text:
Jak chtěl starostenský synek autobazar | Kverulant
 Kverulantův e-shop
 Domů Kauzy Jak chtěl starostenský synek autobazar
 Jak chtěl starostenský synek autobazar
 Vydání stavebního povolení na stavbu autobazaru na Praze 15 předcházelo vydání územního rozhodnutí. To je tak hrubé porušení stavebního zákona, že se mu odborníci zdráhají uvěřit. Stavebníkem však byl syn starosty a tak mu radnice pomohla dát „dodatečně“ všechno do pořádku a z původně dočasné stavby se stává stavba trvalá. Cílem Kverulanta je odstranění stavby a opětovné osázení pozemku zelení. To druhé se Kverulantovi částečně podařilo. O to první Kverulant usiluje již od svého vzniku v roce 2009. Oceňte jeho úsilí a vytrvalost a podořte ho.
 To, co vidíte na fotografii, je parkoviště, resp., stavba autobazaru pro 200 až 300 automobilů na ploše více než 8 000 m2 v Pražské ulici na Praze 15, a to v těsném sousedství obytných domů. Že by to někdo povolil? Proč ne, jestli je to v souladu s územním plánem. Proč ne, když byly posouzeny vlivy na životní prostředí podle zákona. Proč ne, když se dohodnete se sousedy, že jim to nevadí. Nic takového nepotřebujete! Stavbu ohlásíte jen jako dočasnou. Pak uvedete, že vlastně jen osadíte dvě mobilní buňky a že se nic stavět nebude. Když budete mít štěstí, tak vám stavební odbor poradí, že sousedi jsou přes ulici, a tak se jich nemusíte na nic ptát. Že je tu ještě ten územní plán a studie vlivu na životní prostředí? To by vás mohlo zastavit, ale nezastaví! Rozhodně ne, když jste synem starosty.
 Ale pozor, najde se Kverulant, který si neváží usilovné práce starostova týmu. Za vším vidí hned aroganci moci a obcházení zákona. Poté, co starostův tým zlikvidoval původní zeleň, vydal se Kverulant na stavební odbor, aby zjistil podrobnější informace. Tam mu řekli, že se tam staví autobazar, že už je rozhodnuto, a pokud si chce stěžovat, tak samozřejmě může, ale že to nemá žádný smysl. Staví přece syn pana starosty.
 Kverulant se nevzdal a s dalšími obyvateli se přihlásil jako účastník stavebního řízení a pokusil se zachránit zeleň. Asi nikoho nepřekvapí, že ho starostův tým jako účastníka vyloučil.
 Kverulant na všechna možná místa poslal dopisy, ve kterých na nezákonný postup úřadu upozornil. Jeden z těchto dopisů byl úspěšný. Magistrát vyzval Prahu 15, aby nezákonné stavební povolení zrušila. Vydání stavebního povolení totiž předcházelo vydání územního rozhodnutí. To ale starostův tým nerozhodilo. Místo toho panu Petříšovi mladšímu poradili a pomohli dát „dodatečně“ všechno do pořádku. Tatínek starosta na věc osobně dohlédl, a tak bylo vydáno nové stavební povolení.
 Proti novému stavebnímu povolení se Kverulant odvolal a poté, co mu nebylo vyhověno, spojil se se Společenstvím vlastníků sousedního domu a to v srpnu 2009 podalo žalobu. Soudu trvalo dva roky, než v září 2011 vynesl rozsudek. Žaloba vlastníků byla zamítnuta. Ač nerad, musí dát Kverulant soudu za pravdu. Jakkoliv to zní absurdně, soud žalobu zamítl, protože Společenství vlastníků jako takové nic nevlastní, a proto sousední stavbou nemohou být dotčena jeho majetková práva. Proto Společenství nebylo legitimní k podání žaloby. Kverulant udělal chybu.
 Ale nyní zpět k novému stavebnímu povolení z roku 2008. Nové stavební povolení starostova syna se už tvářilo více legálně. Bylo vydáno jen jako dočasné, a dokonce mu předcházelo územní rozhodnutí. V územním rozhodnutí se praví, že celková plocha pro provoz autobazaru činí 8 379 m2 a nová zeleň bude vybudována na ploše 2 185 m2. Jak si pozorný čtenář povšiml, žádná zeleň v autobazaru není. Když si na to Kverulant stěžoval, dozvěděl se, že vysázení zeleně by bylo v rozporu s ochranou přírody:
 Kverulant se obrátil na Pražský magistrát, aby sjednal nápravu a nejlépe začat celou věc vyřizovat sám. Magistrát odpověděl, že vše je v naprostém pořádku:
 Kverulant za vydatné pomoci občanů sepsal petici proti autobazaru a sehnal pod ni víc než 250 podpisů. To jsou skoro všichni, kdo u autobazaru bydlí. Úřad odpověděl, že autobazar přece už dávno stojí a je dokonce zkolaudovaný, tak o co jde?
 V roce 2010 proběhly komunální volby. Starostu Petříše vystřídal starosta Klega. Od nového starosty dostala výpověď vedoucí stavebního odboru Jitka Lazarčíková. Pozorný čtenář si jistě povšiml, že právě ona je podepsána pod tvrzením, že vysázení zeleně by bylo v rozporu s ochranou přírody. Podle vyjádření nového starosty dostala výpověď proto, že pod jejím vedením proslul stavební úřad na Praze 15 špatnou pověstí.
 Ještě před nástupem starosty Klegy opustil úřad i jeho tajemník. Zjednodušeně řečeno, tajemník úřadu je šéfem všech úředníků na úřadě. Dnes již bývalý tajemník úřadu Vladimír Doležal měl značný podíl na postupu radnice v této kauze. K jeho odchodu přispělo jistě i to, že byl v létě roku 2010 pravomocně odsouzen za korupci. A opět šlo o autobazar, jen o jiný. V listopadu 2004 žádal tehdejší poslanec Vladimír Doležal úplatek 800 000 korun za to, že zařídí prodloužení nájemní smlouvy pro autobazar na Praze 10. Na schůzku se ale majitel autobazaru vybavil policejním nahrávacím zařízením.
 Kverulant politikům příliš nevěří, ale vyhazov vedoucí stavebního odboru Jitky Lazarčíkové jej přiměl k tomu, aby se za novým starostou vydal. Nový starosta Kverulantovi slíbil, že věc nechá prošetřit. Překvapení se, jako tolikrát, nekonalo. Dle starosty Klegy je vše v pořádku:
 Jak si jistě pozorný čtenář povšiml, stavba byla povolena jako dočasná a to nejpozději do 27. 4. 2012. Kdo by očekával, že starostenský synek to s dočasností stavby nemyslel vážně, nebude zklamán. Dva dny před vypršením povolení si zažádal o prodloužení povolení o dalších 10 let:
 Je s podivem, že stavební úřad vůbec nějaké územní řízení zahájil. Už třeba jen proto, že bylo evidentní, že nový územní souhlas nebude vydán v době platnosti starého. Stavba se tak stala stavbou nepovolenou a tedy stavbou černou. Stavební úřad měl zahájit řízení o odstranění stavby. Kverulant to stavebnímu úřadu připomněl a zároveň se přihlásil jako účastník nového územního řízení. Přestože na Praze 15 už v té době byl nový starosta, nový tajemník a nová šéfka stavebního odboru, některé postupy zůstaly stejné. Kverulant byl opět vyloučen z územního řízení. Tentokrát prý proto, že jeho advokáti si nedali úředně ověřit plnou moc od Kverulanta. Jak průhledné.
 Kverulant podal v roce 2012 proti prodloužení dočasné stavby o dalších deset let odvolání k nadřízenému orgánu Prahy 15. Nadřízeným orgánem je Pražský magistrát. Magistrátní úřednictvo se patrně rozhodlo, že se nebude vysilovat dodržováním správního řádu, a v zákonné lhůtě nevydalo rozhodnutí. Teprve až po pěti letech, až v září roku 2017 se magistrátní soukolí živené z našich daní dotočilo a Kverulantu žádost zamítlo.
 Když se Magistrát Kverulantovo odvolání celé měsíce ignoroval, nezbylo mu než podat soudní žalobu. Kverulant nebyl příliš překvapen, když mu soud dal v únoru 2013 za pravdu v tom, že jeho vyloučení z územního řízení bylo protizákonné. Magistrát, jako nadřízený orgán Prahy 15, byl nakonec donucen se autobazarem znovu zabývat. Překvapení se zase nekonalo. Magistrát v srpnu 2013 došel k závěru, že prodloužení povolení autobazaru o dalších deset let nemá se salámovou metodou nic společného.
 Kverulant stával radikálně odlišný názor, a tak podal na Pražský magistrát další soudní žalobu. Soud dal rozsudkem v říjnu 2017 Kverulantovi zapravdu. Soud přisvědčil Kverulantově námitce, že rozhodnutí o námitkách bylo vydáno v rozporu s platnou právní úpravou. Soud konstatoval, že považuje rovněž za nutné pro pořádek dodat, že územní rozhodnutí Úřadu městské části Prahy 15 ze dne 29. 5. 2012, č. j. 12611/2012/OÚR/VLe, zn. ÚMČ P15 16357/2012, které úřad vydal ve zjednodušeném územním řízení, nemělo být pro včasné podání námitek žalobce vydáno. Jelikož žalobcovy věcné námitky měly být vypořádány v rámci územního rozhodnutí, nikoli v rozhodnutí o námitkách, soud se jimi věcně nezabýval. Nedávalo by totiž smysl, aby soud vypořádal věcné námitky proti rozhodnutí, které ze své podstaty nemělo být vůbec vydáno.
 V roce 2014 proběhly komunální volby a do křesla starosty vynesly kandidáta ANO Milana Wenzla. Nový starosta se sám obrátil na Kverulanta se slibem, že se pokusí letitý problém vyřešit. V prosinci 2014 vyzval Kverulanta k podání oficiální žádosti o prošetření věci, aby se věcí mohl oficiálně zabývat. Kverulant tuto žádost podal obratem a jako první krok požadoval alespoň osázení bazaru zelení na ploše minimálně 2 185 m2 tak, jak to stavebníkovi Petříšovi již dříve uložil stavební úřad. Pan starosta měl možnost dokázat, že slogan „Nejsme jako politici, makáme“ je pravdivý.
 Nový pan starosta Wenzl této možnosti nevyužil a Kverulant.org tak nebyl zaskočen jeho frenetickou pracovitostí. Když od podání žádosti marně uplynuly více než čtyři měsíce, musel ji urgovat. Teprve pak, na konci dubna 2015, přišla stručná odpověď od paní Mgr. Zuzany Venclíkové, vedoucí odboru životního prostředí ÚMČ Praha 15: Na základě Vašeho podnětu provedl odbor životního prostředí místní šetření za účelem kontroly plnění závazného stanoviska ke změně užívání stavby „Autobazar v Praze 10 - Hostivaři“. Při šetření bylo zjištěno, že podmínky závazného stanoviska byly splněny pouze částečně. Ve spolupráci s odborem stavebním byl následně majitel autobazaru p. Petříš pozván k ústnímu jednání. Zde bylo dohodnuto splnění podmínek užívání stavby v termínu do 15. 5. 2015. Odbor životního prostředí po uplynutí termínu provede místní šetření za účelem kontroly splnění podmínek. Kdo by si myslel, že se v autobazaru v půlce května 2015 objevila rajská zahrada o velikosti třetiny fotbalového hřiště, bude opět zklamán.
 Jediným hmatatelným výsledkem Kverulantových předchozích podání je osázení autobazaru několika stromy. Konkrétně přibylo 12 javorů, 2 sakury, 1 platan a 4 břízy. Plocha zeleně se ovšem vůbec nezvětšila. Zdá se, že pan starosta ani tentokrát nevyužil možnosti dokázat, že slogan „Nejsme jako politici, makáme“ byl míněn vážně. Spíše to vypadá, že pan starosta Milan Wenzl jen vyměnil dres ODS za dres ANO. Naznačuje to nejen chování starosty v této kauze, ale i to, že pan Wenzl uzavřel s developerem EKOSPOL smlouvu, kde se píše, že pokud jeho radnice developerovi opatří všechna stavební povolení pro jeho projekt, dostane za to dva a půl milionu korun. Obdobnou smlouvu, ale na jiný projekt uzavřel s EKOSPOLEM i jeho předchůdce a dřívější kolega z ODS, Pavel Klega. Kverulant.org to považuje za korupční jednání a na oba podal trestní oznámení. Podrobnosti lze naleznout v kauze KORUPCE NA RADNICI PRAHY 15.
 Praha 15 má ve fixlování ve stavebním řízení slušnou tradici. Dnes již bývalý tajemník úřadu Vladimír Doležal byl v létě roku 2010 pravomocně odsouzen za korupci. V listopadu 2004 žádal pan Doležal úplatek 800 000 korun za to, že zařídí prodloužení nájemní smlouvy pro autobazar. V září 2017 odhalil Kverulant, že Praha 15 nemá problém ani s povolení domu na orné půdě. Stačí, když stavebník deklaruje, že staví jen „sklad zahradní techniky“. Velmi pomůže, když stavebníkem je náš starý známý prominentní klient Prahy 15, Aleš Peříš.
 Nikoho asi nepřekvapí, že Kverulant se protekcí bývalého starostenského synka nechce smířit a podal podmět prošetření postup stavebného úřadu Prahy 15 prošetřil a k zahájení řízení o odstranění stavby. Nyní zpět k autobazaru. To, že pan Petříš nemá „papíry v pořádku“ a s největší pravděpodobností jde o černou stavbu, mu nikterak nebránilo, aby autobazar pronajal Peugeotu. Ačkoliv to tak na první pohled nevypadá, Kverulant v této kauze nezaznamenává jen prohry. Starostenský synek totiž nikdy svůj autobazar nezprovoznil. Parkování peugeotů obyvatele Pražské ulice příliš neobtěžuje a vysázení několika stromů lze považovat za úspěch. Provoz autobazaru s vlaječkami, vtíravou hudbou a hlavně stovkami přijíždějících a odjíždějících zákazníků by vadil mnohem více. Dílem za to může publicita, které se této kauze dostalo, dílem Kverulantem vedený letitý soudní spor, který bránil postavený autobazar pronajmout. Navíc má Kverulant stále šanci vyhrát a dosáhnout odstranění stavby autobazaru.
 Anketa: Je stavební řízení férové
 142 (50 %)
 Celkem hlasů: 284
 Kverulant se touto kauzou zabývá již od svého vzniku v roce 2009. Prosíme, oceňte Kverulantovu vytrvalost. Věnujte mu každý měsíc 30 korun. Vaše koruna denně pomůže měnit věci k lepšímu. Podpořit Kverulanta můžete i jednorázovým darem. Podpořte Kverulanta, čeká ho ještě mnoho práce a mnoho výdajů. Kverulanta můžete podpořit i nakupováním na svých oblíbených e-shopech. Je to jednoduché, zabere vám to jen několik vteřin. A co je nejdůležitější, při nákupu nezaplatíte nic navíc.


type: wikipedia

text:
Max Sailer (* 20. Dezember 1882 in Esslingen am Neckar; † 5. Februar 1964 ebenda) war ein deutscher Automobilrennfahrer und Ingenieur.
 Karriere
 Max Sailer begann am 26. November 1902 als Ingenieur bei der Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft und war dort mit studienbedingten Unterbrechungen bis zum 1. Juli 1905 tätig. Danach arbeitete er fünf Jahre lang bei der Fahrzeugfabrik Eisenach. Am 1. Oktober 1910 kehrte er zur DMG zurück.
 Im Jahr 1914 gehörte er der berühmten Mercedes-Werksmannschaft an, die erfolgreich beim Großen Preis von Frankreich antrat. Max Sailer, für den die Grand-Prix-Rennen noch Neuland waren, legte vom Start weg mit vollem Einsatz los. Am Ende der ersten der über 37 km langen Runden lag er in Führung. Im vierten Umlauf setzte er einen neuen Rundenrekord. Sailer vergrößerte seinen Vorsprung auf fast drei Minuten, doch nach etwa zwei Stunden Renndauer musste er mit Motorschaden aufgeben.
 Im Jahr 1921 belegte Max Sailer bei der Targa Florio auf Sizilien auf Mercedes 28/95 PS hinter dem Italiener Giulio Masetti (Fiat) und vor Giuseppe Campari (Alfa Romeo) Rang zwei in der Gesamtwertung und errang den Sieg in seiner Klasse. Auf dem etwa 108 km langen Medio circuito delle Madonie drehte er in 1:47:06,0 h (Durchschnittsgeschwindigkeit 60,504 km/h) obendrein die schnellste Rennrunde. Im folgenden Jahr konnte er diesen Klassensieg wiederholen.
 Im Jahr 1923 trat das DMG-Werksteam erstmals beim prestigereichen Indianapolis 500 in den USA an. Die kompressorgeladenen Wagen waren bis dato ein Novum in der Geschichte des Rennens. Sailer schnitt mit Rang acht am besten ab. Seine Teamkollegen Christian Werner und Christian Friedrich Lautenschlager wurden Elfter bzw. 23.
 Die Grand-Prix-Saison 1924 war die letzte in Sailers aktiver Laufbahn. Bei seinem letzten international bedeutenden Rennen, dem II Gran Premio do San Sebastián auf dem Circuito Lasarte schied er auf Mercedes TF nach einer Kollision aus.
 1925 wurde Max Sailer Direktor bei der Daimler-Motoren-Gesellschaft. Im November 1934 wurde er zum Technischen Direktor sowie stellvertretenden Vorstandsmitglied der Daimler-Benz AG berufen. Er ersetzte damit den verstorbenen Hans Nibel. Sailer war damit Leiter der gesamten Konstruktion und Entwicklung des Fahrzeugprogramms, zu der auch die Rennwagen zählten. Unter seiner Regie entstanden unter anderem zahlreiche erfolgreiche Rennwagen und mit dem Mercedes-Benz 260 D der erste Personenkraftwagen der Welt mit Dieselmotor. Im Jahr 1941 wurde er in dieser Funktion von Fritz Nallinger abgelöst.
 1942 ging Sailer in den Ruhestand. Er starb am 5. Februar 1964 im Alter von 81 Jahren in seiner Heimatstadt Esslingen am Neckar an einer Embolie.
 Weblinks
 Einzelnachweise
 Rennfahrer (Deutschland)
 Grand-Prix-Fahrer vor 1950
 Rennfahrer des Indianapolis 500
 Deutscher
 Geboren 1882
 Gestorben 1964
 Mann


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 5.9.2016
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 326/15
 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je 21. lipnja 2016. uputio Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bugarska) – Balgarska energiyna borsa AD (BEB) protiv Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)
 (Predmet C-347/16)
 (2016/C 326/26)
 Jezik postupka: bugarski
 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev
 Administrativen sad Sofia-grad
 Stranke glavnog postupka
 Tužitelj: Balgarska energiyna borsa AD (BEB)
 Tuženik: Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)
 Prethodna pitanja
 1.
 Dopušta li se člankom 9. stavkom 1. točkom (b) podtočkama i. i ii. Direktive 2009/72/EZ (1) Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. srpnja 2009. o zajedničkim pravilima za unutarnje tržište električne energije i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive 2003/54/EZ da ista osoba bude jedini vlasnik udjela u neovisnom operatoru prijenosnog sustava i društvu čije su najvažnije djelatnosti proizvodnja i prijenos električne energije?
 2.
 Dopušta li se člankom 9. stavkom 1. točkom (b) podtočkama i. i ii. Direktive 2009/72/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. srpnja 2009. o zajedničkim pravilima za unutarnje tržište električne energije i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive 2003/54/EZ da ista osoba izravno ili neizravno provodi kontrolu nad neovisnim operatorom prijenosnog sustava i poduzećem za proizvodnju i opskrbu električnom energijom?
 3.
 Dopušta li se člankom 9. stavkom 1. točkama (c) i (d) Direktive 2009/72/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. srpnja 2009. o zajedničkim pravilima za unutarnje tržište električne energije i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive 2003/54/EZ da ista osoba imenuje članove nadzornog odbora neovisnog operatora prijenosnog sustava (koji pak izabire njegovu upravu) i članove uprave poduzeća za proizvodnju i opskrbu električne energije?
 4.
 Dopuštaju li Direktiva 2009/72/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. srpnja 2009. o zajedničkim pravilima za unutarnje tržište električne energije i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive 2003/54/EZ, Uredba (EZ) br. 714/2009 (2) Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. srpnja 2009. o uvjetima za pristup mreži za prekograničnu razmjenu električne energije i stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe (EZ) br. 1228/2003 (3), Uredba [Komisije] (EU) 2015/1222 (4) [od 24. srpnja 2015.] o uspostavljanju smjernica za dodjelu kapaciteta i upravljanje zagušenjima [i] Uredba (EU) br. 1227/2011 (5) Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 25. listopada 2011. o cjelovitosti i transparentnosti veleprodajnog tržišta energije ograničenje broja osoba kojima se u određenom području dodjeljuje dozvola za prijenos električne energije?
 5.
 Ako je odgovor na gore navedena pitanja potvrdan i [ako se] u skladu s člankom 43. stavkom 1. podstavkom 1. [Zakona na energetikata (Zakon o energiji) za područje Republike Bugarske dodjeljuje samo jedna dozvola: treba li smatrati da postoji sukob interesa u smislu [uvodne izjave 12.] Direktive 2009/72/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. srpnja 2009. o zajedničkim pravilima za unutarnje tržište električne energije i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive 2003/54/EZ?
 6.
 Treba li smatrati da nacionalna odredba iz članka 43. stavka 1. podstavka 1. [Zakona o energiji] ograničava tržišno natjecanje u smislu članaka 101. i 102. UFEU-a jer predviđa da se na području države dodjeljuje samo jedna dozvola za prijenos energije?
 (1) SL 2009., L 211, str. 55. (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 12., svezak 4., str. 29.)
 (2) SL 2009., L 211, str. 15. (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 12., svezak 4., str. 8.)
 (3) Uredba (EZ) br. 1228/2003 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 26. lipnja 2003. o uvjetima za pristup mreži za prekograničnu razmjenu električne energije (SL 2003., L 176, str. 1)
 (4) SL 2015., L 197, str. 24.
 (5) SL 2011., L 326, str. 1. (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 12., svezak 4., str. 93.)


type: legislation

text:
 8.9.2011
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 231/7
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 896/2011
 z dnia 2 września 2011 r.
 dotyczące klasyfikacji niektórych towarów według Nomenklatury scalonej
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (EWG) nr 2658/87 z dnia 23 lipca 1987 r. w sprawie nomenklatury taryfowej i statystycznej oraz w sprawie Wspólnej Taryfy Celnej (1), w szczególności jego art. 9 ust. 1 lit. a),
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W celu zapewnienia jednolitego stosowania Nomenklatury scalonej, stanowiącej załącznik do rozporządzenia (EWG) nr 2658/87, konieczne jest przyjęcie środków dotyczących klasyfikacji towaru określonego w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 (2)
 Rozporządzeniem (EWG) nr 2658/87 ustanowiono Ogólne reguły interpretacji Nomenklatury scalonej. Reguły te stosuje się także do każdej innej nomenklatury, która jest w całości lub w części oparta na Nomenklaturze scalonej, bądź która dodaje do niej jakikolwiek dodatkowy podpodział i która została ustanowiona szczególnymi przepisami unijnymi, w celu stosowania środków taryfowych i innych środków odnoszących się do obrotu towarowego.
 (3)
 Stosownie do wymienionych wyżej ogólnych reguł, towar opisany w kolumnie 1. tabeli zamieszczonej w załączniku należy klasyfikować do kodu CN wskazanego w kolumnie 2., na mocy uzasadnień określonych w kolumnie 3. tej tabeli.
 (4)
 Należy zagwarantować, aby wiążąca informacja taryfowa wydana przez organy celne państw członkowskich odnośnie do klasyfikacji towarów w Nomenklaturze scalonej, która nie jest zgodna z niniejszym rozporządzeniem, mogła być nadal przywoływana przez otrzymującego przez okres trzech miesięcy, zgodnie z art. 12 ust. 6 rozporządzenia Rady (EWG) nr 2913/92 z dnia 12 października 1992 r. ustanawiającego Wspólnotowy Kodeks Celny (2).
 (5)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Komitetu Kodeksu Celnego,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Towar opisany w kolumnie 1. tabeli zamieszczonej w załączniku klasyfikuje się w Nomenklaturze scalonej do kodu CN wskazanego w kolumnie 2. tej tabeli.
 Artykuł 2
 Wiążąca informacja taryfowa wydana przez organy celne państw członkowskich, która nie jest zgodna z niniejszym rozporządzeniem, może być nadal przywoływana przez okres trzech miesięcy, zgodnie z art. 12 ust. 6 rozporządzenia (EWG) nr 2913/92.
 Artykuł 3
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 2 września 2011 r.
 W imieniu Komisji, za Przewodniczącego,
 Algirdas ŠEMETA
 Członek Komisji
 (1) Dz.U. L 256 z 7.9.1987, s. 1.
 (2) Dz.U. L 302 z 19.10.1992, s. 1.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Opis towarów
 Klasyfikacja
 (kod CN)
 Uzasadnienie
 (1)
 (2)
 (3)
 Taśmy odblaskowe przeznaczone do umieszczania na odzieży ochronnej i mundurach za pomocą kleju aktywowanego na gorąco.
 Produkt ma grubość 140-155 μm (bez warstwy ochronnej papieru) i składa się z następujących warstw:
 —
 60-70 μm mikrokulek szklanych z metalicznym lustrem z jednej strony, związanych z elastomerem poli(akrylonitrylowo-butadienowym) (o grubości elastomeru 15-20 μm),
 —
 80-85 μm poliestrowego kleju aktywowanego na gorąco oraz
 —
 warstwy ochronnej papieru do usunięcia przed użyciem.
 Produkt występuje w pojedynczych paskach lub rolkach.
 4008 21 90
 Klasyfikacja wyznaczona jest przez reguły 1., 3 b) i 6. Ogólnych reguł interpretacji Nomenklatury scalonej, uwagi 1. i 9. do działu 40 oraz brzmienie kodów CN 4008, 4008 21 i 4008 21 90.
 Produkt składa się z różnych warstw składników i dlatego należy go klasyfikować zgodnie z materiałami składowymi, które nadają temu produktowi jego zasadniczy charakter.
 Mikrokulki szklane odgrywają ważną rolę w procesie odblaskowym, ale ich klasyfikacja do pozycji 7018, jako kuleczki szklane, jest wykluczona, ponieważ rola elastomeru, jaką jest utrzymywanie szklanych mikrokulek w miejscu, jest dominująca.
 Chociaż warstwa poliestrowa jest warstwą najgrubszą, klasyfikacja do pozycji 3920, jako arkusza termoplastycznego polimeru, jest wykluczona, ponieważ elastomer, w którym szklane mikrokulki są osadzone, jest najważniejszym składnikiem dla spójności szklanych mikrokulek i w związku z tym nadającym produktowi właściwości odblaskowe.
 Ponieważ elastomer nadaje produktowi jego zasadniczy charakter, należy go zatem klasyfikować, zgodnie z regułą ORI 3 b) do pozycji 4008, jako płytę, arkusz, taśmę z gumy innej niż ebonit.


text:
 25.5.2013
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 147/33
 Hotărârea Tribunalului Funcției Publice (Camera a treia) din 21 martie 2013 — Dalmasso/Comisia
 (Cauza F-112/11) (1)
 (Funcție publică - Remunerație - Ajustare anuală a remunerațiilor și a pensiilor funcționarilor și ale celorlalți agenți - Articolele 64, 65 și 65a din statut - Anexa XI la statut - Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1239/2010 - Coeficienți corectori - Funcționari afectați la Ispra)
 2013/C 147/60
 Limba de procedură: franceza
 Părțile
 Reclamant: Raffaele Dalmasso (Monvalle, Italia) (reprezentant: C. Mourato, avocat)
 Pârâtă: Comisia Europeană (reprezentanți: J. Currall și D. Martin, agenți)
 Obiectul
 Cerere de anulare a fișei de salarizare a reclamantului pentru luna februarie 2011 și a fișelor de salarizare pentru lunile următoare în care se aplică noul coeficient corector pentru orașul Varese în conformitate cu Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1239/2010 al Consiliului din 20 decembrie 2010
 Dispozitivul
 1.
 Respinge acțiunea.
 2.
 Domnul Dalmasso suportă propriile cheltuieli de judecată și este obligat să suporte cheltuielile de judecată efectuate de Comisia Europeană.
 3.
 Consiliul Uniunii Europene, intervenient, suportă propriile cheltuieli de judecată.
 (1) JO C 6 din 7.1.2012, p. 27.


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22004A0615(01)
 PVO Pamatkonvencija par tabakas kontroli (Konvencijas teksts autentiskajās valodās ir publicēts Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša izdevumos angļu, franču un spāņu valodā)
 Official Journal L 213 , 15/06/2004 P. 0009 - 0024
 PVO Pamatkonvencija par tabakas kontroli (1)
 (1) Konvencijas teksts autentiskajās valodās ir publicēts Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša izdevumos angļu, franču un spāņu valodā.
 I PIELIKUMS
 Eiropas Kopienas deklarācija saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu PVO Pamatkonvencijā par tabakas kontroli (1)
 (1) Deklarācijas teksts autentiskajās valodās publicēts Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša izdevumos angļu, franču un spāņu valodā.
 II PIELIKUMS
 Kopienas paskaidrojošā deklarācija (1)
 (1) Deklarācijas teksts autentiskajās valodās publicēts Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša izdevumos angļu, franču un spāņu valodā.


text:
Die China Star ist ein ehemaliges, 1992 als Radisson Diamond für Diamond Cruise erbautes Kreuzfahrtschiff, das zuletzt seit 2005 für Casinokreuzfahrten im Hafen von Hongkong stationiert war. Sie ist das derzeit einzige mit einem Doppelrumpf erbaute Kreuzfahrtschiff und das größte Schiff dieser Bauart. 2019 wurde sie ausgemustert und trägt seitdem den Namen Saipan Star.
 Planung und Bau
 Die Radisson Diamond wurde im Auftrag von Diamond Cruise als Baunummer 310 bei Finnyards in Rauma gebaut. Sie wurde als weltweit erstes Kreuzfahrtschiff mit der Small-Waterplane-Area-Twin-Hull-Technik erbaut und ist somit das erste mit einem Doppelrumpf erbaute Kreuzfahrtschiff. Mit einer Länge von 131,2 Metern und einer Tonnage von 20.295 BRZ ist sie außerdem das weltweit größte Schiff dieser Bauart. Am 20. Juni 1991 wurde Radisson Diamond vom Stapel gelassen. Die Probefahrt des Schiffes fand am 20. April 1992 statt.
 Dienstzeit
 Radisson Diamond
 Die Radisson Diamond wurde am 30. April 1992 an Diamond Cruise abgeliefert und am 28. Mai 1992 in Greenwich getauft. Am 7. Mai lief das Schiff zu seiner Jungfernfahrt aus und wurde in den kommenden dreizehn Jahren für Kreuzfahrten in der Nord- und Ostsee eingesetzt.
 Omar Star
 Im Juni 2005 wurde die Radisson Diamond als Omar Star an die auf den Bahamas ansässige Treasure Ocean Ltd. verkauft und am 9. Juni 2005 nach Piräus überführt, wo sie aufgelegt wurde.
 Asia Star
 Die Omar Star verbrachte vier Monate im Hafen von Piräus, ehe sie im Oktober 2005 in Asia Star umbenannt und nach Hongkong überführt wurde. 2005 nahm das Schiff unter Asia Cruises seinen Dienst als schwimmendes Casino im Hafen von Hongkong auf. 2007 wurde die Treasure Ocean Ltd. Eigentümer der Asia Star. Das Schiff blieb jedoch weiter im Dienst für Asia Cruises.
 China Star
 Im Oktober 2011 wurde die Asia Star in China Star umbenannt und für 45 Millionen US-Dollar an ihren jetzigen Betreiber China Cruises verkauft. Vor ihrer erneuten Indienststellung wurde die China Star für mehr als zwanzig Millionen US-Dollar modernisiert. Das Schiff wurde unter diesem Namen bis 2019 als schwimmendes Casino im Hafen von Hongkong eingesetzt, jedoch auch für Kurzkreuzfahrten nach Taiwan genutzt. Im August 2019 erhielt es den Namen Saipan Star, kam unter diesen allerdings bislang nicht in Fahrt.
 Ausstattung
 Neben dem Casinobereich besitzt die China Star auf insgesamt zwölf Decks mehrere Restaurants und Bars, eine Bibliothek sowie eine Showlounge in der verglasten Front des Schiffes. Die China Star kann bis zu 354 Passagiere befördern. Ein besonderes Merkmal des Schiffes ist eine hydraulisch absenkbare Plattform, die als Anliegestelle für Wassersportfahrzeuge genutzt werden kann.
 Literatur
 Tony Gibson: Die Welt der Schiffe. Basserman Verlag, 2007, ISBN 978-3-8094-2186-3, Seite 202
 Weblinks
 Das Schiff auf faktaomfartyg.se (schwedisch)
 technische Daten des Schiffes auf shipparade.com (englisch)
 Fußnoten
 Kreuzfahrtschiff
 Passagierschiff (Bahamas)
 Katamaran
 Motorschiff
 Rauma Marine Constructions


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'U.S. Department of Agriculture\n Office of Inspector General\n Southeast Region\n Audit Report\n\n\n FARM SERVICE AGENCY\nTOBACCO IMPORTER ASSESSMENT PROGRAM -\n MARKETING PENALTY ASSESSMENTS AND\n COLLECTIONS\n WASHINGTON, D.C.\n\n\n\n\n Report No.\n 03099-164-At\n SEPTEMBER 2002\n\x0c UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Washington D.C. 20250\n\n\nDATE: September 30, 2002\n\nREPLY TO\n ATTN OF: 03099-164-At\n\nSUBJECT: Farm Service Agency - Tobacco Importer Assessment Program\n Marketing Penalty Assessments and Collections, Washington, DC\n\nTO: James R. Little\n Administrator\n Farm Service Agency\n\nATTN: T. Mike McCann\n Director\n Operations Review and Analysis Staff\n\n\nThis report presents the results of our audit of the Tobacco Importer Assessment\nProgram. Your September 30, 2002, written response to the draft report is included as\nexhibit B with excerpts and the Office of Inspector General\'s position incorporated into\nthe relevant sections of the report.\n\nManagement decisions were not reached for any of the reports recommendations.\nManagement decisions can be reached once you provide the additional information\noutlined in the report section, OIG Position.\n\nIn accordance with Department Regulation 1720-1 please furnish a reply within\n60 days describing the correction actions taken or planned, and the timeframes for\nimplementation of the remaining recommendation. Note that the regulation requires\nmanagement decisions to be reached on all recommendations within 6 months of report\nissuance.\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation and assistance of your staff during our audit.\n\n/s/\n\nRICHARD D. LONG\nAssistant Inspector General\n for Audit\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n TOBACCO IMPORTERS ASSESSMENT PROGRAM \xe2\x80\x93\n MARKETING PENALTY ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIONS\n WASHINGTON, D.C.\n AUDIT REPORT NO. 03099-164-AT\n\n\n This report presents the results of our audit of\n RESULTS IN BRIEF the Tobacco Importers Assessment Program\n administered by the Farm Service Agency\n (FSA) for the Commodity Credit Corporation\n (CCC). FSA\'s Tobacco and Peanuts Division (TPD) is responsible for\n carrying out the tobacco program, which includes ensuring that importers\n remit marketing assessments timely and determining claims for marketing\n penalties and late payment interest charges for importers who fail to remit\n assessments within prescribed timeframes.\n\n The objectives of our audit were to follow up on prior Office of Inspector\n General (OIG) Audit Report No. 03001-2-At, \xe2\x80\x9cAssessments on Imported\n Tobacco Calendar Years 1994 through 1996," dated September 23, 1997,\n to determine whether FSA implemented internal controls to ensure\n collections of marketing penalties and late payment interest charges for\n untimely remittance of imported tobacco assessment fees.\n\n The audit focused on importers who were subject to TPD\xe2\x80\x99s marketing\n penalty determinations. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Calculated Late Payment Reports1 (CLPR)\n showed that from January 1, 1997 through July 31, 2001, about\n $952,811 in imported tobacco assessment fees were not paid within\n prescribed timeframes. During this same period, FSA collected over\n $41.2 million in assessments from importers of tobacco.\n\n Our review disclosed that FSA did not comply with the requirements of the\n Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-66, dated\n August 10, 1993) to charge tobacco importers marketing penalties and\n late payment interest for untimely remittance of imported tobacco\n assessment fees even though this issue was reported in the prior\n OIG audit report. During the prior audit, CCC issued a policy\n memorandum, dated June 4, 1997, which outlined steps taken to assess\n marketing penalties against tobacco importers who failed to timely remit\n\n1\n CLPR\'s are twice-monthly status reports generated by FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Tobacco Importer Assessment System to\nnotify FSA management of any discrepancies, late, or insufficient assessment remittances by companies\nthat import tobacco.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page i\n\x0c marketing assessments. However, current TPD staff was unaware of the\n June 4, 1997, memorandum or the process to assess and collect\n marketing penalties. CCC\xe2\x80\x99s policy memorandum was not documented in\n a directive to help ensure that staff continues to follow its instructions. As\n a result, claims were not made against nine importers for about\n $4.6 million in potential marketing penalties and late payment interest\n charges for late remittance of about $224,681 in tobacco assessment\n fees.\n\n We recommend that FSA document\n KEY RECOMMENDATIONS procedures for assessing and collecting\n marketing penalties and late payment interest\n charges from tobacco importers in a directive\n to help ensure adherence by current and future staff. Further, FSA should\n immediately take action to assess the importers we identified as having\n combined potential liabilities totaling about $4.6 million.\n\n In its response to the draft report, dated\n AGENCY RESPONSE September 30, 2002, FSA stated that it was in\n agreement with the report\'s finding and two\n recommendations.\n\n FSA\'s response to the draft report is included as exhibit B of the audit\n report.\n\n We agree with FSA\'s response to the report.\n OIG POSITION Actions necessary to achieve management\n decisions are provided in the Findings and\n Recommendations section.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page ii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................i\n RESULTS IN BRIEF....................................................................................................i\n KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................ii\n AGENCY RESPONSE ...............................................................................................ii\n OIG POSITION...........................................................................................................ii\nINTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1\n BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................1\n OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................3\n SCOPE .......................................................................................................................3\n METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................4\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................5\n FINDING NO. 1 ..........................................................................................................5\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 ......................................................................................8\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 ......................................................................................8\n EXHIBIT A \xe2\x80\x93 SUMMARY OF MONETARY RESULTS ..............................................9\n EXHIBIT B \xe2\x80\x93 AGENCY RESPONSE........................................................................10\nABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................12\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page iii\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\n\n The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act\n BACKGROUND of 1993 (Public Law 103-66, dated\n August 10, 1993) required that tobacco\n importers pay marketing assessments on all\n tobacco imported into the country for domestic consumption. On September\n 13, 1995, the President proclaimed the Tariff-rate Quota limiting the\n assessments to six types of tobacco.2\n\n The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is a wholly-owned Government\n corporation created to stabilize, support, and protect farm income and\n prices; help maintain adequate supplies of agricultural commodities; and\n help in the orderly distribution of commodities. The U.S. Department of\n Agriculture\xe2\x80\x99s (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers CCC\n tobacco activities through its Headquarters in Washington, D.C., and its\n Kansas City Financial Operation Division, in Kansas City, Missouri. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\n Tobacco and Peanuts Division (TPD) is responsible for the day-to-day\n operations of the tobacco program, which includes ensuring that importers\n remit marketing assessments timely and determining claims for marketing\n penalties and late payment interest charges for importers who fail to remit\n the required amount of assessments within prescribed timeframes.\n\n The Agricultural Act of 1949 gave USDA authority to support and stabilize\n prices that farmers received for domestic tobacco. These operations are\n carried out for the Department by producer-owned tobacco associations that\n make CCC-financed price support loans to tobacco producers. Because of\n severe criticism of tobacco programs, the No-Net-Cost Tobacco Program Act\n of 1982 (Public Law 97-128, dated July 20, 1982) was passed. The\n legislation required that tobacco price support and production adjustment\n programs be carried out at no net cost to the taxpayers. The payment of\n program costs is accomplished by assessments paid on domestic production\n by producers of all kinds of tobacco and by purchasers of burley and flue-\n cured tobacco3. The no-net-cost assessments apply to all tobacco subject to\n the marketing quota and price support programs. Public Law 103-66\n extended the no-net-cost assessments to importers of all kinds of tobacco\n and required that they pay a nonrefundable marketing assessment beginning\n with each of the 1994 imported crops of tobacco. This marketing\n2\n The six types include: flue-cured, burley, Kentucky/Tennessee fire-cured, dark air-cured, Virginia fire-\ncured, and Virginia sun-cured.\n3\n Legislation required assessments be paid by purchasers of burley and flue-cured tobacco since the\nenactment of the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1985.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 1\n\x0c assessment is referred to herein as the importers no-net-cost assessment\n (INNCA).\n\n The Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-203, dated\n December 22, 1987) required that the support level for the 1988 and\n 1989 tobacco crops be reduced by 1.4 percent. The legislation allowed the\n Secretary to impose nonrefundable marketing assessment fees on\n producers and purchasers in lieu of reductions. This marketing assessment\n is referred to herein as the budget deficit marketing assessment (BDMA).\n\n The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 provided a BDMA for all\n kinds of tobacco subject to marketing quotas. BDMA was one percent of the\n applicable year\xe2\x80\x99s price support level, shared equally between producers and\n purchasers, and was used to reduce the national debt. Public Law 103-66\n extended BDMA to importers of tobacco and required that they pay a\n nonrefundable marketing assessment fee for each of the 1994 through 1998\n imported crops of tobacco.\n\n Public Law 103-66 also provides that any importer who fails to timely remit\n any tobacco program assessments may be subject to a marketing penalty\n under the same provisions as stated in the Consolidated Omnibus\n Reconciliation Act of 1985. Public Law 103-66 set the marketing penalty\n liability at 75 percent of the average market price for the immediately\n preceding year for the kind of tobacco involved. Public Law\n 103-66 provides that the Executive Vice-President, CCC may reduce any\n marketing penalty for which a person otherwise would be liable upon a\n finding that failure to comply was unintentional or without knowledge on the\n part of the importer. USDA regulations provide that a marketing penalty be\n forgiven if the assessments are remitted no later than 15 calendar days after\n the CCC due date4. Also, the regulations do not provide for the forgiveness\n or reduction in late payment interest charges. Furthermore, the regulations\n provide that importers who fail to remit assessments within\n 10 work days from the date the tobacco is released by the U.S. Customs\n Service are liable for late payment interest charges at a rate equal to the\n higher of the Treasury Department\xe2\x80\x99s current value of funds or the rate of\n interest assessed under the Prompt Payment Act as of the date the\n remittance is past due.5\n\n In the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report No. 03001-2-At, we\n determined that FSA had not complied with the requirements of Public\n Law 103-66, Section 1106, for assessing marketing penalties and late\n payment interest charges for untimely remittance of imported tobacco\n\n4\n Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 1464.106(b), dated January 1, 1995.\n5\n Title 7 CFR, parts 1464.104(e) and 1403.9(c), dated January 1, 1995.\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 2\n\x0c assessments. We found that for calendar years (CY) 1994 through\n 1996, approximately $123.5 million had not been timely identified and\n collected. Most of this, $123,467,981, was for potential marketing\n penalties, and the remainder, $13,844 was for potential late payment\n interest charges. FSA attributed the delays in identifying and collecting\n these fees to its Tobacco Importers Assessment System (TIAS), which\n was not operational at that time.\n\n The objective of our audit was to follow\n OBJECTIVES up on prior OIG Audit Report No. 03001-2-At,\n \xe2\x80\x9cAssessments on Imported Tobacco Calendar\n Years 1994 through 1996," dated\n September 23, 1997, to determine whether FSA implemented internal\n controls to ensure collections of marketing penalties and late payment\n interest charges for untimely remittance of imported tobacco assessment\n fees.\n\n The audit, performed in accordance with\n SCOPE generally accepted government auditing\n standards, was conducted at FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\n Headquarters Office in Washington, D.C., and\n at its Kansas City Financial Operations Division in Kansas City, Missouri.\n We reviewed the Tobacco Importers Assessment Program (TIAP)\n administered by TPD. Our audit covered marketing penalty\n determinations, assessments, and collections for the period\n January 1, 1997, through July 31, 2001. We selected this period, as it\n was after CCC\xe2\x80\x99s response to OIG that corrective actions relating to\n marketing penalty determinations, establishing marketing penalties, and\n collecting the marketing penalties from importers who violated the timely\n remittance provisions were made and implemented. The fieldwork was\n performed during the period August 28, 2001, through December 6, 2001.\n\n The audit primarily focused on those importers who were shown on the\n greater than $9.99 Calculated Late Payment Reports (CLPR) and were\n subject to TPD\xe2\x80\x99s marketing penalty determinations. These reports\n showed that during the period January 1, 1997, through July 31, 2001,\n about $952,811 in imported tobacco assessment fees were not paid within\n prescribed timeframes. During this same period FSA collected over\n $41.2 million in tobacco importer assessment fees. The untimely\n remittances involved 15 importers and 74 shipments. Each shipment was\n assigned a special identification number (SIN) by the importer. The TIAS\n records importers\xe2\x80\x99 tobacco shipments by the SIN. We reviewed all\n 74 SIN\'s shown on the greater than $9.99 CLPR\'s for the period of\n January 1, 1997, through July 31, 2001.\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 3\n\x0c To accomplish our audit objectives we:\n METHODOLOGY\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed officials and examined records, as applicable, at the TPD\n and Kansas City Financial Operation Division offices in Washington,\n D.C., and Kansas City, Missouri, respectively;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed TIAP regulations, instructions, policies, and procedures, as\n applicable to imported tobacco;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed TPD written notification letters to importers and related\n marketing penalty computation worksheets;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Analyzed FSA\xe2\x80\x99s internal control procedures over the collection of\n tobacco importer assessments;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed FSA\xe2\x80\x99s calculated late payment reports for the period\n January 1,1997, through July 31, 2001;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Verified the accuracy of information on calculated late payment reports\n and TPD\xe2\x80\x99s marketing penalty computation worksheets;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Verified collections of importer tobacco assessment fees; and\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Prepared schedules showing the untimely and insufficient remittances,\n late payment interest charges, and marketing penalties that importers\n owed and actually paid to CCC.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 4\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n Our review disclosed that FSA did not comply\n FINDING NO. 1 with requirements of the Omnibus Budget\n Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Public Law\n MARKETING PENALTY 103-66, dated August 10, 1993) to charge\n ASSESSMENTS AND tobacco importers marketing penalties and\nCOLLECTIONS WERE NOT MADE late payment interest for untimely remittance\n of imported tobacco assessment fees even\n though this issue was reported in the prior\n OIG audit report. During the prior audit, CCC issued a policy\n memorandum, dated June 4, 1997, which outlined steps taken to assess\n marketing penalties against tobacco importers who failed to timely remit\n marketing assessments. However, current TPD staff was unaware of the\n June 4, 1997, memorandum or the process to assess and collect\n marketing penalties. CCC\xe2\x80\x99s policy memorandum was not documented in\n a FSA directive to help ensure that staff continues to follow its instructions.\n As a result, claims were not made against nine importers for about $4.6\n million in potential marketing penalties and late payment interest charges\n for late remittances of about $224,681 in tobacco assessment fees.\n\n Title 7 CFR, part 1464.106 (a1 and a2), dated January 1, 1995, provides,\n in part, that any importer who fails to timely remit an assessment (BDMA\n and INNCA) shall be subject to marketing penalties. Title 7 CFR, part\n 1464.104(e), January 1, 1995, provides that any importer who fails to\n timely remit any assessments shall be subject to a late payment interest\n charge. Such late payment interest charges shall be calculated and\n assessed in accordance with the Prompt Payment Act and shall be in\n addition to any penalty due or other charge due.\n\n In a June 4, 1997, memorandum, CCC outlined actions to be followed in\n assessing marketing penalties against tobacco importers who untimely or\n insufficiently remit BDMA and INNCA assessments. The actions included\n TPD (1) reviewing twice-monthly CLPR for discrepancies and/or late\n assessment remittances; (2) notifying importers by letter that their required\n tobacco assessments were remitted late and/or insufficient and the\n importer is subject to a marketing penalty; and (3) assessing and\n maintaining a penalty in full unless the CCC Executive Vice-President\n determined that the remittance of assessments were unintentional or\n without the importer\xe2\x80\x99s knowledge.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 5\n\x0c In accordance with the June 4, 1997, CCC memorandum, the FSA\n Kansas City Financial Operations Division provided TPD with twice-\n monthly copies of the greater than $9.99 CLPR\'s. We reviewed all\n 74 SIN\'s shown on these reports for the period January 1, 1997, through\n July 31, 2001. These reports showed that during the period 15 importers\n did not pay about $952,811 in imported tobacco assessment fees within\n prescribed timeframes. During 1997, FSA made marketing penalty and\n late payment interest charge determinations and collected the appropriate\n amount due from six importers. However, some time in 1998, because of\n staff turnover, TPD discontinued making these determinations.\n\n CLPR\'s for the period January 1, 1998, through July 31, 2001, showed\n that nine importers did not pay about $232,850 in imported\n tobacco assessment fees within prescribed timeframes. The potential\n marketing penalties and late payment interest charges were about\n $5.8 million for untimely remittances of $232,850 in assessment fees.\n TPD only notified one importer (Importer B) for the untimely remittance of\n about $8,169 in assessment fees for one shipment. TPD did not\n make marketing penalty and late payment interest determinations for\n $224,681 ($232,850 - $8,169) in untimely remittances for the other\n importers (including Importer B\'s shipments in 1999, 2000, and 2001) or\n send them notification letters. Consequently, TPD did not comply with\n procedures outlined in the 1997 CCC memorandum that would\n have resulted in assessing about $4.6 million in potential marketing\n penalties and late payment interest charges for the importers. Table 1\n shows potential marketing penalties and late payment interest charges\n information for all nine importers as shown on the CLPR.\n\nTABLE 1\n 1\n CY 1998 CY 1999 CY 2000 CY 2001 CY 1998 \xe2\x80\x93\n 1\n TOTAL MP\'s TOTA MP\'s TOTAL MP\'s TOTAL MP\'s 2001 TOTAL\n IMPORTERS & LPIC\'s & LPIC\'s & LPIC\'s & LPIC\'s MP\'s & LPIC\'s\n A $273.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $273.61\n B 1,174,776.30 169,811.47 310,125.66 282,690.83 1,937,404.26\n C 277,102.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 277,102.06\n D 0.00 2,311.08 1,161,849.44 161.46 1,164,321.98\n E 0.00 18.81 0.00 0.00 18.81\n F 0.00 62,215.01 0.00 0.00 62,215.01\n G 0.00 0.00 1,152,863.72 0.00 1,152,863.72\n H 0.00 0.00 284,157.21 0.00 284,157.21\n I 0.00 0.00 880,202.83 0.00 880,202.83\nTotal Potential MP\'s & LPIC\'s $1,454,149.97 $234,356.37 $3,789,198.86 $282,852.29 $5,758,559.49\nLess FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Determinations (1,174,762.82) 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1,174,762.82)\nNet FSA Undetermined BDMA\n& INNCA MP\'s & LPIC\'s $277,389.15 $234356.37 $3,789,198.86 $282,852.29 $4,583,796.67\nNote: MP = marketing penalties and LPIC = late payment interest charges\n1\n The actual period of review was January 1 through July 31, 2001.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 6\n\x0c Importer B, shown in the table above, imported 185,280 kilos of tobacco\n into the United States on November 25, 1997, (SIN 97-0093). Importer\n B\xe2\x80\x99s remittance of required $8,169.37 in assessment fees were paid\n 58 days past the due date. The CLPR showed that because of\n the untimely remittance Importer B was potentially liable to CCC for\n over $1 million in marketing penalties and late payment interest\n charges. TPD sent Importer B a written notification letter dated\n March 23, 1998, regarding the untimely remittance of $8,169.37 in\n assessment fees. The letter stated that Importer B was liable to CCC for\n late payment interest charges of $87.62 and potential marketing penalties\n of $1,174,763. Subsequently, CCC determined that Importer B\xe2\x80\x99s late\n remittance was unintentional and the company had taken steps to prevent\n reoccurrences. TPD informed Importer B in a June 5, 1998, letter that the\n marketing penalties were being reduced to $2,990.83. Importer B paid\n CCC the late payment interest charges ($87.62) and marketing penalties\n ($2,990.83) for a total of $3,078.45.\n\n In contrast, TPD did not send written notification to Importer G for untimely\n remittance of assessment fees. Importer G, shown in the table\n above, imported 396,000 kilos of tobacco into the United States\n on August 30, 1999 (SIN 99-0002). Importer G\xe2\x80\x99s remittance of required\n assessment fees of about $17,460 were paid 162 days past the due date.\n The CLPR showed that because of the untimely remittance, Importer G\n was potentially liable to CCC for over $1 million in marketing penalty and\n late payment interest charges. However, TPD did not review the CLPR to\n make a marketing penalty determination nor did it send written notification\n to Importer G for the untimely remittance.\n\n TPD officials could not provide us with an explanation regarding why\n marketing penalty determinations and collection efforts were discontinued.\n However, the current acting director told us that staff that was responsible\n for monitoring the TIAP was no longer employed by the agency. In\n addition, current TPD staff was unaware of the June 4, 1997 CCC policy\n memorandum or the process to assess and collect marketing penalties.\n\n CLPR\'s are generated (twice-monthly) by TIAS and sent to TPD to notify\n management of late assessment remittances. Although, TPD received the\n twice-monthly CLPR\xe2\x80\x99s, it did not review them for marketing penalty\n determinations. CCC\'s policy memorandum should be documented in a\n directive, which would be a permanent agency record for current and\n future staff to follow.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 7\n\x0c Document procedures for assessing and\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 1 collecting marketing penalties and late\n payment interest charges on imported tobacco\n in a formal directive to help ensure adherence\n by current and future staff and establish a control mechanism to\n implement the procedures.\n\n Agency Response\n\n FSA agrees and is currently drafting a handbook, which will help ensure\n adherence by staff to procedures for assessing and collecting charges.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We agree with FSA\'s proposed action. However, to reach management\n decision, FSA needs to provide use with timeframes for completion of the\n handbook.\n\n Provide written notifications to the nine\n RECOMMENDATION NO. 2 importers identified in this report regarding\n their $4,583,796.67 in potential marketing\n penalties and late payment interest charges\n and collect amounts determined to be appropriate.\n\n Agency Response\n\n FSA agrees and will provide written notification to the tobacco importers\n who were identified as owing potential marketing penalties and late\n payment charges and collect amount determined to be appropriate, by\n December 31, 2002.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We agree with FSA\'s proposed action. However, to reach management\n decision, FSA needs to provide us with documentation that the tobacco\n importers were notified and billed for their liabilities for marketing penalties\n and late payment interest charges.\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 8\n\x0cEXHIBIT A \xe2\x80\x93 SUMMARY OF MONETARY RESULTS\n\n Recommendation\n Number Description Amount Category\n BDMA and INNCA Marketing\n penalties and late payment\n interest charges were not Questioned Cost \xe2\x80\x93\n 2 assessed and collected $4,583,796.67 Recovery Recommended\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 9\n\x0cEXHIBIT B \xe2\x80\x93 AGENCY RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 10\n\x0cEXHIBIT B \xe2\x80\x93 AGENCY RESPONSE\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 11\n\x0c ABBREVIATIONS\n\nBDMA\n Budget Deficit Marketing Assessment ......................................................................................2\n\nCCC\n Commodity Credit Corporation .................................................................................................1\nCFR\n Code of Federal Regulations......................................................................................................2\nCLPR\n Calculated Late Payment Reports..............................................................................................4\nCY\n Calendar years............................................................................................................................3\n\nFSA\n Farm Service Agency.................................................................................................................1\n\nINNCA\n Importers No Net Cost Assessment ...........................................................................................2\n\nOIG\n Office of Inspector General .......................................................................................................3\n\nSIN\n Special Identification Number ...................................................................................................4\n\nTIAP\n Tobacco Impoerters Assessment Program.................................................................................3\nTIAS\n Tobacco Importers Assessment System....................................................................................3\nTPD\n Tobacco and Peanuts Division...................................................................................................1\n\nUSDA\n U.S. Department of Agriculture.................................................................................................1\n\n\n\n\nUSDA/OIG-A/03099-164-At Page 12\n\x0c'


text:
Dolné Trhovište je obec na Slovensku v okrese Hlohovec. V obci so 637 obyvateľmi stojí pôvodne románsky kostol sv. Juraja (13. stor.), historické sedliacke domy, športový areál (ihrisko) s kúpaliskom (nefunkčným), v časti Jeleňová neskoroklasicistický kaštieľ (1855). Kaštieľ je sídlom pošty, knižnice, kultúrneho domu, nachádza sa tu vináreň. Obec je písomne známa od roku 1156.
 Referencie
 Iné projekty
 Externé odkazy
 Stránka obce
 www.apsida.sk - profil románskeho kostola
 Obce okresu Hlohovec


text:
 6.3.2013
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 62/1
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) NR. 185/2013 AL COMISIEI
 din 5 martie 2013
 de stabilire a deducerilor din anumite cote de pescuit alocate Spaniei în 2013 și în anii următori din cauza depășirii cotei pentru macrou în 2009
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1224/2009 al Consiliului din 20 noiembrie 2009 de stabilire a unui sistem comunitar de control pentru asigurarea respectării normelor politicii comune în domeniul pescuitului, de modificare a Regulamentelor (CE) nr. 847/96, (CE) nr. 2371/2002, (CE) nr. 811/2004, (CE) nr. 768/2005, (CE) nr. 2115/2005, (CE) nr. 2166/2005, (CE) nr. 388/2006, (CE) nr. 509/2007, (CE) nr. 676/2007, (CE) nr. 1098/2007, (CE) nr. 1300/2008, (CE) nr. 1342/2008 și de abrogare a Regulamentelor (CEE) nr. 2847/93, (CE) nr. 1627/94 și (CE) nr. 1966/2006 (1), în special articolul 105 alineatul (4),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Prin Regulamentul (CE) nr. 43/2009 al Consiliului (2), a fost alocată Spaniei pentru 2009 o cotă de pescuit pentru macrou în zonele ICES VIIIc, IX și X și în apele UE din zona CECAF 34.1.1.
 (2)
 Cota de pescuit pentru macrou pentru 2009 a fost redusă ca urmare a schimburilor făcute de Spania cu Franța și Polonia, în temeiul articolului 20 alineatul (5) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2371/2002 al Consiliului din 20 decembrie 2002 privind conservarea și exploatarea durabilă a resurselor piscicole în conformitate cu politica comună în domeniul pescuitului (3).
 (3)
 Comisia a detectat neconcordanțe ale datelor furnizate de Spania cu privire la pescuitul macroului în 2009 prin confruntarea datelor astfel cum au fost înregistrate și raportate în diferitele etape ale lanțului valoric, de la captură la prima vânzare. Existența acestor neconcordanțe a fost apoi coroborată cu efectuarea în Spania a mai multor audituri, misiuni de verificare și inspecții, în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1224/2009.
 (4)
 Comisia a organizat o consultare cu Spania privind deducerile avute în vedere, prin intermediul unei scrisori din data de 28 noiembrie 2011, la care autoritățile spaniole au răspuns prin scrisoarea din data de 19 decembrie 2011.
 (5)
 Spania a confirmat că și-a depășit cota de macrou în anul 2009 cu 65 429 de tone.
 (6)
 În conformitate cu articolul 2 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 2371/2002, politica comună în domeniul pescuitului asigură o exploatare a resurselor acvatice vii care oferă condiții economice, de mediu și sociale durabile.
 (7)
 Dat fiind nivelul de depășire a cotei de pescuit și având în vedere necesitatea de a ține seama de situația socioeconomică a sectorului pescuitului, precum și a industriei aferente de prelucrare din statul membru vizat și necesitatea de a limita cât mai mult posibil impactul negativ asupra acestor două sectoare, este oportun să se deducă cantitățile pescuite în exces de-a lungul unei perioade de cel puțin 11 ani.
 (8)
 Având în vedere că Regulamentul (UE) nr. 165/2011 al Comisiei (4) prevede și alte deduceri până în 2015 din cotele de pescuit alocate Spaniei pentru macrou, este necesar să se stabilească o deducere mai mică pentru anii cu suprapuneri, adică din 2013 până în 2015.
 (9)
 În plus, pentru a evita consecințele sociale și economice, atât pentru respectivul sector al pescuitului, cât și pentru industria de prelucrare aferentă, începând din 2016 cantitățile deduse anual nu ar trebui să depășească 33 % din cota anuală de macrou. În cazul în care cantitatea care urmează să fie dedusă este mai mare de 33 % din cota anuală de macrou, prezentul regulament ar trebui să fie modificat pentru a reduce cantitatea anuală care trebuie să fie dedusă, prelungind în consecință perioada de deducere.
 (10)
 Spania a solicitat să se aplice o parte din deducere cotelor sale pentru hamsie în aceeași zonă în decursul aceleiași perioade. Stocul de macrou în cauză se află în prezent în limite biologice de siguranță. Stocul de hamsie din zona VIII este exploatat la un nivel compatibil cu obținerea celui mai ridicat volum de captură din stoc pe termen lung, dar este supus unor mari fluctuații și ar beneficia pe termen lung de reduceri temporare ale exploatării sale. Marea parte a pescuitului din acest stoc de macrou (aproape 90 % din capturi) are loc în zona ICES VIIIc în perioada februarie-mai, iar stocurile de hamsie din zona VIII sunt pescuite în aceeași zonă (VIIIc), din aprilie până în iunie. Macroul și hamsia sunt specii pelagice care se găsesc la adâncime medie. Se poate concluziona că ambele stocuri se găsesc în aceeași zonă geografică și își împart același ecosistem. Prin urmare, luând în considerare obiectivele politicii comune în domeniul pescuitului, se consideră adecvat în acest caz să se opereze o parte din deducerile necesare din cotele de hamsie alocate Spaniei pentru aceeași zonă în decursul aceleiași perioade.
 (11)
 Măsurile prevăzute în prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comisiei pentru pescuit și acvacultură,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Cotele de pescuit pentru macrou (Scomber scombrus) din zonele ICES VIIIc, IX și X și din apele UE din zona CECAF 34.1.1 și pentru hamsie (Engraulis encrasicolus) din zona ICES VIII, care pot fi alocate Spaniei în anii 2013-2023, se reduc în conformitate cu anexa.
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în ziua următoare datei publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 5 martie 2013.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) JO L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
 (2) JO L 22, 26.1.2009, p. 1.
 (3) JO L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.
 (4) JO L 48, 23.2.2011, p. 11.
 ANEXĂ
 (în tone)
 Stoc
 Cota inițială 2008
 Cota adaptată 2009
 Capturi stabilite 2009
 Diferența cotă-capturi (depășire)
 Deducere 2013
 Deducere 2014
 Deducere 2015
 Deducere 2016
 Deducere 2017
 Deducere 2018
 Deducere 2019
 Deducere 2020
 Deducere 2021
 Deducere 2022
 Deducere 2023
 MAC8C
 3411
 29 529
 25 525
 90 954
 –65 429
 100
 100
 100
 5 544
 5 544
 5 544
 5 544
 5 544
 5 544
 5 544
 269
 ANE08 (1)
 3 696
 3 696
 3 696
 3 696
 3 696
 3 696
 3 696
 180
 (1) Pentru hamsie, anul trebuie înțeles ca fiind sezonul de pescuit care începe în anul respectiv.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22002D0872
 2002/872/EG: Beschluss Nr. 16/2002 vom 16. April 2002 des mit dem Abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika über die gegenseitige Anerkennung eingesetzten Gemischten Ausschusses zur Änderung des Sektoralen Anhangs über Medizinprodukte
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 302 vom 06/11/2002 S. 0030 - 0030
 Beschluss Nr. 16/2002vom 16. April 2002des mit dem Abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika über die gegenseitige Anerkennung eingesetzten Gemischten Ausschusses zur Änderung des Sektoralen Anhangs über Medizinprodukte(2002/872/EG)DER GEMISCHTE AUSSCHUSS -gestützt auf das Abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika über die gegenseitige Anerkennung, insbesondere auf Artikel 14 Absatz 4 Buchstabe b),in der Erwägung, dass gemäß Artikel 21 Absatz 2 jeder Sektorale Anhang über den Gemischten Ausschuss schriftlich von den Vertragsparteien geändert werden kann,unter Berücksichtigung zum einen der Fortschritte, die bei der Durchführung der in dem Sektoralen Anhang über Medizinprodukte vorgesehenen vertrauensbildenden Maßnahmen erzielt wurden,in Anerkennung zum anderen der Tatsache, dass die Übergangszeit verlängert werden muss, da mehr Zeit nötig ist, um die noch verbleibenden vertrauensbildenden Maßnahmen abzuschließen -BESCHLIESST:1. Der Sektorale Anhang über Medizinprodukte wird wie folgt geändert:a) Der erste Satz des Artikels 5 des Sektoralen Anhangs über Medizinprodukte wird vollständig gestrichen und durch folgenden Wortlaut ersetzt: "Unmittelbar nach dem Inkrafttreten des Abkommens beginnt eine fünfjährige Übergangsphase. Der Gemischte Ausschuss kann je nach dem in dieser Übergangsphase erzielten Fortschritt und insbesondere dann, wenn die Vertragsparteien der Auffassung sind, dass nach Artikel 9 eine repräsentative Anzahl Konformitätsbewertungsstellen in Anlage 5 aufgenommen wurde, entscheiden, die Übergangsphase zu beenden und zur Durchführungsphase überzugehen."b) Der erste Satz des Artikels 9 des Sektoralen Anhangs über Medizinprodukte wird vollständig gestrichen und durch folgenden Wortlaut ersetzt: "Vor Beginn der Durchführungsphase nehmen die Vertragsparteien eine gemeinsame Bewertung der Gleichwertigkeit der KBS vor, die an den vertrauensbildenden Maßnahmen teilgenommen haben."2. Dieser Beschluss ist in zwei Urschriften abgefasst und wird von den Vertretern des Gemischten Ausschusses unterzeichnet, die bevollmächtigt sind, für die Zwecke der Änderung des Abkommens im Namen der Vertragsparteien zu handeln. Dieser Beschluss tritt zu dem Zeitpunkt in Kraft, zu dem er von der letzten Vertragspartei unterzeichnet wird.Unterzeichnet in Washington D.C. am 4. April 2002.Im Namen der Vereinigten Staaten von AmerikaJames SanfordUnterzeichnet in Brüssel am 16. April 2002.Im Namen der Europäischen GemeinschaftPhilippe Meyer


text:
 6.8.2005
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 193/24
 SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA
 de 31 de mayo de 2005
 en el asunto T-105/03, Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou contra Consejo de la Unión Europea (1)
 (Funcionarios - Informe de calificación - Recurso de anulación - Desaparición del interés en ejercitar la acción - Sobreseimiento - Recurso de indemnización)
 (2005/C 193/38)
 Lengua de procedimiento: francés
 En el asunto T-105/03, Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou, ex-funcionaria del Consejo de la Unión Europea, con domicilio en Bruselas (Bélgica), representada por Me F. Renard, abogado, contra Consejo de la Unión Europea (agentes: Sra. M. Sims y Sr. F. Anton), que tiene por objeto, por una parte, una pretensión de anulación de la decisión por la que se emite el informe de calificación definitivo de la demandante para el período 1999/2001 y, por otra, una pretensión de indemnización del perjuicio supuestamente sufrido por ésta, el Tribunal de Primera Instancia (Sala Primera), integrado por el Sr. J.D. Cooke, Presidente, y el Sr. R. García-Valdecasas y la Sra. I. Labucka, Jueces; Secretario: Sr. I. Natsinas, administrador, ha dictado el 31 de mayo de 2005 una sentencia cuyo fallo es el siguiente:
 1)
 Sobreseer la pretensión de anulación.
 2)
 Desestimar la pretensión de indemnización por infundada.
 3)
 Cada parte soportará sus propias costas.
 (1) DO C 112, de 10.5.2003.