text:
 12.10.2020
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 331/24
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) 2020/1435
 z dne 9. oktobra 2020
 o obveznostih registracijskih zavezancev, da dopolnijo svoje registracije na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o registraciji, evalvaciji, avtorizaciji in omejevanju kemikalij (REACH)
 (Besedilo velja za EGP)
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2006 o registraciji, evalvaciji, avtorizaciji in omejevanju kemikalij (REACH) ter o ustanovitvi Evropske agencije za kemikalije in o spremembi Direktive 1999/45/ES ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 793/93 in Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1488/94 ter Direktive Sveta 76/769/EGS in direktiv Komisije 91/155/EGS, 93/67/EGS, 93/105/ES in 2000/21/ES (1) ter zlasti člena 132 Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Svet je v svojih sklepih z dne 26. junija 2019 z naslovom „Snovanje strategije Unije za trajnostno politiko na področju kemikalij“ ponovno poudaril pomen konkretnih ukrepov za zagotavljanje skladnosti in izboljšanje kakovosti registracijskih dokumentacij ter zlasti potrebo po učinkovitem mehanizmu za njihovo posodabljanje.
 (2)
 V skladu s členom 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 morajo registracijski zavezanci (bodisi posamezni registracijski zavezanci bodisi glavni registracijski zavezanec in drugi člani skupine, ki je opravila skupno predložitev) brez nepotrebnega odlašanja svoje registracije dopolniti s pomembnimi novimi informacijami in jih predložiti Evropski agenciji za kemikalije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Agencija). Informacije se štejejo za „nove“, če se je registracijski zavezanec z njimi seznanil po zadnji dopolnitvi ali se lahko upravičeno pričakuje, da se je z njimi seznanil po zadnji dopolnitvi, oziroma po prvi registraciji, če dopolnitev ni bilo, ne glede na to, ali so informacije dejansko obstajale pred tem. Registracijski zavezanci morajo zaradi odgovornosti za dopolnitev svojih registracij nadzorovati in spremljati vse ustrezne informacije, da zagotovijo, da so njihove registracije vselej posodobljene. V primeru skupnih predložitev so za dopolnitev registracije v zvezi z informacijami, ki so bile predložene skupaj, v skladu s členom 11 Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 odgovorni vsi registracijski zavezanci, pri čemer je ta obveznost zajeta z določbami o souporabi podatkov in delitvi stroškov iz Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) 2016/9 (2).
 (3)
 V zadnjem splošnem poročilu, ki ga je Komisija objavila v skladu s členom 117(4) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, je bilo navedeno, da je treba izboljšati izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki jo imajo registracijski zavezanci v skladu s členom 22(1) navedene uredbe. Izpolnjevanje navedene obveznosti je pomembno za zagotavljanje, da registracijske dokumentacije vselej izražajo sedanje stanje, da lahko Agencija in države članice učinkovito evalvirajo dokumentacije in snovi ter da nasveti o varni uporabi temeljijo na najnovejših in zanesljivih podatkih. Zato je za olajšanje skladnosti s členom 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 in njegovega izvrševanja ter učinkovitejše izvajanje določb navedene uredbe v praksi primerno, da se določijo roki, do katerih je treba navedeno obveznost izpolniti.
 (4)
 Da bi olajšali izpolnjevanje in izvrševanje določb o zahtevah po informacijah iz člena 10 in 12 Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 ter posledično določb o splošnih in stalnih obveznostih registriranja iz členov 6 in 7 navedene uredbe, bi bilo treba pojasniti roke, ki se uporabljajo za dopolnitve registracijskih dokumentacij po spremembi prilog k navedeni uredbi.
 (5)
 Roki, določeni v tej uredbi, bi morali biti čim krajši, pri čemer bi bilo treba upoštevati to, kar je na podlagi pretekle prakse razumno izvedljivo za registracijske zavezance. Na podlagi tega bi bilo treba določiti trimesečni rok za dopolnitve, ki so bolj upravne narave, in dopolnitve, ki vključujejo pridobitev podatkov za izpolnitev zahtev Priloge VII ali VIII k Uredbi (ES) št. 1907/2006 po prejemu poročila o študiji. Za bolj zapletene dopolnitve, kot so dopolnitve, zaradi katerih je treba pridobiti podatke na podlagi predloga za testiranje ali sprememb poročila o kemijski varnosti ali navodil za varno uporabo, bi bilo treba določiti šest-, devet- oziroma dvanajstmesečne roke. V primerih, kadar član skupine, ki je opravila skupno predložitev, ne more opraviti posamezne dopolnitve, dokler glavni registracijski zavezanec ne dopolni registracije, bi bilo treba navedenemu članu zagotoviti devetmesečni rok za dopolnitev poročila o kemijski varnosti in trimesečni rok za vsako drugo morebitno dopolnitev od datuma, na katerega je Agencija potrdila, da je registracija, kot jo je dopolnil glavni registracijski zavezanec, popolna. Kadar je zaradi spremembe prilog k Uredbi (ES) št. 1907/2006 potrebna dopolnitev, bi moral biti rok njen datum začetka uporabe, razen če je v spremembi naveden drug rok.
 (6)
 Roki, določeni v tej uredbi, bi se morali uporabljati kot zgornje meje. Povedano drugače, registracijski zavezanci bi morali dopolnitve opraviti čim prej, vsekakor pa najpozneje do zadevnega roka. Prekoračitev roka bi samodejno privedla do sklepa, da je pri dopolnitvi registracije prišlo do neupravičene zamude. Za potrebe točke (c) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 pa se ne bi smel določiti rok za dopolnitev zaradi spremembe v nižji količinski razpon, saj je lahko taka sprememba količine začasna, dopolnitev pa ne bi imela negativnih posledic za varstvo zdravja ljudi in okolja.
 (7)
 Roki, določeni v tej uredbi, razen člena 13 te uredbe, bi se morali uporabljati samo za obveznost iz člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, ne za druge obveznosti dopolnitve iz navedene uredbe, za katere so roki določeni v drugih aktih. Roki, določeni v tej uredbi, torej ne bodo vplivali niti na roke za dopolnitve, ki jih Agencija zahteva v skladu s členom 22(2) navedene uredbe, niti na specifične roke iz členov 31 in 32 ter naslova V navedene uredbe.
 (8)
 Ta uredba bi morala začeti veljati šele 60. dan po njeni objavi, da bi se registracijskim zavezancem zagotovilo dovolj časa za prilagoditev uvedbi rokov, ki so določeni v tej uredbi.
 (9)
 Ukrepi iz te uredbe so v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega s členom 133(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Spremembe statusa ali podatkov registracijskega zavezanca
 V primeru spremembe, ki spada pod točko (a) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje tri mesece od datuma začetka veljavnosti navedene spremembe.
 Člen 2
 Spremembe sestave snovi
 V primeru spremembe, ki spada pod točko (b) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje tri mesece od datuma začetka proizvodnje ali uvoza z navedeno spremembo sestave snovi.
 Člen 3
 Spremembe
 količinskega razpona
 1. V primeru spremembe, ki spada pod točko (c) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 in povzroči višji količinski razpon, se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje tri mesece od naslednjega datuma:
 (a)
 kadar se pridobijo novi podatki za dopolnitev na podlagi uporabe Priloge VII ali VIII k Uredbi (ES) št. 1907/2006, datuma prejetja vseh končnih poročil o testu, potrebnih za dopolnitev;
 (b)
 v primerih, ki ne spadajo pod točko (a), datuma, ko se doseže višji količinski razpon.
 Za primere iz točke (a) prvega pododstavka se najpozneje tri mesece od datuma, ko se doseže višji količinski razpon, začnejo pogajanja o pogodbi z laboratorijem za vse ustrezne teste.
 Uporaba rokov iz odstavka 1 tega člena ne vpliva na obveznost iz člena 12(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, v skladu s katerim registracijski zavezanec takoj, ko je dosežen višji količinski prag, Agenciji nemudoma sporoči dodatne informacije, ki jih zahteva.
 2. V primeru spremembe, ki spada pod točko (c) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 in vključuje prenehanje proizvodnje ali uvoza, se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje tri mesece od datuma prenehanja proizvodnje ali uvoza.
 3. Odstavek 1 tega člena se ne uporablja, če sprememba nastane zaradi ponovnega zagona proizvodnje ali uvoza registracijskega zavezanca v skladu s členom 50(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006. V takem primeru se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji pred ponovnim zagonom proizvodnje ali uvoza.
 Člen 4
 Nove opredeljene uporabe in nove odsvetovane uporabe
 V primeru, ki spada pod točko (d) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje tri mesece od:
 (a)
 datuma, ko registracijski zavezanec prejme vse informacije, potrebne za izvedbo ocene tveganja za to novo uporabo, v primeru nove opredeljene uporabe;
 (b)
 datuma, ko so registracijskemu zavezancu na voljo informacije o tveganjih, povezanih z navedeno uporabo, v primeru nove odsvetovane uporabe.
 Člen 5
 Nova spoznanja glede tveganj za zdravje ljudi in/ali okolje
 V primeru, ki spada pod točko (e) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje šest mesecev od datuma, ko se registracijski zavezanec seznani ali se lahko razumno pričakuje, da je seznanjen z zadevnimi novimi spoznanji.
 Člen 6
 Spremembe v razvrstitvi in označitvi registrirane snovi
 1. V primeru spremembe, ki spada pod točko (f) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 ter je posledica dodatka, spremembe ali odstranitve usklajene razvrstitve iz Priloge VI k Uredbi (ES) št. 1272/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (3), se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje do datuma začetka uporabe navedene spremembe.
 2. V primeru spremembe, ki spada pod točko (f) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 in je posledica prilagojene razvrstitve snovi zaradi nove evalvacije v skladu s členom 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 1272/2008, se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje šest mesecev od datuma sprejetja sklepa o spremembi razvrstitve in označitve snovi.
 Člen 7
 Posodobitve ali spremembe poročila o kemijski varnosti ali navodil za varno uporabo
 V primeru, ki spada pod točko (g) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje 12 mesecev od datuma ugotovitve potrebe po posodobitvi ali spremembi poročila o kemijski varnosti ali navodil za varno uporabo iz oddelka 5 Priloge VI k navedeni uredbi.
 Člen 8
 Predlogi za testiranje pred izvedbo testa iz Priloge IX ali Priloge X
 1. V primeru, ki spada pod točko (h) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, se registracija dopolni tako, da se vključi predlog za testiranje, in predloži Agenciji najpozneje šest mesecev od datuma, ko registracijski zavezanec ugotovi, da je treba opraviti enega ali več testov iz Priloge IX ali X k navedeni uredbi.
 2. Rok iz odstavka 1 tega člena se ne uporablja, če se predlog za testiranje oblikuje v okviru strategije testiranja, ki se nanaša na skupino snovi. V takem primeru se ustrezne registracije dopolnijo in predložijo Agenciji najpozneje 12 mesecev od datuma, ko registracijski zavezanec ali registracijski zavezanci ugotovijo, da je treba opraviti enega ali več testov iz Priloge IX ali X k Uredbi (ES) št. 1907/2006.
 Člen 9
 Spremembe odobrenega dostopa do informacij v registraciji
 V primeru spremembe, ki spada pod točko (i) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, se registracija dopolni in predloži Agenciji najpozneje tri mesece od datuma nastanka spremembe.
 Člen 10
 Dopolnitve, ki vključujejo dodatno testiranje
 Roki iz členov 1, 2, 4, 5 in 6 te uredbe se ne uporabljajo, če se zaradi katere koli od okoliščin, ki spadajo pod točko (a), (b), (d), (e) ali (f) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, pojavi potreba po pridobitvi podatkov za izpolnitev zahtev po informacijah iz Priloge VII ali VIII k Uredbi (ES) št. 1907/2006.
 V tem primeru se dopolnitev registracije zaradi navedene okoliščine in dopolnitev registracije zaradi izpolnitve zahtev po podatkih iz Priloge VII ali VIII k Uredbi (ES) št. 1907/2006 skupaj predložita agenciji najpozneje tri mesece od datuma prejetja končnih poročil o testu, potrebnih za dopolnitev.
 V takih okoliščinah:
 (a)
 se najpozneje tri mesece od datuma, ko se ugotovi potreba po izvedbi dodatnih testov, začnejo pogajanja o pogodbi z laboratorijem za vse ustrezne teste;
 (b)
 se potreba po izvedbi dodatnih testov iz točke (a) ugotovi v ustreznem roku iz člena 1, 2, 4, 5 ali 6 te uredbe.
 Člen 11
 Druge združene dopolnitve
 1. V primeru, zajetem s členom 10 te uredbe, ali primeru, ki spada pod točke (a) do (f) ali točko (i) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 ter zaradi katerega se pojavi tudi potreba po posodobitvi ali spremembi poročila o kemijski varnosti ali navodil za varno uporabo v skladu s točko (g) člena 22(1) navedene uredbe, se dopolnitev registracije zaradi navedene okoliščine in dopolnitev registracije zaradi posodobitve ali spremembe poročila o kemijski varnosti predložita Agenciji skupaj najpozneje 12 mesecev od datuma prejema končnih poročil o testu, potrebnih za dopolnitev.
 2. Brez poseganja v odstavek 1 tega člena se dopolnitev registracije zaradi okoliščine, ki spada pod več kot eno od točk (a) do (i) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, predloži Agenciji najpozneje v najdaljšem roku, določenem v členih 1 do 10 te uredbe, pri čemer se za začetni datum šteje dan, ko je bila ugotovljena prva potreba po dopolnitvi registracije.
 Člen 12
 Dopolnitve skupnih predložitev
 1. Z odstopanjem od prejšnjih členov te uredbe član skupine, ki je opravila skupno predložitev, v primeru, kadar je njegova dopolnitev v skladu s členom 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 odvisna od tega, da registracijo najprej dopolni glavni registracijski zavezanec, svojo registracijo dopolni in jo predloži Agenciji:
 (a)
 najpozneje v treh mesecih, kadar je dopolnitev potrebna zaradi okoliščine, ki spada pod točke (a) do (f) ali točko (i) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006;
 (b)
 najpozneje v devetih mesecih, kadar je potrebna posodobitev ali sprememba poročila o kemijski varnosti ali navodil za varno uporabo v skladu s točko (g) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006;
 (c)
 najpozneje v devetih mesecih v primeru okoliščine, ki spada pod točke (a) do (f) ali točko (i) člena 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 ter v kateri je treba tudi posodobiti ali spremeniti obstoječe poročilo o kemijski varnosti ali navodila za varno uporabo v skladu s točko (g) člena 22(1) navedene uredbe. V takem primeru se dopolnitev registracije zaradi navedene okoliščine in dopolnitev registracije zaradi posodobitve ali spremembe poročila o kemijski varnosti ali navodil za varno uporabo skupaj predložita Agenciji.
 2. Roki iz odstavka 1 tega člena se uporabljajo od datuma, ko Agencija v skladu s členom 22(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 glavnega registracijskega zavezanca in druge člane skupine, ki je opravila skupno predložitev, obvesti o popolnosti registracijske dokumentacije, kot jo je dopolnil glavni registracijski zavezanec.
 3. Kadar dopolnitev, ki jo mora opraviti član skupine, ki je opravila skupno predložitev, v skladu s členom 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006, ni odvisna od tega, da registracijo najprej dopolni glavni registracijski zavezanec, se uporabljajo roki iz členov 1 do 11 te uredbe.
 Člen 13
 Dopolnitve zaradi sprememb prilog k Uredbi (ES) št. 1907/2006 v skladu s členom 131 navedene uredbe
 1. V primeru spremembe ene ali več prilog k Uredbi (ES) št. 1907/2006 v skladu s členom 131 navedene uredbe, zaradi katere prihaja do sprememb informacij, ki jih je treba v skladu s členom 10 ali 12 navedene uredbe predložiti Agenciji, se registracija dopolni najpozneje do datuma začetka uporabe navedene spremembe, razen če je v navedeni spremembi določeno drugače.
 2. Z odstopanjem od členov 1 do 12 te uredbe, kadar je zaradi spremembe ene ali več prilog k Uredbi (ES) št. 1907/2006 v skladu s členom 131 navedene uredbe treba dopolniti registracijsko dokumentacijo v skladu s členom 22(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 v roku iz te uredbe, se uporablja le rok iz odstavka 1 tega člena, razen če je v navedeni spremembi določeno drugače.
 Člen 14
 Začetek veljavnosti
 Ta uredba začne veljati 60. dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 9. oktobra 2020
 Za Komisijo
 Predsednica
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) UL L 396, 30.12.2006, str. 1.
 (2) Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2016/9 z dne 5. januarja 2016 o skupni predložitvi in souporabi podatkov v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1907/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o registraciji, evalvaciji, avtorizaciji in omejevanju kemikalij (REACH) (UL L 3, 6.1.2016, str. 41).
 (3) Uredba (ES) št. 1272/2008 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 16. decembra 2008 o razvrščanju, označevanju in pakiranju snovi ter zmesi, o spremembi in razveljavitvi direktiv 67/548/EGS in 1999/45/ES ter spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 (UL L 353, 31.12.2008, str. 1).


type: wikipedia

text:
(2074) Shoemaker – planetoida z grupy przecinających orbitę Marsa okrążająca Słońce w ciągu 2 lat i 152 dni w średniej odległości 1,8 j.a. Została odkryta 17 października 1974 roku w Obserwatorium Palomar przez Eleanor Helin. Nazwa planetoidy pochodzi od Gene Shoemakera, amerykańskiego astronoma i geologa. Przed nadaniem nazwy planetoida nosiła oznaczenie tymczasowe (2074) 1974 UA.
 Zobacz też
 lista planetoid 2001–3000
 Lista planetoid
 Linki zewnętrzne
 Planetoidy przecinające orbitę Marsa
 Nazwane planetoidy
 Obiekty astronomiczne odkryte w 1974


text:
Caerhays Castle (auch: Caerhayes Castle oder Carhayes Castle) ist ein teilweise befestigtes Herrenhaus etwa 800 Meter südlich des Dorfzentrums von St Michael Caerhays in der englischen Grafschaft Cornwall. Das Haus steht über dem Porthluney Cove am Ärmelkanal. Im Deutschen bedeutet der Name des Hauses „eingeschlossene Burg“. Im Garten befindet sich die größte Sammlung von Magnolien in England, darunter auch eine von vier nationalen Magnoliensammlungen unter der Ägide des National Council for the Conservation of Plants and Gardens.
 Geschichte der Grundherrschaft
 Arundell
 Im Frühmittelalter gehörte die Grundherrschaft der Familie Arundell. Die älteste Erwähnung des Namens ist Karihaes im Jahre 1259 und 1379 wurde er als Karihaes erwähnt, aber seine ursprüngliche Bedeutung ist nicht bekannt.
 Trevanion
 Um 1379 fiel die Grundherrschaft an die Familie Trevanion, als Robert Trevanion und Johanna Arundell heirateten. Johanna Arundell war Tochter und Erbin von Rudolph Arundell aus Caerhays. John Trevanion erbte das Anwesen 1703, ließ das dort existierende Herrenhaus umbauen und die Gärten anlagen.
 Bettesworth-Trevanion
 Mit dem Tod von William Trevanion 1767 war die männliche Linie der Trevanions ausgestorben und das Anwesen fiel an den Sohn seiner Schwester, John Bettesworth. 1801, als Bettesworths 21-Jähriger Sohn Caerhays Castle erbte, nahm er Trevanion als zusätzlichen Namen an, hieß dann also John Bettesworth-Trevanion.
 Er ließ das heutige Herrenhaus an einer Stelle nahe dem früheren Herrenhaus errichten. Sein Architekt war der englisch-walisische John Nash. Bettesworth-Trevanion wurde 1807 zum Parlamentsabgeordneten für den Wahlkreis Penryn gewählt und im selben Jahr begann der Bau des neuen Herrenhauses. 1810 wurde es fertiggestellt. Das neue Herrenhaus wurde nahe dem alten gebaut, das während der Regentschaft Heinrichs VIII. bereits erweitert worden war.
 Williams
 Nachdem Bettesworth-Trevanion vor seinen Gläubigern nach Paris geflohen war, kaufte Michael Williams II. Caerhays Castle 1854 von diesen Gläubigern. Der jüngere Bruder von Michael Williams II., Sir William (1791–1870) wurde 1866 zum Baronet ernannt. Nachdem das Haus über eine Dekade lang nicht bewohnt und auch eine Zeitlang nicht wasserdicht war, ließen Michael Williams II. und sein Sohn, John Michael Williams (1813–1880) es umfassend renovieren. Michael Williams II. starb 1858 und hinterließ Caerhays Castle seinem ältesten Sohn John Michael, während er Scorrier House seinem sechsten Sohn, George Williams (1827–1891) hinterließ, der 1875 High Sheriff of Cornwall war. Nach dem Tod von John Michael Williams 1880 erbte dessen zweiter Sohn, John Charles Williams (1861–1939), damals 18 Jahre alt, das Anwesen von Caerhays Castle. John Charles Williams heiratete 1884 und im selben Jahr wurde das Haus erneut einer Restaurierung und einem Umbau unterzogen. Er wurde ein enthusiastischer Gärtner und Botaniker, der Expeditionen zur Erlangung von Pflanzen sponserte, um seinen Burggarten mit Neuerwerbungen zu füllen. Saatgut, das Ernest Henry Wilson 1903 aus China mitbrachte, spendete ihm Harry Veitch. Der derzeitige (2012) Eigner ist Charles Williams.
 Konstruktion
 Das Herrenhaus, das wie eine normannische Burg aussieht, wurde aus grobem Stein aus der unmittelbaren Nachbarschaft erbaut. Die 48 Meter lange Hauptfassade zeigt nach Süden und hat eine Terrasse mit Zinnen. Die wichtigsten Räume befinden sich an der Süd- und der Ostseite und sind durch eine lange Galerie verbunden. Bemalte Glasfenster schmücken das Speisezimmer, das Treppenhaus und die Eingangshalle.
 Teile des alten Herrenhauses blieben erhalten, z. B. die alte Kapelle und ein alter Spazierweg zum Meer, der „Watchhouse Walk“ genannt wird.
 Historische Erhaltung
 Das neue Herrenhaus wurde am 15. November 1988 von English Heritage als historisches Gebäude I. Grades gelistet. Weitere historische Gebäude I. Grades auf dem Gelände des Herrenhauses sind die Gartenmauer mit ihren Torwegen und dem Follytürmen, die westlich und östlich an das Herrenhaus angeschlossen sind, die Higher Lodge, die Lower Lodge mit den angebauten Gartenschirmen, und die Nebengebäude, die südwestlich an das Herrenhaus angeschlossen sind.
 Garten
 Der Garten bedeckt eine Fläche von fast 49 Hektar und wird von vier Straßen durchschnitten, die „Rote Straße“, „Blaue Straße“, „Gelbe Straße“ und „Grüne Straße“ heißen. Es gibt dort auch Feldwege, grasige Wege und Stufen. Im Garten finden sich 600 Pflanzenarten, wie Bäume und Büsche, z. B. Azaleen und Kamelien. Im Jahre 1917 gab es dort über 250 Arten von Rhododendren. Der Garten beherbergt auch die größte Sammlung von Magnolien in England.
 Einzelnachweise und Bemerkungen
 Weblinks
 Offizielle Website von Caerhays Castle
 Herrenhaus in England
 Garten in Cornwall
 Grade-I-Bauwerk in Cornwall
 Erbaut in den 1800er Jahren


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 18.12.2010
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 346/26
 Lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu, ko 2010. gada 5. jūlijā iesniedza Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Itālija) — Edipower SpA/Autorità per l'Energia Elettrica e il Gas
 (Lieta C-332/10)
 ()
 2010/C 346/43
 Tiesvedības valoda — itāļu
 Iesniedzējtiesa
 Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza
 Lietas dalībnieki pamata procesā
 Prasītāja: Edipower SpA
 Atbildētāja: Autorità per l'Energia Elettrica e il Gas
 Prejudiciālie jautājumi
 Vai ar Līguma 23., 43., 49. un 56. pantu, kā arī Direktīvas 2003/54 (1) 11. panta 2. un 6. punktu un 24. pantu tiek pieļauts tāds valsts tiesiskais regulējums — kas nav paziņots Eiropas Komisijai —, kurā attiecībā uz noteiktiem elektroenerģijas ražotājiem, kuriem konkrētajos apstākļos ir būtiska loma, lai tiktu nodrošinātas dispečervadības pakalpojumu vajadzības, ir pastāvīgi noteikts pienākums iesniegt elektroenerģijas biržā piedāvājumus saskaņā ar procedūrām, kuras tīkla pārvaldītājs nosaka, balstoties uz piemērojamo regulējumu, un saskaņā ar kurām ražotājs nevar brīvi noteikt par šiem piedāvājumiem saņemamās atlīdzības apmēru, jo tas tiek noteikts, pamatojoties uz kritērijiem, kuri nav tikuši iepriekš noteikti saskaņā ar “pārredzamām, nediskriminējošām un tirgus principiem atbilstīgām procedūrām”?
 (1) OV L 176, 37. lpp.


type: other

text:
Kúria - Bíróság, törvényszék.tlap.hu
 Kúria képes leírás - Bíróság, törvényszék.tlap.hu
 Híres magyar perek
 Ingyenes jogtárak, cégtárak és döntvénykeresők
 Jogi egyetemek
 Szakfordítók és tolmácsok
 Itt vagy: birosag.tlap.hu » Kúria
 - összes linkdoboz -Egyéb hasznos oldalakGépelő IrodákHíres magyar perekIgazságügyi szakértőkIngyenes jogtárak, cégtárak és döntvénykeresőkÍtélőtáblákJogi egyetemekJogorvoslatokKormányhivatalokKúriaSzakfordítók és tolmácsokTörvényszékekÜgyvédek, ügyvédi irodák
 A Kúria saját honlapja
 Az Alaptörvény 25. cikke szerint a Kúria Magyarország legfőbb bírósági szerve. A Kúria biztosítja a bíróságok jogalkalmazásának egységét, jogegységi határozatai a bíróságokra kötelezőek. A bíróságok szervezetéről és igazgatásáról szóló 2011. évi CLXI. törvény értelmében a Kúria: a.) elbírálja - törvényben meghatározott ügyekben - a törvényszék, továbbá az ítélőtábla határozata ellen előterjesztett jogorvoslatot, b.) elbírálja a felülvizsgálati kérelmet, c.) a bíróságokra kötelező jogegységi határozatot hoz, d.) joggyakorlat-elemzést folytat a jogerősen befejezett ügyekben, ennek keretében feltárja és vizsgálja a bíróságok ítélkezési gyakorlatát, e.) elvi bírósági határozatokat és elvi bírósági döntéseket tesz közzé, f.) dönt az önkormányzati rendelet más jogszabályba ütközéséről és megsemmisítéséről, g.) dönt a helyi önkormányzat törvényen alapuló jogalkotási kötelezettsége elmulasztásának megállapításáról, és h.) eljár a hatáskörébe tartozó egyéb ügyekben.
 http://www.kuria-birosag.hu/
 Dr. Darák Péter kúriai bíró
 Dr. Darák Péter pályafutását a Zalaegerszegi Városi Ügyészségen kezdte fogalmazóként, bírói pályafutását 1991-ben kezdte a Zalaegerszegi Városi Bíróságon. 2001-től a Pázmány Péter Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Karának ingatlan-forgalmazói szakjogászi képzésének vezetője. 2005-tól tanársegéd, majd adjunktus az ELTE ÁJK Pénzügyi Jogi Tanszékén. 2012 óta a Kúria elnöke.
 http://www.darak.hu/
 A budapesti Berzsenyi Dániel Gimnáziumban érettségizett, majd az ELTE Állam- és Jogtudományi Karán szerzett diplomát. A Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetemen kriminalisztikai szakjogász képzettséget szerzett. A Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróságon dolgozott fogalmazóként, titkárként, majd bíróként, eközben egy évig bíráskodott a Debreceni Járásbíróságon is, a Fővárosi Törvényszéken büntető ügyszakos tanácselnök, címzetes táblabíró volt. Jelenleg kúriai bíró és az ELTE ÁJK tiszteletbeli tanára.
 http://vaskuti.hu/
 Kiemelt ügyek - Devizahitel
 2014.01.09. 11:40
 Üdvözlünk a(z) birosag.tlap.hu fórumán!


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22001D0041
 Απόφαση της Μικτής Επιτροπής του ΕΟX αριθ. 41/2001 της 30ής Μαρτίου 2001 για την τροποποίηση του παραρτήματος Ι (Κτηνιατρικά και φυτοϋγειονομικά θέματα) της συμφωνίας ΕΟΧ
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα αριθ. L 158 της 14/06/2001 σ. 0047 - 0050
 Απόφαση της Μικτής Επιτροπής του ΕΟXαριθ. 41/2001της 30ής Μαρτίου 2001για την τροποποίηση του παραρτήματος Ι (Κτηνιατρικά και φυτοϋγειονομικά θέματα) της συμφωνίας ΕΟΧΗ ΜΙΚΤΗ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ TOY ΕΟΧ,Έχοντας υπόψη:τη συμφωνία για τον Ευρωπαϊκό Οικονομικό Χώρο, μετά την τροποποίησή της με το πρωτόκολλο προσαρμογής της συμφωνίας για τον Ευρωπαϊκό Οικονομικό Χώρο, εφεξής "η συμφωνία" και, ιδίως, το άρθρο 98,Εκτιμώντας τα εξής:(1) Το παράρτημα Ι της συμφωνίας τροποποιήθηκε με την απόφαση αριθ. 189/1999 της 17ης Δεκεμβρίου 1999(1) της Μικτής Επιτροπής του ΕΟΧ.(2) Εννέα πράξεις σχετικά με ζητήματα ελέγχου, δύο πράξεις σχετικά με μέτρα ελέγχου - γνωστοποίηση ασθένειας -, πέντε πράξεις σχετικά με την υγεία των ζώων - ανταλλαγή και διάθεση στην αγορά ζώντων ζώων - και μία πράξη σχετικά με μέτρα που αφορούν πολλούς τομείς, πρέπει να ενσωματωθούν στη συμφωνία.(3) Η παρούσα απόφαση δεν εφαρμόζεται στην Ισλανδία και στο Λιχτενστάιν,ΑΠΟΦΑΣΙΖΕΙ:Άρθρο 1Το κεφάλαιο Ι του παραρτήματος Ι της συμφωνίας τροποποιείται όπως καθορίζεται στο παράρτημα της παρούσας απόφασης.Άρθρο 2Τα κείμενα των αποφάσεων 98/580/ΕΚ(2), 1999/317/ΕΚ(3), 1999/335/ΕΚ(4), 1999/375/ΕΚ(5), 1999/376/ΕΚ(6), 1999/377/ΕΚ(7), 1999/465/ΕΚ(8), 1999/466/ΕΚ(9), 1999/467/ΕΚ(10), 1999/520/ΕΚ(11), 1999/546/ΕΚ(12), 1999/693/ΕΚ(13), 1999/696/ΕΚ(14), 2000/60/ΕΚ(15), 2000/62/ΕΚ(16), 2000/69/ΕΚ(17) και 2000/113/ΕΚ(18) της Επιτροπής στη νορβηγική γλώσσα, που δημοσιεύονται στο Συμπλήρωμα για τον ΕΟΧ της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων, είναι αυθεντικά.Άρθρο 3Η παρούσα απόφαση τίθεται σε ισχύ την 31η Μαρτίου 2001, υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι έχουν πραγματοποιηθεί προς τη Μικτή Επιτροπή ΕΟΧ όλες οι κοινοποιήσεις που προβλέπονται στο άρθρο 103 παράγραφος 1 της συμφωνίας(19).Άρθρο 4Η παρούσα απόφαση δημοσιεύεται στο τμήμα για τον ΕΟΧ και στο συμπλήρωμα για τον ΕΟΧ της Επίσημης Εφημερίδας των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων.Βρυξέλλες, 30 Μαρτίου 2001.Για τη Μικτή Επιτροπή ΕΟΧΟ ΠρόεδροςP. Westerlund(1) ΕΕ L 74 της 15.3.2001, σ. 24.(2) ΕΕ L 279 της 16.10.1998, σ. 49.(3) ΕΕ L 122 της 12.5.1999, σ. 40.(4) ΕΕ L 126 της 20.5.1999, σ. 21.(5) ΕΕ L 144 της 9.6.1999, σ. 34.(6) ΕΕ L 144 της 9.6.1999, σ. 35.(7) EE L 144 της 9.6.1999, σ. 36.(8) ΕΕ L 181 της 16.7.1999, σ. 32.(9) ΕΕ L 181 της 16.7.1999, σ. 34.(10) ΕΕ L 181 της 16.7.1999, σ. 36.(11) ΕΕ L 199 της 30.7.1999, σ. 72.(12) ΕΕ L 209 της 7.8.1999, σ. 32.(13) ΕΕ L 273 της 23.10.1999, σ. 14.(14) ΕΕ L 275 της 26.10.1999, σ. 32.(15) ΕΕ L 22 της 27.1.2000, σ. 61.(16) ΕΕ L 22 της 27.1.2000, σ. 65.(17) ΕΕ L 23 της 28.1.2000, σ. 76.(18) ΕΕ L 33 της 8.2.2000, σ. 23.(19) Δεν έχουν αναφερθεί συνταγματικές απαιτήσεις.ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑτης απόφασης αριθ. 41/2001 της Μικτής Επιτροπής του ΕΟΧΤο κεφάλαιο Ι του παραρτήματος Ι της συμφωνίας τροποποιείται όπως καθορίζεται κατωτέρω.1. Στο σημείο 2 προστίθενται τα ακόλουθα (απόφαση 98/589/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής) στο μέρος 1.2 υπό τον τίτλο "Πράξεις τις οποίες λαμβάνουν δεόντως υπ' όψη τα κράτη της ΕΖΕΣ και η εποπτεύουσα αρχή της ΕΖΕΣ": , μετά τη τροποποίηση με την:- 399 D 0520: Απόφαση 1999/520/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 9ης Ιουλίου 1999 (ΕΕ L 199 της 30.7.1999, σ. 72).2. Μετά το σημείο 3 παρεμβάλλονται τα ακόλουθα σημεία (απόφαση 98/590/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής) στο μέρος 1.2 υπό τον τίτλο "Πράξεις τις οποίες λαμβάνουν δεόντως υπ' όψη τα κράτη της ΕΖΕΣ και η εποπτεύουσα αρχή της ΕΖΕΣ": 4. 399 D 0317: Απόφαση 1999/317/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 28ης Απριλίου 1999, για την αναγνώριση του πλήρως επιχειρησιακού χαρακτήρα της φινλανδικής βάσης δεδομένων για τα βοοειδή (ΕΕ L 122 της 12.5.1999, σ. 40).5. 399 D 0375: Απόφαση 1999/375/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 19ης Μαΐου 1999, για την αναγνώριση του πλήρως επιχειρησιακού χαρακτήρα της βάσης δεδομένων του Λουξεμβούργου για τα βοοειδή (ΕΕ L 144 της 9.6.1999, σ. 34).6. 399 D 0376: Απόφαση 1999/376/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 19ης Μαΐου 1999, για την αναγνώριση του πλήρως επιχειρησιακού χαρακτήρα της φινλανδικής βάσης δεδομένων για τα βοοειδή (ΕΕ L 144 της 9.6.1999, σ. 35).7. 399 D 0377: Απόφαση 1999/377/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 19ης Μαΐου 1999, για την αναγνώριση του πλήρως επιχειρησιακού χαρακτήρα της βελγικής βάσης δεδομένων για τα βοοειδή (ΕΕ L 144 της 9.6.1999, σ. 36).8. 399 D 0546: Απόφαση 1999/546/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 13ης Ιουλίου 1999, για την αναγνώριση του πλήρως επιχειρησιακού χαρακτήρα της ολλανδικής βάσης δεδομένων για τα βοοειδή (ΕΕ L 209 της 7.8.1999, σ. 32).9. 399 D 0693: Απόφαση 1999/693/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 5ης Οκτωβρίου 1999, για την αναγνώριση του πλήρως επιχειρησιακού χαρακτήρα της σουηδικής βάσης δεδομένων για τα βοοειδή (ΕΕ L 273 της 23.10.1999, σ. 14).10. 399 D 0696: Απόφαση 1999/696/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 11ης Οκτωβρίου 1999, για την αναγνώριση του πλήρως επιχειρησιακού χαρακτήρα της βάσης δεδομένων της Βορείου Ιρλανδίας για τα βοοειδή (ΕΕ L 275 της 26.10.1999, σ. 32).11. 32000 D 0062: Απόφαση 2000/62/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 21ης Δεκεμβρίου 1999, για έγκριση του σχεδίου που υπέβαλε η Πορτογαλία για την παρακολούθηση της αφρικανικής πανώλης των χοίρων (ΕΕ L 22 της 27.1.2000, σ. 65).3. Στο σημείο 9 προστίθενται τα ακόλουθα (απόφαση 1999/246/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής) στο μέρος 3.2 υπό τον τίτλο "Πράξεις τις οποίες λαμβάνουν δεόντως υπ' όψη τα κράτη της ΕΖΕΣ και η εποπτεύουσα αρχή της ΕΖΕΣ": , μετά τη τροποποίηση με την:- 32000 D 0113: Απόφαση 2000/113/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 14ης Ιανουαρίου 2000 (ΕΕ L 33 της 8.2.2000, σ. 23).4. Μετά το σημείο 9 παρεμβάλλονται τα ακόλουθα (απόφαση 1999/246/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής) στο μέρος 3.2 υπό τον τίτλο "Πράξεις τις οποίες λαμβάνουν δεόντως υπ' όψη τα κράτη της ΕΖΕΣ και η εποπτεύουσα αρχή της ΕΖΕΣ": 10. 399 D 0335: Απόφαση 1999/335/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 7ης Μαΐου 1999, για την έγκριση σχεδίου που υπέβαλε η Γερμανία για την εξάλειψη της κλασικής πανώλης των χοίρων που εμφανίστηκε σε αγριόχοιρους στη Βάδη-Βυρτεμβέργη και στη Ρηνανία- Παλατινάτο (ΕΕ L 126 της 20.5.1999, σ. 21).5. Το κείμενο του σημείου 45 (Απόφαση 97/76/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής) στο μέρος 4.2 αντικαθίσταται από το ακόλουθο κείμενο: 399 D 0467: Απόφαση 1999/467/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 15ης Ιουλίου 1999, για τη θέσπιση καθεστώτος επισήμως απαλλαγμένων από τη φυματίωση αγελών βοοειδών σε ορισμένα κράτη μέλη ή περιφέρειες κρατών μελών και για την κατάργηση της απόφασης 97/76/ΕΚ (ΕΕ L 181 της 16.7.1999, σ. 36), μετά τη τροποποίησή της με την:- 32000 D 0069: Απόφαση 2000/69/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 22ας Δεκεμβρίου 1999 (ΕΕ L 23 της 28.1.2000, σ. 76).6. Το κείμενο του σημείου 46 (Απόφαση 97/175/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής) στο μέρος 4.2 αντικαθίσταται από το ακόλουθο κείμενο: 399 D 0466: Απόφαση 1999/466/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 15ης Ιουλίου 1999, για τη θέσπιση καθεστώτος επισήμως απαλλαγμένων από τη φυματίωση αγελών βοοειδών σε ορισμένα κράτη μέλη ή περιφέρειες κρατών μελών και για την κατάργηση της απόφασης 97/175/ΕΚ (ΕΕ L 181 της 16.7.1999, σ. 34), μετά τη τροποποίησή της με την:- 32000 D 0069: Απόφαση 2000/69/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 22ας Δεκεμβρίου 1999 (ΕΕ L 23 της 28.1.2000, σ. 76).7. Μετά το σημείο 44 παρεμβάλλονται τα ακόλουθα σημεία (απόφαση 97/263/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής) στο μέρος 4.2 υπό τον τίτλο "Πράξεις τις οποίες λαμβάνουν δεόντως υπ' όψη τα κράτη της ΕΖΕΣ και η εποπτεύουσα αρχή της ΕΖΕΣ": 45. 398 D 0580: Απόφαση 98/580/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 9ης Οκτωβρίου 1998, σχετικά με την έγκριση του προγράμματος εξάλειψης της μολυσματικής ρινοτραχειίτιδας για τα βοοειδή στην Ιταλία (ΕΕ L 279 της 16.10.1998, σ. 49).46. 399 D 0465: Απόφαση 999/465/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής, της 13ης Ιουλίου 1999, για τη θέσπιση καθεστώτος επίσημα απαλλαγμένων από την ενζωοτική λεύκωση των βοοειδών των αγελών βοοειδών ορισμένων κρατών μελών ή περιφερειών κρατών μελών (ΕΕ L 181 της 16.7.1999, σ. 32).8. Μετά το σημείο 37 παρεμβάλλεται το ακόλουθο σημείο (απόφαση 98/496/ΕΚ της Επιτροπής) στο μέρος 7.2 υπό τον τίτλο "Πράξεις τις οποίες λαμβάνουν δεόντως υπ' όψη τα κράτη της ΕΖΕΣ και η εποπτεύουσα αρχή της ΕΖΕΣ": 38. 32000 D 0060: Απόφαση 2000/60/ΕΚ, της 21ης Δεκεμβρίου 1999, για την έγκριση του σχεδίου για την παρακολούθηση και τον έλεγχο της σαλμονέλας στα πουλερικά, το οποίο υπεβλήθη από την Αυστρία (ΕΕ L 22 της 27.1.2000, σ. 61).


text:
 8.6.2013
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 C 164/12
 Begäran om förhandsavgörande framställd av Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bayonne (Frankrike) den 15 april 2013 — Raquel Gianni Da Silva mot Préfet de Pyrénées-Atlantiques
 (Mål C-189/13)
 2013/C 164/22
 Rättegångsspråk: franska
 Hänskjutande domstol
 Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bayonne
 Parter i målet vid den nationella domstolen
 Klagande: Raquel Gianni Da Silva
 Motpart: Préfet de Pyrénées-Atlantiques
 Tolkningsfråga
 Utgör unionsrätten hinder för nationell lagstiftning enligt vilken en tredjelandsmedborgares olagliga inresa i landet kan straffas med fängelse trots att tredjelandsmedborgaren inte dessförinnan har varit föremål för sådana tvångsåtgärder som avses i Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2008/115/EG av den 16 december 2008 (1)?
 (1) Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2008/115/EG av den 16 december 2008 om gemensamma normer och förfaranden för återvändande av tredjelandsmedborgare som vistas olagligt i medlemsstaterna (EUT L 348, s. 98).


text:
Qrati ordinarji - Estonja
 Din it-taqsima tagħtik informazzjoni dwar l-organizzazzjoni tal-qrati ordinarji fl-Estonja.
 Il-Qrati tal-Kontej huma qrati ordinarji tal-prim'istanza u jisimgħu l-kawżi ċivili, kriminali u ta' infrazzjoni kollha u jwettqu proċedimenti oħra li huma mqiegħda taħt il-ġuriżdizzjoni tagħhom bil-liġi. Il-proċedimenti ġuridiċi fil-qrati tal-kontej huma regolati mill-Kodiċijiet li ġejjin: il-Kodiċi ta' Proċedura Ċivili f’kawżi ċivili, il-Kodiċi ta' Proċedura Kriminali f'kawżi kriminali u l-Kodiċi ta’ Proċedura ta' Infrazzjoni f'kawżi ta' infrazzjoni.
 Il-qrati tal-kontej għandhom ukoll ir-reġistru tal-artijiet u d-dipartimenti tar-reġistru, li għandhom funzjonijiet amministrattivi. Ir-reġistru tal-artijiet u r-reġistru tal-proprjetà matrimonjali huma miżmuma fid-dipartiment tar-reġistru tal-artijiet. Ir-reġistru kummerċjali, ir-reġistru ta' assoċjazzjonijiet u fondazzjonijiet mhux għal skop ta' profitt, ir-reġistru tal-wegħdiet kummerċjali u r-reġistru tal-vapuri huma miżmuma fid-dipartiment tar-reġistru. Il-Qorti tal-Kontea ta’ Pärnu għandha wkoll dipartiment għall-ordnijiet tal-ħlas. Id-dipartiment tal-ordnijiet tal-ħlas jieħu ħsieb l-applikazzjonijiet li jikkonċernaw proċedura aċċellerata għall-ordnijiet ta' ħlas.
 Is-sentenzi u d-deċiżjonijiet tal-qrati tal-kontej jiġu rieżaminati minn qrati distrettwali, bħala qrati tat-tieni istanza, fuq il-bażi ta' appelli kontra dawk is-sentenzi u dawk id-deċiżjonijiet. Proċedimenti fil-qrati amministrattivi huma regolati mill-istess Atti bħall-proċedimenti fil-qrati tal-Prim'Istanza.
 Qrati tal-prim'istanza
 Hemm erba' qrati tal-kontej fl-Estonja. Il-qrati tal-kontej huma maqsuma f'organi ġudizzjarji.
 Qrati tal-kontej:
 Il-Qorti tal-Kontea ta’ Harju (Harju Maakohus):
 Is-sezzjoni fi Triq Liivalaia
 Is-sezzjoni fi Triq Kentmanni
 Is-sezzjoni fi Triq Tartu
 Il-Qorti tal-Kontea ta’ Viru (Viru Maakohus):
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Narva
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Rakvere
 Il-Qorti tal-Kontea ta’ Pärnu (Pärnu Maakohus):
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Haapsalu
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Kuressaare
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Rapla
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Paide
 Il-Qorti tal-Kontea ta’ Tartu (Tartu Maakohus):
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Jõgeva
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Viljandi
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Valga
 Is-sezzjoni ta’ Võru
 Qrati tat-tieni istanza
 Hemm żewġ qrati distrettwali fl-Estonja.
 Qrati Distrettwali:
 Il-Qorti Distrettwali ta' Tallinn (Tallinna Ringakonnakohus)
 Il-Qorti Distrettwali ta’ Tartu (Tartu Ringakonnakohus)
 Tista' ssib dettalji ta' kuntatt għal-qrati fuq il- websajt tal-qrati. L-aċċess għad-dettalji ta’ kuntatt huwa mingħajr ħlas.


text:
 24.9.2011
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 C 282/35
 Recurso interposto em 26 de Julho de 2011 — Elti/Delegação da União Europeia em Montenegro
 (Processo T-395/11)
 2011/C 282/69
 Língua do processo: inglês
 Partes
 Recorrente: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, República da Eslovénia) (representante: N. Zidar Klemenčič, advogado)
 Recorrida: União Europeia, representada pela Delegação da União Europeia em Montenegro
 Pedidos
 O recorrente conclui pedindo que o Tribunal Geral se digne:
 —
 declarar que a recorrida violou os artigos 2.o e 30.o, n.o 3, da Directiva 2004/18/CE (1);
 —
 anular o procedimento de negociação desenvolvido no quadro do processo de adjudicação «Apoio à digitalização do serviço público de radiodifusão do Montenegro — Fornecimento de equipamento, Montenegro» (referência EuropaAid/129435/C/SUP/ME-NP) (JO 2010/S 178-270613), uma vez que o recorrente não recebeu o mesmo tratamento e, consequentemente, não pôde corrigir nem dar explicações sobre a sua proposta;
 —
 anular a decisão de adjudicação adoptada no acima referido processo de adjudicação;
 —
 na hipótese de o contrato já ter sido celebrado, declarar esse contrato nulo e sem efeito;
 —
 a título alternativo, se o contrato já tiver sido executado quando o Tribunal de Justiça proferir o seu acórdão, ou a decisão já não puder ser declarada nula, declarar que a recorrida violou os artigos 2.o e 30.o, n.o 3, da Directiva 2004/18/CE e condená-la a pagar ao recorrente 172 541,56 euros a título de reparação dos danos sofridos pelo recorrente em virtude desse processo; e
 —
 condenar a recorrida no pagamento das despesas em que incorreu o recorrente, incluídas as despesas de qualquer parte interveniente.
 Fundamentos e principais argumentos
 O recorrente invoca um fundamento de recurso, relativo à violação dos artigos 2.o e 30.o, n.o 3, da Directiva 2004/18/CE, porquanto:
 —
 A informação relevante para a apresentação da proposta não foi disponibilizada a todos os participantes no processo de adjudicação, da mesma forma e com a mesma qualidade.
 —
 O participante seleccionado recebeu informação de modo discriminatório, o que lhe deu uma vantagem já que pôde corrigir a sua proposta; e
 —
 O procedimento de negociação foi conduzido de modo que a recorrida influenciou o seu resultado ao solicitar informação ou esclarecimentos adicionais a apenas alguns dos participantes, violando assim os princípios da não discriminação e da transparência.
 (1) Directiva 2004/18/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 31 de Março de 2004, relativa à coordenação dos processos de adjudicação dos contratos de empreitada de obras públicas, dos contratos públicos de fornecimento e dos contratos públicos de serviços (JO 2004 L 134, p. 114).


jurisdiction: US

text:
 262 Md. 514 (1971)
 278 A.2d 64
 STRALEY ET UX.
 v.
 OSBORNE ET AL.
 [No. 381, September Term, 1970.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided June 7, 1971.
 The cause was argued before HAMMOND, C.J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, FINAN, SINGLEY and DIGGES, JJ.
 Thomas L. Hennessey for appellants.
 Charles B. Keenan, Jr., and Brodnax Cameron, Jr., with whom were John E. Clark and Donald G. Smith on the brief, for appellees.
 FINAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 In this appeal, we are concerned with an action by a lessee in which he seeks to have the sale of the leased premises to a third party for value set aside and also seeks to obtain specific performance of his first option to purchase that property.
 On December 14, 1956, Wilbur F. Haugh (Haugh) sold to Charles Straley (Straley) a junkyard business known as Harford County Auto Parts, Inc., which was located on Route 1 near Fallston, Maryland. On the same day, Haugh leased to Straley the property on which the junkyard business was being conducted. The lease was for a five year period beginning December 1, 1956, and ending November 30, 1961, at a rental of $6,000 per year payable at the rate of $500 per month. The last two paragraphs of the lease provided for renewal of its terms for an additional five year period and also gave Straley the "first option of purchasing" the property. These two *516 paragraphs are the source of most of the difficulty between Straley and the other parties, and deserve study in some detail:
 "8. It is further agreed by the parties hereto that the Lessee [Straley] is hereby given the privilege of renewing the aforesaid Lease within ninety (90) days of the termination of the term every five (5) years for an additional five year period at a rental commensurate with current market value; the Lessee shall notify the Lessor of any renewal of the Lease in writing, and, if the option is exercised by the Lessee, the renewal Lease shall be in writing for an additional term of five (5) years upon the same terms, conditions and covenants as are contained in this Lease.
 "9. During the five-year term of this Lease and during any renewal term thereafter the Lessee shall have the first option of purchasing this property at current market value at the time of the exercise of the option should the Lessor, WILBUR HAUGH, his heirs, assigns or personal representatives, decide to sell said property. The terms and covenants of this Lease will be binding on the heirs, assigns and personal representatives of the parties hereto."
 The lease contained no metes and bounds description of the property in question, but the testimony at trial indicated that Straley, as lessee, occupied approximately seven acres of a ten acre tract owned by Haugh. The other three acres contained a used car lot operated by Cadillac Jack Enterprises, Inc., a corporation solely owned by Haugh[1] A high wooden fence separated the two businesses.
 *517 By 1958, Haugh's used car business was apparently failing, and on January 29, 1958, he conveyed the entire ten acre tract to his corporation, apparently without consideration and without Straley's knowledge, although Straley admitted having paid the rent to Cadillac Jack Enterprises, Inc. from March 8, 1958, until December 9, 1958, at Haugh's direction.[2] Straley continued possession under the lease for his initial term, and gave notice by registered mail in August, 1961, of his intention to renew the lease for a five year period, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 8 set out above.
 On October 18, 1963, Haugh listed the entire ten acre tract for sale at $135,000. There was testimony by Mrs. Verl J. Edwards (Mrs. Edwards), the real estate agent handling the sale, that Haugh wanted to sell the property to "clear various indebtedness" and that there were judgment and mortgage liens in excess of $100,000 on the property at the time it was first listed. Her testimony further indicated that Straley was initially contacted about buying the property on October 25, 1963, at which time he informed her that he was "not interested in buying," was "not making any money," and that he felt that the asking price was "utterly ridiculous." Straley denied this in his testimony. Mrs. Edwards also testified that during the eighteen months after October, 1963, her company advertised the entire ten acre tract by means of posted signs and newspaper advertisements, showed the property at least 100 times, and that she called on Straley "no less than ten times in person," but that "each and every time" he was "in no way interested in buying *518 the property" because he "was not making any money" and "didn't feel it was worth the money."[3] On cross-examination, Mrs. Edwards admitted that she never offered to sell Straley the seven acres which he was occupying, that she "had no authority to offer anything but the entire property," and that sale of the seven acres would have been a "human impossibility" and a "merry mess," apparently because of Haugh's financial difficulties.
 On January 18, 1965, Winton B. Osborne (one of the appellees) made an offer to buy the entire ten acre tract for $80,000. On January 28th or 29th, he signed a contract to purchase the property. The following day, Mrs. Edwards purportedly sent a letter to Straley advising him of a bona fide offer of $80,000 and informing him that "if he wished to exercise his first right of refusal, that he now had the opportunity." She testified that the letter was sent by certified mail and that she had a receipt signed by either Straley or his son, but that she did not have it with her at trial. No copy of the letter was introduced into evidence.
 Not having received any reply to her letter, Mrs. Edwards telephoned Straley on the evening of March 1, 1965. At this time, Straley notified her that he was not interested in buying from either her or Haugh, and that he would deal only through Haugh's attorney.[4]
 In the interval between the time that Osborne signed the contract in late January and Mrs. Edwards made her telephone call to Straley on March 1st, matters did not lie dormant. Mrs. Edwards had presented Osborne's offer of $80,000 to Haugh, who initially refused it. She also had gone to all of Haugh's creditors and succeeded *519 in getting them to reduce their claims (totalling over $100,000) so that clear title to the ten acres could be conveyed by a sale for $80,000. On February 10th, Haugh accepted the $80,000 offer and signed the contract. Mrs. Edwards testified that Osborne knew of Straley's rights in the leased portion of the property when he signed the contract, and that, had Straley indicated when she telephoned him on March 1st that he wanted to purchase the property, she would have refunded the deposit which Osborne had placed and drawn a contract for Straley.
 Upon learning that Osborne had placed a deposit on the property, Straley notified his attorney. On March 30, 1965, Straley's attorney wrote to Haugh's attorney and stated that Straley was prepared to offer $35,000 for "the property" (apparently referring to the leased portion) if he could get proper financing. Haugh's attorney wrote back the next day, and in a somewhat abstruse letter, appeared to suggest that a price of $55,000 would be more appropriate.[5] On April 7th and 14th, Straley's attorney sent rental checks to Haugh's attorney and stated that he would like to get together "sometime next week" or "sometime soon" to discuss further the sale of the property and the purchase price, but made no further offers.
 On April 14, 1965, settlement was held between Haugh and the Osbornes (Mr. and Mrs.). On two occasions subsequent to the closing, Straley's attorney wrote to the Osbornes' attorney and attempted to exercise Straley's rights to purchase the leased portion, again making offers of $35,000. These were rejected.
 The appellants (Straley and his wife) brought suit in August, 1965. In their amended bill of complaint filed November 7, 1966, they asked that the sale from Haugh to the Osbornes be set aside and that Haugh, or in the alternative the Osbornes, be required to specifically perform *520 the provisions of the lease and convey title to the leasehold property to the Straleys upon payment of the current market value. Judge Harry E. Dyer, Jr., after hearing testimony, rendered an opinion dated July 24, 1970, and ruled that Straley had the "first option of purchasing the property at current market value," that he had the option of "matching the offer for the purchase of the property made by * * * Osborne, and that he had the right to take part in negotiations for the purchase of the property if he so desired." Because Straley failed to do any of those things, Judge Dyer ruled that Straley "failed to prove his case," and signed a decree August 17, 1970, dismissing the bill of complaint. For the reasons which follow, we affirm that decision.
 The first issue which must be discussed is whether Straley had any rights in the property in 1965. Paragraph 8 of the lease gives Straley the right to renew for a five year period "at a rental commensurate with current market value" if he gives written notice of his intention to renew. The paragraph also provides that the renewal lease is to be in writing. Straley gave written notice of his intention to renew, but the renewal lease was never reduced to writing and there was never any new rental determined. Haugh and the subsequent lessors accepted the original rental throughout the years. In such a situation, it is clear that Straley was at least a holdover tenant, and it has been held that the holdover tenancy is on all the terms and conditions of the original lease, including the option to purchase, which can be exercised during the holdover period, unless a contrary intention is shown. Caplan v. Goldstein, 232 Md. 552, 554, 194 A.2d 622 (1963); Bagley v. Clark, 190 Md. 223, 225, 57 A.2d 739 (1948); Gressitt v. Anderson, 187 Md. 586, 591, 51 A.2d 159 (1947). In the case at bar, paragraph 9 of the lease specifically provided that Straley's "first option" was to continue "during any renewal term." Accordingly, whatever rights Straley enjoyed under the terms of his lease continued during the period of the *521 holdover tenancy, and were operative during the time period in question.
 Next comes the question of what rights or interest Straley possessed by virtue of the provisions of paragraph 9 of the lease. That paragraph provides that Straley had the "first option of purchasing" the property "should the Lessor * * * decide to sell said property." Judge Dyer termed his a "right of first refusal" rather than an option, relying on Westpark, Inc. v. Seaton Land Co., 225 Md. 433, 171 A.2d 736 (1960).
 An option has been defined by this Court as:
 "* * * a continuing offer to sell during the duration thereof which on being exercised by the optionee becomes a binding and enforceable contract. * * * And when the optionee indicates an intention to exercise the option and tenders the amount of the purchase price, he has performed under the option and is entitled to specific performance." Diggs v. Siomporas, 248 Md. 677, 681, 237 A.2d 725 (1968).
 The distinguishing features of an option are that it is a continuing and irrevocable offer by the optionor, which cannot be withdrawn by him during the stated period. The optionee has what is usually termed a power of acceptance, and when he accepts the offer in the prescribed manner, the option is thereby exercised and creates a binding bilateral contract. Diggs v. Siomporas, id.; Schlee v. Bryant, 247 Md. 689, 694, 234 A.2d 457 (1967); 1A Corbin on Contracts (1963 ed.), §§ 259, 260; 1 Williston on Contracts (3rd. ed.), §§ 61A, 61B, 61C, 61D. And, if the 9th paragraph of the lease in question had created a true option, Straley could have required Haugh to sell the property at any time during the period of the lease. However, in order to do this, he would have had to signify his acceptance in a timely and unequivocal fashion. Katz v. Pratt Street Realty Co., 257 Md. 103, *522 118, 262 A.2d 540 (1970); Foard v. Snider, 205 Md. 435, 446, 109 A.2d 101 (1955).
 On the other hand, if there exists what has been termed a right of first refusal, a first option, conditional option, or first privilege of purchase, Straley's right is conditional. Professor Corbin describes these rights as "closely related [to options] with respect to the purposes for which they are made and yet are very dissimilar in the legal relations of the parties who make them." 1A Corbin on Contracts (1963 ed.), § 261. See also 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 368; 51C C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, § 88(2). And, this Court has recognized a first right of refusal in Westpark, Inc. v. Seaton Land Company, 225 Md. 433, 449, 171 A.2d 736 (1960). In that case, there existed what was specifically termed a "right of refusal," requiring the owners of the property to give the holder of the right of refusal notice if the owners decided to sell the property. The holder of the right then had seven days to accept the owners' terms before the owners could sell the property to anyone else. In Westpark, Judge Sybert, writing for the Court, recognized that the instrument in question created a "right of refusal," which was further described as "an equitable right." Westpark, Inc. v. Seaton Land Co., supra, at 449-450.
 In Westpark, as in the case at bar, the holders of the "right" possessed no absolute power to require the property owner to sell at any time  in both instances, whatever rights they had were conditioned upon the owners' decision to sell the property. In neither case did the instrument create a continuing or irrevocable offer by the owner of the property to sell. And, Straley could not have created a binding contract merely by exercising his "option" to purchase. His was specifically termed a "first option," and was conditional upon Haugh's decision to sell. And irrespective of the problems which are created by combining the word "option" with conditional terms such as "first," a reading of the instrument as a whole *523 leads to the conclusion that Straley held something other than a true option.[6] According to the terms of the lease, Straley only had the right, by whatever name designated, of having the first opportunity to purchase the demised property in the event that Haugh decided to sell. This being so, it was incumbent upon Haugh to notify Straley of his intention to sell so that Straley could then decide whether or not to exercise his "first option of purchasing."
 This leads to the next issue to be resolved, namely, the effect on Straley's right of Haugh's inability or unwillingness to offer the seven acre tract for sale. The factual situations in which the question has arisen have varied, but certain principles can be gleaned from the cases and are discussed in the annotation appearing at 170 A.L.R. 1068 (1947). First, it is generally held that, when a lessor receives an offer for purchase of a larger tract which includes the leased parcel, the lessee holding the first option to purchase cannot require the lessor, by means of specific performance, to convey to him the leased portion alone.[7] The reasoning of such cases is that the contemplation (or even the acceptance) by the lessor of an offer for the larger tract is no manifestation of an intention on his part to sell the smaller (leased) portion separately. Aden v. Estate of Hathaway, 427 P.2d 333, 334 (Colo. 1967); Guaclides v. Kruse, 170 A.2d 488, 493 (N.J. Super. 1961); New Atlantic Garden v. Atlantic Garden Realty Corp., 194 N.Y.S. 34, 40 (App. Div. 1922), *524 affd. 143 N.E. 734 (N.Y. 1923). Cf. Anderson v. Armour and Co., 473 P.2d 84, 89 (Kan. 1970). We are of the opinion that these cases represent the better-reasoned decisions, and it therefore becomes apparent that Straley cannot compel Haugh to sell the seven acres to him by virtue of the fact that Haugh accepted an offer for the ten acre plot from the Osbornes.[8]
 On the other hand, the lessor cannot act in derogation of the lessee's "first option" rights in the leased premises, and accordingly it has been held that the lessee may prevent a sale of the leased premises without regard to his rights by means of injunction. Guaclides v. Kruse, supra, at 494-495. If a sale is made in violation of the lessee's rights, a subsequent purchaser with actual or constructive notice of these rights takes subject to them. Guaclides v. Kruse, supra, at 496, Atlantic Refining Co. v. Wyoming Natl. Bank, supra, footnote 8, on 724. And this is as it should be, for to rule otherwise would be to allow a lessor to render the lessee's bargained for "first option" a nullity by merely including it in a larger tract being offered for sale. There is no question in this case that Straley had a first option on the seven acres, that they were in fact sold to the Osbornes as part of the ten acre tract, and that the Osbornes had actual knowledge of Straley's rights. The question then becomes whether or not the sale was made in derogation of those rights.
 One of the primary purposes of a provision such as that with which we are concerned in the instant case is to protect the lessee's interest in the continued possession of his premises by affording him the opportunity to purchase the property before anyone else does. In order that the lessee's interests be adequately protected, it is essential that he be given notice of the lessor's desire to sell. Straley correctly states that he was never offered *525 the opportunity to purchase the seven acre leased tract alone, and maintains that this constitutes a fatal variance with the provisions of the lease by Haugh. However, we think the testimony clearly indicates that Straley was well aware that Haugh was contemplating a sale of his property, including the seven acres leased by Straley. Straley admitted as much on cross-examination. Given the extensive efforts which were being made to sell the property, including a minimum of three or four personal visits to Straley by Mrs. Edwards, there can be no doubt that Straley was aware that a sale was being attempted. This being so, the primary purpose of Straley's first option, namely, to give him notice and the opportunity to protect his interests, was certainly achieved. The fact that Straley was not offered the seven acres separately is beside the point. Indeed, as noted earlier, he could not have compelled Haugh to sell him the seven acres. The important point is that the effect of all the activity which took place was to give Straley notice that his interests in the seven acres might be in jeopardy, and that he had best take steps to protect those interests, which is what the first option was designed to accomplish.
 Once notice was received by Straley of the contemplated sale, it then became incumbent upon him to take some affirmative course of action. He could have made a good faith effort at entering negotiations with Haugh or Mrs. Edwards, or suggested some method of determining "current market value" so as to arrive at a purchase price. He may even have brought suit to enjoin the proposed sale. Instead, he largely chose to ignore the obvious, and to do nothing. For whatever reason, he failed to make any attempt to purchase his seven acres or the ten acres during the eighteen months that the property was on the market. Only when the sale was completed did Straley do anything, then making an offer amounting to $5,000 per acre for the seven acres of leased property in the face of an existing offer of $80,000 for the entire ten *526 acre tract. When that offer was rejected, the extent of Straley's efforts were two letters by his attorney offering to "get together" to discuss the sale of the property  hardly the actions of a party sincerely interested in preventing a sale of property leased by him.
 Once Straley had received notice of the efforts being made to sell the property of which the seven acres he leased was a part, the purpose of his first option, under the facts of this case, was satisfied. The notice put him on the alert to take positive steps to negotiate a purchase in good faith, if nothing more, and this he failed to do.
 There remains only the question of the effect which Haugh's transfer to Cadillac Jack Enterprises, Inc. in 1958 had on Straley's rights under the lease. His first option to purchase was to come into being if and when the lessor decided to sell the property. Haugh's transfer of the property without consideration to a corporation wholly-owned by him was not a "sale" as contemplated by paragraph 9 of the lease, Kroehnke v. Zimmerman, 467 P.2d 265, 267 (Colo. 1970); cf. Eastern Shore Trust Co. v. Lockerman, 148 Md. 628, 636, 129 A.2d 915 (1925), and the transferee who had knowledge of the option was bound by it. Thus, that transfer has no effect on the outcome of this decision.
 Judgment affirmed; appellants to pay costs.
 NOTES
 [1] It appears that the ten acre tract was the subject of unique zoning. The three acres on which the used car lot was situated were zoned commercial or industrial, while the seven acres were specially zoned for a junkyard, one of very few areas in Harford County so zoned. Additionally, the Harford County zoning ordinance lists junkyards as a conditional use requiring approval of the Board of Appeals of Harford County. The testimony of Mr. Mervin G. Thompson, Zoning Inspector for Harford County, established that the nearest area which could potentially house a junkyard was twelve to fourteen miles from the subject property, and that only one application for a junkyard had been approved by the Board since 1957. This serves to explain somewhat Straley's desire to insure his continued occupancy of the leased premises.
 [2] As of December 9, 1958, rent was paid by Straley, through his attorney, to Haugh's attorney.
 [3] Straley put the number of visits from Mrs. Edwards at "about three or four."
 [4] Straley testified that on every occasion Mrs. Edwards visited him, he told her that he would deal through Mr. Haugh's attorney, and that it was not limited only to the March 1st telephone call. He further testified that he had had all of his dealings with Haugh through their respective attorneys because of trouble between the two parties. See also, footnote 1, supra.
 [5] The specifics of the letter are confusing; there apparently is no confusion about the fact that the letter rejected the offer of $35,000.
 [6] In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful of the fact that less than five years ago we termed an agreement somewhat similar to the one in the instant case an "option agreement." However, in that case the question was whether the provisions of the agreement survived the optionor, and the issues present in the instant case were not there considered, so that the distinction was not important. See Ensor v. Wehland, 243 Md. 485, 487-490, 221 A.2d 699 (1966).
 [7] There are a few decisions to the contrary. See Brenner v. Duncan, 27 N.W.2d 320, 322-323 (Mich. 1947); Wilson v. Brown, 55 P.2d 485, 486, 487 (Cal. 1936). However, these cases are recognized as representing a distinctly minority viewpoint, and arose in factual situations where it was obvious that the lessor had sold the property without giving the lessee any notice whatsoever.
 [8] Similarly, it is also generally held that the lessee cannot compel the lessor to sell him the larger tract (e.g., ten acres) because the lessee's "first option" applied only to a portion of that tract (e.g. the leased seven acres). Atlantic Refining Co. v. Wyoming National Bank, 51 A.2d 719, 722-723 (Pa. 1947).


text:
Groomer's Salon Select Oatmeal kondicionierius jautrios odos šunims - Akvazoo
 > Šunys>Priežiūros priemonės>Šampūnai>Groomer's Salon Select Oatmeal kondicionierius jautrios odos šunims
 Groomer's Salon Select Oatmeal kondicionierius jautrios odos šunims
 Prekės kodas: FG04041
 „GROOMER’S SALON SELECT OATMEAL“ KONDICIONIERIUS NIEŽTINČIAI ODAI
 „Groomer’s Salon Select Oatmeal“ kondicionierius su koloidinėmis avižomis, kviečių gemalų aliejumi – sukurtas specialiai sausai ir niežtinčiai odai. Intensyviai drėkina, net ir labai pažeistas kailis tampa blizgantis ir lengvai prižiūrimas.
 „Groomer’s Salon Select Oatmeal“ kondicionierius su koloidinėmis avižomis, kviečių gemalų aliejumi – specialiai sausai ir niežtinčiai odai. Kailis bus žvilgantis, o oda – sveika ir nesudirginta. Siekdami maksimalaus rezultato naudokite kartu su „Groomer's Salon Select Oatmeal Itch Relief“ šampūnu. Šios dvi priemonės saugo plaukus, neleidžia jiems išsausėti, suteikia deimantinį žvilgesį, palengvina kailio iššukavimą (sąvėlų ir pan.).
 „GROOMER’S SALON SELECT“ PRIVALUMAI
 Koloidinės avižos: švelnios, skirtos sausai, sudirgusiai, pleiskanotai, šiurkščiai odai drėkinti. Minkština ir drėkina odą, mažina sudirgimą, niežėjimą ir pleiskanojimą.
 Be muilo: „Groomer’s Salon Select“sudėtyje yra tik natūralūs ir švelnūs valikliai. Sudėtyje nėra agresyvių muilų ar kenksmingų ploviklių.
 Be parabenų: tyrimais nustatyta, kad parabenai turi panašų poveikį kaip estrogenas, todėl trikdoma organizmo hormonų pusiausvyra, taip didinama vėžio rizika bei vaisingumo problemų tikimybė. Visi „Groomer’s Salon Select“šampūnai yra be parabenų, todėl saugūs naudoti.
 Pirmiausia gerai išplaukite kailį šampūnu, o tada masažuodami įtrinkite kailį kondicionieriumi. Gerai nuskalaukite ir išdžiovinkite kailį.
 Išgrynintas vanduo, polimerinė ketvirtinė amonio druska, koloidinės avižos, DMDM hidantoinas, tetranatrio EDTA, aromatai, hidroksietilceliuliozė.
 Skanėstas šunims baltos...
 Žaislas katėms pliušinis urvelis...
 Dog Wash 4 in 1 šampūnas šunims
 Skanėstas šunims rudi kaulai iš...
 Riebaliniai rutuliai...
 Draskyklė katėms Classic Como,...
 Keramikinis dubenėlis katėms 140 ml
 Dog Wash Oatmeal Itch Relief...
 Sanera Enzym Direct, 500 ml


text:
 28.8.2014
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 256/17
 РЕШЕНИЕ НА СЪВМЕСТНИЯ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП
 No 43/2014
 от 8 април 2014 година
 за изменение на приложение II (Технически правила, стандарти, изпитвания и сертифициране) към Споразумението за ЕИП
 СЪВМЕСТНИЯТ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП,
 като взе предвид Споразумението за Европейското икономическо пространство („Споразумението за ЕИП“), и по-специално член 98 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 Делегиран регламент (ЕС) No 837/2013 на Комисията от 25 юни 2013 г. за изменение на приложение III към Регламент (ЕС) No 528/2012 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета по отношение на изискванията за информация за разрешаване на биоциди (1) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (2)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 945/2013 на Комисията от 2 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на циперметрин като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 8 (2) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (3)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 955/2013 на Комисията от 4 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на пропиконазол като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 9 (3) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (4)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1032/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на бромоцетната киселина като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 4 (4) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (5)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1033/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на медния сулфат пентахидрат като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 2 (5) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (6)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1034/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на алуминиев фосфид, водещ до отделяне на фосфан, като активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 20 (6) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (7)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1035/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на бензоената киселина като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктови типове 3 и 4 (7) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (8)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1036/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на веществото етофенпрокс като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 18 (8) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (9)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1037/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на веществото йодопропинил бутилкарбамат (IPBC) като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 6 (9) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (10)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1038/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на веществото тебуконазол като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктови типове 7 и 10 (10) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (11)
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1039/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за изменение на одобрението на нонановата киселина като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 2 (11) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (12)
 Поради това приложение II към Споразумението за ЕИП следва да бъде съответно изменено,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩОТО РЕШЕНИЕ:
 Член 1
 Глава XV от приложение II към Споразумението за ЕИП се изменя, както следва:
 1.
 В точка 12н (Регламент (ЕС) No 528/2012 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета) се добавя следното тире:
 „—
 32013 R 0837: Делегиран регламент (ЕС) No 837/2013 на Комисията от 25 юни 2013 г. (ОВ L 234, 3.9.2013 г., стр. 1).“
 2.
 След точка 12н (Регламент (ЕС) No 528/2012 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета) се вмъкват следните точки:
 „12на.
 32013 R 0945: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 945/2013 на Комисията от 2 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на циперметрин като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 8 (ОВ L 261, 3.10.2013 г., стр. 23).
 12нб.
 32013 R 0955: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 955/2013 на Комисията от 4 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на пропиконазол като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 9 (ОВ L 263, 5.10.2013 г., стр. 7).
 12нв.
 32013 R 1032: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1032/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на бромоцетната киселина като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 4 (ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 22).
 12нг.
 32013 R 1033: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1033/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на медния сулфат пентахидрат като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 2 (ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 25).
 „12нд.
 32013 R 1034: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1034/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на алуминиев фосфид, водещ до отделяне на фосфан, като активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 20 (ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 28).
 12не.
 32013 R 1035: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1035/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на бензоената киселина като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктови типове 3 и 4 (ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 31).
 12нж.
 32013 R 1036: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1036/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на веществото етофенпрокс като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 18 (ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 35).
 12нз.
 32013 R 1037: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1037/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на веществото йодопропинил бутилкарбамат (IPBC) като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 6 (ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 38).
 12ни.
 32013 R 1038: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1038/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за одобряване на веществото тебуконазол като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктови типове 7 и 10 (ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 40).
 12нй.
 32013 R 1039: Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 1039/2013 на Комисията от 24 октомври 2013 г. за изменение на одобрението на нонановата киселина като съществуващо активно вещество за използване в биоциди за продуктов тип 2 (ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 43).“
 Член 2
 Текстовете на Делегиран регламент (ЕС) No 837/2013 и на регламенти за изпълнение (ЕС) No 945/2013, (ЕС) No 955/2013, (ЕС) No 1032/2013, (ЕС) No 1033/2013, (ЕС) No 1034/2013, (ЕС) No 1035/2013, (ЕС) No 1036/2013, (ЕС) No 1037/2013, (ЕС) No 1038/2013 и (ЕС) No 1039/2013 на исландски и норвежки език, които следва да бъдат публикувани в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз, са автентични.
 Член 3
 Настоящото решение влиза в сила на 9 април 2014 г., при условие че всички нотификации, предвидени в член 103, параграф 1 от Споразумението за ЕИП, са внесени (12) в Съвместния комитет на ЕИП, или на датата, на която влиза в сила Решение на Съвместния комитет No 225/2013 от 13 декември 2013 г. (13), ако тази дата е по-късна.
 Член 4
 Настоящото решение се публикува в раздела за ЕИП и в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 8 април 2014 година.
 За Съвместния комитет на ЕИП
 Председател
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ОВ L 234, 3.9.2013 г., стр. 1.
 (2) ОВ L 261, 3.10.2013 г., стр. 23.
 (3) ОВ L 263, 5.10.2013 г., стр. 7.
 (4) ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 22.
 (5) ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 25.
 (6) ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 28.
 (7) ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 31.
 (8) ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 35.
 (9) ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 38.
 (10) ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 40.
 (11) ОВ L 283, 25.10.2013 г., стр. 43.
 (12) Без отбелязани конституционни изисквания.
 (13) ОВ L 154, 22.5.2014 г., стр. 22.


text:
Ján Purgina (* 16. máj 1719, Trnava – † 13. jún 1748, pravdepodobne tamže) bol slovenský pedagóg a fyzik.
 Narodil sa 16. mája 1719 v Trnave. Bol jezuitom, absolventom trnavskej univerzity, ktorý popri svojich teologických štúdiach aj vyučoval v nižších ročníkoch. Zachovala sa od neho latinská veršovaná práca o elektrostatických javoch z r. 1746, ktorá bola prvou samostatnou publikáciou venovanou tejto problematike na Slovensku. Autor sa v nej podpísal ako „trnavský básnik“ a v hexametroch popisuje základné experimentálne poznatky o trecej elektrine, priťahovaní a odpudzovaní telies, o elektricky vodivých i nevodivých materiáloch, o elektrickej iskre a iných svetelných účinkoch elektrických javov atď. Zomrel 13. júna 1748 pravdepodobne v Trnave.
 Rodina
 Otec: Jozef Puchin
 Matka: Mária-Klára
 Externé odkazy
 Záznam o narodení a krste v matrike farnosti Trnava; pokrstený ako Volfeangum Joannem Puchin
 Slovenskí fyzici
 Narodenia v 1719
 Úmrtia v 1748


text:
 24.9.2011
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 282/35
 Žaloba podaná dne 26. července 2011 — Elti v. Delegace Evropské unie v Černé Hoře
 (Věc T-395/11)
 2011/C 282/69
 Jednací jazyk: angličtina
 Účastnice řízení
 Žalobkyně: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Slovenská republika) (zástupce: N. Zidar Klemenčič, advokát)
 Žalovaná: Evropská unie, zastoupená Delegací Evropské unie v Černé Hoře
 Návrhová žádání
 —
 prohlásit, že žalovaná porušila článek 2 a čl. 30 odst. 3 směrnice 2004/18/ES (1);
 —
 zrušit zadávací řízení vedené v rámci výběrového řízení „Podpora pro digitalizaci černohorského veřejnoprávního vysílání — Dodávka zařízení, Černá Hora“ (reference EuropaAid/129435/C/SUP/ME-NP) (Úř. věst. 2010/S 178-270613), jelikož žalobkyni se nedostalo rovného zacházení a v důsledku toho neměla možnost opravit/vysvětlit svou nabídku;
 —
 zrušit rozhodnutí o udělení smlouvy ve výše uvedeném výběrovém řízení;
 —
 v případě, že smlouva již byla uzavřena, prohlásit tuto smlouvu za neplatnou od počátku;
 —
 případně, pokud v okamžiku, kdy Soudní dvůr rozhodne, již byla smlouva realizována nebo rozhodnutí již nelze prohlásit za neplatné od počátku, prohlásit, že žalovaná porušila článek 2 a čl. 30 odst. 3 směrnice 2004/18/ES a uložit žalované, aby zaplatila žalobkyni náhradu škody ve výši 172 541,56 eur jako náhradu za ztrátu utrpěnou žalobkyní v souvislosti s tímto řízením; a
 —
 uložit žalované, aby uhradila náklady žalobkyně, včetně nákladů kteréhokoliv vedlejšího účastníka řízení.
 Žalobní důvody a hlavní argumenty
 Na podporu žaloby žalobkyně předkládá jeden žalobní důvod.
 1)
 První žalobní důvod, kterým tvrdí, že žalovaná porušila článek 2 a čl. 30 odst. 3 směrnice 2004/18/ES, jelikož:
 —
 informace relevantní pro podání nabídky nebyla poskytnuta všem účastníkům veřejného výběrového řízení stejným způsobem a ve stejné kvalitě;
 —
 úspěšnému účastníkovi řízení byly poskytnuty informace diskriminačním způsobem, což jej zvýhodnilo, neboť mohl opravit svoji nabídku a
 zadávací řízení bylo vedeno takovým způsobem, že žalovaná ovlivnila výsledek řízení tím, že si vyžádala dodatečné informace nebo vyjasnění pouze od některých účastníků, čímž porušila zásadu zákazu diskriminace a transparentnosti.
 (1) Směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2004/18/ES ze dne 31. března 2004 o koordinaci postupů při zadávání veřejných zakázek na stavební práce, dodávky a služby (Úř. věst. 2004 L 134, s. 114).


type: legislation

text:
 2.9.2011
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 227/3
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) No 872/2011 НА СЪВЕТА
 от 1 септември 2011 година
 за прилагане на член 16, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕС) No 204/2011 относно ограничителни мерки с оглед на положението в Либия
 СЪВЕТЪТ НА ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ СЪЮЗ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕС) No 204/2011 на Съвета от 2 март 2011 г. относно ограничителни мерки с оглед на положението в Либия (1), и по-специално член 16, параграф 2 от него,
 като има предвид, че с оглед на развитието на събитията в Либия, списъкът на физическите и юридическите лица, образувания и органи които са подложени на ограничителни мерки, съдържащ се в приложение III към Регламент (ЕС) No 204/2011, следва да бъде изменен,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Вписванията относно образуванията, посочени в приложението към настоящия регламент, се заличават от списъка, съдържащ се в приложение III към Регламент (ЕС) No 204/2011.
 Член 2
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила в деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави-членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 1 септември 2011 година.
 За Съвета
 Председател
 M. DOWGIELEWICZ
 (1) ОВ L 58, 3.3.2011 г., стр. 1.
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ
 Образувания, посочени в член 1
 2.
 Фонд за икономическо и социално развитие
 8.
 Национална търговска банка (National Commercial Bank)
 9.
 Банка „Gumhouria“
 10.
 Банка „Sahara“
 11.
 Azzawia (Azawiya) Refining
 12.
 Ras Lanuf Oil and Gas Processing Company (RASCO)
 13.
 Brega
 14.
 Sirte Oil Company
 15.
 Waha Oil Company
 17.
 Tamoil Africa Holdings Limited (изв. още като Oil Libya Holding Company)
 23.
 First Gulf Libyan Bank
 25.
 National Oil Wells and Drilling and Workover Company (изв. още като National Oil Wells Chemical and Drilling and Workover Equipment Co.; изв. още като National Oil Wells Drilling And Workover Equipment Co.)
 26.
 North African Geophysical Exploration Company (изв. още като NAGECO; изв. още като North African Geophysical Exploration)
 27.
 National Oil Fields and Terminals Catering Company
 28.
 Mabruk Oil Operations
 30.
 Harouge Oil Operations (изв. още като Harouge; изв. още като Veba Oil Libya GMBH)
 31.
 Jawaby Property Investment Limited
 32.
 Tekxel Limited
 39.
 Mediterranean Oil Services Company (изв. още като Mediterranean Sea Oil Services Company)
 40.
 Mediterranean Oil Services GMBH (изв. още като MED OIL OFFICE DUESSELDORF, изв. още като MEDOIL)
 41.
 Libyan Arab Airlines
 43.
 Пристанищни власти в Триполи
 44.
 Пристанищни власти в Al Khoms
 45.
 Пристанищни власти в Brega
 46.
 Пристанищни власти в Ras Lanuf
 47.
 Пристанищни власти в Zawia
 48.
 Пристанищни власти в Zuwara
 49.
 Al-Sharara Oil Services Company (изв. още като: Al Sharara, Al-shahara oil service company, Sharara Oil Service Company, Sharara, Al-Sharara al-Dhahabiya Oil Service Company)


text:
Spín (iz angl. »vrtenje«) je lastna vrtilna količina delcev v kvantni mehaniki. Za razliko od vrtenja makroskopskih teles v klasični mehaniki, katerih vrtilna količina izhaja iz njihovih sestavnih delov, spin ni povezan z vrtenjem notranjih mas. Nesestavljeni osnovni delci, kot na primer elektron, imajo spin, čeprav so točkasti delci.
 Za razliko od vrtilne količine v klasični mehaniki spina ne opisujemo z vektorjem, ampak navedemo spinsko kvantno število, ki določa projekcijo spina na izbrano smer (npr. smer zunanjega magnetnega polja). Spinsko kvantno število je lahko celo število ali polovica celega števila. Delci s celim spinskim kvantnim številom so bozoni, zanje velja Bose-Einsteinova statistika. Zgleda bozonov sta foton, ki ima spinsko kvantno število enako 1, in jedro helijevega izotopa 4He s spinskim kvantnim številom 0. Delci s polcelim spinskim kvantnim številom so fermioni, zanje velja Fermi-Diracova statistika. Zgledi fermionov so elektron, proton in nevtron (vsi imajo spinsko kvantno število enako 1/2).
 K spinu sestavljenih delcev, kot je denimo vodikov atom, prispevajo spinske in tirne vrtilne količine sestavnih delov.
 Jedro in osnovni delci
 Kvantna mehanika


text:
 Svarīgs juridisks paziņojums
 |
 21976A0130(03)
 Oficiālais Vēstnesis L 025 , 30/01/1976 Lpp. 0114 - 0116
 Protokols Nr. 3par ĀKK cukuru1. pants1. Kopiena uz nenoteiktu laiku apņemas pirkt un importēt par garantētajām cenām konkrētus tāda niedru cukura, jēlcukura vai baltā cukura daudzumus, kura izcelsme ir ĀKK valstīs un kuru šīs valstis apņemas tai piegādāt.2. Konvencijas 10. panta drošības klauzulu nepiemēro. Šā protokola īstenošanu veic saistībā ar cukura tirgus kopīgās organizācijas pārvaldību, kas tomēr nekādi neskar 1. punktā minētās Kopienas saistības.2. pants1. Neskarot 7. pantu, nekādi šā protokola grozījumi nevar stāties spēkā piecus gadus no dienas, kad stājas spēkā Konvencija. Pēc tam šādi grozījumi, par kuriem vienojas, stājas spēkā laikā, par kādu vienojas.2. Protokola 1. pantā minēto garantiju īstenošanas nosacījumus pārskata līdz to piemērošanas septītā gada beigām.3. pants1. Protokola 1. pantā minētie niedru cukura daudzumi, kas izteikti metriskajās tonnās baltā cukura, še turpmāk – "saskaņotie daudzumi", piegādei katrā 4. panta 1. punktā minētajā divpadsmit mēnešu termiņā ir šādi:Barbadosa | 49300 |Fidži | 163600 |Gajāna | 157700 |Jamaika | 118300 |Kenija | 5000 |Madagaskara | 10000 |Malāvija | 20000 |Maurīcija | 487200 |Kongo Tautas Republika | 10000 |Svazilenda | 116400 |Tanzānija | 10000 |Trinidāda un Tobāgo | 69000 |Uganda | 5000 |2. Saskaņā ar 7. pantu šos daudzumus nevar samazināt bez saskaņošanas ar attiecīgajām atsevišķajām valstīm.3. Tomēr attiecībā uz laikposmu līdz 1975. gada 30. jūnijam saskaņotie daudzumi, kas izteikti metriskajās tonnās baltā cukura, ir šādi:Barbadosa | 29600 |Fidži | 25600 |Gajāna | 29600 |Jamaika | 83800 |Madagaskara | 2000 |Maurīcija | 65300 |Svazilenda | 19700 |Trinidāda un Tobāgo | 54200 |4. pants1. Katrā divpadsmit mēnešu termiņā no 1. jūlija līdz 30. jūnijam ieskaitot, še turpmāk – "piegādes termiņš", cukura eksportētājas ĀKK valstis apņemas piegādāt 3. panta 1. punktā minētos daudzumus saskaņā ar jebkādiem pielāgojumiem, kas izriet no 7. panta piemērošanas. Līdzīga apņemšanās attiecas arī uz 3. panta 3. punktā minētajiem daudzumiem attiecībā uz laikposmu līdz 1975. gada 30. jūnijam, ko arī uzskata par piegādes termiņu.2. Protokola 3. panta 3. punktā minētie daudzumi, kas jāpiegādā līdz 1975. gada 30. jūnijam, ietver piegādi, kas ir ceļā no nosūtīšanas ostas vai, attiecībā uz valstīm bez izejas uz jūru, sūtījumus, kas ir ceļā pāri robežai.3. ĀKK niedru cukura piegādēm termiņā līdz 1975. gada 30. jūnijam izmanto garantētās cenas, kas ir piemērojamas piegādes termiņā no 1975. gada 1. jūlija. Tāpat var vienoties par turpmākajiem piegādes termiņiem.5. pants1. Niedru balto cukuru vai jēlcukuru Kopienas tirgū pārdod par cenām, par kurām pircēji un pārdevēji brīvi vienojas.2. Ja kāda dalībvalsts savā teritorijā atļauj pārdošanas cenām pārsniegt Kopienas sliekšņa cenu, Kopiena neiejaucas.3. Kopiena apņemas pirkt par garantēto cenu tādus baltā cukura vai jēlcukura daudzumus saskaņoto daudzumu ietvaros, ko nevar pārdot Kopienā, par cenu, kura ir vienāda ar garantēto cenu vai pārsniedz to.4. Garantētā cena, kas ir izteikta norēķinu vienībās, attiecas uz neiepakotu cukuru, CIF Kopienas Eiropas ostās, un ir nemainīga attiecībā uz standarta kvalitātes cukuru. Par to vienojas ik pēc gada tādas cenu kategorijas ietvaros, ko iegūst Kopienā, ņemot vērā visus attiecīgos ekonomiskos faktorus, un par to lemj, vēlākais, līdz 1. maijam tieši pirms piegādes termiņa, uz kuru tā attieksies.6. pantsPirkšanu par 5. panta 3. punktā minēto garantēto cenu nodrošina intervences aģentūras vai citi Kopienas pilnvaroti pārstāvji.7. pants1. Ja kādā piegādes termiņā cukura eksportēja ĀKK valsts tās saskaņoto daudzumu nepiegādā pilnībā nepārvaramas varas dēļ, tad Kopiena pēc attiecīgās valsts lūguma nosaka vajadzīgo papildu piegādes termiņu.2. Ja cukura eksportētāja ĀKK valsts informē Komisiju piegādes termiņa gaitā, ka tā nespēs piegādāt tās saskaņoto daudzumu pilnībā un ka tā nevēlas saņemt 1. punktā minēto papildu termiņu, tad Komisija pārdala iztrūkumu piegādei attiecīgajā piegādes termiņā. Šādu pārdali Komisija veic pēc konsultēšanās ar attiecīgajām valstīm.3. Ja kādā piegādes termiņā cukura eksportētāja ĀKK valsts nepiegādā tās saskaņoto daudzumu pilnībā citu iemeslu dēļ, izņemot nepārvaramu varu, tad katram turpmākajam piegādes termiņam to daudzumu samazina par nepiegādāto daudzumu.4. Komisija var nolemt, ka, attiecībā uz turpmākajiem piegādes termiņiem nepiegādāto daudzumu pārdala starp citām 3. pantā minētajām valstīm. Šādu pārdali veic, konsultējoties ar attiecīgajām valstīm.8. pants1. Pēc vienas vai vairāku tādu valstu lūguma, kas piegādā cukuru saskaņā ar šā Protokola noteikumiem, vai arī pēc Kopienas lūguma konsultācijas, kuras attiecas uz visiem pasākumiem, kas vajadzīgi šā protokola piemērošanai, notiek saskaņā ar atbilstošu organizatorisku sistēmu, kuru pieņem līgumslēdzējas puses. Šajā nolūkā Konvencijas piemērošanas laikposmā var izmantot iestādes, kas izveidotas ar Konvenciju.2. Ja Konvencija zaudē spēku, tad 1. punktā minētās cukura piegādātājas valstis un Kopiena pieņem atbilstošus organizatoriskos noteikumus, lai nodrošinātu nepārtrauktu šā protokola noteikumu piemērošanu.3. Saskaņā ar šo protokolu paredzētās periodiskās pārskatīšanas veic saskaņā ar pieņemto organizatorisko sistēmu.9. pantsĪpašus cukura veidus, ko atsevišķas cukura eksportētājas ĀKK valstis tradicionāli piegādā dalībvalstīm, iekļauj 3. pantā minētajos daudzumos, un uz tiem attiecas tie paši noteikumi.10. pantsŠā protokola noteikumi paliek spēkā pēc dienas, kas norādīta Konvencijas 91. pantā. Pēc minētā datuma Kopiena var denonsēt Protokolu attiecībā uz katru ĀKK valsti un katra ĀKK valsts var to denonsēt attiecībā uz Kopienu, paziņojot to divus gadus iepriekš.--------------------------------------------------PIELIKUMSAttiecībā uz laikposmu no 1975. gada 1. februāra līdz 1976. gada 30. jūnijam un ņemot vērā 3. Protokolā norādītos daudzumus, Protokola 5. panta 4. punktā minētās garantētās cenas ir šādas:a) par jēlcukuru: 25 ·53 norēķinu vienības par 100 kilogramiem;b) par balto cukuru: 31 ·72 norēķinu vienības par 100 kilogramiem.Šīs cenas attiecas uz standarta kvalitātes cukuru, kas definēts Kopienas noteikumos, neiepakotu, CIF Kopienas Eiropas ostās.--------------------------------------------------