jurisdiction: US

text:
 116 S1108 IS: Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019
 U.S. Senate
 2019-04-10
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 II116th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 1108IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATESApril 10, 2019Mr. Wyden (for himself and Mr. Booker) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and TransportationA BILLTo direct the Federal Trade Commission to require entities that use, store, or share personal
 information to conduct automated decision system impact assessments and
 data protection impact assessments.
 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2019. 2.DefinitionsIn this Act:
 (1)Automated decision systemThe term automated decision system means a computational process, including one derived from machine learning, statistics, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making, that impacts consumers.
 (2)Automated decision system impact assessmentThe term automated decision system impact assessment means a study evaluating an automated decision system and the automated decision system’s development process, including the design and training data of the automated decision system, for impacts on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security that includes, at a minimum—
 (A)a detailed description of the automated decision system, its design, its training, data, and its purpose;
 (B)an assessment of the relative benefits and costs of the automated decision system in light of its purpose, taking into account relevant factors, including—
 (i)data minimization practices; (ii)the duration for which personal information and the results of the automated decision system are stored;
 (iii)what information about the automated decision system is available to consumers; (iv)the extent to which consumers have access to the results of the automated decision system and may correct or object to its results; and
 (v)the recipients of the results of the automated decision system; (C)an assessment of the risks posed by the automated decision system to the privacy or security of personal information of consumers and the risks that the automated decision system may result in or contribute to inaccurate, unfair, biased, or discriminatory decisions impacting consumers; and
 (D)the measures the covered entity will employ to minimize the risks described in subparagraph (C), including technological and physical safeguards.
 (3)CommissionThe term Commission means the Federal Trade Commission. (4)ConsumerThe term consumer means an individual.
 (5)Covered entityThe term covered entity means any person, partnership, or corporation over which the Commission has jurisdiction under section 5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(2)) that—
 (A)had greater than $50,000,000 in average annual gross receipts for the 3-taxable-year period preceding the most recent fiscal year, as determined in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 448(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
 (B)possesses or controls personal information on more than— (i)1,000,000 consumers; or
 (ii)1,000,000 consumer devices; (C)is substantially owned, operated, or controlled by a person, partnership, or corporation that meets the requirements under subparagraph (A) or (B); or
 (D)is a data broker or other commercial entity that, as a substantial part of its business, collects, assembles, or maintains personal information concerning an individual who is not a customer or an employee of that entity in order to sell or trade the information or provide third-party access to the information.
 (6)Data protection impact assessmentThe term data protection impact assessment means a study evaluating the extent to which an information system protects the privacy and security of personal information the system processes.
 (7)High-risk automated decision systemThe term high-risk automated decision system means an automated decision system that— (A)taking into account the novelty of the technology used and the nature, scope, context, and purpose of the automated decision system, poses a significant risk—
 (i)to the privacy or security of personal information of consumers; or (ii)of resulting in or contributing to inaccurate, unfair, biased, or discriminatory decisions impacting consumers;
 (B)makes decisions, or facilitates human decision making, based on systematic and extensive evaluations of consumers, including attempts to analyze or predict sensitive aspects of their lives, such as their work performance, economic situation, health, personal preferences, interests, behavior, location, or movements, that—
 (i)alter legal rights of consumers; or (ii)otherwise significantly impact consumers;
 (C)involves the personal information of a significant number of consumers regarding race, color, national origin, political opinions, religion, trade union membership, genetic data, biometric data, health, gender, gender identity, sexuality, sexual orientation, criminal convictions, or arrests;
 (D)systematically monitors a large, publicly accessible physical place; or (E)meets any other criteria established by the Commission in regulations issued under section 3(b)(1).
 (8)High-risk information systemThe term high-risk information system means an information system that— (A)taking into account the novelty of the technology used and the nature, scope, context, and purpose of the information system, poses a significant risk to the privacy or security of personal information of consumers;
 (B)involves the personal information of a significant number of consumers regarding race, color, national origin, political opinions, religion, trade union membership, genetic data, biometric data, health, gender, gender identity, sexuality, sexual orientation, criminal convictions, or arrests;
 (C)systematically monitors a large, publicly accessible physical place; or (D)meets any other criteria established by the Commission in regulations issued under section 3(b)(1).
 (9)Information systemThe term information system— (A)means a process, automated or not, that involves personal information, such as the collection, recording, organization, structuring, storage, alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, sharing, disclosure, dissemination, combination, restriction, erasure, or destruction of personal information; and
 (B)does not include automated decision systems. (10)Personal informationThe term personal information means any information, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained that is reasonably linkable to a specific consumer or consumer device.
 (11)StoreThe term store— (A)means the actions of a person, partnership, or corporation to retain information; and
 (B)includes actions to store, collect, assemble, possess, control, or maintain information. (12)UseThe term use means the actions of a person, partnership, or corporation in using information, including actions to use, process, or access information.
 3.Data protection authority
 (a)Acts prohibitedIt is unlawful for any covered entity to— (1)violate a regulation promulgated under subsection (b); or
 (2)knowingly provide substantial assistance to any person, partnership, or corporation whose actions violate subsection (b).
 (b)Regulations
 (1)In generalNot later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall promulgate regulations, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, that—
 (A)require each covered entity to conduct automated decision system impact assessments of— (i)existing high-risk automated decision systems, as frequently as the Commission determines is necessary; and
 (ii)new high-risk automated decision systems, prior to implementation, provided that a covered entity may evaluate similar high-risk automated decision systems that present similar risks in a single assessment;(B)require each covered entity to conduct data protection impact assessments of—
 (i)existing high-risk information systems, as frequently as the Commission determines is necessary; and
 (ii)new high-risk information systems, prior to implementation, provided that a covered entity may evaluate similar high-risk information systems that present similar risks in a single assessment;(C)require each covered entity to conduct the impact assessments under subparagraphs (A) and (B), if reasonably possible, in consultation with external third parties, including independent auditors and independent technology experts; and
 (D)require each covered entity to reasonably address in a timely manner the results of the impact assessments under subparagraphs (A) and (B).
 (2)Optional publication of impact assessmentsThe impact assessments under subparagraphs (A) and (B) may be made public by the covered entity at its sole discretion.
 (c)Preemption of private contractsIt shall be unlawful for any covered entity to commit the acts prohibited in subsection (a), regardless of specific agreements between entities or consumers.
 (d)Enforcement by the Commission
 (1)Unfair or deceptive acts or practicesA violation of subsection (a) shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
 (2)Powers of the Commission
 (A)In generalThe Commission shall enforce this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part of this section.
 (B)Privileges and immunitiesAny person who violates subsection (a) shall be subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.).
 (C)Authority preservedNothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission under any other provision of law.
 (e)Enforcement by States
 (1)In generalIf the attorney general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of the State has been or is being threatened or adversely affected by a practice that violates subsection (a), the attorney general of the State may, as parens patriae, bring a civil action on behalf of the residents of the State in an appropriate district court of the United States to obtain appropriate relief.
 (2)Rights of Commission
 (A)Notice to Commission
 (i)In generalExcept as provided in clause (iii), the attorney general of a State, before initiating a civil action under paragraph (1), shall provide written notification to the Commission that the attorney general intends to bring such civil action.
 (ii)ContentsThe notification required under clause (i) shall include a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate the civil action.
 (iii)ExceptionIf it is not feasible for the attorney general of a State to provide the notification required under clause (i) before initiating a civil action under paragraph (1), the attorney general shall notify the Commission immediately upon instituting the civil action.
 (B)Intervention by CommissionThe Commission may— (i)intervene in any civil action brought by the attorney general of a State under paragraph (1); and
 (ii)upon intervening— (I)be heard on all matters arising in the civil action; and
 (II)file petitions for appeal of a decision in the civil action. (3)Investigatory powersNothing in this subsection may be construed to prevent the attorney general of a State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of the State to conduct investigations, to administer oaths or affirmations, or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary or other evidence.
 (4)Venue; service of process
 (A)VenueAny action brought under paragraph (1) may be brought in— (i)the district court of the United States that meets applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391 of title 28, United States Code; or
 (ii)another court of competent jurisdiction. (B)Service of processIn an action brought under paragraph (1), process may be served in any district in which—
 (i)the defendant is an inhabitant, may be found, or transacts business; or (ii)venue is proper under section 1391 of title 28, United States Code.
 (5)Actions by other State officials
 (A)In generalIn addition to a civil action brought by an attorney general under paragraph (1), any other officer of a State who is authorized by the State to do so may bring a civil action under paragraph (1), subject to the same requirements and limitations that apply under this subsection to civil actions brought by attorneys general.
 (B)Savings provisionNothing in this subsection may be construed to prohibit an authorized official of a State from initiating or continuing any proceeding in a court of the State for a violation of any civil or criminal law of the State.
 4.No preemptionNothing in this Act may be construed to preempt any State law.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 9.5.2008
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 116/6
 Rozsudek Soudního dvora (třetího senátu) ze dne 13. března 2008 (žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce Raad van State – Nizozemsko) – Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening (C-383/06), Gemeente Rotterdam (C-384/06) v. Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid a Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant (C-385/06) v. Algemene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening
 (Spojené věci C-383/06 až C-385/06) (1)
 (Strukturální fondy - Článek 23 odst. 1 nařízení (EHS) č. 4253/88 - Zrušení a zpětné vymáhání finanční pomoci Společenství - Článek 249 ES - Ochrana legitimního očekávání a právní jistoty)
 (2008/C 116/10)
 Jednací jazyk: nizozemština
 Předkládající soud
 Raad van State
 Účastníci původního řízení
 Žalobkyně: Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening (C-383/06), Gemeente Rotterdam (C-384/06), Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant (C-385/06)
 Žalovaní: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, Algemene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening
 Předmět věci
 Žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce – Nederlandse Raad van State – Výklad čl. 23 odst. 1 nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 4253/88 ze dne 19. prosince 1988, kterým se stanoví prováděcí pravidla k nařízení (EHS) č. 2052/88, pokud jde o koordinaci mezi činnostmi jednotlivých strukturálních fondů navzájem a mezi těmito činnostmi a operacemi Evropské investiční banky a jinými stávajícími finančními nástroji – Článek 10 ES a 249 ES – Uplatňování obecných zásad práva Společenství
 Výrok
 1)
 Článek 23 odst. 1 nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 4253/88 ze dne 19. prosince 1988, kterým se stanoví prováděcí ustanovení k nařízení (EHS) č. 2052/88 týkající se koordinace mezi činnostmi jednotlivých strukturálních fondů navzájem a mezi těmito činnostmi a operacemi Evropské investiční banky a jinými stávajícími finančními nástroji, ve znění nařízení Rady (EHS) č. 2082/93 ze dne 20. července 1993, zakládá povinnost členských států zpětně vymáhat prostředky ztracené v důsledku zneužití nebo nedbalosti, aniž by k tomu bylo třeba zmocnění podle vnitrostátního práva.
 2)
 Zpětné vymáhání prostředků ztracených v důsledku zneužití nebo nedbalosti musí být provedeno na základě čl. 23 odst. 1 nařízení č. 4253/88, ve znění nařízení č. 2082/93, a podle pravidel vnitrostátního práva s tou výhradou, že použití tohoto práva nesmí bránit použití a účinnosti práva Společenství a prakticky znemožnit zpětné vymáhání protiprávně přiznaných částek. Vnitrostátní soud musí zajistit plné uplatnění práva Společenství tím, že podle potřeby nepoužije nebo vyloží vnitrostátní předpis, jako například obecný zákon o správním právu (Algemene wet bestuursrecht), který by zpětnému vymáhání bránil. Vnitrostátní soud může při posuzování jednání příjemců ztracených prostředků i správních orgánů použít zásadu právní jistoty a zásadu ochrany legitimního očekávání uplatňovaných v rámci práva Společenství za podmínky, že plně zohlední zájmy Evropského společenství. Skutečnost, že příjemce prostředků je veřejnoprávním subjektem, je v tomto ohledu nerozhodná.
 (1) Úř. věst. C 310, 16.12.2006.


type: legislation

text:
 11.10.2013
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 270/3
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) č. 970/2013
 z 10. októbra 2013,
 ktorým sa ustanovujú paušálne dovozné hodnoty na určovanie vstupných cien niektorých druhov ovocia a zeleniny
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 1234/2007 z 22. októbra 2007 o vytvorení spoločnej organizácie poľnohospodárskych trhov a o osobitných ustanoveniach pre určité poľnohospodárske výrobky (nariadenie o jednotnej spoločnej organizácii trhov) (1),
 so zreteľom na vykonávacie nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) č. 543/2011 zo 7. júna 2011, ktorým sa ustanovujú podrobné pravidlá uplatňovania nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1234/2007, pokiaľ ide o sektory ovocia a zeleniny a spracovaného ovocia a zeleniny (2), a najmä na jeho článok 136 ods. 1,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Vykonávacím nariadením (EÚ) č. 543/2011 sa v súlade s výsledkami Uruguajského kola mnohostranných obchodných rokovaní ustanovujú kritériá, na základe ktorých Komisia stanovuje paušálne hodnoty na dovoz z tretích krajín, pokiaľ ide o výrobky a obdobia uvedené v časti A prílohy XVI k uvedenému nariadeniu.
 (2)
 Paušálne dovozné hodnoty sa vypočítajú každý pracovný deň v súlade s článkom 136 ods. 1 vykonávacieho nariadenia (EÚ) č. 543/2011, pričom sa zohľadnia premenlivé každodenné údaje. Toto nariadenie by preto malo nadobudnúť účinnosť dňom jeho uverejnenia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Paušálne dovozné hodnoty uvedené v článku 136 vykonávacieho nariadenia (EÚ) č. 543/2011 sú stanovené v prílohe k tomuto nariadeniu.
 Článok 2
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť dňom jeho uverejnenia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 10. októbra 2013
 Za Komisiu v mene predsedu
 Jerzy PLEWA
 generálny riaditeľ pre poľnohospodárstvo a rozvoj vidieka
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 299, 16.11.2007, s. 1.
 (2) Ú. v. EÚ L 157, 15.6.2011, s. 1.
 PRÍLOHA
 Paušálne dovozné hodnoty na určovanie vstupných cien niektorých druhov ovocia a zeleniny
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Číselný znak KN
 Kód tretej krajiny (1)
 Paušálna dovozná hodnota
 0702 00 00
 MK
 49,2
 ZZ
 49,2
 0707 00 05
 MK
 46,1
 TR
 121,6
 ZZ
 83,9
 0709 93 10
 TR
 135,1
 ZZ
 135,1
 0805 50 10
 AR
 101,0
 CL
 119,3
 IL
 100,2
 TR
 91,2
 ZA
 112,1
 ZZ
 104,8
 0806 10 10
 BR
 244,8
 MK
 32,3
 TR
 140,5
 ZZ
 139,2
 0808 10 80
 AR
 101,1
 BA
 56,1
 BR
 89,2
 CL
 154,3
 NZ
 135,2
 US
 119,2
 ZA
 140,6
 ZZ
 113,7
 0808 30 90
 AR
 199,8
 TR
 126,8
 ZZ
 163,3
 (1) Nomenklatúra krajín stanovená nariadením Komisie (ES) č. 1833/2006 (Ú. v. EÚ L 354, 14.12.2006, s. 19). Kód „ZZ“ znamená „iného pôvodu“.


type: wikipedia

text:
Boly (más néven Zemplénboly, ) község Szlovákiában, a Kassai kerület Tőketerebesi járásában.
 Fekvése
 Királyhelmectől 6 km-re északra, a Latorca régi árterében található.
 Története
 A régészeti leletek tanúsága szerint a község területe már a kőkorban is lakott volt, az itt élő nép a nyírség-zétényi kultúrához tartozott.
 A mai települést 1221-ben „Bol” néven említik először. 1332-ben már állt román stílusú temploma, melyet a pápai tizedjegyzék említ. 1337-ben már mai magyar Boly nevén szerepel. A 14. században a Bolyi család elszegényedett ágának birtoka. A 15.–16. században gyakran változtak birtokosai. 1419-ben Cseke György és Imreghi András birtoka. 1439-ben az Újfalussyak, 1443-ban a Csebyek, 1475-ben a Nagyok, 1487-ben a Széchyek a tulajdonosok. 1528-ban a Taróczyak, 1548-ban a Némethyek, 1559-ben a Bejczyek, 1561-ben az Aytayak birtoka. 1557-ben 8 portát számláltak a faluban, ebből 3 zsellérház volt. 1598-ban a Rákócziak is birtokosok lettek a településen. A 17. század végén Barkóczy Ferenc és Klobusiczky Ferenc birtoka. Ez idő tájt sokat szenvedett a kuruc harcok miatt. 1715-ben 10 lakott és 9 lakatlan ház állt a településen. A 18. század folyamán szlovák és ruszin lakosság települt a részben kipusztult lakosok helyére. 1787-ben 48 házát 30-an lakták.
 A 18. század végén Vályi András így ír róla: „BOLY. Elegyes lakosú falu Zemplén Vármegyében, földes Ura Klobusiczky Uraság, határja mindenféle gabonát bőven hoz, réttyei jók, és hasznosak, legelője elegendő, vagyonnyait eladhattya, Újhelyben, Zemplénben, Helmeczen, mind a’ kétféle fája elég; első Osztálybéli.”
 1828-ban 63 házban 483 lakos élt. A 18.–19. században a Klobusiczky grófi család a falu birtokosa, míg a 20. század elején részben a Szirmayaké lett.
 Fényes Elek 1851-ben kiadott geográfiai szótárában így ír a faluról: „Bolly, magyar falu, Zemplén vmegyében, Leleszhez nyugotra 1/2 mfdnyire: 165 r., 184 g. kath., 148 ref., 5 zsidó lak. Kath. paroch. templom. Vizimalom., 780 hold termékeny szántóföld. F. u. gr. Klobusiczka. Ut. p. Ujhely.”
 Borovszky Samu monográfiasorozatának Zemplén vármegyét tárgyaló része szerint: „Boly, bodrogközi magyar kisközség 150 házzal és 737, nagyobbára gör. kath. vallású lakossal. Postája van, távírója Királyhelmecz és vasúti állomása Perbenyik. Ősi község, mely a honfoglaláskor már megült hely volt. 1403-ban Zsigmond király Pányi Ferencznek és fiának adományozza. 1419-ben Cseke György és Imreghi András az urai, de 1439-ben Ujfalussi Detrét iktatják egyes részeibe. 1443-ban a Csebyekkel is találkozunk itt, és 1475-ben Magnus, vagyis Nagy Ambrust iktatják egyes részeibe, míg 1487-ben a Széchiek is birtokosai, kik a maguk részét a Tárczaiaknak adják zálogba. 1514-ben a Bayoni, 1528-ban a Túróczy, 1548-ban a Némethy, 1559-ben a Beyczi, 1561-ben az Atyay családok kapnak itt részbirtokokat, 1570-ben Bey János, Zobonya László és Zalatnoky Mátyás, de még ebben az évben az Alpáryaké és a Csebyeké lesz, majd a Bogdányi Farkasoké. 1598-ban Vinnay Pálnak is van itt része, továbbá Alpáry Jánosnénak, Rákóczy Ferencznek és Farkas Györgynek. 1613-ban Bernáth Jánost, 1680-ban Barkóczy Ferenczet iktatják birtokába. 1690-ben Klobusitzky Ferencz az ura. A mult század elején gróf Klobusitzky Jánosé, ma pedig gróf Szirmay Györgynek van itt nagyobb birtoka. A Rákóczy-féle szabadságharczok idejében a község határában ütközet volt, 1888-ban pedig árvíz és tűz okozott benne nagy kárt. Róm. kath. templomának építési ideje ismeretlen. Ide tartozik Boli major is és Boly község szomszédságában fekhetett hajdan, a Ráska nevezetű dűlő helyén, Bolyráska elpusztult helység, mely 1460-tól a XVI. század elejéig a Pányiak birtoka, 1506-ban Semsey Ferenczé és 1528-ban Túróczy Miklósé.”
 1920-ig Zemplén vármegye Bodrogközi járásához tartozott. 1938 és 1945 között újra Magyarországhoz tartozott.
 Népessége
 1910-ben 728-an, túlnyomórészt magyarok lakták.
 2001-ben 730 lakosából 629 magyar és 87 szlovák.
 2011-ben 725 lakosából 607 magyar és 109 szlovák.
 Nevezetességei
 Szent Miklós tiszteletére szentelt, római katolikus temploma eredetileg a 13. század második felében épült. A reformáció idején a reformátusoké lett és csak 1733 körül kapták vissza a katolikusok. Mai formájában 1828-ban építették át.
 Református temploma 1968 és 1971 között épült.
 Jegyzetek
 További információk
 Hivatalos oldal
 Községinfó
 Boly Szlovákia térképén
 E-obce.sk
 Boly
 Zemplén vármegye települései


text:
 25.9.2017
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 318/12
 Προσφυγή της 30ής Μαΐου 2017 — The GB Foods κατά EUIPO -- Yatecomeré (YATEKOMO)
 (Υπόθεση T-336/17)
 (2017/C 318/17)
 Γλώσσα του δικογράφου της προσφυγής: η ισπανική
 Διάδικοι
 Προσφεύγουσα: The GB Foods, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Ισπανία) (εκπρόσωποι: M. Buganza González και E. Torner Lasalle, abogadas)
 Καθού: Γραφείο Διανοητικής Ιδιοκτησίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης (EUIPO)
 Αντίδικος ενώπιον του τμήματος προσφυγών: Yatecomeré, SL (Ribadumia, Ισπανία)
 Στοιχεία σχετικά με τη διαδικασία ενώπιον του EUIPO
 Δικαιούχος του επίδικου σήματος: Η προσφεύγουσα
 Επίδικο σήμα: Λεκτικό σήμα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης «ΥΑΤΕΚΟΜΟ» — Υπ’ αριθ. 11 703 568 σήμα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 Διαδικασία ενώπιον του EUIPO: Διαδικασία για την κήρυξη ακυρότητας
 Προσβαλλόμενη απόφαση: Απόφαση του πέμπτου τμήματος προσφυγών του EUIPO της 13/3/2017 στην υπόθεση R 1506/2016-5
 Αιτήματα
 Η προσφεύγουσα ζητεί από το Γενικό Δικαστήριο:
 —
 να κρίνει παραδεκτή και βάσιμη την παρούσα προσφυγή που ασκήθηκε κατά της από 13 Μαρτίου 2017 αποφάσεως του τμήματος προσφυγών του EUIPO (υπόθεση R 1506/2016-5) και να ακυρώσει την απόφαση του τμήματος προσφυγών του EUIPO, αποκαθιστώντας το υπ’ αριθ. 11 703 568 σήμα «YATEKOM» και αναγνωρίζοντας την ισχύ του για όλα τα προϊόντα των κλάσεων 29 και 30, για τα οποία ζητήθηκε αρχικώς η καταχώριση,
 —
 να αναγνωρίσει ότι το «YATEKOMO» είναι γνωστό σήμα,
 —
 να διατάξει το EUIPO να θέσει στη διάθεση του Γενικού Δικαστηρίου όλα τα προσκομισθέντα από την προσφεύγουσα έγγραφα, τα οποία συνθέτουν τον φάκελο της ενώπιον του EUIPO κινηθείσας διαδικασίας για την κήρυξη ακυρότητας του σήματος «YATEKOMO», προκειμένου να αναλυθούν όλα τα έγγραφα που προσκομίσθηκαν στον φάκελο της διαδικασίας αυτής,
 —
 να καταδικάσει το EUIPO στα δικαστικά έξοδα σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 134 του Κανονισμού Διαδικασίας του Γενικού Δικαστηρίου.
 Προβαλλόμενοι λόγοι
 —
 Το σήμα «YATEKOMO» δεν συνιστά παράβαση του άρθρου 8 του κανονισμού 207/2009. Το λεκτικό σήμα της Ένωσης δεν συγκρούεται με το προγενέστερο σύνθετο ισπανικό σήμα «ya te comeré el vacío que te llena».
 —
 Η φήμη την οποία έχει αποκτήσει το υπ’ αριθ. 11 703 568 σήμα «YATEKOMO».


text:
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
 Research and Special Programs Administration
 49 CFR Parts 192 and 195
 [Docket No. RSPA-03-15852; Notice 1]
 RIN 2137-AD96
 Pipeline Safety: Public Education Programs for Hazardous Liquid and Gas Pipeline Operators
 AGENCY:
 Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
 ACTION:
 Notice of proposed rulemaking.
 SUMMARY:
 The Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) proposes to require all gas and hazardous liquid pipeline operators to develop and implement public education programs based on the provisions of the American Petroleum Institute's (API) Recommended Practice (RP) 1162, Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators.
 1
 1 API RP 1162 provides guidance on development, implementation, and evaluation of pipeline operator “public awareness” programs. Note that “public education programs,” as used in this notice, and “public awareness programs,” as used in API RP 1162, are considered to be the same and are used interchangeably for the purposes of this proposed rule.
 DATES:
 Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by August 23, 2004. Late-filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
 ADDRESSES:
 You may submit comments (identified by DOT DMS Docket Number RSPA-03-15852) by any of the following methods:
 • Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
 • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
 • Mail: Docket Management Facility; Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
 • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
 Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices.
 Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-40 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
 Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (volume 65, number 70; pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
 You may obtain copies of this proposed rule or other material in the docket. All materials in this docket may be accessed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Juan Carlos Martinez (202) 366-1933, by fax at (202) 366-4566, or by mail at U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, regarding the subject matter of this proposed rule. Additional information about this initiative may be obtained by accessing RSPA/OPS’ Internet Web page at http://ops.dot.gov.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 Background
 This proposed rule addresses pipeline operator programs to enhance awareness of and communications with:
 • The affected public (i.e., residents and places of congregation, such as businesses and schools) in the vicinity of the pipeline and associated right-of-way.
 • Local and State emergency response and planning officials (i.e., State and county emergency management agencies (EMAs) and local emergency planning committees (LEPCs)).
 • Local public officials and governing councils.
 • Excavators.
 Public education and understanding of pipeline operations is vital to the continued safe operation of pipelines. Pipeline operator public education programs are an important factor in establishing communications and providing information necessary to enhance public understanding of how pipelines function and the public's role in promoting pipeline safety. When effectively and consistently managed, a pipeline operator public education program can provide significant value in enhanced public safety, improved pipeline safety and environmental performance, and enhanced emergency response coordination.
 Enhancing requirements for pipeline operator public education programs is part of a broad effort by RSPA/OPS to enhance safety through promoting improved public communications by the pipeline industry and government pipeline regulators.
 In proposing new requirements for pipeline operator public education programs, RSPA/OPS is also responding to calls by Congress in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-355; December 17, 2002) for standards prescribing the elements of public education programs. Simultaneously with this mandate, the pipeline industry has been developing recommendations for pipeline operator public education programs, which resulted in the development of API RP 1162. This standard was developed with extensive collaboration by all segments of the industry, input from RSPA/OPS and State pipeline regulators, and an opportunity for public review and comment. RSPA/OPS is taking advantage of the substantial work accomplished in the completion of this standard to adopt its provisions in this rule.2
 2 A link to API RP 1162 on the API standards Web site may be found at http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/edu/rp1162.htm.
 Development of a new rule establishing additional requirements for pipeline operator public education programs is part of RSPA/OPS' broader pipeline safety communications initiative to promote pipeline safety by requiring enhanced communications by the pipeline industry with the public and to increase public awareness of pipeline operations and safety issues. In 2000, RSPA/OPS sponsored a pipeline communications exploratory group under the auspices of the statutorily mandated Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC) and the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC), composed of representatives of RSPA/OPS, pipeline companies, industry groups, and local jurisdictions. The group met to explore the subject of pipeline communications and to identify opportunities for improvement.
 Recent rulemaking activities by RSPA/OPS (e.g., Liquid and Gas Pipeline Integrity Management, Operator Qualification) included increased efforts to inform the public regarding pipeline safety and regulation. These efforts have included public meetings and public-access Web sites. For example, the following public meetings on the Integrity Management rulemakings were held:
 • November 18-19, 1999, in Herndon, Virginia.
 • February 12-14, 2001, in Arlington, Virginia.
 • August 7-8, 2001, in Houston, Texas.
 • July 23-24, 2002, in Houston, Texas.
 • March 14, 2003, in Washington, DC.
 • April 25, 2003, in Dulles, Virginia.
 The February 2001 public meeting in Arlington, Virginia, included presentations from different stakeholder viewpoints on public communications needs and the nature of additional pipeline information needed by the public, local officials, and emergency responders. Materials from this meeting are available in the electronic docket referenced above.
 Current RSPA/OPS public communications initiatives include:
 • Development and maintenance of a public information Web site http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/pipelineinfo).
 • The Community Assistance and Technical Support (CATS) program with new positions at each RSPA/OPS regional office.
 • A partnership between RSPA/OPS and the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) to develop information and training aimed at enhancing the safety of first responders to pipeline accidents and assessing pipeline security risks.
 • A partnership between RSPA/OPS and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Research Council to examine model land use practices by local communities, with an objective of better managing encroachment risks.
 • Development of mechanisms to provide information to local officials, such as the location of pipeline integrity assessments and centralized sources for post-accident information.
 RSPA/OPS also sponsored meetings held in Bellevue, Washington, and Houston, Texas, on the subject of public communications. The general response from the public to these communications efforts by RSPA/OPS was an expressed desire to receive more information on specific pipelines.
 The Bellevue, Washington, meeting (transcript at http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/comm/Bellevue_2003_01_29.htm) included panel discussions during which local and State officials, local emergency planners and responders, and public representatives discussed the types of information that these stakeholders would like to receive from pipeline operators, the groups that should receive the information, and the modes of communication that would be effective in conveying the information. The panel members supported increased information from operators to members of the public in areas near pipeline facilities, to local officials of areas intersected by pipelines and areas that could be affected by releases from pipelines, and to emergency responders in areas that could be impacted by releases. The panel members advocated that operators provide this information through a wide range of communication modes, including published material, electronic media, mailings, and live meetings. The panel indicated a variety of information from operators could be important to understanding pipelines and promoting safety. Comments of other attendees at the meeting echoed the panel's comments.
 In response to these comments, RSPA/OPS has supported the pipeline industry's initiatives to develop guidelines for operator public education programs. These initiatives resulted in API RP 1162.
 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002
 On December 17, 2002, Congress enacted the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) of 2002, mandating public education activities by pipeline operators and DOT, with a deadline of one year for performing these activities. These mandates require that:
 • Each pipeline owner and operator carry out a continuing public education program.
 • Each pipeline owner and operator use a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage prevention activities.
 • Each pipeline owner and operator communicate to the public the possible hazards associated with unintended releases from the pipeline facility, including:
 —Physical indications that such a release may have occurred,
 —Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release, and
 —How to report a release or other event.
 • Each pipeline owner and operator review its existing public education program for effectiveness and modify the program as necessary to include activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline locations.
 • DOT issue standards prescribing the elements of an effective public education program and develop material for use in the program.
 As a first step in responding to these mandates, RSPA/OPS prepared a self-assessment form for each operator's use in reviewing its public education program. The draft form was first distributed to attendees at two public workshops held during September 2003 in Houston, Texas, and Baltimore, Maryland. The results of the self-assessment (which is based on a self-assessment process defined in API RP 1162) can serve as the basis for defining any necessary improvements to operator programs. RSPA/OPS issued an advisory notice 3
 that required all pipeline operators to complete the self-assessment form and return it to RSPA/OPS by December 17, 2003 (the deadline prescribed in the PSIA).
 3 68 FR 66155, Pipeline Safety: Self-Assessment of Public Education Programs, November 25, 2003. This notice may be viewed at http://ops.dot.gov/whatsnew/AdvBulletinADB0308.pdf.
 To more fully implement the mandates of the PSIA, RSPA/OPS encouraged and supported the development of API RP 1162 and is now proposing this rule for pipeline operator public education programs, utilizing the provisions of API RP 1162 for these programs.
 American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practice API RP 1162
 In 2001, at the request of RSPA/OPS, API began the development of a new standard for pipeline operator public education programs, designated as API Recommended Practice API RP 1162, through formation of an expanded task force that included representation from gas and liquid transmission pipeline operators and gas distribution pipeline operators. Representatives of RSPA/OPS and the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR) (representing State pipeline regulatory agencies) attended all meetings of the task force as observers and provided direction and input into both the process and the content of the standard. RSPA/OPS recognized the potential of the new standard to support its efforts to promote safety through improved public communications.
 The API RP 1162 task force developed a draft standard for comment, which was presented at a meeting in Houston, Texas, on July 25, 2002. The meeting was attended by public officials and local emergency planning committees (LEPCs), as well as pipeline companies. Comments were also invited through the API Web site. Comments were incorporated in a new draft standard that API presented at a subsequent public meeting on pipeline public communications in Bellevue, Washington on January 29, 2003. This meeting was co-sponsored by RSPA/OPS, State pipeline regulators, and pipeline industry organizations. Additional comments were incorporated and a revised draft was issued on May 29, 2003, for API balloting and the beginning of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) review process. A final corrected draft was issued on September 2, 2003. This draft was presented at the September 2003, public workshops held in Houston, TX and Baltimore, MD.
 Pipeline industry organizations generally agreed with the direction of RSPA/OPS and the work of the API RP 1162 committee. In response, API issued a Joint Statement on Enhancing Public Awareness Programs for the Pipeline Industry (May 28, 2003), which committed the industry to adopting “* * * a consensus standard establishing a baseline public awareness program for pipeline operators * * *” and urged RSPA/OPS “* * * to satisfy any need to supplement current requirements for public awareness programs by incorporating [API] RP 1162 into its regulations * * *.” The joint statement was signed by executives of the following organizations:
 • API;
 • Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL);
 • American Gas Association (AGA);
 • Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA);
 • American Public Gas Association (APGA).
 The Proposed Rule
 RSPA/OPS proposes a rule to require each pipeline operator to develop, implement, and maintain a public education program that complies with the requirements of API RP 1162. This proposed rule applies to all pipelines regulated under 49 CFR parts 192 and 195, including:
 • Interstate and intrastate hazardous liquid transmission pipelines.
 • Interstate and intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines.
 • Natural gas distribution pipelines.
 • Oil and gas gathering lines.
 If an operator's current public education program does not comply with API RP 1162, the operator would be required to modify the program to come into compliance. Information on API RP 1162, including a link to the document, may be found at: http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/edu/rp1162.htm.
 The proposed rule would require all pipeline operators to develop and implement public education programs that address the following stakeholder audiences:
 • Affected public.
 • Local officials.
 • Emergency responders.
 • Excavators/Contractors.
 • Land Developers.
 • One-Call Centers.
 For each stakeholder audience, API RP 1162 defines requirements for public education programs, including:
 • The message to be delivered to each audience.
 • The frequency of message delivery.
 • The methods/media to deliver the message.
 The requirements include baseline program requirements, which apply throughout the operator's pipeline system, and supplemental requirements, which apply to specific locations along the pipeline system where relevant location-specific factors make additional education activities necessary. Operators are required to consider the following factors when deciding where supplemental program enhancements should be added to the program, what enhancements should be added, and which audience groups should be the target of the enhancements:
 • Potential Hazards.
 • High Consequence Areas (as defined in 49 CFR parts 192 and 195).
 • Population density.
 • Land development activity.
 • Land farming activity.
 • Third party damage incidents.
 • Environmental considerations.
 • Pipeline history in an area.
 • Specific local situations.
 • Regulatory requirements.
 • Results from previous public education program evaluations.
 • Other relevant needs.
 Baseline and supplemental program requirements for different pipeline operator types are summarized in a set of tables in API RP 1162 that may be found at: http://primis.rspa.dot.gov/edu/RP1162/Sect-2_Tables_Prelim_Post-to-Web_090903.pdf.
 Each operator is required to establish and periodically update a written public education program covering all program elements. The written program should include:
 • A statement of the company's management commitment to achieving effective public/community education.
 • A description of the roles and responsibilities of personnel administering the program.
 • Identification of key personnel and their titles (including senior management responsible for the implementation, delivery and ongoing development of the program).
 • Identification of the targeted audiences and the information to be communicated to each.
 • Identification of the media and methods of communication to be used in the program, as well as the basis for selecting the chosen method and media.
 • Documentation of the frequency and the basis for selecting that frequency for communicating with each of the targeted audiences.
 • Identification of program enhancements, beyond the baseline program, and the basis for implementing such enhancements.
 • The program evaluation process, including the evaluation objectives, methodology to be used to perform the evaluation and analysis of the results, and criteria for program improvement based on the results of the evaluation.
 Regulatory Analyses and Notices
 Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
 The Department of Transportation (DOT) does not consider this proposed rule to be a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993). RSPA does not consider this proposed rule significant under DOT's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034: February 26, 1979). We prepared a Draft Regulatory Evaluation for this proposed rule and placed it in the public docket for review. The evaluation concludes that there will only be minimal additional costs for operators to comply with the proposed rule, as the rule is based on the API RP 1162, which encompasses consensus industry standard practices. Most operators have existing public education programs, some of which may need to be expanded to meet the requirements of API RP 1162, but this is not expected to involve significant cost. A primary benefit of this rulemaking is complying with Congressional mandates. In addition, increased public awareness that is obtained through the expansion of public education programs is expected to have some benefits due to a potential for fewer pipeline accidents from third party damage and improved emergency response. Pipeline industry organizations have already endorsed the use of API RP 1162 as the basis for new regulatory requirements for pipeline operator public education programs.
 Regulatory Flexibility Act
 Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), RSPA/OPS must consider whether a rulemaking would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule has been developed in accordance with Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking) and DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This ensures that the potential impacts of proposed rules on small entities are properly considered. The majority of gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipeline operators are large entities. Of the pipeline operators that are small entities, the majority are gas distribution operators. Two trade associations represent natural gas distribution operators: The AGA and the APGA. The APGA represents municipally-operated gas distribution systems. Conversations between RSPA and APGA indicate that there are approximately 950 municipally operated gas distribution operators. APGA represents 600 of these. Of these 600, APGA estimates that 550 of them would be classified as small entities. The APGA has held two teleconferences for its members concerning implementation of the public education program requirements of API RP 1162. They have indicated that compliance with the provisions of this standard would not represent a significant impact on their members, because of the possibility of flexibility in implementing the standard's requirements. APGA indicated that it would be willing to help small pipeline operators with compliance with this regulation. Based upon the above information showing that the economic impact of this rule on small entities will be minimal, I certify under section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act that this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
 Paperwork Reduction Act
 This proposed rule contains some information collection requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), DOT will submit a copy of the Paperwork Reduction Act analysis to the Office of Management and Budget for its review and to the docket. The requirements for information collection include development by each pipeline operator of a written public education program in compliance with API RP 1162. In addition, API RP 1162 includes requirements for public education program documentation and recordkeeping. The standard was developed by a pipeline industry group and reflects industry standard practices for these aspects of operator programs. Some operators may have increased required levels of documentation and recordkeeping, but these are not expected to be significant. Therefore, RSPA concludes that this proposed rule contains only a minor additional paperwork burden. RSPA has estimated that it will take each operator an additional 8 hours to submit these programs to RSPA, at a total cost over the industry of $19,200 per year.
 Comments are invited on: (a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
 Executive Order 13175
 This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments). Because this proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.
 Executive Order 13132
 This proposed rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (Federalism). This proposed rule does not propose any regulation that:
 (1) Has substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
 (2) Imposes substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments, or
 (3) Preempts State law.
 Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255; August 10, 1999) do not apply. It should be noted that representatives of the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR), which includes State pipeline safety regulators, have participated extensively in the development and review of API RP 1162, which forms the basis for this proposed rule.
 Unfunded Mandates
 This proposed rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. An industry working group, along with participants from NAPSR, developed API RP 1162, which forms the basis for the rule. Industry organizations have endorsed this approach to setting requirements for operator public education programs. RSPA/OPS believes this to be the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
 National Environmental Policy Act
 RSPA/OPS has analyzed the proposed rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and have preliminarily determined that this action would not significantly affect the quality of the environment. The rule requires development of pipeline operator public education programs that follow API RP 1162. This may result in expanded public education activities by operators, but will not result in physical disruption of the environment in the vicinity of pipelines. These additional public education activities can have a positive environmental effect, if increased public awareness results in a lower frequency of pipeline accidents due to excavation damage or if increased awareness results in lower consequences of pipeline accidents due to more effective emergency response to accidents. These potential positive benefits are not expected to be significant, however. The Environmental Assessment of this proposed rule is available for review in the docket.
 Executive Order 13211
 This proposed rulemaking is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). It is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rulemaking has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.
 List of Subjects
 49 CFR Part 192
 Agency procedures, Gas, Natural gas, Pipeline safety, Public education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
 49 CFR Part 195
 Agency procedures, Hazardous liquid, Oil, Petroleum, Pipeline safety, Public education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
 In consideration of the foregoing, RSPA/OPS proposes to amend parts 192 and 195 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
 PART 192—TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE: MINIMUM FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS
 1. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:
 Authority:
 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109, 60110, 60113, and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
 2. Section 192.7 is amended to revise the table in paragraph (c)(2) by adding a new item B.(5) to read as follows:
 § 192.7
 Incorporation by reference.
 (c) * * *
 (2) * * *
 Source and name of referenced material
 49 CFR reference
 A. * * *
 B. * * *
 (5) API RP 1162 “Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators” (2003)
 § 192.616
 * * * * *
 3. Section 192.616 is revised to read as follows:
 § 192.616
 Public education.
 Each pipeline operator shall establish a continuing public education program to enable all interested and affected parties to recognize a gas pipeline emergency, to react safely to the emergency, and to report the emergency to the operator or appropriate public officials. Each operator is required to develop, implement, and maintain a public education program that complies with standard API RP 1162 (IBR, see § 192.7).
 PART 195—TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS LIQUIDS BY PIPELINE
 4. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows:
 Authority:
 49 U.S.C. 5103, 60102, 60104, 60108, 60109 and 60118; and 49 CFR 1.53.
 5. Section 195.3 is amended to revise the table in paragraph (c) by redesignating items B.(13) through B.(16) as B.(14) through B.(17) and adding a new item B.(13) to read as follows:
 § 195.3
 Material incorporated by reference.
 (c) * * *
 Source and name of referenced material
 49 CFR reference
 A. * * *
 B. * * *
 (13) API RP 1162 “Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators” (2003)
 § 195.440; 195
 (14) API Recommended Practice 2003 “Protection Against Ignitions Arising out of Static, Lightning, and Stray Currents” (6th edition, 1998)
 §§ 195.134; 195.444; 195.405(a)
 (15) API Publication 2026 “Safe Access/Egress Involving Floating Roofs of Storage Tanks in Petroleum Service” (2nd edition, 1998)
 § 195.405(b)
 (16) API Recommended Practice 2350 “Overfill Protection for Storage Tanks In Petroleum Facilities” (2nd edition, 1996)
 § 195.428(c)
 (17) API Standard 2510 “Design and Construction of LPG Installations” (7th edition, 1995)
 §§ 195.132(b)(3); 195.205(b)(3); 195.264(b)(2); 195.264(e)(4); 195.307(e); 195.428(c); 195.432(c)
 * * * * * * *
 6. Section 195.440 is revised to read as follows:
 § 195.440
 Public education.
 Each pipeline operator shall establish a continuing public education program to enable all interested and affected parties to recognize a hazardous liquid pipeline emergency, to react safely to the emergency, and to report the emergency to the operator or appropriate public officials. Each operator is required to develop, implement, and maintain a public education program that complies with the requirements of standard API RP 1162 (IBR, see § 195.3).
 Issued in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2004.
 Stacey L. Gerard,
 Associate Administrator, Office of Pipeline Safety.
 [FR Doc. 04-12993 Filed 6-23-04; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


type: other

text:
133/2002 Z. z. Zákon o Slovenskej akadémii vied | Aktuálne znenie
 Hľadaj v 133/2002 ×
 Zákon č. 133/2002 Z. z.Zákon o Slovenskej akadémii vied
 (v znení č. 40/2011 Z. z., 243/2017 Z. z., 270/2018 Z. z.)
 DRUHÁ ČASŤ - SAMOSPRÁVA AKADÉMIE A ODBORNÉ ORGÁNY AKADÉMIE (§ 6 - § 14)
 TRETIA ČASŤ - ORGANIZÁCIE (§ 15 - § 20)
 ŠTVRTÁ ČASŤ - ZÁVEREČNÉ USTANOVENIA (§ 21 - § 23)
 (1) Slovenská akadémia vied (ďalej len „akadémia") je samosprávna vedecká inštitúcia Slovenskej republiky, ktorej činnosť je zameraná na rozvoj vedy, vzdelanosti, kultúry a ekonomiky.
 (2) Akadémia ako rozpočtová organizácia je právnická osoba štátu1) so sídlom v Bratislave.
 (1) Akadémii v rozsahu tohto zákona sa zaručuje sloboda vedeckého bádania a uverejňovania jeho výsledkov.
 (2) Akadémia môže spolupracovať s vedeckými spoločnosťami zriadenými podľa osobitného predpisu3) na základe zmluvy o spolupráci.
 (3) Akadémia na účely reprezentácie, propagácie rozvoja vedy a rozširovania jej vedeckých poznatkov zriaďuje učenú spoločnosť ako čestný orgán akadémie, ktorého členmi sa môžu stať významní vedci, ktorí obohatili vedu v Slovenskej republike i v zahraničí. Členmi učenej spoločnosti sa môžu stať aj významní vedci zo zahraničia.
 (5) Názov učenej spoločnosti, spôsob jej zriadenia a finančné zabezpečenie určuje štatút akadémie.
 (6) Na pôde akadémie nie je povolená činnosť politických strán a politických hnutí.
 (1) Činnosť akadémie je zameraná na základný výskum vo vybraných odboroch prírodných vied, technických vied, lekárskych vied, pôdohospodárskych vied, spoločenských vied a humanitných vied. Akadémia sa zúčastňuje aj na aplikovanom výskume, vývoji a inováciách.
 (2) Akadémia ďalej
 a) rozpracúva a rozširuje originálne výsledky základného výskumu a podieľa sa na ich využívaní, popularizácii a sprístupňovaní,
 b) zúčastňuje sa na pedagogickom procese vysokých škôl vrátane doktorandského štúdia podľa osobitného predpisu5) a udeľuje vedecké hodnosti podľa osobitného predpisu,6)
 c) priznáva v procese ďalšieho zvyšovania kvalifikácie a hodnotenia tvorivej spôsobilosti vedeckých zamestnancov vedecko-kvalifikačné stupne podľa osobitného predpisu,7)
 d) zúčastňuje sa na tvorbe a uskutočňovaní štátnej vednej a technickej politiky,
 e) podieľa sa na medzinárodnej vedecko-technickej spolupráci,
 f) spolupracuje vo výskume a vzdelávaní s vysokými školami a ostatnými rezortnými výskumnými a vzdelávacími inštitúciami a právnickými osobami z oblasti výroby a služieb,
 g) vydáva periodické a neperiodické publikácie,
 h) spolupracuje v oblasti vedy a techniky s ústrednými orgánmi štátnej správy Slovenskej republiky pri riešení koncepčných, koordinačných problémov a pri tvorbe všeobecne záväzných právnych predpisov,
 i) poskytuje expertíznu činnosť v oblasti vedy pre potreby ústredných orgánov štátnej správy Slovenskej republiky.
 (1) Akadémia je správcom rozpočtovej kapitoly štátneho rozpočtu.8)
 (2) Akadémia hospodári s rozpočtovými prostriedkami štátneho rozpočtu a s mimorozpočtovými prostriedkami podľa osobitného predpisu.9)
 b) študenti študijných programov tretieho stupňa, na uskutočňovaní ktorých sa podieľa príslušná organizácia.
 a) snem akadémie,
 b) vedecká rada akadémie,
 c) predsedníctvo akadémie.
 (1) Najvyšší samosprávny orgán akadémie je snem akadémie.
 (2) Snem akadémie tvoria členovia volení akademickými obcami organizácií z akademickej obce akadémie spôsobom určeným v štatúte akadémie.
 (3) Funkčné obdobie snemu akadémie je štyri roky.
 (4) Na čele snemu akadémie je predseda snemu akadémie, ktorého volia členovia snemu akadémie spomedzi seba. Predsedu snemu akadémie zastupujú podpredsedovia snemu akadémie, ktorých volia členovia snemu akadémie z členov snemu akadémie. Počet podpredsedov snemu akadémie a rozsah ich práv a povinností určuje štatút akadémie.
 (5) Snem akadémie zvoláva predseda snemu akadémie podľa potreby, najmenej však dvakrát do roka; predseda snemu akadémie zvolá zasadnutie snemu akadémie vždy, ak o to požiada najmenej pätina členov snemu akadémie alebo predsedníctvo akadémie. Ak funkcia predsedu snemu akadémie nie je obsadená, snem akadémie zvoláva podpredseda snemu akadémie.
 (6) Zvolením člena snemu akadémie za člena predsedníctva akadémie zaniká jeho členstvo v sneme akadémie. Nového člena snemu akadémie zvolí akademická obec príslušnej organizácie v doplňujúcich voľbách uskutočnených podľa odseku 2.
 (7) Snem akadémie
 a) schvaľuje štatút akadémie,
 b) schvaľuje volebný poriadok snemu akadémie a rokovací poriadok snemu akadémie,
 c) schvaľuje výročnú správu o činnosti akadémie za predchádzajúci kalendárny rok,
 d) schvaľuje zásady návrhu a rozdelenia rozpočtu akadémie a kontroluje ich dodržiavanie,
 e) schvaľuje zásady odmeňovania členov predsedníctva akadémie podľa osobitného predpisu,10)
 f) schvaľuje koncepciu vednej politiky akadémie,
 g) schvaľuje podmienky a ukazovatele pravidelného hodnotenia organizácií akadémie,
 h) určuje počet podpredsedov akadémie a počet členov predsedníctva akadémie,
 i) volí kandidátov na členov predsedníctva akadémie z návrhov akademickej obce akadémie a navrhuje ich odvolanie,
 j) volí kandidáta na predsedu akadémie z členov predsedníctva akadémie najmenej dva mesiace pred skončením funkčného obdobia predsedu akadémie a navrhuje odvolanie predsedu akadémie,
 k) volí kandidátov na členov vedeckej rady akadémie z návrhov organizácií a ďalších právnických osôb uskutočňujúcich výskum a vývoj,
 l) predkladá návrh na vymenovanie alebo odvolanie predsedu akadémie ministrovi školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu Slovenskej republiky (ďalej len „minister"),
 m) schvaľuje pravidlá výberového konania na obsadzovanie miest riaditeľov organizácií a vedúcich organizačných zložiek organizácií a
 n) schvaľuje návrh predsedníctva akadémie na založenie, splynutie, zlúčenie, rozdelenie organizácie alebo jej zrušenie s likvidáciou; ak ide o organizáciu podľa § 21a ods. 11, schvaľuje aj návrh predsedníctva akadémie na zriadenie, splynutie, zlúčenie, rozdelenie alebo zrušenie organizačnej zložky takej organizácie.
 (8) Predseda snemu akadémie na základe výsledkov volieb v sneme akadémie do predsedníctva akadémie a do vedeckej rady akadémie vymenúva a na základe uznesenia snemu akadémie odvoláva členov predsedníctva akadémie a členov vedeckej rady akadémie.
 (1) Vedecká rada akadémie je samosprávny orgán akadémie na riešenie vedeckých a koncepčných úloh.
 (2) Predsedom vedeckej rady akadémie je predseda akadémie.
 (3) Vedeckú radu akadémie tvorí predseda akadémie a ďalší členovia predsedníctva akadémie.
 (4) Členmi vedeckej rady akadémie sú tiež zástupcovia organizácií a ďalších právnických osôb uskutočňujúcich výskum a vývoj vymenovaní predsedom snemu akadémie na základe výsledkov volieb do vedeckej rady akadémie v sneme akadémie.
 (5) Počet externých členov vedeckej rady akadémie tvorí štvrtinu až tretinu z celkového počtu členov vedeckej rady akadémie.
 (6) Funkčné obdobie vedeckej rady akadémie je štyri roky.
 (7) Vedecká rada akadémie
 a) vypracúva koncepciu vednej politiky akadémie v súlade s koncepciou štátnej vednej a technickej politiky,
 b) volí a odvoláva podpredsedu vedeckej rady akadémie; volí ho z členov vedeckej rady akadémie,
 c) vyhodnocuje vedeckú činnosť akadémie,
 d) udeľuje vedecké hodnosti,6)
 e) udeľuje vyznamenania a ceny akadémie určené štatútom akadémie,
 f) schvaľuje štatút učenej spoločnosti,
 g) vyjadruje sa o vedeckej profilácii organizácií a o výsledkoch ich vedeckej činnosti.
 (1) Výkonný samosprávny orgán akadémie je predsedníctvo akadémie.
 (2) Predsedníctvo akadémie tvorí predseda akadémie, podpredsedovia akadémie a ďalší členovia predsedníctva akadémie vymenovaní predsedom snemu akadémie na základe výsledkov volieb do predsedníctva akadémie. Funkcia člena predsedníctva akadémie je nezlučiteľná s funkciou riaditeľa organizácie a vedúceho organizačnej zložky organizácie.
 (3) Členovia predsedníctva akadémie majú zachovaný pracovný pomer vo svojich organizáciách.
 (4) Funkčné obdobie predsedníctva akadémie je štyri roky. Tá istá osoba môže vykonávať funkciu člena predsedníctva akadémie najviac dve po sebe nasledujúce funkčné obdobia.
 (5) Predsedníctvo akadémie
 a) koordinuje a kontroluje činnosť akadémie,
 b) prerokúva návrh rozpočtu a rozdelenie rozpočtu akadémie,
 c) volí kandidátov na podpredsedov akadémie z členov predsedníctva akadémie a navrhuje ich odvolanie,
 d) zabezpečuje pravidelné hodnotenie organizácií,
 e) predkladá snemu akadémie na schválenie
 1. štatút akadémie a jeho zmeny,
 2. výročnú správu o činnosti akadémie a výsledky hospodárenia za predchádzajúci kalendárny rok,
 3. zásady návrhu a rozdelenia rozpočtu akadémie,
 4. návrh podmienok a ukazovateľov pravidelného hodnotenia organizácií,
 5. koncepciu vednej politiky akadémie,
 6. návrh na založenie, zlúčenie, splynutie, rozdelenie alebo zrušenie organizácie s likvidáciou; ak ide o organizáciu podľa § 21a ods. 11 aj návrh na zriadenie, zlúčenie, splynutie, rozdelenie alebo zrušenie organizačnej zložky organizácie,
 7. návrh pravidiel výberového konania na obsadzovanie miest riaditeľov organizácií a vedúcich organizačných zložiek organizácií,
 f) schvaľuje návrhy na vymenovanie riaditeľov organizácií, vedúcich organizačných zložiek organizácií a návrhy na ich odvolanie,
 g) schvaľuje organizačný poriadok akadémie,
 h) rozhoduje o všetkých veciach a právnych úkonoch, ktoré podľa osobitného predpisu2) uskutočňuje akadémia ako zakladateľ organizácií, ak o nich nerozhoduje iný orgán akadémie.
 (6) Predsedníctvo akadémie zodpovedá za svoju činnosť snemu akadémie.
 (1) Na čele akadémie je predseda akadémie ako štatutárny orgán akadémie. Predseda akadémie koná v jej mene vo všetkých veciach okrem tých, ktoré sú týmto zákonom vyhradené iným orgánom akadémie. Predseda akadémie zodpovedá za činnosť a hospodárenie akadémie.
 (2) Predsedu akadémie vymenúva a odvoláva prezident Slovenskej republiky.13)
 (3) Návrh na vymenovanie a odvolanie predsedu akadémie predkladá minister prezidentovi Slovenskej republiky [§ 8 ods. 7 písm. l)].
 (4) Funkčné obdobie predsedu akadémie je štyri roky. Tá istá osoba môže vykonávať funkciu predsedu akadémie najviac dve po sebe nasledujúce funkčné obdobia. Ak predsedovi akadémie zanikne jeho funkcia pred uplynutím funkčného obdobia, funkčné obdobie nasledujúceho predsedu akadémie končí dňom, keď by malo uplynúť funkčné obdobie predchádzajúceho predsedu akadémie.
 (5) Predseda akadémie riadi predsedníctvo akadémie.
 (6) Predseda akadémie vydáva pravidlá výberového konania na obsadzovanie miest riaditeľov organizácií a vedúcich organizačných zložiek organizácií.
 (7) Predseda akadémie na návrh predsedníctva akadémie vymenúva a odvoláva
 c) vedúceho organizačnej zložky organizácie.
 (8) Predseda akadémie vymenúva a odvoláva vedúceho úradu akadémie.
 (9) Predseda akadémie bezodkladne po vymenovaní do funkcie určí, ktorý z podpredsedov akadémie vykonáva práva a povinnosti predsedu akadémie v celom rozsahu pre prípad
 b) ak funkcia predsedu akadémie nie je obsadená.
 (10) Predsedu akadémie vo vymedzených oblastiach zastupujú podpredsedovia akadémie.
 (11) Predseda akadémie poveruje členov predsedníctva akadémie plnením konkrétnych úloh.
 (12) Zmluvu o poskytnutí prostriedkov inštitucionálnej formy podpory výskumu a vývoja organizácii13a) uzatvára predseda akadémie na základe návrhu predsedníctva akadémie na rozdelenie rozpočtu akadémie, ktorý vychádza zo zásad rozdelenia rozpočtu schválených snemom akadémie a z výsledkov pravidelného hodnotenia organizácií.
 (13) Predseda akadémie po prerokovaní v predsedníctve akadémie predkladá Ministerstvu financií Slovenskej republiky a Národnej rade Slovenskej republiky návrh rozpočtu akadémie, ako aj ďalšie dokumenty týkajúce sa vývoja rozpočtového hospodárenia, súhrnných účtovných výkazov, prehľadu o rozpočtových opatreniach a záverečného účtu rozpočtovej kapitoly akadémie podľa osobitného predpisu.9)
 (14) Predseda akadémie zodpovedá za výkon svojej funkcie snemu akadémie a vo veciach uvedených v § 4 ods. 1 a ods. 2 písm. d) ministrovi. Platové náležitosti predsedovi akadémie určuje snem akadémie podľa osobitného predpisu.10)
 (15) Predseda akadémie predkladá ministrovi v ním určenom termíne a rozsahu výročnú správu o činnosti akadémie za predchádzajúci kalendárny rok schválenú snemom akadémie. Minister predkladá vláde Slovenskej republiky v termíne do 31. mája výročnú správu o činnosti akadémie za predchádzajúci kalendárny rok.
 (16) Predsedu akadémie môže vláda Slovenskej republiky alebo minister prizývať na rokovanie vlády Slovenskej republiky v súvislosti s prerokúvaním otázok a dokumentov z oblasti vedy a techniky.
 (17) Predseda akadémie môže na návrh vedeckej rady organizácie udeliť za významné prínosy v oblasti vedy a výskumu vedeckému pracovníkovi staršiemu, ako je vek odchodu do starobného dôchodku, ktorý skončil pracovný pomer s organizáciou a ktorý naďalej aktívne vedecky pôsobí, čestný titul „emeritný vedecký pracovník“. Akadémia a organizácie umožnia emeritným vedeckým pracovníkom zúčastňovať sa na výskume a na ich iných činnostiach.
 (1) Úlohy spojené s odborným, organizačným, finančným a technickým zabezpečením činnosti akadémie ako vedeckej inštitúcie a úlohy spojené s povinnosťami akadémie ako správcu rozpočtovej kapitoly a zakladateľa organizácií, ako aj úlohy patriace do pôsobnosti snemu akadémie, vedeckej rady akadémie, predsedníctva akadémie a ďalších funkcionárov akadémie po organizačnej a administratívnej stránke vykonáva úrad akadémie.
 (2) Na čele úradu akadémie je vedúci úradu akadémie, ktorého vymenúva a odvoláva predseda akadémie. Vedúcemu úradu akadémie určuje platové náležitosti predseda akadémie podľa osobitného predpisu.10)
 (3) Organizačnú štruktúru úradu akadémie určuje a plnenie jeho úloh kontroluje predsedníctvo akadémie.
 (4) Akadémia vykonáva podľa osobitného predpisu15) kontrolu hospodárenia s prostriedkami štátneho rozpočtu prostredníctvom kontrolného orgánu akadémie. Kontrolný orgán vymenúva predseda akadémie. Kontrolný orgán vykonáva vnútornú kontrolu akadémie, koordinuje výkon kontroly v rámci akadémie a organizácií, vybavuje sťažnosti a kontroluje plnenia opatrení na odstránenie nedostatkov zistených na základe vlastnej kontroly a ďalších kontrolných orgánov. Tým nie sú dotknuté kontrolné oprávnenia iných kontrolných orgánov, ktoré vykonávajú kontrolu podľa osobitných predpisov.16)
 (5) Kontrolný orgán akadémie za svoju činnosť zodpovedá predsedovi akadémie.
 (2) Štatút akadémie a jeho zmeny schvaľuje snem akadémie dvojtretinovou väčšinou všetkých členov snemu akadémie.
 (3) Funkčné obdobie riaditeľa alebo vedúceho špecializovanej organizácie alebo servisnej organizácie je štyri roky.
 (1) Rada vedcov akadémie, ktorá vznikla podľa doterajších predpisov, má od 1. apríla 2002 postavenie snemu akadémie a plní úlohy podľa tohto zákona.
 (2) Funkcionári, ktorí boli zvolení podľa doterajších predpisov, od 1. apríla 2002 sa považujú za zvolených podľa tohto zákona.
 (3) Funkčné obdobie orgánov akadémie, ktoré vznikli podľa doterajších predpisov, sa mení na funkčné obdobie ustanovené podľa tohto zákona.
 (4) Od 1. apríla 2002 sú vedecké pracoviská Slovenskej akadémie vied organizáciami, riaditelia vedeckých pracovísk Slovenskej akadémie vied riaditeľmi organizácií a vedecké rady vedeckých pracovísk Slovenskej akadémie vied sú vedeckými radami podľa tohto zákona.
 (5) Predsedníctvo akadémie do 60 dní od nadobudnutia účinnosti tohto zákona predloží na schválenie snemu akadémie návrh štatútu akadémie.
 (15) Funkčné obdobie osôb a členov orgánov podľa odsekov 11 až 14 podľa predpisov účinných do 30. júna 2018 sa dokončí podľa predpisov účinných do 30. júna 2018.
 (4) Akadémia najneskôr do 31. decembra 2018 zabezpečí všetky úkony potrebné na to, aby sa z organizácií podľa odsekov 1 a 2 stali verejné výskumné inštitúcie prostredníctvom založenia nových verejných výskumných inštitúcií postupom podľa osobitného predpisu.31)
 2) Zákon č. 243/2017 Z. z. o verejnej výskumnej inštitúcii a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov.
 5) Napríklad § 54 zákona č. 131/2002 Z. z. o vysokých školách a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov.
 6) Zákon č. 53/1964 Zb. o udeľovaní vedeckých hodností a o Štátnej komisii pre vedecké hodnosti v znení zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 324/1996 Z. z.
 7) Zákon č. 39/1977 Zb. o výchove nových vedeckých pracovníkov a o ďalšom zvyšovaní kvalifikácie vedeckých pracovníkov v znení zákona Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 324/1996 Z. z.
 8) § 9 zákona č. 523/2004 Z. z. v znení neskorších predpisov.
 9) Zákon č. 523/2004 Z. z. v znení neskorších predpisov.
 10) Zákon č. 552/2003 Z. z. o výkone práce vo verejnom záujme v znení neskorších predpisov.
 13) Článok 102 Ústavy Slovenskej republiky.
 13a) § 25 ods. 1 a 2 zákona č. 243/2017 Z. z.
 15) Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 10/1996 Z. z. o kontrole v štátnej správe v znení zákona č. 502/2001 Z. z.
 16) Napríklad zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 39/1993 Z. z. o Najvyššom kontrolnom úrade Slovenskej republiky v znení neskorších predpisov, zákon č. 523/2004 Z. z. v znení neskorších predpisov.
 16a) Zákon č. 243/2017 Z. z.
 22) § 4 ods. 3 vyhlášky Československej akadémie vied č. 55/1977 Zb.
 23) § 4 ods. 2 písm. a) až f) a h) zákona č. 243/2017 Z. z.
 30) Napríklad § 12 zákona č. 146/2000 Z. z. o ochrane topografií polovodičových výrobkov, § 22 zákona č. 435/2001 Z. z. o patentoch, dodatkových ochranných osvedčeniach a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov (patentový zákon), § 12 a 21 zákona č. 517/2007 Z. z. o úžitkových vzoroch a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov, § 18 zákona č. 506/2009 Z. z. o ochranných známkach.
 31) § 3 až 5 zákona č. 243/2017 Z. z.


text:
 9.2.2008
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 C 37/24
 Talan väckt den 26 november 2007 – Gebr. Heller Maschinenfabrik mot harmoniseringsbyrån – Fernández Martinez (HELLER)
 (Mål T-431/07)
 (2008/C 37/38)
 Ansökan är avfattad på tyska
 Parter
 Sökande: Gebr. Heller Maschinenfabrik (Nürtingen, Tyskland) (ombud: advokaterna W. Kessler och S. Baur)
 Svarande: Byrån för harmonisering inom den inre marknaden (varumärken, mönster och modeller)
 Motpart vid överklagandenämnden: Manuel Fernández Martinez (Alicante, Spanien)
 Sökandens yrkanden
 Sökanden yrkar att förstainstansrätten skall
 —
 ogiltigförklara det beslut som fattats av harmoniseringsbyråns andra överklagandenämnd den 11 september 2007 i ärende R 974/2006-2,
 —
 ogiltigförklara den invändning som den invändande parten Manuel Fernández Martinez framställt vid harmoniseringsbyråns andra överklagandenämnd,
 —
 förplikta den invändande parten Manuel Fernández Martinez att ersätta kostnaderna i samband med förfarandet vid harmoniseringsbyråns invändningsenhet och överklagandenämnd samt kostnaderna i förevarande förfarande.
 Grunder och huvudargument
 Sökande av gemenskapsvarumärke: sökanden.
 Sökt gemenskapsvarumärke: ordmärket HELLER för varor och tjänster i klasserna 7, 37 och 40 (ansökan nr 3 306 602).
 Innehavare av det varumärke eller kännetecken som åberopats som hinder för registrering i invändningsförfarandet: Manuel Fernández Martinez.
 Varumärke eller kännetecken som åberopats som hinder för registrering: det spanska figurmärket HELLER för varor i klass 7 (nr 2 520 584).
 Invändningsenhetens beslut: invändningen bifölls och ansökan avslogs.
 Överklagandenämndens beslut: överklagandet ogillades.
 Grunder: Åsidosättande av artikel 8.1 b i förordning (EG) nr 40/94 (1), eftersom det inte föreligger någon risk för förväxling mellan de motstående varumärkena.
 (1) Rådets förordning (EG) nr 40/94 av den 20 december 1993 om gemenskapsvarumärken (EGT L 11, 1994, s. 1; svensk specialutgåva, område 17, volym 2, s. 3).


text:
 27.2.2010
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 51/44
 Kanne 24.12.2009 — Meredith Corporation v. SMHV (BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS)
 (Asia T-524/09)
 2010/C 51/81
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: englanti
 Asianosaiset
 Kantaja: Meredith Corporation (Des Moines, Yhdysvallat) (edustajat: solicitor R. N. Furneaux ja solicitor E. A. Hardcastle)
 Vastaaja: sisämarkkinoiden harmonisointivirasto (tavaramerkit ja mallit)
 Vaatimukset
 —
 Sisämarkkinoiden harmonisointiviraston (tavaramerkit ja mallit) toisen valituslautakunnan 23.9.2009 asiassa R 517/2009-2 tekemä päätös on kumottava siltä osin kuin sillä hylättiin kyseistä luokkaan 36 kuuluvia palveluja varten haettua unionin tavaramerkkiä koskeva hakemus, ja hakemus on näiden palvelujen osalta hyväksyttävä
 —
 kantajan vaatimukset on hyväksyttävä ja
 —
 vastaaja on velvoitettava korvaamaan oikeudenkäyntikulut, jos se vastustaa vaatimuksia, ja vastaajan mahdollinen vaatimus on hylättävä.
 Oikeudelliset perusteet ja pääasialliset perustelut
 Haettu yhteisön tavaramerkki: Luokkiin 16, 35 ja 36 kuuluvia tavaroita ja palveluja varten haettu unionin sanamerkki ”BETTER HOMES AND GARDENS”
 Tutkijan päätös: Unionin tavaramerkkiä koskeva hakemus hylättiin osittain
 Valituslautakunnan ratkaisu: Valitus hylättiin
 Kanneperusteet: Neuvoston asetuksen 207/2009 7 artiklan 1 kohdan b alakohtaa ja 2 kohtaa on rikottu, koska valituslautakunta jätti virheellisesti soveltamatta oikeaa testiä sen arvioimiseksi, puuttuuko tavaramerkiltä erottamiskyky, jonka avulla ne tavarat ja palvelut, joita varten rekisteröintiä on haettu, erottuisivat.


type: contracts

text:
 Tähtis õiguslik teade
 |
 22000D0002
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja L 103 , 12/04/2001 Lk 0003 - 0004
 EMP Ühiskomitee otsusnr 2/2000,4. veebruar 2000,millega muudetakse EMP lepingu II lisa (tehnilised normid, standardid, katsetamine ja sertifitseerimine)EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, mida on kohandatud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga, edaspidi "leping", eelkõige selle artiklit 98ning arvestades, et:(1) lepingu II lisa muudeti EMP Ühiskomitee 5. novembri 1999. aasta otsusega nr 144/1999; [1](2) lepingusse tuleb lisada komisjoni 6. mai 1999. aasta direktiiv 1999/40/EÜ, millega kohandatakse tehnika arenguga nõukogu direktiivi 79/622/EMÜ [2] põllu- või metsamajanduslike ratastraktorite ümbermineku puhul kaitsvat turvatarindit käsitlevate liikmesriikide õigusaktide ühtlustamise kohta (staatiline koormuskatse);(3) lepingusse tuleb lisada komisjoni 1. juuni 1999. aasta direktiiv 1999/55/EÜ, millega kohandatakse tehnika arenguga nõukogu direktiivi 77/536/EMÜ [3] põllu- või metsamajanduslike ratastraktorite ümbermineku puhul kaitsvat turvatarindit käsitlevate liikmesriikide õigusaktide ühtlustamise kohta;(4) lepingusse tuleb lisada komisjoni 3. juuni 1999. aasta direktiiv 1999/56/EÜ, millega kohandatakse tehnika arenguga nõukogu direktiivi 78/933/EMÜ [4] põllu- või metsamajanduslike ratastraktorite valgustus- ja valgussignaalseadmete paigaldamist käsitlevate liikmesriikide õigusaktide ühtlustamise kohta;(5) lepingusse tuleb lisada komisjoni 7. juuni 1999. aasta direktiiv 1999/57/EÜ, millega kohandatakse tehnika arenguga nõukogu direktiivi 78/764/EMÜ [5] põllu- või metsamajanduslike ratastraktorite juhiistet käsitlevate liikmesriikide õigusaktide ühtlustamise kohta;(6) lepingusse tuleb lisada komisjoni 7. juuni 1999. aasta direktiiv 1999/58/EÜ, millega kohandatakse tehnika arenguga nõukogu direktiivi 79/533/EMÜ [6] põllu- või metsamajanduslike ratastraktorite haake- ja tagurdamisseadiseid käsitlevate liikmesriikide õigusaktide ühtlustamise kohta,ON VASTU VÕTNUD JÄRGMISE OTSUSE:Artikkel 11. Lepingu II lisa II peatüki punktile 11 (nõukogu direktiiv 77/536/EMÜ) lisatakse järgmine taane:- "— 399 L 0055: komisjoni direktiiv 1999/55/EÜ, 1. juuni 1999 (EÜT L 146, 11.6.1999, lk 28)."2. Lepingu II lisa II peatüki punktile 13 (nõukogu direktiiv 78/764/EMÜ) lisatakse järgmine taane:- "— 399 L 0057: komisjoni direktiiv 1999/57/EÜ, 7. juuni 1999 (EÜT L 148, 15.6.1999, lk 35)."3. Lepingu II lisa II peatüki punktile 14 (nõukogu direktiiv 78/933/EMÜ) lisatakse järgmine taane:- "— 399 L 0056: komisjoni direktiiv 1999/56/EÜ, 3. juuni 1999 (EÜT L 146, 11.6.1999, lk 31)."4. Lepingu II lisa II peatüki punktile 16 (nõukogu direktiiv 79/533/EMÜ) lisatakse järgmine taane:- "— 399 L 0058: komisjoni direktiiv 1999/58/EÜ, 7. juuni 1999 (EÜT L 148, 15.6.1999, lk 37)."5. Lepingu II lisa II peatüki punktile 17 (nõukogu direktiiv 79/622/EMÜ) lisatakse järgmine taane:- "— 399 L 0040: komisjoni direktiiv 1999/40/EÜ, 6. mai 1999 (EÜT L 124, 18.5.1999, lk 11)."Artikkel 2Komisjoni direktiivide 1999/40/EÜ, 1999/55/EÜ, 1999/56/EÜ, 1999/57/EÜ ja 1999/58/EÜ islandi- ja norrakeelne tekst, mis on lisatud käesoleva otsuse vastavates keeltes versioonidele, on autentne.Artikkel 3Käesolev otsus jõustub 5. veebruaril 2000 tingimusel, et kõik lepingu artikli 103 lõikes 1 ettenähtud teated on EMP Ühiskomiteele esitatud. [7]Artikkel 4Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Ühenduste Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.Brüssel, 4. veebruar 2000EMP Ühiskomitee nimeleesistujaF. Barbaso[1] EÜT L 15, 18.1.2001, lk 38.[2] EÜT L 124, 18.5.1999, lk 11.[3] EÜT L 146, 11.6.1999, lk 28.[4] EÜT L 146, 11.6.1999, lk 31.[5] EÜT L 148, 15.6.1999, lk 35.[6] EÜT L 148, 15.6.1999, lk 37.[7] Põhiseadusest tulenevad nõuded puuduvad.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 8.5.2017
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 144/23
 Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Nemčija) 3. februarja 2017 – INEOS Köln GmbH/Zvezna republika Nemčija
 (Zadeva C-58/17)
 (2017/C 144/29)
 Jezik postopka: nemščina
 Predložitveno sodišče
 Verwaltungsgericht Berlin
 Stranki v postopku v glavni stvari
 Tožeča stranka: INEOS Köln GmbH
 Tožena stranka: Zvezna republika Nemčija
 Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
 Ali je treba Sklep Komisije z dne 27. aprila 2011 o določitvi prehodnih pravil za usklajeno brezplačno dodelitev pravic do emisije na ravni Unije v skladu s členom 10a Direktive 2003/87/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (2011/278/EU) (1) razlagati tako, da se opredelitev „podnaprava z emisijami iz proizvodnih procesov“ iz člena 3(h) Sklepa 2011/278/EU nanaša na plinasto agregatno stanje nepopolno oksidiranega ogljika, ali pa zajema tudi nepopolno oksidiran ogljik v tekočem stanju?
 (1) UL L 130, str. 1.