text:
Oświadczenie woli – pojęcie z zakresu prawa cywilnego oznaczające przejaw woli ludzkiej zmierzający do wywołania skutku prawnego w postaci powstania, zmiany, ustania stosunku prawnego. Oświadczeniem woli jest każde zachowanie człowieka wyrażające jego wolę w sposób dostateczny. Może być złożone nie tylko na piśmie, ale także ustnie, jak również wyrażone przez gest. Definicja oświadczenia woli w prawie polskim została zawarta w art. 60 Kodeksu cywilnego.
 Przejaw woli zostanie uznany za oświadczenie woli w sensie prawnym, jeśli zostaną spełnione następujące warunki:
 oświadczenie zostanie złożone w sposób swobodny, przymus fizyczny wyłącza oświadczenie woli, zaś przymus psychiczny stanowi wadę oświadczenia woli;
 oświadczenie będzie zrozumiałe, co oznacza, że przynajmniej w drodze interpretacji można ustalić, jakiego rodzaju skutek prawny chciał wywołać składający oświadczenie. Tu można wyróżnić:
 oświadczenia woli wyraźne, czyli złożone za pomocą mowy, pisma, powszechnie uznanych za zrozumiałe.
 oświadczenia woli dorozumiane, czyli złożone w inny sposób niż powyżej, poprzez inne zachowanie, są one oświadczeniem woli, jeżeli w danym kontekście sytuacyjnym to zachowanie pozwala odczytać wolę podmiotu (per facta concludentia).
 oświadczenie zostanie złożone na serio, co oznacza, że oświadczeniu woli musi towarzyszyć rzeczywista wola wywołania skutku prawnego. Oświadczeniem woli nie na serio, jest takie oświadczenie, które ze względu na okoliczności w jakich zostało złożone, nie może zostać odczytane jako zmierzające do wywołania skutku prawnego. Oświadczenia woli pozorne, a więc zmierzające do wywołania innego skutku prawnego niż wynika z okoliczności, są oświadczeniem woli, choć dotkniętym wadą.
 W ostatnich latach w polskiej teorii prawa prowadzone były badania nad antropologicznymi założeniami teorii oświadczeń woli. Ich rezultatem była próba reinterpretacji istniejących teorii z punktu widzenia neuronauki poznawczej i psychologii.
 Zobacz też
 ubezwłasnowolnienie
 wada oświadczenia woli
 Przypisy
 Linki zewnętrzne
 Oświadczenie woli - co to jest?
 Część ogólna prawa cywilnego


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 30.1.2010
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 24/29
 Преюдициално запитване, отправено от Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Белгия) на 17 ноември 2009 г. — Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV/Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd и др.
 (Дело C-446/09)
 2010/C 24/54
 Език на производството: нидерландски
 Запитваща юрисдикция
 Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen
 Страни в главното производство
 Ищец: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV
 Ответник: Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd и др.
 Преюдициален въпрос
 Е ли член 6, параграф 2, буква б) от Регламент (ЕО) No 3295/94 (1) от 22 декември 1994 година (наричан по-нататък „стария митнически регламент“) уеднаквена разпоредба на общностното право, обвързваща съда на държавата членка, сезиран в съответствие с член 7 от Регламента и означава ли тя, че при преценката си съдът може да не взима предвид, че стоките се намират в режим на временно допускане/транзит, а трябва да приеме, че стоките са били произведени в тази държава членка и впоследствие съгласно правото на тази държава членка да се произнесе, дали тези стоки накърняват съответното право върху интелектуална собственост?
 (1) Регламент (ЕО) No 3295/94 на Съвета от 22 декември 1994 година, определящ мерките за забраняване на пускането в свободно обращение, експорта, реекспорта и поставянето в режим на изчакване на имитирани и пиратски стоки (ОВ L 341, стр. 8).


type: other

text:
La Gro Geelkerken Advocaten :: Onaanvaardbaar misbruik: een schuldeiser die volledige betaling van zijn vordering verlangt
 23 juni 2017 | Publicatie
 Onaanvaardbaar misbruik: een schuldeiser die volledige betaling van zijn vordering verlangt
 Op 24 maart 2017 heeft de Hoge Raad bevestigd dat één van de verhuurders van V&D misbruik van zijn positie maakte door vast te houden aan volledige betaling van de huurprijs en geen verlaging te willen accepteren. Dit terwijl V&D met een groep andere verhuurders wel een regeling had getroffen voor verlaging van de huurprijs. Hoewel we al een tijdje weten dat V&D niet gered kon worden, is dit arrest nog wel van belang voor de rechtsontwikkeling. Waar altijd als uitgangspunt gold dat een schuldeiser in beginsel recht heeft op volledige betaling van zijn vordering, biedt dit arrest mogelijk meer ruimte om als onderneming in zwaar weer een vuist te maken tegen die opstelling, wanneer daarmee een reddingsplan in gevaar zou komen.
 V&D heeft in februari 2015 een reddingsplan aangekondigd en heeft als onderdeel van dat reddingsplan alle verhuurders gevraagd in te stemmen met verlaging van de huurprijs. V&D zou zodoende een lagere huurachterstand hoeven in te lossen. Eén verhuurder was niet bereid een gedeeltelijke betaling op zijn vordering te accepteren en kreeg ook gelijk van de voorzieningenrechter: V&D moest de volledige huurprijs betalen, zowel ten opzichte van de achterstand als voor de toekomst.
 Hoger beroep: de verhuurder maakt misbruik van zijn positie
 In hoger beroep kreeg V&D echter gelijk. Het gerechtshof vond dat de verhuurder misbruik van zijn bevoegdheid maakte door vast te houden aan integrale betaling. Zo oordeelde het gerechtshof: 1) dat de medewerking van de verhuurder nodig was als onderdeel van het totale reddingsplan om een faillissement van V&D te voorkomen, 2) dat het gerechtvaardigd was om van een bepaalde groep schuldeisers een bijzonder offer te vragen en leveranciers en personeel te ontzien en 3) dat alle verhuurders van V&D groot nadeel zouden lijden bij een faillissement, aangezien de winkelpanden zo omvangrijk waren.
 De verhuurder heeft zich tegen het oordeel van het gerechtshof verzet door in cassatie te gaan. De verhuurder vond dat het gerechtshof te streng had geoordeeld. Het gerechtshof was uitgegaan van regels, die gelden voor een schuldeiser die weigert mee te werken aan een akkoord dat een onderneming aan al zijn schuldeisers wil aanbieden.[1] Dat speelde bij V&D niet. Het ging hier feitelijk om de vraag of één individuele schuldeiser in redelijkheid betaling kon verlangen van de volledige huurprijs, terwijl met vergelijkbare schuldeisers een regeling was getroffen. Het gerechtshof meende dat die situatie op dezelfde wijze getoetst kan worden als de situatie waarin een schuldeiser weigert mee te werken aan een akkoord, dat voor alle schuldeisers geldt.
 De Hoge Raad steunt het gerechtshof en geeft de verhuurder dus ongelijk.[2] Het feit dat niet alle schuldeisers van V&D bij de regeling zijn betrokken, zoals dat bij een akkoord zou zijn, belet niet dat één schuldeiser misbruik van zijn positie kan worden verweten. Een schuldeiser is in beginsel vrij om medewerking te weigeren als hij slechts een beperkt gedeelte van zijn vordering betaald gaat krijgen, maar dat vormt geen absoluut recht. Onder bijzondere omstandigheden kan worden aangenomen dat de schuldeiser in redelijkheid de aanvaarding van het aanbod niet had kunnen weigeren en dan kan hij dus worden verplicht om een kleinere betaling te accepteren. In de V&D-casus waren dergelijke omstandigheden aan de orde, die aldus de conclusie rechtvaardigden dat de verhuurder misbruik maakte door vast te houden aan volledige betaling. Hij mocht zich niet aan de regeling onttrekken.
 De Hoge Raad heeft overigens niet uitgesproken of de huurverlaging blijvend geaccepteerd had moeten worden. Daar blijft dus nog een opening voor schuldeisers in toekomstige vergelijkbare situaties.
 Het oordeel van de Hoge Raad sluit mijns inziens goed aan bij de gedachte achter het wetsvoorstel WCO II, dat beoogt het herstructurerend vermogen van ondernemingen te versterken. WCO II biedt ondernemingen in zwaar weer meer mogelijkheden om ook buiten surseance of faillissement schulden te saneren door bijvoorbeeld schuldeisers (bij meerderheid) te dwingen mee te werken aan een akkoord.
 Het wetsvoorstel WCO II was begin 2017 nog onderwerp van nader onderzoek en overleg, maar zou naar verwachting spoedig aan de Raad van State voor een advies worden voorgelegd.[3] In de zomer zal een nieuw voortgangsverslag van de minister worden gepubliceerd.
 Voor meer informatie kunt u terecht bij de sectie Faillissementsrecht van La Gro Advocaten, mr. Angela Mekes, telefoonnummer 0182 - 518433, e-mail: amekes@lagrolaw.nl.
 [1] Hoge Raad 12 augustus 2005, ECLI:NL:HR:2005:AT7799 (Payroll)
 [2] Hoge Raad 24 maart 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:485, https://www.recht.nl/rechtspraak/uitspraak/?ecli=ECLI:NL:HR:2017:485
 [3] https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2017/02/23/tk-commissiebrief-voortgangsbrief-herijking-faillissementsrecht-februari


jurisdiction: US

text:
 964 A.2d 650 (2009)
 407 Md. 233
 F.D.R. SROUR PARTNERSHIP, et al.
 v.
 MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland.
 No. 47 September.Term., 2008.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 February 9, 2009.
 *651 Stephen J. Orens (Casey L. Moore of Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., Rockville), on brief, for Petitioners.
 Scott R. Foncannon, Associate County Atty. (Leon Rodriguez, County Atty., and Karen L. Federman Henry, Div. Chief, Rockville), on brief, for respondent.
 ARGUED BEFORE BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE, (Retired, Specially Assigned) and IRMA S. RAKER, (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
 HARRELL, Judge.
 This case challenges a final decision of the Maryland Tax Court upholding an assessment of Montgomery County's Development Impact Tax ("Impact Tax") in the approximate amount of $300,000 for transportation improvements in connection with two warehouse building permits applied for by and issued to F.D.R. Srour Partnership and Robert Srour ("Petitioners"). The Tax Court rejected Petitioners' contention that the building permits are exempt from the Impact Tax because the development project, viewed as a whole, was initiated before the effective date of the amended Impact Tax ordinance applied in this instance. Petitioners sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of the Tax Court's ruling. The Circuit Court affirmed. The Court of Special Appeals, on direct appeal, affirmed in a reported opinion. F.D.R. Srour P'ship v. Montgomery County, 179 Md.App. 109, 944 A.2d 1149 (2008). We granted a writ of certiorari upon Petitioners' petition. Srour v. Montgomery County, 405 Md. 290, 950 A.2d 828 (Table) (2008). For the reasons that follow, we shall make it unanimous.
 I.
 In 2002, Montgomery County decided to amend its pre-existing, but geographically *652 limited, development impact tax structure by enacting Chapter 4 of the Montgomery County Laws of 2002, the County's "Development Impact Tax for Transportation Improvements," codified at Montgomery County Code ("County Code"), § 52-47 et seq. (2004). The Impact Tax is a tax on "development," which is defined specifically in County Code § 52-47 as
 the carrying out of any building activity or the making of any material change in the use of any structure or land which requires issuance of a building permit and:
 (1) Increases the number of dwelling units; or
 (2) Increases the gross floor area of nonresidential development.
 The purpose of the Impact Tax, which is calculated and assessed when a developer submits a building permit application, County Code, § 52-51, and then collected before the issuance of the permit, County Code § 52-50(c), is to help "fund a program of transportation improvements through development impact taxes to allow new growth in the County" and "[to] require[] new development to pay its pro rata share of the costs of impact transportation improvements necessitated by that development." County Code, §§ 52-48(c), (d). Before the County enacted the 2002 amendment with which we primarily are concerned in the present case, the Impact Tax applied only within select geographical areas within the County, which did not include where Petitioners' property is situated. The 2002 amendment was intended to apply the Impact Tax structure throughout the County, i.e., "[the Tax] applies to any development for which an application for a building permit is filed on or after [1 July 2002]." 2002 Laws of Montgomery County, Ch. 4, sec. 2(a).
 Turning back the clock to 1988, Petitioners acquired an undeveloped parcel of industrially-zoned real property located just outside the city limits of Rockville, in a subdivision known as Burgundy Park (the "Property").[1] They ultimately planned to build two warehouses on the Property ("Building A" and "Building B"). Mr. Srour, a licensed Professional Engineer, was the "chief designer" of the improvements proposed to be constructed on the Property. Petitioners struggled to design a warehouse development that would accommodate the somewhat disparate split-zoning (I-2 and I-4) standards applicable to the Property and that could overcome the Property's unique physical characteristics. In particular, steep topography, as well as a forest conservation easement established on the eastern side, presented considerable obstacles. The street-level access of the Property at Southlawn Lane was at an elevation of 372 feet, the southern boundary of the Property at an elevation of 444 feet, and along its eastern edge the elevation fell below 360 feet. At certain places, the grade on the Property was as steep as 25%. A grading and development design was settled on finally, upon which Petitioners were prepared to move forward with their plans for the construction of the warehouses.
 On 6 June 2002, some twenty-five days before the 1 July 2002 effective date of the *653 amended Impact Tax, Petitioners filed with the County Department of Permitting Services ("Department") a building permit application, No. 279528 ("Permit 1"), accompanied by a plan view indicating conceptually the two warehouse buildings to be constructed, but not seeking permission to construct them at the time.[2] Permit No. 1 was issued by the Department on 1 December 2003. Subsequently, Permit No. 1 was revised and another application, No. 326449, submitted on 1 December 2003 ("Permit 2"). Permit 2 was issued on 23 January 2004. Permits 1 and 2 together sought authorization to construct three reinforced concrete retaining walls and two Gabion Walls on the Property. No assessment or demand for payment of the amended Impact Tax was made by the Department upon the issuance of either Permit 1 or 2.
 Two of the retaining walls covered by Permit 1 ("Wall 1" and "Wall 2") were to be located on the western side of the Property, adjacent to the ultimate driveway that would provide the only access to the Property from Southlawn Lane. Wall 2, 32 feet in height and 350 feet in length, was to be incorporated in the structural base of the future warehouse Building A. That wall stabilized the building pad enabling Petitioners ultimately to "get a [building] pad large enough to build these buildings and the entrance to it." The third retaining wall ("Wall 3"), located on the eastern side of the Property, was the first wall constructed pursuant to Permits 1 and 2 and also was to be attached to Building A. Construction on Wall 3 commenced in January 2004. Walls 2 and 3 are essential to support structurally the proposed gross floor area of proposed Building A.
 The two Gabion Walls, comprised of "basketball" size rocks inserted in a metal cage or frame, also were to be located on the western side of the Property. One of these walls is situated along the western boundary of the Property, adjacent to Southlawn Lane, and the other is sited along a stormwater management pond.
 According to Petitioners, the five walls (Walls 1-3 and the two Gabion Walls) were all essential elements of the ultimately-completed industrial buildings because they were needed to stabilize the soil on the site after the grading of the steep topography to accommodate the building pads, the vehicular access to Southlawn Lane, and the stormwater pond. Petitioners urge that, without these improvements, the Property would remain generally "undevelopable."
 Subsequent to the construction of the walls, Petitioners submitted another building permit application, No. 338122, on 23 March 2004 for the final retaining wall structure needed to enable construction of the warehouse buildings ("Permit 3"). That retaining wall, according to Petitioners, also was a required structural element of the warehouse structures. The permit was issued on 16 June 2004, and the construction was completed. No development Impact Tax was assessed by the Department for the improvements covered by Permit 3.
 On 27 July 2004, Petitioners' architect, Steven's Architects, filed applications for the last two permits needed to construct the warehouses on the Property, No. 352990 ("Permit 4") and No. 352996 ("Permit 5"). Permit 4 was for construction of Building A, an enclosed building of 38,374 square feet, and Permit 5 for Building B, with a building area of 79,875 square feet.
 *654 In June 2005, prior to the issuance of Permits 4 and 5, the Department informed Petitioners that an Impact Tax payment would be required before the issuance of the permits. The Department calculated, under the formula in the County Code, that Permit 4 required an Impact Tax payment of $95,935 and Permit 5 required a payment of $199,687.50, for a total of $295,622.50.
 Petitioners contested the Department's determination and assessment of the Impact Tax, and asked its Director to reconsider. In lieu of paying the assessed amounts, and pending the Director's review, Petitioners posted a letter of credit pursuant to County Code § 52-56. The Department issued Permits 4 and 5. Petitioners commenced construction of the warehouses, pursuant to the permits, and the development since has been completed while this case winded its way through the administrative and judicial review processes.
 The Director found against Petitioners. His written determination stated that "a permit for a retaining wall [Permits 1, 2, and 3] does not serve to exempt subsequent development [Permits 4 and 5] from the tax," and that, therefore, "it is this Department's determination that the impact tax is due and payable."
 Pursuant to County Code § 52-56 and Md.Code, Tax-General Article § 3-103 (2004 Repl.Vol. & Supp.2008), Petitioners, on 14 September 2005, filed an appeal with the Maryland Tax Court challenging the Director's determination. Petitioners and the County stipulated as to most of the relevant facts, and the Tax Court heard the testimony of Mr. Srour. At the close of the administrative hearing, on 22 February 2006, the Tax Court orally ruled in favor of the County. In pertinent part, the Tax Court found:
 We'll start with the tax issue. It doesn't appear to me that there is the same vested rights in tax cases as there might be in zoning. That clearly taxing jurisdictions have the right to change taxes on property. Property tax rates on peoples' property in the County get changed every year, or potentially can be whenever they change the tax rate and that affects the rights of the property owner after the property is in existence. One could say that's exactly what occurred here.... That being the case, the arguments for vesting, I don't think really apply in this matter.
 Which brings us to an interpretation of [the transition provision providing the effective date of the amendment]. This Act takes effect on July 1 st, 2002, and applies to any development for which an application for a building permit is filed on or after that date....
 [T]he building permits that were approved, or at least applied for prior to that date, had no square feet. They were all walls. And that the County didn't try to collect the tax until there was a building permit that related to a structure that had some sort of square feet, and then they could calculate the tax.... So I think in every instance what they're looking to are building permits that increase the number of square feet. And any project where there is a permit applied after July 1, '02 that increases the square feet that would then fall within the taxing jurisdiction of this statute.
 The facts of this matter, the first time a permit was applied for for a structure of any sort that included square feet was well after the effective date of July 1 st, 2002. And it was agreed that the amount of tax that was charged wasn't an issue. The only question was whether or not this property was subject to *655 this statute, and it's my determination that, in fact, it was.
 A written Order memorializing the County's victory was entered by the Tax Court on 4 April 2006.
 Thereafter, pursuant to Md.Code, Tax-General § 13-532 and State Government Article § 10-222 (2004 Repl.Vol. & Supp. 2008), Petitioners, on 7 April 2006, filed in the Circuit Court a Petition for Judicial Review. The Circuit Court, on 21 September 2006, ruling from the bench, stated, in part:
 I guess, the bottom line is, [Petitioners] just haven't convinced me.... [Y]ou're saying "building activity" meant the retaining walls, which went with the building, and therefore everyone slides in under the tag.... And you're saying it vested at that point.... And I just disagree with you [and agree with the Tax Court's determination].
 I think it's a strange construction of ... the Act. Because they're talking about a broader meaning of "development" than simply filing a permit to get your footings in, or your retaining wall in, or anything else. And I think that's where we disagree.
 On 18 October 2006, the Circuit Court issued a written Order affirming the judgment of the Tax Court.
 Petitioners pursued an appeal in the Court of Special Appeals, pressing two main arguments. First, they posited that Permit 1, filed before the effective date of the amended Impact Tax, enabled them to establish a "building pad" large enough to construct the contemplated warehouse facilities. The "building pad," commenced pursuant to Permit 1, made it feasible for the eventual construction of the warehouses, given the Property's challenging topographical characteristics. Therefore, Petitioners urged, Permit 1 fit the County Code's definition of "development" because Permit 1 "permitted [Petitioners] to construct the gross floor area of the warehouse facilities" (citing Pemberton v. Montgomery County, 275 Md. 363, 340 A.2d 240 (1975)). Having filed for Permit 1 before the effective date of the territorily-broadened Impact Tax, and given the "clearly articulated legislative intent of the County Council, stated in the Bill itself,... not to apply the new tax to developments that were underway when the new tax became effective," Petitioners argued that, therefore, all of the subsequent Permits were exempt from the tax. Second, they argued that, by establishing 1 July 2002 as the effective date of the amendment, the County Council intended for those who had filed before then applications for "a building permit for development" to "have a vested right to obtain any further building permits required after July 1, 2002 to complete their projects without being subject to the Development Impact Tax."
 The intermediate appellate court, in F.D.R. Srour P'ship v. Montgomery County, 179 Md.App. 109, 944 A.2d 1149 (2008), concluded that Petitioners' Permits 4 and 5 were not exempt under the transitional effective date provision of the 2002 amendment to the Impact Tax ordinance because those permits were filed after the effective date, and because the object of the earlier permits, Permits 1 through 3, did not satisfy the local legislative definition of "development." The court rejected Petitioners' argument under Pemberton v. Montgomery County, 275 Md. 363, 340 A.2d 240 (1975), finding that Permits 1 through 3 did not satisfy the statutory definition of "development" because, although the structures proposed to be constructed thereunder stabilized sufficiently the problematic topography of the Property, it was not until Permits 4 and 5 were filed that the gross floor area of the warehouses *656 was fixed with certainty, such that, therefore, the respective Impact Taxes could be calculated and assessed. The intermediate appellate court also rejected Petitioners' contention that the imposition of the Impact Tax in connection with the warehouses constructed pursuant to Permits 4 and 5 interfered with vested rights. The court deemed the vested rights doctrine inapplicable in the context of revenue-raising legislation, as opposed to more regulatory-oriented legislation such as a zoning regulation.
 II.
 A.
 Despite its name, the Maryland Tax Court actually is an administrative agency of the State. See Md.Code, Tax-General § 3-102. When reviewing its decisions, we review the decision directly, the reviews by any intervening courts notwithstanding. Comptroller of Treasury v. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp., 405 Md. 185, 192, 950 A.2d 766, 770 (2008); Comptroller of Treasury v. Phillips, 384 Md. 583, 590, 865 A.2d 590, 594 (2005). A decision of the Tax Court will be affirmed unless that decision is not supported by substantial evidence appearing in the record or is erroneous as a matter of law. Comptroller of Treasury v. Blanton, 390 Md. 528, 535, 890 A.2d 279, 283 (2006). We further have noted that "[e]ven with regard to some legal issues, a degree of deference should often be accorded the position of the administrative agency. Thus, an administrative agency's interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers should ordinarily be given considerable weight by reviewing courts." Blanton, 390 Md. at 534, 890 A.2d at 283 (citing Lussier v. Md. Racing Comm'n, 343 Md. 681, 696-97, 684 A.2d 804, 811-12 (1996); McCullough v. Wittner, 314 Md. 602, 612, 552 A.2d 881, 886 (1989)). The Tax Court's decision, however, will be overturned if it was based on a material error of law. State Dep't of Assessments & Taxation v. Consolidation Coal Sales Co., 382 Md. 439, 455, 855 A.2d 1197, 1207 (2004).
 B.
 As noted previously, in 2002 the County Council for Montgomery County broadened the County's pre-existing Impact Tax provisions to phase-in its application to certain construction and development county-wide. 2002 Laws of Montgomery County, Ch. 4, sec. 2(a) provides that "[t]his Act takes effect on July 1, 2002, and applies to any development for which an application for a building permit is filed on or after that date." "Development" is defined in § 52-47 of the County Code, in both grammar and sentence structure, as follows:
 Development means the carrying out of any building activity or the making of any material change in the use of any structure or land which requires the issuance of a building permit and:
 (1) Increases the number of dwelling units; or
 (2) Increases the gross floor area of nonresidential development.
 The principal dispute between the parties in the present case is over the interpretation of the definition of "development," and how that interpretation applies under the statutory transitional phase-in provision.
 Before launching into our analysis of the amended Impact Tax ordinance, we rightfully pause to reflect on the principles of statutory construction that both guide and constrain our analysis. Our review of local laws and ordinances is governed by the same principles as our review of State statutes. O'Connor v. Balt. County, 382 Md. 102, 113, 854 A.2d 1191, 1198 (2004) (citing Howard Research & Dev. *657 Corp. v. Concerned Citizens for Columbia Concept, 297 Md. 357, 364, 466 A.2d 31, 34 (1983)). The cardinal rule of construction is to ascertain and effectuate the actual intent of those who enacted or adopted the law or ordinance. Bd. of Supervisors of Elections v. Goodsell, 284 Md. 279, 284, 396 A.2d 1033, 1035-36 (1979). In divining this intent, a court must read the language of the law or ordinance in context and in relation to all of its provisions, and, additionally, must consider its purpose. Dep't of State Planning v. Mayor of Hagerstown, 288 Md. 9, 14, 415 A.2d 296, 299 (1980). Where legislative language is unambiguous, and expresses a definite meaning consonant with the ordinance's purpose, courts must not delete or insert words to make the statute express an intention different from its clear meaning. In re James S., 286 Md. 702, 705, 410 A.2d 586, 587 (1980). Further, if no definition is supplied for a specific term employed in the ordinance, the court "will give that term its ordinary and natural meaning and will not resort to subtle or forced interpretations for the purpose of extending or limiting the operation of the statute." Md.-Nat'l Capital Park & Planning Comm'n v. State Dep't of Assessments & Taxation, 110 Md.App. 677, 689, 678 A.2d 602, 607 (1996), aff'd, 348 Md. 2, 702 A.2d 690 (1997).
 Petitioners' flagship argument before this Court focuses entirely on the first two clauses of the legislative definition of "development," and not, as in the intermediate appellate court, on the second sub-set of the definition related to increasing gross floor area. Citing the apparent intention on the part of the County Council to phase in the amended Impact Tax as to development projects already underway, Petitioners make much of the "or" at the end of the first phrase in the definition of "development." They argue:
 In the case at bar, neither of the lower courts nor the Maryland Tax Court correctly discerned the legislative purpose of the transitional provisions of the legislation and compounded that error by failing to apply the statutory definition of the word "development" that the County Council itself had enacted as an express provision of the Impact Tax, before expanding that tax to county-wide application. The use of the word "development" in the transition provision of the legislation was purposeful. The enacted definition of the word "development" has two separate and distinct components separated by the word "or." By ignoring the word "or," the lower courts relegated the first clause of the definition of "development," defining it as "the carrying out of any building activity," to meaningless surplusage. This Court needs only to read Council Bill 47-01 as a whole to conclude that the decision of the lower appellate court renders the first clause of the definition of "development" "surplusage, superfluous, meaningless and nugatory."
 (citations omitted). Thus, Petitioners posit that by inserting "or" after the initial phrase, "the carrying out of any building activity," the County Council "clearly intended" that the definition of "development" be interpreted schematically as:
 Development means the carrying out of any building activity [STOP];
 OR the making of any material change in the use of any structure or land which requires the issuance of a building permit and:
 (1) Increases the number of dwelling units; or
 (2) Increases the gross floor area of nonresidential development.
 (emphasis added). Petitioners assert that the construction activities proposed by Permit 1, the application for which was *658 filed prior to the legislation's 1 July 2002 effective date, constitute "building activities" because the eventual "construction [of the] retaining walls ... [pursuant to the issued permits] is undeniably the `carrying out of building activity.'"
 The County rejoins that Petitioners' interpretation of "development" errs by manipulating the punctuation and format of the actual form of the language set forth in the ordinance, thus yielding an inconsistent interpretation and distorting the meaning of the term as defined. Had the County Council intended Petitioners' dichotomous interpretation of the "or" at the end of the first clause, as the argument goes, the Council would have made clearer the punctuation and structure to that effect. Further, the County argues that Petitioners' interpretation is inconsistent with the county-wide, revenue-raising intention of the 2002 amendment. The County would have us conclude that the amended Impact Tax is applicable to Petitioners' Permits 4 and 5 because the applications for these Permits were filed after the 1 July 2002 effective date and the activities proposed there satisfy the definition of "development" because the construction of the warehouses constitutes "the carrying out of any building activity ... which requires issuance of a building permit and... [i]ncreases the gross floor area of nonresidential development."
 C.
 Petitioners' position strikes us as tenuous, at best. In order for us to agree with them, we would have to accept a number of premises, none of which are apparent from a fair reading of the County ordinance.
 First, we would have to embrace the premise that the County Council intended the "or" following the phrase "the carrying out of any building activity" to function as an absolute break in sense with the balance of the definition and render the later phrases, "[i]ncreases the number of dwelling units" or "[i]ncreases the gross floor area of nonresidential development," as modifying only the phrase "the making of any material change in the use of any structure or land which requires issuance of a building permit." Second, we would have to accept the premise that "building activity," a term not defined in the ordinance, was intended to have an independent and determinative meaning despite the relatively specific and controlling definition, and subsequent implementation under the transition provision in the tax structure, of the term "development."
 Third, we would have to accept the additional premise that the improvements proposed in the application for Petitioners' Permit 1 constituted sufficient, under the interpretation they urge, "building activity" sought before the 1 July 2002 effective date. Petitioners concede that the only relevant "activity" that was accomplished before 1 July 2002 was the filing of the application for Permit 1. The record reveals that actual construction of any kind, even including the retaining walls, was not commenced earlier than January of 2004. Nevertheless, Petitioners urge that "Permit No. 1 and the remaining permits for the retaining walls and Gabion Walls were part of an unbroken chain of seven[[3]] permit applications" that "were filed for the purpose of carrying out sequential building activities." (emphasis in original). Thus, Petitioners contend all of the Permits and their respective construction should be considered as one continuous *659 "carrying out of any building activity." Because such "activity" constitutes "development," under Petitioners' interpretation, and because the commencement of that "development" process preceded 1 July 2002, the entire stream of "activity" should be exempt from the Impact Tax.
 Petitioners' position is undermined, first and foremost, by the manner in which the Impact Tax is to be calculated and assessed on construction projects, both before and after the 2002 amendment. Under the legislation, "[a]pplicants for building permits for development ... must supply to the Department of Permitting Services for each requested building permit ... [t]he gross floor area and type of development for nonresidential development."[4] County Code, § 52-50(b) (emphasis added). The Department, in turn, "must not issue a building permit for development ... unless ... the applicant has paid the applicable development impact tax." County Code, § 52-50(c). The Impact Tax for each requested, nonresidential building permit is calculated by "determining the applicable tax district," "verifying the ... gross floor area and type of nonresidential development for which each building permit is sought," and "multiplying the applicable tax by... the gross floor area of nonresidential development."[5] County Code, § 52-51. In § 52-57, the tax rates (either per dwelling unit or per square foot) for each respective building type are supplied.
 The interpretation of "development" that Petitioners' urge upon this Court is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. From the means by which the County Council chose to implement the Impact Tax, it seems to us evident that the intention of the Council was to calculate and assess the respective Impact Tax for every single building based upon the exact number of dwelling units (for residential buildings) or amount of square footage (for nonresidential buildings) indicated in each building's permit application. See County Code, § 52-51(a) ("The Department of Permitting Services must calculate the amount of the applicable development impact tax due for each building permit by....") (emphasis added). The entire purpose of enacting the Impact Tax (and enlarging *660 its geographic sweep) was "[to raise] funds to build improvements in a timely manner" by "requir[ing] new development to pay its pro rata share of the costs of impact transportation improvements necessitated by that development in conjunction with other public funds." County Code, § 52-48(d). Thus, it would be illogical and inconsistent to attribute to the County Council, as Petitioners' urge, an intent that applying for any sort of general "building activity" prior to 1 July 2002 exempts from the Impact Tax any and all subsequent building permit applications, and their respective buildings, related to that initial "activity." Such an interpretation would contradict directly the statutory scheme's attempt at establishing, for all building permit applications filed on or after 1 July 2002, a relationship between the size and intended use of buildings and the estimated pro rata costs for the transportation improvements to support those buildings.[6]
 Petitioners' position is untenable further because application of their position would lead to an unintended result. Petitioners argue that the first "or" in the definition of "development" was intended to separate the rest of the definition from the first phrase, such that a stand-alone meaning of "development" is "the carrying out of any building activity." As has been noted, the transition provision provides that the legislation "applies to any development for which an application for a building permit is filed on or after that date." 2002 Laws of Montgomery County, Ch. 4, sec. 2(a). If we were to embrace Petitioners' position, the Impact Tax would be applicable to any "building activity" for which a building permit was filed on or after 1 July 2002, without taking into account the demand upon transportation infrastructure, if any, that new construction would have in the County.
 Our reading of the ordinance persuades us that this is not what was intended by the County Council. As the County aptly notes to us, the Council intended that a minimum level of building activity occur before the tax is triggered. That minimum level of any building activity is provided in the two conditions, related to the issuance of a building permit, which the Department must find before the Impact Tax may be imposed: either an increase in the number of dwelling units (residential), or an increase in the gross floor area of nonresidential development (nonresidential). County Code, § 52-47. Because both of these conditions fundamentally engage the purpose of the Impact Taxthe extent to which the building identified in the permit application will affect the demand upon transportation infrastructure in the Countywe reject Petitioners' contention and are persuaded that the conditions apply to "the carrying out of any building activity [which requires issuance of a building permit]" or "the making of any material change in the use of any structure or *661 land which requires issuance of a building permit." County Code, § 52-47.
 Petitioners' interpretation of the first "or" in the definition of "development" as indicating that the Council intended to exclude from the Impact Tax those developments and projects for which any building activities were applied for prior to 1 July 2002 is further undermined by the fact that the Council included two specific transitional phase-ins in subsections (b) and (c) of sec. 2 of the Act. The entire 2002 Laws of Montgomery County, Ch. 4, sec. 2 states:
 (a) This Act takes effect on July 1, 2002, and applies to any development for which an application for a building permit is filed on or after that date.
 (b) Each taxpayer in the County District must pay the development impact tax at 25% of the rates set in Section 52-57, as amended by Section 1 of this Act, for building permit applications filed between July 1, 2002 and December 31, 2002; 50% of the rates set in Section 52-57 for building permit applications filed between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2003; 75% of the rates set in Section 52-57 for building permit applications filed between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003; and 100% of the rates set in Section 52-57 for building permit applications filed on or after January 1, 2004. To the extent that any taxpayer pays a lower rate than that set in Section 52-57 because this subsection applies, any credit claimed under Section 52-55 must be reduced by the same ratio.
 (c) In the County District, the development impact tax does not apply to any building if:
 (1) a subdivision plan, project plan, or an equivalent development approval mechanism in Gaithersburg or Rockville, which includes that building was approved before July 1, 2002, and
 (2) a building permit is issued before July 1, 2003.[7]
 In light of these specific phase-in provisions, we reject Petitioners' assertion that the language in the definition of "development" and its application under sec. 2(a) should be interpreted as a phase-in provision of its own.
 We conclude that the definition of "development" in County Code § 52-47 is to be interpreted properly as follows: Development means (1) the carrying out of any building activity or the making of any material change in the use of any structure or land (2) which requires issuance of a building permit and (3) increases the number of dwelling units or increases the gross floor area of nonresidential development. That definition applies to any nonresidential building for which the building permit application was filed on or after 1 July 2002. The Department acted consistently under this interpretation of the definition of "development," and the application of that definition under the transition provision of the 2002 amendment, in finding that Petitioners' proposed construction of two warehouses (Permits 4 and 5) was building activity that required issuance of building permits, increased the gross floor area of nonresidential development, and was pursuant to building permit applications filed after 1 July 2002. Thus, the Maryland Tax Court's rejection of Petitioners' challenge to the Department's determination was not erroneous.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED; *662 COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONERS.
 NOTES
 [1] Petitioners specifically identified the Property in their Petition of Appeal to the Maryland Tax Court:
 The Subject Property is a Record Lot that was created by plat in 1993 as "Lot 24, Block B, Burgundy Park Subdivision." Plat 19003 was recorded on April 22, 1993 and vested Preliminary Plan No. 1-88333, which was approved on April 16, 1990 by the Montgomery County Planning Board. The Subject Property is presently identified as Lot 26, Block B, Burgundy Park, in accordance with a confirmatory plat, Plat No. 22856 that was recorded on May 6, 2004.
 [2] A sediment control permit application also was filed with the Department in November 2003.
 [3] This apparently is meant to be understood as Permits 1 through 5, the amendment to Permit 1 (see supra at 653), and the sediment control permit.
 [4] "Gross floor area" is defined in § 52-47:
 Gross floor area means the sum of the gross horizontal area of the several floors of a building or structure measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the center line of party walls. In a covered but unenclosed area, such as a set of gasoline pumps or a drive-through area, gross floor area means the covered area. Gross floor area does not include:
 (1) basement or attic areas with a headroom of less than 7 feet 6 inches;
 (2) areas devoted to unenclosed mechanical, heating, air conditioning, or ventilating equipment;
 (3) parking structures; or
 (4) accessory structures to a residential building.
 [5] "Nonresidential" is defined in § 52-47:
 Nonresidential means the use of a building that is not a residential use and includes:
 (1) offices, including general, medical, office parks, research parks, townhouse office buildings, government offices, and other similar uses;
 (2) industrial uses, including truck terminals, warehouses, light or heavy industrial and manufacturing, industrial parks, and other similar uses;
 (3) retail uses, including stores or shopping centers engaging in the sale of goods, restaurants, vehicle sales or service, banks or savings and loan institutions, theaters, post offices and other similar uses;
 (4) places of worship;
 (5) private elementary, secondary, or post-secondary schools; and
 (6) other nonresidential uses, including hotels, motels, day care centers, nursing homes, recreational facilities, and other public facilities and uses[.]
 [6] The County Council imposed differing rates for nonresidential land uses. The rates supplied in 2002 Laws of Montgomery County, Ch. 4, sec. 1 were as follows: on the lowest end of the spectrum are "Hospitals" and "Bioscience facilities," which pay no Impact Tax. County Code, § 52-57 (Table). In the middle ground are "Places of worship," "Private elementary and secondary schools," "Industrial," and "Office," which are to pay an Impact Tax of $0.20 to $0.32 per square foot, $0.30 to $0.53 per square foot, $1 per square foot, and $1.50 to $2 per square foot, respectively, depending on the location in the County of the building. County Code, § 52-57 (Table). At the higher end of the spectrum are "Retail" and "Other nonresidential," which are to pay $1.50 to $5.61 per square foot and $1 to $6.20 per square foot, respectively, depending on the location in the County of the building. County Code, § 52-57 (Table).
 [7] Section 2(c) is of no help to Petitioners because Permit 1 was not issued until 1 December 2003.


type: legislation

text:
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,8.3.2022
 COM(2022) 109 final
 2022/0075(COD)
 Togra le haghaidh
 RIALACHÁN Ó PHARLAIMINT NA hEORPA AGUS ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 lena leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 a mhéid a bhaineann le Gníomhaíocht Chomhtháthaithe le haghaidh Dídeanaithe san Eoraip (CARE)
 MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁIN
 1.COMHTHÉACS AN TOGRA
 •Forais agus cuspóirí an togra
 Déantar foráil leis an togra seo maidir le hathruithe eisceachtúla agus spriocdhírithe ar chreat dlíthiúil foriomlán 2014-2020 a bunaíodh le haghaidh na gCistí Eorpacha Struchtúracha agus Infheistíochta agus le haghaidh an Chiste um Chabhair Eorpach do na Daoine is Díothaí (FEAD) mar fhreagairt, ar an gcéad dul síos, ar ionradh Chónaidhm na Rúise ar an Úcráin agus ar an tionchar a eascraíonn as sin ar an Aontas Eorpach agus ar roinnt dá réigiúin thoir go háirithe; agus ar an dara dul síos, tionchar fada phaindéim COVID‐19 ar an Aontas ina iomláine.
 Ar an gcéad dul síos, mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata gan chúis gan údar a bheith déanta ag an Rúis, tá dúshláin imirce láithreacha le sárú ag an Aontas, agus ag roinnt dá réigiúin thoir go háirithe, go sonrach a mhéid a bhaineann le sreafaí náisiúnach tríú tír. Tá sé tábhachtach, dá bhrí sin, soiléiriú a dhéanamh ar an raon tacaíochta is féidir a chur ar fáil do na Ballstáit agus do na réigiúin ionas go mbeidh siad in ann aghaidh a thabhairt ar an gcás urghnách sin agus cosc a chur ar a gcuid oibre leanúnaí téarnamh leanúnach a thógáil ó phaindéim COVID‐19 a bheith á chur i mbaol.
 Sa chomhthéacs sin, tá sé tábhachtach a mheabhrú go bhfuil na Ballstáit agus na réigiúin in ann tacú le bearta cheana chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar dhúshláin na himirce faoi Chiste Forbraíochta Réigiúnaí na hEorpa (‘CFRE’) agus faoi Chiste Sóisialta na hEorpa (‘CSE’) lena n‐áirítear faoi na hacmhainní breise a cuireadh ar fáil mar Chúnamh don Téarnamh don Chomhtháthú agus do Chríocha na hEorpa (‘REACT‐EU’). D’fhéadfaí a áireamh sa tacaíocht sin infheistíochtaí i mbonneagar, i dtrealamh, i dtáirgí, i rochtain ar sheirbhísí agus in oibríochtaí i réimsí an oideachais, na fostaíochta, an chuimsithe shóisialta, na sláinte, an chumais riaracháin, na seirbhísí cúraim pobalbhunaithe agus an chúraim bhaile agus an fhrith-idirdhealaithe, chomh maith le tacaíocht do chórais ghlactha lena gcomhlánaítear an tacaíocht ó CTIL agus ó fhoinsí cistiúcháin eile. Tá sé tábhachtach a thabhairt faoi deara freisin gur féidir FEAD a úsáid chun bia agus cúnamh ábhartha bunúsach a sholáthar do dhaoine a ndearna ionsaí míleata na Rúise difear dóibh, lena n‐áirítear náisiúnaigh tríú tír.
 Cé go mbaineann acmhainní breise REACT‐EU tairbhe as roinnt solúbthachtaí cur chun feidhme cheana féin, níl feidhm ag cuid de na solúbthachtaí sin maidir le hacmhainní CFRE agus CSE ó chreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil 2014-2020. Ina theannta sin, is iomchuí freisin bearta sonracha a leagan amach le haghaidh CCEDD, agus aird á tabhairt go háirithe ar an ngá práinneach atá ann cúnamh ábhartha bunúsach a chur ar fáil do na daoine sin a ndéanann ionsaí míleata na Rúise difear dóibh. Agus a phráinní atá sé aghaidh a thabhairt ar na dúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise á cur san áireamh, is gá, dá bhrí sin, incháilitheacht aisghabhálach a cheadú go dtí dáta tosaigh an ionsaithe sin i gcás na n‐oibríochtaí lena mbaineann. Ina theannta sin, ba cheart solúbthacht sa tacaíocht idir CFRE agus CSE a mhéadú i gcás oibríochtaí den sórt sin ionas go bhféadfar an maoiniú atá ar fáil i gcláir a úsáid go tapa. Thairis sin, chun a áirithiú gur féidir FEAD a úsáid go tapa chun cúnamh ábhartha bunúsach a chur ar fáil do dhaoine dá ndéantar difear, lena n‐áirítear náisiúnaigh tríú tír, is iomchuí cead a thabhairt do na Ballstáit gnéithe áirithe de na cláir a fhaigheann tacaíocht ó FEAD a leasú gan formheas an Choimisiúin a bheith riachtanach.
 Ar an dara dul síos, bhí fad phaindéim COVID‐19 níos faide ná mar a tuaradh in 2020. Is ann fós do thionchair dhíreacha agus indíreacha na paindéime i ngach Ballstát, rud a éilíonn tacaíocht phoiblí ar feadh tréimhse fhada do théarnamh na limistéar críochach agus na n‐earnálacha eacnamaíocha is mó a raibh tionchar orthu. Mar thoradh air sin, tá brú an-mhór ar bhuiséid na mBallstát, rud a fhágann gur gá bearta eisceachtúla breise a chur i bhfeidhm sna cúinsí sin.
 Leis an dá phacáiste beart faoin Tionscnamh Infheistíochta mar Fhreagairt ar an gCoróinvíreas (CRII) agus CRII+ arna bhformheas le Rialachán (AE) 2020/460 Rialachán (AE) 2020/558 faoi seach in earrach na bliana 2020, tugadh isteach roinnt athruithe suntasacha lenar cumasaíodh freagairt níos éifeachtaí agus lenar soláthraíodh solúbthacht bhreise eisceachtúil chun freagairt ar an gcás nach bhfacthas a leithéid riamh roimhe. Agus na rioscaí sonracha atá ann do na daoine is díothaí de thoradh na paindéime á gcur san áireamh, áiríodh sa dara pacáiste freisin leasuithe ar Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 (Rialachán FEAD), trí Rialachán (AE) 2020/559, lena dtugtar isteach bearta sonracha maidir le solúbthacht agus leachtacht bhreise do na Ballstáit chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar phaindéim COVID‐19 faoin gCiste um Chabhair Eorpach do na Daoine is Díothaí (FEAD).
 Thairis sin, cuireadh acmhainní breise substaintiúla ar fáil ó NextGeneration EU maidir le beartas comhtháthaithe, i bhfoirm REACT‐EU, chun cúnamh a chur ar fáil chun leigheas dhíobháil na géarchéime a chothú i gcomhthéacs phaindéim COVID‐19 agus a hiarmhairtí sóisialta agus téarnamh glas, digiteach agus athléimneach a ullmhú don gheilleagar, Is féidir leis na Ballstáit na hacmhainní breise sin a úsáid freisin chun an leithdháileadh do chláir a fhaigheann tacaíocht ó FEAD a mhéadú.
 Bhí mórthionchar dearfach ag na solúbthachtaí agus na hacmhainní breise a tugadh isteach, lena n‐áirítear EUR 50 billiún d’airgead úr faoi REACT‐EU, agus EUR 23 bhilliún de chistiú athdhírithe faoi CRII agus CRII+. Go háirithe, rinneadh thart ar EUR 8 mbilliún a ath-leithdháileadh ar infheistíocht phráinneach i dtrealamh cosanta pearsanta, aerálaithe agus otharcharranna. Tá breis agus EUR 12 bhilliún dírithe ar dheontais éigeandála agus iasachtaí ar ráta úis íseal a chur ar fáil do ghnólachtaí beaga, rud a chuireann ar a gcumas fanacht i mbun gnó. Mar sin féin, bhí fad na paindéime agus an tionchar a bhí aige ar gheilleagar an Aontais, ar dhaoine, go háirithe ar na daoine is díothaí, agus ar an tsochaí i gcoitinne níos mó ná mar a measadh ag an tús. Go háirithe, tá laghdú tagtha ar na hacmhainní atá ar fáil mar gheall ar an mbrú ard ar bhuiséid na mBallstát chun an cómhaoiniú náisiúnta is gá a áirithiú le haghaidh na gclár lena mbaineann.
 Nuair a tháinig athraithigh nua den víreas chun cinn le linn 2021, go háirithe athraitheach Omicron go déanach sa bhliain, agus mar gheall ar an ngéarú forleathan ar shrianta a bhí ann sa ráithe dheireanach de 2021, cuireadh leis na héifeachtaí diúltacha ar gheilleagair na mBallstát.
 Ina theannta sin, tá brú breise ar bhuiseid na mBalltstát toisc go bhfuil bearta fioscacha suntasacha á nglacadh acu chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar an méadú a tháinig ar phraghsanna fuinnimh le déanaí tríd an tionchar ar na daoine is leochailí, ar ghnólachtaí beaga agus ar thionscail dianfhuinnimh a mhaolú. Níl an tionchar eacnamaíoch a ghabhann leis an ionradh ar an Úcráin soiléir go fóill ach oiread agus d’fhéadfadh sé go mbeadh drochthionchair aici ar théarnamh gheilleagair na mBallstát. i ndiaidh COVID‐19.
 Mar iarmhairt air sin, ba cheart tacaíocht ó na Cistí a shlógadh go pras chun an t‐ualach ar bhuiséid náisiúnta a laghdú. Is gá, dá bhrí sin, mar bheart sealadach agus eisceachtúil agus gan dochar do na rialacha ar cheart feidhm a bheith acu faoi chúinsí rialta, síneadh a chur leis an bhféidearthacht shealadach maidir leis an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % ó bhuiséad an Aontais chun cláir beartais chomhtháthaithe agus cláir a fhaigheann tacaíocht ó FEAD a chur chun feidhme go dtí an bhliain chuntasaíochta reatha 2021-2022.
 •Comhsheasmhacht le forálacha beartais atá sa réimse beartais cheana
 Tá an togra comhsheasmhach leis an gcreat dlíthiúil foriomlán a bunaíodh le haghaidh na gCistí Eorpacha Struchtúracha agus Infheistíochta agus le haghaidh an Chiste um Chabhair Eorpach do na Daoine is Díothaí agus tá sé teoranta do leasuithe spriocdhírithe agus eisceachtúla ar Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014. Ina theannta sin, comhlánaítear leis an togra na leasuithe a rinneadh roimhe seo ar na rialacháin sin faoi Rialacháin (AE) 2020/460, (AE) 2020/558, (AE) 2020/559, (AE) 2021/177 agus (AE) 2020/2221 chomh maith leis na bearta eile ar fad atá dírithe ar aghaidh a thabhairt ar an staid reatha nach bhfacthas a leithéid riamh roimhe.
 •Comhsheasmhacht le beartais eile de chuid an Aontais
 Níl i gceist leis an togra ach leasuithe spriocdhírithe eisceachtúla ar Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 agus tá sé comhsheasmhach le beartais eile de chuid an Aontais.
 2.BUNÚS DLÍ, COIMHDEACHT AGUS COMHRÉIREACHT
 •Bunús dlí
 Tá an togra seo bunaithe ar Airteagal 175(3) agus Airteagal 177 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 Éascaíonn sé úsáid an bheartais comhtháthaithe agus acmhainní FEAD chun tacú le bearta chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar dhúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise agus déantar foráil ann maidir leis an bhféidearthacht ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % a bheith ann le haghaidh CFRE, CSE, an Chiste Comhtháthaithe agus FEAD le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta 2021-2022.
 •Coimhdeacht (maidir le hinniúlacht neamheisiach)
 Is é is aidhm don togra úsáid an bheartais chomhtháthaithe agus acmhainní FEAD ag na Ballstáit agus ag na réigiúin a éascú chun tacú le bearta chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar dhúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise agus maolú ar na gnáthrialacha cómhaoinithe is infheidhme faoi láthair a cheadú d’fhonn an tsolúbthacht is gá a cheadú chun leas a bhaint as na hacmhainní infheistíochta atá ann cheana chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar na héifeachtaí díreacha agus indíreacha a eascraíonn as an ngéarchéim sláinte poiblí nach bhfacthas a leithéid riamh roimhe i gcomhthéacs phaindéim COVID‐19.
 •Comhréireacht
 Is athrú eisceachtúil agus spriocdhírithe é an togra nach dtéann thar a bhfuil riachtanach chun an cuspóir a bhaint amach maidir le húsáid an bheartais chomhtháthaithe agus acmhainní FEAD a éascú chun tacú le bearta chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar dhúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise agus lena ndéantar foráil maidir leis an bhféidearthacht ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % a bheith ann chun infheistíochtaí a shlógadh mar fhreagairt ar na géarchéimeanna forleathana sláinte poiblí a dhéanann difear d‘fhás réigiún agus fiontar agus d’fholláine an phobail i gcoitinne agus chun nach gcuirfear isteach ar an tacaíocht do na daoine is díothaí.
 •An rogha ionstraime
 Rialachán an ionstraim iomchuí chun úsáid an bheartais chomhtháthaithe agus acmhainní FEAD a éascú chun tacú le bearta chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar dhúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise agus chun síneadh a chur leis an bhféidearthacht cómhaoiniú 100 % a bheith ann, cómhaoiniú a bhfuil gá leis chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar na cúinsí sin nach bhfacthas a leithéid riamh roimhe seo.
 3.TORTHAÍ AR MHEASTÓIREACHTAÍ EX POST, AR CHOMHAIRLIÚCHÁIN LEIS NA PÁIRTITHE LEASMHARA AGUS AR MHEASÚNUITHE TIONCHAIR
 •Meastóireachtaí ex post/seiceálacha oiriúnachta ar an reachtaíocht atá ann cheana
 Neamhbhainteach
 •Comhairliúcháin leis na páirtithe leasmhara
 Leanann an togra plé ardleibhéil le hinstitiúidí eile agus leis na Ballstáit. Níl gá le comhairliúchán poiblí ós rud é nach bhfuil aon ghá le measúnú tionchair.
 •Bailiú agus úsáid saineolais
 Neamhbhainteach
 •Measúnú tionchair
 Rinneadh measúnú tionchair chun na tograí reachtacha a ullmhú le haghaidh Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus (AE) Uimh. 223/2014. Maidir leis na hathruithe spriocdhírithe seo chun freagairt do chásanna criticiúla, ní gá measúnú tionchair ar leithligh a dhéanamh orthu.
 •Oiriúnacht rialála agus simpliú
 Neamhbhainteach
 •Cearta bunúsacha
 Neamhbhainteach
 4.IMPLEACHTAÍ BUISÉADACHA
 Ní bhaineann an togra ach leis an mbeartas comhtháthaithe agus le cláir FEAD ón tréimhse 2014-2020 agus ní dhéanann sé aon mhodhnú ar ghealltanais bhuiséadacha atá ann cheana. Leis sin, éascófar cur chun feidhme an chláir a luathú agus meastar go mbeidh tús-ualú leithreasuithe íocaíochta go 2022 agus 2023 mar thoradh air, a chothromófar le laghdú ar an riachtanas íocaíochta le haghaidh na mblianta ina dhiaidh sin.
 Chun an modhnú atá beartaithe a dhéanamh, ní gá aon athrú a dhéanamh ar uasteorainneacha bliantúla an Chreata Airgeadais Ilbhliantúil le haghaidh gealltanas agus íocaíochtaí de réir mar leagtar síos in Iarscríbhinn I a ghabhann le Rialachán (AE, Euratom) 2020/2093 ón gComhairle, agus ní thugtar le fios ann athruithe ar na riachtanais íocaíochta le linn na tréimhse 2021-2027.
 Bunaithe ar an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % sa bhliain chuntasaíochta 2020-2021 a glacadh roimhe seo, ar leibhéal na n‐iarratas ar íocaíocht a cuireadh isteach sa dara leath de 2021, agus ar na réamh-mheastacháin íocaíochta is déanaí ó na Ballstáit le haghaidh 2022, maidir leis an tionchar buiséadach a bheidh ag cur i bhfeidhm an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta 2021-2022, meastar gurb é atá ann tús-ualú riachtanas íocaíochta EUR 9 mbilliún go dtí 2022 agus EUR 1 bhilliún go dtí 2023, a dhéanfar a chúiteamh le laghdú comhfhreagrach EUR 10 mbilliún in 2024.
 Mar sin féin, chun go mbeifear in ann na huasteorainneacha íocaíochta a chomhlíonadh sna blianta 2022 agus 2023, tá sé beartaithe uasteorainn a chur le hiomlán na n‐íocaíochtaí breise a eascraíonn as an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % a chur i bhfeidhm ag EUR 5 bhilliún in 2022 agus EUR 1 bhilliún in 2023. Ní íocfar na méideanna breise go dtí go bhfaighfear na hiarratais uile ar íocaíocht le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta 2021-2022. I gcás inar gá, déanfar na híocaíochtaí breise a eascraíonn as cur i bhfeidhm an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % ar bhonn pro rata chun cóir chomhionann na gclár uile lena mbaineann a áirithiú. Íocaíochtaí nach féidir a dhéanamh mar thoradh ar chur i bhfeidhm na n‐uasteorainneacha sin, ba cheart don Choimisiún iad a íoc a luaithe is féidir faoi réir infhaighteacht an chistithe, trí na cuntais a ghlacadh nó trí íocaíochtaí a dhéanamh ina dhiaidh sin.
 Déanfaidh an Coimisiún faireachán cúramach ar thionchar an mhodhnaithe atá beartaithe ar leithreasuithe íocaíochta in 2022 agus in 2023, agus cur chun feidhme foriomlán an bhuiséid, réamhaisnéisí athbhreithnithe na mBallstát, chomh maith le haon riachtanais nó tosaíochtaí a d’fhéadfadh teacht chun cinn á gcur san áireamh. Cuirfear san áireamh freisin aon tionchar a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ag an méadú ar an neamhchinnteacht a bhaineann leis an ionchas slándála.
 5.EILIMINTÍ EILE
 •Pleananna cur chun feidhme agus socruithe faireacháin, meastóireachta agus tuairiscithe
 Déanfar faireachán agus tuairisciú ar chur chun feidhme na mbeart faoi chuimsiú na sásraí tuairiscithe ginearálta a bunaíodh le Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus (AE) Uimh. 223/2013.
 •Doiciméid mhíniúcháin (i gcás treoracha)
 Neamhbhainteach
 •Míniúchán mionsonraithe ar fhorálacha sonracha an togra
 Tá sé beartaithe Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 a leasú chun an méid seo a leanas a dhéanamh:
 ·a áirithiú go bhféadfaidh Ballstáit agus réigiúin leanúint de thairbhe a bhaint as ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % ón Aontas ann le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta 2021-2022 agus sin a dhéanamh trí bhíthin fógra chuig an gCoimisiún (leasú ar Airteagal 25a de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus Airteagal 20 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014);
 ·socruithe a thabhairt isteach maidir le feidhmiú buiséadach íocaíochtaí breise de thoradh chur i bhfeidhm an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % chun uasteorainneacha bliantúla le haghaidh íocaíochtaí a chur san áireamh (leasú ar Airteagal 25a de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013);
 ·solúbthacht bhreise a thabhairt isteach idir CFRE agus CSE, go sonrach le haghaidh oibríochtaí lena dtugtar aghaidh ar dhúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise, agus socruithe tuairiscithe simplithe a thabhairt isteach maidir le rannpháirtithe (leasú ar Airteagal 98 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013), agus dáta tosaithe aisghníomhach incháilitheachta tacaíochta socraithe ag an 24 Feabhra 2022 (leasú ar Airteagal 65(10) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013);
 ·solúbthacht a thabhairt isteach do na Ballstáit chun cláir a dtacaíonn an Ciste um Chabhair Eorpach leo a leasú agus sin trí fhógra a thabhairt don Choimisiún (leasú ar Airteagal 9 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014) agus freisin le dáta tosaigh aisghníomhach incháilitheachta na tacaíochta a socraíodh ag 24 Feabhra 2022 (leasú ar Airteagal 22 de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014).
 2022/0075 (COD)
 Togra le haghaidh
 RIALACHÁN Ó PHARLAIMINT NA hEORPA AGUS ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 lena leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 a mhéid a bhaineann le Gníomhaíocht Chomhtháthaithe le haghaidh Dídeanaithe san Eoraip (CARE)
 TÁ PARLAIMINT NA hEORPA AGUS COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,
 Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe Airteagail 175(3) agus 177 de,
 Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,
 Tar éis dóibh an dréachtghníomh reachtach a chur chuig na parlaimintí náisiúnta,
 Ag féachaint don tuairim ó Choiste Eacnamaíoch agus Sóisialta na hEorpa
 1
 ,
 Ag féachaint don tuairim ó Choiste na Réigiún
 2
 ,
 Ag gníomhú dóibh i gcomhréir leis an ngnáthnós imeachta reachtach,
 De bharr an mhéid seo a leanas:
 (1)Tá athrú ó bhonn tagtha ar staid slándála na hEorpa mar gheall ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise i gcoinne na hÚcráine le déanaí agus mar gheall ar an gcoinbhleacht armtha atá ar siúl faoi láthair. Mar thoradh ar an ionsaí, tá rabharta mór daoine ag teacht isteach san Aontas Eorpach, agus go háirithe sna réigiúin in oirthear an Aontais. Is dúshlán breise é sin tráth a bhfuil geilleagair na mBallstát fós ag téarnamh ó thionchar phaindéim COVID‐19.
 (2)Is féidir leis na Ballstáit raon leathan infheistíochtaí a mhaoiniú cheana féin faoina gcláir beartais chomhtháthaithe chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar dhúshláin imirce faoi Chiste Forbraíochta Réigiúnaí na hEorpa (‘CFRE’) agus faoi Chiste Sóisialta na hEorpa (‘CSE’), lena n‐áirítear faoi na hacmhainní breise a sholáthraítear mar chuid de Chúnamh Téarnaimh don Chomhtháthú agus do Chríocha na hEorpa (REACT‐EU) chun cúnamh a sholáthar chun leigheas dhíobháil na géarchéime a chothú i gcomhthéacs phaindéim COVID‐19 agus a hiarmhairtí sóisialta agus téarnamh glas, digiteach agus athléimneach a ullmhú don gheilleagar. Féadfaidh na gníomhaíochtaí infheistíochtaí a chumhdach i réimsí an chuimsithe shóisialta, na sláinte, an oideachais, na fostaíochta, na tithíochta agus an chúraim leanaí, lena n‐áirítear trí infheistíochtaí a dhéanamh i mbonneagar, trí limistéir dhíothacha uirbeacha a athghiniúint, agus trí ghníomhaíochtaí a dhéanamh chun leithlisiú spásúil agus oideachais imirceach, gnólachtaí nuathionscanta agus daoine eile a laghdú. Féadfaidh na Ballstáit na hacmhainní atá fágtha a atreorú laistigh dá gcláir chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar dhúshláin den sórt sin. Ina theannta sin, féadfar an Ciste um Chabhair Eorpach do na Daoine is Díothaí (‘FEAD’) a úsáid freisin chun bia agus cúnamh ábhartha bunúsach a sholáthar do dhaoine a ndearna ionsaí míleata na Rúise difear dóibh, lena n‐áirítear náisiúnaigh tríú tír.
 (3)Cé go dtairbhíonn na hacmhainní breise a sholáthraítear faoi REACT‐EU de roinnt solúbthachtaí cur chun feidhme cheana féin, is gá úsáid níos solúbtha a bhaint as acmhainní CFRE, CSE agus FEAD ó chreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil 2014-2020. Agus a phráinní atá sé aghaidh a thabhairt ar na dúshláin imirce atá ann mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise i gcoinne na hÚcráine, ba cheart caiteachas le haghaidh oibríochtaí lena dtugtar aghaidh ar na dúshláin sin a bheith incháilithe ó dháta tosaigh an ionsaithe sin. Thairis sin, ba cheart solúbthacht maidir leis an gcaoi ar féidir CFRE agus CSE a úsáid a mhéadú le haghaidh oibríochtaí den sórt sin ionas go bhféadfar an cistiú atá ar fáil sna cláir a úsáid go tapa, ar choinníoll go bhfuil an oibríocht i gcomhréir leis an gclár oibríochtúil arna leasú i gcás inar gá. Ba cheart an tsolúbthacht sin a bheith sa bhreis ar na féidearthachtaí maidir le maoiniú comhlántach na n‐oibríochtaí dá bhforáiltear cheana. Ba cheart socruithe tuairiscithe simplithe maidir leis na rannpháirtithe sna hoibríochtaí sin a thabhairt isteach freisin.
 (4)Chun a áirithiú go bhféadfaidh daoine a ndéantar difear dóibh tairbhiú den chúnamh faoi FEAD gan mhoill, is iomchuí freisin cead a thabhairt do na Ballstáit gnéithe áirithe de na cláir oibríochtúla a fhaigheann tacaíocht ón gCiste seo a leasú, gan a cheangal orthu cinneadh ón gCoimisiún a ghlacadh.
 (5)Ba cheart an tacaíocht a sholáthraítear faoin mbeartas comhtháthaithe a bheith comhlántach go háirithe le gníomhaíochtaí a mhaoinítear faoin gCiste um Thearmann, Imirce agus Lánpháirtíocht (‘CTIL’) chun tionchar an chistithe atá ar fáil a uasmhéadú.
 (6)Ba cheart a mheabhrú go ndearna iarmhairtí phaindéim COVID‐19 difear do na Ballstáit ar bhealach nach bhfacthas a leithéid riamh roimhe seo. Chuir tionchar foriomlán na paindéime brú an-ard ar bhuiséid na mBallstát i ngeall ar an ardú tobann agus suntasach ar na hinfheistíochtaí poiblí a bhí de dhíth i gcórais cúraim sláinte na mBallstát agus in earnálacha eile dá ngeilleagair. Chuir sé an tacaíocht a sholáthraítear do na daoine is díothaí i mbaol freisin. Chruthaigh sé sin staid eisceachtúil nár mhór aghaidh a thabhairt uirthi le bearta sonracha.
 (7)Chun freagairt a thabhairt ar thionchar na géarchéime, rinneadh Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 1301/2013
 3
 agus (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013
 4
 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle a leasú le Rialachán (AE) 2020/460 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 5
 chun níos mó solúbthachta a thabhairt maidir le cur chun feidhme na gclár oibríochtúil a fhaigheann tacaíocht ó CFRE, ó CSE agus ón gCiste Comhtháthaithe (na ‘Cistí’) agus ón gCiste Eorpach Muirí agus Iascaigh. Mar sin féin, de réir mar a chuaigh na héifeachtaí tromchúiseacha diúltacha ar gheilleagair agus ar shochaithe an Aontais in olcas, leasaíodh an dá Rialachán sin arís le Rialachán (AE) 2020/558 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 6
 . Ina theannta sin, chun freagairt a thabhairt ar thionchar na géarchéime ar na daoine is díothaí, rinneadh Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 7
 a leasú freisin le Rialachán (AE) 2020/559 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 8
 chun bearta sonracha le haghaidh FEAD a thabhairt isteach chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar ráig COVID‐19. Leis na leasuithe sin, soláthraíodh solúbthacht bhreise eisceachtúil chun é a chur ar a gcumas do na Ballstáit díriú ar an bhfreagairt is gá ar an ngéarchéim nach bhfacthas a leithéid riamh roimhe seo trí fheabhas a chur ar an bhféidearthacht tacaíocht as na Cistí nach bhfuiltear á húsáid a shlógadh agus trí cheanglais nós imeachta a shimpliú, ar ceanglais iad atá nasctha le cur chun feidhme na gclár chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar an ngá atá le freagairt thapa a thabhairt ar an ngéarchéim sláinte poiblí. Le leasú ina dhiaidh sin ar Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013, a tugadh isteach le Rialachán (AE) 2020/2221 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 9
 , soláthraíodh acmhainní breise suntasacha mar chuid de Chúnamh Téarnaimh don Chomhtháthú agus do Chríocha na hEorpa (‘REACT-EU’) chun cúnamh a sholáthar chun leigheas dhíobháil na géarchéime a chothú i gcomhthéacs phaindéim COVID‐19 agus a hiarmhairtí sóisialta agus téarnamh glas, digiteach agus athléimneach a ullmhú don gheilleagar. Mar chuid den phacáiste céanna, rinneadh Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 a leasú freisin le Rialachán (AE) 2021/177 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 10
 , chun go bhféadfaidh na Ballstáit na hacmhainní breise a shlógadh chuig na daoine is díothaí i gcomhthéacs chur chun feidhme FEAD.
 (8)Cé gur chuidigh na solúbthachtaí agus na hacmhainní breise dá bhforáiltear i leith na tréimhse 2014‐2020 leis na Ballstáit ina gcuid iarrachtaí freagairt ar an ngéarchéim agus téarnamh ón ngéarchéim, d’imir teacht chun cinn athraitheach nua den choróinvíreas, go háirithe athraitheach Omicron, agus an géarú forleathan ar shrianta sa ráithe dheiridh de 2021 éifeachtaí tromchúiseacha diúltacha ar gheilleagair agus ar shochaithe na mBallstát agus chuir siad isteach ar ghnáthchur chun feidhme na gclár beartais chomhtháthaithe agus na gclár a fhaigheann tacaíocht ó FEAD. Tá na héifeachtaí sin níos measa mar gheall ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise le déanaí agus mar gheall ar na sreafaí imirce a d’eascair as an ionsaí, agus d’fhéadfaidís tuilleadh dochair a dhéanamh do théarnamh an gheilleagair. I gcomhréir leis an bhféidearthacht dá dtagraítear i Rialachán (AE) 2020/558, is gá, dá bhrí sin, foráil a dhéanamh maidir le síneadh eisceachtúil a chur le ceann de na bearta a tugadh isteach níos luaithe, eadhon an rogha i dtaca le cur i bhfeidhm ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta 2020-2021 a shíneadh go dtí an bhliain chuntasaíochta ina dhiaidh sin.
 (9)D’fhonn an t‐ualach ar bhuiséid phoiblí atá ag freagairt ar an ngéarchéim a mhaolú, d’fhonn dlús a chur le cur chun feidhme na gclár agus d’fhonn na hinfheistíochtaí is gá a chumasú le haghaidh théarnamh na réigiún, ba cheart an deis eisceachtúil a thabhairt do na Ballstáit ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % a chur i bhfeidhm i gclár a fhaigheann tacaíocht ó CFRE, ó CSE, ón gCiste Comhtháthaithe nó ó FEAD le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta 2021-2022 freisin.
 (10) Chun uasteorainneacha íocaíochta an chreata airgeadais ilbhliantúil le haghaidh 2022 agus 2023 a chomhlíonadh, ba cheart uasteorainn a bhunú le haghaidh na mblianta sin i gcás íocaíochtaí a eascraíonn as cur i bhfeidhm an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % faoi CFRE, faoin gCiste Comhtháthaithe nó faoi CSE. Íocaíochtaí nach féidir a dhéanamh mar thoradh ar chur i bhfeidhm na n‐uasteorainneacha sin, ba cheart don Choimisiún iad a íoc a luaithe is féidir faoi réir infhaighteacht an chistithe, trí na cuntais a ghlacadh nó trí íocaíochtaí a dhéanamh ina dhiaidh sin. Níor cheart d’íocaíochtaí iarchurtha den sórt sin difear a dhéanamh do ghlacadh na gcuntas ná níor cheart aon éifeacht eile a bheith acu.
 (11)Agus é á chur san áireamh nach ndéanfaidh cur i bhfeidhm an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % difear suntasach d’ábhar na gclár oibríochtúil féin, is iomchuí cur chun feidhme tapa an ráta a cheadú gan gá le cinneadh ón gCoimisiún lena bhformheastar leasú na mBallstát ar tháblaí airgeadais an chláir oibríochtúil. Mar sin féin, ba cheart don Bhallstát fógra a thabhairt maidir leis na táblaí airgeadais athbhreithnithe sula gcuirfear isteach an t‐iarratas deiridh ar íocaíocht le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta. Féadfar leasuithe iarmhartacha féideartha, lena n‐áirítear luachanna na dtáscairí, a dhéanamh mar chuid de leasú ar chlár tar éis dheireadh na bliana cuntasaíochta.
 (12)Ós rud é nach féidir leis na Ballstáit cuspóirí an Rialacháin seo a ghnóthú go leordhóthanach astu féin, eadhon bearta solúbthachta a thabhairt isteach sa réimse a bhaineann le tacaíocht ó na Cistí a sholáthar, agus ós rud é, mar gheall ar fhairsinge agus éifeachtaí an ghnímh atá beartaithe, gur fearr is féidir na cuspóirí a ghnóthú ar leibhéal an Aontais, féadfaidh an tAontas bearta a ghlacadh, i gcomhréir le prionsabal na coimhdeachta a leagtar amach in Airteagal 5 den Chonradh ar an Aontas Eorpach. I gcomhréir le prionsabal na comhréireachta, mar a leagtar amach san Airteagal sin, ní théann an Rialachán seo thar a bhfuil riachtanach chun na cuspóirí sin a bhaint amach.
 (13)Ba cheart, dá bhrí sin, Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 a leasú dá réir.
 (14)Ós rud é gur gá cead a thabhairt do na Ballstáit a gcláir a leasú in am chun tairbhiú de chur i bhfeidhm an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta 2021-2022, is iomchuí go dtiocfaidh an Rialachán seo i bhfeidhm an lá tar éis lá a fhoilsithe in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 (15)I bhfianaise a phráinní atá sé haghaidh a thabhairt ar na dúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise le déanaí agus mar thoradh ar an ngéarchéim sláinte phoiblí a eascraíonn as paindéim COVID‐19, meastar gurb iomchuí úsáid a bhaint as an eisceacht ar an tréimhse ocht seachtaine dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 4 de Phrótacal Uimh. 1 maidir le ról na bParlaimintí náisiúnta san Aontas Eorpach, atá i gceangal leis an gConradh ar an Aontas Eorpach, leis an gConradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh agus leis an gConradh ag bunú an Chomhphobail Eorpaigh do Fhuinneamh Adamhach,
 TAR ÉIS AN RIALACHÁN SEO A GHLACADH:
 Airteagal 1
 Leasú ar Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013
 Leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 mar a leanas:
 (1)In Airteagal 25a, cuirtear isteach an mhír 1a seo a leanas:
 ‘1a.
 De mhaolú ar Airteagal 60(1) agus de mhaolú ar an gcéad fhomhír agus ar an gceathrú fomhír d’Airteagal 120(3), féadfar ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % a chur i bhfeidhm maidir le caiteachas a dhearbhófar in iarratais ar íocaíocht le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta dar tús an 1 Iúil 2021 agus dar críoch an 30 Meitheamh 2022 le haghaidh ais tosaíochta amháin nó níos mó i gclár a fhaigheann tacaíocht ó CFRE, ó CSE nó ón gCiste Comhtháthaithe.
 De mhaolú ar Airteagal 30(1) agus Airteagal 30(2) agus Airteagal 96(10), ní bheidh gá le cinneadh ón gCoimisiún lena bhformheasfar leasú ar chlár chun an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % a chur i bhfeidhm. Tabharfaidh an Ballstát fógra don Choimisiún maidir leis na táblaí airgeadais athbhreithnithe tar éis don choiste faireacháin iad a fhormheas. Ní bheidh feidhm ag an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % ach amháin má thugtar fógra don Choimisiún maidir leis na táblaí airgeadais sula gcuirfear isteach an t‐iarratas deiridh ar íocaíocht eatramhach le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta dar tús an 1 Iúil 2021 agus dar críoch an 30 Meitheamh 2022 i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 135(2).
 Ní rachaidh na híocaíochtaí breise iomlána a eascraíonn as cur i bhfeidhm an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % thar EUR 5 bhilliún in 2022 agus EUR 1 bhilliún in 2023.
 Déanfaidh an Coimisiún íocaíochtaí eatramhacha tríd an ráta cómhaoinithe is infheidhme a chur i bhfeidhm maidir leis na haiseanna tosaíochta lena mbaineann roimh an bhfógra dá dtagraítear sa dara fomhír. De mhaolú ar Airteagal 135(5), íocfaidh an Coimisiún na méideanna breise a eascraíonn as cur i bhfeidhm an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % tar éis gach iarratas deiridh ar íocaíocht eatramhach le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta 2021-2022 a fháil, i gcás inar gá ar bhonn pro-rata chun na huasteorainneacha a leagtar amach sa tríú fomhír a urramú.
 De mhaolú ar Airteagal 139(7), na méideanna eile a eascraíonn as cur i bhfeidhm an ráta chómhaoinithe 100 %, nach féidir a íoc tar éis na cuntais a ghlacadh chun na huasteorainneacha a leagtar amach sa tríú fomhír a urramú, déanfar iad a íoc in 2024 nó ina dhiaidh sin.’.
 (2)Cuirtear an fhomhír seo a leanas le mír 10 d’Airteagal 65:
 ‘De mhaolú ar mhír 9, beidh caiteachas le haghaidh oibríochtaí lena dtugtar aghaidh ar na dúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise incháilithe ón 24 Feabhra 2022 ar aghaidh.’.
 (3)Cuirtear an mhír 4 seo a leanas le hAirteagal 98:
 ‘4. Féadfaidh CFRE nó CSE oibríochtaí lena dtugtar aghaidh ar na dúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise a mhaoiniú ar bhonn na rialacha is infheidhme maidir leis an gCiste eile.
 I gcásanna den sórt sin, déanfar na hoibríochtaí sin a chlársceidealú faoi ais tosaíochta thiomnaithe den Chiste eile sin lena rannchuideofar leis na tosaíochtaí infheistíochta comhfhreagracha.
 I gcás ina bhfuil gá le sonraí maidir leis na rannpháirtithe a thuairisciú le haghaidh oibríochtaí faoin ais tosaíochta thiomnaithe dá dtagraítear sa dara fomhír, beidh na sonraí sin bunaithe ar mheastacháin fheasacha agus beidh siad teoranta do líon iomlán na ndaoine a fhaigheann tacaíocht agus do líon na leanaí faoi bhun 18 mbliana d’aois.
 Ní bheidh feidhm ag an Airteagal seo maidir le cláir faoi sprioc an chomhair chríochaigh Eorpaigh.’.
 Airteagal 2
 Leasú ar Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014
 Leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 mar a leanas:
 (1)Cuirtear an fhomhír seo a leanas le hAirteagal 9(4):
 ‘Beidh feidhm ag an gcéad fhomhír agus ag an dara fomhír freisin chun gnéithe de chlár oibríochtúil lena dtugtar aghaidh ar na dúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise a mhodhnú.
 (2)In Airteagal 20, cuirtear isteach an mhír 1b seo a leanas:
 ‘1b.
 De mhaolú ar mhír 1, féadfar ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % a chur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an gcaiteachas arna dhearbhú in iarratais ar íocaíocht le linn na bliana cuntasaíochta dar tús an 1 Iúil 2021 agus dar críoch an 30 Meitheamh 2022.
 De mhaolú ar Airteagal 9(1), Airteagal 9(2) agus Airteagal 9(3), ní bheidh gá le cinneadh ón gCoimisiún lena bhformheasfar leasú ar chlár chun an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % a chur i bhfeidhm. Tabharfaidh an Ballstát fógra don Choimisiún maidir leis na táblaí airgeadais athbhreithnithe, dá dtagraítear i Roinn 5.1 de na teimpléid do chláir oibríochtúla a leagtar amach in Iarscríbhinn I. Ní bheidh feidhm ag an ráta cómhaoinithe 100 % ach amháin má thugtar fógra don Choimisiún maidir leis na táblaí airgeadais sula gcuirfear isteach an t‐iarratas deiridh ar íocaíocht eatramhach le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta dar tús an 1 Iúil 2021 agus dar críoch an 30 Meitheamh 2022 i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 45(2).’
 (3)Cuirtear an fhomhír seo a leanas le hAirteagal 22(4):
 ‘De mhaolú ar an gcéad fhomhír, beidh caiteachas le haghaidh oibríochtaí lena dtugtar aghaidh ar na dúshláin imirce mar thoradh ar ionsaí míleata na Rúise incháilithe ón 24 Feabhra 2022 ar aghaidh.’.
 Airteagal 3
 Tiocfaidh an Rialachán seo i bhfeidhm an lá tar éis lá a fhoilsithe in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 Beidh an Rialachán seo ina cheangal go huile agus go hiomlán agus beidh sé infheidhme go díreach i ngach Ballstát.
 Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,
 Thar ceann Pharlaimint na hEorpa
 Thar ceann na Comhairle
 An tUachtarán
 An tUachtarán
 AN TIONCHAR AIRGEADAIS A MHEASTAR A BHEIDH AG AN TOGRA/TIONSCNAMH
 Ceannteidil an chreata airgeadais ilbhliantúil agus na línte buiséid ar a n‐imreofar tionchar
 Línte buiséid atá ann cheana
 In ord cheannteidil agus línte buiséid an chreata airgeadais ilbhliantúil.
 Ceannteideal an chreata airgeadais ilbhliantúil
 Líne bhuiséid
 Saghas
 caiteachais
 Ranníocaíocht
 Uimhir
 LD/LN.
 11
 .
 ó thíortha de chuid CSTE
 12
 ó thíortha is iarrthóirí
 13
 ó thríú tíortha
 de réir bhrí Airteagal 21(2)(b) den Rialachán Airgeadais
 Comhtháthú eacnamaíoch, sóisialta agus críochach
 05.02.99.01 Ciste Forbraíochta Réigiúnaí na hEorpa (CFRE) a thabhairt i gcrích
 05.03.99.01 An Ciste Comhtháthaithe (CC) a thabhairt i gcrích
 07.02.99.01 Ciste Sóisialta na hEorpa (CSE) a thabhairt i gcrích
 07.02.99.04 An Ciste um Chabhair Eorpach do na Daoine is Díothaí (FEAD) a thabhairt i gcrích
 Difreáilte
 NÍL
 NÍL
 NÍL
 NÍL
 An tionchar airgeadais a mheastar a bheidh ag an togra ar leithreasuithe
 Achoimre ar an tionchar a mheastar a bheidh aige ar leithreasuithe faoi chomhair oibríochtaí
 Chun an modhnú atá beartaithe a dhéanamh, ní gá aon athrú a dhéanamh ar uasteorainneacha bliantúla an Chreata Airgeadais Ilbhliantúil d’oibleagáidí agus íocaíochtaí de réir mar leagtar síos in Iarscríbhinn I de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1311/2013, ná ar na riachtanais íocaíochta le linn na tréimhse 2021-2027.
 Ní gá aon athrú a dhéanamh ar mhiondealú bliantúil na leithreasuithe faoi chomhair gealltanas do Chiste Forbraíochta Réigiúnaí na hEorpa, do Chiste Sóisialta na hEorpa ná don Chiste Comhtháthaithe.
 Meastar go dtabharfar tús áite, de bharr an togra, d' íocaíocht na leithreasuithe le haghaidh na bliana cuntasaíochta ón 1 Iúil 2021 go dtí an 30 Meitheamh 2022, ar a bhfuil meastachán thíos.
 Ní éilíonn an togra/tionscnamh go n‐úsáidfear leithreasuithe de chineál riaracháin
 EUR milliúin (go dtí an tríú deachúil)
 Ceannteideal an chreata airgeadais
 ilbhliantúil
 Uimhir
 2a
 Ard‐Stiúrthóireacht: an Beartas Réigiúnach agus Uirbeach, an Ard-Stiúrthóireacht um Fhostaíocht, Gnóthaí Sóisialta agus Cuimsiú
 2021
 2022
 2023
 2024
 2025
 IOMLÁN
 •Leithreasuithe faoi chomhair oibríochtaí
 05.02.99.01 Ciste Forbraíochta Réigiúnaí na hEorpa (CFRE) a thabhairt i gcrích
 05.03.99.01 An Ciste Comhtháthaithe (CC) a thabhairt i gcrích
 07.02.99.01 Ciste Sóisialta na hEorpa (CSE) a thabhairt i gcrích
 07.02.99.04 An Ciste um Chabhair Eorpach do na Daoine is Díothaí (FEAD) a thabhairt i gcrích
 Gealltanais
 (1a)
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 Íocaíochtaí
 (2a)
 0.000
 5.000
 1.000
 -6.000
 0.000
 0.000
 Líne bhuiséid
 Gealltanais
 (1b)
 Íocaíochtaí
 (2b)
 Leithreasuithe de chineál riaracháin arna maoiniú as imchlúdach na gclár sonrach
 14
 Líne bhuiséid
 (3)
 IOMLÁN leithreasuithe
 le haghaidh Ard-Stiúrthóireacht an Bheartais Réigiúnaigh agus Uirbigh agus an Ard-Stiúrthóireacht um Fhostaíocht, Gnóthaí Sóisialta agus Cuimsiú
 Gealltanais
 =1a+1b +3
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 Íocaíochtaí
 =2a+2b
 +3
 0.000
 5.000
 1.000
 -6.000
 0.000
 0.000
 •IOMLÁN leithreasuithe faoi chomhair oibríochtaí
 Gealltanais
 (4)
 Íocaíochtaí
 (5)
 • IOMLÁN leithreasuithe de chineál riaracháin arna maoiniú as imchlúdach clár sonrach
 (6)
 IOMLÁN leithreasuithe
 faoi CHEANNTEIDEAL 2a
 den chreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil
 Gealltanais
 =4+ 6
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 Íocaíochtaí
 =5+ 6
 0.000
 5.000
 1.000
 -6.000
 0.000
 0.000
 Ceannteideal an chreata airgeadais
 ilbhliantúil
 7
 ‘Caiteachas riaracháin’
 Chun an chuid seo a líonadh isteach, ba cheart leas a bhaint as na ‘sonraí buiséid de chineál riaracháin’ atá le hiontráil ar dtús san
 Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann leis an Ráiteas Airgeadais Reachtach
 (Iarscríbhinn V a ghabhann leis na rialacha inmheánacha) agus a uaslódáiltear chuig an gcóras DECIDE chun críocha comhairliúcháin idirsheirbhíse.
 EUR milliúin (go dtí an tríú deachúil)
 Bliain
 N
 Bliain
 N+1
 Bliain
 N+2
 Bliain
 N+3
 Iontráil na blianta ar fad a theastaíonn le fad an tionchair a thaispeáint (féach pointe 1.6)
 IOMLÁN
 Ard‐Stiúrthóireacht: <.......>
 • Acmhainní daonna
 • Caiteachas riaracháin eile
 IOMLÁN AS <....>
 Leithreasuithe
 IOMLÁN leithreasuithe
 faoi CHEANNTEIDEAL 7
 den chreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil
 (Iomlán gealltanas = Iomlán íocaíochtaí)
 EUR milliúin (go dtí an tríú deachúil)
 2021
 2022
 2023
 2024
 2025
 IOMLÁN
 IOMLÁN leithreasuithe
 faoi CHEANNTEIDIL 1 go 7
 den chreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil
 Gealltanais
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 0.000
 Íocaíochtaí
 0.000
 5.000
 1.000
 -6.000
 0.000
 0.000
 An t‐aschur a mheastar a chisteofar le leithreasuithe faoi chomhair oibríochtaí
 Éilíonn an togra/an tionscnamh go n‐úsáidfear leithreasaí faoi chomhair oibríochtaí atá ann cheana (níl aon athrú ag baint leis seo):
 Leithreasuithe faoi chomhair gealltanas in EUR milliúin (go dtí an tríú deachúil)
 Sonraigh cuspóirí agus aschuir
 ⇩
 Bliain
 N
 Bliain
 N+1
 Bliain
 N+2
 Bliain
 N+3
 Iontráil na blianta ar fad a theastaíonn le fad an tionchair a thaispeáint (féach pointe 1.6)
 IOMLÁN
 ASCHUIR
 Saghas
 15
 Meánchostas
 Líon
 Costas
 Líon
 Costas
 Líon
 Costas
 Líon
 Costas
 Líon
 Costas
 Líon
 Costas
 Líon
 Costas
 Líon iomlán
 Costas iomlán
 CUSPÓIR SONRACH Uimh. 1
 16
 ...
 - Aschur
 - Aschur
 - Aschur
 Fo-iomlán do chuspóir sonrach Uimh. 1
 CUSPÓIR SONRACH Uimh. 2...
 - Aschur
 Fo-iomlán do chuspóir sonrach Uimh. 2
 IOMLÁIN
 Achoimre ar an tionchar a mheastar a bheidh aige ar leithreasuithe de chineál riaracháin
 X
 Ní éilíonn an togra/tionscnamh go n‐úsáidfear leithreasuithe de chineál riaracháin
 ◻
 Éilíonn an togra/tionscnamh go n‐úsáidfear leithreasuithe de chineál riaracháin mar a mhínítear thíos:
 EUR milliúin (go dtí an tríú deachúil)
 Bliain
 N
 17
 Bliain
 N+1
 Bliain
 N+2
 Bliain
 N+3
 Iontráil na blianta ar fad a theastaíonn le fad an tionchair a thaispeáint (féach pointe 1.6)
 IOMLÁN
 CEANNTEIDEAL 7
 den chreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil
 Acmhainní daonna
 Caiteachas riaracháin eile
 Fo-iomlán CHEANNTEIDEAL 7
 den chreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil
 Lasmuigh de CHEANNTEIDEAL 7
 18
 of the multiannual financial framework
 Acmhainní daonna
 Caiteachas eile
 de chineál riaracháin
 Fo-iomlán
 lasmuigh de CHEANNTEIDEAL 7
 den chreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil
 IOMLÁN
 Cumhdófar na hacmhainní daonna is gá agus caiteachas eile de chineál riaracháin le leithreasuithe ón Ard-Stiúrthóireacht a bhfuil bainistíocht an bhirt faoina gcúram cheana agus/nó atá ath-imlonnaithe laistigh den Ard-Stiúrthóireacht, mar aon le haon leithdháileadh breise a d’fhéadfaí a thabhairt don Ard-Stiúrthóireacht atá i mbun bainistíochta faoi chuimsiú an nós imeachta maidir le leithdháileadh bliantúil i bhfianaise na srianta buiséadacha.
 Na hacmhainní daonna a mheastar a bheidh riachtanach
 X
 Ní éilíonn an togra/tionscnamh go n‐úsáidfear acmhainní daonna.
 ◻
 Éilíonn an togra/tionscnamh go n‐úsáidfear acmhainní daonna mar a mhínítear thíos:
 Sloinnfear an meastachán in aonaid de choibhéis lánaimseartha
 –
 Bliain
 N
 Bliain
 N+1
 Bliain N+2
 Bliain N+3
 Iontráil na blianta ar fad a theastaíonn le fad an tionchair a thaispeáint (féach pointe 1.6)
 •Poist don phlean bunaíochta (oifigigh agus foireann shealadach)
 –20 01 02 01 (Ceanncheathrú agus Oifigí Ionadaíocht an Choimisiúin)
 –20 01 02 03 (Toscaireachtaí)
 –01 01 01 01 (Taighde indíreach)
 – 01 01 01 11 (Taighde díreach)
 –Línte buiséid eile (sonraigh)
 –• Foireann sheachtrach (i gcoibhéis lánaimseartha: FTE)
 19
 –
 –20 02 01 (AC, END, INT ón ‘imchlúdach iomlánaíoch’)
 –20 02 03 (AC, AL, END, INT agus JPD sna toscaireachtaí)
 –XX 01 xx yy zz
 20
 –
 –- sa cheanncheathrú
 –
 –
 –
 –- i dtoscaireachtaí
 –
 –01 01 01 02 (AC, END, INT – Taighde indíreach)
 – 01 01 01 12 (CA, INT, SNE – taighde díreach)
 –Línte buiséid eile (sonraigh)
 –IOMLÁN
 Is é XX an réimse beartais nó an teideal buiséid lena mbaineann.
 Soláthrófar na hacmhainní daonna is gá le baill foirne ón Ard-Stiúrthóireacht a bhfuil bainistíocht an bhirt faoina gcúram cheana agus/nó a ath-imlonnófar laistigh den Ard-Stiúrthóireacht, mar aon le haon leithdháileadh breise a d'fhéadfaí a thabhairt don Ard-Stiúrthóireacht atá i mbun bainistíochta faoi chuimsiú an nós imeachta maidir le leithdháileadh bliantúil i bhfianaise na srianta buiséadacha.
 Cur síos ar na cúraimí a bheidh le déanamh:
 Oifigigh agus pearsanra sealadach
 Pearsanra seachtrach
 Comhoiriúnacht don chreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil reatha
 Tá an togra/tionscnamh comhoiriúnach leis an gcreat airgeadais ilbhliantúil reatha.
 I gcás an togra/tionscnaimh seo:
 ◻
 is féidir é a mhaoiniú ina iomláine trí athshannadh laistigh den cheannteideal ábhartha den Chreat Airgeadais Ilbhliantúil (CAI).
 Mínigh an cineál athchláraithe a bhfuil gá leis, agus sonraigh na línte buiséid lena mbaineann agus na méideanna comhfhreagracha. Cuir tábla excel ar fáil i gcás athchlárú mór.
 ◻
 is gá an corrlach gan leithdháileadh faoin gceannteideal ábhartha de CAI a úsáid agus/nó na hionstraimí speisialta a shainítear sa Rialachán maidir le CAI a úsáid.
 Mínigh an méid a bhfuil gá leis, agus sonraigh na ceannteidil agus na línte buiséid lena mbaineann, na méideanna comhfhreagracha agus na hionstraimí atá beartaithe a úsáid.
 ◻
 is gá athbhreithniú ar CAI.
 Mínigh an méid a bhfuil gá leis, agus sonraigh na ceannteidil agus na línte buiséid lena mbaineann agus na méideanna comhfhreagracha.
 Ranníocaíochtaí ó thríú páirtithe
 I gcás an togra/tionscnaimh seo:
 X
 ní dhéantar foráil maidir le cómhaoiniú le tríú páirtithe
 ◻
 déantar foráil maidir leis an gcómhaoiniú le tríú páirtithe atá réamh-mheasta thíos:
 Leithreasuithe in EUR milliúin (go dtí an 3ú deachúil)
 Bliain
 N
 21
 Bliain
 N+1
 Bliain
 N+2
 Bliain
 N+3
 Iontráil na blianta ar fad a theastaíonn le fad an tionchair a thaispeáint (féach pointe 1.6)
 Iomlán
 Sonraigh an comhlacht cómhaoinithe
 IOMLÁN leithreasuithe cómhaoinithe
 An tionchar a mheastar a bheidh ar ioncam
 X
 Ní bheidh tionchar airgeadais ar bith ag an togra ar ioncam..
 ◻
 Beidh an tionchar airgeadais seo a leanas ag an togra/tionscnamh:
 ◻
 ar acmhainní dílse
 ◻
 ar ioncam eile
 má tá an t‐ioncam sannta do línte caiteachais◻, sonraigh sin
 EUR milliúin (go dtí an tríú deachúil)
 Líne buiséid ioncaim:
 Leithreasuithe atá ar fáil don bhliain airgeadais reatha
 Tionchar an togra/tionscnaimh
 22
 Bliain
 N
 Bliain
 N+1
 Bliain
 N+2
 Bliain
 N+3
 Iontráil na blianta ar fad a theastaíonn le fad an tionchair a thaispeáint (féach pointe 1.6)
 Airteagal .............
 I gcás ioncam ilghnéitheach atá sannta, sonraigh na línte buiséid a n‐imrítear tionchar orthu.
 [...]
 Aon rud eile (e.g. an modh nó an fhoirmle a úsáideadh chun an tionchar ar ioncam a ríomh nó aon fhaisnéis eile).
 [...]
 (1)
 IO C , , lch. .
 (2)
 IO C , , lch. .
 (3)
 Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1301/2013 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 17 Nollaig 2013 maidir le Ciste Forbraíochta Réigiúnaí na hEorpa agus maidir le forálacha sonracha a bhaineann le sprioc na hInfheistíochta le haghaidh fáis agus post agus lena n‐aisghairtear Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1080/2006 (IO L 347, 20.12.2013, lch. 289).
 (4)
 Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 17 Nollaig 2013 lena leagtar síos forálacha coiteanna maidir le Coiste Forbraíochta Réigiúnaí na hEorpa, le Ciste Sóisialta na hEorpa, leis an gCiste Comhtháthaithe, leis an gCiste Eorpach Talmhaíocha um Fhorbairt Tuaithe agus leis an gCiste Eorpach Muirí agus Iascaigh agus lena leagtar síos forálacha ginearálta maidir le Ciste Forbraíochta Réigiúnaí na hEorpa, le Ciste Sóisialta na hEorpa, leis an gCiste Comhtháthaithe agus leis an gCiste Eorpach Muirí agus Iascaigh agus lena n‐aisghairtear Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1083/2006 ón gComhairle (IO L 347, 20.12.2013, lch. 320).
 (5)
 Rialachán (AE) 2020/460 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 30 Márta 2020 lena leasaítear Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 1301/2013, (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 agus (AE) Uimh. 508/2014 a mhéid a bhaineann le bearta sonracha chun infheistíochtaí a shlógadh i gcórais cúraim sláinte na mBallstát agus in earnálacha eile dá ngeilleagar mar fhreagairt ar ráig COVID‐19 (An Tionscnamh Infheistíochta mar Fhreagairt ar an gCoróinvíreas) (IO L 99, 31.3.2020, lch. 5).
 (6)
 Rialachán (AE) 2020/558 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 23 Aibreán 2020 lena leasaítear Rialacháin (AE) Uimh. 1301/2013 agus (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 maidir le bearta sonracha lena soláthraítear solúbthacht eisceachtúil chun leas a bhaint as Cistí Struchtúracha agus Infheistíochta na hEorpa mar fhreagairt ar ráig COVID‐19 (IO L 130, 24.4.2020, lch. 1).
 (7)
 Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 11 Márta 2014 maidir leis an gCiste um Chabhair Eorpach do na Daoine is Díothaí (IO L 72, 12.3.2014, lch. 1).
 (8)
 Rialachán (AE) 2020/559 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 23 Aibreán 2021 lena leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 a mhéid a bhaineann le bearta sonracha a thabhairt isteach chun dul i ngleic le ráig COVID‐19 (IO L 130, 24.4.2020, lch. 7).
 (9)
 Rialachán (AE) Uimh 2020/2221 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 23 Nollaig 2020 lena leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1303/2013 a mhéid a bhaineann le hacmhainní breise agus socruithe cur chun feidhme chun cúnamh a sholáthar chun leigheas dhíobháil na géarchéime a chothú i gcomhthéacs phaindéim COVID‐19 agus a hiarmhairtí sóisialta agus téarnamh glas, digiteach agus athléimneach an gheilleagair a ullmhú (REACT‐EU) (IO L 437, 28.12.2020, lch. 30).
 (10)
 Rialachán (AE) 2021/177 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 10 Feabhra 2021 lena leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 223/2014 a mhéid a bhaineann le bearta sonracha a thabhairt isteach chun dul i ngleic le ráig COVID‐19 (IO L 53, 16.2.2021, lch. 1).
 (11)
 LD = Leithreasuithe difreáilte / LN = Leithreasuithe neamhdhifreáilte.
 (12)
 CSTE: Comhlachas Saorthrádála na hEorpa.
 (13)
 Tíortha is iarrthóirí agus, nuair is iomchuí, tíortha ó na Balcáin Thiar a d'fhéadfadh a bheith ina n‐iarrthóirí.
 (14)
 Cúnamh agus caiteachas teicniúil agus/nó riaracháin ar mhaithe le cláir agus/nó bearta de chuid an Aontais (seanlínte ‘BA’) a chur chun feidhme, taighde indíreach, taighde díreach.
 (15)
 Is ionann aschuir agus táirgí agus seirbhísí atá le soláthar (e.g.: líon na malartuithe mac léinn a fhaigheann maoiniú, iomlán km de bhóithre a rinneadh, etc.).
 (16)
 Mar a thuairiscítear i bpointe 1.4.2. ‘Cuspóirí sonracha...’
 (17)
 Is í bliain N an bhliain a chuirfear tús le cur chun feidhme an togra/tionscnaimh. Is gá an chéad bhliain cur chun feidhme a mheastar a bheidh ann a chur in ionad ‘N’ (mar shampla: 2021). Is gá an rud céanna a dhéanamh i gcás na mblianta eile.
 (18)
 Cúnamh agus caiteachas teicniúil agus/nó riaracháin ar mhaithe le cláir agus/nó bearta de chuid an Aontais (seanlínte ‘BA’) a chur chun feidhme, taighde indíreach, taighde díreach.
 (19)
 AC= Ball foirne ar conradh; AL = Ball foirne áitiúil; END= Saineolaí náisiúnta ar iasacht; INT = Ball foirne gníomhaireachta; JPD = Saineolaithe sóisearacha i dtoscaireachtaí.
 (20)
 Fo-uasteorainn d’fhoireann sheachtrach arna cumhdach ag leithreasuithe faoi chomhair oibríochtaí (na seanlínte ‘BA’).
 (21)
 Is í bliain N an bhliain a chuirfear tús le cur chun feidhme an togra/tionscnaimh. Is gá an chéad bhliain cur chun feidhme a mheastar a bheidh ann a chur in ionad ‘N’ (mar shampla: 2021). Is gá an rud céanna a dhéanamh i gcás na mblianta eile.
 (22)
 A fhad a bhaineann le hacmhainní dílse traidisiúnta (dleachtanna talmhaíochta, tobhaigh siúcra), ní mór na méideanna a luaitear a bheith ina nglanmhéideanna, i.e. méideanna comhlána agus 20 % de na costais bhailiúcháin a bheith bainte astu.