type: caselaw

text:
 10.5.2016
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 165/22
 Προσφυγή-αγωγή της 19ης Φεβρουαρίου 2016 — ZZ κατά Frontex
 (Υπόθεση F-12/16)
 (2016/C 165/29)
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η γαλλική
 Διάδικοι
 Προσφεύγων-ενάγων: ZZ (εκπρόσωπος: Σ. Παππάς, δικηγόρος)
 Καθού-εναγόμενος: Ευρωπαϊκός Οργανισμός για τη Διαχείριση της Επιχειρησιακής Συνεργασίας στα Εξωτερικά Σύνορα των Κρατών Μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης (Frontex)
 Αντικείμενο και περιγραφή της διαφοράς
 Αίτημα ακυρώσεως της αποφάσεως περί μη ανανεώσεως της συμβάσεως εκτάκτου υπαλλήλου του προσφεύγοντος-ενάγοντος καθώς και αίτημα αποζημιώσεως προς αποκατάσταση της ζημίας που ισχυρίζεται ότι υπέστη.
 Αιτήματα
 Ο προσφεύγων-ενάγων ζητεί από το Δικαστήριο Δημόσιας Διοίκησης:
 —
 να ακυρώσει την προσβαλλόμενη απόφαση·
 —
 να επιδικάσει στον προσφεύγοντα-ενάγοντα ποσό 12 000 ευρώ προς αποκατάσταση της ζημίας που του προξένησε η λήψη της αποφάσεως αυτής·
 —
 να καταδικάσει τον καθού-εναγόμενο στα δικαστικά έξοδα.


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 15.9.2017
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 237/62
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2017/1553 AL COMISIEI
 din 5 septembrie 2017
 de aprobare a unei modificări care nu este minoră a caietului de sarcini al unei denumiri înregistrate în Registrul denumirilor de origine protejate și al indicațiilor geografice protejate [Chasselas de Moissac (DOP)]
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1151/2012 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 21 noiembrie 2012 privind sistemele din domeniul calității produselor agricole și alimentare (1), în special articolul 52 alineatul (2),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 În conformitate cu articolul 53 alineatul (1) primul paragraf din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1151/2012, Comisia a examinat cererea Franței de aprobare a unei modificări a caietului de sarcini al denumirii de origine protejate „Chasselas de Moissac”, înregistrată în temeiul Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1107/96 al Comisiei (2), astfel cum a fost modificat prin Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1030/2008 al Comisiei (3).
 (2)
 Deoarece modificarea respectivă nu este minoră în sensul articolului 53 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1151/2012, Comisia a publicat cererea de modificare în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 (4), în conformitate cu articolul 50 alineatul (2) litera (a) din regulamentul respectiv.
 (3)
 Deoarece Comisiei nu i s-a comunicat nicio declarație de opoziție în conformitate cu articolul 51 din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1151/2012, modificarea caietului de sarcini ar trebui aprobată,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Se aprobă modificarea caietului de sarcini publicată în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene cu privire la denumirea „Chasselas de Moissac” (DOP).
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a douăzecea zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 5 septembrie 2017.
 Pentru Comisie,
 Pentru Președinte,
 Phil HOGAN
 Membru al Comisiei
 (1) JO L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.
 (2) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/96 al Comisiei din 12 iunie 1996 privind înregistrarea indicațiilor geografice și a denumirilor de origine în conformitate cu procedura prevăzută la articolul 17 din Regulamentul (CEE) nr. 2081/92 al Consiliului (JO L 148, 21.6.1996, p. 1).
 (3) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1030/2008 al Comisiei din 20 octombrie 2008 de aprobare a unor modificări care nu sunt minore aduse caietului de sarcini al unei denumiri înregistrate în Registrul denumirilor de origine protejate și al indicațiilor geografice protejate [Chasselas de Moissac (DOP)] (JO L 278, 21.10.2008, p. 7).
 (4) JO C 143, 6.5.2017, p. 8.


type: other

text:
Αρχική Χρήσιμα Ειδική Παροχή Προστασίας της Μητρότητας ΟΑΕΔ 2019 – Επίδομα – Άδεια Μητρότητας
 Ειδική Παροχή Προστασίας της Μητρότητας ΟΑΕΔ 2019 – Επίδομα – Άδεια Μητρότητας
 δικαιούνται οι μητέρες οι οποίες είναι ασφαλισμένες στον Ε.Φ.Κ.Α.-τ. ΙΚΑ–ΕΤΑΜ και απασχολούνται σε επιχειρήσεις ή εκμεταλλεύσεις του ιδιωτικού τομέα, όπως αυτό διευκρινίστηκε με το άρθρο 36 του ν. 3996/2011, με σχέση εξαρτημένης εργασίας, ορισμένου ή αορίστου χρόνου, με πλήρη ή μερική απασχόληση.
 Προϋποθέσεις Παροχής Άδειας – Προστασίας της Μητρότητας ΟΑΕΔ 2019
 Η αίτηση υποβάλλεται επίσης μέσω των ΚΕΠ ή ηλεκτρονικά μέσω των e-Υπηρεσιών. Για την μετάβασή σας στις e-Υπηρεσίες του ΟΑΕΔ, παρακαλούμε, πατήστε εδώ.
 Δικαιολογητικά για την Παροχή Άδειας – Προστασίας της Μητρότητας ΟΑΕΔ 2019
 Διάρκεια / Ποσό Επιδότησης Παροχής Άδειας – Προστασίας της Μητρότητας ΟΑΕΔ 2019
 Διακοπή Παροχής Άδειας – Προστασίας της Μητρότητας ΟΑΕΔ 2019
 Διαβάστε επίσης – Επίδομα Κυοφορίας – Λοχείας – Συμπληρωματικές Παροχές Μητρότητας ΟΑΕΔ 2019
 Άρθρο 44 παρ. 3 ν.4488/2017
 Συχνές Ερωτήσεις – Επεξηγήσεις
 Προστασίας της Μητρότητας
 Προηγούμενο άρθροΕπίδομα Κυοφορίας – Λοχείας – Συμπληρωματικές Παροχές Μητρότητας ΟΑΕΔ 2019
 Επόμενο άρθροΕγκυμοσύνη: Διατροφή κατά την διάρκεια της εγκυμοσύνης


text:
 14.2.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 73/9
 Achomharc arna thabhairt an 17 Samhain 2021 ag Versobank AS i gcoinne bhreithiúnais na Cúirte Ginearálta (an Naoú Dlísheomra, Comhdhéanamh Leathnaithe) a fógraíodh an 6 Deireadh Fómhair i gCásanna Uamtha T-351/18 agus T-548/18, Ukrselhosprom PCF agus Versobank v BCE
 (Cás C-803/21 P)
 (2022/C 73/34)
 Teanga an cháis: an Béarla
 Tionscnaíodh an cás seo roimh an 1 Eanáir 2022, dáta deiridh an mhaolaithe ar an nGaeilge.


text:
 19.1.2015
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 16/37
 Beschluss des Gerichts vom 6. November 2014 — ANKO/Kommission
 (Rechtssache T-64/13) (1)
 (Schiedsklausel - Sechstes Rahmenprogramm im Bereich der Forschung, technologischen Entwicklung und Demonstration [2002-2006] - Vertrag im Rahmen des Projekts Doc@Hand - Rückzahlung der gezahlten Vorschüsse - Schreiben, mit dem die Ausstellung einer Belastungsanzeige angekündigt wird - Fehlendes Rechtsschutzinteresse - Unzulässigkeit)
 (2015/C 016/59)
 Verfahrenssprache: Griechisch
 Parteien
 Klägerin: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athen, Griechenland) (Prozessbevollmächtigter: Rechtsanwalt V. Christianos)
 Beklagte: Europäische Kommission (Prozessbevollmächtigte: R. Lyal und A. Cordewener im Beistand von Rechtsanwalt S. Drakakakis)
 Gegenstand
 Klage nach Art. 272 AEUV auf Feststellung, dass die Klägerin erstens nicht verpflichtet ist, den Betrag, den die Kommission ihr für das Projekt Doc@Hand im Rahmen des Sechsten Rahmenprogramms im Bereich der Forschung, technologischen Entwicklung und Demonstration (2002-2006) gezahlt hat, zurückzuzahlen, und zweitens wegen dieses Projekts keinen pauschalierten Schadensersatz zu leisten hat
 Tenor
 1.
 Die Klage wird als unzulässig abgewiesen.
 2.
 Die ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias trägt die Kosten.
 (1) ABl. C 86 vom 23.3.2013.


jurisdiction: US

text:
 279 Md. 74 (1977)
 367 A.2d 924
 GEORGE F. HOYT ET AL.
 v.
 POLICE COMMISSIONER OF BALTIMORE CITY
 [No. 40, September Term, 1976.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided January 6, 1977.
 The cause was argued before SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and ORTH, JJ., and JAMES C. MORTON, JR., Associate Judge of the Court of Special Appeals, specially assigned.
 William H. Engelman, with whom were Kaplan, Heyman, Greenberg, Engelman & Belgrad and Robert M. Winegrad on the brief, for appellants.
 Millard S. Rubenstein, Assistant Attorney General, with whom was Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, on the brief, for appellee.
 SINGLEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 These consolidated appeals, by 55 former members (the Officers) of the Baltimore City Police Department (the Department), are from an order of the Baltimore City Court which affirmed the action of Donald D. Pomerleau, the Police Commissioner of Baltimore City (the Commissioner), who had dismissed the Officers from the Department because of their participation in a strike against the Department from 11 July 1974 through 16 July 1974. The appeals were initially taken to the Court of Special Appeals. We granted the Officers' petition for the writ of certiorari before the case was heard in that court.
 Prior to October, 1973, members of the Department had been represented by two organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police and Local 1195 of the American Federation of *76 State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (the Union). In that month, the Commissioner agreed to conduct an election among those members of the Department holding the rank of police officer or police agent to determine whether they wished to be collectively represented and if so, to choose one of the two labor organizations to do so. It was agreed that the organization thus selected would negotiate with the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City (the City) on matters of salaries and other benefits.
 General Order 9-73 of the Department, promulgated by the Commissioner on 10 October 1973, announced that an election was scheduled on 14 November 1973 for the selection of an employee organization and stated that the organization so selected would have exclusive collective bargaining rights for no less than two years.
 The order concluded with the following proviso:
 "No employee organization or employee shall engage in, initiate, sponsor, support or direct a strike, secondary boycott, `blue flu epidemics', work slow downs, work stoppages, or similar activities.
 "No employee organization or employee shall engage in, initiate, sponsor, support, directly or indirectly, the picketing of Police installations or any of the property of the City of Baltimore.
 "If the employee organization shall violate any of the provisions hereof the Police Commissioner will:
 (a) revoke the designation of an exclusive representative and said exclusive representative shall be ineligible to participate in elections or be certified as exclusive representative for a period of two years thereafter; and
 (b) subject to the approval of the Mayor, City of Baltimore, payroll deductions will not be made for such organization's dues for a period of two years thereafter."
 At the election, the Union was selected as the exclusive bargaining agent. Commencing in January, 1974, the Union *77 initiated negotiations with the City, looking toward the formulation of a contract for the fiscal year beginning 1 July 1974. The negotiations were not successful, and the City's final offer, presented on 30 June 1974, was almost unanimously rejected by the members of the Union.
 Negotiations continued but no agreement was reached. Two meetings of the membership were held on 6 July. It was decided to form an 84 member Steering Committee to plan a series of "job actions" designed to stimulate negotations: a drastic increase in the issuance of traffic summonses, and the writing of detailed reports on found property, including pennies and abandoned bath tubs. The "job actions" apparently had the tacit approval of the Commissioner, who hoped to see a resumption of negotiations, and the Department cooperated with the Union by arranging for members of the Steering Committee to be relieved from duty in order that they might attend meetings of the Steering Committee.
 At the last of these meetings, held at 1:00 p.m. on 11 July, it was decided to call a strike. The strike began in the Department's Southwestern District at 8:00 p.m. when 39 officers on the 4:00 p.m. to midnight shift returned to the police station, turned in their equipment, and were followed by 33 members of the Tactical Section.[1] Officers walked off their jobs in almost every district, so that by 11:30 p.m. 162 men were out. On subsequent days, others refused to report for duty so that ultimately the total number participating in the strike was 901. This was 36% of the number of patrolmen in Baltimore City, Baltimore Sun, 13 July 1974, at A. 9 col. 1 (final edition).
 At about 11:15 p.m. on 11 July, Judge James Murphy, of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, issued an injunction prohibiting the strike, and directing that striking officers return to work. This was read at roll calls and to officers on picket lines, and after the strike had ended, the court fined *78 the Union $25,000.00 and the Union's Executive Director $10,000.00 for contempt.
 On 14 July, the Commissioner unilaterally terminated the employment of some 91 probationary officers who were on strike. Most of these were later reinstated.
 While the strike was in progress, counsel for the Union met on two occasions with the Commissioner, members of his staff and his counsel, to ascertain what disciplinary measures might be imposed upon the striking officers. The Commissioner indicated that he proposed to impose disciplinary measures in varying degrees, depending upon the type of activity in which the officers had engaged and the degree of leadership exercised by each of them.
 The strike ended on 16 July. On the following day, the Commissioner notified the Executive Director of the Union, Thomas A. Rapanotti, that the recognition of the Union as exclusive bargaining agent had been revoked and that check-off of dues would cease.
 On the same day, the Commissioner spoke to Deputy Commissioner Clarence J. Glauser, who was Deputy Commissioner for Administration in the Department, and, according to Glauser, instructed him "to head up and establish a special unit to look into the activities of the various members of the Department as relate[d] to their conduct during the strike; and to collect ... [information] ... and make recommendations concerning their participation in the strike activity with a view towards discipline action in each case." Thereafter, this unit opened files for each of the officers who took part in the strike, in which was placed such information as related to the extent of the participation of each officer.
 Deputy Commissioner Glauser testified that, generally speaking, the files were divided into several categories: first, those officers who were officials of the Union, members of the Executive Board and of the Steering Committee or shop stewards; second, those officers assigned to the Southwestern District and to the Tactical Division who left their duty posts commencing at 8:00 p.m. on the evening of 11 July; third, those officers who left their posts in other *79 districts; fourth, those officers who had made public statements or had coerced others to strike; and finally, those officers who had been engaged in threatening or intimidating activity on the picket line or were intoxicated or resorted to vulgar or violent conduct.[2]
 The preparation of the files occupied a period of approximately three months. As the files were completed, Deputy Commissioner Glauser determined which officers *80 should be charged and which officers were guilty of conduct which would justify only a severe reprimand. The files of the officers to be charged were delivered to the office of the Attorney General, who by law is the legal representative of the Commissioner, Code of Public Local Laws of Baltimore City (1969), § 16-15, where charges and specifications were prepared and the cases assigned for hearing before Disciplinary Hearing Boards (the Boards or the Board), consisting of three senior officers appointed in accordance with General Order 70-04 of the Department, as amended 1 July 1974, and Chapter 722 of the Laws of 1974, effective 1 July 1974, the Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, now Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, §§ 727-734.
 The first of the disciplinary actions was instituted on 23 July. Thereafter, similar actions were instituted against what ultimately became a group of 170 officers whose removal from the force was sought.[3] All of the officers thus charged were suspended from duty and hearings were scheduled before the Boards until December, which heard the evidence in each case and made formal recommendations to the Commissioner as regards the disciplinary action to be taken.[4]
 The Boards followed what was essentially a two-step procedure. In the first phase, the Boards heard evidence relating to the charges and specifications against each officer and made findings of innocence or guilt. If an officer was found guilty on one or more charges, he was accorded an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation or *81 extenuation, following which the Boards made a recommendation to the Commissioner as to the punishment to be imposed.
 In most of the hearings before the Boards, the facts were stipulated. Evidence which was heard in mitigation or extenuation was, in 15 cases, extensively summarized; in 7 cases, minimally summarized; in 21 cases, only the names of the Officer's witnesses were listed, and in 11 cases, no reference was made to the favorable testimony. However, in each case counsel for the Officers was accorded an opportunity to summarize evidence in mitigation or extenuation in a letter to the Commissioner.
 In the cases of the 55 appellants here involved, the Commissioner accepted the Trial Boards' recommendation that they be dismissed from the force.[5] The Officers appealed to the Baltimore City Court, which heard additional testimony, and affirmed the dismissals. This appeal followed.
 At this juncture, the facts found by that court should be set forth:
 "During the period between 2000 hours, July 11, 1974, and 2400 hours, July 12, 1974, there were 276 burglaries of commercial establishments, 52 lootings and 80 acts of malicious destruction. Additionally, there were 233 serious crimes committed between 8:00 p.m., July 11, 1974, and 4:00 p.m., July 12, 1974, an increase in crime of some 258% over the same period the day before. Still further, during this period of time, the Communications Division received 4,266 calls for service over emergency telephone lines, an average of 533 calls per hour. An additional 953 calls could not get in as all the lines were busy. Of the 4,266 calls received, 1,364 requested or required a police response.
 *82 "On the day the strike began, an Order was issued in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City enjoining the Union and its members from striking against the Department. The Union failed to comply with the Court Order, and the strike lasted until July 16, 1974, involving a total of 901 Police Officers.
 "Following the strike, on July 17, 1974, the Commissioner imposed sanctions on the Union by revoking its [exclusive] bargaining authority and withdrawing its right of payroll deduction of Union dues. Also on July 17, 1974, in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, the Union was fined $25,000.00, and its Executive Director, Thomas A. Rapanotti, was fined $10,000.00, both for contempt by reason of their non-compliance with the Order of July 11, 1974."
 Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied that these findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence.
 The appellants' argument that the order of the Baltimore City Court affirming their dismissal should be reversed or modified is divided into essentially four parts, which will be considered in order. A fifth contention relates to the dismissal of one of the appellants, Officer Wayne Harris.
 (1)
 Appellants, both permanent and probationary employees, were entitled to procedural due process before their employment with the Department could be terminated.
 The thrust of this argument is that the companion cases, Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 599 (1972), and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) make it clear that a public employee whose employment is terminated has a property interest in a job which he holds under contract, an interest of which he may not be deprived unless procedural due process, notice and a hearing guaranteed by the *83 Fourteenth Amendment, is observed.[6]See also Huntley v. North Carolina State Board of Education, 493 F.2d 1016 (4th Cir.1974); McNeill v. Butz, 480 F.2d 314 (4th Cir.1973). We do not question the validity of this contention for purposes of this case.
 (2)
 Among the specific due process guarantees to which the appellants were entitled was that of an impartial decision maker.
 (3)
 Appellants were deprived of an impartial decision maker in these cases because:
 (i) There was an impermissible commingling of the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial functions on the part of the Police Commissioner.
 (ii) The Police Commissioner, because of his personal stake and involvement in the strike and its aftermath, was not capable of judging these cases fairly.
 Assuming that the Officers were entitled to due process, the issue is whether they were afforded it here. Relying on Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267-71 (1970), the Officers say that each of them has a right to:
 1. Notice which is timely and adequate for the preparation of the Officer's defense;
 2. Confront and cross examine adverse witnesses and to present his own case;
 3. Be represented by counsel;
 4. An impartial decision maker;
 *84 5. Be apprised of reasons for the decision and the evidence relied upon.
 The underlying issue here is whether the disciplinary procedure was so structured as to guarantee the Officers a fair and impartial trier of fact and a decision maker without bias.
 The lower court was satisfied, as are we, that the power to discipline is vested solely in the Commissioner. Code of Public Local Laws of Baltimore City (1969) § 16-7 (7) and (8) respectively provide that the Police Commissioner is authorized:
 "(7) To appoint, promote, reduce in rank, grade or position, reassign, reclassify, retire and discharge all members of the Department in the manner prescribed by law.
 "(8) To regulate attendance, conduct, training, discipline and procedure for all members of the Department and to make all other rules, regulations and orders as may be necessary for the good government of the Department and of its members."
 This grant of authority must be considered, however, in conjunction with § 730 (b) of the Law-Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights, which provides:
 "Conduct of hearing.  The hearing shall be conducted by the investigating committee of the law-enforcement agency by which the law-enforcement officer is employed. Both the law-enforcement agency and the law-enforcement officer shall be given ample opportunity to present evidence and argument with respect to the issues involved. Both may be represented by counsel."
 Here, the Commissioner was faced with two requirements: that of performing the duty of the ultimate decision maker imposed upon him by law, and of performing it in a fair and impartial manner. As the court below found, the Commissioner chose not to exercise the investigative *85 function which was performed by the unit headed by Deputy Commissioner Glauser or the prosecutorial function which was performed by the Attorney General, but to act only in an adjudicative role. The Commissioner isolated himself by directing that the Deputy Commissioner initiate the investigation, convene the Boards and supervise the preparation of charges. The Commissioner's only function was that of accepting, modifying or rejecting the punishment recommended. This was certainly not an impermissible blending of the investigative, prosecutorial and judicial functions, as the Officers contend. See Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975). There is no evidence that the Commissioner played any part whatever in the conduct of the investigations or prosecutions nor do we find any evidence that the Commissioner's personal involvement in the strike rendered him incapable of judging the cases fairly.[7]
 The facts of this case closely parallel those of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. v. Hortonville Education Ass'n, 66 Wis. 2d 469, 225 N.W.2d 658 (1975), 426 U.S. 482, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1976). In that case, the Hortonville teachers who had worked under a collective bargaining agreement during the school year 1972-1973, went on strike in 1974 when no agreement was reached, a strike which was prohibited by Wisconsin law. When the teachers refused to return, disciplinary hearings were scheduled before the Board of the School District. The teachers objected on the ground that this was not a hearing before an impartial fact finder guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. No hearings were held, and the teachers were dismissed.
 The Supreme Court of Wisconsin relied on Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 485-86 (1972), which had held that minimal due process requirements mandate a preliminary determination of whether there is reasonable ground for the revocation of parole by an uninvolved person and upheld the *86 teachers' contention. See Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 501-03 (1974) (lawyer charged with contempt of court should not be tried by the judge before whom the contempt was committed); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 578-79 (1973) (Alabama Board of Optometry could not conduct a disciplinary hearing in a case where Board members had a financial stake in the outcome); Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972) (mayor of village cannot sit as judge trying traffic offenses when fines provide substantial proportion of village revenues). See also Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
 In Hortonville, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and reversed the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The essence of the Supreme Court's holding was that in the absence of a showing that the Board had such a personal or financial stake in the outcome which would induce actual personal bias or animosity, the mere involvement of the Board in the case did not disqualify it as a decision maker.
 The following passages, quoted from the opinion, seem apposite:
 "Respondents' argument rests in part on doctrines that have no application to this case. They seem to argue the Board members had some personal or official stake in the decision whether the teachers should be dismissed, comparable to the stake the Court saw in Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), or Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972); see also Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973), and that the Board has manifested some personal bitterness toward the teachers, aroused by teacher criticism of the Board during the strike, see, e.g., Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488 (1974); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455 (1971). Even assuming those cases state the governing standards when the decision-maker is a public employer dealing with employees, the teachers did not show, and the Wisconsin courts did not find, that the Board members had the kind of personal or *87 financial stake in the decision that might create a conflict of interest, and there is nothing in the record to support charges of personal animosity. The Wisconsin Supreme Court was careful `not to suggest .. . that the board members were anything but dedicated public servants, trying to provide the district with quality education ... within its limited budget.' 66 Wis. 2d, at 494. That court's analysis would seem to be confirmed by the Board's repeated invitations for striking teachers to return to work, the final invitation being contained in the letter that notified them of their discharge.
 "The only other factor suggested to support the claim of bias is that the School Board was involved in the negotiations that preceded and precipitated the striking teachers' discharge." 49 L. Ed. 2d 8-9.
 * * *
 "Mere familiarity with the facts of a case gained by an agency in the performance of its statutory role does not, however, disqualify a decisionmaker. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975); Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 700-703 (1948). Nor is a decisionmaker disqualified simply because he has taken a position, even in public, on a policy issue related to the dispute, in the absence of a showing that he is not `capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances.' United States v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 421 (1941); see also FTC v. Cement Institute, supra, 701." 49 L. Ed. 2d 9.
 * * *
 "Respondents have failed to demonstrate that the decision to terminate their employment was infected by the sort of bias that we have held to disqualify other decisionmakers as a matter of federal due process. A showing that the Board was `involved' in the events preceding this decision, in *88 light of the important interest in leaving with the Board the power given by the state legislature, is not enough to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity in policymakers with decisionmaking power." 49 L. Ed. 2d 11-12.
 * * *"
 We regard this as attenuating the Supreme Court cases on which the appellants rely. Applying the rationale of Hortonville to this case, we cannot conclude that the Commissioner's participation, limited to the adjudicatory function, is prohibited in the absence of a showing of bias on his part, or a showing that his views so clearly infected the actions of the Disciplinary Hearing Boards as to influence their deliberations. We have made a constitutionally mandated independent examination of the record and find no evidence of this.
 (4)
 The dismissals were invalid because the Commissioner exercised unlawful selective discipline resulting in disparity of treatment among the strikers.
 The Officers' contention that the disciplinary sanction imposed upon them is disparate when compared with sanctions imposed upon others found guilty of similar misconduct and is therefore invalid falls in the face of the general rule that co-defendants in criminal proceedings are not necessarily entitled to receive identical sentences, James v. State, 242 Md. 424, 429-30, 219 A.2d 17, 20-21 (1966); Hardesty v. State, 223 Md. 559, 562, 165 A.2d 761, 763 (1960); Williams v. State, 19 Md. App. 204, 208-09, 310 A.2d 593, 596 (1973); Grimm v. State, 6 Md. App. 321, 330-31, 251 A.2d 230, 236 (1969); Miller v. State, 1 Md. App. 653, 656, 232 A.2d 548, 549 (1967). Even if opinions in criminal cases were regarded as inapposite, there is a legion of cases holding that decisions of administrative agencies are prima facie correct, Montgomery County v. Public Service Comm., 203 Md. 79, *89 84, 98 A.2d 15, 18 (1953), and that on judicial review a court may not substitute its judgment for that reached by the agency, A.H. Smith Sand & Gravel v. Department of Water Resources, 270 Md. 652, 666-67, 313 A.2d 820, 828-29 (1974); Kaufman v. Taxicab Bureau, 236 Md. 476, 480, 204 A.2d 521, 523 (1964), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 849 (1965), involving an administrative determination by the Department; Bernstein v. Real Estate Commission, 221 Md. 221, 230, 156 A.2d 657, 661-62 (1959), appeal dismissed, 363 U.S. 419, rehearing denied, 364 U.S. 855 (1960); Serio v. City of Baltimore, 208 Md. 545, 551-52, 119 A.2d 387, 390 (1956).
 The appellants place their principal reliance on three cases: Trans World Airlines, Inc. and Airline Pilots Ass'n Internat'l, 71-2 ARB ¶ 8544 (Labor Arbitration Awards, 1971-72); City of New York Human Resources Administration & City Employees Union v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 237, Vol. 4, Labor Arbitration in Government, No. 3, Case No. 1002 (1974); City of Inkster, Michigan & American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 290, Vol. 5, Labor Arbitration in Government, No. 5, Case No. 1295 (1975). As was noted by the court below, these are arbitration cases where the principles applied differ from those applicable to the judicial review of the decision of an administrative agency. All that is required here is that the agency's findings are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence, Snowden v. City of Baltimore, 224 Md. 443, 168 A.2d 390 (1961), and that the action is not arbitrary, capricious or illegal, Department of Natural Resources v. Linchester, 274 Md. 211, 224, 334 A.2d 514, 523 (1975); Northampton v. Prince George's County, 273 Md. 93, 100, 327 A.2d 774, 778 (1974). We conclude that so long as the punishment meted out is not dictated by capriciousness or arbitrariness, and finds support in the facts, it may be imposed on a case-by-case basis.
 (5)
 The dismissal of the appellant Wayne Harris was arbitrary, capricious and unlawful based on the evidence taken as a whole.
 *90 Wayne Harris joined the Union on 30 June 1974, and immediately thereafter became a member of the Steering Committee as the representative of 20 men assigned to a Canine Unit, 19 of whom opposed the strike. He actively opposed the strike at the 11 July meeting of the Committee. His participation in the strike was limited to observing the picket line at the Southwestern District station about 8:00 p.m. on 11 July. He complains that his dismissal was predicated solely on his failure to advise his commanding officer that a strike was imminent.
 The following charges were brought against Officer Harris:
 "Charge I,
 Specification I .... Violation of Rule I  CONDUCT  Section 11, Rules
 and Regulations and Manual of Procedure, Police
 Department, City of Baltimore, 1959, to wit,
 For that on or about July 11, 1974, Police
 Officer Wayne B.D. Harris, Sr., having
 knowledge of a planned strike by members of the
 Baltimore Police Department to begin on July
 11, 1974, failed to give information thereof to
 his commanding officer without delay.[[8]]
 "Charge II,
 Specification I .... Violation of Rule I  CONDUCT  Section 14, Rules
 and Regulations and Manual of Procedure, Police
 Department, City of Baltimore, 1959, to wit,
 For that on or
 *91 about July 11, 1974, Police Officer Wayne B.D.
 Harris, Sr., did wilfully disobey General Order
 9-73, titled "Establishment of Collective
 Bargaining," by engaging in, initiating,
 sponsoring, supporting or directing a strike by
 members of the Baltimore Police
 Department.[[9]]
 "Charge III,
 Specification I .... Violation of Rule I  CONDUCT  Section 18, Rules
 and Regulations and Manual of Procedure, Police
 Department, City of Baltimore, 1959, to wit,
 For that on or about July 11, 1974, Police
 Officer Wayne B.D. Harris, Sr., in violation of
 a lawful Order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore
 City, did induce members of the Baltimore Police
 Department to engage in a strike.
 "Charge III,
 Specification II.... Violation of Rule I  CONDUCT  Section 18, Rules
 and Regulations and Manual of Procedure, Police
 Department, City of Baltimore, 1959, to wit,
 For that on or about July 11, 1974, Police
 Officer Wayne B.D. Harris, Sr., in violation of
 a lawful Order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore
 City, did encourage members of the Baltimore
 Police Department to engage in a strike."
 *92 The relevant facts as stipulated by the parties were presented to the Board:
 "On July 11, 1974 Officer Wayne Harris was an employee of the Baltimore City Police Department assigned to the Tactical Section. As of that date Officer Harris was also a member of Local 1195 Police Council 27, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, hereinafter referred to as the Union, and was a member of the Union's Steering Committee. A committee composed of Union members selected by the Union membership to decide what job actions would be taken by the Union membership in order to secure desired pay raises and benefits from the City of Baltimore.
 "On July 11, 1974 Officer Harris attended a Steering Committee meeting which began about 1:00 o'clock p.m. and was held at Union Headquarters, 305 Monument Street in Baltimore City. The purpose of this meeting was to decide what further job actions would be taken by the Union members. At about 4:00 o'clock p.m. the Steering Committee voted to strike against the Baltimore City Police Department, and the plan was for Southwestern District to go out first and Tactical to follow. After this decision was made most of the attendees were not allowed to leave the room until about 8:00 o'clock p.m.
 "Officer Harris was permitted to leave the meeting and did so at approximately 6:00 o'clock p.m. Officer Harris having knowledge of this planned strike by members of the Baltimore City Police Department did not give this information to his commanding officer before the strike began at approximately 8:00 o'clock p.m.
 "At approximately 8:00 o'clock p.m. Officer Harris appeared at Southwestern District. The members of Southwestern District and Tactical Section walked off their jobs at about 8:00 o'clock p.m. leaving approximately ninety-eight thousand *93 residents of the Southwestern District with only one uniformed police officer to protect their lives and property.
 "Officer Harris then left for his vacation and remained on vacation during the entire strike.
 "At no time during the strike did Officer Harris urge or encourage striking police officers to return to duty and to cease picketing.
 * * *
 The Board found Officer Harris guilty of charges I and II and the specifications thereto; not guilty of charge III and the specifications thereto.
 The short answer to this contention is that Officer Harris was the only officer, or one of two officers, permitted to leave a meeting of the Steering Committee before 8:00 p.m. on 11 July, knowing that a strike had been called. He failed to report the action to his commanding officer, in direct contravention of the regulations of the Department.
 He appeared at the Southwestern District headquarters at 8:00 p.m., observed the picket line, and left on his vacation the following morning. Although he returned to Baltimore almost immediately to attend a meeting of the Negotiating Committee, he did not return to duty until after the strike had ended. While it is argued that his dismissal was arbitrary and capricious, the answer is that there was substantial evidence to support a finding that he failed to comply with the Department's regulations in not reporting that a strike was imminent, and that there was evidence from which it could be inferred that he supported the strike when he visited the picket line at Southwestern District on 11 July, made no effort to deter the strikers, and did not report for duty when he returned to Baltimore without determining whether or not his leave had been canceled. Department of Natural Resources v. Linchester, supra, 274 Md. at 224; Snowden v. City of Baltimore, supra, 224 Md. 443.
 Order affirmed; costs to be paid by appellants.
 NOTES
 [1] The Southwestern District, an area of 9.5 square miles, has a population of 93,000 to 98,000, and is approximately the size of Miami Beach, Florida. At this point, there was but one uniformed officer on duty in the District.
 [2] On 25 July, the Commissioner had issued a notice to be read at roll calls for three consecutive days and posted on all bulletin boards in the entire department:
 "This message is intended to answer some questions uppermost in the minds of those members of the department who participated in the strike against the city. First, exhaustive case files are being prepared on each officer involved. As these are completed, please be assured that varying actions will be taken on an individual basis against 1) those officers from the Southwestern District and Tactical Section who deserted their posts at or about 2000 hours on Thursday, July 11, abandoning the citizens and endangering their brother officers, 2) those who instigated, planned, and implemented the walkout of Tactical and Southwest, 3) those who conspired to diminish the department's ability to respond by:
 a. jamming communications
 b. mixing keys in the Motor Pool
 c. blocking departmental [buses] so reinforcements could not move expeditiously, and
 d. holding open mikes
 4) those who exhorted and even coerced other officers to strike, 5) and those who spat upon their brother officers. These men will be dealt with.
 "However, there remains a larger group of strikers who remained away from their jobs but were not instigators of or leaders in the strike. For the most part they were followers, deceived, misguided and sorely misled by union leadership. It is primarily for this latter group of men that this communication is prepared. To you I say, go back to policing and worry no longer. Each of you will receive from me a letter of reprimand that will become a part of your personnel file. I have decided that beyond this I will take no further action against you for your role in the strike. Of course, you must live with the shame that you brought upon yourselves, the Baltimore City Police Department, and law enforcement on a national basis. However, I trust that you will emerge from our recent trauma stronger men and better police officers.
 "With the above information, each man involved in the strike  knowing his own actions  will be able to discern which of the above classes of strikers he falls in. I feel this should relieve many fears and anxieties you have. So, to the large group of officers who were the followers, let me reiterate  stop worrying and get back to policing this city." (emphasis in original)
 [3] As it turned out, of 25 Union officials, only the 19 who actively participated in the strike were charged. One of these resigned; one was dismissed and took no appeal; five were ultimately reinstated, and the remaining 12 are appellants in this case. Of the 84 members of the Steering Committee, 61 were active participants in the strike; 27 members were disciplined without being the subject of formal charges. Disciplinary sanctions were imposed on officers who were members of the Committee arising out of other charges.
 [4] The lower court found as a fact that of the 901 officers who participated in the strike, 673, received letters of reprimand and 130 were suspended from duty and formally charged. Six probationary officers were dropped from the force. Of the 130 officers charged, 75 (including the 55 appellants) were dismissed from the Department; 90 other officers resigned before a hearing, and the charges against the others were either dismissed or a lesser disciplinary sanction was imposed.
 [5] At argument before us, the Commissioner's counsel told us that in no case did the Commissioner impose a punishment more severe than that recommended by the Disciplinary Hearing Board, and that in a number of cases, the Commissioner imposed lesser sanctions.
 [6] Counsel for the Commissioner seems to have conceded and the lower court seems to have found that there is no substantial difference in this regard between such of the Officers who had permanent status and those who had probationary status only.
 [7] It will be recalled that it was the Commissioner who had initiated the plan for the selection of an exclusive bargaining agent by secret ballot. Additionally, he had publicly advocated the adoption of the procedure by other police departments. The record supports the notion that his reaction did not rise above disappointment or chagrin.
 [8] Section 11 of Rule I, Rules and Regulations and Manual of Procedure, Police Department, City of Baltimore, 1959, provides that "Any member of the department, who being present at or having cognizance of any mutinous, seditious, rebellious, or reactionary movement within the department, must use his utmost effort to suppress the same, or knowing or having reason to believe that such movement is to take place, must give information thereof to his commanding officer without delay."
 [9] Section 14 of Rule I above provides that "No member of the department shall wilfully disobey any lawful command or order, either verbal or written, of any superior or other officer designated to command."


type: contracts

text:
 Fontos jogi nyilatkozat
 |
 22006A1208(02)
 Jegyzõkönyv az Európai Közösség és a Mauritániai Iszlám Köztársaság közötti halászati partnerségi megállapodásban meghatározott halászati lehetõségek és pénzügyi ellentételezés megállapításáról
 Hivatalos Lap L 343 , 08/12/2006 o. 0009 - 0060
 Jegyzőkönyvaz Európai Közösség és a Mauritániai Iszlám Köztársaság közötti halászati partnerségi megállapodásban meghatározott halászati lehetőségek és pénzügyi ellentételezés megállapításáról1. cikkAlkalmazási időszak és halászati lehetőségek(1) A 2006. augusztus 1-jétől kezdődő kétéves időszakra a megállapodás 5. és 6. cikke alapján nyújtott halászati lehetőségek az e jegyzőkönyvhöz csatolt táblázatban szerepelnek. E halászati lehetőségek a III. mellékletben feltüntetett, a mauritániai hatóságok által a rendelkezésre álló tudományos szakvélemények alapján megállapított és rendszeresen frissített általános halászati erőkifejtés részét képezik.(2) Az (1) bekezdést e jegyzőkönyv 4. és 5. cikkének rendelkezéseire is figyelemmel kell alkalmazni.(3) A megállapodás 6. cikke alapján az Európai Közösség valamely tagállamának lobogója alatt közlekedő hajók csak akkor végezhetnek halászati tevékenységet a mauritániai halászati övezetekben, ha rendelkeznek az e jegyzőkönyv keretében és az e jegyzőkönyv mellékleteiben leírt szabályok szerint kiállított halászati engedéllyel.2. cikkPénzügyi ellentételezés – fizetési szabályok(1) A megállapodás 7. cikkében említett pénzügyi ellentételezést évi 86 millió euróban rögzítették [1]. Az 1. cikkben említett időszak alatt Mauritánia, a megállapodás 7. cikke (1) bekezdésének b) albekezdése értelmében ebből az összegből évente 11 millió eurót a nemzeti halászati politika végrehajtásának finanszírozására használ fel, amelyből évi 1 millió eurót a Banc d’Arguin-i nemzeti park (PNBA) támogatására fordít.(2) Az (1) bekezdést e jegyzőkönyv 4., 5., 6., 7., 9., 10. és 13. cikkére is figyelemmel kell alkalmazni.(3) A pénzügyi ellentételezés Közösség által történő kifizetését az első évre legkésőbb 2006. december 31-ig kell teljesíteni, és legkésőbb augusztus 1-jéig a következő évekre.(4) A pénzügyi ellentételezést a Mauritániai Iszlám Köztársaság Kincstára által a Mauritániai Nemzeti Banknál nyitott különszámlára kell átutalni, amelynek adatairól a minisztérium ad tájékoztatást.(5) Az e jegyzőkönyv 6. cikkének rendelkezéseire is figyelemmel, az említett ellentételezés és a Banc d’Arguin-i Nemzeti Park támogatásának költségvetési vonatkozásait a mauritániai költségvetési törvény keretében határozzák meg, és ezért az a Mauritániai állam kizárólagos hatáskörébe tartozik.3. cikkTudományos együttműködés(1) A felek vállalják, hogy a fenntartható gazdálkodásra vonatkozó elvek alapján a mauritániai halászati övezetekben előmozdítják a felelősségteljes halászatot.(2) E jegyzőkönyv alkalmazási időszaka alatt a felek együttműködnek egyes, a mauritániai halászati övezetekben található erőforrások állapotának javításával kapcsolatos kérdések tanulmányozásában; e célból, a megállapodás 4. cikkének (1) bekezdésével összhangban a közös tudományos bizottság évente legalább egyszer ülést tart. Bármelyik fél kérésére, illetve ha arra e megállapodás keretében szükség merül fel, az említett közös tudományos bizottság több ülést is tarthat.(3) A felek a közös tudományos bizottság munkájának eredményei alapján és a legjobb, rendelkezésre álló tudományos vélemények alapján a megállapodás 10. cikkében előírt vegyes bizottságon belül konzultálnak egymással, és – adott esetben – közös megállapodással intézkedéseket hoznak a halászati erőforrások fenntartható kezelésének biztosítására.(4) A közös tudományos bizottság hatásköre elsősorban a következő tevékenységekre terjed ki:a) éves tudományos jelentés készítése az e megállapodás hatálya alá tartozó halászatokról;b) az erőforrások állapotának és az ökoszisztémák változásának jobb megértése érdekében speciális tudományos kérdésekkel foglalkozó éves program készítése és végrehajtása;c) az e megállapodás végrehajtása során felmerülő tudományos kérdések tanulmányozása a bizottságon belül konszenzussal elfogadott eljárás keretében;d) szükség esetén – többek között – felderítő halászati utak szervezése az erőforrások és az ökoszisztémák védelmét biztosító halászati és kiaknázási lehetőségek feltérképezéséhez.4. cikkA halászati lehetőségek felülvizsgálata(1) Az e jegyzőkönyv 1. cikkében említett halászati lehetőségek köre közös megállapodással bővíthető, ha – a megállapodás 4. cikkének (1) bekezdésében említett közös tudományos bizottság következtetései nyomán – ez a bővítés nem veszélyezteti a mauritániai halászati erőforrásokkal való fenntartható gazdálkodást. Ebben az esetben az e jegyzőkönyv 2. cikkének (1) bekezdésében említett pénzügyi ellentételezés összegét arányosan és időarányosan kell növelni. Mindazonáltal az Európai Közösség által folyósított pénzügyi ellentételezés teljes összege nem haladhatja meg e jegyzőkönyv 2. cikkének (1) bekezdésében feltüntetett összeg kétszeresét, amely összeg a halászati lehetőségek körének bővítésével arányosan emelkedik.(2) Ha azonban a felek az e jegyzőkönyv 3. cikkének (3) bekezdésében említett, az e jegyzőkönyv 1. cikkében szereplő halászati lehetőségek csökkenését eredményező intézkedések elfogadásáról állapodnak meg, a pénzügyi ellentételezés összegét arányosan és időarányosan csökkenteni kell. A pénzügyi ellentételezést – az e jegyzőkönyv 6. cikkében meghatározott rendelkezések sérelme nélkül – az Európai Közösség felfüggesztheti, amennyiben a jegyzőkönyvben megállapított halászati lehetőségek felhasználása nem lehetséges.(3) A halászati lehetőségek különböző hajókategóriák közötti elosztását szintén felül lehet vizsgálni a felek közös megállapodása alapján, valamint a közös tudományos bizottság valamennyi ajánlásának a betartásával azon állományok kezelése tekintetében, amelyeket az újraelosztás érinthet. A felek megállapodnak a pénzügyi ellentételezés megfelelő kiigazításáról, ha a halászati lehetőségek újraelosztása azt indokolja.(4) A halászati lehetőségeknek az e cikk (1), (2) és (3) bekezdésében említett felülvizsgálatáról a felek a megállapodás 10. cikkében meghatározott vegyes bizottság keretében közös megállapodással határoznak.5. cikkFelderítő halászat(1) A felek, a megállapodás 4. cikkében említett közös tudományos bizottság véleménye nyomán felderítő halászatot folytathatnak a mauritániai halászati övezetekben. E célból bármely fél kérésére konzultációt folytatnak, és eseti alapon meghatározzák az új erőforrásokat, feltételeket és egyéb releváns paramétereket.(2) A kísérleti jellegű felderítő halászatra szóló engedélyeket legfeljebb hat hónapos időszakra adnak ki a megállapodás 6. cikkének (2) bekezdésével összhangban. Az engedélyek megadása díjfizetés ellenében történik.(3) Amennyiben a felek úgy ítélik meg, hogy a felderítő hajóutak az ökoszisztémák megőrzése és az élő tengeri erőforrások védelme tekintetében pozitív eredménnyel zárultak, a közösségi hajók számára új halászati lehetőségeket biztosíthatnak az e jegyzőkönyv 4. cikkében előírt konzultációs eljárást követve, a jegyzőkönyv hatálytalanításának időpontjáig és a megengedett erőkifejtésnek megfelelő mértékben. A pénzügyi ellentételezést a 4. cikkben előírt rendelkezések szerint emelni fogják.(4) A felderítő halászati tevékenységet a mauritániai oceanográfiai és halászati kutatásokat végző intézettel (IMROP) szoros együttműködésben hajtják végre. Az IMROP határozza meg a részt vevő kutatói és felügyelői csoport összetételét, akik fizetését a hajótulajdonosnak kell fedezni. A felderítő halászat során szerzett adatokról az IMROP jelentést készít, amelyet továbbít a minisztériumnak.(5) A felderítő halászat során halászott fogások a hajótulajdonos tulajdonát képezik. Tilos azon fajok kifogása, amelyek mérete nem felel meg a szabályozásban előírtaknak, és amelyek halászatát, fedélzeten tartását és forgalmazását a mauritániai jogszabályok nem engedélyezik.(6) A felek közös megegyezésével elfogadott eltérő rendelkezés hiányában, a felderítő halászatra vonatkozó rendelkezések alapján közlekedő hajók valamennyi általuk halászott fogást Mauritániában teszik partra.6. cikkA partnerségi megállapodás hozzájárulása a mauritániai halászatra vonatkozó ágazati politika végrehajtásához(1) A megállapodás 7. cikke (1) bekezdésének b) pontjában említett pénzügyi támogatás évi 11 millió eurót tesz ki, összhangban az e jegyzőkönyv 2. cikkének (1) bekezdésével. Ez a pénzügyi támogatás fedezi a PNBA költségeit, illetve a mauritániai halászati és tengergazdálkodási ágazat fenntartható fejlődésére vonatkozó nemzeti stratégia kialakítását és végrehajtását, figyelemmel a fenntartható és felelősségteljes halászat mauritániai vizeken és különösen az e cikk (3) bekezdésében felsorolt és a IV. mellékletben részletesen tárgyalt intervenciós területeken való bevezetésére.(2) Az e cikk (1) bekezdésében említett összegű pénzügyi támogatás kezelése – amely a felek közös megegyezésével megállapított megvalósítandó célkitűzésekkel és az azokhoz kapcsolódó programozással összhangban történik – Mauritánia felelősségi körébe tartozik.(3) Az említett célkitűzések felek által közös megegyezéssel történő meghatározásának sérelme nélkül, és összhangban a Mauritániai halászati és tengergazdálkodási ágazat fenntartható fejlődésére vonatkozó nemzeti stratégiában meghatározott prioritásokkal, illetve az ágazatban fenntartható és felelősségteljes irányítás érdekében a felek a következő intervenciós területek középpontba állításáról egyeztek meg:a) a szabályozás hatékonyságának javítása a halászat területén:- a kisüzemi és partmenti halászatok szabályozott keretek között történő fejlesztésének támogatása, elsősorban halászati fejlesztési tervek végrehajtásával, nyomon követésével és értékelésével,- a halászati erőforrásokkal kapcsolatos ismeretek elmélyítését célzó programok kialakítása,- a halászatierőkifejtés-gazdálkodás támogatása,- a Mauritániai Halászati és Oceanográfiai Kutatóintézetben (IMROP) speciális laboratóriumok létrehozása, eszközeik modernizálása, valamint az informatikai rendszerek és a statisztikai elemzőrendszerek fejlesztése;b) a halászati ágazat mauritániai nemzeti gazdaságba való integrálódásának felgyorsítása:- az infrastruktúra és különösen a kikötői infrastruktúra fejlesztése a Nouadhibou-i kikötő, vagy a Nouakchott-i halpiac helyreállításához hasonló beruházási programokkal a kisüzemi halászatokból származó fogások kirakodására,- a mauritániai ipari flotta szerkezetátalakítására irányuló pénzügyi támogatásra vonatkozó intézkedések,- a kisüzemi halászati flottákra vonatkozó modernizációs program elkészítése az egészségügyi és biztonsági előírások teljesítésének elősegítése érdekében, olyan kezdeményezések révén például, mint a facsónakok tartósabb anyagból készült és tárolóeszközökkel is felszerelt csónakokra történő lecserélése hosszú távon,- támogatási és beruházási programok kidolgozása a tengeri/halászati felügyelet hatékonyságának növelése céljából, többek között kikötésre használt pontonok felállításával a kizárólag a felügyeleti hatóság és az IMROP által használt kikötőkben, illetve elsősorban a VMS-rendszerrel kapcsolatos felügyeleti technikákhoz és technológiákhoz igazított képzési programokkal,- a halászati termékek minőségének javítását célzó programok és kezdeményezések kidolgozása, különösen olyan intézkedések révén, amelyek javítják a kirakodott és feldolgozott termékek egészségügyi és növény-egészségügyi állapotát;c) az ágazat kapacitásának erősítése és az irányítás hatékonyságának fokozása tekintetében:- képzési program kidolgozása és a tengeri biztonság, illetve a mentési szolgáltatások javításának támogatása, elsősorban a kisüzemi flották számára,- az ágazat irányításával foglalkozó mauritániai halászati és tengergazdálkodási minisztérium érintett technikai szolgálatainak támogatására irányuló program kidolgozása,- cselekvési terv kidolgozása az ágazat irányításában részt vevő szolgálatok hatékonyságának növelésére,- engedélyezési és hajómegfigyelési rendszer kidolgozása és erősítése.7. cikkA mauritániai halászati politika támogatásának végrehajtási módjai(1) Az e jegyzőkönyv 6. cikkének (3) bekezdésében előírt rendelkezések sérelme nélkül az Európai Közösség és a minisztérium, a megállapodás 10. cikkében említett vegyes bizottság keretén belül, a IV. mellékletben meghatározott iránymutatásoknak megfelelően és a jegyzőkönyv hatálybalépésének időpontjától megállapodik a következőkben:a) a mauritániai halászati politika prioritásainak végrehajtását irányító éves és többéves iránymutatások, amelyek célja a fenntartható és felelősségteljes halászat bevezetése és különösen az e jegyzőkönyv 6. cikke (3) bekezdésében foglalt célkitűzések;b) az elérendő éves és többéves célok, valamint az alkalmazandó követelmények és mutatók, hogy lehetővé tegyék a kapott eredmények éves alapon történő értékelését.(2) Ezen iránymutatások, célok, értékelési követelmények és mutatók bármely módosítását a felek a vegyes bizottságon belül hagyják jóvá.(3) Az e jegyzőkönyv hatálybalépésének első évében, amint az iránymutatások, célok, értékelési követelmények és mutatók a vegyes bizottságon belül elfogadásra kerülnek, az e jegyzőkönyv 6. cikkének (1) bekezdésében említett pénzügyi támogatás elosztásáról Mauritánia tájékoztatja az Európai Bizottságot. A támogatás elosztásáról Mauritánia minden évben a megelőző év szeptember 30-a előtt tájékoztatja az Európai Közösséget.(4) E jegyzőkönyv hatálybalépésének évfordulójától számított legkésőbb három hónapon belül a mauritániai minisztérium éves beszámolót küld a Bizottság küldöttségének az elért eredmények végrehajtásáról, valamint a felmerült nehézségekről.A Bizottság fenntartja magának a jogot, hogy a mauritániai hatóságoktól további információt kérjen az említett eredményekről, hogy a mauritániai hatóságokkal a megállapodás 10. cikkében említett vegyes bizottságon belüli konzultáció keretében az adott célkitűzés megvalósítását elősegítő javító intézkedésekről határozatot hozzanak.8. cikkA közösségi szereplők gazdasági integrálódása a mauritániai halászati ágazatba(1) A felek vállalják, hogy előmozdítják a közösségi szereplőknek a mauritániai halászati ágazat egészébe való gazdasági integrálódását.(2) A friss termékek ágazatának fejlesztése céljából Mauritánia a kikötőiben kirakodó közösségi gazdasági szereplők számára – a (különösen a helyi ipari szereplőknek történő eladás, a Mauritániában történő értékesítés vagy a mauritániai halászati övezetekben zsákmányolt fogások szárazföldi szállítása esetében) ösztönzésképpen csökkenti az ezekhez kapcsolódó díjak összegét, az e jegyzőkönyv I. mellékletében előírt rendelkezéseknek és a vonatkozó mauritániai jogszabályoknak megfelelően.(3) A felek határozatot hoznak egy olyan munkacsoport létrehozásáról is, amely feltérképezi a mauritániai halászati ágazatba történő közvetlen közösségi befektetések akadályait, illetve általában az ilyen közvetlen befektetések és azok támogatásának lehetőségeit, valamint azon intézkedéseket, amelyek az e befektetésekre vonatkozó feltételeket rugalmassá tehetik.9. cikkViták – A jegyzőkönyv alkalmazásának felfüggesztése(1) A felek között az e jegyzőkönyv és mellékletei rendelkezéseinek értelmezése, és az abból eredő végrehajtás tekintetében felmerült vitákról a felek a megállapodás 10. cikkében előírt vegyes bizottság keretében konzultálnak, amelyet – ha szükséges – rendkívüli ülésként kell összehívni.(2) E jegyzőkönyv alkalmazása a felek valamelyikének kezdeményezésére felfüggeszthető, ha a felek közötti jogvita komolynak minősül, és az (1) bekezdés értelmében a vegyes bizottságon belül folytatott konzultációk nem vezettek a jogvita békés rendezéséhez.(3) A jegyzőkönyv alkalmazásának felfüggesztését az érdekelt félnek írásban, és legkorábban három hónappal azon időpontot megelőzően kell bejelentenie, amikor e felfüggesztés hatályba lépne.(4) Az e cikk (1), (2) és (3) bekezdésében említett felfüggesztési eljárástól eltérve, a Közösség fenntartja a jogot a jegyzőkönyv alkalmazásának azonnali hatállyal történő felfüggesztésére, amennyiben Mauritánia nem teljesíti halászati ágazati politikájának végrehajtása tekintetében vállalt kötelezettségeit. A felfüggesztésről haladéktalanul értesítik a mauritániai hatóságokat.(5) Felfüggesztés esetén a felek jogvita békés rendezése céljából folytatják a konzultációt. Amennyiben megoldást találnak, folytatódik a jegyzőkönyv alkalmazása, és a pénzügyi ellentételezés összegét a jegyzőkönyv alkalmazása felfüggesztésének időtartama függvényében arányosan és időarányosan csökkenteni kell.10. cikkA jegyzőkönyv alkalmazásának a fizetés elmaradása miatti felfüggesztéseAz e jegyzőkönyv 4. cikkének rendelkezéseire is figyelemmel, ha a Közösség elmulasztja az e jegyzőkönyv 2. cikkében előírt kifizetések teljesítését, e jegyzőkönyv alkalmazását fel lehet függeszteni a következő feltételekkel:a) a mauritániai minisztérium értesíti az Európai Bizottságot a kifizetés elmaradásáról. Az Európai Bizottság elvégzi a megfelelő ellenőrzést, és ha szükséges, legkésőbb az értesítés kézhezvételétől számított 30 munkanapon belül teljesíti a kifizetést;b) a kifizetés elmaradásának vagy az elmaradásnak e cikk a) albekezdésében előírt határidőn belüli megfelelő igazolása hiányában az illetékes mauritániai hatóságok jogosultak e jegyzőkönyv alkalmazásának felfüggesztésére. Erről haladéktalanul tájékoztatják az Európai Bizottságot;c) a jegyzőkönyv alkalmazása a kérdéses kifizetés teljesítésekor folytatódik.11. cikkA nemzeti jog alkalmazandó rendelkezéseiA megállapodás rendelkezéseinek sérelme nélkül az e jegyzőkönyv és mellékletei alkalmazása közlekedő hajók által végzett tevékenységek, különös tekintettel a kirakodásra, az átrakodásra, a kikötői szolgáltatások használatára, a készletek beszerzésére, illetve bármely egyéb tevékenységre, a Mauritániában alkalmazandó törvények és jogszabályok hatálya alá tartoznak.12. cikkIdőbeli hatályE jegyzőkönyv és mellékletei 2006. augusztus 1-jétől kezdődően kétéves időszakra alkalmazandóak; a felek hallgatólagos megegyezésével két alkalommal, kétéves időszakra meghosszabbíthatók, kivéve ha a 13. cikknek megfelelően a felek a megállapodást felmondják.13. cikkFelmondás(1) A jegyzőkönyv felmondása esetén az érintett fél a kezdeti időszak, vagy minden további időszak lejárati időpontja előtt legalább hat hónappal írásban értesíti a másik felet a megállapodás felmondására vonatkozó szándékáról.(2) Az előző bekezdésben említett értesítés megküldése után a felek konzultációt kezdenek.14. cikkHatálybalépésE jegyzőkönyv és annak mellékletei a megállapodással egyidejűleg lép hatályba.[1] Ehhez az összeghez még hozzáadódik az I. melléklet III. fejezetében meghatározottak szerint a hajótulajdonosok által közvetlenül a mauritániai hatóságok számára, az I. melléklet IV. fejezetében meghatározott számlára fizetendő hozzájárulás, amely megközelítőleg további 22 millió eurót tesz ki évente.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 5.4.2022
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 106/4
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) 2022/537
 z dnia 4 kwietnia 2022 r.
 dotyczące zezwolenia na stosowanie preparatu z ekstraktu cytryny jako dodatku paszowego dla wszystkich gatunków zwierząt
 (Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG)
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1831/2003 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 22 września 2003 r. w sprawie dodatków stosowanych w żywieniu zwierząt (1), w szczególności jego art. 9 ust. 2,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W rozporządzeniu (WE) nr 1831/2003 przewidziano udzielanie zezwoleń na stosowanie dodatków w żywieniu zwierząt oraz określono sposób uzasadniania i procedury udzielania takich zezwoleń. W art. 10 ust. 2 tego rozporządzenia przewidziano ponowną ocenę dodatków dopuszczonych na mocy dyrektywy Rady 70/524/EWG (2).
 (2)
 Ekstrakt cytryny został dopuszczony bez ograniczeń czasowych zgodnie z dyrektywą 70/524/EWG jako dodatek paszowy dla wszystkich gatunków zwierząt. Produkt ten został następnie wpisany do rejestru dodatków paszowych jako istniejący produkt zgodnie z art. 10 ust. 1 lit. b) rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003.
 (3)
 Zgodnie z art. 10 ust. 2 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003 w związku z jego art. 7 złożono wniosek o ponowną ocenę preparatu z ekstraktu cytryny jako dodatku paszowego dla wszystkich gatunków zwierząt.
 (4)
 Wnioskodawca wystąpił o sklasyfikowanie tego dodatku w kategorii „dodatki sensoryczne” i w grupie funkcjonalnej „substancje aromatyzujące”. Do wniosku dołączone zostały dane szczegółowe oraz dokumenty wymagane na mocy art. 7 ust. 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003.
 (5)
 Wnioskodawca wystąpił o zezwolenie na stosowanie preparatu z ekstraktu cytryny również w wodzie do pojenia. Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1831/2003 nie przewiduje jednak zezwolenia na stosowanie substancji aromatyzujących w wodzie do pojenia. W związku z tym nie należy zezwalać na stosowanie preparatu z ekstraktu cytryny w wodzie do pojenia.
 (6)
 W opinii z dnia 29 września 2021 r. (3) Europejski Urząd ds. Bezpieczeństwa Żywności („Urząd”) stwierdził, że w proponowanych warunkach stosowania preparat z ekstraktu cytryny nie ma szkodliwych skutków dla zdrowia zwierząt, zdrowia konsumentów ani środowiska. Urząd stwierdził również, że preparat z ekstraktu cytryny należy uznać za substancję drażniącą dla skóry i oczu oraz mającą potencjalnie działanie żrące. W związku z tym Komisja uważa, że należy zastosować odpowiednie środki ochronne, aby zapobiec szkodliwym skutkom dla zdrowia ludzi, w szczególności w odniesieniu do użytkowników dodatku.
 (7)
 Urząd stwierdził, że preparat z ekstraktu cytryny jest uznawany za środek aromatyzujący do żywności, a jego funkcja w paszy byłaby zasadniczo taka sama jak w żywności, w związku z czym ponowne wykazywanie skuteczności nie jest konieczne. Urząd zweryfikował również sprawozdanie dotyczące metod analizy dodatku paszowego w paszy, przedłożone przez laboratorium referencyjne ustanowione rozporządzeniem (WE) nr 1831/2003.
 (8)
 Ocena preparatu z ekstraktu cytryny dowodzi, że warunki udzielenia zezwolenia przewidziane w art. 5 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003 są spełnione. W związku z tym należy zezwolić na stosowanie tego preparatu, jak określono w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 (9)
 Należy przewidzieć pewne warunki, aby umożliwić ściślejszą kontrolę. W szczególności na etykiecie dodatku paszowego należy wskazać zalecaną zawartość. W przypadku przekroczenia tej zawartości niektóre informacje powinny być podane na etykiecie premiksów.
 (10)
 Fakt, że nie jest dozwolone stosowanie preparatu z ekstraktu cytryny jako środka aromatyzującego w wodzie do pojenia, nie wyklucza jego stosowania w mieszankach paszowych podawanych z wodą.
 (11)
 Ponieważ względy bezpieczeństwa nie wymagają natychmiastowego zastosowania zmian w warunkach zezwolenia na stosowanie przedmiotowego preparatu, należy przewidzieć okres przejściowy, aby umożliwić zainteresowanym stronom przygotowanie się do spełnienia nowych wymogów wynikających z zezwolenia.
 (12)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Stałego Komitetu ds. Roślin, Zwierząt, Żywności i Pasz,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Zezwolenie
 Preparat wyszczególniony w załączniku, należący do kategorii „dodatki sensoryczne” i do grupy funkcjonalnej „substancje aromatyzujące”, zostaje dopuszczony jako dodatek paszowy stosowany w żywieniu zwierząt zgodnie z warunkami określonymi w załączniku.
 Artykuł 2
 Środki przejściowe
 1. Preparat wyszczególniony w załączniku oraz premiksy zawierające ten preparat wyprodukowane i opatrzone etykietami przed dniem 25 października 2022 r. zgodnie z przepisami obowiązującymi przed dniem 25 kwietnia 2022 r. mogą być nadal wprowadzane do obrotu i stosowane aż do wyczerpania zapasów.
 2. Mieszanki paszowe i materiały paszowe zawierające preparat wyszczególniony w załączniku wyprodukowane i opatrzone etykietami przed dniem 25 kwietnia 2023 r. zgodnie z przepisami obowiązującymi przed dniem 25 kwietnia 2022 r. mogą być nadal wprowadzane do obrotu i stosowane aż do wyczerpania zapasów, jeżeli są przeznaczone dla zwierząt, od których lub z których pozyskuje się żywność.
 3. Mieszanki paszowe i materiały paszowe zawierające preparat wyszczególniony w załączniku wyprodukowane i opatrzone etykietami przed dniem 25 kwietnia 2024 r. zgodnie z przepisami obowiązującymi przed dniem 25 kwietnia 2022 r. mogą być nadal wprowadzane do obrotu i stosowane aż do wyczerpania zapasów, jeżeli są przeznaczone dla zwierząt, od których ani z których nie pozyskuje się żywności.
 Artykuł 3
 Wejście w życie
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 4 kwietnia 2022 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 Przewodnicząca
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) Dz.U. L 268 z 18.10.2003, s. 29.
 (2) Dyrektywa Rady 70/524/EWG z dnia 23 listopada 1970 r. dotycząca dodatków paszowych
 (Dz.U. L 270 z 14.12.1970, s. 1).
 (3) Dziennik EFSA 2021;19(11):6893.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Numer identyfikacyjny dodatku
 Dodatek
 Skład, wzór chemiczny, opis, metoda analityczna
 Gatunek lub kategoria zwierzęcia
 Maksymalny wiek
 Minimalna zawartość
 Maksymalna zawartość
 Pozostałe przepisy
 Data ważności zezwolenia
 mg substancji czynnej/kg mieszanki paszowej pełnoporcjowej o wilgotności 12 %
 Kategoria: Dodatki sensoryczne. Grupa funkcjonalna: Substancje aromatyzujące
 2b139a-ex
 Ekstrakt cytryny
 Skład dodatku
 Preparat z ekstraktu cytryny uzyskany z owoców Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck (1) z kwasem propionowym ≤ 1 %.
 Postać płynna
 Wszystkie gatunki zwierząt
 -
 -
 1.
 Dodatek jest włączany do pasz w postaci premiksu.
 2.
 W informacjach na temat stosowania dodatku i premiksów należy wskazać warunki przechowywania oraz stabilność przy obróbce cieplnej.
 3.
 Na etykiecie dodatku podaje się następujące informacje:
 „Zalecana maksymalna zawartość substancji czynnej na kg mieszanki paszowej pełnoporcjowej o wilgotności 12 %: 1 000 mg”.
 4.
 Jeżeli stosowanie zgodnie z poziomem podanym na etykiecie premiksu skutkuje przekroczeniem poziomu, o którym mowa w pkt 3, na etykiecie premiksu podaje się grupę funkcjonalną, numer identyfikacyjny, nazwę i dodaną ilość substancji czynnej.
 5.
 Mieszanie ekstraktu cytryny z innymi dopuszczonymi dodatkami otrzymanymi z Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck nie jest dozwolone w paszach.
 6.
 Podmioty działające na rynku pasz ustanawiają procedury postępowania i środki organizacyjne dla użytkowników dodatku i premiksów, tak aby ograniczyć ewentualne zagrożenia związane z wdychaniem, kontaktem ze skórą lub kontaktem z oczami. Jeżeli zagrożeń nie można wyeliminować lub maksymalnie ograniczyć za pomocą tych procedur i środków, dodatek i premiksy należy stosować przy użyciu środków ochrony indywidualnej, w tym ochrony skóry i oczu.
 25 kwietnia 2032 r.
 Charakterystyka substancji czynnej
 Wyciąg wodny z materiału pozostałego po ekstrakcji soku z owoców Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck, zgodnie z definicją Rady Europy (2).
 Sucha masa: 51–53 %
 Polifenole ogółem (wyrażone jako
 ekwiwalent pirogalolu): ≥ 1 %
 Eriocytryna: ≥ 4 000 mg/kg
 Hesperydyna: ≥ 2 000 mg/kg
 Limonina: 36–92 mg/kg
 Nomilina: 14–113 mg/kg
 Kwas cytrynowy: 4–7 %
 Związki ozydowe: ≥ 42 %
 Numer CAS: 84929-31-7
 Numer EINECS: 284-515-8
 Numer FEMA: 2623
 Numer CoE: 139a
 Metoda analityczna
 (3)
 Do oznaczania ilościowego znacznika fitochemicznego (polifenole ogółem) w dodatku paszowym:
 —
 spektrofotometria przy 760 nm wyrażająca całkowitą zawartość polifenoli jako ekwiwalent pirogalolu (monografia Farmakopei Europejskiej 2.8.14)
 (1) Synonim Citrus Limon (L.) Burm. f.
 (2) Natural sources of flavourings (Naturalne źródła aromatów) – sprawozdanie nr 2 (2007).
 (3) Szczegóły dotyczące metod analitycznych można uzyskać pod następującym adresem laboratorium referencyjnego: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports


text:
 21.9.2012
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 255/25
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 860/2012
 z dnia 20 września 2012 r.
 zmieniające ceny reprezentatywne oraz kwoty dodatkowych ceł przywozowych w odniesieniu do niektórych produktów w sektorze cukru, ustalone rozporządzeniem wykonawczym (UE) nr 971/2011 na rok gospodarczy 2011/2012
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1234/2007 z dnia 22 października 2007 r. ustanawiające wspólną organizację rynków rolnych oraz przepisy szczegółowe dotyczące niektórych produktów rolnych („rozporządzenie o jednolitej wspólnej organizacji rynku”) (1),
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 951/2006 z dnia 30 czerwca 2006 r. ustanawiające szczegółowe zasady wykonania rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 318/2006 w odniesieniu do handlu z państwami trzecimi w sektorze cukru (2), w szczególności jego art. 36 ust. 2 akapit drugi zdanie drugie,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 Kwoty cen reprezentatywnych oraz dodatkowych ceł stosowanych przy przywozie cukru białego, cukru surowego oraz niektórych syropów zostały ustalone na rok gospodarczy 2011/2012 rozporządzeniem wykonawczym Komisji (UE) nr 971/2011 (3). Ceny te i cła zostały ostatnio zmienione rozporządzeniem wykonawczym Komisji (UE) nr 805/2012 (4).
 (2)
 Dane, którymi dysponuje obecnie Komisja, stanowią podstawę do korekty wymienionych kwot, zgodnie z art. 36 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 951/2006.
 (3)
 Ze względu na konieczność zapewnienia, że środek ten będzie mieć zastosowanie możliwie jak najszybciej po udostępnieniu aktualnych danych, niniejsze rozporządzenie powinno wejść w życie z dniem jego opublikowania,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Ceny reprezentatywne i dodatkowe cła mające zastosowanie przy przywozie produktów, o których mowa w art. 36 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 951/2006, ustalone na rok gospodarczy 2011/2012 rozporządzeniem wykonawczym (UE) nr 971/2011, zostają zmienione i są zamieszczone w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie z dniem jego opublikowania w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 20 września 2012 r.
 W imieniu Komisji, za Przewodniczącego,
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 Dyrektor Generalny ds. Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich
 (1) Dz.U. L 299 z 16.11.2007, s. 1.
 (2) Dz.U. L 178 z 1.7.2006, s. 24.
 (3) Dz.U. L 254 z 30.9.2011, s. 12.
 (4) Dz.U. L 244 z 8.9.2012, s. 9.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Zmienione kwoty cen reprezentatywnych i dodatkowych ceł przywozowych dla cukru białego, cukru surowego oraz produktów objętych kodem CN 1702 90 95, mające zastosowanie od dnia 21 września 2012 r.
 (w EUR)
 Kod CN
 Kwota ceny reprezentatywnej za 100 kg netto produktu
 Kwota dodatkowego cła za 100 kg netto produktu
 1701 12 10 (1)
 34,90
 0,68
 1701 12 90 (1)
 34,90
 4,14
 1701 13 10 (1)
 34,90
 0,82
 1701 13 90 (1)
 34,90
 4,43
 1701 14 10 (1)
 34,90
 0,82
 1701 14 90 (1)
 34,90
 4,43
 1701 91 00 (2)
 42,53
 4,71
 1701 99 10 (2)
 42,53
 1,58
 1701 99 90 (2)
 42,53
 1,58
 1702 90 95 (3)
 0,43
 0,26
 (1) Odnosi się do jakości standardowej określonej w pkt III załącznika IV do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1234/2007.
 (2) Odnosi się do jakości standardowej określonej w pkt II załącznika IV do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1234/2007.
 (3) Stawka dla zawartości sacharozy wynoszącej 1 %.


text:
 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224
 [Docket No. 150122069-5272-01]
 RIN 0648-XD740
 Endangered and Threatened Species; 90-Day Finding on Two Petitions To List Porbeagle Sharks
 AGENCY:
 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
 ACTION:
 90-day petition finding; request for information.
 SUMMARY:
 We, NMFS, are accepting two 2010 petitions to list porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. This action is being taken in response to a December 12, 2014, U.S. District Court decision that our previous rejection of the petitions in 2010 was arbitrary and capricious. To ensure a comprehensive review, we are soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information relevant to the status of porbeagle sharks worldwide. We will publish the results of that review and will make a finding as to whether the petitioned action is or is not warranted on or before December 12, 2015.
 DATES:
 Written comments, data and information related to this petition finding must be received no later than 5 p.m. local time on May 12, 2015.
 ADDRESSES:
 You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0013, by either of the following methods:
 Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
 1. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D= NOAA-NMFS-2015-0013,
 2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields
 3. Enter or attach your comments.
 - OR -
 Mail: Submit written comments to Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, Attn: Porbeagle Shark Status Review, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
 Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted without change for public viewing on www.regulations.gov. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
 The petitions and other pertinent information are also available electronically on our Web site at: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected/pcp/soc/porbeagle_shark.html.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Kimberly Damon-Randall, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region, (978) 281-9328; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, HQ, (301) 427-8469.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 Background
 We received a petition from Wild Earth Guardians (WEG) dated January 20, 2010, requesting that we list porbeagle sharks (Lamna nasus) throughout their entire range, or as Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and Mediterranean Distinct Population Segments (DPS) under the ESA, as well as designate critical habitat for the species. We also received a petition from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), dated January 21, 2010, requesting that we list a Northwest Atlantic DPS of porbeagle sharks as endangered in the North Atlantic under the ESA. Information contained in the petitions focused on the species' imperilment due to historical and continued overfishing; modification of habitat through pollution, climate change, and ocean acidification; failure of regulatory mechanisms; and low productivity of the species.
 Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent practicable, within 90 days after receiving a petition, the Secretary make a finding whether the petition presents substantial scientific information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (90-day finding). The ESA implementing regulations for NMFS define “substantial information” as the amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). If a positive 90-day finding is made, then we must promptly conduct a review of the status of the species concerned and publish a finding indicating whether the petitioned action is or is not warranted within one year (1-year finding).
 On July 12, 2010, we published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (75 FR 39656; http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/frnotices/negative90d/porbeagle_shark_75_fr_39656.pdf) stating that neither petition presented substantial information indicating that listing porbeagle sharks may be warranted. Accordingly, a status review of the species was not initiated.
 In August 2011, the petitioners filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging our denial of the petitions (Case 1:11-cv-01414-BJR HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES v. BLANK et al.). On November 14, 2014, the court published a Memorandum Opinion vacating the 2010 90-day finding for porbeagle shark, and ordering NMFS to prepare a new 90-day finding. The court entered final judgment on December 12, 2014. This document represents our new 90-day finding.
 Given the length of time between when we received the petitions in 2010 and this new 90-day finding, we have taken into account both information submitted with and referenced in the petitions as well as all other new information readily available in our files regarding porbeagle sharks globally. We have thoroughly reviewed the Court's Memorandum Opinion, the 2010 petitions and all other information available in our files in preparing our new finding. As we did in 2010, we consulted with experts within the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office's Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS' Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Northeast Fisheries Science Center- Apex Predator Program, and the Southeast Fisheries Science Center in November and December 2014 to provide context for the petitions and the information in our files.
 The 2010 Petitions and New Information on Porbeagle Sharks
 Both petitions clearly identified themselves as petitions and included the identification information for the petitioner, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). The petitions indicated their recommended administrative measure and gave the scientific and common names for porbeagle sharks. The WEG petition requested that we list under the ESA porbeagle sharks throughout their entire range. Alternatively, the WEG petition proposed that porbeagle be listed under the ESA as three distinct population segments (DPSs) as follows: The Northwest Atlantic DPS, the Northeast Atlantic DPS and the Mediterranean DPS. The petition states “the species and DPSs face threats from historic and continued overfishing, as well as a low reproduction rate, which hinders its recovery.” The information contained in the WEG petition focuses on historical and continued overfishing of the above named DPSs of porbeagle sharks globally. The HSUS petition only addresses a Northwest Atlantic DPS of porbeagle sharks, requesting they be listed as endangered in the Northwest Atlantic.
 Several new references were available in our files since remand that were not available when the 2010 petitions were received. In 2009, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) conducted a stock assessment for porbeagle sharks (ICES/ICCAT, 2009). The information in this report was considered in our 2010 90-day finding, and this report continues to be a good source of recent, comprehensive porbeagle shark data. However, there is a new Canadian assessment for the Northwest Atlantic stock based on information contained in Campana et al. 2012 (2012 Canadian assessment). Also, other new information is contained in recent ICCAT proceedings, regulatory documents, published literature and FR notices since the ICES/ICCAT 2009 stock assessment (Andrushchenko et al./Canada, 2014; Bendall et al., 2013; Campana et al., 2012; Canada/ICCAT, 2014; CPC/ICCAT, 2014; Gallagher et al., 2014; Kitamura and Matsunaga, 2010; Marua et al., 2012; NEAFC/ICCAT, 2013; NMFS/HMS, 2013; SCRS, 2014; Semba et al., 2013; 75 FR 250; 79 FR 75068; 50 CFR part 635).
 Additionally, several new management actions were implemented or became effective prior to remand, but after the 2010 petitions were received. These include the addition of porbeagle sharks to Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, a 2013 prohibition on directed fishing for porbeagle in Canada and increasing protections in the European Union (EU) which will more closely regulate trade of the species.
 In 2014, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) published a new assessment and status report on porbeagle sharks in Canada. The report reaffirms COSEWIC's designation of the species as “endangered” due to COSEWIC criterion A2b under the Species at Risk Act. The report states the species meets this criterion “because the abundance of mature females has declined by 74-77% over the past 2.6 generations. Although the directed fishery has been suspended, the species continues to be taken as bycatch in a variety of other fisheries.” As noted throughout the report, the species decline has halted, and while numbers of porbeagle remain low compared to pre-exploitation levels, the information does indicate the species trend is stable. The report states that in Canada, the “greatest current threat to porbeagle is overfishing due to multiple bycatch fisheries, which are not closely monitored, where a large portion of the catch may be discarded and unreported.” While this report is an update of a 2004 COSEWIC report, relied upon by the petitioners, which also assessed porbeagle as endangered based on the decline that the species has experienced, the emphasis the new status report places on the potential threat to the species from ongoing, unregulated bycatch in Canada is of concern and represents new information not previously considered. A status review is the appropriate means for assessing this potential threat.
 COSEWIC also provides information on whether the Northwest Atlantic stock constitutes a single designatable unit. The report indicates that the Northeast and Northwest populations of porbeagle sharks are separate. This conclusion appears to be based solely on conventional tagging information, consistent with the petitions, and does not appear to incorporate any information from genetic studies. In our 2010 finding, we concluded, based on genetic information, that porbeagle from the Northeast and Northwest Atlantic are not discrete. While we believe genetics are a more reliable indicator of discreteness than tagging information, we recognize the uncertainty about the existence of discrete populations. The appropriate means for addressing this uncertainty is to consider the information in a review of the status of the species.
 Petition Finding
 In light of the information described above, which indicates that the petitioned actions may be warranted, we are accepting the petitions and initiating a review of the status of the species.
 Information Solicited
 To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning porbeagle sharks. We request information from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, conservation groups, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the current and/or historical status of porbeagle sharks.
 Specifically, we are soliciting information, including unpublished information, in the following areas: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of porbeagle sharks throughout their range; (2) historical and current population trends for porbeagle sharks; (3) life history and habitat requirements of porbeagle ; (4) genetics and population structure information (including morphology, ecology, behavior, etc.) for populations of porbeagle; (5) past, current, and future threats to porbeagle, including any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore porbeagle and their habitat; and (7) management, regulatory, and enforcement information pertaining to porbeagle. We request that all information be accompanied by: (1) Supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications; and (2) the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents.
 Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA directs that a determination must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” On or before December 12, 2015, we will issue a 12-month determination based on a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, including all relevant information received from the public in response to this 90-day finding.
 You may submit your information concerning this finding by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that in our final determination we may not consider comments we receive after the date specified in the DATES section. If you submit your information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission including personal identifying information will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hard copy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
 Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at NMFS' Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office.
 Authority
 The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
 Dated: March 23, 2015.
 Samuel D. Rauch, III,
 Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
 [FR Doc. 2015-07073 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


text:
 4.8.2016
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 211/60
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 105/2015,
 30. aprill 2015,
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu XI lisa „Elektrooniline side, audiovisuaalteenused ja infoühiskond“ ning protokolli nr 37, mis sisaldab artikliga 101 ette nähtud loetelu [2016/1288]
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut (edaspidi „EMP leping“), eriti selle artikleid 98 ja 101,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 EMP lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 21. mai 2010. aasta otsus 2010/299/EL, millega tunnistatakse kehtetuks otsus 2002/627/EÜ, millega luuakse elektrooniliste sidevõrkude ja -teenuste Euroopa reguleerivate organite töörühm (1).
 (2)
 Otsusega 2010/299/EL tunnistatakse kehtetuks komisjoni otsus 2002/627/EÜ, (2) mis on EMP lepingusse inkorporeeritud ja mis tuleb sellest tulenevalt EMP lepingust välja jätta.
 (3)
 EMP lepingu XI lisa ja protokolli nr 37 tuleks seetõttu vastavalt muuta,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 EMP lepingu XI lisa punkt 5ci (komisjoni otsus 2002/627/EÜ) jäetakse välja.
 Artikkel 2
 EMP lepingu protokolli nr 37 punkt 17 (elektrooniliste sisevõrkude ja -teenuste Euroopa reguleerivate organite töörühm (komisjoni otsus 2002/627/EÜ)) jäetakse välja.
 Artikkel 3
 Otsuse 2010/299/EL islandi- ja norrakeelne tekst, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasandes, on autentsed.
 Artikkel 4
 Käesolev otsus jõustub 1. mail 2015, tingimusel et kõik EMP lepingu artikli 103 lõike 1 kohased teated on edastatud (*).
 Artikkel 5
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 30. aprill 2015
 EMP ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ELT L 127, 26.5.2010, lk 18.
 (2) EÜT L 200, 30.7.2002, lk 38.
 (*) Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole nimetatud.


text:
 9.2.2007
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 37/5
 A BIZOTTSÁG 120/2007/EK RENDELETE
 (2007. február 8.)
 a további feldolgozás nélkül exportált fehér cukorra és nyerscukorra vonatkozó export-visszatérítések megállapításáról
 AZ EURÓPAI KÖZÖSSÉGEK BIZOTTSÁGA,
 tekintettel az Európai Közösséget létrehozó szerződésre,
 tekintettel a cukorágazat piacának közös szervezéséről szóló, 2006. február 20-i 318/2006/EK tanácsi rendeletre (1) és különösen annak 33. cikke (2) bekezdésének második albekezdésére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A 318/2006/EK rendelet 32. cikke előírja, hogy a rendelet 1. cikkének (1) bekezdése b) pontjában felsorolt termékek világpiaci ára és a Közösségen belüli ára közti különbséget export-visszatérítéssel lehet fedezni.
 (2)
 A cukor piacának jelenlegi helyzetére tekintettel célszerű export-visszatérítést megállapítani a 318/2006/EK rendelet 32. és 33. cikkében meghatározott szabályokkal és egyes kritériumokkal összhangban.
 (3)
 A 318/2006/EK rendelet 33. cikke (2) bekezdésének első albekezdése értelmében a visszatérítések a rendeltetési helynek megfelelően eltérőek lehetnek, ha a világpiaci helyzet vagy egyes piacok különleges körülményei ezt szükségessé teszik.
 (4)
 Visszatérítést csak olyan termékek után lehet fizetni, amelyek a Közösségben szabadon mozoghatnak, és amelyek megfelelnek a 318/2006/EK rendelet követelményeinek.
 (5)
 Az e rendeletben előírt intézkedések összhangban vannak a Cukorpiaci Irányítóbizottság véleményével,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 A 318/2006/EK rendelet 32. cikke szerinti export-visszatérítések nyújtandók az e rendelet mellékletében meghatározott termékekre az ugyanott meghatározott összegek erejéig.
 2. cikk
 Ez a rendelet 2007. február 9-én lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2007. február 8-án.
 a Bizottság részéről
 Jean-Luc DEMARTY
 mezőgazdasági és vidékfejlesztési főigazgató
 (1) HL L 58., 2006.2.28., 1. o. Az 1585/2006/EK bizottsági rendelettel (HL L 294., 2006.10.25., 19. o.) módosított rendelet.
 MELLÉKLET
 2007. február 9-től a további feldolgozás nélkül exportált fehér cukorra és nyerscukorra vonatkozó export-visszatérítések (1)
 Termékkód
 Rendeltetési hely
 Mértékegység
 Visszatérítés összege
 1701 11 90 9100
 S00
 EUR/100 kg
 17,06 (2)
 1701 11 90 9910
 S00
 EUR/100 kg
 16,37 (2)
 1701 12 90 9100
 S00
 EUR/100 kg
 17,06 (2)
 1701 12 90 9910
 S00
 EUR/100 kg
 16,37 (2)
 1701 91 00 9000
 S00
 EUR/1 % szacharóz × 100 kg nettó termék
 0,1855
 1701 99 10 9100
 S00
 EUR/100 kg
 18,55
 1701 99 10 9910
 S00
 EUR/100 kg
 17,80
 1701 99 10 9950
 S00
 EUR/100 kg
 17,80
 1701 99 90 9100
 S00
 EUR/1 % szacharóz × 100 kg nettó termék
 0,1855
 NB: A rendeltetési helyek meghatározása a következő:
 S00
 :
 minden rendeltetési hely, kivéve Albániát, Horvátországot, Bosznia és Hercegovinát, Szerbiát, Montenegrót, Koszovót, valamint Macedónia Volt Jugoszláv Köztársaságot, Andorrát, Gibraltárt, Ceutát, Melillát, az Apostoli Szentszéket (Vatikánváros), Liechtensteint, Livigno és Campione d’Italia közigazgatási területét, Heligolandot, Grönlandot, a Feröer-szigeteket, valamint a Ciprusi Köztársaság azon területeit, ahol a Ciprusi Köztársaság kormánya nem gyakorol tényleges ellenőrzést.
 (1) Az Európai Gazdasági Közösség és a Svájci Államszövetség közötti 1972. július 22-i megállapodást a feldolgozott mezőgazdasági termékekre vonatkozó rendelkezések tekintetében módosító, az Európai Közösség és a Svájci Államszövetség közötti megállapodás megkötéséről szóló, 2004. december 22-i 2005/45/EK tanácsi határozat (HL L 23., 2005.1.26., 17. o.) értelmében az e mellékletben rögzített összegek 2005. február 1-jétől nem alkalmazandók.
 (2) Ez az összeg 92 %-os hozamú nyerscukorra alkalmazandó. Amennyiben az exportált nyerscukor hozama a 92 %-tól eltérő, az alkalmazandó visszatérítés összegét minden exportművelet esetében meg kell szorozni egy átváltási tényezővel, amelyet az exportált nyerscukornak a 318/2006/EK rendelet I. melléklete III. pontjának harmadik bekezdésével összhangban kiszámított hozamát 92-vel elosztva kapunk meg.