHz
 4079p
 Sony Xperia Z5 Compact S810 4x2GHz
 Sony Xperia Z3 Plus 4x2GHz S810
 LG Nexus 5X S808 2x1.8GHz
 3539p
 Huawei Honor 7 K935 4x2.2GHz
 Moto X Style s808 2x1.8GHz
 3475p
 LG G4 S808 2x1.8GHz
 3458p
 Huawei P8 K930 4x2GHz
 Galaxy Note 4 4x2.7GHz S805
 3314p
 Nexus 6 4x2.7GHz S805
 3184p
 HTC One M8 4x2.3GHz S801
 Apple iPhone 6 2x1.4GHz
 Google Nexus 5 4x2.2GHz S800
 Xperia Z3 4x2.5GHz S801
 Xperia Z2 4x2.3GHz S801
 Elephone P8000 MT6735 8x1.3GHz
 2676p
 Galaxy S5 S800 4x2.5GHz
 Xperia Z3 compact 4x2.5GHz S801
 LG G3 4x2.5GHz S801
 ZenPad S 8.0 Z3580 4x1.83GHz
 Moto G 3 4x1.4 GHz
 AnTuTu benchmark v5 Multicore (64-bit if supported)
 AnTuTu provides a comprehensive set of benchmarks engineered to quickly and accurately measure processor and memory performance.
 69456p
 68628p
 61308p
 61261p
 60916p
 57366p
 53392p
 53357p
 53128p
 51547p
 Google Nexus 6 4x2.7GHz S805
 50672p
 49960p
 49912p
 49531p
 48931p
 48476p
 45966p
 45853p
 45751p
 44656p
 43358p
 42966p
 42328p
 42283p
 37445p
 33989p
 33463p
 23321p
 3DMark Slingshot system (CPU+GPU)
 Slingshot includes two graphics tests focusing on GPU performance and a physics test for measuring CPU performance.
 Vellamo v3 Metal single core
 2559p
 2285p
 2264p
 1952p
 1553p
 HTC One M8 S801 4x2.3GHz
 1403p
 Marshall London S410 4x1.2GHz
 Vellamo v3 Chrome / HTML
 5795p
 4764p
 4457p
 4455p
 4294p
 3763p
 3115p
 LG G3 QHD 4x2.5GHz S801
 I Geekbench och AnTuTu hänger Huawei P8 med förvånansvärt bra. 3Dmark är tyvärr inte kompatibelt med telefonen eftersom OpenGL ES 3.0-stödet inte är komplett. I Vellamo Metal och HTML hamnar telefonen däremot en bra bit bakom konkurrenterna.
 GFXBench 1
 GFXBench 2
 GFXBench GL Benchmark 3.1 OpenGL ES 3.0 Manhattan native resolution
 Sony Xperia Z5 Compact 720p
 Sony Xperia Z5 1080p
 Sony Xperia Z3 Compact 720p
 OnePlus 2 1080p
 HTC One M9 1080p
 Sony Xperia Z3 Plus 1080p
 Huawei Nexus 6P WQHD
 LG Nexus 5X 1080p
 Xperia Tablet Z4 WQHD
 Galaxy S6 Edge+ WQHD
 Galaxy S6 WQHD
 HTC One M8 1080p
 Sony Xperia Z2 1080p
 Google Nexus 6 WQHD
 ZenPad S 8.0 WQHD
 Huawei Mate S 1080p
 Moto X Style WQHD
 LG G4 WQHD
 Huawei P8 1080p
 Xiaomi RedMi Note 2 1080p
 LG G3 WQHD
 Ulefone BeTouch 2 1080p
 Elephone P8000 1080p
 Moto G 3 720p
 Huawei Honor 7 1080p
 GFXBench GL Benchmark 3.1 OpenGL ES 2.0 1080p T-rex native resolution
 3DMark Sling Shot Test 1 OpenGL ES 3.0 1080p
 Nexus 6 WQHD
 Samsung Galaxy Note 4 WQHD
 Samsung Note 3 1080p
 Google Nexus 5 1080p
 LG Nexus 4 720p
 3DMark Sling Shot Test 2 OpenGL ES 3.0 1080p
 Galaxy S5 1080p
 Nexus 5 1080p
 AnTuTu v5 OpenGL ES 2.0 3D native resolution
 21046P
 20906P
 19039P
 19011P
 17286P
 17251P
 16998P
 15263P
 14996P
 13249P
 13107P
 Sony Xperia Z3 1080p
 13105P
 13101P
 13049P
 12874P
 12496P
 12310P
 11978P
 11818P
 9325P
 3603P
 Grafikdelen är relativt svag i P8 och det syns också i benchmarken. Enheten hamnar långt ner både i AnTuTU Benchmark och i GFXBench.
 Huaweis Kirin 930-plattform presterar inte riktigt i samma klass som det senaste från Qualcomm och Samsung vilka bägge erbjuder både DDR4-minnen och rappare flashminne samt grafikdel. Vi upplever förvisso inte enheten som särskilt långsam, men det är samtidigt ingen enhet vi kan rekommendera för spel. En fördel med Kirin 930 är att den inte blir lika varm som Snapdragion 810 vid användning. Att telefonen inte har någon fingeravtrycksläsare ser vi vidare som lite tråkigt då både Ascend Mate 7 och Honor 7 har detta.
 Ljudkvalitet och mottagning håller mycket hög klass, men vi kan inte annat än att förvånas över att telefonen saknar stöd för Wi-Fi via 5GHz-bandet och därmed också 802.11ac.
 Kameran är godkänd men samtidigt något av en besvikelse då vi hoppats på mer i och med den nya RGBW-sensorn. I vårt tycke blir bilderna snäppet sämre än med Sony Z3 Compact, vilket också innebär att den inte riktigt är i nivå med Galaxy S6 eller LG4, som för närvarande spelar i en egen division. Kameramjukvaran anser vi vidare vara funktionsfattig och rätt krånglig att använda för annat än bildtagning i autoläget.
 Mjukvaran/EMUI 3.1 tycker vi fungerar bra och vi uppskattar speciellt brandväggen som gör det möjligt att blockera nätverksåtkomst för enskilda appar över antingen WiFi, mobilnätverk eller både och. Batteritiden håller alltjämt för en dags användning, men sällan mer än så.
 I det här prissegmentet är svårt att hitta en lika välkonstruerad enhet med en bra användarupplevelse och inte minst fenomenal mottagning. Vi kan därför rekommendera Huawei P8, fast med en brasklapp: Huawei har sedan länge blivit omsprungna av både HTC, Samsung och LG vad gäller Lollipop-utrullningen. Ascend Mate 7 liksom Honor 6 har i skrivande stund fortfarande inte fått Lollipop i skarp version. Om Huawei blir bättre på den här punkten har HTC, Sony, Samsung och LG all anledning att vara på sin vakt.
 Plattform: HiSilicon Kirin 930 64-bit
 Skärm: 5,2" / FHD / 424PPI
 Medioker kamera/kameramjukvara
 Medioker batteritid
 Svag grafikprestanda
 Bästa pris på Prisjakt


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22002D0034
 ETA:n sekakomitean päätös N:o 34/2002, tehty 19 päivänä huhtikuuta 2002, ETA-sopimuksen liitteen II (Tekniset määräykset, standardit, testaus ja varmentaminen) muuttamisesta
 Virallinen lehti nro L 154 , 13/06/2002 s. 0016 - 0017
 ETA:n sekakomitean päätösN:o 34/2002,tehty 19 päivänä huhtikuuta 2002,ETA-sopimuksen liitteen II (Tekniset määräykset, standardit, testaus ja varmentaminen) muuttamisestaETA:N SEKAKOMITEA, jokaottaa huomioon Euroopan talousalueesta tehdyn sopimuksen, sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna Euroopan talousalueesta tehdyn sopimuksen tarkistamisesta tehdyllä pöytäkirjalla, jäljempänä "sopimus", ja erityisesti sen 98 artiklan,sekä katsoo seuraavaa:(1) Sopimuksen liite II muutettiin 1 päivänä helmikuuta 2002 tehdyllä ETA:n sekakomitean päätöksellä N:o 3/2002(1).(2) Rakennusalan tuotteiden vaatimustenmukaisuuden osoittamismenettelystä neuvoston direktiivin 89/106/ETY 20 artiklan 2 kohdan mukaisesti esivalmistettujen eristävien julkisivujärjestelmien osalta 31 päivänä tammikuuta 2001 tehty komission päätös 2001/308/EY(2) olisi otettava osaksi sopimusta.(3) Rakennusalan tuotteiden vaatimustenmukaisuuden osoittamismenettelystä neuvoston direktiivin 89/106/ETY 20 artiklan mukaisesti tehtyjen päätösten 95/467/EY, 96/578/EY, 96/580/EY, 97/176/EY, 97/462/EY, 97/556/EY, 97/740/EY, 97/808/EY, 98/213/EY, 98/214/EY, 98/279/EY, 98/436/EY, 98/437/EY, 98/599/EY, 98/600/EY, 98/601/EY, 1999/89/EY, 1999/90/EY, 1999/91/EY, 1999/454/EY, 1999/469/EY, 1999/470/EY, 1999/471/EY, 1999/472/EY, 2000/245/EY, 2000/273/EY ja 2000/447/EY muuttamisesta 8 päivänä tammikuuta 2001 tehty komission päätös 2001/596/EY(3) olisi otettava osaksi sopimusta.(4) Neuvoston direktiivin 89/106/ETY täytäntöönpanosta kattojen ja katteiden ulkopuolisessa palossa käyttäytymistä koskevan luokituksen osalta 21 päivänä elokuuta 2001 tehty komission päätös 2001/671/EY(4) olisi otettava osaksi sopimusta,ON PÄÄTTÄNYT SEURAAVAA:1 artiklaLisätään sopimuksen liitteessä II olevan XXI luvun 1 kohtaan (neuvoston direktiivi 89/106/ETY) luetelmakohdat seuraavasti: "- 32001 D 0308: komission päätös 2001/308/EY, tehty 31 päivänä tammikuuta 2001 (EYVL L 107, 18.4.2001, s. 25),- 32001 D 0596: komission päätös 2001/596/EY, tehty 8 päivänä tammikuuta 2001 (EYVL L 209, 2.8.2001, s. 33),- 32001 D 0671: komission päätös 2001/671/EY, tehty 21 päivänä elokuuta 2001 (EYVL L 235, 4.9.2001, s. 20).".2 artiklaPäätösten 2001/308/EY, 2001/596/EY ja 2001/671/EY islanniksi ja norjaksi laaditut tekstit, jotka julkaistaan Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisen lehden ETA-täydennysosassa, ovat todistusvoimaisia.3 artiklaTämä päätös tulee voimaan 20 päivänä huhtikuuta 2002, jos kaikki sopimuksen 103 artiklan 1 kohdan mukaiset ilmoitukset on tehty ETA:n sekakomitealle(5).4 artiklaTämä päätös julkaistaan Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisen lehden ETA-osastossa ja ETA-täydennysosassa.Tehty Brysselissä 19 päivänä huhtikuuta 2002.ETA:n sekakomitean puolestaPuheenjohtajaP. Westerlund(1) EYVL L 88, 4.4.2002, s. 5.(2) EYVL L 107, 18.4.2001, s. 25.(3) EYVL L 209, 2.8.2001, s. 33.(4) EYVL L 235, 4.9.2001, s. 20.(5) Valtiosäännön asettamista vaatimuksista ei ole ilmoitettu.


type: wikipedia

text:
1878. aasta (MDCCCLXXVIII) oli 19. sajandi 78. aasta.
 Sündmused Eestis
 Talvest sügiseni ehitasid eesti laevaehitusmeistrid Tobolskis avamere purjelaeva "Sibir".
 1. veebruar (vkj 20. jaanuar) – Eduard von Middendorff immatrikuleeriti Eestimaa rüütelkonda.
 13. märts (vkj 1. märts) – avati vene õppekeelega Tartu II Õpetajate Seminar.
 23. märts (vkj 11. märts) – Carl Robert Jakobsoni väljaandel ilmus esimene ajalehe Sakala number.
 Juunis hakkas ilmuma ajakiri Meelejahutaja.
 Juunis algas eesti ärkamisaja suurlõhe Jakob Hurda ja Carl Robert Jakobsoni vahel.
 Eestis Vana-Kuuste mõisas kasutati esimest korda koorelahutajat, mis märgatavalt edendas piimandust.
 Sündmused maailmas
 14. veebruar - Thomas Alva Edison patenteeris fonograafi
 15. oktoober – New Yorgis alustas tööd Edison Electric Light Company.
 Rootsi insener ja tööstur Carl Gustav de Laval patenteeris koorelahutaja, mille oli leiutanud 1877. aastal.
 Bulgaaria vabanemine Osmanite riigist
 Kotka sai linnaõigused.
 Sündinud
 30. jaanuar – A. H. Tammsaare, eesti kirjanik
 1. veebruar – Alfréd Hajós, Ungari ujuja
 8. veebruar – Martin Buber, juudi filosoof
 7. märts – Boriss Kustodijev, vene kunstnik
 1. november – Konrad Mägi, eesti maalikunstnik
 5. november – Mihhail Artsõbašev, vene kirjanik, dramaturg ja publisist
 7. november – Lise Meitner, austria füüsik
 13. detsember – Otto Hermann, Eesti dirigent ja helilooja
 25. detsember – Louis Chevrolet, USA võidusõitja ja autoehitaja
 31. detsember – Elizabeth Arden (Florence Nightingale Graham), kanada päritolu USA kosmeetik
 Surnud
 ...
 Viited
 1878


text:
Ricardo María de Arredondo (Madrid, 26 de diciembre de 1852 - París, 28 de enero de 1873), fue el primer y único duque de San Ricardo, y también el único hijo del segundo matrimonio del infante don Francisco de Paula de Borbón y su esposa, doña Teresa de Arredondo y Ramírez de Arellano. Don Ricardo nunca fue infante de España, ni portó el apellido Borbón.
 Biografía
 Nació en Madrid poco tiempo después de que se celebrase el matrimonio de sus padres, que tuvo lugar en dicha ciudad el 19 de diciembre del mismo año. Las nupcias, que obtuvieron el consentimiento verbal de la reina Isabel II, impedían no obstante que cualquier hijo nacido de esa unión recibiese el título de infante de España o pudiese portar el apellido Borbón. Con el fin de mejorar la situación de su joven primo, Isabel le otorgó el título de duque de San Ricardo y la Grandeza de España.
 Poco se sabe de la vida de este joven, que probablemente fue un muchacho enfermizo. En 1865 quedó huérfano de padre, y en 1868 La Gloriosa destronó a Isabel II. Ricardo y su madre tuvieron que marcharse a París, donde residió en el número 7 de la Rue Le Sueur, entonces residencia de su medio hermano, Francisco de Asís de Borbón. Falleció allí, sin testar, el 28 de enero de 1873. No dejó herederos ni sucesor alguno a su título, que revirtió a la Corona española.
 Fue enterrado en el cementerio parisino de Montmartre. El ducado de San Ricardo quedó suprimido por Real Orden el 19 de noviembre de 1883.
 Bibliografía
 Nacidos en Madrid
 Casa de Borbón en España
 Duques de España