text:
smaad | rechtbankblog
 2 september 2013 Jurgen Swart Geef een reactie
 ARNHEM – Het gerechtshof spreek de 45-jarige Richard de Jong vrij van het aantasten van de eer en de goede naam van de burgemeester van Bunschoten en van een aantal wethouders, gemeenteraadsleden en ambtenaren. De Jong had van de rechtbank Midden Nederland bij verstek een werkstraf gekregen.
 De Jong ligt in conflict met de gemeente sinds hij met zijn moeder het huis uit is gezet door de woningbouwvereniging. Hij overstelpte het gemeentelijke apparaat met honderden brieven en bezwaarschriften. Hij begon een website waarop hij de burgemeester van corruptie beschuldigd. Deze website is uit de lucht, maar de tekst is nog terug te vinden.
 De burgemeester deed aangifte. De officier bracht de zaak voor, maar De Jong kwam niet naar de zitting in Utrecht. De officier daar stelde vast De Jong rechter heeft op vrijheid van meningsuiting maar dat hij zijn brieven schreef om mensen te beschadigen. De rechtbank veroordeelde De Jong. De rechtbank schrapte wel dat deel van de dagvaarding dat betrekking had op de website omdat die dagvaarding een zooitje was.
 Met zijn nieuwe advocaat Tim Vis ging De Jong in hoger beroep. Vis deed een beroep op de vrijheid van meningsuiting. De advocaat generaal eiste toch 100 uur werken en 2 weken voorwaardelijk. Maar het gerechtshof was het met advocaat Vis er binnen het publieke debat ruimte moet zijn om ver te gaan. De Jong heeft die grenzen niet overschreden vindt het hof. (andereverhalenuitderechtbank.nl)
 24 juni 2013 De doofpot van de burgemeester is gesloten
 BunschotenGerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwardensmaad
 24 juni 2013 Jurgen Swart Geef een reactie
 BunschotenburgemeesterGerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwardensmaad
 20 mei 2013 Jurgen Swart Geef een reactie
 UTRECHT – De 50-jarige Alex schreef een brief aan roddelblad Privé en aan misdaadjournalist John van den Heuvel dat notaris Ten Broecke het lichaam van zijn moeder had kwijtgemaakt. Alex vond dat de notaris uit zijn ambt moest worden gezet. Hij schreef er niet bij dat de notaris zijn zwager was en dat ze al jaren ruzieden.
 De vrouw van de notaris, de zus van Alex, zorgde voor hun moeder tot ze doodging. Ze nodigde Alex en nog een broer en een zus niet uit voor de begrafenis. Alex werd gek van verdriet en rouw, vertelt hij aan de politierechter. De buitengeslotens broers en zus werden nog kwader toen er opeens een lening opdook. Hun overleden moeder had geld geleend van de notaris en het erfdeel werd kleiner.
 Alex zette bij het woonhuis van de notaris doodskisten neer omdat de notaris weet hoe hij een doodskist snel kan laten verdwijnen. Zo schreef hij. Hij deelde ook nog pamfletten uit met minder prettige teksten. De notaris begon een civiele zaak en hij won deze. Dat is 2 jaar geleden. En daarna is er volgens advocaat Kraal niets meer gebeurt. Kraal betoogt dat het openbaar ministerie niet ontvankelijk moet worden verklaard omdat het geschil al civiel is opgelost. Daar denkt politierechter Severeijns anders over.
 Officier Esbir Wildeman geeft aan dat het angstaanjagend is om een doodskist ergens op de stoep te zetten. Vanwege de voorgeschiedenis is het minder bedreigend. De officier houdt het op smaad en belediging omdat de familietwisten niet met het functioneren van de notaris te maken hebben. Hij eist 4 maanden voorwaardelijke gevangenisstraf. De politierechter legt 1 maand voorwaardelijk op. (andereverhalenuitderechtbank.nl)
 politierechterRechtbank Midden Nederlandsmaad
 Smaad bewezen maar van de straf blijft niets over
 12 maart 2013 Jurgen Swart Geef een reactie
 ARNHEM – Het gerechtshof legt een 45-jarige man uit Utrecht een geheel voorwaardelijke werkstraf van 60 uur op wegens smaad. De advocaat generaal had 40 uur onvoorwaardelijk werken geëist.
 De zaak draait om een boze brief die de verdachte schreef naar de redactie van RTV Eemland. Het was zijn vriendin opgevallen dat haar ex als cameraman meewerkte aan kinderprogramma.Terwijl die ex veroordeeld was wegens aanranding. De verdachte schreef dat de man tot 3 jaar was veroordeeld wegens kindermisbruik. Dat klopte niet want de cameraman had een werkstraf gekregen.
 De officier van justitie eiste vrijspraak. De officier zag algemeen belang in de openbaarmaking van dit misdrijf. De politierechter in Utrechts stelde vast dat iemand die een keer veroordeeld is niet volgelvrij is. Zij legde 60 uur op. De advocaat generaal was het daarmee eens, maar die eiste weer een iets lagere straf. Het hof vindt een waarschuwing voldoende. (andereverhalenuitderechtbank.nl)
 25 februari 2013 Niet vogelvrij na 1 veroordeling
 Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwardensmaad
 Gratis seks als lage wraakactie op onbeheersbaar internet
 10 september 2012 jurgenswart Geef een reactie
 UTRECHT – De 24-jarige Suzanne is een keurige blonde stewardess met een blanco strafblad. Ze maakt direct bij binnenkomst al haar excuses aan de ouders van het meisje dat ze heeft belasterd.
 Die ouders zitten als benadeelde partij op de achterste rij in een verder lege zaal. Suzanne heeft hun 18-jarige dochter als een sletje dat op zoek was naar gratis seks op marktplaats gezet. De ouders willen 1300 euro schadevergoeding voor deze digitale laster. Rechter Kranenbroek wijst dat toe. Zij legt ook nog een geldboete van 400 euro op wegens smaad.
 Suzanne had en heeft nog steeds een relatie met Marco. Marco ging vreemd met een collega van de marine. Suzanne bleef bij Marco. Maar de collega bleef achter Marco aanlopen. Suzanne werd boos. Toen Suzanne een foto vond van haar rivale, schaars gekleed op de kamer van haar vriend, sloeg ze door. Ze zette een advertentie met foto. In die advertentie waarin een sletje seks aanbood, stond het 06 nummer van haar rivale. De tekst stond nog geen dag op marktplaats. Maar het leverde 28 gemiste oproepen en talloze sms’jes op.
 De rivale deed aangifte. De officier van justitie seponeerde de zaak. Daarop stapte de aangeefster naar het gerechtshof. Dat hof dwong het openbaar ministerie toch te vervolgen. En terecht vindt de zittingsofficier nu. De officier spreekt over een lage wraakactie op het onbeheersbaar medium internet. Een werkstraf zou een normale straf zijn maar onder deze omstandigheden, eist de officier een geldboete.
 Volgens raadsman Floor Visser is er juridisch gezien geen sprake van smaad. Er staat geen concrete gedraging in de advertentie, betoogt hij. Daar is rechter Kranenbroek het al helemaal niet mee eens. Zij leest de hele wervende tekst gezellig nog een keertje voor. De politierechter neemt de eis over en zij benadrukt dat Suzanne heel goed weg komt. (jurgenswart.wordpress.com)
 politierechterRechtbank Utrechtsmaad
 Werkstraf voor smaad en belediging
 VEENENDAAL – De politierechter in Utrecht veroordeelt de 32-jarige Faysal bij verstek wegens smaad en belediging tot 35 uur werkstraf. Faysal ligt steeds overhoop met een overbuurman, een agent. Hij schreeuwt beledigingen over straat bijvoorbeeld dat de man zijn vrouw van de flat heeft geduwd.
 In april hield de politierechter de zaak aan om Faysal eens goed te laten onderzoeken. Maar dat leverde niets op. Op 2 juni deed de buurman zelfs opnieuw aangifte. Faysal is niet op de zitting om het uit te leggen. (jurgenswart.wordpress.com)
 3 april 2012 Valium en bier
 beledigingpolitierechterRechtbank Utrechtsmaad
 Valium en bier
 3 april 2012 jurgenswart Geef een reactie
 UTRECHT – De 32-jarige Faysal zegt dat hij met dode mensen kan praten zoals de overleden vrouw van een agent. ‘Het is misschien een goed idee om hem naar de psychiater te sturen’, stelt officier van justitie Esbir Wildeman aan de politierechter voor.
 Faysal moet voorkomen wegens smaad, maar hij is niet verschenen. Hij heeft luidkeels over straat geschreeuwd dat zijn overbuurman, een agent, zijn eigen vrouw heeft vermoord. Hij heeft dat ook tegen een andere agent gezegd en een hulpverleenster van de woningbouwvereniging. Faysal vertelt te pas en te onpas dat de vrouw uit haar flat is gesprongen maar dat de agent haar heeft geduwd.
 De familie van Faysal scoort duizenden hits in het systeem van de rechtbank. Vooral zijn oudere broer, een veelpleger die steeds lange straffen weet te ontlopen, draagt daaraan bij. Faysal is acht jaar geleden opgepakt op verdenking van terrorisme. Die zaak liep stuk, want die terrorismedreiging bleek vooral uit veel loze woorden op msn te bestaan.
 Bij Faysal lijkt het probleem dat we zijn woorden misschien niet zo serieus moeten nemen. Maar hoe weten we dat zeker, vooral nu Faysal er zelf niet bij is. Faysal heeft zelf ook verklaard dat hij rare dingen gaat zeggen als hij valium en bier gebruikt. Advocaat Maarten ‘t Sas heeft geen bezwaar tegen een psychiater. Hij durft zelfs te beloven dat Faysal mee zal werken aan de behandeling. De politierechter wijst het verzoek toe. De zaak gaat verder op 27 juni als het rapport dan tenminste klaar is. (JS)
 Hockeycoach filmde naakte meisjes in kleedkamer HGC
 Gebakken lucht PlanB4you eis 3,5 jaar


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 26.5.2007
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 117/31
 Προσφυγή της 26ης Μαρτίου 2007 — EREF κατά Επιτροπής
 (Υπόθεση T-94/07)
 (2007/C 117/50)
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η αγγλική
 Διάδικοι
 Προσφεύγουσα: European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) ASBL (Βρυξέλλες, Βέλγιο) (εκπρόσωπος: D. Fouquet, δικηγόρος)
 Καθής: Επιτροπή των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων
 Αιτήματα της προσφεύγουσας
 Η προσφεύγουσα ζητεί από το Πρωτοδικείο:
 —
 να ακυρώσει την απόφαση C(2006)4963 τελικό της Επιτροπής των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων της 24ης Οκτωβρίου 2006,
 —
 να χαρακτηρίσει το επίμαχο χρηματοδοτικό σχήμα, υπό την παρούσα μορφή και δομή του, ως παράνομη κρατική ενίσχυση,
 —
 επικουρικώς, να υποχρεώσει την Επιτροπή να κινήσει επίσημη διαδικασία εξετάσεως σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 88, παράγραφος 2, ΕΚ στην υπόθεση NN 62/B/2006,
 —
 να καταδικάσει την Επιτροπή των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων στα δικαστικά έξοδα, περιλαμβάνομένων αυτών της προσφεύγουσας.
 Ισχυρισμοί και κύρια επιχειρήματα
 Το 2004 η προσφεύγουσα υπέβαλε καταγγελία στην Επιτροπή, ισχυριζόμενη, μεταξύ άλλων, ότι ορισμένες πτυχές της χρηματοδοτήσεως της κατασκευής νέου πυρηνικού εργοστασίου παραγωγής ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας στη Φιλανδία συνιστά μη κοινοποιηθείσα κρατική ενίσχυση. Το 2006, η Επιτροπή διαχώρισε την υπόθεση σε δύο επιμέρους υποθέσεις με αριθμούς NN 62/A/2006 και NN 62/B/2006.
 Στην παρούσα υπόθεση, η προσφεύγουσα ζητεί την ακύρωση της αποφάσεως της Επιτροπής C(2006)4963 τελικό, σχετικά με την υπόθεση NN 62/B/2006, με την οποία η Επιτροπή διαπίστωσε ότι η πίστωση που χορηγήθηκε από κοινοπραξία πέντε τραπεζών και το δάνειο που χορήγησε η AB Svensk Exportkredit (στο εξής: SEK) δεν συνιστούν κρατική ενίσχυση κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 87, παράγραφος 1, ΕΚ.
 Η προσφεύγουσα προβάλλει ότι ο διαχωρισμός της αρχικής υποθέσεως από την Επιτροπή είναι παράνομος από διαδικαστικής, αλλά και από ουσιαστικής απόψεως. Κατά την προσφεύγουσα, η χορήγηση πιστώσεως και δανείου με τόσο χαμηλό επιτόκιο κατέστη δυνατή λόγω εγγυήσεως που παρέσχε η γαλλική εταιρεία χορηγήσεως πιστώσεων και ασφαλίσεως εξαγωγών COFACE. Ωστόσο, οι πτυχές της εμπλοκής της COFACE που συνιστούν κρατική ενίσχυση εξετάστηκαν στο πλαίσιο της υποθέσεως NN 62/Α/2006. Η προσφεύγουσα ισχυρίζεται, επομένως, ότι ο διαχωρισμός της αρχικής υποθέσεως σε δύο χωριστές υποθέσεις, με συνέπεια να μην ληφθεί υπόψη η χορήγηση πιστώσεως στο πλαίσιο της υποθέσεως NN 62/B/2006, είχε ως αποτέλεσμα να καταλήξει η Επιτροπή στο εσφαλμένο συμπέρασμα ότι η παροχή πιστώσεως και η χορήγηση δανείου από τη SEK με τόσο χαμηλό επιτόκιο δεν συνιστά κρατική ενίσχυση, απλώς και μόνον επειδή οι μετέχουσες τράπεζες είναι ιδιωτικές.
 Επιπλέον, η προσφεύγουσα προβάλλει ότι, ακόμη και αν δεν ληφθεί υπόψη η χορηγηθείσα από την COFACE εγγύηση, η πίστωση και το δάνειο που χορήγησε η SEK αποτελούν κρατική ενίσχυση, διότι:
 —
 η πίστωση χορηγήθηκε με χαμηλό επιτόκιο, με τη συμμετοχή των τραπεζών BLB και BNP Paribas, οι οποίες κατά την προσφεύγουσα είναι αμφότερες κρατικές,
 —
 το δάνειο από τη SEK προήλθε από κατά 100 % κρατική τράπεζα με επιτόκιο χαμηλότερο από τα συνήθη της αγοράς.
 Τέλος, η προσφεύγουσα προβάλλει έλλειψη αιτιολογίας και πρόδηλη πλάνη εκτιμήσεως.


type: contracts

text:
 26.10.2012
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 1
 PRÓTACAL (Uimh. 22)
 MAIDIR LE SEASAMH NA DANMHAIRGE
 TÁ NA hARDPHÁIRTITHE CONARTHACHA,
 AG MEABHRÚ DÓIBH an Chinnidh ó na Ceannairí Stáit nó Rialtais, ag teacht le chéile dóibh i dtionól na Comhairle Eorpaí i nDún Éideann ar an 12 Nollaig 1992, maidir le fadhbanna áirithe arna dtógáil ag an Danmhairg maidir leis an gConradh ar an Aontas Eorpach,
 TAR ÉIS A THABHAIRT DÁ nAIRE seasamh na Danmhairge maidir le Saoránacht, le hAontas Eacnamaíoch agus Airgeadaíochta, leis an mBeartas Cosanta agus le Ceartas agus Gnóthaí Baile mar atá sé leagtha síos i gCinneadh Dhún Éideann,
 ÓS FEASACH DÓIBH go ndéanfaidh leanúint faoi na Conarthaí de na socruithe dlí a d'eascair ó Chinneadh Dhún Éideann rannpháirtíocht na Danmhairge i réimsí tábhachtacha den chomhar san Aontas a theorannú go suntasach agus gurb é lár leas an Aontais iomláine an acquis a áirithiú i réimse na saoirse, na slándála agus an cheartais,
 ÓS MIAN LEO mar sin creat dlí a bhunú a thabharfaidh rogha don Danmhairg a bheith rannpháirteach i nglacadh na mbeart arna mbeartú ar bhonn Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh agus ag fáiltiú dóibh roimh intinn na Danmhairge leas a bhaint as an rogha sin nuair is féidir i gcomhréir lena riachtanais bhunreachtúla,
 AG TABHAIRT DÁ nAIRE nach gcoiscfidh an Danmhairg na Ballstáit eile ar a gcomhar a fhorbairt tuilleadh i ndáil le bearta nach bhfuil ina gceangal ar an Danmhairg,
 AG COIMEÁD I gCUIMHNE DÓIBH Airteagal 3 den Phrótacal maidir le acquis Schengen arna lánpháirtiú i gcreat an Aontais Eorpaigh,
 TAR ÉIS COMHAONTÚ ar na forálacha seo a leanas, a chuirfear i gceangal leis an gConradh ar an Aontas Eorpach agus leis an gConradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh:
 CUID I
 Airteagal 1
 Ní bheidh an Danmhairg rannpháirteach nuair a ghlacfaidh an Chomhairle bearta arna mbeartú de bhun Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh. Beidh gá le haontoilíocht chomhaltaí na Comhairle, seachas ionadaí rialtas na Danmhairge, i gcás chinntí na Comhairle nach foláir a ghlacadh d'aon toil.
 Chun críocha an Airteagail seo, saineofar tromlach cáilithe i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 238(3) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 Airteagal 2
 Ní bheidh aon fhoráil de Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, aon bheart arna ghlacadh de bhun an Teidil sin, aon fhoráil d'aon chomhaontú idirnáisiúnta arna thabhairt i gcrích ag an Aontas de bhun an Teidil sin, ná aon chinneadh ó Chúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh ag léiriú aon fhoráil nó aon bheart den sórt sin nó aon bheart a leasaíodh nó atá inleasaithe de bhun an Teidil sin ina cheangal nó ina ceangal ar an Danmhairg ná infheidhme inti; agus ní dhéanfaidh aon fhoráil, aon bheart ná aon chinneadh den sórt sin difear ar dhóigh ar bith d'inniúlachtaí, do chearta ná d'oibleagáidí na Danmhairge; agus ní dhéanfaidh aon fhoráil, aon bheart ná aon chinneadh den sórt sin difear ar dhóigh ar bith don acquis Comhphobail ná Aontais ná ní bheidh siad ina gcuid de dhlí an Aontais mar a bheidh feidhm ag an acquis agus an dlí sin maidir leis an Danmhairg. Go háirithe, leanfaidh gníomhartha an Aontais i réimse an chomhair phóilíneachta agus an chomhair bhreithiúnaigh in ábhair choiriúla a glacadh sula dtiocfaidh Conradh Liospóin i bhfeidhm agus a ndearnadh leasú orthu de cheangal a bheith acu ar an Danmhairg agus de bheith infheidhme maidir léi, gan athrú.
 Airteagal 2a
 Beidh feidhm ag Airteagal 2 den Phrótacal seo freisin maidir leis na rialacha sin a leagtar síos ar bhonn Airteagal 16 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh a bhaineann le daoine aonair a chosaint i dtaca le sonraí pearsanta a bheith á bpróiseáil ag na Ballstáit nuair atá gníomhaíochtaí á gcur i gcrích acu a thig faoi raon feidhme Chaibidil 4 nó Chaibidil 5 de Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh sin.
 Airteagal 3
 Ní iompróidh an Danmhairg aon iarmhairtí airgeadais a ghabhann le bearta dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 1, seachas costais riarthacha a thabhóidh na hinstitiúidí.
 Airteagal 4
 1. Cinnfidh an Danmhairg, laistigh de thréimhse sé mhí tar éis don Chomhairle beart a ghlacadh ar thogra nó tionscnamh chun cur le acquis Schengen atá folaithe leis an gCuid seo, an gcuirfidh sí an beart sin chun feidhme ina dlí náisiúnta. Má chinneann sí é sin a dhéanamh, cruthóidh an beart sin oibleagáid faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta idir an Danmhairg agus na Ballstáit eile a mbeidh an beart ina cheangal orthu.
 2. Má chinneann an Danmhairg gan beart ón gComhairle dá dtagraítear i mír 1 a chur chun feidhme, déanfaidh na Ballstáit a mbeidh an beart sin ina cheangal orthu agus an Danmhairg na bearta iomchuí a bheidh le glacadh a mheas.
 CUID II
 Airteagal 5
 I dtaca le bearta arna nglacadh ag an gComhairle de bhun Airteagal 26(1), Airteagal 42 agus Airteagail 43 go 46 den Chonradh ar an Aontas Eorpach, ní bhíonn an Danmhairg rannpháirteach i ndréachtú agus cur chun feidhme cinntí agus gníomhaíochtaí de chuid an Aontais a bhfuil impleachtaí cosanta acu. Dá bhrí sin, ní bheidh an Danmhairg rannpháirteach i nglacadh na mbeart sin. Ní choiscfidh an Danmhairg na Ballstáit eile ar a gcomhar a fhorbairt tuilleadh sa réimse sin. Ní bheidh d'iallach ar an Danmhairg rannchuidiú le maoiniú an chaiteachais oibríochtúil a thig ó na bearta sin ná cumais mhíleata a chur ar fáil don Aontas.
 Beidh gá le haontoilíocht chomhaltaí na Comhairle, seachas ionadaí rialtas na Danmhairge, do ghníomhartha na Comhairle nach foláir a ghlacadh d'aon toil.
 Chun críocha an Airteagail seo, saineofar tromlach cáilithe i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 238(3) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 CUID III
 Airteagal 6
 Ní bheidh feidhm ag Airteagail 1, 2 agus 3 maidir le bearta ag cinneadh na dtríú tíortha a mbeidh ar a náisiúnaigh víosa a bheith ina seilbh acu nuair a bheidh teorainneacha seachtracha na mBallstát á dtrasnú acu, ná ar bhearta maidir le formáid chomhionann do víosaí.
 CUID IV
 Airteagal 7
 Féadfaidh an Danmhairg tráth ar bith, i gcomhréir lena rialacha bunreachtúla, a chur in iúl do na Ballstáit eile nach mian léi leas a bhaint a thuilleadh as an Prótacal seo nó cuid de. Sa chás sin, cuirfidh an Danmhairg i bhfeidhm go hiomlán na bearta ábhartha uile a bheidh i bhfeidhm ag an am sin arna nglacadh i gcreat an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 Airteagal 8
 1. Tráth ar bith agus gan dochar d'Airteagal 7, féadfaidh an Danmhairg, i gcomhréir lena rialacha bunreachtúla, fógra a thabhairt do na Ballstáit eile gurb éard é Cuid I den Phrótacal seo, amhail ón gcéad lá den mhí i ndiaidh an fhógra, na forálacha san Iarscríbhinn. Sa chás sin, déanfar Airteagail 5 go 8 a athuimhriú dá réir.
 2. Sé mhí tar éis an dáta a ghabhfaidh éifeacht leis an bhfógra dá dtagraítear i mír 1, beidh acquis Schengen uile agus bearta arna nglacadh chun cur leis an acquis sin, a bhí ina gceangal ar an Danmhairg go dtí sin mar oibleagáidí faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta, ina gceangal ar an Danmhairg mar chuid de dhlí an Aontais.
 IARSCRÍBHINN
 Airteagal 1
 Faoi réir Airteagal 3, ní bheidh an Danmhairg rannpháirteach nuair a ghlacfaidh an Chomhairle bearta arna mbeartú de bhun Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh. Beidh gá le haontoilíocht chomhaltaí na Comhairle, seachas ionadaí rialtas na Danmhairge, do chinntí na Comhairle nach foláir a ghlacadh d'aon toil.
 Chun críocha an Airteagail seo, saineofar tromlach cáilithe i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 238(3) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 Airteagal 2
 De bhua Airteagal 1 agus faoi réir Airteagail 3, 4 agus 8, ní bheidh aon fhoráil i dTeideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, aon bheart arna ghlacadh de bhun an Teidil sin, aon fhoráil d'aon chomhaontú idirnáisiúnta arna thabhairt i gcrích ag an Aontas de bhun an Teidil sin ná aon bhreith de chuid Chúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh ag léiriú aon fhorála nó aon bhirt den sórt sin ina cheangal ar an Danmhairg ná infheidhme inti. Ní dhéanfaidh aon fhoráil, beart ná cinneadh den sórt sin difear ar dhóigh ar bith d'inniúlachtaí, cearta agus oibleagáidí na Danmhairge. Ní dhéanfaidh aon fhoráil, beart ná cinneadh den sórt sin difear ar dhóigh ar bith don acquis Comhphobail ná Aontais ná ní bheidh siad ina gcuid de dhlí an Aontais mar a bheidh feidhm ag an acquis agus an dlí sin maidir leis an Danmhairg.
 Airteagal 3
 1. Féadfaidh an Danmhairg fógra a thabhairt i scríbhinn d'Uachtarán na Comhairle, laistigh de thrí mhí tar éis an dáta ar tíolacadh togra nó tionscnamh don Chomhairle de bhun Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, gur mian léi bheith rannpháirteach le linn aon bheart den sórt sin arna bheartú a ghlacadh agus a chur i bhfeidhm, agus leis sin beidh an Danmhairg i dteideal bheith rannpháirteach amhlaidh.
 2. Mura féidir tar éis tréimhse réasúnta beart dá dtagraítear i mír 1 a ghlacadh le rannpháirtíocht na Danmhairge, féadfaidh an Chomhairle an beart sin dá dtagraítear i mír 1 a ghlacadh i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 1 gan rannpháirtíocht na Danmhairge. Sa chás sin beidh feidhm ag Airteagal 2.
 Airteagal 4
 Féadfaidh an Danmhairg, tráth ar bith tar éis an dáta ar glacadh beart de bhun Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, fógra faoina hintinn a thabhairt don Chomhairle agus don Choimisiún gur mian léi glacadh leis an mbeart sin. Sa chás sin, beidh feidhm mutatis mutandis ag an nós imeachta dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 331(1) den Chonradh sin.
 Airteagal 5
 1. Beidh feidhm ag forálacha an Phrótacail seo maidir leis an Danmhairg chomh maith maidir le bearta a mholfar nó a ghlacfar de bhun Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh lena leasaítear beart atá ann cheana atá ina cheangal uirthi.
 2. Ach i gcásanna ina gcinnfidh an Chomhairle, áfach, ag gníomhú di ar thogra ón gCoimisiún, nach bhféadfaí, gan rannpháirtíocht na Danmhairge sa leagan leasaithe de bheart atá ann, an beart sin a chur i bhfeidhm i leith Ballstát eile nó i leith an Aontais, féadfaidh sí a áiteamh uirthi fógra a thabhairt faoi Airteagal 3 nó 4. Chun críocha Airteagal 3 tosóidh tréimhse bhreise dhá mhí ón dáta a suífidh an Chomhairle amhlaidh.
 Má tharlaíonn, nuair a rachaidh an tréimhse dhá mhí sin ó shuíomh na Comhairle in éag, nach mbeidh fógra tugtha ag an Danmhairg faoi Airteagal 3 nó faoi Airteagal 4, ní bheidh an beart atá ann ina cheangal uirthi ná ní bheidh sé infheidhme maidir léi a thuilleadh, mura mbeidh fógra tugtha aici faoi Airteagal 4 sula dtiocfaidh an beart leasaitheach i bhfeidhm. Gabhfaidh éifeacht leis seo ón dáta a dtiocfaidh an beart leasaitheach i bhfeidhm nó ón dáta a rachaidh an tréimhse dhá mhí in éag, cibé acu is déanaí.
 Chun críche na míre seo, gníomhóidh an Chomhairle, tar éis plé iomlán ar an ábhar, trí thromlach cáilithe dá comhaltaí a ionadaíonn do na Ballstáit a bheidh rannpháirteach nó a bhí rannpháirteach i nglacadh an bhirt leasaithigh. Saineofar tromlach cáilithe den Chomhairle i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 238(3)(a) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 3. Féadfaidh an Chomhairle, ag gníomhú di trí thromlach cáilithe ar thogra ón gCoimisiún, a chinneadh go n-iompróidh an Danmhairg na hiarmhairtí díreacha airgeadais, más ann dóibh, a thabhófar de thoradh a rannpháirtíocht sa bheart atá ann a scor.
 4. Ní dhéanfaidh an tAirteagal seo dochar d'Airteagal 4.
 Airteagal 6
 1. Tíolacfar fógra de bhun Airteagal 4 tráth nach déanaí ná sé mhí tar éis an dáta ar glacadh beart go cinntitheach má tá an beart sin ag cur le acquis Schengen.
 Mura dtíolacfaidh an Danmhairg fógra i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 3 nó Airteagal 4 maidir le beart chun cur le acquis Schengen, déanfaidh na Ballstáit a mbeidh an beart sin ina cheangal orthu agus an Danmhairg na bearta iomchuí a bheidh le glacadh a mheas.
 2. Fógra de bhun Airteagal 3 i ndáil le beart chun chur le acquis Schengen, measfar go neamh-inchúlghairthe gur fógra é de bhun Airteagal 3 i ndáil le haon togra nó tionscnamh eile arb é is aidhm dó cur leis an mbeart sin a mhéid atá an togra nó an tionscnamh sin ag cur le acquis Schengen.
 Airteagal 7
 Na rialacha a leagtar síos ar bhonn Airteagal 16 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh agus a bhaineann le daoine aonair a chosaint i dtaca le sonraí pearsanta a bheith á bpróiseáil ag na Ballstáit agus gníomhaíochtaí á gcur i gcrích acu a thig faoi raon feidhme Chaibidil 4 nó Chaibidil 5 de Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh sin, ní bheidh siad ina gceangal ar an Danmhairg nuair nach mbeidh na rialacha ina gceangal uirthi lena rialaítear cineálacha an chomhair bhreithiúnaigh in ábhair choiriúla nó cineálacha an chomhair phóilíneachta a cheanglaíonn na forálacha a leagtar síos ar bhonn Airteagal 16 a chomhlíonadh.
 Airteagal 8
 Más rud é, i gcásanna dá dtagraítear sa Chuid seo, go mbeidh beart arna ghlacadh ag an gComhairle de bhun Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh ina cheangal ar an Danmhairg, beidh feidhm ag na forálacha ábhartha de na Conarthaí maidir leis an Danmhairg i ndáil leis an mbeart sin.
 Airteagal 9
 Nuair nach mbeidh an Danmhairg faoi cheangal ag beart arna ghlacadh de bhun Theideal V de Chuid a Trí den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, ní iompróidh sí aon iarmhairtí airgeadais a ghabhfaidh leis an mbeart sin seachas costais riaracháin a thabhóidh na hinstitiúidí, ach amháin má chinneann an Chomhairle a mhalairt, ag gníomhú di d'aon toil a chomhaltaí uile tar éis dul i gcomhairle le Parlaimint na hEorpa.


type: wikipedia

text:
Szatmári István, olykor Szathmáry, Szathmári (Budapest, 1925. július 30. – Budapest, 1988. december 28.) magyar színész, érdemes művész. Felesége Szatmári Liza színművésznő volt.
 Életpályája
 1947-ben végezte el a Színművészeti Akadémiát, és karrierje a Nemzeti Színházban indult. 1947–1949 között a szegedi Nemzetibe szerződött, ám visszatért első társulatához. 1951-től haláláig a Magyar Néphadsereg Színháza a későbbi Vígszínház tagja volt. 1976-ban tagságágnak 25. évfordulója alkalmával arany pecsétgyűrűvel jutalmazták hűségét. Szatmári elsősorban epizodistaként aratott nagy sikereket, és tehetségét a színpadon túl több filmben és tévéjátékban is kamatoztatta – így például a Szomszédokban is szerepelt rövid ideig (15 fejezetben) mint Szöllősy Pál fogorvos.
 Rendszeresen publikált a Film Színház Muzsika című folyóiratban, a Mestersége színész című műsor számára 11 riportot készített kollégáival. Írásai halála után megjelentek A kis csillag is csillag című kötetben.
 Díjak, elismerések
 Hegedűs Gyula-emlékgyűrű (1971)
 Érdemes művész (1988)
 Főbb színházi szerepei
 Katona József: Bánk bán... Ottó, merániai herceg
 Alekszandr Nyikolajevics Osztrovszkij: Erdő... Bulanov
 Mesterházi Lajos: Pesti emberek... Deske
 Friedrich Dürrenmatt: Az öreg hölgy látogatása... Főkomornyik
 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Faust... Wagner
 Szigligeti Ede: II. Rákóczi Ferenc fogsága... Lehmann
 Neil Simon: Furcsa pár... Vinnie
 Tennessee Williams: A vágy villamosa... Orvos
 Arthur Miller: Az ügynök halála... Charley
 Zerkovitz Béla: Csókos asszony... Kükülleiné
 Roger Vitrac: Viktor, vagy a gyerekuralom... Doktor
 Hangjátékok
 Erdődy János: A korona rabszolgái (1957)
 Hegedűs Géza: Szerelem a fűzfák alatt (1957)
 Vörösmarty Mihály: Csongor és Tünde (1958)
 Zola, Emile: Tisztes úriház (1959)
 Shakespeare, William: Rómeó és Júlia (1961)
 Verne, Jules: A Begum 500 milliója (1962)
 Vidor Miklós:A meglepetés (1961)
 Karinthy Ferenc: Hátország (1964)
 Obrenovics, Alexandar: Don Juan visszatér (1965)
 Solohov, Mihail: Csendes Don (1967)
 Bozó László: Gyilkosság a sztriptízbárban (1968)
 Cooper, Giles: A sültgalamb (1968)
 Macskajáték (1972) rádiós közvetítés
 Obaldia, René de: A vak könnyei (1974)
 Mándy Iván: Ha köztünk vagy, Holman Endre (1975)
 Bulgakov, Mihail: A Mester és Margarita (1976)
 Dickens, Charles: Copperfield Dávid (1979)
 Kraszinski, Zygmunt: Istentelen színjáték (1979)
 Mándy Iván: A tengerbe esett férfi (1980)
 Lev Tolsztoj: A sötétség hatalma (1981)
 Saint-Exupery: A kis herceg (1981)
 Aszlányi Károly: Kalandos vakáció (1982)
 Bárány Tamás: Egy boldog família (1983)
 Georges-Emmanuel Clancier: Tétova szeretők (1984)
 Móra Ferenc: A rab ember fiai (1984)
 Wallace, Edgar: Fecsegő felügyelő esetei (1984)
 Odze György: Kalapácssirató (1985)
 Remenyik Zsigmond: Kard és kocka (1985)
 Shaw, G. B.: Az orvos dilemmája (1985)
 Markovits Ferenc: Láttál-e roppant fényt a magasban? (1986)
 Traven: Halálhajó (1986)
 Kambanélisz, Jákovosz: Sok hűhó Rodoszért (1987)
 Filmjei
 Játékfilmek
 Tévéfilmek, televíziós sorozatok
 Szinkronszerepei
 Filmek
 Folytassa-sorozat
 Sorozatok
 Rajzilmek
 Rajzfilmsorozatok
 Könyve
 A kis csillag is csillag (1989)
 Jegyzetek
 Források
 További információk
 Szatmári István sírja (Varga József fotója) Farkasréti temető: 2/8-1-138
 Magyar színészek
 1925-ben született személyek
 1988-ban elhunyt személyek
 Hegedűs Gyula-díjasok
 A Magyar Népköztársaság Érdemes Művésze díjasok
 Magyar szinkronszínészek


text:
 15.1.2011
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 13/26
 Skarga wniesiona w dniu 1 września 2010 r. — Maftah przeciwko Komisji
 (Sprawa T-101/09)
 ()
 2011/C 13/51
 Język postępowania: angielski
 Strony
 Strona skarżąca: Elmabruk Maftah (Londyn, Zjednoczone Królestwo) (przedstawiciele: E. Grieves, Barrister i A. McMurdie, Solicitor)
 Strona pozwana: Komisja Europejska
 Żądania strony skarżącej
 —
 stwierdzenie nieważności rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1330/2008 (1) w zakresie w jakim dotyczy ono skarżącego;
 —
 nakazanie pozwanej natychmiastowego usunięcia nazwiska skarżącego z załącznika do wspomnianego rozporządzenia;
 —
 obciążenie pozwanej i/lub Rady Unii Europejskiej obowiązkiem zapłaty, oprócz swoich kosztów postępowania, również kosztów poniesionych przez skarżącego oraz kwot udostępnionych przez Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej tytułem pomocy w zakresie kosztów postępowania.
 Zarzuty i główne argumenty
 W drodze niniejszej skargi wnoszący ją domaga się stwierdzenia nieważności rozporządzenia (WE) Komisji nr 1330/2008 na podstawie art. 263 TFUE w zakresie w jakim jego nazwisko zostało umieszczone na liście osób i podmiotów, wobec których stosowane są określone środki restrykcyjne.
 Celem uzasadnienia skargi wnoszący ją podnosi następujące zarzuty:
 Po pierwsze, Komisja nigdy nie przeprowadziła niezależnej kontroli dotyczącej przyczyn umieszczenia nazwiska skarżącego w załączniku I do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 881/2002 (2) i nie przedstawiła w tym względzie żadnych przyczyn lub dowodów.
 Poza tym, Komisja nie przedstawiła skarżącemu żadnego uzasadnienia i następnie nie poinformowała go o żadnych odpowiednich przyczynach umieszczenia jego nazwiska w załączniku I do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 881/2002, co w świetle europejskiej konwencji praw człowieka stanowi naruszenie prawa skarżącego do skutecznej ochrony sądowej, jego prawa do obrony oraz naruszenie prawa własności.
 Wreszcie, pozostawienie nazwiska skarżącego w załączniku I do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 881/2002 jest nieracjonalne, ponieważ: i) nie istniały powody spełniające kryteria umieszczenia we wspomnianym załączniku; ii) rząd Zjednoczonego Królestwa uważa, że skarżący już nie spełnia stosujących się kryteriów oraz iii) zostało wydane orzeczenie przez specjalny sąd brytyjski, zgodnie z którym Libyan Islamic Fighting Group nie przystąpiła do sieci Al-Kaida i nie wszystkie osoby będące członkami Libyan Islamic Fighting Group przyjmują ideologię przemocy Al-Kaidy dotyczącą światowego dżihadu.
 (1) Rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 1330/2008 z dnia 22 grudnia 2008 r. zmieniające po raz 103. rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 881/2002 wprowadzające niektóre szczególne środki ograniczające skierowane przeciwko niektórym osobom i podmiotom związanym z Osamą bin Ladenem, siecią Al-Kaida i Talibami (Dz.U. L 345, s. 60).
 (2) Rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 881/2002 z dnia 27 maja 2002 r. wprowadzające niektóre szczególne środki ograniczające skierowane przeciwko niektórym osobom i podmiotom związanym z Osamą bin Ladenem, siecią Al-Kaida i Talibami i uchylające rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 467/2001 zakazujące wywozu niektórych towarów i usług do Afganistanu, wzmacniające zakaz lotów i rozszerzające zamrożenie funduszy i innych środków finansowych w odniesieniu do Talibów w Afganistanie (Dz.U. L 139, s. 9).


type: legislation

text:
ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΤΩΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΩΝ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΩΝ
 ΚΟΜ(91)72 τελικό/ 2 - VOL. Ill
 Βρυξέλλες, 19 Μαρτίου 1991
 Διορθωτικό στις
 ΠΡΟΤΑΣΕΙΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ
 σχετικά με τον καθορισμό της τιμής ορισμένων γεωργικών προϊόντων
 και ορισμένα σύναψη μέτρα (1991-92)
 (Com (91) 72 Vol. Ill)
 ---pagebreak--- ---pagebreak--- .;λ. 70 και 82
 Η 2η αιτιολογική σκέψη διαβάζεται ως εΕης :
 "ότι σε περίπτωση που το Συμβούλιο δεν λάβει τ ι ς εν λόγω αποφάσεις σε εύθετο
 χρόνο, θα πρέπει να καταστεί δυνατό να θεσπίσει η Επιτροπή τα αυστηρώς αναγκαία
 μεταβατικά μέτρα για να εξασφαλισθεί ένα αρμονικό πέρασμα από το παλαιό στο νέο
 καθεστώς, ιδίως έτσι ώστε να αποφευχθεί κάθε αβεβαιότητα και κάθε διατάραξη της
 αγοράς»"
 Σελ. 73 και 84
 Το άρθρο 4 διαβάζεται ως εΕης :
 AP0PQ Λ
 Σε περίπτωση που το Ευμβούλιο δεν λάβει απόφαση μέχρι την 31η Οκτωβρίου 1991. η
 Επιτροπή εξουσιοδοτεί τα., σύμφωνα με τη δ.αδ.κασία που προβλέπεται στο άρθρο Η
 του κανονισμού αριθ. 136/66/ΕΟΚ, να εγκρίνε, όλα τα αυστηρώς αναγκαία μεταβατικά
 μέτρα για να εξασφαλισθεί ένα αρμονικό πέρασμα από το παλαιό στο νέο καθεστώς."
 Σελ. 134 και 135
 Το παράρτημα αντικαθίσταται από το παράρτημα του παρόντος διορθωτικού.
 ---pagebreak--- 134 -
 Π Α Ρ Α Ρ Τ Η Μ Α
 ΠΕΡΙΟΔΟΙ 1892
 (ECU/100 kg βάρους σφαγίου
 Εβδομάδα που αρχίζει στις : Εβδομάδα Τιμή βάσης -.Κατευθυντήριο εππϊεό<
 6 Ιανουαρίου 1992 432,17 367,34
 13 Ιανουαρίου 1992 440,48 374,41
 20 Ιανουαρίου 1992 450,39 382,83
 27 ΙανουαρΙ ου 1992 456,99 388,44
 3 Φεβρουαρίου 1992 465,32 395,52
 10 Φεβρουαρίου 1992 471,82 401,05
 17 Φεβρουαρίου 1992 475,47 404,15
 24 Φεβρουαρίου 1992 478,08 406,37
 2 Μαρτίου 1992 9 480,94 408,80
 9 Μαρτίου 1992 10 483,34 410,84
 16 Μαρτίου 1992 11 484,81 412,09
 23 Μαρτίου 1992 12 484,81 412,09
 30 Μαρτίου 1992 13 483,89 411,31
 6 Απριλίου 1992 14 483,29 410,80
 13 Απριλίου 1992 15 482,78 410,36
 20 Απριλίου 1992 16 480,55 408,47
 27 Απριλίου 1992 17 480,17 408,14
 4 Μαΐου 1992 18 473,33 402,33
 11 Μαΐου 1992 19 469,39 398,98
 18 Μαΐου 1992 20 463,02 393,57
 25 Μαΐου 1992 21 456,66 388,16
 1 Ιουνίου 1992 22 444,39 377,73
 8 Ιουνίου 1992 23 433,00 368,05
 15 Ιουνίου 1992 24 421,83 358,56
 22 Ιουνίου 1992 25 410,55 348,97
 29 Ιουνίου 1992 26 399,27 339,38
 6 Ιουλίου 1992 27 389,70 331,25
 13 Ιουλίου 1992 28 380,45 323,38
 20 Ιουλίου 1992 29 376,63 320,14
 27 Ιουλίου 1992 30 374,79 318,57
 ---pagebreak--- 135 -
 Π Α Ρ Α Ρ Τ Η Μ Α (συνέχεια)
 ΠΕΡΙΟΔΟΣ 1992
 (ECU/100 kg βάρους σφαγίου)
 Εβδομάδα που αρχίζει στις : Εβδομάδα Τιμή βάσης :Κατευθυντήριο επίπεδο
 3 Αυγούστου 1992 317,99
 10 Αυγούστου 1992 317,99
 17 Αυγούστου 1992 317,99
 24 Αυγούστου 1992 317,99
 31 Αυγούστου 1992 317,99
 7 Σεπτεμβρίου 1992 317,99
 14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1992 317,99
 21 Σεπτεμβρίου 1992 317,99
 28 Σεπτεμβρίου 1992 318,42
 5 Οκτωβρίου 1992 318,42
 12 Οκτωβρίου 1992 318,67
 19 Οκτωβρίου 1992 319,07
 26 Οκτωβρίου 1992 320,72
 2 Νοεμβρίου 1992 323,20
 9 Νοεμβρίου 1992 325,70
 16 Νοεμβρίου 1992 330,40
 23 Νοεμβρίου 1992 335,08
 30 Νοεμβρίου 1992 339,78
 7 Δεκεμβρίου 1992 345,18
 14 Δεκεμβρίου 1992 352,27
 21 Δεκεμβρίου 1992 359,34
 28 Δεκεμβρίου 1992 364,76
 ---pagebreak--- Χ?ν; >,\Ί*ίΑ.
 COM(91)72 TouocIII/2
 ΕΓΓΡΑΦΑ
 GR 03
 Αριθ. καταλόγου : CB-CO-91-125-GR-C
 ISBN 92-77-70522-1
 ΤΙΜΗ ΠΩΛΗΣΗΣ μ έ χ ρ ι 30 σ ε λ ί δ ε ς : 3,50ECU γ ι α κάθε 10 ε π ι π λ έ ο ν σ ε λ ί ί ε ς : 1.25ECU
 Υπηρεσία Επισήιιων Εκβάσεων ίων Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων
 L·2985 Luxembourg


text:
 22.3.2018
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 80/36
 DECIZIA NR. 193/2016 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 23 septembrie 2016
 de modificare a anexei XIII (Transporturile) la Acordul privind SEE [2018/449]
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European (denumit în continuare „Acordul privind SEE”), în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) 2016/462 al Comisiei din 30 martie 2016 de modificare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 324/2008 de stabilire a procedurilor revizuite de desfășurare a inspecțiilor efectuate de către Comisie în domeniul securității maritime (1) trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (2)
 Prin urmare, anexa XIII la Acordul privind SEE ar trebui modificată în consecință,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTA DECIZIE:
 Articolul 1
 În anexa XIII la Acordul privind SEE, la punctul 56r [Regulamentul (CE) nr. 324/2008 al Comisiei] se adaugă următorul text:
 „, astfel cum a fost modificat prin:
 —
 32016 R 0462: Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) 2016/462 al Comisiei din 30 martie 2016 (JO L 80, 31.3.2016, p. 28).”
 Articolul 2
 Textele Regulamentului de punere în aplicare (UE) 2016/462 în limbile islandeză și norvegiană, care urmează să fie publicate în suplimentul SEE la Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.
 Articolul 3
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 24 septembrie 2016, cu condiția să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din Acordul privind SEE (*1).
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie se publică în secțiunea SEE și în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 23 septembrie 2016.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Președintele
 Bergdís ELLERTSDÓTTIR
 (1) JO L 80, 31.3.2016, p. 28.
 (*1) Nu au fost semnalate obligații constituționale.


jurisdiction: US

text:
On June 6th, 1929, a boy, Bertold Schmidt, aged seven years, and a girl, Elfreda Matzdorf, six months older, were killed in a collision with a truck of the R. L. Transfer Company at the intersection of an alley with the west side of Caroline Street in Baltimore. Suits were brought in the name of the State, for the use of the respective fathers of the children. The Schmidt case was tried before a jury, and, from the judgment on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff appellee, the defendants appealed. The Matzdorf case was *Page 224
 submitted to the court sitting as a jury, with the addition of such testimony as was necessary to identify Elfreda Matzdorf as one of the victims of the collision and to prove her age and relationship to the equitable plaintiff, and the same verdict rendered and judgment entered as in the Schmidt case, from which an appeal was taken.
 It appears that about 3.30 o'clock on the afternoon of June 6th, 1929, a truck of the R. L. Transfer Company was proceeding northward on the right, or east, side of Caroline Street, in third gear (the truck having four forward gears), at a speed of from eight to ten miles an hour. At a point opposite the end of the alley, which did not intersect Caroline Street, a number of children, estimated from six to ten, were playing in the street. The truck driver blew his horn, and, the children paying no attention to his warning, he pulled over to the left side of the street, which was clear of traffic, none coming from the opposite direction. When directly opposite the east end of the alley, the driver, having turned his head toward the alley, saw two children riding a toy wagon coming at "a good rate of speed" toward the left side of the truck. He said: "They were at the intersection when I saw them." On cross-examination he said they were between the building line and the curb, which would place them on the line of the sidewalk. "I deliberately stepped on my brakes, took my hand off the gear shift and still left her in gear, and I turned the truck a little bit to look back because I have an open view, and they hit the rear wheel and then this woman gave a scream and I jumped off and went back to the children. They were about six feet in back of the truck." A woman who at the time was living in the fourth house above the alley (the houses are in a block, each house twenty-three feet wide) first noticed the truck when it was "half-way past the alley," and did not really pay any attention to it until she "saw the children go under it." No one testified exactly from observation just what contact there was between the children and the truck. The driver said there was some red paint on the grey wheel of the truck which he thought came from the toy wagon. The *Page 225
 children's bodies were not crushed, and the only apparent injury was to their heads, so that they must have been pitched headlong into the truck.
 Caroline Street is sixty feet wide; sidewalks ten feet; driveway forty feet from curb to curb. The alley is seventeen feet wide, extending westward from Caroline Street. The grade of the street is slightly rising to the north, the direction the truck was going. The alley is paved with concrete, and, according to the photographs in evidence, is steep. The plat in evidence shows the alley to be of the uniform width of seventeen feet from its intersection with the Caroline Street driveway west, but the photographs show its width to be perhaps two or three feet less across the sidewalk, and from the building line west it is of its full width. The testimony of the driver was that the extreme length of his truck was about twenty feet, and its width about eight feet. The Code (article 56, sec. 194) fixes the extreme width of motor vehicles at ninety-three inches. The testimony of three policemen who came to the scene of the accident was that the rear wheels of the truck were midway of the alley, so that its front end must have been from eleven to twelve feet beyond the intersection of the north side of the alley with the street. The driver testified that, as soon as he saw the children, he put on his brake and stopped the truck in one and a half feet, and that the truck, because it was left in gear, jumped forward about six feet. At that, he was seated within a foot or two of the north side of the alley when he saw the children approaching the car. He said his glance was toward the left and rear, and that this was due to reaching for the gear shift so as to change from third speed to high. The three policemen testified that the truck was standing on the left, or west, side of Caroline Street, eight to ten feet from the curb; the witness for the defense put it in the middle of the street. Both sides had it on the left of the center, so that it makes no difference so far as the legal situation is concerned.
 The plaintiff contends that, because the truck at the time *Page 226
 of the accident was on the left of the center of Caroline Street when the children collided with it, this was prima facie
 evidence of negligence legally sufficient to take the case to the jury. The contention is also made that the doctrine of last clear chance applies, but it is so manifest that there was no time for the driver to do anything to avoid the consequences of the children's negligence that there is no reason to incumber this opinion with an extended discussion of that doctrine as applied to the facts of this case.
 For the contention that the fact of the truck being on the left of the center of Caroline Street is legally sufficient proof of negligence, the appellee relies upon the statement in Greenbaumv. Costa, 137 Md. 524, 528, 113 A. 79, 81, that "when upon this side of the street, no matter what his motive may have been, he lost his right of way, and it was incumbent upon him to exercise an even greater degree of care than would otherwise have been the case." That was a case wherein the driver of an automobile, in order to get around a large crowd assembled on the (his) right side of the street, veered to the left and went so far as to strike a girl who was standing with one foot on the left, or west, curbstone and the other in the gutter. The sentence in which appears the quotation, "he lost his right of way," is not wholly consistent with the one preceding it, which is, "As he approached the place where this accident occurred, the large number gathered there, if nothing else, made it prudent for him to veer his machine to the left-hand or west side of the street." Whether one loses his right of way in going to the left of the center of the road depends on circumstances then existing on his side of the road. When the right side of the road is obstructed, he can use the left side to get by the obstruction, provided the way ahead on the left is clear; if it is not clear, it behooves him to stop until the left is open, and when it is open that is his right of way until he clears the obstruction. What Judge Stockbridge meant by losing the right of way is qualified by what he said immediately before and immediately after the expression "he lost his right of way." *Page 227
 In Ottenheimer v. Molohan, 146 Md. 175, 126 A. 97, where the defense was that the boy was struck by an automobile which was on the right side of the road, an accident which might have been avoided if the automobile had been turned toward the left, this court, in an opinion by Judge Adkins, said (page 184 of 146 Md.): "It cannot be said as a matter of law that defendant was free from negligence in passing, on the very edge of the road at a rapid rate of speed, small children playing at the roadside, when there was nothing to prevent him from turning to the middle or farther side of the road." It cannot consistently be said that the prudent thing for a driver to do, in order to avoid an accident, is to turn from the right side of the road if the way be open, and that in so doing he is a violator of the law and therefore negligent.
 The accident in this case happened on the 6th day of June, 1929. On the 2nd day of April, 1929, the Act of 1929, ch. 224 (Code, art. 56, sec. 209), went into effect, by which it was provided: "All vehicles, motor, horse-drawn or otherwise, when being driven upon the highways of this State shall at all times keep to the right of the center of the highway upon all highways of sufficient width, except upon streets or roads where traffic is permitted to move in one direction only, and except when overtaking and passing another vehicle, and unless it is impracticable to travel on such side of the highway." It will here be seen that the rule of the road, as prescribed by the Legislature, permits a vehicle to turn from the right to the left of the road "when overtaking and passing another vehicle, and unless it is impracticable to travel on such side of the highway," and the situation described by Judge Adkins inOttenheimer v. Molohan is an illustration of the fact that a driver may maintain his right of way and at the same time be negligent. When a driver does turn from the right to the left in overtaking another vehicle or avoiding any other obstruction to traffic on the right, he takes the risk involved in this exercise of judgment, and, as Judge Stockbridge said in Greenbaum v.Costa, supra, it is "incumbent upon him to exercise an even greater *Page 228
 degree of care than would otherwise" be the case. It was "impracticable" for the truck driver, Shvanda, to continue on the right side of Caroline Street because of the children playing in the street. He had his choice of two things: To stop until the crowd heeded his warning and dispersed, and thus obstruct traffic himself, or, the left being clear of traffic, to turn to the left and go on his way. He chose the latter, and in so doing we are not aware of any theory by which he could be said to have been negligent.
 But, says the appellee, the truck driver should have seen the children up the alley and thus have avoided the consequences of their negligence, but we are not convinced from any facts appearing in the record that the driver should have anticipated that children were going to coast down a concrete paved alley, described by Mrs. O'Leary, who lived in a house bordering on it, as very steep, into Caroline Street in the way of traffic on that street. As stated by Judge Von Moschzisker, then in the Court of Common Pleas, regarding a coasting collision, in an opinion adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania as the opinion of that court in Eastburn v. U.S. Express Co., 225 Pa. 23,73 A. 977: This was not a case of one in plain sight and about to cross the street in front of a horse, with opportunity on the part of the driver to see the person and avoid an accident, but was a case of a sled moving rapidly, beyond sufficient control of the boys to avoid a collision with one who had no reasonable expectation to look for such an event." Wetherill v. Showell,264 Pa. 449, 107 A. 808. The appellee insists that, if the driver had looked up the alley he could have seen the children, though he would have had no reason to expect children playing in an alley between street intersections to coast on a toy wagon into the street. If he had been looking up the alley he might have taken his mind off the children playing in the street, whom he was avoiding, and at the same time failed to keep a lookout ahead for approaching traffic. In other words, the appellee was requiring the driver to do too many things to be careful in the doing of any of them. Kiley v. Boston El. Ry. Co.,207 Mass. 542, 93 N.E. 632. *Page 229
 The appellee alleged that the alley was a public alley, but whether public or private seems to us to make little, if any, difference so far as the issue in this case is involved. From the photographs, it looks like a service alley, affording a rear entrance to the properties on either side and to the family garages, which appear to take up all the available space.
 The appellee raises the question, new in this court, that, because the appellants did not except to the granting of the plaintiff's prayers, they are forbidden to press their exception to the refusal of their prayers for a directed verdict in their favor. No authorities are cited except those wherein this court has held that a conceded prayer becomes the law of the case, and that the court cannot then grant a prayer which denies the proponent of the conceded prayer the benefit of his conceded instruction. There are no authorities cited for the point, and in this court there are none. It is no uncommon practice for appellants to stand on one or more prayers and to abandon the others. The appellants stand on three prayers for an instructed verdict, and inasmuch as this court is of the opinion that there is no legally sufficient evidence of the driver Shvanda's negligence, the defendant's A prayer should have been granted. As this disposes of the whole case, it is not necessary to pass on the question of the children's contributory negligence or the public or private character of the alley.
 Judgments in both cases reversed, with costs to theappellants. *Page 230


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22001D0048
 Decisión del Comité Mixto del EEE n° 48/2001 de 30 de marzo de 2001 por la que se modifica el Anexo XI (Servicios de Telecomunicaciones) del Acuerdo EEE
 Diario Oficial n° L 158 de 14/06/2001 p. 0063 - 0064
 Decisión del Comité Mixto del EEEno 48/2001de 30 de marzo de 2001por la que se modifica el Anexo XI (Servicios de Telecomunicaciones) del Acuerdo EEEEL COMITÉ MIXTO DEL EEE,Visto el Acuerdo sobre el Espacio Económico Europeo, en la redacción dada al mismo por el Protocolo por el que se adapta el Acuerdo sobre el Espacio Económico Europeo, (en lo sucesivo denominado "el Acuerdo"), y, en particular, su artículo 98,Considerando lo siguiente:(1) El Anexo XI del Acuerdo fue modificado por la Decisión n° 17/2001 del Comité Mixto del EEE, de 28 de febrero de 2001(1).(2) Deberá incorporarse al Acuerdo la Decisión 2000/709/CE de la Comisión, de 6 de noviembre de 2000, relativa a los criterios mínimos que deben tener en cuenta los Estados miembros para designar organismos de conformidad con el apartado 4 del artículo 3 de la Directiva 1999/93/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo por la que se establece un marco comunitario para la firma electrónica(2).DECIDE:Artículo 1Se añadirá el siguiente punto después del punto 5g (Directiva 1999/93/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo) del Anexo XI del Acuerdo: "5ga. 32000 D 0709: Decisión 2000/709/CE de la Comisión, de 6 de noviembre de 2000, relativa a los criterios mínimos que deben tener en cuenta los Estados miembros para designar organismos de conformidad con el apartado 4 del artículo 3 de la Directiva 1999/93/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo por la que se establece un marco comunitario para la firma electrónica (DO L 289 de 16.11.2000, p. 42)."Artículo 2Los textos de la Decisión 2000/709/CE de la Comisión en lenguas islandesa y noruega, que se publicarán en el Suplemento EEE del Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas, serán auténticos.Artículo 3La presente Decisión entrará en vigor el 31 de marzo de 2001, siempre que se hayan transmitido al Comité Mixto del EEE(3) todas las notificaciones previstas en el apartado 1 del artículo 103 del Acuerdo.Artículo 4La presente Decisión se publicará en la Sección EEE y en el Suplemento EEE del Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas.Hecho en Bruselas, el 30 de marzo de 2001.Por el Comité Mixto del EEE,El PresidenteP. Westerlund(1) DO L 117 de 26.4.2001, p. 21.(2) DO L 289 de 16.11.2000, p. 42.(3) Se han indicado preceptos constitucionales.


type: other

text:
2 8 7 8 7 9
 SHAKIN AVOIMESTA SUOMEN MESTARUUDESTA PELATAAN MÄNTÄSSÄ ELOKUUN ALUSSA
 Avoin Sm-turnaus on pelattu ja viralliset tulossivustot löytyvät tästä
 Tommi Luukkonen mestari
 Jyväskyläläinen mestari Tommi Luukkonen otti vakuuttavasti avoimen Sm-turnauksen mestaruuden. Seitsemän voiton ja kahden tasapelin jälkeen Tommin ero toiseksi sijoittuneeseen Vammalan Shakkikerhon Mikko Niemeen oli 1,5 pistettä. Myös saman seuran kansanedustaja Arto Satonen pelasi hienon turnauksen ja selviytyi 6,5 pisteeseen.
 Mikko Niemi, Tommi Luukkonen, Arto Satonen
 Nuorten Suomen mestaruuden voitti Vammalan Tero Lehtimäki 6 pisteellä. Hopealle sijoittui Henri Pohjala ja pronssia sai Jani Ahvenjärvi. Heillä molemmilla oli 5,5 pistettä.
 Henri Pohjala, Tero Lehtimäki, Jani Ahvenjärvi
 Golfshakin ensimmäiseksi maailmanmestariksi pelasi tamperelainen Jaakko Mäntyniemi. Mäntän Pekka Sairanen oli toinen ja kolmas sija meni Vammalan Pekka Kaukolle.
 Mäntän Shakkikerhon puheenjohtaja ojentaa pytyn Jaakko Mäntyniemelle.
 Pekka Sairanen seuraa tapahtumaa.
 Opettajien erillinen shakin SM-turnaus pelattiin jo lauantaina 1. elokuuta. Mestariksi pelasi neljännen kerran Dietmar Vinke.
 Sunnuntaina 2. elokuuta päätoiminen shakinopettaja FM Sauli Tiitta kertoi shakkipedagogiikan kurssilla 25 kuulijalle, miten shakinopetus voidaan järjestää koulukerhoille.
 Teksti: Jaakko Yrjölä Kuvat: Jaakko Yrjölä ja Pentti Rantala
 KEURUUN OSUUSPANKISTA MÄNTÄN SHAKKIKERHON SPONSORI
 Keuruun Osuuspankki tukee Mäntän Shakkikerhoa pitkäaikaisella sponsorisopimuksella. Kerho käyttää saamansa taloudellisen tuen SM-kisojen järjestelyihin ja nuorisotoimintaan. Lisäksi pankki mainostaa Mänttä-Vilppulan ensi kesän avointa SM-turnausta ja Mänttä-Vilppulaa matkailukaupunkina Iskelmäradiossa.
 Keuruun Osuuspankin toimitusjohtaja Arto Alkkiomäki kertoo pankin olevan kiinnostunut shakista sen monien myönteisten vaikutusten takia.
 - Keuruun Osuuspankkia ja shakkia yhdistää pyrkimys kehittyä yhä paremmaksi omalla alallaan. Vaikka kumpikaan ei ole alansa suurimpia, pankkimme pankkimaailmassa ja shakki urheilulajina, ne juuri sopivan kokonsa vuoksi pystyvät olemaan sitäkin merkityksellisempiä, joustavia ja kehitystä edistäviä, sanoo Alkkiomäki.
 - Shakki sopii kaikille ikäryhmille, mutta meitä erityisesti kiinnostaa tukea nuorten saamista shakin piiriin entistä enemmän, kertoo puolestaan rahoitusneuvottelija Elina Malinen äskettäin avatusta pankin Mäntän konttorista.
 Mäntän Shakkikerhon piirissä pankin tuesta iloitaan.
 - Pystymme nyt kehittämään Mänttä-Vilppulasta todellisen shakkikaupungin, kertoo Mäntän Shakkikerhon puheenjohtaja Pentti Rantala.
 - Käytämme saamamme tuen elokuun alun SM-kisojen järjestelyihin ja varmistamme suunnitelmamme saada shakki kaikkien kaikkien alakoululaisten saataville, jatkaa Rantala.
 Teksti Pekka Sairanen


text:
Το τοπωνύμιο Καστέλλι μπορεί να αναφέρεται:
 Στο Καστέλλι Κισσάμου (Κίσσαμος), πόλη και έδρα του Δήμου Κισσάμου στον Νομό Χανίων της Κρήτης.
 Στο Καστέλλι Άνω Ακρίων Μονοφατσίου (γνωστότερο ως "Τσιφούτ Καστέλλι"), οικισμός της Κοινότητος Άνω Ακρίων του Δήμου Γορτύνης, στον Νομό Ηρακλείου της Κρήτης.
 Στο Καστέλλι Καινουργίου, χωριό και έδρα ομώνυμης κοινότητος του Δήμου Φαιστού, στον Νομό Ηρακλείου της Κρήτης.
 Στο Καστέλλι Πεδιάδος, κωμόπολη και έδρα ομώνυμης κοινότητος του Δήμου Μινώα Πεδιάδος, στον Νομό Ηρακλείου της Κρήτης.
 Στο Καστέλλι Φουρνής Μιραμπέλλου, χωριό και έδρα ομώνυμης κοινότητος του Δήμου Αγίου Νικολάου, στον Νομό Λασιθίου της Κρήτης.
 Μπορεί να αναφέρεται επίσης:
 Στο Κανλικαστέλλι Τεμένους (Προφήτης Ηλίας), χωριό και έδρα ομώνυμης κοινότητος του Δήμου Ηρακλείου, στον Νομό Ηρακλείου της Κρήτης.
 Αποσαφηνίσεις ελληνικών τοπωνυμίων


text:
 9.2.2008
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 37/20
 Petición de decisión prejudicial planteada por el Conseil d'État (Francia) el 11 de diciembre de 2007 — Commune de Sausheim/Pierre Azelvandre
 (Asunto C-552/07)
 (2008/C 37/29)
 Lengua de procedimiento: francés
 Órgano jurisdiccional remitente
 Conseil d'État (Francia)
 Partes en el procedimiento principal
 Recurrente: Commune de Sausheim
 Recurrida: Pierre Azelvandre
 Cuestiones prejudiciales
 1)
 Por «lugar en el que se efectuará la liberación de los organismos modificados genéticamente», el cual no puede mantenerse en secreto a tenor del artículo 19 de la Directiva 90/220/CEE del Consejo, de 23 de abril de 1990, sobre la liberación intencional en el medio ambiente de organismos modificados genéticamente (1), ¿debe entenderse la parcela catastral o debe entenderse una zona geográficamente más extensa correspondiente bien al municipio sobre cuyo territorio tiene lugar la liberación, bien a una zona aún más amplia (cantón, departamento)?
 2)
 En caso de que deba entenderse que el lugar designa la parcela catastral, ¿es posible oponer una reserva, dirigida a la protección del orden público o de otros secretos protegidos por la ley, frente a la comunicación de la referencia catastral del lugar de la liberación, sobre la base del artículo 95 del Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Económica Europea, posteriormente Comunidad Europea, de la Directiva 2003/4/CE de 28 de enero de 2003 relativa al acceso del público a la información medioambiental (2), o de un principio general del Derecho comunitario?
 (1) DO L 117, p. 15.
 (2) Directiva 2003/4/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 28 de enero de 2003, relativa al acceso del público a la información medioambiental y por la que se deroga la Directiva 90/313/CEE del Consejo (DO L 41, p. 26).


text:
 9.7.2015
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 L 181/57
 REGOLAMENTO DI ESECUZIONE (UE) 2015/1103 DELLA COMMISSIONE
 dell'8 luglio 2015
 relativo all'autorizzazione del beta-carotene come additivo per mangimi destinati a tutte le specie animali
 (Testo rilevante ai fini del SEE)
 LA COMMISSIONE EUROPEA,
 visto il trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea,
 visto il regolamento (CE) n. 1831/2003 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 22 settembre 2003, sugli additivi destinati all'alimentazione animale (1), in particolare l'articolo 9, paragrafo 2,
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 Il regolamento (CE) n. 1831/2003 disciplina l'autorizzazione degli additivi destinati all'alimentazione animale e definisce i motivi e le procedure per il rilascio di tale autorizzazione. L'articolo 10 di tale regolamento prevede la rivalutazione degli additivi autorizzati a norma della direttiva 70/524/CEE del Consiglio (2).
 (2)
 Il beta-carotene è stato autorizzato per un periodo illimitato a norma della direttiva 70/524/CEE del Consiglio come additivo per mangimi destinati a tutte le specie animali ed è successivamente stato inserito nel registro degli additivi per mangimi come prodotto esistente, in conformità dell'articolo 10, paragrafo 1, del regolamento (CE) n. 1831/2003.
 (3)
 A norma dell'articolo 10, paragrafo 2, del regolamento (CE) n. 1831/2003, in combinato disposto con l'articolo 7 dello stesso regolamento, è stata presentata una domanda di rivalutazione del beta-carotene e dei suoi preparati come additivo per mangimi destinati a tutte le specie animali. Il richiedente ha chiesto che tale additivo sia classificato nella categoria «additivi nutrizionali». Tale domanda era corredata delle informazioni dettagliate e dei documenti prescritti dall'articolo 7, paragrafo 3, del regolamento (CE) n. 1831/2003.
 (4)
 Nel suo parere del 23 maggio 2012 (3) l'Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare («l'Autorità») ha concluso che, alle condizioni d'impiego nei mangimi proposte, il beta-carotene non ha un'incidenza negativa sulla salute degli animali, sulla salute umana o sull'ambiente. L'Autorità ha inoltre concluso che il beta-carotene è utilizzato per la sintesi del retinolo in quasi tutte le specie (i gatti, nello specifico, non sono stati in grado di utilizzare il beta-carotene per la sintesi del retinolo) e che non presenta rischi per la sicurezza degli utilizzatori. L'Autorità ritiene che non siano necessarie prescrizioni specifiche per il monitoraggio successivo all'immissione sul mercato. Essa ha inoltre verificato la relazione sul metodo di analisi degli additivi per mangimi negli alimenti per animali presentata dal laboratorio di riferimento istituito dal regolamento (CE) n. 1831/2003.
 (5)
 La valutazione del beta-carotene dimostra che le condizioni di autorizzazione di cui all'articolo 5 del regolamento (CE) n. 1831/2003 sono soddisfatte. È pertanto opportuno autorizzare l'impiego di tale sostanza secondo le modalità specificate nell'allegato del presente regolamento.
 (6)
 Poiché non vi sono motivi di sicurezza che richiedano l'applicazione immediata delle modifiche delle condizioni di autorizzazione, è opportuno concedere un periodo transitorio per consentire alle parti interessate di prepararsi a ottemperare alle nuove prescrizioni derivanti dall'autorizzazione.
 (7)
 Le misure di cui al presente regolamento sono conformi al parere del comitato permanente per le piante, gli animali, gli alimenti e i mangimi,
 HA ADOTTATO IL PRESENTE REGOLAMENTO:
 Articolo 1
 La sostanza di cui all'allegato, appartenente alla categoria «additivi nutrizionali» e al gruppo funzionale «vitamine, pro-vitamine e sostanze a effetto analogo chimicamente ben definite», è autorizzata come additivo per mangimi per l'alimentazione animale alle condizioni stabilite nell'allegato stesso.
 Articolo 2
 1. La sostanza specificata nell'allegato e le premiscele contenenti tale sostanza, prodotte ed etichettate prima del 29 gennaio 2016 in conformità delle norme applicabili prima del 29 luglio 2015, possono continuare a essere immesse sul mercato e impiegate fino a esaurimento delle scorte esistenti.
 2. I mangimi composti e le materie prime per mangimi contenenti la sostanza specificata nell'allegato, prodotti ed etichettati prima del 29 luglio 2016 in conformità alle norme applicabili prima del 29 luglio 2015, possono continuare a essere immessi sul mercato e impiegati fino a esaurimento delle scorte esistenti se sono destinati ad animali da produzione alimentare.
 3. I mangimi composti e le materie prime per mangimi contenenti la sostanza specificata nell'allegato, prodotti ed etichettati prima del 29 luglio 2017 in conformità alle norme applicabili prima del 29 luglio 2015, possono continuare a essere immessi sul mercato e impiegati fino a esaurimento delle scorte esistenti se sono destinati ad animali non da produzione alimentare.
 Articolo 3
 Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il ventesimo giorno successivo alla pubblicazione nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea.
 Il presente regolamento è obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in ciascuno degli Stati membri.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, l'8 luglio 2015
 Per la Commissione
 Il presidente
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) GU L 268 del 18.10.2003, pag. 29.
 (2) Direttiva 70/524/CEE del Consiglio, del 23 novembre 1970, relativa agli additivi nell'alimentazione degli animali (GU L 270 del 14.12.1970, pag. 1).
 (3) EFSA Journal 2012;10(6):2737.
 ALLEGATO
 Numero di identificazione dell'additivo
 Nome del titolare dell'autorizzazione
 Additivo
 Composizione, formula chimica, descrizione, metodo di analisi
 Specie o categoria di animali
 Età massima
 Tenore minimo
 Tenore massimo
 Altre disposizioni
 Fine del periodo di autorizzazione
 mg di sostanza attiva/kg di mangime completo con un tasso di umidità del 12 %
 Categoria: additivi nutrizionali. gruppo funzionale: vitamine, provitamine e sostanze a effetto analogo chimicamente ben definite.
 3a160(a)
 Beta-carotene
 Composizione dell'additivo
 Beta-carotene
 Ossido di trifenilfosfina (TPPO) ≤ 100 mg/kg di additivo
 Caratterizzazione della sostanza attiva
 Beta-carotene
 C40H56
 Numero CAS: 7235-40-7
 Beta-carotene, in forma solida, prodotto mediante fermentazione o sintesi chimica.
 Ceppi usati per la fermentazione:
 Blakeslea trispora Thaxter slant XCPA 07-05-1 (CGMCC (1) 7.44) e XCPA 07-05-2 (CGMCC 7.45).
 Criteri di purezza:
 —
 (Tenore) min. 96 % del totale dei coloranti (sostanza secca) espressi come beta-carotene.
 —
 Carotenoidi diversi dal beta-carotene ≤ 3 % del totale dei coloranti.
 Metodo di analisi
 (2)
 Per la determinazione di beta-carotene nell'additivo per mangimi: metodo spettrofotometrico (Farmacopea europea 1069).
 Per la determinazione di beta-carotene nelle premiscele e nei mangimi: cromatografia liquida ad alta prestazione a fase inversa (RP-HPLC) associata a rilevatore UV.
 Tutte le specie animali
 —
 —
 1.
 Il beta-carotene può essere immesso sul mercato e utilizzato come additivo costituito da un preparato.
 2.
 Nei mangimi d'allattamento per vitelli si raccomanda un tenore massimo di 50 mg di beta-carotene/kg di mangime d'allattamento.
 3.
 Nelle istruzioni per l'uso dell'additivo e della premiscela occorre indicare le condizioni di magazzinaggio e di stabilità.
 4.
 Per motivi di sicurezza: indossare dispositivi di protezione dell'apparato respiratorio durante la manipolazione.
 29 luglio 2025
 (1) China General Microbiological Culture Collection Center.
 (2) Informazioni dettagliate sui metodi di analisi sono disponibili al seguente indirizzo del laboratorio di riferimento dell'Unione europea per gli additivi per mangimi: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports


text:
 21.6.2022
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 165/30
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) 2022/959
 zo 16. júna 2022,
 ktorým sa mení príloha VII k vykonávaciemu nariadeniu (EÚ) 2019/2072, pokiaľ ide o požiadavky na uvedenie určitých plodov Capsicum L., Citrus L., Citrus sinensis Pers., Prunus persica (L.) Batsch a Punica granatum L. na územie Únie
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/2031 z 26. októbra 2016 o ochranných opatreniach proti škodcom rastlín, ktorým sa menia nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 228/2013, (EÚ) č. 652/2014 a (EÚ) č. 1143/2014 a zrušujú smernice Rady 69/464/EHS, 74/647/EHS, 93/85/EHS, 98/57/ES, 2000/29/ES, 2006/91/ES a 2007/33/ES (1), a najmä na jeho článok 41 ods. 2,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Vo vykonávacom nariadení Komisie (EÚ) 2019/2072 (2) sa v časti A prílohy II stanovuje zoznam karanténnych škodcov Únie, o ktorých nie je známe, že sa vyskytujú na území Únie. Cieľom vykonávacieho nariadenia (EÚ) 2019/2072 je zabrániť preniknutiu, usídleniu a šíreniu takýchto karanténnych škodcov na území Únie, a to tak, že sa v prílohe VII k uvedenému nariadeniu stanovujú osobitné požiadavky na uvedenie určitých rastlín, rastlinných produktov a iných predmetov na územie Únie.
 (2)
 Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) (ďalej len „špecifikovaný škodca“) je v časti A prílohy II k vykonávaciemu nariadeniu (EÚ) 2019/2072 uvedený ako karanténny škodca Únie, o ktorom nie je známe, že sa vyskytuje v Únii. Uvádza sa aj ako prioritný škodca v prílohe k delegovanému nariadeniu Komisie (EÚ) 2019/1702 (3). Špecifikovaný škodca je polyfág a bol zachytený na viacerých hostiteľských rastlinách počas hraničných kontrol na území Únie.
 (3)
 V prípade plodov Capsicum L., Citrus L., okrem Citrus aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle a Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck, plodov Prunus persica (L.) Batsch a plodov Punica granatum L. existujú osobitné požiadavky na dovoz s cieľom chrániť územie Únie pred špecifikovaným škodcom (4).Citrus L. je kategória, ktorá zahŕňa plody Citrus sinensis Pers.
 (4)
 Podľa existujúcich dovozných požiadaviek treba pred obchodovaním oznámiť informácie o tom, že krajina je bez výskytu špecifikovaného škodcu, územie je bez výskytu špecifikovaného škodcu, ako aj o použití systémového prístupu a o akomkoľvek ošetrení po zbere úrody spolu s listinnými dôkazmi o účinnosti týchto požiadaviek. Tieto informácie by mali umožniť jednoduchšie hodnotenie účinnosti súčasných osobitných požiadaviek. Táto účinnosť by sa mala merať v závislosti od počtu prípadov nesúladu v dôsledku špecifikovaného škodcu na dovážaných hostiteľských komoditách.
 (5)
 Keďže počas hraničných kontrol na území Únie sa naďalej vyskytujú prípady nesúladu zásielok s osobitnými požiadavkami na dovoz v dôsledku výskytu špecifikovaného škodcu na hostiteľských komoditách, je odôvodnené zmeniť osobitné požiadavky stanovené v prílohe VII k vykonávaciemu nariadeniu (EÚ) 2019/2072. Predovšetkým by sa mali zmeniť osobitné požiadavky týkajúce sa miesta výroby bez výskytu škodcu, používania ošetrení po zbere úrody a systémového prístupu, aby poskytovali lepšie záruky toho, že obchodované komodity vo forme plodov sú bez škodcov.
 (6)
 Zmena osobitných požiadaviek vychádza z vedeckých a technických informácií z analýzy rizika škodcu, ktorú uskutočnila Európska a stredozemná organizácia na ochranu rastlín (EPPO), z posúdení rizika komodít, ktoré uskutočnil Európsky úrad pre bezpečnosť potravín pre plody Citrus spp. dovážané z Izraela (5) a Južnej Afriky (6), z príslušnej vedeckej literatúry, ako aj z pripomienok tretích krajín po konzultácii v rámci Svetovej obchodnej organizácie (Dohoda o uplatňovaní sanitárnych a fytosanitárnych opatrení).
 (7)
 Na zaručenie fytosanitárnej bezpečnosti a vysledovateľnosti by sa malo zabezpečiť príslušné schvaľovanie zariadení, dodržiavanie požiadaviek na spracovateľské zariadenia, monitorovanie, audit, dodržiavanie postupov dokumentácie a vedenie záznamov o aplikovanom ošetrení.
 (8)
 V súčasnosti sa požiadavky stanovené v prílohe VII k vykonávaciemu nariadeniu (EÚ) 2019/2072 pre plody Citrus L. uplatňujú aj na Citrus sinensis Pers. Na základe údajov o nesúlade z dôvodu výskytu špecifikovaného škodcu na plodoch Citrus by plody Citrus sinensis Pers. mali podliehať osobitným požiadavkám, a nie rovnakým požiadavkám ako ostatné plody Citrus L. Je to dôležité na lepšie zabezpečenie toho, aby boli bez výskytu špecifikovaného škodcu. Takéto požiadavky by mali zahŕňať systémový prístup so špecifickým režimom ošetrenia chladom, prípadne s fázou predchladenia, aby sa zabezpečila čo najvyššia pravdepodobnosť bez výskytu škodcov.
 (9)
 S cieľom umožniť príslušným orgánom a profesionálnym prevádzkovateľom prispôsobiť sa tomuto systémovému prístupu v prípade Citrus sinensis Pers. by sa do 31. decembra 2022 mala stanoviť alternatívna a dočasná požiadavka systémového prístupu, ktorý zahŕňa fázu predchladenia dužiny plodov na 5 °C, po ktorom nasleduje ošetrenie chladom počas najmenej 25 dní pri stanovenej teplote – 1 °C až + 2 °C.
 (10)
 Ak sa v prípade Citrus sinensis Pers. ošetrenie chladom aplikuje počas prepravy príslušných plodov, záznamy o aplikácii tohto ošetrenia by sa mali uchovať a na požiadanie sprístupniť.
 (11)
 Toto nariadenie by malo nadobudnúť účinnosť a malo by sa začať uplatňovať čo najskôr, aby sa sprísnené požiadavky, ktoré zvyšujú ochranu Únie pred týmto škodcom, vykonali v čo najkratšom čase, aby sa v čase nadobudnutia účinnosti tohto nariadenia zohľadnili pri preprave do Únie zásielky špecifikovaných plodov.
 (12)
 Opatrenia stanovené v tomto nariadení sú v súlade so stanoviskom Stáleho výboru pre rastliny, zvieratá, potraviny a krmivá,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Príloha VII k vykonávaciemu nariadeniu (EÚ) 2019/2072 sa mení v súlade s prílohou k tomuto nariadeniu.
 Článok 2
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť tretím dňom po jeho uverejnení v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Uplatňuje sa od 14. júla 2022.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 16. júna 2022
 Za Komisiu
 predsedníčka
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 317, 23.11.2016, s. 4.
 (2) Vykonávacie nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) 2019/2072 z 28. novembra 2019, ktorým sa stanovujú jednotné podmienky vykonávania nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/2031, pokiaľ ide o ochranné opatrenia proti škodcom rastlín, a ktorým sa zrušuje nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 690/2008 a ktorým sa mení vykonávacie nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) 2018/2019 (Ú. v. EÚ L 319, 10.12.2019, s. 1).
 (3) Delegované nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) 2019/1702 z 1. augusta 2019, ktorým sa dopĺňa nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2016/2031 zostavením zoznamu prioritných škodcov (Ú. v. EÚ L 260, 11.10.2019, s. 8).
 (4) EPPO (2013) Pest risk analysis for Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Analýza rizika škodcu Thaumatotibia leucotreta). EPPO, Paris. https://pra.eppo.int/pra/9305d7ed-2788-46dc-882d-b4641fa24fff.
 (5) Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Citrus L. fruits from Israel for Thaumatotibia leucotreta under a systems approach (Vedecké stanovisko k hodnoteniu rizika komodity: plody Citrus L. z Izraela v prípade Thaumatotibia leucotreta podľa systémového prístupu). Vestník EFSA (EFSA Journal) (2021) 19(3):6427, 36 s, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6427.
 (6) Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of Citrus L. fruits from South Africa for Thaumatotibia leucotreta under a systems approach (Vedecké stanovisko k hodnoteniu rizika komodity: plody Citrus L. z Južnej Afriky v prípade Thaumatotibia leucotreta podľa systémového prístupu). Vestník EFSA (EFSA Journal) (2021) 19(8):6799, 63 s, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6799.
 PRÍLOHA
 Tabuľka v prílohe VII k vykonávaciemu nariadeniu (EÚ) 2019/2072 sa mení takto:
 1.
 Bod 62 sa nahrádza takto:
 „62.
 Plody Capsicum L., Citrus L., okrem Citrus aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle, Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck. a Citrus sinensis Pers., Prunus persica (L.) Batsch a Punica granatum L.
 0709 60 10
 0709 60 91
 0709 60 95
 0709 60 99
 ex 0805 10 80 ex 0805 21 10 ex 0805 21 90 ex 0805 22 00 ex 0805 29 00 ex 0805 40 00 ex 0805 50 10 ex 0805 90 00 0809 30 10
 0809 30 90
 ex 0810 90 75
 Krajiny afrického kontinentu, Kapverdy, Svätá Helena, Madagaskar, Réunion, Maurícius a Izrael
 Úradné potvrdenie, že:
 a)
 plody majú pôvod v krajine uznanej za krajinu bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) v súlade s príslušnými medzinárodnými normami pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia za predpokladu, že tento stav bez výskytu škodcu národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii,
 alebo
 b)
 plody majú pôvod v oblasti, ktorú národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín v krajine pôvodu v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 4 (*) uznala za oblasť bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick). Oblasť sa v rastlinolekárskom osvedčení uvedie ako oblasť bez výskytu škodcu, ak národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu Komisii vopred písomne oznámila tento stav bez výskytu škodcu,
 alebo
 c)
 plody:
 i)
 majú pôvod v mieste výroby, ktoré národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín v krajine pôvodu v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 10 (**) uznala za oblasť bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) a ktoré sa uvádza v zozname kódov miest výroby, ktorý národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii,
 a
 ii)
 boli podrobené úradným prehliadkam vykonaným v mieste výroby vo vhodných časoch počas vegetačného obdobia a pred vývozom vrátane vizuálnej prehliadky s intenzitou, ktorá umožní zistenie aspoň 2 % miery zamorenia s 95 % úrovňou spoľahlivosti v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 31 (***), vrátane deštruktívneho odberu vzoriek v prípade symptómov, pričom sa zistilo, že sú bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick),
 a
 iii)
 sprevádza rastlinolekárske osvedčenie, v ktorom sa uvádzajú kódy miest výroby,
 alebo
 d)
 plody
 i)
 boli vyrobené v schválenej výrobnej prevádzke, ktorá je zahrnutá do zoznamu kódov výrobných prevádzok, ktorý národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii,
 a
 ii)
 boli podrobené účinnému systémovému prístupu s cieľom zabezpečiť, aby boli v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 14 (*****) bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick), alebo účinnému samostatnému ošetreniu po zbere s cieľom zabezpečiť, aby boli bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick), za predpokladu, že príslušný použitý systémový prístup alebo ošetrenie po zbere spolu s listinnými dôkazmi o ich účinnosti národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii a že Európsky úrad pre bezpečnosť potravín ošetrenie po zbere posúdil,
 a
 iii)
 pred vývozom boli podrobené úradným prehliadkam na prítomnosť Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) s intenzitou, ktorá umožňuje zistenie aspoň 2 % miery zamorenia s 95 % úrovňou spoľahlivosti v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 31 (***), vrátane deštruktívneho odberu vzoriek v prípade symptómov,
 a
 iv)
 sú sprevádzané rastlinolekárskym osvedčením, v ktorom sa uvádzajú kódy výrobnej prevádzky a podrobnosti o použitom ošetrení po zbere alebo o použití systémového prístupu.“
 2.
 Medzi body 62 a 63 sa vkladá tento bod 62.1:
 „62.1.
 Plody Citrus sinensis Pers.
 0805 10 22
 0805 10 24
 0805 10 28
 ex 0805 10 80
 Krajiny afrického kontinentu, Kapverdy, Svätá Helena, Madagaskar, Réunion, Maurícius a Izrael
 Úradné potvrdenie, že:
 a)
 plody majú pôvod v krajine uznanej za krajinu bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) v súlade s príslušnými medzinárodnými normami pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia za predpokladu, že tento stav bez výskytu škodcu národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii,
 alebo
 b)
 plody majú pôvod v oblasti, ktorú národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín v krajine pôvodu v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 4 (*) uznala za oblasť bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick). Oblasť sa v rastlinolekárskom osvedčení uvedie ako oblasť bez výskytu škodcu, ak národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu Komisii vopred písomne oznámila tento stav bez výskytu škodcu,
 alebo
 c)
 plody:
 i)
 majú pôvod v mieste výroby, ktoré národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín v krajine pôvodu v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 10 (**) uznala za oblasť bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) a ktoré sa uvádza v zozname kódov miest výroby, ktorý národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii,
 a
 ii)
 boli podrobené úradným prehliadkam vykonaným v mieste výroby vo vhodných časoch počas vegetačného obdobia a pred vývozom vrátane vizuálnej prehliadky s intenzitou, ktorá umožní zistenie aspoň 2 % miery zamorenia s 95 % úrovňou spoľahlivosti v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 31 (***), vrátane deštruktívneho odberu vzoriek v prípade symptómov, pričom sa zistilo, že sú bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick),
 a
 iii)
 sprevádza rastlinolekárske osvedčenie, v ktorom sa uvádzajú kódy miest výroby,
 alebo
 d)
 plody:
 i)
 boli vyrobené v schválenej výrobnej prevádzke, ktorá je zahrnutá do zoznamu kódov výrobných prevádzok, ktorý národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii,
 a
 ii)
 boli podrobené:
 —
 účinnému systémovému prístupu, ktorý zahŕňa ošetrenie chladom pri teplote 0 °C až –1 °C počas najmenej 16 dní v súlade s príslušnými medzinárodnými normami pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 14 (*****) a ISPM 42 (****) za predpokladu, že vyvážajúca tretia krajina toto ošetrenie chladom zdokumentovala a skontrolovala v prípade každej zásielky a že systémový prístup spolu s listinnými dôkazmi o jeho účinnosti národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii,
 alebo
 —
 účinnému systémovému prístupu, ktorý v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 14 (*****) zahŕňa fázu predchladenia dužiny plodov na teplotu použitého ošetrenia chladom, po ktorom nasleduje ošetrenie chladom počas najmenej 20 dní pri stanovenej teplote –1 °C až +2 °C, za predpokladu, že vyvážajúca tretia krajina túto fázu predchladenia a toto ošetrenie chladom zdokumentovala a skontrolovala v prípade každej zásielky a že systémový prístup spolu s listinnými dôkazmi o jeho účinnosti národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii,
 alebo
 —
 účinnému samostatnému ošetreniu po zbere s cieľom zabezpečiť, aby boli bez výskytu Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick), za predpokladu, že príslušné ošetrenie po zbere spolu s listinnými dôkazmi o ich účinnosti národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii a že Európsky úrad pre bezpečnosť potravín toto ošetrenie posúdil,
 alebo
 —
 do 31. decembra 2022 účinnému systémovému prístupu, ktorý v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 14 (*****) zahŕňa fázu predchladenia dužiny plodov na teplotu 5 °C, po ktorom nasleduje ošetrenie chladom počas najmenej 25 dní pri stanovenej teplote –1 °C až +2 °C, za predpokladu, že vyvážajúca tretia krajina túto fázu predchladenia a toto ošetrenie chladom zdokumentovala a skontrolovala v prípade každej zásielky a že systémový prístup spolu s listinnými dôkazmi o jeho účinnosti národná organizácia na ochranu rastlín krajiny pôvodu vopred písomne oznámila Komisii,
 a
 iii)
 pred vývozom boli podrobené úradným prehliadkam na prítomnosť Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Meyrick) s intenzitou, ktorá umožňuje zistenie aspoň 2 % miery zamorenia s 95 % úrovňou spoľahlivosti v súlade s medzinárodnou normou pre rastlinolekárske opatrenia ISPM 31 (***), vrátane deštruktívneho odberu vzoriek v prípade symptómov,
 a
 iv)
 sprevádza rastlinolekárske osvedčenie, v ktorom sa uvádzajú kódy výrobných prevádzok a buď podrobnosti o použitom ošetrení po zbere alebo to, že bol použitý systémový prístup, pričom sa uvedie stanovená teplota a trvanie ošetrenia chladom použitého v rámci tohto systémového prístupu,
 a
 v)
 ak sa ošetrenie chladom aplikovalo počas prepravy, okrem rastlinolekárskeho osvedčenia sa uchovávajú záznamy o aplikácii tohto ošetrenia a na požiadanie sa sprístupnia.
 (*)
 ISPM 4 „Požiadavky na uznanie oblastí bez výskytu škodcu“.
 (**)
 ISPM 10 „Požiadavky, ktoré treba splniť pri uznávaní miest výroby bez výskytu škodcu a výrobných prevádzok bez výskytu škodcu“.
 (***)
 ISPM 31 „Metodiky odberu vzoriek zo zásielok“.
 (****)
 ISPM 42 „Požiadavky na použitie tepelných ošetrení ako rastlinolekárskych opatrení“.
 (*****)
 ISPM 14 „Uplatňovanie integrovaných opatrení v systémovom prístupe k riadeniu rizík spojených so škodcami“.“


text:
 12.1.2017
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 8/17
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG 187/2015 HATÁROZATA
 (2015. július 10.)
 az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás XIII. mellékletének (Közlekedés) módosításáról [2017/27]
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: az EGT-megállapodás) és különösen annak 98. cikkére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A HL L 10., 2015.1.16., 45. o. által helyesbített, az Európai Unió vasúti rendszerének „járművek – mozdonyok és személyszállító járművek” alrendszerére vonatkozó átjárhatósági műszaki előírásról szóló, 2014. november 18-i 1302/2014/EU bizottsági rendeletet (1) bele kell foglalni az EGT-megállapodásba.
 (2)
 Az EGT-megállapodás XIII. mellékletét ezért ennek megfelelően módosítani kell,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A HATÁROZATOT:
 1. cikk
 Az EGT-megállapodás XIII. melléklete a következőképpen módosul:
 1.
 A 37ah. pont (2008/232/EK bizottsági határozat) és a 37di. pont (2011/291/EU bizottsági határozat) a következő francia bekezdéssel egészül ki:
 „—
 32014 R 1302: A Bizottság 2014. november 18-i 1302/2014/EU rendelete (HL L 356., 2014.12.12., 228. o.), helyesbítve: HL L 10., 2015.1.16., 45. o.”.
 2.
 A 37dn. pont (1301/2014/EU bizottsági rendelet) után a szöveg a következővel egészül ki:
 „37do.
 32014 R 1302: A Bizottság 2014. november 18-i 1302/2014/EU rendelete az Európai Unió vasúti rendszerének »járművek – mozdonyok és személyszállító járművek« alrendszerére vonatkozó átjárhatósági műszaki előírásról (HL L 356., 2014.12.12., 228. o.), helyesbítve: HL L 10., 2015.1.16., 45. o.
 A rendelet e megállapodás alkalmazásában a következő kiigazításokkal értendő:
 a)
 A melléklet 7.3.2.12. szakasza a következő szövegrésszel egészül ki:
 »Norvégia (‘T’) különleges esete
 A villamos vontatóegységekre a norvég hálózaton való korlátozásmentes üzemelés tekintetében az alábbiak vonatkoznak:
 —
 Amennyiben a vontatóegység aktívan áramot fogyaszt, a kapacitív teljesítménytényező a 16,5 kV-ot meghaladó vezetékfeszültségeken nem lehet nagyobb 0,95-nél.
 —
 Amennyiben a vontatóegység teljesítményt táplál vissza, a kapacitív teljesítmény nem haladhatja meg a 60 kVAr-t.
 —
 Amennyiben a vontatóegység teljesítményt táplál vissza, az induktív teljesítménytényező a 16,5 kV alatti vezetékfeszültségeken nem lehet kisebb 0,95-nél.«
 b)
 A melléklet 7.3.2.14. szakasza a következő szövegrésszel egészül ki:
 »Norvégia (‘T’) különleges esete
 Ez a különleges eset a nem korszerűsített felsővezeték-rendszerrel szerelt vonalakon való üzemre szánt egységekre vonatkozik. Az ÁME-nek megfelelő felsővezeték-rendszerrel szerelt vonalakat a vasúthálózat-használati szabályzat tartalmazza.
 Az áramszedőfej geometriájának az EN 50367:2011 szabványnak kell megfelelnie (B.6 ábra, 1800 mm).«
 c)
 A melléklet szövege a 7.3.2.15. szakasz után a következő szövegrésszel egészül ki:
 »7.3.2.15a
 Az áramszedő 4.2.8.2.9.5. pontban meghatározott, az áramszedő magasságában megadott statikus sarunyomása
 Norvégia (‘T’) különleges esete
 Ez a különleges eset a nem korszerűsített felsővezeték-rendszerrel szerelt vonalakon való üzemre szánt egységekre vonatkozik. Az ÁME-nek megfelelő felsővezeték-rendszerrel szerelt vonalakat a vasúthálózat-használati szabályzat tartalmazza.
 A villamos vontatójármű álló helyzetében az áramszedő statikus sarunyomásának 55 N-nak kell lennie.«
 d)
 A melléklet 7.3.2.16. szakasza a következő szövegrésszel egészül ki:
 »Norvégia (‘T’) különleges esete
 Ez a különleges eset a nem korszerűsített felsővezeték-rendszerrel szerelt vonalakon való üzemre szánt egységekre vonatkozik. Az ÁME-nek megfelelő felsővezeték-rendszerrel szerelt vonalakat a vasúthálózat-használati szabályzat tartalmazza.
 Az áramszedőknek az ÁME követelményei mellett az alábbi képleten alapuló görbének kell megfelelniük: Fm
 = 0,00097v2
 + 55, ± 10 %-os tűréshatárral.«
 e)
 A melléklet 7.4. szakasza a következő szövegrésszel egészül ki:
 »Különleges viszonyok Norvégiában
 Téli körülmények között a norvég hálózat járművek általi korlátozásmentes eléréséhez igazolni kell, hogy a járművek megfelelnek a következő követelményeknek:
 —
 a 4.2.6.1.1. pontban meghatározott T2-es hőmérsékleti övezetet kell választani,
 —
 a 4.2.6.1.2. pontban meghatározott, havazás, jegesedés és jégeső esetén fennálló szélsőséges viszonyokat kell kiválasztani.«”
 2. cikk
 A HL L 10., 2015.1.16., 45. o. által helyesbített 1302/2014/EU rendeletnek az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja EGT-kiegészítésében közzéteendő izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövege hiteles.
 3. cikk
 Ez a határozat 2015. július 11-én lép hatályba, feltéve, hogy az EGT-megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdésében előírt összes bejelentést megtették (*1).
 4. cikk
 Ezt a határozatot az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében és EGT-kiegészítésében ki kell hirdetni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2015. július 10-én.
 az EGT Vegyes Bizottság részéről
 az elnök
 Atle LEIKVOLL
 (1) HL L 356., 2014.12.12., 228. o.
 (*1) Alkotmányos követelmények fennállását nem jelezték.