jurisdiction: US

text:
 698 A.2d 523 (1997)
 347 Md. 1
 CITY OF ANNAPOLIS
 v.
 ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Maryland.
 No. 84, Sept. Term, 1995.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 August 25, 1997.
 David M. Funk (Richard T. Colaresi, Steven J. Troy, Shapiro and Olander, on brief), Annapolis, Paul Garvey Goetzke, City Attorney, Annapolis, for Petitioner.
 David A. Plymyer, Deputy County Attorney (Phillip F. Scheibe, County Attorney, on brief), Annapolis, for Respondent.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J.[*], and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, KARWACKI, BELL and RAKER, JJ.
 ELDRIDGE, Judge.
 The dispositive issue in this case is whether, between 1970 and 1992, Anne Arundel County unlawfully withheld state tobacco tax revenue from the City of Annapolis. Resolution of this question turns on the continuing viability of a public local law enacted by the General Assembly, Ch. 1041 of the Acts of 1945, after Anne Arundel County in 1964 adopted a home rule charter pursuant to Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution.
 I.
 In 1945 the General Assembly enacted Ch. 1041 which added a new § 408A to Article 2 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Maryland (1930), title "Anne Arundel County." Section 408A provided that, whenever a new source of State revenue should be allocated to Anne Arundel County, unless the statute *524 making the allocation specified a different division, the County should remit 1/7 of the new revenue to the City of Annapolis for whatever use the City decided, and the County should place the remaining 6/7 in "the road funds" of the other six election districts in proportion to the assessable basis of each of the six election districts.[1]
 By Ch. 1 of the Acts of 1958, the General Assembly enacted a new "State Tobacco Tax Act" which, in addition to any other taxes on cigarettes, imposed a tax "on all cigarettes used, possessed or held" by any person for sale or use in Maryland. Three years later, the General Assembly enacted Ch. 321 of the Acts of 1961, codified in Maryland Code (1957, 1961 Supp.), Art. 81, § 460(a)(4), which distributed a portion of the tobacco tax revenue collected under the 1958 State Tobacco Tax Act to the counties and to the City of Baltimore. The 1961 statute specified that the distributed revenue was "to be credited into the general funds of each such political subdivision."[2]
 In accordance with Ch. 321 of the Acts of 1961, the State distributed $ 34,062,655.77 of tobacco tax revenue to Anne Arundel County from 1961 until 1992.[3] Between 1961 and 1969, the County remitted 1/7 of its allotted portion of tobacco tax revenue to the City of Annapolis.
 In 1964, Anne Arundel County adopted a home rule charter pursuant to Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution. Section 718 of the Anne Arundel County Charter created a budgetary scheme which replaced the prior county district road system. Among other things, § 718 abolished the prior special district road taxes and district road funds and created a "general fund" into which most new revenue would be placed.[4]
 *525 On October 29, 1965, the County Council of Anne Arundel County passed and the County Executive signed Bill No. 85, which expressly repealed several sections of Article 2 of the Code of Public Local Laws, Anne Arundel County, including Ch. 1041. In addition, Bill No. 85 codified the abandonment by the County of any dedication of funds to road maintenance and repairs, and created a new mechanism under which the County Council assumed full control over the County's highways, roads, sidewalks, alleys, bridges, drains and streets. Despite the repeal of Ch. 1041, however, the County continued until 1969 to remit 1/7 of the State tobacco tax revenue which it received to the City of Annapolis.[5]
 In 1994, in response to an inquiry from a member of the General Assembly, the Office of the Maryland Attorney General issued a memorandum which concluded that Anne Arundel County's attempted repeal of Ch. 1041 was invalid.[6]
 On December 1, 1994, the City of Annapolis commenced the present action by filing in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County a complaint for a writ of mandamus against the County. The City alleged that the County failed to remit to the City 1/7 of the state tobacco tax revenue that it received between 1970 and 1992. In its complaint, the City requested "that a Writ of Mandamus be issued by this Court commanding that Anne Arundel County, Maryland pay over to the City of Annapolis the amount of $9,242,402.14," consisting of unremitted State tobacco *526 tax revenues in the amount of $3,938,733.14 and interest, at the rate of 6%, in the amount of $5,303,669.00. In response, the County filed a motion to dismiss, raising several grounds as to why the action would not properly lie. The County did not, however, raise the defenses of limitations or laches.
 Thereafter, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County dismissed the City's complaint on the ground of laches, even though the County had not raised that defense.[7] The circuit court stated that, because the City had "slept upon its rights," laches "serves as a defense to this action." The court reasoned that "[t]wenty-five (25) years have passed since the time this action arose" and that "a writ of mandamus would cause grave economic hardship to the County...." Although it discussed the question of whether the County properly exercised its home rule powers when it repealed Ch. 1041, the circuit court did not resolve this matter.
 The City of Annapolis filed a timely notice of appeal. Prior to briefing and argument in the Court of Special Appeals, the City filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. City of Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 339 Md. 739, 664 A.2d 935 (1995).
 II.
 The City argues that the circuit court's dismissal on the ground of laches was erroneous for several reasons. Specifically, the City maintains that (1) the defenses of laches or limitations are inapplicable under the circumstances of the case,[8] (2) assuming that the defenses of laches or limitations are applicable, the twelve-year statute of limitations for specialties applies,[9] and (3) the circuit court improperly raised the issue of laches sua sponte without an adequate factual basis upon which to dismiss the City's complaint.[10]
 On the merits, the City argues that the County's attempted repeal of Ch. 1041 exceeded the County's home rule authority under Article XI-A of the Constitution and the Express Powers Act, Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Art. 25A. Characterizing Ch. 1041 as "an act of the General Assembly exercising its plenary taxing authority[]" (City's brief at 16), the City states "that the Express Powers Act has never provided to chartered counties a general taxing power" (id. at 13), citing Eastern Diversified v. Montgomery County, 319 Md. 45, 50, 570 A.2d 850, 852 (1990). The City insists that, because Ch. 1041 is a statute exercising "taxing authority," Anne Arundel County had no authority to repeal such a local tax statute enacted by the General Assembly. The City claims that it is entitled to 1/7 of the state tobacco tax revenue received by the County between 1970 and 1992.
 The County, on the other hand, argues that the circuit court properly dismissed the City's complaint on the ground of laches. The County contends that, if the pleadings *527 show both lapse of time and prejudice, an action for mandamus can be dismissed sua sponte on the ground of laches. According to the County, both of these factors were shown by the pleadings in this case. The County further argues that laches applies where, as in this case, two political subdivisions are engaging "in a tug-of-war over the proceeds from a particular excise tax...." (County's brief at 38). Finally, the County asserts that the twelve-year statute of limitations for specialties has no application in "a suit ... arising from the duty ... to refund tax payments...."
 The County also rejects the City's position on the merits. The County characterizes Ch. 1041 as a "budgetary" law within the purview of charter government, and argues that it had the power under Article XI-A of the Maryland Constitution to repeal such a local budgetary provision. Alternatively, the County argues that, even if it lacked authority to repeal Ch. 1041 of the Acts of 1945, the 1945 statute did not require that 1/7 of the state tobacco tax revenue be given to the City. The County points out that Ch. 1041 was applicable only when a state statute did not "specify a different division." The County contends that Ch. 321 of the Acts of 1961, distributing some of the state tobacco tax revenues to the counties, did "specify a different division" by providing that the money should be "credited into the general funds" of the counties.
 III.
 For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the County that Ch. 1041 of the Acts of 1945 was lawfully repealed. In light of our resolution of this issue, we need not and do not reach the circuit court's holding or the parties' arguments regarding laches and limitations.[11] We also do not reach the County's alternative statutory interpretation argument.
 A.
 Under the explicit language of Art. XI-A, § 3, of the Maryland Constitution, a chartered county has "the power to repeal or amend local laws of said ... County enacted by the General Assembly, upon all matters covered by the express powers granted" to that county. See, e.g., Ritchmount Partnership v. Board, 283 Md. 48, 57, 388 A.2d 523, 529-530 (1978). It is undisputed that Ch. 1041 of the Acts of 1945 was a local law, applicable only to Anne Arundel County.
 The City correctly argues that the Express Powers Act, Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol.), Art. 25A, which is the principal enactment setting forth the powers of chartered counties, does not grant a general taxing authority to the counties, and, with regard to the imposition of taxes, expressly grants only the authority to impose property taxes. Art. 25A, § 5(O). See, e.g., Eastern Diversified v. Montgomery County, supra, 319 Md. at 50, 570 A.2d at 852; Mont. Co. Bd. of Realtors v. Mont. Co., 287 Md. 101, 106-107, 411 A.2d 97, 100 (1980); Mont. Co. v. Md. Soft Drink Ass'n, 281 Md. 116, 128-130, 377 A.2d 486, 493 (1977). See also Controller v. Pleasure Cove, 334 Md. 450, 463-464, 639 A.2d 685, 692 (1994). Moreover, the General Assembly has not in any other statute granted broad general taxing power to Anne Arundel County. Cf. Waters v. Montgomery County, 337 Md. 15, 19, 650 A.2d 712, 713 (1994); Mont. Co. v. Md. Soft Drink Ass'n, supra, 281 Md. at 129-131, 377 A.2d at 493-494.
 The next part of the City's argument, however, cannot be sustained. Ch. 1041 was not a tax statute or a revenue raising statute or "an act of the General Assembly exercising its plenary taxing authority" (City's brief at 16). Ch. 1041 neither imposed nor authorized any tax or fee whatsoever. Not a penny came to the state or county governments as a result of Ch. 1041.
 *528 The tax statute pertinent to this controversy was Ch. 1 of the Acts of 1958, imposing a tax on cigarettes held for sale. A portion of the revenue from this tax was distributed to the counties in accordance with former § 2-1605 of the Tax General Article, to be budgeted or appropriated by each county in accordance with the law regulating appropriations in each county. Anne Arundel County at no time attempted to repeal or amend Ch. 1 of the Acts of 1958 or former § 2-1605 of the Tax General Article.
 Ch. 1041 of the Acts of 1945 was a local law regulating Anne Arundel County's appropriations of new state revenue which the County might receive, when the state law allocating the new state revenue was silent regarding the matter. Ch. 1041 was simply a local law regulating appropriations; it was plainly not a tax law.
 The City of Annapolis contends, however, that a charter county's lack of authority under the Express Powers Act, Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.), Art. 25A, to impose taxes other than property taxes, encompasses the appropriation of all revenues other than property tax revenues. The City would extend the principle that most charter counties do not have general taxing authority to include general appropriation authority. The crux of the City's argument is as follows (City's brief at 14-15):
 "The sovereign entity possessing the power to levy taxes on a particular subject has implicit authority to allocate and distribute for the common good the tax revenues collected. Such authority to apportion is necessarily incidental to the taxing power itself. It follows that because the General Assembly has the exclusive authority to levy and collect general taxes, it also has the exclusive authority to allocate general tax revenues such as those collected pursuant to Chapter 1041.
 "Similarly, Anne Arundel County possessed in 1965 the authority to allocate the property taxes collected under the provisions of Section 5(0) of the Express Powers Act.... It did not, however, have the authority to allocate general tax revenues...."
 The City's theory wholly fails to distinguish between tax laws on the one hand and appropriation laws or laws regulating appropriations on the other. Furthermore, it overlooks our cases holding that counties are authorized generally to appropriate revenues for county governmental purposes.
 While in some circumstances a constitutional or other legal restriction with regard to tax laws may also be applied to appropriation laws and vice versa, and while tax provisions and appropriation provisions are sometimes contained in the same statute, nevertheless a tax law and an appropriation law are not the same. One raises revenue and the other authorizes the disbursement of funds. See generally, e.g., Baltimore County C.A.U.T. v. Baltimore County, 321 Md. 184, 582 A.2d 510 (1990); Kelly v. Marylanders For Sports Sanity, 310 Md. 437, 530 A.2d 245 (1987); Bayne v. Secretary of State, 283 Md. 560, 569-570, 392 A.2d 67, 72 (1978); Panitz v. Comptroller, 247 Md. 501, 232 A.2d 891 (1967); McKeldin v. Steedman, 203 Md. 89, 98 A.2d 561 (1953); Dorsey v. Petrott, 178 Md. 230, 13 A.2d 630 (1940). The Maryland Constitution itself draws a distinction between tax laws and appropriation laws, although in certain instances it requires that an appropriation law also contain a tax provision. See, e.g., Article III, §§ 32, 34, 51 and 52.
 The Express Powers Act, Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.), Art. 25A, also reflects a clear difference between tax laws and appropriation laws. Section 5(O) of the Act expressly authorizes charter counties to impose property taxes, but the Act does not authorize other types of taxes. No similar distinction is made or implied in the statute between different types of appropriation laws. The principle set forth in our previously cited cases, that under the Express Powers Act charter counties do not have authority generally to impose taxes, has never been applied to appropriation laws.
 Moreover, this Court in Schneider v. Lansdale, 191 Md. 317, 323, 327, 61 A.2d 671, 673, 675 (1948), held that "the making of budgets and the appropriation of money for county expenses, debt, service, etc." is a power traditionally belonging to all counties, including *529 charter counties, and that the purpose of Article XI-A of the Constitution "was not to restrict county authorities in these duties long exercised by them." See also City of Bowie v. County Comm'rs., 258 Md. 454, 465, 267 A.2d 172, 178 (1970); Scull v. Montgomery Citizens, 249 Md. 271, 274, 239 A.2d 92, 93-94 (1968).
 Under the Express Powers Act and other laws, charter counties have a multitude of government functions to perform, virtually all of which require the expenditure of significant sums of money. If, as the City argues, charter counties did not have the authority to appropriate revenues other than property tax revenues, they would be seriously hampered in carrying out their functions. See, e.g., Co. Com'rs v. Supervisors of Elec., 192 Md. 196, 211, 63 A.2d 735, 742 (1949) (charter counties "have implied authority to exercise all such powers as may be necessary or fairly implied in or incident to the enjoyment and exercise of their express powers"). The City's argument is inconsistent with logic as well as with this Court's prior opinions.
 B.
 Our rejection of the City's argument, however, does not answer the question of whether Anne Arundel County validly repealed Ch. 1041 of the Acts of 1945.
 As previously indicated, under Article XI-A, § 3, of the Maryland Constitution, a charter county's power to repeal a public local law of the county enacted by the General Assembly is limited to laws upon "matters covered by the express powers granted as above provided...." The concomitant prohibition upon the General Assembly's authority to enact a public local law for a charter county, set forth in Article XI-A, § 4, of the Constitution, is similarly limited to a public local law "on any subject covered by the express powers granted as above provided."
 The general authority of charter counties to budget and appropriate funds is not expressly granted by the Express Powers Act or by any other enactment of the General Assembly. Under our cases, budget bills and appropriation laws by charter counties "are none of them `legislation' as the word is used in [Article XI-A, § 3]." Schneider v. Lansdale, supra, 191 Md. at 328, 61 A.2d at 676. See Scull v. Montgomery Citizens, supra, 249 Md. at 274, 239 A.2d at 93-94. Instead of constituting an express power of charter counties to enact legislation, within the meaning of Article XI-A, §§ 3 and 4, the authority to budget and appropriate revenue is implicit in Article XI-A and is an inherent power of all Maryland counties. Schneider v. Lansdale, supra.
 Since the authority to enact budgets and appropriate funds is not an "express power" of charter counties within the meaning of Article XI-A, §§ 3 and 4, of the Constitution, it follows that charter counties are not authorized by § 3 to repeal local laws enacted by the General Assembly regulating appropriations, and that the General Assembly is not precluded by § 4 from enacting such a local law for a charter county. In fact, the General Assembly, subsequent to Anne Arundel County's adoption of a charter, has enacted local laws regulating the appropriation by Anne Arundel County of tax revenues authorized by the General Assembly. See, e.g., Ch. 494 of the Acts of 1977; Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.), Art. 24, § 9-602(b).
 Nevertheless, § 3 of Article XI-A is not the sole source of authority for a charter county to repeal a public local law enacted by the General Assembly. Section 1 of Article XI-A provides that, upon the adoption of a home rule charter, "any public local laws inconsistent with the provisions of said charter... shall be thereby repealed." See Co. Com'rs v. Supervisors of Elec., supra, 192 Md. at 206, 63 A.2d at 739 ("All public local laws inconsistent with the Charter are repealed").
 Furthermore, § 1 of Article XI-A authorizes charter provisions concerning the organization and structure of the county government including the method or system for making governmental decisions. See Ritchmount Partnership v. Board, supra, 283 Md. at 58, 64, 388 A.2d at 530, 533 ("There are, however, certain powers implicit in Article XI-A.... These powers necessarily proceed from § 1 of the Home Rule Amendment and have as their object the initial organization and formation of charter government in *530 the counties. * * * We hold therefore that Article XI-A, § 1 conferred upon the citizens of Anne Arundel County the right to reserve unto themselves by express charter provision the power to refer legislation enacted by the Anne Arundel County Council"). See also Bd. of Election Laws v. Talbot County, 316 Md. 332, 347-348, 558 A.2d 724, 731-732 (1989); Griffith v. Wakefield, 298 Md. 381, 385, 470 A.2d 345, 347 (1984); Cheeks v. Cedlair Corp., 287 Md. 595, 607-608, 415 A.2d 255, 261-262 (1980).
 This Court has taken the position that the method or system for budgeting and appropriating revenues set forth in a county's charter, including the executive budget system in effect in several counties, constitutes proper charter material under Article XI-A, § 1. The budgetary and appropriation system "is a fundamental aspect of the form and structure of" a home rule county's government. Board v. Smallwood, 327 Md. 220, 241, 608 A.2d 1222, 1232 (1992).
 Consequently, a public local budgetary law of a county, which is inconsistent with the basic budgetary and appropriation system set forth in a later home rule charter for that county, would, under Art. XI-A, § 1, be repealed by the adoption of the charter. A subsequent ordinance enacted by the county council expressly repealing the earlier public local law would simply constitute proper "housekeeping legislation," removing an obsolete and previously-repealed provision from the code.
 C.
 Ch. 1041 of the Acts of 1945 was inconsistent with the subsequently adopted charter of Anne Arundel county and thus was validly repealed by the charter. Ch. 1041 was not like other enactments by the General Assembly simply directing Anne Arundel County to appropriate specific revenues for certain purposes.[12] Instead, Ch. 1041 regulated appropriations of any future undesignated new state revenue in a manner totally inconsistent with the budget and appropriation system of the 1964 Anne Arundel County charter. Appropriations under Ch. 1041 were to be in accordance with the pre-charter division of the county into seven election districts, with the city of Annapolis being one of those districts and thus receiving 1/7 of the funds. Outside of Annapolis, the money was to be placed in the road funds of each other election district.
 As previously discussed, the charter abolished the election-district and road-fund method of appropriating revenue. Under § 718(b) of the charter, revenues "from taxes, grants, State revenues and other receipts" are to be paid into a general fund. Appropriations from the general fund are to be in accordance with the executive budget system mandated by the county charter.
 As the method of appropriating revenue received from the State under Ch. 1041 was inconsistent with the budget and appropriation system under the Anne Arundel County charter, Ch. 1041 was repealed by that charter. Thus, the City of Annapolis was not entitled to mandamus relief based upon Ch. 1041.
 JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY AFFIRMED. PETITIONER TO PAY COSTS.
 NOTES
 [*] Murphy, C.J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court; after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and the adoption of this opinion.
 [1] New § 408A of Article 2 of the Code of Public Local Laws, as enacted by Ch. 1041 of the Acts of 1945, provided in its entirety as follows:
 "408A. Whenever any portion of any new State revenue as hereinafter defined shall be allocated to Anne Arundel County, unless the statute making the allocation shall specify a different division or use of the same, the said County shall remit one-seventh thereof to the City of Annapolis for such uses as may be decided by the Mayor, Counselor and Aldermen of said City. The remaining six-sevenths shall be placed in the road funds of the other election districts of said County excluding the Sixth Election District, and shall be divided among said other election districts in proportion to the assessable basis of each of said other election districts. This Section shall apply only to allocations of State revenues from new sources originated by any of the Acts of 1945 or any subsequent regular or special session of the General Assembly of Maryland; and shall not apply to any of such allocations now being received by said County under laws heretofore enacted prior to the 1945 Session, nor to future allocations from present sources of State revenues originated prior to the 1945 Session."
 [2] Article 81, § 460(a)(4), was recodified without substantial change as Maryland Code (1978, 1988 Repl.Vol.), § 2-1605 of the Tax-General Article. Article 81, § 460(a)(4), provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
 "§ 460. Payment of proceeds into special fund; disbursements; local tax prohibited.
 * * *
 "(4) After the distributions provided for [above], the remainder shall be paid and distributed quarterly to each county and to the City of Baltimore, to be credited into the general funds of each such political subdivision. The amount to be paid to each political subdivision shall be a prorata share of the remainder, in the same ratio from time to time as the population of the political subdivision is to the population of the State. In no event, however, shall a political subdivision be paid under this distribution for any State fiscal year a sum of money less than that political subdivision received during the calendar year of 1960 as the net collection, after the deduction of administrative and collection expenses, from a cigarette tax then imposed and collected by that political subdivision."
 [3] Section 2-1605 of the Tax-General Article, formerly Art. 81, § 460(a)(4), first enacted by Ch. 321 of the Acts of 1961, was repealed by Ch. 1 of the Acts of the First Special Session 1992.
 [4] As originally enacted as part of the Charter, § 718 provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
 "Section 718. COMPOSITION AND LIMITATION UPON COUNTY FUNDS AND LEVIES; SPECIAL TAXES; BOND OBLIGATION. For the fiscal and tax year beginning July 1, 1965 and thereafter the following provisions shall provisions shall apply:
 "(a) SPECIAL FUNDS; REVENUE AND RECEIPTS; APPROPRIATIONS. All revenues and receipts from utility assessments; from special services or benefit charges; from special taxes or assessments imposed upon special taxing areas for special or particular services, purposes or benefits; from funds held by the County as trustee or agent; or from bond proceeds, shall be paid into and appropriated from special funds created therefor.
 "(b) GENERAL REVENUE AND RECEIPTS; APPROPRIATIONS. All other revenues and receipts of the County from taxes, grants, State revenues and other receipts shall be paid into and appropriated from the general fund which shall be the primary fund for the financing of current expenses for the conduct of County business. A tax imposed upon all assessable property or class of property in the County which exempts assessable property in an incorporated municipality subject to the provisions of Article XI-E of the State Constitution shall not be deemed or construed to be a `special tax' for the purposes of this section and all receipts from such tax shall be paid into and appropriated from the general fund.
 * * *
 "(d) LEVY FOR ROADS. No tax for the purpose of raising revenues for the construction and maintenance of public roads shall be levied upon any assessable property in the County except on a Countywide basis, exclusive of incorporated municipalities subject to the provisions of Article XI-E of the State Constitution which operate and maintain their own road or street system."
 In a memorandum entitled "Notes to the Proposed Home Rule Charter of Anne Arundel County," counsel to the Anne Arundel County Charter Board concluded that "subsection (b) of 718 repeals [Ch. 1041] because of the obvious inconsistency."
 [5] It is not entirely clear from the record why the County continued to remit 1/7 of the tobacco taxes to the City between 1965 and 1969. In its brief and at oral argument, the County explained that during this period, Anne Arundel County was implementing a "property tax rate `differential' for property owners" in the City of Annapolis who would be taxed at a lower rate "for services provided by the City which otherwise would be provided by the County." At the same time, the County was planning to eliminate the 1/7 remittance to the City. The County maintains that "the fact that the property tax rate differential was `phased in' just prior to the time that payments to the City of tobacco tax revenues were being `phased out' was not a product of chance."
 [6] Assistant Attorney General Richard E. Israel, who signed the memorandum, adopted the position that, "[a]lthough Anne Arundel County became a charter home rule county in 1965 and repealed the remittance requirement later that year, it is my view that the county lacked the authority to repeal this provision of law." He reasoned, in pertinent part, as follows:
 "In 1965, as at the present time, the Express Powers Act conferred on the charter counties broad power to enact ordinances concerning their roads and sidewalks. [Citations omitted]. However, this Act has never conferred on such counties any general revenue raising power. [Citations omitted]. Moreover, this Act, as it existed in 1965 and as it exists today, contains no provision which can reasonably be construed to give the charter counties the power to enact local laws repealing State laws providing for the distribution of new State revenue in a particular county.
 "Because the State law on distributing new State revenue in Anne Arundel County was codified in a chapter on roads, streets and sidewalks in the 1957 Anne Arundel County Code, it may be that the County Council thought it was acting under its broad power over roads and sidewalks. However, as this State law concerned the distribution of State revenue and there is no provision of the Express Powers Act which can be construed to authorize the County to repeal this law, the 1965 ordinance was without legal effect to the extent that it purported to repeal this law."
 [7] This Court has held that a circuit court may, in an action for mandamus, "refuse to grant relief to a complainant, who ... appears to have been guilty of laches, although that defense was not interposed by the defendant." Ipes v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 224 Md. 180, 183-184, 167 A.2d 337, 339 (1961).
 [8] The City contends that the defenses of laches or limitations are not applicable "when the plaintiff is a governmental entity asserting an action that arises from the exercise of a governmental function." According to the City, collecting and distributing tax revenues constitutes a "govern-mental function" that is no less applicable when one governmental agency asserts a claim against another. The City states that the collection and receipt of tax revenues to increase "the City's general fund is solely for the public benefit and common good of all the residents of Annapolis, with no `profit' inuring to the City."
 [9] Relying on Mattare v. Cunningham, 148 Md. 309, 129 A. 654 (1925), the City argues that the 12 year statute of limitations for specialties under Code (1974, 1995 Repl.Vol.), § 5-102(6) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, applies when a statute creates an affirmative duty or obligation. According to the City, Chapter 1041 creates an affirmative duty "on the County to remit to the City one-seventh of the State tobacco taxes allocated to the County...."
 [10] In the City's view,
 "[i]t is premature to dismiss the complaint on the ground[] of laches without exploring the factual issues underlying the accrual of the cause of action, i.e., when the City discovered the wrong advice; whether the delay was unreasonable; what prejudice the County can prove; and how the applicable period of limitations, if any, affects the nature of any theoretical prejudice suffered by the defendant."
 [11] Although the circuit court did not decide whether Ch. 1041 was validly repealed, the County, "as appellee, is entitled to seek an affirmance of the circuit court's ... decision on any ground adequately shown by the record," Insurance Commissioner v. Equitable, 339 Md. 596, 612 n. 8, 664 A.2d 862, 870 n. 8 (1995), and cases there cited. See also Jenkins v. Karlton, 329 Md. 510, 530, 620 A.2d 894, 904 (1993). Moreover, both the City and County before this Court have treated the validity of the county's repeal of Ch. 1041 as the principal issue in the case.
 [12] Compare Code (1984, 1991 Repl.Vol., 1996 Supp.), § 2-404(c) of the Family Law Article, directing that Anne Arundel County apply the proceeds from a particular license fee "to promote or fund domestic violence programs;" Code (1957, 1996 Repl.Vol.), Art. 24, § 9-602(b), requiring that revenues from specified taxes collected by Anne Arundel County within the City of Annapolis "shall be allocated and distributed in equal amounts to the City of Annapolis and to Anne Arundel County."


type: wikipedia

text:
Anton Adalbert Bresztyenszky - "Brestyánszky de Bresztina" (* 5. august 1786, Nitrianske Pravno – † 15. február 1850, Tihany, Uhorsko, dnes Maďarsko) bol uhorský matematik a autor učebníc.
 Životopis
 Narodil sa v Nitrianskom Pravne v rodine Antona Bresztyenského a jeho manželky Anny. Pochádzal zo slovenského zemianskeho rodu pôvodom z Briestenného. Po gymnaziálnych štúdiách v Prievidzi a v Stoličnom Belehrade (Székesfehérvár) vstúpil v roku 1803 do benediktínskeho rádu. Filozofický kurz absolvoval v Rábe (Győr), teologické štúdiá v Pannonhalme, v roku 1810 ho vysvätili za kňaza. V období rokov 1810–1838 bol profesorom matematiky a fyziky na rádovom gymnáziu, resp. kráľovskej akadémii v Rábe, v roku 1813 získal doktorát filozofie na peštianskej univerzite a od roku 1838 bol vymenovaný za opáta rádového domu v Tihanyi. Na tomto poste pôsobil až do svojej smrti. Zomrel 15. februára 1851 v Tihany (dnešné Maďarsko).
 Prínos
 Zaslúžil sa o zveľaďovanie opátstva a o rozvoj Balatonfüredu ako kúpeľného centra na Balatone. Zaujala ho aj myšlienka chovu priadky morušovej a za týmto účelom dal v okolí opátstva vysadiť veľa moruší. Napísal niekoľko dobrých učebníc matematiky pre gymnáziá, resp. kráľovské akadémie a knižne vydal aj svoje prednášky z aplikovanej matematiky (mechaniky) na akadémii v Rábe. Do dejín matematiky v Uhorsku sa zapísal najmä svojou terminologickou štúdiou (Tudományos Gyüjtemény, 1823), v ktorej zhromaždil vtedy známe maďarské odborné výrazy z matematiky, pritom mnohé z nich upravil a doplnil. V štúdii upozornil aj na potrebu zjednotenia a dotvorenia vtedy ešte neustálenej maďarskej matematickej terminológie a uverejnil aj výzvu v tomto smere. Jeho štúdia a učebnice, v ktorých uvádza aj maďarské ekvivalenty k latinským výrazom, sa stali jedným z hlavných prameňov prvého maďarského matematického terminologického slovníka (Mathematikai müszótár, Budín, 1834) vydaného Uhorskou akadémiou vied. Za terminologickú a učebnicovú tvorbu ho v roku 1836 zvolili za člena korešpondenta UAV.
 Externé odkazy
 Záznam o narodení a krste v matrike; pokrstený ako Antonius Briesztanszkÿ
 Slovenskí matematici
 Uhorskí matematici
 Slovenskí pedagógovia
 Uhorskí pedagógovia
 Slovenskí autori náučnej literatúry
 Uhorskí autori náučnej literatúry
 Slovenskí rímskokatolícki kňazi
 Uhorskí rímskokatolícki kňazi
 Osobnosti z Nitrianskeho Pravna
 Slovenskí šľachtici
 Uhorskí šľachtici
 Príslušníci zemianskeho stavu


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 2.9.2020
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 286/5
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2020/1243 AL COMISIEI
 din 1 septembrie 2020
 de prelungire a derogării de la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006 al Consiliului în ceea ce privește distanța minimă față de coastă și adâncimea minimă a mării pentru năvoadele de navă utilizate pentru pescuitul de guvid alb și guvid Ferrer (Aphia minuta și Pseudaphia ferreri) și de smarid comun (Spicara smaris) în anumite ape teritoriale ale Spaniei (Insulele Baleare)
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006 al Consiliului din 21 decembrie 2006 privind măsurile de gestionare pentru exploatarea durabilă a resurselor halieutice în Marea Mediterană, de modificare a Regulamentului (CEE) nr. 2847/93 și de abrogare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1626/94 (1), în special articolul 13 alineatul (5),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Articolul 13 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006 interzice utilizarea uneltelor remorcate în raza a 3 mile marine de la coastă sau în cadrul izobatei de 50 m, în cazul în care această adâncime este atinsă la o distanță mai mică de coastă.
 (2)
 La cererea unui stat membru, Comisia poate să permită o derogare de la articolul 13 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006, sub rezerva îndeplinirii unei serii de condiții prevăzute la articolul 13 alineatele (5) și (9).
 (3)
 O derogare de la articolul 13 alineatul (1) primul paragraf pentru utilizarea năvoadelor de navă pentru pescuitul de guvid alb și guvid Ferrer (Aphia minuta și Pseudaphia ferreri) și de smarid comun (Spicara smaris) în apele teritoriale spaniole ale Insulelor Baleare a fost acordată pentru prima dată, până la 31 decembrie 2016, prin Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 1233/2013 al Comisiei (2). Această derogare s-a bazat pe o derogare suplimentară de la dimensiunea minimă a ochiurilor de plasă, adoptată de Spania în temeiul articolului 9 alineatul (7) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006, deoarece, în lipsa acesteia, activitățile de pescuit în cauză nu ar fi putut avea loc și ar fi trebuit să se închidă.
 (4)
 Prin Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) 2019/662 al Comisiei (3) a fost acordată o prelungire a derogării până la 31 decembrie 2019, ținând seama de planul de gestionare a activităților de pescuit vizate de derogare întocmit de Spania în temeiul articolului 19 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006.
 (5)
 La 3 septembrie 2019, autoritățile spaniole au solicitat Comisiei să prelungească derogarea de la articolul 13 alineatul (1) primul paragraf dincolo de data de 31 decembrie 2019. Spania a prezentat un proiect al noului plan de gestionare pentru perioada 2019-2022 care va fi reglementat de normele naționale existente (4). Spania a furnizat informații actualizate pentru a justifica reînnoirea derogării.
 (6)
 Comitetul științific, tehnic și economic pentru pescuit (CSTEP) a evaluat proiectul de plan de gestionare în noiembrie 2019 (5) și cererea de prelungire a derogării în martie 2020 (6).
 (7)
 CSTEP a concluzionat că planul de gestionare a pescuitului cu năvoade de navă în Insulele Baleare pentru perioada 2016-2019 a fost pus în aplicare în mod corespunzător, iar condițiile în care a fost acordată în 2016 derogarea privind distanța minimă față de coastă și adâncimea minimă sunt îndeplinite în continuare. CSTEP observă că uneltele de pescuit par a fi foarte selective.
 (8)
 CSTEP a sugerat anumite ajustări, în special prin stabilirea unei TAC sezoniere în conformitate cu capturile recente și prin clarificarea impactului potențial al activităților de pescuit de guvid cu jonquiller și straturile de iarbă de mare din două golfuri.
 (9)
 Având în vedere evaluarea efectuată de CSTEP, Comisia observă că autoritățile spaniole s-au angajat, printr-o scrisoare trimisă Comisiei la 4 iunie 2020 (7), să alinieze capturile totale admisibile (TAC) sezoniere la media capturilor observate în ultimii ani și să lanseze un studiu științific pentru a clarifica dacă pescuitul a interacționat cu straturile de iarbă de mare în cele două golfuri în cauză. Spania s-a angajat, de asemenea, să interzică pescuitul în cele două golfuri în cauză, cel puțin până când CSTEP va evalua studiul științific și să informeze Comisia cu privire la acțiunile întreprinse pentru a da curs angajamentelor de mai sus.
 (10)
 Derogarea solicitată de Spania îndeplinește condițiile prevăzute la articolul 13 alineatele (5) și (9) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006.
 (11)
 Există anumite constrângeri geografice specifice, având în vedere dimensiunea redusă a platformei continentale și distribuția spațială a speciilor vizate, care se limitează exclusiv la anumite zone costiere unde adâncimile sunt mai mici de 50 m.
 (12)
 Pescuitul nu are un impact semnificativ asupra mediului marin, deoarece năvoadele de navă sunt remorcate în coloana de apă. Datorită utilizării ecosondelor, pescuitul este foarte selectiv, înregistrându-se puține capturi accidentale. În plus, capturile nedorite sunt eliberate imediat, vii, cu o rată de supraviețuire foarte ridicată.
 (13)
 Derogarea solicitată de Spania vizează un număr limitat de 55 de nave.
 (14)
 Pescuitul nu poate fi efectuat cu o altă unealtă, deoarece năvoadele de navă sunt singurele unelte de pescuit autorizate pentru capturarea acestor trei specii vizate care se adună în bancuri în apele costiere de mică adâncime.
 (15)
 Cererea se referă la nave înregistrate în cadrul recensământului maritim gestionat de Direcția generală pentru pescuit și mediul marin a Insulelor Baleare, care practică acest pescuit de mai mult de cinci ani și care își desfășoară activitatea conform planului de gestionare care reglementează pescuitul de guvid alb și guvid Ferrer (Aphia minuta și Pseudaphia ferreri) și de smarid comun (Spicara smaris) cu năvoade de navă. Navele respective sunt incluse pe o listă comunicată Comisiei în conformitate cu cerințele prevăzute la articolul 13 alineatul (9) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006.
 (16)
 Planul de gestionare garantează că nu vor exista creșteri viitoare ale efortului de pescuit, deoarece se vor elibera autorizații de pescuit numai celor 55 de nave specificate, fiecare având o lungime maximă de 12 m și o putere maximă de 198,5 kW. În plus, se stabilesc un tonaj și o putere maxime cumulate, iar activitatea de pescuit se va închide până la următorul sezon de pescuit, în cazul în care este atinsă TAC sezonieră.
 (17)
 Activitățile de pescuit vizate îndeplinesc cerințele articolului 4 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006 care permite pescuitul deasupra habitatelor protejate, dacă acesta se efectuează în anumite condiții, fără a atinge stratul de iarbă de mare.
 (18)
 În plus, activitățile de pescuit vizate nu ar fi putut avea loc fără o derogare de la dimensiunea minimă aplicabilă a ochiurilor de plasă.
 (19)
 Cu toate acestea, având în vedere că activitățile de pescuit în cauză sunt foarte selective, au un impact neglijabil asupra mediului marin și nu sunt afectate de dispozițiile articolului 4 alineatul (5) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006, Spania a autorizat în trecut derogarea de la dimensiunea minimă a ochiurilor de plasă în temeiul articolului 9 alineatul (7) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006.
 (20)
 Articolul 9 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006 a fost eliminat prin Regulamentul (UE) 2019/1241 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului (8). Cu toate acestea, în conformitate cu punctul 4 din partea B a anexei IX la Regulamentul (UE) 2019/1241, derogările de la dimensiunile minime ale ochiurilor de plasă adoptate în temeiul articolului 9 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006 care erau în vigoare la 14 august 2019 pot continua să se aplice, cu condiția să nu conducă la creșterea capturilor de puiet. Această prelungire a derogării îndeplinește condițiile prevăzute la articolul 15 alineatul (5) și la punctul 4 din partea B a anexei IX la Regulamentul (UE) 2019/1241, deoarece nu conduce la o deteriorare a standardelor de selectivitate, în particular la o creștere a capturilor de puiet, existente la 14 august 2019 și vizează atingerea obiectivelor și a țintelor stabilite la articolele 3 și 4 din respectivul regulament.
 (21)
 Activitățile de pescuit în cauză îndeplinesc cerințele de înregistrare prevăzute la articolul 14 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1224/2009 al Consiliului (9).
 (22)
 Activitățile de pescuit în cauză se desfășoară la o distanță foarte mică de coastă și nu interferează așadar cu activitățile de pescuit ale altor nave.
 (23)
 Activitățile de pescuit în cauză sunt reglementate în planul de gestionare al Spaniei pentru a se asigura un nivel minim al capturilor din speciile menționate în anexa IX la Regulamentul (UE) 2019/1241.
 (24)
 Năvoadele de navă nu vizează cefalopodele.
 (25)
 Planul de gestionare adoptat de Spania include măsuri pentru monitorizarea activităților de pescuit, astfel cum se prevede la articolul 13 alineatul (9) al treilea paragraf din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006.
 (26)
 Prin urmare, este oportun ca derogarea solicitată să fie acordată.
 (27)
 Spania trebuie să raporteze Comisiei la timp și în conformitate cu planul de monitorizare prevăzut în planul său de gestionare.
 (28)
 O limitare a duratei derogării va permite adoptarea rapidă a unor măsuri de gestionare corective, în cazul în care monitorizarea planului de gestionare va indica o stare de conservare nesatisfăcătoare a stocului exploatat, contribuind totodată la îmbogățirea cunoștințelor științifice în vederea stabilirii unui plan de gestionare mai bun. Perioada de derogare trebuie să se încheie la sfârșitul sezonului de pescuit. În consecință, derogarea trebuie să se aplice până la 30 aprilie 2023.
 (29)
 Întrucât derogarea acordată prin Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) 2019/662 a expirat la 31 decembrie 2019, pentru a asigura continuitatea juridică, prezentul regulament trebuie să se aplice de la 1 ianuarie 2020. Din motive de securitate juridică, prezentul regulament trebuie să intre în vigoare în regim de urgență.
 (30)
 Măsurile prevăzute de prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comitetului pentru pescuit și acvacultură,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Derogare
 Articolul 13 alineatul (1) primul paragraf din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006 nu se aplică, în apele teritoriale ale Spaniei adiacente coastelor Insulelor Baleare, pescuitului de guvid alb și guvid Ferrer (Aphia minuta și Pseudaphia ferreri) și de smarid comun (Spicara smaris) cu năvoade de navă folosite de nave care îndeplinesc următoarele cerințe:
 (a)
 sunt înregistrate în cadrul recensământului maritim gestionat de Direcția generală pentru pescuit și mediul marin a Insulelor Baleare;
 (b)
 practică acest tip de pescuit de mai mult de cinci ani și nu implică nicio creștere viitoare a efortului de pescuit depus;
 (c)
 dețin o autorizație de pescuit și operează conform planului de gestionare adoptat de Spania în conformitate cu articolul 19 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006.
 Articolul 2
 Planul de monitorizare și raportarea
 Spania transmite Comisiei un raport întocmit în conformitate cu planul de monitorizare prevăzut în planul de gestionare menționat la articolul 1 litera (c), pentru prima dată până la 30 septembrie 2020 și, ulterior, la fiecare 12 luni.
 Articolul 3
 Intrarea în vigoare și perioada de aplicare
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în ziua următoare datei publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Se aplică de la 1 ianuarie 2020 până la 30 aprilie 2023.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 1 septembrie 2020.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) JO L 409, 30.12.2006, p. 11.
 (2) Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 1233/2013 al Comisiei din 29 noiembrie 2013 de instituire a unei derogări de la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006 cu privire la distanța minimă față de coastă și adâncimea minimă a mării pentru năvoadele de navă utilizate pentru pescuitul guvidului alb și guvidului Ferrer (Aphia minuta și Pseudaphia ferreri) și al smaridului comun (Spicara smaris) în anumite ape teritoriale ale Spaniei (Insulele Baleare) (JO L 322, 3.12.2013, p. 17).
 (3) Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) 2019/662 al Comisiei din 25 aprilie 2019 de prelungire a derogării de la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1967/2006 al Consiliului cu privire la distanța minimă față de coastă și adâncimea minimă a mării pentru năvoadele de navă utilizate pentru pescuitul de guvid alb (Aphia minuta), de guvid Ferrer (Pseudaphia ferreri) și de smarid comun (Spicara smaris) în anumite ape teritoriale ale Spaniei (Insulele Baleare) (JO L 112, 26.4.2019, p. 16).
 (4) Decreto 19/2019, de 15 de marzo, por el que se establece el Plan de Gestión Pluriinsular para la Pesca con Artes de Tiro Tradicionales en aguas de las Illes Balears (BOIB No 35, 16.3.2019, p. 9442).
 (5) Comitetul științific, tehnic și economic pentru pescuit – Raportul celei de a 62-a sesiuni plenare (PLEN-19-03), Oficiul pentru Publicații al Uniunii Europene, Luxemburg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-14169-3, doi:10.2760/1597, JRC118961.
 (6) Comitetul științific, tehnic și economic pentru pescuit – Raportul celei de a 63-a sesiuni plenare (PLEN-20-01), Oficiul pentru Publicații al Uniunii Europene, Luxemburg, 2020, ISBN 978-92-76-18117-0, doi:10.2760/465398, JRC120479.
 (7) Ares(2020)2879866.
 (8) Regulamentul (UE) 2019/1241 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 20 iunie 2019 privind conservarea resurselor piscicole și protecția ecosistemelor marine prin măsuri tehnice, de modificare a Regulamentelor (CE) nr. 1967/2006 și (CE) nr. 1224/2009 ale Consiliului și a Regulamentelor (UE) nr. 1380/2013, (UE) 2016/1139, (UE) 2018/973, (UE) 2019/472 și (UE) 2019/1022 ale Parlamentului European și ale Consiliului și de abrogare a Regulamentelor (CE) nr. 894/97, (CE) nr. 850/98, (CE) nr. 2549/2000, (CE) nr. 254/2002, (CE) nr. 812/2004 și (CE) nr. 2187/2005 ale Consiliului (JO L 198, 25.7.2019, p. 105).
 (9) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1224/2009 al Consiliului din 20 noiembrie 2009 de stabilire a unui sistem de control al Uniunii 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 (JO L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1).


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21998D0205(06)
 Gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 65/97 av den 4 oktober 1997 om ändring av bilaga II (Tekniska föreskrifter, standarder, provning och certifiering) till EES-avtalet
 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning nr L 030 , 05/02/1998 s. 0036 - 0036
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉNS BESLUT nr 65/97 av den 4 oktober 1997 om ändring av bilaga II (Tekniska föreskrifter, standarder, provning och certifiering) till EES-avtalet GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉN HAR BESLUTAT FÖLJANDEmed beaktande av Avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, i dess lydelse enligt protokollet med justeringar av Avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, nedan kallat "avtalet", särskilt artikel 98 i detta, ochmed beaktande av följande:Bilaga II till avtalet ändrades genom Gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 49/96 (1).Kommissionens nittonde direktiv 96/41/EG av den 25 juni 1996 om anpassning till den tekniska utvecklingen av bilagorna II, III, VI och VII till rådets direktiv 76/768/EEG om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om kosmetiska produkter (2) bör införlivas med avtalet.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1 Följande strecksats skall läggas till i punkt 1 (rådets direktiv 76/768/EEG) i kapitel XVI i bilaga II till avtalet:"- 396 L 0041: Kommissionens nittonde direktiv 96/41/EG av den 25 juni 1996 (EGT L 198, 8.8.1996, s. 36)."Artikel 2 Texterna till kommissionens nittonde direktiv 96/41/EG på isländska och norska, som bifogas respektive språkversion av detta beslut, är giltiga.Artikel 3 Detta beslut träder i kraft den 5 oktober 1997 under förutsättning att alla anmälningar enligt artikel 103.1 i avtalet har gjorts till Gemensamma EES-kommittén.Artikel 4 Detta beslut skall offentliggöras i EES-delen av och EES-supplementet till Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning.Utfärdat i Bryssel den 4 oktober 1997.På Gemensamma EES-kommitténs vägnarE. BULLOrdförande(1) EGT L 21, 23.1.1997, s. 3.(2) EGT L 198, 8.8.1996, s. 36.


text:
Della guerra (in tedesco: Vom Kriege) è un'opera di Carl von Clausewitz, composta di otto libri. Pubblicato nel 1832, ancor oggi considerato uno dei più grandi trattati di strategia militare mai scritti, e tuttora adottato come libro di testo da numerose accademie militari.
 Clausewitz morì prima di poterlo terminare: dell'opera, edita postuma per opera della moglie, soltanto il primo libro è nella forma definitiva (come chiarito dall'autore stesso in una nota autografa) e mostra una sistematicità e una profondità di pensiero che lo rendono attuale anche a distanza di due secoli. Il resto dell'opera, anche se completo quanto a informazione, mostra chiaramente di essere stato scritto in via provvisoria ed è privo dell'acuta visione teorica che caratterizza l'inizio.
 Tema
 Le guerre napoleoniche portano un cambiamento profondo nella teoria e nella pratica militari comuni nel XVIII secolo. Gli stati monarchici si servivano di eserciti nobiliari, in cui tutti gli ufficiali e i sottufficiali e buona parte della truppa erano cadetti, cioè figli non primogeniti di nobili, che non avevano diritto al titolo. Con la rivoluzione francese e il tentativo delle case regnanti europee di soffocare la rivoluzione e riportare la monarchia in Francia sulla punta delle spade, questi eserciti si scontrano con formazioni raccogliticce di soldati cittadini, inferiori sia per preparazione che per armamento, e mal guidate da capi impreparati. Ma subiscono comunque delle perdite: il primo a capire qual è la fatale debolezza degli eserciti monarchici nella nuova situazione è un giovane ufficiale corso, Napoleone Bonaparte.
 La classe nobile è numericamente esigua: in un esercito nobiliare le perdite non si possono rimpiazzare facilmente. Un esercito popolare invece può essere assai numeroso e non ha difficoltà a procurarsi nuovi effettivi, grazie alle chiamate di leva. Forti di questo fatto, i francesi di Napoleone sbaragliano gli eserciti messi in campo dalle monarchie di tutta Europa con battaglie devastanti, che si trasformano in gigantesche carneficine. In questo nuovo quadro strategico, dove i vecchi parametri di forza militare non erano più validi per prevedere l'esito di un conflitto, si forma e si affina il genio strategico di Clausewitz, e l'arte della guerra passa da una serie interminabile di manovre e scaramucce qual era quella antica a scontri frontali su vasta scala che coinvolgono migliaia di soldati: la cavalleria tramonta e nascono i grandi assalti di fanteria che saranno il fulcro di tutte le guerre moderne fino alla prima guerra mondiale, quando l'invenzione delle mitragliatrici e dei carri armati farà evolvere ulteriormente il modo di combattere.
 Attraverso una logica tipicamente hegeliana, per primo Clausewitz inquadra correttamente l'essenza della guerra come un confronto fra due volontà, annullando il confine che fino ad allora veniva tracciato fra politica e guerra e coniando il famoso detto «La guerra è la continuazione della politica con altri mezzi» ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln"). Identifica altresì i vari tipi di conflitto e caratterizza la guerra difensiva come alternanza fra attacco e attesa; mette in evidenza l'importanza di una logistica adeguata e di linee di rifornimento protette. Sebbene ormai superato da tempo dai trattati militari moderni, i principi teorici generali del Della Guerra sono tuttora riconosciuti validi e riecheggiano i principi contenuti in altri antichi classici militari come L'arte della guerra di Sun Tzu, Epitoma rei militaris (L'arte della guerra) di Flavio Vegezio Renato e Il libro dei cinque anelli di Miyamoto Musashi.
 Edizioni italiane
 A cura di Edmondo Aroldi, Oscar Mondadori, 1970; introduzione (del 1978) di Carlo Jean, Oscar Mondadori, 1997-2017.
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni
 Dimenticare Clausewitz? Conflitti asimmetrici e guerre di quarta generazione , abstract del saggio di Emilio Gin pubblicato su Nuova Rivista Storica
 Saggi di autori tedeschi
 Opere letterarie di strategia militare


type: other

text:
Annette Löhr
 Schreibwaren Wöckel
 Kontakt:Telefon: 09241/5771
 Telefax: 09241/992690
 E-Mail: info@schreibwarenwoeckel.de
 DE132319624
 III. Informationen zur Datenverarbeitung. Informationen über uns als Verantwortliche
 Telefon: 09241/5771
 info@schreibwarenwoeckel.de
 Mit Blick auf die nachfolgend noch näher beschriebene Datenverarbeitung haben die Nutzer und Betroffenen das Recht auf Bestätigung, ob sie betreffende Daten verarbeitet werden, auf Auskunft über die verarbeiteten Daten, auf weitere Informationen über die Datenverarbeitung sowie auf Kopien der Daten (vgl. auch Art. 15 DSGVO);auf Berichtigung oder Vervollständigung unrichtiger bzw. unvollständiger Daten (vgl. auch Art. 16 DSGVO);auf unverzügliche Löschung der sie betreffenden Daten (vgl. auch Art. 17 DSGVO), oder, alternativ, soweit eine weitere Verarbeitung gemäß Art. 17 Abs. 3 DSGVO erforderlich ist, auf Einschränkung der Verarbeitung nach Maßgabe von Art. 18 DSGVO; auf Erhalt der sie betreffenden und von ihnen bereitgestellten Daten und auf Übermittlung dieser Daten an andere Anbieter/Verantwortliche (vgl. auch Art. 20 DSGVO);auf Beschwerde gegenüber der Aufsichtsbehörde, sofern sie der Ansicht sind, dass die sie betreffenden Daten durch den Anbieter unter Verstoß gegen datenschutzrechtliche Bestimmungen verarbeitet werden (vgl. auch Art. 77 DSGVO).
 Rechtsgrundlage für die Weitergabe der Daten ist dann Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. b) DSGVO.Kontaktanfragen / Kontaktmöglichkeit


type: caselaw

text:
 13.2.2017
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 46/28
 Prasība, kas celta 2016. gada 28. decembrī – Winkler/Komisija
 (Lieta T-916/16)
 (2017/C 046/33)
 Tiesvedības valoda – vācu
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītājs: Bernd Winkler (Grange, Īrija) (pārstāve – A. Kässens, advokāte)
 Atbildētāja: Eiropas Komisija
 Prasītāja prasījumi:
 —
 atcelt atbildētājas 2016. gada 30. septembra lēmumu attiecībā uz sūdzību un noteikt atbildētājai pienākumu pieņemt lēmumu aprēķināt kapitāla vērtību prasītāja pieteikuma reģistrācijas datumā, 2011. gada 14. septembrī;
 —
 pakārtoti piespriest atbildētājai izmaksāt kompensāciju EUR 19 920,39 apmērā, kas ir iemaksājama prasītāja pensijas kontā.
 Pamati un galvenie argumenti
 Prasības pamatošanai prasītājs izvirza trīs pamatus.
 1.
 Ar pirmo pamatu tiek apgalvots, ka nav ievēroti saprātīga termiņa, tiesiskās noteiktības un lietas taisnīgas izskatīšanas principi un nav izpildīts informēšanas un uzklausīšanas pienākums.
 —
 Prasītājs norāda, ka atbildētāja, vilcinot viņa pieteikuma izskatīšanu, nav ievērojusi nevienu administratīvās procedūras pienācīgas norises principu. Pirms nelabvēlīgā akta pieņemšanas prasītājs arī neesot ticis uzklausīts.
 2.
 Ar otro pamatu tiek apgalvots, ka nav ievēroti vienlīdzības, diskriminācijas aizlieguma un samērīguma principi.
 —
 Saistībā ar otro prasības pamatu prasītājs apgalvo, ka citu kolēģu, kas nav vecāki par viņu, līdzīgi pieteikumi, esot tikuši izskatīti daudz ātrāk, lai gan neesot objektīva iemesla, kas šo nevienlīdzīgo attieksmi pamatotu.
 3.
 Ar trešo pamatu tiek apgalvots, ka neesot ievērota tiesiskā paļāvība.
 —
 Visbeidzot prasītājs iebilst pret procentu atskaitīšanu no viņam aprēķinātās kapitāla vērtības par laikposmu no viņa pieteikuma iesniegšanas līdz galīgajam kapitāla pārskaitījumam, prasītāju par to iepriekš neinformējot.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 12006M/PRO/09
 C. Protocoles annexés au traité sur l'Union européenne, au traité instituant la Communauté européenne et au traité instituant la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique - Protocole (no 9) sur le rôle des parlements nationaux dans l'Union européenne (1997)
 Journal officiel n° C 321 E du 29/12/2006 p. 0227 - 0228
 Protocole (no 9)sur le rôle des parlements nationaux dans l'Union européenne (1997)LES HAUTES PARTIES CONTRACTANTES,RAPPELANT que le contrôle exercé par les différents parlements nationaux sur leur propre gouvernement pour ce qui touche aux activités de l'Union relève de l'organisation et de la pratique constitutionnelles propres à chaque État membre,DÉSIREUSES, cependant, d'encourager une participation accrue des parlements nationaux aux activités de l'Union européenne et de renforcer leur capacité à exprimer leur point de vue sur les questions qui peuvent présenter pour eux un intérêt particulier,ONT ADOPTÉ les dispositions ci-après, qui sont annexées au traité sur l'Union européenne et aux traités instituant les Communautés européennes:I. Informations destinées aux parlements nationaux des États membres1. Tous les documents de consultation de la Commission (livres verts, livres blancs et communications) sont transmis rapidement aux parlements nationaux des États membres.2. Les propositions législatives de la Commission, définies par le Conseil conformément à l'article 207, paragraphe 3, du traité instituant la Communauté européenne, sont communiquées suffisamment à temps pour que le gouvernement de chaque État membre puisse veiller à ce que le parlement national de son pays les reçoive comme il convient.3. Un délai de six semaines s'écoule entre le moment où une proposition législative ou une proposition de mesure à adopter en application du titre VI du traité sur l'Union européenne est mise par la Commission à la disposition du Parlement européen et du Conseil dans toutes les langues et la date à laquelle elle est inscrite à l'ordre du jour du Conseil en vue d'une décision, soit en vue de l'adoption d'un acte, soit en vue de l'adoption d'une position commune conformément à l'article 251 ou 252 du traité instituant la Communauté européenne, des exceptions étant possibles pour des raisons d'urgence, dont les motifs sont exposés dans l'acte ou la position commune.II. La Conférence des organes spécialisés dans les affaires communautaires4. La Conférence des organes spécialisés dans les affaires communautaires, ci-après dénommée "COSAC", créée à Paris les 16 et 17 novembre 1989, peut soumettre toute contribution qu'elle juge appropriée à l'attention des institutions de l'Union européenne, notamment sur la base de projets d'actes que des représentants de gouvernements des États membres peuvent décider d'un commun accord de lui transmettre, compte tenu de la nature de la question.5. La COSAC peut examiner toute proposition ou initiative d'acte législatif en relation avec la mise en place d'un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice et qui pourrait avoir une incidence directe sur les droits et les libertés des individus. Le Parlement européen, le Conseil et la Commission sont informés de toute contribution soumise par la COSAC au titre du présent point.6. La COSAC peut adresser au Parlement européen, au Conseil et à la Commission toute contribution qu'elle juge appropriée sur les activités législatives de l'Union, notamment en ce qui concerne l'application du principe de subsidiarité, l'espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, ainsi que les questions relatives aux droits fondamentaux.7. Les contributions soumises par la COSAC ne lient en rien les parlements nationaux ni ne préjugent leur position.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 18.11.2006
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 281/5
 A Bíróság (nagytanács) 2006. szeptember 12-i ítélete (a Special Commissioners, London [Egyesült Királyság] előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelme) – Cadbury Schweppes plc, Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd kontra Commissioners of Inland Revenue
 (C-196/04. sz. ügy) (1)
 (Letelepedés szabadsága - Az ellenőrzött külföldi társaságokra vonatkozó jogszabályok - Az ellenőrzött külföldi társaságok nyereségének beszámítása az anyavállalat adóalapjába)
 (2006/C 281/08)
 Az eljárás nyelve: angol
 A kérdést előterjesztő bíróság
 Special Commissioners, London
 Az alapeljárás felei
 Felperesek: Cadbury Schweppes plc, Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd
 Alperes: Commissioners of Inland Revenue
 Tárgy
 A Special Commissioners, London előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelme – Nemzeti rendelkezés, amely az anyavállalathoz rendeli az olyan másik tagállamban székhellyel rendelkező leányvállalat nyereségét, ahol az adó mértéke alacsonyabb – Az anyavállalat adófizetési kötelezettsége, amely a két adómérték közötti különbözet megfizetésére vonatkozik – Az EK 43., 49. és 56. cikkekkel való összeegyeztethetőség
 Rendelkező rész
 Az EK 43. és az EK 48. cikket úgy kell értelmezni, hogy azokkal ellentétes az, ha az egyik tagállamban székhellyel rendelkező belföldi illetőségű társaság adóalapjába beszámítják az ellenőrzött külföldi társaság által más tagállamban elért nyereséget, amennyiben ott e nyereséget az első államban alkalmazottnál alacsonyabb adómérték terheli, kivéve, ha e beszámítás kizárólag az általában fizetendő nemzeti adó kijátszását célzó, teljesen mesterséges megállapodásokra vonatkozik. Ennélfogva tartózkodni kell az ilyen adóintézkedés alkalmazásától, amennyiben objektív és harmadik személyek által ellenőrizhető körülmények alapján bebizonyosodik, hogy az adótermészetű indíték ellenére az említett ellenőrzött társaság valóban letelepedett a fogadó tagállamban, és ott ténylegesen gazdasági tevékenységet végez.
 (1) HL C 168., 2004.6.26.


text:
 3.12.2018
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 307/22
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) 2018/1878
 z dne 26. novembra 2018
 o vpisu imena v register zaščitenih označb porekla in zaščitenih geografskih označb („Scrumbie de Dunăre afumată“ (ZGO))
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. novembra 2012 o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil (1) ter zlasti člena 52(2) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 V skladu s členom 50(2)(a) Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 je bil zahtevek Romunije za registracijo imena „Scrumbie de Dunăre afumată“ objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije (2).
 (2)
 Ker v skladu s členom 51 Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Komisija ni prejela nobenega ugovora, bi bilo treba ime „Scrumbie de Dunăre afumată“ registrirati –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Ime „Scrumbie de Dunăre afumată“ (ZGO) se registrira.
 Ime iz prvega odstavka opredeljuje proizvod skupine 1.7 Sveže ribe, mehkužci in raki ter iz njih pridobljeni proizvodi iz Priloge XI k Izvedbeni uredbi Komisije (EU) št. 668/2014 (3).
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 26. novembra 2018
 Za Komisijo
 V imenu predsednika
 Phil HOGAN
 Član Komisije
 (1) UL L 343, 14.12.2012, str. 1.
 (2) UL C 162, 8.5.2018, str. 28.
 (3) Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 668/2014 z dne 13. junija 2014 o pravilih za uporabo Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil (UL L 179, 19.6.2014, str. 36).


text:
 7.12.2020
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 410/62
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) 2020/1993
 af 4. december 2020
 om tilladelse til markedsføring af selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica som en ny fødevare i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) 2015/2283 og om ændring af Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/2470
 (EØS-relevant tekst)
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) 2015/2283 af 25. november 2015 om nye fødevarer, om ændring af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 1169/2011 og om ophævelse af Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 258/97 og Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1852/2001 (1), særlig artikel 12, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 I forordning (EU) 2015/2283 fastsættes det, at kun nye fødevarer, der er godkendt og opført på EU-listen, må markedsføres i Unionen.
 (2)
 Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/2470 (2) om EU-listen over nye fødevarer blev vedtaget i henhold til artikel 8 i forordning (EU) 2015/2283.
 (3)
 Ved Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2019/760 (3) blev det i overensstemmelse med forordning (EU) 2015/2283 tilladt at markedsføre gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica som en ny fødevare til anvendelse i kosttilskud som defineret i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2002/46/EF (4), med undtagelse af kosttilskud til spædbørn og småbørn.
 (4)
 Den 21. september 2018 indgav virksomheden Skotan S.A. (»ansøgeren«) en ansøgning til Kommissionen i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2015/2283 om tilladelse til at markedsføre selenberiget gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica i Unionen som en ny fødevare. Ansøgeren anmodede om tilladelse til at anvende selenberiget gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica i kosttilskud som defineret i direktiv 2002/46/EF, med undtagelse af kosttilskud til spædbørn og småbørn som defineret i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 609/2013 (5). Ansøgerens foreslåede maksimale anvendelsesniveauer er 0,2 g om dagen for børn fra 3 til 9 år og 1 g om dagen for unge og voksne.
 (5)
 I overensstemmelse med artikel 10, stk. 3, i forordning (EU) 2015/2283 rådførte Kommissionen sig den 18. februar 2019 med Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet (»autoriteten«) og anmodede den om at afgive en videnskabelig udtalelse ved at foretage en vurdering af selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica som en ny fødevare.
 (6)
 Den 18. december 2019 vedtog autoriteten den videnskabelige udtalelse »Safety of selenium-enriched biomass of Yarrowia lipolytica as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283« (6). Denne udtalelse opfylder kravene i artikel 11 i forordning (EU) 2015/2283.
 (7)
 I denne udtalelse konkluderede autoriteten, at selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica ikke giver anledning til sikkerhedsmæssige betænkeligheder ved de foreslåede anvendelsesniveauer. Autoriteten vurderede også, at selenen i selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica er lige så sikker som selen fra andre kostkilder.
 (8)
 Autoriteten bemærkede også, at indtaget af den nye fødevare sammen med en kost med et højt indhold af selen på de af ansøgeren foreslåede anvendelsesniveauer kan føre til et samlet indtag af selen over den øvre grænse for sikkert indtag (»UL«) for selen, der er fastlagt af Den Videnskabelige Komité for Levnedsmidler (7), i alle målgrupper, bortset fra børn fra 7 til 9 år.
 (9)
 På baggrund af autoritetens observation vedrørende det kombinerede indtag af selen indgav ansøgeren en ændret anmodning til Kommissionen for så vidt angår betingelserne for anvendelse af selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica, navnlig vedrørende de maksimale mængder af den nye fødevare i kosttilskud og de befolkningsgrupper, som kosttilskud er beregnet til. Ansøgeren foreslog, at den nye fødevare anvendes i kosttilskud bestemt til den almindelige befolkning fra 4 år og opefter på et niveau fra 50 mg pr. dag til 800 mg pr. dag, hvilket ville resultere i selenindtag, der kombineret med selenindtag på baggrund af en kost med et højt indhold af selen ikke ville overstige UL for selen.
 (10)
 Kommissionen finder, at autoritetens udtalelse og de ændrede betingelser for anvendelse, som ansøgeren har anmodet om, giver tilstrækkeligt grundlag til at fastslå, at selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica ved de foreslåede anvendelser og anvendelsesniveauer, når det anvendes i kosttilskud, er i overensstemmelse med artikel 12, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2015/2283.
 (11)
 Forordning (EU) 2017/2470 bør derfor ændres i overensstemmelse hermed.
 (12)
 Foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Den Stående Komité for Planter, Dyr, Fødevarer og Foder —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 1. Selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica, som specificeret i bilaget til nærværende forordning, opføres på EU-listen over godkendte nye fødevarer i gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/2470.
 2. De i stk. 1 omhandlede oplysninger i EU-listen skal omfatte de i bilaget fastsatte anvendelsesbetingelser og mærkningskrav.
 Artikel 2
 Bilaget til gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/2470 ændres som anført i bilaget til nærværende forordning.
 Artikel 3
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på tyvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 4. december 2020.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 327 af 11.12.2015, s. 1.
 (2) Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/2470 af 20. december 2017 om EU-listen over nye fødevarer i overensstemmelse med Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) 2015/2283 om nye fødevarer (EUT L 351 af 30.12.2017, s. 72).
 (3) Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2019/760 af 13. maj 2019 om tilladelse til markedsføring af gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica som en ny fødevare i henhold til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) 2015/2283 og om ændring af Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/2470 (EUT L 125 af 14.5.2019, s. 13).
 (4) Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2002/46/EF af 10. juni 2002 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivninger om kosttilskud (EFT L 183 af 12.7.2002, s. 51).
 (5) Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 609/2013 af 12. juni 2013 om fødevarer bestemt til spædbørn og småbørn, fødevarer til særlige medicinske formål og kosterstatning til vægtkontrol og om ophævelse af Rådets direktiv 92/52/EØF, Kommissionens direktiv 96/8/EF, 1999/21/EF, 2006/125/EF og 2006/141/EF, Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2009/39/EF og Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 41/2009 og (EF) nr. 953/2009 (EUT L 181 af 29.6.2013, s. 35).
 (6) EFSA Journal 2020;18(1):5992.
 (7) SCF (Den Videnskabelige Komité for Levnedsmidler), 2000. Udtalelse fra Den Videnskabelige Komité for Levnedsmidler om den øvre grænse for sikkert indtag af selen. SCF/CS/NUT/UPPLEV/25 Final, 18s.
 BILAG
 I bilaget til gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/2470 foretages følgende ændringer:
 1)
 Følgende indsættes i tabel 1 (Godkendte nye fødevarer):
 Godkendt ny fødevare
 Anvendelsesbetingelser for den nye fødevare
 Supplerende specifikke mærkningskrav
 Andre krav
 »Selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica
 Specificeret fødevarekategori
 Maksimumsindhold
 Den nye fødevare betegnes »selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica« på mærkningen af de fødevarer, der indeholder den.
 Mærkningen af kosttilskud, der indeholder selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica, skal være forsynet med en erklæring om, at kosttilskuddet ikke må indtages af spædbørn og børn under 4 år/børn under 7 år/børn under 11 år/børn og unge under 18 år (*1).
 Kosttilskud som defineret i direktiv 2002/46/EF (1), undtagen kosttilskud til spædbørn og børn under 4 år
 50 mg pr. dag for børn fra 4 til 6 år, hvilket resulterer i 10 μg selen om dagen
 100 mg pr. dag for børn fra 7 til 10 år, hvilket resulterer i 20 μg selen om dagen
 500 mg pr. dag for unge fra 11 til 17 år, hvilket resulterer i 100 μg selen om dagen
 800 mg pr. dag for voksne, hvilket resulterer i 160 μg selen om dagen
 2)
 Følgende indsættes i tabel 2 (Specifikationer):
 Godkendt ny fødevare
 Specifikationer
 »Selenholdig gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica
 Beskrivelse/definition:
 Den nye fødevare er den tørrede og varmedræbte selenholdige gærbiomasse fra Yarrowia lipolytica.
 Den nye fødevare fremstilles ved fermentering med tilstedeværelse af natriumselenit efterfulgt af en række oprensningsprocesser, herunder en proces, hvor gæren varmedræbes for at sikre, at der ikke findes levedygtige Yarrowia lipolytica-celler i den nye fødevare.
 Karakteristik/sammensætning:
 Samlet mængde selen: 165-200 μg/g
 Se-methionin (2): 100-140 μg/g
 Proteiner: 40-50 g/100 g
 Kostfibre: 24-32 g/100 g
 Sukker: < 1 g/100 g
 Fedt: 6-12 g/100 g
 Aske i alt: ≤ 15 %
 Vand: ≤ 5 %
 Tørstof: ≥ 95 %
 Tungmetaller:
 Bly: ≤ 3,0 mg/kg
 Cadmium: ≤ 1,0 mg/kg
 Kviksølv: ≤ 0,1 mg/kg
 Mikrobiologiske kriterier:
 Kimtal for aerobe organismer i alt: ≤ 5 × 103 CFU/g
 Antal gær- og skimmelsvampe i alt: ≤ 102 CFU/g
 Levedygtige Yarrowia lipolytica-celler (3): < 10 CFU/g (dvs. detektionsgrænse)
 Colibakterier: ≤ 10 CFU/g
 Salmonella spp.: Ingen i 25 g
 CFU: kolonidannende enheder
 (1) Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2002/46/EF af 10. juni 2002 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivninger om kosttilskud (EFT L 183 af 12.7.2002, s. 51).
 (*1) Afhængigt af, hvilken aldersgruppe kosttilskuddet er bestemt til.«
 (2) Udtrykt som selen.
 (3) Kan anvendes i alle faser efter varmebehandlingen for at sikre, at der ikke forekommer levedygtige Yarrowia lipolytica-celler, og testes først umiddelbart efter varmebehandlingen. Der skal træffes foranstaltninger til at forhindre krydskontaminering med levedygtige Yarrowia lipolytica-celler under emballering og/eller opbevaring af den nye fødevare.«


text:
Ez a lista a Naruto című animesorozat epizódjainak felsorolását tartalmazza. Az animesorozat Kisimoto Maszasi azonos című mangájának adaptációja, melyet Date Hajato rendezett és a Studio Pierrot, illetve a TV Tokyo gyártásában készült. Az animesorozat a manga első huszonhét fejezetét dolgozza fel 135 epizódban, a maradék 85 epizód úgynevezett filler (töltelék epizód), melynek cselekménye nem volt látható a mangában. A sorozat Uzumaki Naruto, egy hiperaktív kamasz nindzsa kalandjait követi végig, aki folyton az elismeréséért küzd és célja, hogy faluja legerősebb nindzsája, azaz a hokage legyen.
 A 220 részből álló sorozatot 2002. október 3. és 2007. február 8. között sugározta Japánban a TV Tokyo. Az angol változatot 2005. szeptember 10-én kezdte vetíteni a Cartoon Network a Toonami nevű műsorblokkjában. Mivel 2008. szeptember 20-án a csatorna megszüntette a Toonami műsorblokkját, a sorozatot csak alkalmanként vetítette, de a megszokott időben. A 209. epizód volt az utolsó, melyet láthattak a nézők, bár a Viz Media állította, hogy a többi epizódot is leadják a televíziók, végül nem kerültek adásba. A maradék epizódok azonban kiadásra kerültek a 9. évad DVD-jén, mely 2009. szeptember 22-én jelent meg, illetve a kanadai YTV Bionix nevű műsorblokkjában és az angol Jetix UK is műsorra tűzte.
 A sorozat epizódjait DVD-n adták ki. Az első DVD sorozat volt az egyetlen, mely VHS formátumban is megvásárolható volt. Összesen öt DVD sorozat van, minden egyes DVD-n négy epizód található. A sorozat három dobozos kiadásban is megvásárolható volt 2009 folyamán. A legújabb DVD sorozat a Naruto legjobb jelenetei, melyben egy válogatást láthatunk az első 135 epizód jeleneteiből. Az angol változatot 2006. március 28-ától adta ki a Viz Media DVD formátumban. Az első 26 DVD-kötet egyes lemezei négy-négy epizódot tartalmaznak, míg a 27. kötettől kezdődően ötöt. A vágatlan változatot dobozos DVD formájában került piacra, mindegyik 12-15 epizódot tartalmaz, a történetfejezetek hosszának megfelelően.
 Magyarországon az animét két csatorna kezdte sugározni: a Jetix 2007. február 12-től és az Animax 2008. december 10-től. Előbbi az angol Jetix által megvágott változatot adta, míg utóbbi az eredeti, vágatlan változatot sugározza. A két változathoz két külön szinkron készült, bár a főbb szereplőknél vannak hangbéli átfedések. A Jetix – a 26. epizód kivételével – az első 104 epizódot sugározta, de mivel a csatorna megszűnt, s az utódja, a Disney Channel csak saját készítésű műsorokat ad, ezért nem várható folytatás. Az Animax 2010. június 9-én fejezte be az első 104 epizód sugárzását, majd 2010. december 15-től leadta a sorozat hátralévő epizódjait, az utolsó, 220. epizód 2012. február 1-jén volt látható. A Naruto sippúden magyarországi vetítése bizonytalan. A magyar változat még nem került DVD formátumba.
 Az epizódok magyar címei a Animax-en sugárzott változat megfelelői.
 Nemzetközi sugárzások
 A Naruto animesorozatot eddig több, mint negyven országban vetítették. A legtöbb csatorna szinkronizált változatot sugárzott, néhol felirattal vetítették. A japán mellett számos más nyelvű szinkron is készült, köztük angol, magyar, német, francia, olasz, arab, spanyol, tagalog, dán, lengyel és portugál.
 Epizódlista
 Első évad (2002–2003)
 Második évad (2003)
 Harmadik évad (2003–2004)
 Negyedik évad (2004)
 Ötödik évad (2004–2005)
 Hatodik évad (2005)
 Hetedik évad (2005–2006)
 Nyolcadik évad (2006)
 Kilencedik évad (2006–2007)
 OVA-epizódok
 Az eredeti Naruto animéhez öt kiegészítő OVA-epizód készült. Az első kettőt, az Akaki Jocuba no Kuróbá vo Szagasze és a Takigakure no Sitó Ore ga Eijú Dattebajo! címet viselő epizódokat első alkalommal a Sónen Jump Jump Festa 2003-as és 2004-es rendezvényén vetítették le, majd később DVD formátumban is megjelentek. A második epizód angol változata 2007. május 22-én jelent meg DVD-n a Viz kiadásában. A Konoha no Szato no Dai Unzókai című harmadik epizód egy bónuszlemezen került forgalomba a Naruto: Ultimate Ninja 3 nevű PlayStation 2-videójáték mellett. Észak-Amerikában a speciál az első mozifilm gyűjtői változatában jelent meg. A negyedik, Cuini gekitocu! Dzsónin tai Genin!! Muszabecu zairanszen taikai kaiszai!! című OVA egy rövidfilm, mely az első Naruto-filmmel jelent meg. Az ötödik OVA-epizód a The Cross Roads nevet viseli. A teljes egészében CGI-animációval készült OVA-t a 2010-es Jump Festán mutatták be. A történet a csúninvizsga előtt játszódik, amikor Orocsimaru szemet vetett Ucsiha Szaszukéra, aki ekkor még a 7-es csapat tagja volt. A Súkan Sónen Jump japán és angol oldalán egyaránt megnézhető az epizód.
 Filmek
 DVD-kiadások
 Források
 A Naruto epizódjainak címei.
 A Viz Media hivatalos Naruto anime oldala.
 Jegyzetek
 Naruto
 Naruto