type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
By order passed on the 30th day of December, 1912, the Public Service Commission of Maryland, under the authority contained in section 30 of the Public Service Commission Act, now codified as section 385 of article 23 of the Code of Public General Laws, 1924, instituted proceedings to determine the value of the properties of the United Railways Electric Company of Baltimore, a corporation. For this purpose the Public Service Commission began hearings in May, 1925, which hearings, and the proceedings incident thereto, including argument of counsel for the respective parties, culminated in an opinion and order of the commission dated March 9, 1926. By this order the commission determined that the fair value for rate making purposes of the property of the railways company, as of December 31st, 1923, was $77,000,000. Included in this valuation was the item of easements, at the sum of $7,000,000. Objection was made by the appellant to the allowance of this item, and from the order of the Public Service Commission an appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, the basis of this appeal being the contention by the appellant that these easements in the streets and highways of Baltimore City were not property which should be included in a valuation of the railways company's property in forming a rate-making base, and that the inclusion of the value of the easements in the rate base was unreasonable and unlawful. Upon a hearing of the case in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, the chancellor passed a decree confirming the order of the Public Service Commission passed on the 9th day of March, 1926, and held *Page 339
 that said order was neither unlawful nor unreasonable. The case is now here to be considered on appeal from that decree.
 The authority, power, duties and functions of the Public Service Commission are set forth in article 23 of the Code of 1924, section 346 to 418 inclusive, having been originally enacted by chapter 180 of the Acts of 1910.
 It can be generally stated that the purpose of the Legislature in enacting the Public Service Commission statute was to provide for the creation of a commission with the power and duty of supervision and control over the corporations and individuals engaged in the operation of public utilities within the state. The commission has the power and authority to require safe and adequate service to the public and to fix such rates as, on the one hand, will be reasonable to the user of the utility and commensurate with the service rendered, and, on the other hand, will produce a fair and reasonable return upon the property or capital invested in the public service enterprise. Section 30 of the original act, now section 385 of article 23 of the Code, provides: "The Commission shall, whenever it may deem it desirable to do so, investigate and ascertain the fair value of property of any corporation subject to the provisions of this sub-title and used by it for the convenience of the public." It is evident that the most important purpose in ascertaining the fair value of a public service corporation's property is to enable the commission to determine the rate to be allowed, in order that the public may receive adequate and safe service at a reasonable price, and at the same time, that the rate be not fixed so low as to constitute a confiscation of its property under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, but will produce a reasonable and proper return upon the capital invested.
 The present case presents the single question of whether the Public Service Commission, in ascertaining the fair value of the property of the railways company for rate-making purposes, should include, as property of the railways company, easements in the streets and highways of Baltimore City at their fair and just value. The appellant contends that the *Page 340
 value of these easements is so dependent upon the earnings of the corporation, and the earnings being dependent upon the rate fixed by the Commission, that therefore it is illegal and unreasonable to include the value of these easements in the sum upon which the corporation is entitled to a fair and reasonable return.
 The case of Consolidated Gas Co. v. Baltimore City,101 Md. 541, definitely settles that the easement which a public service corporation, such as the Consolidated Gas Company or the United Railways Electric Company, has in the streets of Baltimore City, is property, that it is an interest or estate in land; but it does not determine that the value of this easement or interest in land, for taxation purposes, is to be determined by its value as land, but must be determined by its use in conjunction with the franchise of the corporation, that is to say, the corporation's right to conduct the business in which it is engaged. In other words, this Court, in effect, said: "Ascertain to what extent the use of this easement in the conduct of the corporation's business is responsible for its earnings, and then base the valuation for taxation purposes upon the earnings thus ascertained." In the above cited case this Court said: "The distinction is clear between the franchise, as such, and the property acquired for the use of the franchise. The naked, unused, slumbering franchise is property, but it is property concerning the assessment of which in that condition for purposes of taxation the statutes do not make provision, otherwise than by including it as an element which enhances the value of the shares of the capital stock. But when the franchise is brought into activity and is availed of to accomplish the ends it was designed to effect, the property acquired under it becomes amenable to the tax laws apart from the tax on the stock, and its value as an easement, if an easement it be, may be largely augmented by the use to which the franchise enables that property or easement to be put."
 The Court then quotes with approval the language used inPeople v. Tax Commissioners, 174 N.Y. 441, as follows: "They (tangible chattels in public highways) have no assessment value worthy of notice except through the actual and *Page 341
 constant use made of them as incidental to the special franchise. The value of either resides in the union of both and can be practically ascertained only by treating them as a unit. Unless assessed together, both can not be adequately assessed. * * * We regard the tangible property as an inseparable part of the special franchises mentioned in the statute, constituting with them a new entity which as a going concern can neither be assessed nor sold to advantage except as one thing, single and entire." This Court then continues: "We cite this to show, if precedent be needed to support such a self-evident proposition, that the use to which a franchise permits an easement to be put is an essential element to be considered in placing a valuation on that easement for purposes of taxation."
 In the case of Appeal Tax Court v. Union R. Co., 50 Md. 274, the railroad company asked that the assessments of the road-bed in the tunnels be stricken from the property valued to it; the court below granted the relief asked, and the Appeal Tax Court appealed. The specific contention was made in the argument in this Court, as to the tracks located in the tunnel and on the streets, that the railroad company did not own the property, that is, the road-bed, and ought not to be assessed for it as though it was seised of it; it had only the right to make use of the streets and the soil beneath the streets, and to receive the tolls authorized by its charter. In disposing of that contention it was said: "We do not concur in the position of the appellee, that it should only be assessed with the superstructures on the bed of the road, irrespective of the road-bed itself, or any right or interest therein, because the road occupies a tunnel under a public street, or runs along the highways of the city. The appellee has an easement in the way occupied by its road, and whether that easement be under or over the public street, it is an element of value to the road, and as such should be included in the valuation of the road itself. But few of the railroad companies of the country have anything more than a mere easement in the ways occupied by their roads, and we are not aware that it has ever been held that because the company did *Page 342
 not own the freehold estate in the bed of the road, that nothing but the mere superstructures thereon could be assessed to the company. The rule would seem to be clearly otherwise, and that an easement enjoyed in the bed of a public street may be assessed and taxed as real estate."
 While it is true that the authorities just cited determine that the right of the appellee here in the streets of Baltimore City is an easement subject to taxation, and that the use to which a franchise permits an easement to be put is an essential element to be considered in placing a valuation on that easement for the purpose of taxation, it does not determine that these easements should be valued in the same manner for the purpose of fixing a rate base upon which the public service corporation is entitled to a fair and reasonable return. Neither is it true that because this character of property is designated as an easement or interest in land, and as such is entitled to be accorded some value, it should be given the same value for fixing a rate base as that given it for taxation purposes. On the contrary, there is a controlling reason why the two valuations should not be identical. In the valuation for rate making purposes, property of the public service corporation, the value of which depends upon the earnings of the corporation, should not be included, for the reason that the earnings upon which the value of the property depends are largely controlled and determined by the rate which is allowed to be charged for the service rendered.
 Under the statute it is incumbent upon the commission to ascertain the value of the property in order that such a rate may be fixed as will result in a reasonable return upon the property of the utility corporation used for the convenience of the public. If such value as results from earnings be allowed in the rate base, it is impossible to escape the following reasoning: The value of the property, as ascertained by the commission, would determine the rate which the commission authorized the corporation to charge for its service. The rate authorized controls the amount of earnings. The earnings in turn determine and fix the value of the property. Therefore the rate determines the value, and we have a *Page 343
 conclusion that the value determines the rate, and the rate determines the value; and if the value of the property depends upon the rate, which in turn depends upon the value of the property, the rate would depend upon itself, resulting in an apparent absurdity. It is therefore clear that such value as is attributable to the property of a public service corporation by reason of its earnings should not be included in forming a base upon which a reasonable and fair return should be secured. There is nothing in the case of Consolidated Gas Co. v. Baltimore,supra, inconsistent with this conclusion. In that case the Court was considering whether or not these easements were taxable, and what elements should be taken into consideration in determining their value for that purpose; and the effect of that decision must be confined to the subject then under discussion.
 It is strongly contended by the appellee (railways company) that the sum of $7,000,000 at which these easements were valued by the commission was arrived at on a strictly land value basis. It may be that the railways company's officials did arrive at their valuation by assessing these easements as interest in land, but it is obvious that the commission did no such thing. In the commission's opinion, which is made a part of their order in this case, they set out at length and in detail the railways company's basis for arriving at the easement value, which was an appraisement of the easement as interest in land. They expressly reject the method of valuation contended for by the railways company, and then state: "The commission feels that a method, fair alike to the people and the company, is to be found in the plan adopted by the commission in 1913 in valuing the easements of the gas company. In that case it fixed as the easement value, the value at which the easements were taxed." It will thus be seen that the commission did not value these easements upon an interest in land basis, but adopted the valuation of the assessment for tax purposes. This valuation for tax purposes, in compliance with the plain mandate of this Court, must take into consideration in valuing the easement the use *Page 344
 to which the franchise permits the easement to be put; and the value of this use, and therefore the easment itself, must necessarily depend upon the earnings of the company as a whole.
 We are of the opinion that it is logically unsound to include in the rate base a factor the value of which varies or changes with the rate. It is to be borne in mind that the intent and purpose of the Public Service Commission Law was to create a commission entrusted with the power and authority, and obligated with the duty, of regulating the public service corporations of the state, so that the users of the utility would be insured of safe and adequate service at a reasonable price, and the public utility company be allowed to charge such rates as will produce a fair and reasonable return on the investment employed in the public service; or, as was said by the Supreme Court in SanDiego Land Town Co. v. National City, 174 U.S. 739: "What the company is entitled to demand in order that it may have just compensation is a fair return upon the reasonable value of the property at the time it is being used for the public." It is such a valuation which section 385 of article 23 of the Code of 1924 authorizes the Public Service Commission to make; the language being: "The commission shall, whenever it may deem it desirable to do so, investigate and ascertain the fair value of property of any corporation subject to the provisions of this sub-title and used by it for the convenience of the public. * * * Such valuation shall show the value of the property of every such corporation as a whole and the value of its property in each of the several counties and municipalities within the State of Maryland."
 The very purpose of authorizing the commission to ascertain the value of the property of the various public service corporations is to enable it to fix the rates which the corporation is permitted to charge the public for the service rendered. This valuation by the commission is not for the purpose of assessing the property for taxation; that function belonging to other officials of the state and municipal government. *Page 345
 Neither is it for the purpose of fixing the value for condemnation purposes. If the commission ascertained the value of the property of the corporation for rate making purposes, it could not be successfully contended that the taxing authorities of the state would be bound to accept that valuation for taxing purposes. Neither would a jury in condemnation proceedings be bound by such valuation of the commission. It follows, therefore, with equal force that because the taxing authorities have determined upon a certain valuation of these easements as a basis for the payment of taxes, this base would not be controlling upon the commission.
 We are of the opinion, therefore, that the duty of the commission imposed by the statute is to fix the fair value of the property of the corporation used for the convenience of the public, and that, in fixing the value of the easements for the purpose of a rate base, they are confined to such sum as fairly represents their value as an interest in land, and cannot add to that any value which might be affected by the rate which the corporation may be allowed to charge, or such value as is dependent upon the use to which the franchise of the corporation permits the easement to be put.
 It is contended by the appellees that the language employed by this Court in Havre de Grace Bridge Co. v. Public ServiceCommission, 132 Md., at page 26, is in conflict with the view just expressed, but we do not so interpret that decision. By the language employed the Court meant that it would be absurd to hold that the Public Service Commission had authority to fix a different valuation for different purposes; but that when the commission ascertained the fair value of the property of the corporation, that ascertainment was conclusive for every purpose for which the commission could make a valuation. It could not be properly interpreted to mean that if the commission ascertained the value for rate making purposes, this valuation was conclusive and binding upon all other public officials of the state whose duty it might be to make a valuation for a totally different purpose.
 It is undoubtedly true that the sale or exchange value of the easement and the franchise is almost invariably determined *Page 346
 by the union of both, or by both in combination. Value, for such a purpose, is usually based upon the capitalized earnings realized from the exercise or use of the easement and franchise in combination. The easement is an interest in land, but it is only when this interest in land is used in combination with all of the other elements which go to make up an operated street railway system that the easements have anything more than a real estate value. It is apparent that the unused easement may have a large potential value, but, until put into use in combination with other rights or property, it can have no other different or additional value than it possesses as real estate or an interest therein. It is the use to which the easement, in combination with the franchise, is put, that gives it value for exchange or sale purposes, in condemnation proceedings, and for the purpose of taxation. But it is clear that this potential value, which must in large measure depend upon the earnings as determined by the rate, should not be included in the rate base, for the reason hereinbefore stated, and as expressed by the learned chancellor below: "The greater the earnings, the larger the value of the easement; the greater the value of the easement, the larger the fair return that must be allowed upon said value."
 From what we have said it will be seen that we are in accord with the chancellor in his statement: "The objection to valuing an easement in a rate base in terms of earnings is self-evident." He further states: "The valuation of $7,000,000 made by the commission which is now the subject of attack, was reached without reference to the earning capacity of the easement so valued."
 With this finding we are unable to agree. An examination of the opinion and order of the commission, which fixed the value of these easements at $7,000,000, shows that it did not arrive at this amount by an assessment of them as an interest in land, but on the contrary, adopted as their basis the assessment for tax purposes which had theretofore been put upon those portions of the railways company's tracks which were *Page 347
 not subject to the park tax. The easements in the New and Old Annexes which were not subject to the park tax were valued for tax purposes by an agreement between the railways company and the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore, as a result of the opinions of this Court in the tax cases, which unequivocally determined that these easements were an interest in real estate; and further, with equal definiteness, determined that the use to which the franchise permitted the easement to be put was an essential element to be considered in placing a valuation on that easement for the purpose of taxation.
 It is, therefore, clear that if by this agreement the value per mile of these easements, for taxation purposes, was fixed in conformity with the decisions of this Court in the tax cases, there is reflected in such tax valuation such value as is attributable to the easement because of the purpose to which the franchise permitted the easement to be put. The conclusion is inescapable that the element of earnings was considered in fixing the tax assessment at $12,500 a mile in the New Annex and $17,692 a mile in the Old Annex; and as the commission in this case used these tax values as the sole basis and controlling item in fixing the value of the easements at $7,000,000, as a part of the rate base, it follows that the commission's valuation of $7,000,000 was not and could not have been reached without reference to the earning capacity of the easements so valued.
 From what has been said, it follows that in our opinion:
 (1) These easements are an interest in real estate, and whatever value they have as an interest in real estate the company is entitled to have included by the commission in making up the rate base.
 (2) But any value attributable to these easements which is dependent upon the earnings of the company should not be included in the rate base.
 (3) The commission having based their valuation upon the assessment made for tax purposes, and the tax assessment necessarily including value resulting from earnings, the method by which the commission arrived at the valuation of *Page 348
 $7,000,000 was not in accordance with law. But because the record does not enable us to determine whether that valuation would be unreasonable if made according to the lawful method, the case will be remanded, without affirmance or reversal, in order that the valuation may be made in conformity with the method expressed by this opinion.
 Case remanded, without affirmance or reversal of the decree,for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion of thisCourt, the costs to be paid by the appellee.
 ADKINS and PARKE, JJ., dissent.


jurisdiction: EU

text:
 18.2.2012
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 49/16
 Petición de decisión prejudicial planteada por el Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) el 1 de diciembre de 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente, S.A./Fazenda Pública
 (Asunto C-618/11)
 2012/C 49/26
 Lengua de procedimiento: portugués
 Órgano jurisdiccional remitente
 Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
 Partes en el procedimiento principal
 Recurrente: TVI Televisão Independente, S.A.
 Recurrida: Fazenda Pública
 Cuestiones prejudiciales
 1)
 ¿Es compatible con lo dispuesto en el artículo 11, parte A, apartado 1, letra a), de la Directiva 77/388/CE (1) (actual artículo 73 de la Directiva 2006/112/CE (2) del Consejo, de 28 de noviembre de 2006) y, en particular, con el concepto de «contraprestación que quien realice la entrega o preste el servicio obtenga o vaya a obtener, con cargo a estas operaciones» el artículo 16, apartado 1, del CIVA [Código del impuesto sobre el valor añadido], tal como se interpreta en la sentencia recurrida (en el sentido de que la tasa de exhibición de publicidad comercial es inherente a la prestación de servicios publicitarios, por lo que debe ser incluida en la base imponible de la prestación de servicios a efectos del IVA)?
 2)
 ¿Es compatible con lo dispuesto en el artículo 11, parte A, apartado 3, letra c), de la Directiva 77/388/CE [actual artículo 79, letra c), de la Directiva 2006/112/CE del Consejo, de 28 de noviembre de 2006] y, en particular, con el concepto de «sumas que un sujeto pasivo reciba del comprador de los bienes o del destinatario de la prestación en reembolso de los gastos pagados en nombre y por cuenta de estos últimos y que figuren en su contabilidad en cuentas específicas» el artículo 16, apartado 6, letra c), del CIVA, tal como se interpreta en la sentencia recurrida (en el sentido de que la tasa de exhibición de publicidad comercial no constituye un importe pagado en nombre y por cuenta del destinatario de los servicios, aunque se contabilice en cuentas de terceros específicas y se destine a entidades públicas por lo que no queda excluida de la base imponible a efectos de IVA)?
 (1) Directiva 77/388/CEE del Consejo, de 17 de mayo de 1977, Sexta Directiva en materia de armonización de las legislaciones de los Estados miembros relativas a los impuestos sobre el volumen de negocios — Sistema común del impuesto sobre el valor añadido: base imponible uniforme (DO L 145, p. 1; EE 09/01, p. 54).
 (2) Directiva 2006/112/CE del Consejo, de 28 de noviembre de 2006, relativa al sistema común del impuesto sobre el valor añadido (DO L 347, p. 1).


text:
4.5.2013
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 129/23
 Sag anlagt den 21. februar 2013 — Othman mod Rådet
 (Sag T-109/13)
 2013/C 129/46
 Processprog: fransk
 Parter
 Sagsøger: Razan Othman (Damaskus, Syrien) (ved advokat E. Ruchat)
 Sagsøgt: Rådet for Den Europæiske Union
 Sagsøgerens påstande
 —
 Sagsøgerens søgsmål antages til realitetsbehandling, og sagsøgeren gives medhold.
 —
 Som følge heraf annulleres afgørelse 2012/739/FUSP af 29. november 2012 og forordning (EU) nr. 1117/2012 af 29. november 2012 samt gennemførelsesretsakterne hertil, for så vidt som de angår sagsøgeren.
 —
 Rådet for Den Europæiske Union tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.
 Søgsmålsgrunde og væsentligste argumenter
 Til støtte for søgsmålet har sagsøgeren påberåbt sig tre anbringender, som i det væsentlige er identiske med eller svarer til dem, der er anført i sag T-432/11, Makhlouf mod Rådet (1).
 (1) EUT 2011 C 290, s. 13.


text:
 11.3.2006
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 60/9
 ΑΠΌΦΑΣΗ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΚΑΣΤΗΡΊΟΥ
 (πέμπτο τμήμα)
 της 12ης Ιανουαρίου 2006
 στην υπόθεση C-69/05: Επιτροπή των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων κατά Μεγάλου Δουκάτου του Λουξεμβούργου (1)
 (Παράβαση κράτους μέλους - Κανονισμός (ΕΚ) 659/1999 - Κρατικές ενισχύσεις στον τομέα της γεωργίας - Υποβολή των ετήσιων εκθέσεων για τα έτη 2000 και 2001 - Κατευθυντήριες γραμμές για την εξέταση των κρατικών ενισχύσεων)
 (2006/C 60/18)
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η γαλλική
 Στην υπόθεση C-69/05, με αντικείμενο προσφυγή λόγω παραβάσεως δυνάμει του άρθρου 226 ΕΚ, ασκηθείσα στις 11 Φεβρουαρίου 2005, Επιτροπή των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων (εκπρόσωποι: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart και A. Stobiecka-Kuik) κατά Μεγάλου Δουκάτου του Λουξεμβούργου (εκπρόσωπος: S. Schreiner), το Δικαστήριο (πέμπτο τμήμα), συγκείμενο από την R. Silva de Lapuerta, προεδρεύουσα του πέμπτου τμήματος, τον Γ. Αρέστη (εισηγητή), και τον J. Klučka, δικαστές, γενικός εισαγγελέας: M. Poiares Maduro, γραμματέας: R. Grass, εξέδωσε στις 12 Ιανουαρίου 2006 απόφαση με το ακόλουθο διατακτικό:
 1.
 Το Μεγάλο Δουκάτο του Λουξεμβούργου, παραλείποντας να κοινοποιήσει πριν την 1η Ιουλίου 2001 και το αργότερο πριν την 30ή Ιουνίου 2002 τις ετήσιες εκθέσεις για όλα τα καθεστώτα κρατικών ενισχύσεων που ίσχυαν στον τομέα της γεωργίας κατά τα έτη 2000 και 2001, παρέβη τις υποχρεώσεις που υπέχει από τα άρθρα 88, παράγραφος 1, ΕΚ και 21 του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) 659/1999 του Συμβουλίου, της 22ας Μαρτίου 1999, για τη θέσπιση λεπτομερών κανόνων εφαρμογής του άρθρου [88 ΕΚ], όπως τέθηκε Συμβούλιο εφαρμογή με την ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής που φέρει τον τίτλο «Κοινοτικές κατευθυντήρες γραμμές για τις κρατικές ενισχύσεις στον τομέα της γεωργίας», η οποία δημοσιεύθηκε στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων της 1ης Φεβρουαρίου 2000.
 2.
 Καταδικάζει το Μεγάλο Δουκάτο του Λουξεμβούργου στα δικαστικά έξοδα.
 (1) ΕΕ C 106 της 30.4.2005.


text:
 16.10.2017
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 347/32
 Skarga wniesiona w dniu 25 lipca 2017 r. – TO/EEA
 (Sprawa T-462/17)
 (2017/C 347/41)
 Język postępowania: francuski
 Strony
 Strona skarżąca: TO (przedstawiciel: adwokat N. Lhoëst)
 Strona pozwana: Europejska Agencja Środowiska
 Żądania
 Strona skarżąca wnosi do Sądu o:
 —
 stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji Europejskiej Agencji Środowiska (EEA) z dnia 22 września 2016 r. w sprawie zakończenia zatrudniania strony skarżącej w charakterze członka personelu kontraktowego;
 —
 stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji EEA z dnia 20 kwietnia 2017 r. w sprawie oddalenia zażalenia złożonego przez stronę skarżącą w dniu 21 grudnia 2016 r.;
 —
 zasądzenie od EEA na rzecz strony skarżącej odszkodowania obliczonego na podstawie utraty wynagrodzenia w okresie czterech lat, po odliczeniu zasiłków dla bezrobotnych, które otrzyma w tym okresie;
 —
 zasądzenie od EEA na rzecz strony skarżącej kwoty 3 500 EUR tytułem odszkodowania za koszty wcześniejszego rozwiązania umowy najmu w Kopenhadze, z zastrzeżeniem podwyższenia tej kwoty, jeżeli zaistnieje taka potrzeba;
 —
 stwierdzenie nieważności rozliczenia wynagrodzenia strony skarżącej za wrzesień 2016 r., przede wszystkim ze względu na brak wynagrodzenia na dzień 22 września 2016 r.;
 —
 zasądzenie od EEA na rzecz strony skarżącej kwoty 50 000 EUR tytułem zadośćuczynienia za krzywdę wynikającą z decyzji o rozwiązaniu stosunku pracy z dnia 22 września 2016 r.;
 —
 zasądzenie od EEA na rzecz strony skarżącej kwoty 5 000 EUR tytułem zadośćuczynienia za krzywdę wynikającą z naruszenia przez EEA art. 26 Regulaminu pracowniczego urzędników Unii Europejskiej;
 —
 zasądzenie od EEA na rzecz strony skarżącej kwoty 10 000 EUR tytułem zadośćuczynienia za krzywdę wynikającą z presji psychologicznej wywieranej na nią przez EEA podczas jej niezdolności do pracy;
 —
 w dalszej kolejności, pomocniczo, zasądzenie od EEA na rzecz strony skarżącej kwoty miesięcznego wypowiedzenia oraz odszkodowania odpowiadającego jednej trzeciej jej podstawowego wynagrodzenia za każdy miesiąc okresu próbnego ukończonego zgodnie z art. 84 WZIP;
 —
 obciążenie EEA kosztami postępowania.
 Zarzuty i główne argumenty
 Na poparcie skargi strona skarżąca podnosi osiem zarzutów.
 1.
 Zarzut pierwszy dotyczący braku możliwości zastosowania art. 84 lit. b) WZIP.
 2.
 Zarzut drugi dotyczący naruszenia art. 48 lit. b) i art. 16 ust. 2 WZIP.
 3.
 Zarzut trzeci dotyczący niezgodności z prawem ze względu na dyskryminację w odniesieniu do art. 48 lit. b) WZIP.
 4.
 Zarzut czwarty dotyczący naruszenia art. 26 regulaminu pracowniczego oraz naruszenia prawa do obrony.
 5.
 Zarzut piąty dotyczący naruszenia rozporządzenia (WE) nr 45/2001 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 18 grudnia 2000 r. o ochronie osób fizycznych w związku z przetwarzaniem danych osobowych przez instytucje i organy wspólnotowe i o swobodnym przepływie takich danych (Dz.U. 2001, L 8, s. 1) oraz art. 8 Karty praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej.
 6.
 Zarzut szósty dotyczący naruszenia art. 84 WZIP, art. 41 Karty praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej i obowiązku staranności.
 7.
 Zarzut siódmy dotyczący oczywistego błędu w ocenie.
 8.
 Zarzut ósmy dotyczący nadużycia władzy.


type: wikipedia

text:
I Will Be Gone è un EP della band power metal Primal Fear pubblicato il 9 aprile 2021.
 Il disco è composto da 4 inediti, la title track è invece una riedizione del brano già proposto nel disco precedente, Metal Commando, qui presentanto in duetto con Tarja Turunen (ex-Nightwish). Il brano è accompagnato dall'omonimo videoclip di lancio.
 Tracce
 I Will Be Gone (feat. Tarja Turunen) - 04:29
 Vote For No Confidence - 06:07
 Rising Fear - 01:41
 Leave Me Alone - 04:05
 Second To None - 04:14
 Formazione
 Ralf Scheepers - voce
 Magnus Karlsson - chitarra
 Tom Naumann - chitarra
 Alex Beyrodt - chitarra
 Mat Sinner - basso, cori
 Michael Ehré - batteria
 Note


type: contracts

text:
 23.11.2017
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 L 308/20
 EEZ APVIENOTĀS KOMITEJAS LĒMUMS
 Nr. 117/2016
 (2016. gada 3. jūnijs),
 ar ko groza EEZ līguma II pielikumu (Tehniskie noteikumi, standarti, testēšana un sertifikācija) [2017/2135]
 EEZ APVIENOTĀ KOMITEJA,
 ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Ekonomikas zonu (“EEZ līgums”) un jo īpaši tā 98. pantu,
 tā kā:
 (1)
 Padomes Regula (EEK) Nr. 2377/90 (1) tika atcelta ar Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulu (EK) Nr. 470/2009 (2), abas šīs regulas ir iekļautas EEZ līgumā, un tādēļ atsauce uz Regulu (EEK) Nr. 2377/90 būtu jāsvītro no EEZ līguma.
 (2)
 Tādēļ būtu attiecīgi jāgroza EEZ līguma II pielikums,
 IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.
 1. pants
 EEZ līguma II pielikuma XIII nodaļas 14. punkta tekstu (Padomes Regula (EEK) Nr. 2377/90) svītro.
 2. pants
 Šis lēmums stājas spēkā 2016. gada 4. jūnijā, ja ir iesniegti visi paziņojumi saskaņā ar EEZ līguma 103. panta 1. punktu (*1).
 3. pants
 Šo lēmumu publicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ iedaļā un tā EEZ papildinājumā.
 Briselē, 2016. gada 3. jūnijā
 EEZ Apvienotās komitejas vārdā –
 priekšsēdētājs
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) OV L 224, 18.8.1990., 1. lpp.
 (2) OV L 152, 16.6.2009., 11. lpp.
 (*1) Konstitucionālās prasības nav norādītas.


type: other

text:
Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky o povinnom používaní bezpečnostných pásov a detských zadržiavacích zariadení vo vozidlách určitých kategórií 554/2006 - Zákony.Judikáty.info
 Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky o povinnom používaní bezpečnostných pásov a detských zadržiavacích zariadení vo vozidlách určitých kategórií 554/2006 účinný od 20.09.2014
 Platnosť od: 10.10.2006
 Účinnosť od: 20.09.2014
 Oblasť: Cestná doprava, Dopravné prostriedky, Technické normy
 § 3 - Základné členenie detských zadržiavacích zariadení
 § 4 - Používanie bezpečnostných systémov vo vozidlách kategórie M1, N1, N2 a N3
 § 5 - Používanie bezpečnostných systémov vo vozidlách kategórie M2, M3
 § 6 - Lekárske osvedčenie o oslobodení od použitia bezpečnostných systémov vozidla
 § 7 - Spoločné a prechodné ustanovenia
 Nariadenie vlády 554/2006 s účinnosťou od 20.09.2014 na základe 241/2014
 o povinnom používaní bezpečnostných pásov a detských zadržiavacích zariadení vo vozidlách ...
 Toto nariadenie vlády ustanovuje podrobnosti o podmienkach používania bezpečnostných pásov a detských ...
 bezpečnostným pásom, sedadlovým pásom alebo pásom zostava popruhov s uzatváracou sponou, nastavovacími ...
 detským zadržiavacím zariadením určený bezpečnostný systém charakteristický ako súprava konštrukčných ...
 bezpečnostným systémom vybavenie sedadla vozidla bezpečnostným pásom alebo detským zadržiavacím ...
 osobitným bezpečnostným systémom vybavenie sedadla vozidla obdobným zariadením, ako je detské ...
 Základné členenie detských zadržiavacích zariadení
 Detské zadržiavacie zariadenia sa členia podľa hmotnosti dieťaťa do týchto skupín:
 skupina 0 pre deti s hmotnosťou do 10 kg,
 skupina 0+ pre deti s hmotnosťou do 13 kg,
 skupina I pre deti s hmotnosťou od 9 do 18 kg,
 skupina II pre deti s hmotnosťou od 15 do 25 kg,
 skupina III pre deti s hmotnosťou od 22 do 36 kg.
 Detské zadržiavacie zariadenia sa rozdeľujú do týchto tried:
 zabudované zariadenia pozostávajúce z kombinácie popruhov alebo ohybných častí s poistnou prackou, ...
 nezabudované zariadenia pozostávajúce z čiastočného zadržiavacieho zariadenia, ktoré, ak sa ...
 Používanie bezpečnostných systémov vo vozidlách kategórie M1, N1, N2 a N3
 Prepravovaná osoba je povinná pri sedení vo vozidle používať bezpečnostný systém, ktorý je ...
 hmotnostnými skupinami uvedenými v § 3 ods. 1 pre detské zadržiavacie zariadenia schválené podľa ...
 výškou a maximálnou hmotnosťou dieťaťa, pre ktoré je detské zadržiavacie zariadenie určené ...
 Na sedadle vozidla, ktoré nie je vybavené bezpečnostným systémom, sa nesmú prepravovať
 deti do veku troch rokov,
 na prednom sedadle deti vo veku troch rokov a viac s telesnou výškou menšou ako 150 cm.
 Detské zadržiavacie zariadenie nesmie byť obrátené dozadu na sedadle, ktoré je chránené čelným ...
 Detské zadržiavacie zariadenie musí byť schválené podľa
 predpisu EHK č. 44 série zmien 03 a vyššej4) alebo
 osobitného predpisu5) alebo
 predpisu EHK OSN č. 129.4)
 Detské zadržiavacie zariadenie sa musí namontovať v súlade s montážnymi informáciami uvedenými ...
 Používanie bezpečnostných systémov vo vozidlách kategórie M2, M3
 Prepravovaná osoba vo veku troch rokov a viac je povinná pri sedení vo vozidle používať bezpečnostný ...
 Vo vozidle používanom na prepravu do škôl, vo vnútroštátnej nepravidelnej doprave a v medzinárodnej ...
 Vodič vozidla alebo sprievodca skupiny je povinný informovať prepravované osoby o potrebe používania ...
 Lekárske osvedčenie o oslobodení od použitia bezpečnostných systémov vozidla
 Osoba so zdravotnými dôvodmi7) sa preukazuje lekárskym osvedčením o oslobodení od použitia bezpečnostných ...
 Lekárske osvedčenie podľa odseku 1 musí obsahovať čas platnosti osvedčenia o oslobodení od použitia ...
 Lekárske osvedčenie o oslobodení od použitia bezpečnostných systémov vozidla vydané v inom členskom ...
 Podmienky prepravy dospelej osoby s telesnou výškou menšou ako 150 cm vo vozidlách kategórie M1, ...
 Vo vozidlách kategórie M1 a N1, v ktorých sú umiestnené dve detské zadržiavacie zariadenia na ...
 Ak vozidlá kategórie M1 a N1 nie sú vybavené detským zadržiavacím zariadením alebo je týchto ...
 Preprava dieťaťa je zakázaná na predných sedadlách za podmienok ustanovených v odseku 2.
 Ustanovenia tohto nariadenia vlády sa vzťahujú aj na vodičov a cestujúcich vo vozidlách používaných ...
 Týmto nariadením vlády sa preberajú právne záväzné akty Európskej únie uvedené v prílohe ...
 Toto nariadenie vlády nadobúda účinnosť 1. júna 2007.
 Príloha č. 1 k nariadeniu vlády č. 554/2006 Z. z.
 PIKTOGRAM VIDITEĽNE ZOBRAZENÝ VO VOZIDLÁCH KATEGÓRIE M2 A M3 NA KAŽDOM MIESTE NA SEDENIE, KTORÉ JE VYBAVENÉ BEZPEČNOSTNÝM PÁSOM
 Prevziať prílohu - Vzor-01 ...
 Príloha č. 2 k nariadeniu vlády č. 554/2006 Z. z.
 Prevziať prílohu - Vzor-02 ...
 Príloha č. 3 k nariadeniu vlády č. 554/2006 Z. z.
 1. Smernica Rady 91/671/EHS zo 16. decembra 1991 o aproximácii právnych predpisov členských štátov ...
 2. Vykonávacia smernica Komisie 2014/37/EÚ z 27. februára 2014, ktorou sa mení smernica Rady 91/671/EHS ...
 3) Príloha č. 1 k zákonu č. 725/2004 Z. z. o podmienkach prevádzky vozidiel v premávke na pozemných ...
 4) Vyhláška ministra zahraničných vecí č. 176/1960 Zb. o Dohode o prijatí jednotných podmienok ...
 5) Nariadenie vlády Slovenskej republiky č. 201/2006 Z. z. o technických požiadavkách na bezpečnostné ...
 6) § 23 zákona č. 725/2004 Z. z.
 7) § 8 ods. 1 písm. e) zákona č. 8/2009 Z. z. o cestnej premávke a o zmene a doplnení niektorých ...
 8) Zákon č. 578/2004 Z. z. o poskytovateľoch zdravotnej starostlivosti, zdravotníckych pracovníkoch, ...
 9) § 8 ods. 1 písm. c) zákona č. 8/2009 Z. z.


text:
Cúnamh teicniúil le tionscadail foirgníochta a dhéanamh i réimsí na hinnealtóireachta, na hailtireachta agus na suirbhéireachta cainníochta. | TenderWolf | smart tender management
 Cúnamh teicniúil le tionscadail foirgníochta a dhéanamh i réimsí na hinnealtóireachta, na hailtireachta agus na suirbhéireachta cainníochta.
 Seoladh phróifíl an cheannaitheora: http://ec.europa.eu/oib/procurement_fr.htm
 Tá na doiciméid soláthair ar fáil ionas gur féidir rochtain dhíreach lán gan srianadh, saor in aisce a fháil orthu ag: https://etendering.ted.europa.eu/cft/cft-display.html?cftId=2829
 go leictreonach trí: -
 Uimhir thagartha: OIB.02/PO/2017/042/773.
 Príomhchód CPV: 71000000 - Architectural, construction, engineering and inspection services
 Is é aidhm an chonartha seo cúnamh teicniúil a sholáthar le tionscadail foirgníochta a dhéanamh (athchóiriú, athfhorbairt nó (a)tógáil) i réimsí na hinnealtóireachta, na hailtireachta agus na suirbhéireachta cainníochta.
 Luach gan CBL san áireamh: 8.810.000,00
 Féadfar tairiscintí a chur isteach le haghaidh na nithe a leanas: na bearta uile
 Uaslíon na mbeart ar féidir iad a dhámhachtain do thairgeoir amháin: -
 Coimeádann an t-údarás conarthachta an ceart conarthaí a dhámhachtain ina gcomhcheanglaítear na bearta nó grúpaí de bhearta a leanas: -
 II.2) Cur síos Uimhir an bhirt: 1
 Cúnamh teicniúil le tionscadail foirgníochta a dhéanamh i réimsí na hinnealtóireachta, na hailtireachta agus na suirbhéireachta cainníochta sa Bhruiséil
 Príomhchód CPV: 71200000 - Architectural and related services
 Príomhshuíomh nó príomhláthair na feidhmíochta: An Bhruiséil agus an ceantar mórthimpeall.
 Cúnamh teicniúil a sholáthar maidir le tionscadail foirgníochta a dhéanamh (athchóiriú, athfhorbairt nó (a)tógáil) i réimsí na hinnealtóireachta, na hailtireachta agus na suirbhéireachta cainníochta, a bhaineann go príomha leis na foirgnimh atá áitithe ag an gCoimisiún Eorpach sa Bhruiséil nó atá faoina bhainistíocht, ach a bhaineann freisin le foirgnimh institiúidí nó chomhlachtaí eile an AE a bhfuil comhaontú seirbhíse ag an gCoimisiún leo; d'fhéadfadh na cinn sin a bheith in áiteanna eile ar de chríoch an AE.
 Luach gan CBL san áireamh: 6.410.000,00
 II.2) Cur síos Uimhir an bhirt: 2
 Cúnamh teicniúil le tionscadail foirgníochta a dhéanamh i réimsí na hinnealtóireachta, na hailtireachta agus na suirbhéireachta cainníochta in Karlsruhe
 Cód NUTS: DE - DEUTSCHLAND
 Príomhshuíomh nó príomhláthair na feidhmíochta: Karlsruhe.
 Cúnamh teicniúil a sholáthar maidir le tionscadail foirgníochta a dhéanamh (athchóiriú, athfhorbairt nó (a)tógáil) i réimsí na hinnealtóireachta, na hailtireachta agus na suirbhéireachta cainníochta, a bhaineann go príomha le foirgnimh an Choimisiúin Eorpaigh in Karlsruhe (an Ghearmáin) atá áitithe ag an Airmheán Comhpháirteach Taighde (JRC) agus atá faoi réir an chreata um rialáil núicléach.
 Luach gan CBL san áireamh: 2.400.000,00
 déanfaidh an tairgeoir na doiciméid agus an fhaisnéis go léir atá riachtanach i bpointe III.1 'Coinníollacha rannpháirtíochta' den fhógra seo agus atá liostaithe in Iarscríbhinn I 'Seicliosta doiciméad atá le cur i gcrích agus le cur ar fáil' leis na sonraíochtaí a iniamh lena thairiscint.
 Ní mór don tairgeoir dearbhú sollúnta a chur isteach a bheidh sínithe agus dátaithe go cuí ina bhfuil sé sonraithe nach bhfuil sé i gcás ar bith a dhéanfadh é a eisiamh ó pháirt a ghlacadh i gconradh arna dhámhachtain ag an Aontas Eorpach. Ní foláir nó go mbeidh an dearbhú sollúnta i bhfoirm an teimpléid atá foilsithe ar an leathanach a leanas, ina iomláine: http://ec.europa.eu/oib/procurement_fr.cfm
 NB: ní mór don tairgeoir rathúil, ar phionós eisiaimh, an fhianaise dhoiciméadach a leanas a sholáthar mar thaca leis an dearbhú sollúnta roimh shíniú an chonartha.
 NB: má dhámhtar an conradh do ghrúpálacha, ní mór dóibh an dearbhú sollúnta a sholáthar mar aon le doiciméid thacúla agus faisnéis thacúil maidir le gach ball aonair.
 Critéir dámhachtana mar atá léirithe sna doiciméid soláthair: níl
 ní mór don tairgeoir na nithe seo a leanas a sholáthar:
 — cóip de na ráitis airgeadais (cláir chomhardaithe agus cuntais brabúis agus caillteanais) le haghaidh na 3 bliana airgeadais seo a chuaigh thart, ina dtaispeántar an brabús bliantúil roimh cháin. Mura bhfuil an tairgeoir, ar fháth bailí éigin, in ann iad a sholáthar, ní mór dó ráiteas a iniamh i leith brabús bliantúil roimh cháin le haghaidh an 3 bhliain roimhe sin. Má thaispeántar meánchaillteanas sna ráitis airgeadais nó sa dearbhú thar thréimhse na 3 bliana seo a chuaigh thart, beidh ar an tairgeoir tuilleadh doiciméadúcháin a sholáthar mar chruthúnas ar a chumas airgeadais agus eacnamaíoch, amhail ráthaíocht chuí ó thríú páirtí (m.sh. an mháthairchuideachta), nó ráitis ó iniúchóirí, cuntasóirí cairte nó a gcoibhéis,
 — ráiteas faoin láimhdeachas bliantúil foriomlán a réadaíodh i rith na 3 bliana airgeadais seo a chuaigh thart.
 le bheith roghnaithe, ní mór do thairgeoirí cruthúnas a sholáthar ar mheánláimhdeachas bliantúil iomlán dar luach 3 200 000 EUR le haghaidh bheart 1 agus dar luach 1 200 000 EUR le haghaidh bheart 2. Má chuireann tairgeoir tairiscintí isteach ar an 2 bheart, is ionann an meánláimhdeachas bliantúil iomlán a chuirfear san áireamh agus 4 000 000 EUR ar a laghad.
 — cáilíochtaí oideachasúla agus gairmiúla (CVanna) fhoireann an tairgeora chomh maith leis an taithí ghairmiúil dá cuid.
 Modhanna cruthúnais: ní mór don tairgeoir CVanna a sholáthar le haghaidh gach próifíle, lena ndeimhnítear na dioplómaí a fuarthas (ní mór cóip díobh a chur san áireamh), leibhéal an staidéir a cuireadh i gcrích agus an taithí ghairmiúil atá acu.
 Ní mór deimhniú lena léirítear an leibhéal teanga is airde a baineadh amach a chur san áireamh freisin,
 — liosta de na príomhsheirbhísí a cuireadh ar fáil, chomh maith le seirbhísí breise a cuireadh ar fáil i dtaca leis an gconradh (le haghaidh bheart 1: cúnamh teicniúil agus comhairleacht chun tionscadail foirgníochta a dhéanamh, le haghaidh bheart 2: cúnamh teicniúil agus comhairle maidir le tionscadail foirgníochta a dhéanamh faoi réir an chreata um rialáil núicléach) thar na 3 bliana seo a chuaigh thart, lena n-áirítear sonraí faoi na méideanna, dátaí agus sonraí teagmhála na bhfaighteoirí poiblí nó príobháideacha,
 — deimhniú bainistíochta cáilíochta (m.sh. ISO 9001 nó a choibhéis) nó, mura bhfuil rochtain ag an tairgeoir ar dheimhnithe dá leithéid nó mura bhfuil féidearthacht ann iad a fháil laistigh de na teorainneacha ama atá socraithe, fianaise ar bith eile ar bhearta deimhnithe cáilíochta arna nglacadh an tairgeoir féin.
 le bheith roghnaithe, ní mór do thairgeoirí a chruthú go bhfuil baill foirne acu lena mbaineann na próifílí a leanas:
 (A) próifílí le haghaidh bheart 1 agus bheart 2 araon:
 — ailtire nó innealtóir (atá oilte go leibhéal Máistreachta) a bhfuil taithí 10 mbliana aige/aici le haghaidh na próifíle 'ceannaire tionscadail i réimse na hailtireachta nó na hinnealtóireachta foirgníochta',
 — ailtire (atá oilte go leibhéal Máistreachta) a bhfuil taithí 5 bliana aige/aici ar oibreacha foirgníochta oifige a dhearadh agus maoirseacht a dhéanamh orthu,
 — innealtóir seirbhísí foirgníochta (atá oilte go leibhéal Máistreachta) a bhfuil taithí 5 bliana ar a laghad acu sa réimse seo,
 — suirbhéir cainníochta (atá oilte go leibhéal Máistreachta: innealtóir, ailtire, suirbhéir nó cáilíocht choibhéiseach i réimse na foirgníochta nó na hinnealtóireachta sibhialta) a bhfuil taithí 5 bliana ar a laghad aige/aici ar chostais, tréimhse tógála agus cáilíocht a bhainistiú i dtaca le tionscadail foirgníochta, innealtóireachta sibhialta agus athchóirithe, agus atá cláraithe le cumann suirbhéirí cainníochta na Beilge (UBQS), Coiste Eorpach na nEacnamaithe Foirgníochta (CEEC) nó a gcoibhéis;
 (B) próifílí atá sainiúil do bheart 1:
 — ríomhchláraitheoir (atá oilte go leibhéal Máistreachta: ailtire nó innealtóir foirgníochta, nó cáilíocht choibhéiseach i réimse na foirgníochta nó na hinnealtóireachta sibhialta), atá deimhnithe nó cáilithe i ríomhchlárú. Taithí 5 bliana ar a laghad sa réimse sin,
 — bainisteoir um shamhaltú faisnéise foirgníochta (BIM) (innealtóir nó ailtire atá oilte go leibhéal Máistreachta) a bhfuil taithí 5 bliana ar a laghad aige/aici ar thionscadail foirgníochta a bhainistiú agus 2 bhliain mar bhainisteoir BIM;
 (C) próifílí atá sainiúil do bheart 2:
 — innealtóir leictreach a shainfheidhmíonn i leictreachas ardvoltais, a bhfuil taithí 5 bliana aige/aici ar thionscadail ardvoltais a chur i bhfeidhm agus pleananna um dháileadh cumhachta a cheapadh mar aon le taithí ghairmiúil 1 bhliain sa réimse núicléach. Sáreolas ar VOB (Vergabe und Vertragsordnung für Bauleistungen – treoirlínte dlí na Gearmáine maidir le foirgníocht) agus HOAI (Honorars Ordnung für Ingenieure und Architekten – treoirlínte dlí na Gearmáine lena leagtar síos na leibhéil táillí éagsúla). Inniúil ar an nGearmáinis — leibhéal C1 ar a laghad, agus é deimhnithe,
 — innealtóir leictreach uathoibrithe agus cumarsáide a bhfuil taithí ghairmiúil 5 bliana aige/aici ar sheirbhísí foirgníochta agus ar thionscadail chumarsáide agus uathoibrithe a chur i bhfeidhm, lena n-áirítear 1 bhliain san earnáil núicléach. Sáreolas ar VOB agus HOAI. Inniúil ar an nGearmáinis — leibhéal C1 ar a laghad, agus é deimhnithe,
 — innealtóir próisis um theicneolaíocht aerála a bhfuil taithí ghairmiúil 5 bliana aige/aici ar sheirbhísí foirgníochta agus ar thionscadail aerála, cuisniúcháin agus rialaithe teochta a chur i bhfeidhm, lena n-áirítear 1 bhliain san earnáil núicléach. Sáreolas ar VOB agus HOAI. Inniúil ar an nGearmáinis — leibhéal C1 ar a laghad, agus é deimhnithe,
 — innealtóir próisis a shainfheidhmíonn i dteicneolaíocht rialaithe aerála, a bhfuil taithí ghairmiúil 5 bliana aige/aici ar sheirbhísí foirgníochta agus ar thionscadail teicneolaíochta uathoibrithe agus uathoibrithe foirgníochta a chur i bhfeidhm, lena n-áirítear 1 bhliain san earnáil núicléach. Sáreolas ar chórais Siemens WinCC, Siemens PCS7 agus Siemens ProTool. Inniúil ar an nGearmáinis — leibhéal C1 ar a laghad, agus é deimhnithe.
 Le bheith roghnaithe, ní foláir nó go mbeadh tairgeoirí in ann cruthúnas ar an méid a leanas a sholáthar:
 i leith bheart 1:
 — 3 thasc ar a laghad ar thionscadail foirgníochta, ar bhain luach níos mó ná 10 000 000 EUR le gach ceann díobh,
 — 3 thasc ar a laghad ar thionscadail foirgníochta, ar bhain luach idir 1 000 000 EUR agus 10 000 000 EUR le gach ceann díobh;
 i leith bheart 2:
 — 3 thasc ar a laghad ar thionscadail foirgníochta a bhí faoi réir an chreata um rialáil núicléach, ar bhain luach níos mó ná 10 000 000 EUR le gach ceann díobh,
 — 3 thasc ar a laghad ar thionscadail foirgníochta a bhí faoi réir an chreata um rialáil núicléach, ar bhain luach idir 1 000 000 EUR agus 10 000 000 EUR le gach ceann díobh.
 Is éard atá i gceist leis an soláthar comhaontú creatlaí a chur ar bun: tá
 Comhaontú creatlaí le roinnt oibreoirí: tá
 Dáta: 16-10-2017
 Am áitiúil: 17:30
 Fad ina mhíonna: 6
 Dáta: 20-10-2017
 Láthair: Office pour les infrastructures et la logistique — Bruxelles (OIB), bâtiment CSM1, Cours Saint-Michel 23 (entrée côté rue Père de Deken), 1040 Bruxelles, AN BHEILG.
 Faisnéis faoi dhaoine údaraithe agus faoin nós imeachta oscailte: Is féidir le 1 ionadaí arna údarú go cuí freastal ar oscailt na dtairiscintí (ní mór pas nó cárta aitheantais a thaispeáint). Ní mór do thairgeoirí ar mian leo freastal an tAonad OIB.02.002 Soláthar Poiblí a chur ar an eolas i scríbhinn (féach ar shonraí an tseolta atá tugtha i bpointe I.1), tráth nach déanaí ná 2 lá oibre roimh an seisiún le haghaidh tairiscintí a oscailt.
 Uainiú measta le haghaidh fógraí breise a fhoilsiú: 36 mí tar éis na dámhachtana.
 1) Beidh na sonraíochtaí agus na doiciméid bhreise (lena n-áirítear ceisteanna agus freagraí) ar fáil ag an seoladh gréasáin a leanas: https://etendering.ted.europa.eu/cft/cft-display.html?cftId=2829 Iarrtar ar pháirtithe a bhfuil spéis acu ann clárú tríd an láithreán gréasáin. Cuirfear in iúl dóibh ansin tríd an gcóras soláthair phoiblí ar líne maidir le haon nuashonruithe atá ar fáil don chuireadh seo chun tairisceana. Iarrtar ar pháirtithe nach bhfuil cláraithe ar an láithreán breathnú air go rialta. Ní bheidh an Coimisiún freagrach mura bhfuil tairgeoirí ar an eolas faoi aon fhaisnéis bhreise i dtaca leis an gcuireadh seo chun tairisceana atá tugtha ar an láithreán Gréasáin sin
 Déanfar an láithreán gréasáin a nuashonrú go rialta; is iad na tairgeoirí atá freagrach as nuashonruithe agus mionathruithe a sheiceáil i rith thréimhse na tairisceana.
 Is féidir faisnéis bhreise faoi théarmaí conartha, athnuachaintí conartha, coinníollacha rannpháirtíochta, íosleibhéil cumais atá riachtanach, méid measta iomlán an chonartha, srl a fháil sna sonraíochtaí atá ar fáil ar an láithreán gréasáin réamhluaite. Ní eiseofar leagan páipéir. Arna dheimhniú mar EMAS ó 2005, glacann an OIB dearcadh atá neamhdhíobhálach don chomhshaol. Is scéim éiceabhainistíochta agus iniúchta atá in EMAS, ionstraim dheonach an AE a úsáideann eagraíochtaí chun a bhfeidhmíocht chomhshaoil a fheabhsú.
 2) Beidh 2 bhliain (24 mhí) i dtréimhse tosaigh an chomhaontaithe creatlaí, ón dáta ar a gcuirfear i bhfeidhm é, agus féadfar é a athnuachan faoi dhó trí chomhaontú intuigthe, ar feadh tréimhse breise 1 bhliain (12 mhí) gach uair, .i. uastréimhse 4 bliana (= 2+1+1).
 3) Le linn na 3 bliana tar éis chríochnú an chonartha thosaigh, beidh an t-údarás conarthachta in ann an nós imeachta idirbheartaithe a úsáid, gan fógra conartha a fhoilsiú roimh ré, le haghaidh seirbhísí nua ina mbeidh seirbhísí á athsholáthar atá cosúil leo sin atá tugtha don pháirtí ar dámhadh an conradh seo dó ag an údarás conarthachta.
 4) Le haghaidh faisnéis bhreise a fháil maidir le páirt a ghlacadh i gcuirí chun tairisceana agus maidir le seicheamh na nósanna imeachta maidir le soláthar poiblí ag an OIB, féach an 'Treoir do thairgeoirí' agus an bróisiúr 'Gnó a dhéanamh leis an gCoimisiún Eorpach', atá ar fáil tríd an nasc: http://ec.europa.eu/oib/procurement_fr.cfm
 Faisnéis chruinn faoi spriocdháta(í) le haghaidh nósanna imeachta athbhreithniúcháin: laistigh de 2 mhí ó chuirtear fógra chuig an ngearánaí nó, dá éagmais sin, ón lá a fuair sé fios air. Ní chuirfear an tréimhse sin ar fionraí mar thoradh ar ghearán chuig an Ombudsman Eorpach ná ní chuirfear tréimhse nua ar siúl chun achomhairc a dhéanamh.


text:
 Fontos jogi nyilatkozat
 |
 12006E/PRO/35
 Az Európai Közösséget létrehozó szerződés (Konszolidált változat) - D. Az Európai Közösséget létrehozó szerződéshez csatolt jegyzőkönyvek - (35.) Jegyzőkönyv az Európai Közösséget létrehozó szerződés 67. cikkéről (2001.)
 Hivatalos Lap C 321 E , 29/12/2006 o. 0317 - 0317
 (35.) Jegyzőkönyvaz Európai Közösséget létrehozó szerződés 67. cikkéről (2001.)A MAGAS SZERZŐDŐ FELEKMEGÁLLAPODTAK a következő rendelkezésben, amelyet az Európai Közösséget létrehozó szerződéshez csatolnak:Egyetlen cikk2004. május 1-jétől a Tanács az Európai Közösséget létrehozó szerződés 66. cikkében említett intézkedések elfogadásakor a Bizottság javaslata alapján és az Európai Parlamenttel folytatott konzultációt követően minősített többséggel határoz.--------------------------------------------------


type: legislation

text:
 |
 52014PC0577
 Prijedlog ODLUKE VIJEĆA o stajalištu koje treba donijeti, u ime Europske unije, u Zajedničkom odboru EGP-a o izmjeni Protokola 31 uz Sporazum o EGP-u, o suradnji u posebnim područjima izvan područja četiriju sloboda (Program Copernicus) /* COM/2014/0577 final - 2014/0266 (NLE) */
 OBRAZLOŽENJE
 1. KONTEKST PRIJEDLOGA
 Kako bi se osigurala potrebna pravna sigurnost
 i homogenost unutarnjeg tržišta, Zajednički odbor EGP-a mora u Sporazum o
 EGP-u u što kraćem roku nakon njegova donošenja uključiti cjelokupno
 relevantno zakonodavstvo EU-a.
 Člankom 78. Sporazuma o EGP-u
 predviđeno je da ugovorne stranke ojačaju i prošire suradnju u okviru
 aktivnosti Unije u područjima, među ostalim, zaštite okoliša te
 istraživanja i tehnološkog razvoja.
 2. REZULTATI SAVJETOVANJA SA
 ZAINTERESIRANIM STRANAMA I OCJENE UTJECAJA
 Nacrtom Odluke Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a
 (priložen uz predloženu Odluku Vijeća) želi se izmijeniti Protokol 31 uz
 Sporazum o EGP-u o suradnji u posebnim područjima izvan područja
 četiriju sloboda kako bi se proširila suradnja ugovornih stranaka u
 području zaštite okoliša te istraživanja i tehnološkog razvoja.
 Kako bi se suradnja ugovornih stranaka
 Sporazuma o EGP-u u tom području proširila (s čime će se
 početi od 1. siječnja 2014.), Uredbu (EU) br. 377/2014 Europskog
 parlamenta i Vijeća od 3. travnja 2014. o uspostavi programa Copernicus i
 o stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe (EU) br. 911/2010[1] potrebno je
 uključiti u Sporazum o EGP-u pomoću prethodno navedene izmjene.
 Treba napomenuti kako su Norveška i
 Lihtenštajn odlučili da neće sudjelovati u ovom programu. Norveška
 razmatra mogućnost početka sudjelovanja od 2015.
 3. PRAVNI ELEMENTI PRIJEDLOGA
 Člankom 1. stavkom 3. Uredbe
 Vijeća (EZ) br. 2894/94 o rješenjima za provedbu Sporazuma o EGP-u
 predviđeno je da Vijeće utvrđuje stajalište o takvim odlukama
 koje je potrebno donijeti u ime Unije, na prijedlog Komisije.
 Komisija Vijeću na donošenje daje nacrt
 Odluke Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a koji predstavlja stajalište Unije.
 Komisija se nada da će ga što prije moći predstaviti Zajedničkom
 odboru EGP-a.
 Odluka Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a trebala
 bi predstavljati i dogovor stranaka, u skladu s člankom 1. stavkom 8.
 Protokola 32 uz Sporazum o EGP-u, da započnu suradnju na temelju Uredbe
 (EU) br. 377/2014 od 1. siječnja 2014. čak i ako se ta Odluka
 Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a donese, ili ako se o ispunjenju ustavnih zahtjeva
 za tu Odluku Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a, ako postoje, obavijesti nakon 10.
 srpnja 2014.
 2014/0266 (NLE)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o stajalištu koje treba donijeti, u ime
 Europske unije,
 u Zajedničkom odboru EGP-a o izmjeni Protokola 31 uz Sporazum o EGP-u, o
 suradnji u posebnim područjima izvan područja četiriju sloboda
 (Program Copernicus)
 VIJEĆE EUROPSKE UNIJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Ugovor o funkcioniranju
 Europske unije, a posebno njegov članak 189. stavak 2. u vezi s
 člankom 218. stavkom 9.,
 uzimajući u obzir Uredbu Vijeća (EZ)
 br. 2894/94 od 28. studenoga 1994. o rješenjima za provedbu Sporazuma o
 Europskom gospodarskom prostoru[2],
 a posebno njezin članak 1. stavak 3.,
 uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Europske
 komisije,
 budući da:
 (1) Sporazum o Europskom
 gospodarskom prostoru[3]
 („Sporazum o EGP-u”) stupio je na snagu 1. siječnja 1994.
 (2) U skladu s člankom 98.
 Sporazuma o EGP-u, Zajednički odbor EGP-a može odlučiti izmijeniti,
 među ostalim, Protokol 31 uz Sporazum o EGP-u („Protokol 31”).
 (3) Protokol 31 sadržava odredbe
 i rješenja u vezi sa suradnjom u posebnim područjima izvan područja
 četiriju sloboda.
 (4) Primjereno je proširiti
 suradnju ugovornih stranaka Sporazuma o EGP-u kako bi se uključila Uredba
 (EU) br. 377/2014[4].
 (5) Primjereno je da države
 članice EFTA-e počnu sudjelovati u aktivnostima iz Uredbe (EU)
 br. 377/2014 od 1. siječnja 2014. čak i ako se Odluka
 Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a priložena ovoj Odluci donese, ili ako se o
 ispunjenju ustavnih zahtjeva za tu Odluku Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a, ako
 postoje, obavijesti nakon 10. srpnja 2014.
 (6) Subjekti osnovani u državama
 članicama EFTA-e trebali bi imati pravo sudjelovati u aktivnostima koje
 započinju prije stupanja na snagu Odluke Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a
 priložene ovoj Odluci. Troškovi nastali tijekom tih aktivnosti, čija
 provedba započinje nakon 1. siječnja 2014., mogu se smatrati
 prihvatljivima na temelju jednakih uvjeta koji se primjenjuju na troškove
 subjekata osnovanih u državama članicama EU-a pod uvjetom da Odluka
 Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a stupi na snagu prije završetka dotične
 aktivnosti.
 (7) Protokol 31 trebalo bi stoga
 na odgovarajući način izmijeniti.
 (8) Stajalište Unije u
 Zajedničkom odboru EGP-a trebalo bi se temeljiti na priloženom nacrtu
 Odluke.
 DONIJELO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 Stajalište koje treba donijeti, u ime Europske
 unije, u Zajedničkom odboru EGP-a o predloženoj izmjeni Protokola 31 uz
 Sporazum o EGP-u, o suradnji u posebnim područjima izvan područja
 četiriju sloboda, temelji se na nacrtu Odluke Zajedničkog odbora
 EGP-a priloženom ovoj Odluci.
 Članak 2.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu na dan donošenja.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu
 Za
 Vijeće
 Predsjednik
 [1] SL L 122, 24.4.2014., str. 44.
 [2] SL L 305, 30.11.1994., str. 6.
 [3] SL L 1, 3.1.1994., str. 3.
 [4] Uredba (EU) br. 377/2014 Europskog parlamenta i
 Vijeća od 3. travnja 2014. o uspostavi programa Copernicus i o stavljanju
 izvan snage Uredbe (EU) br. 911/2010, SL L 122, 24.4.2014.,
 str. 44.
 PRILOG
 ODLUKA ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EGP-a br. .../2014
 o
 izmjeni Protokola 31 uz Sporazum o EGP-u,
 o suradnji u posebnim područjima izvan područja četiriju sloboda
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EGP-a,
 uzimajući u obzir Sporazum o Europskom
 gospodarskom prostoru („Sporazum o EGP-u”), a posebno njegove članke 86. i
 98.,
 budući da:
 (1)
 Primjereno je proširiti suradnju ugovornih stranaka
 Sporazuma o EGP-u kako bi se uključila Uredba (EU) br. 377/2014
 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 3. travnja 2014. o uspostavi programa Copernicus
 i o stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe (EU) br. 911/2010[1].
 (2)
 Primjereno je da države članice EFTA-e
 počnu sudjelovati u aktivnostima iz Uredbe (EU) br. 377/2014 od 1.
 siječnja 2014. čak i ako se ova Odluka donese, ili ako se o
 ispunjenju ustavnih zahtjeva za ovu Odluku, ako postoje, obavijesti nakon 10.
 srpnja 2014.
 (3)
 Subjekti osnovani u državama članicama EFTA-e
 trebali bi imati pravo sudjelovati u aktivnostima koje započinju prije
 stupanja na snagu ove Odluke. Troškovi nastali tijekom tih aktivnosti, čija
 provedba započinje nakon 1. siječnja 2014., mogu se smatrati
 prihvatljivima na temelju jednakih uvjeta koji se primjenjuju na troškove
 subjekata osnovanih u državama članicama EU-a pod uvjetom da ova Odluka
 stupi na snagu prije završetka dotične aktivnosti.
 (4)
 Protokol 31 uz Sporazum o EGP-u trebalo bi stoga
 izmijeniti kako bi se omogućila provedba te proširene suradnje od 1.
 siječnja 2014.
 DONIO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 Nakon stavka 8.c članka 1. Protokola 31
 uz Sporazum o EGP-u umeće se sljedeći stavak:
 „8.d (a) Države članice
 EFTA-e od 1. siječnja 2014. sudjeluju u aktivnostima koje mogu
 proizaći iz sljedećih akata Unije:
 - 32014 R
 0377: Uredba (EU) br. 377/2014 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od
 3. travnja 2014. o uspostavi programa Copernicus i o stavljanju izvan snage
 Uredbe (EU) br. 911/2010 (SL L 122, 24.4.2014., str. 44.).
 (b) Države članice EFTA-e financijski
 pridonose aktivnostima iz točke (a) u skladu s člankom 82. stavkom 1.
 točkom (a) Sporazuma i Protokolom 32 uz Sporazum.
 (c) Troškovi nastali tijekom tih aktivnosti,
 čija provedba započinje nakon 1. siječnja 2014., mogu se
 smatrati prihvatljivima od početka aktivnosti na temelju sporazuma o
 bespovratnim sredstvima ili predmetne odluke o bespovratnim sredstvima pod
 uvjetom da Odluka Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a br. .../2014 od ... stupi na
 snagu prije završetka aktivnosti.
 (d) Države članice EFTA-e u potpunosti
 sudjeluju u svim odborima Unije koji pomažu Europskoj komisiji u upravljanju
 aktivnostima iz točke (a) te njihovu razvoju i provedbi, no nemaju pravo
 glasa.
 (e) Ovaj se stavak ne primjenjuje na Norvešku
 i Lihtenštajn.”
 Članak 2.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu prvog dana nakon
 posljednje obavijesti u skladu s člankom 103. stavkom 1. Sporazuma o EGP-u*.
 Primjenjuje se od 1. siječnja 2014.
 Članak 3.
 Ova se Odluka objavljuje u odjeljku o EGP-u i
 u Dodatku o EGP-u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu
 Za
 Zajednički odbor EGP-a
 Predsjednik
 Tajnici
 Zajedničkog
 odbora EGP-a
 [1] SL L 122, 24.4.2014., str. 44.
 * [Ustavni zahtjevi nisu navedeni.] [Ustavni zahtjevi su
 navedeni.]


text:
Tratatul de la Brest-Litovsk a fost un tratat de pace semnat pe 3 martie 1918 la Brest, (cunoscut în epocă cu numele de "Brest-Litovsk"), între Rusia și Puterile Centrale, marcând ieșirea Rusiei din Primul Război Mondial. Tratatul a devenit, practic, nul până la sfârșitul anului, dar importanța lui majoră, deși neexistentă în intențiile semnatarilor, a fost aceea de declanșator al procesului de cucerire a independenței Finlandei, Poloniei, Estoniei, Letoniei și Lituaniei.
 Armistițiul și negocierile pentru pace
 Negocierile pentru pace au început pe 22 decembrie 1917, la o săptămână după declararea armistițiului dintre Rusia și Puterile Centrale, la Brest-Litovsk (în polonă: Brzesc Litewski, în belarusă: Брэст Літоўскі), în orașul care astăzi se numește Brest din Belarus, lângă frontiera polonă. Delegația germană a fost condusă de Max Hoffmann, comandantul Frontului de Răsărit german, (Oberkommando-Ostfront). Delegația rusă a fost condusă de Lev Troțki. La scurtă vreme după începerea lor, negocierile au intrat în impas din cauza pretențiilor bolșevicilor de a obține "pace fără anexări și despăgubiri" — mai pe înțelesul tuturor, o înțelegere prin care succesorul Imperiului Rus nu plătea niciun ban și nu ceda nicio palmă de pământ, rămânând, practic, un imperiu.
 Agasat de neîncetatele cereri germane pentru cesiuni teritoriale, Lev Troțki, Comisarul Poporului pentru Afacerile Externe (ministru de externe) și șef al delegației rusești, a anunțat, la 10 februarie 1918, retragerea Rusiei de la masa tratativelor și declararea unilaterală a încetării ostilităților, o poziție caracterizată drept "lipsa războiului — lipsa păcii".
 Condamnat de alți bolșevici pentru depășirea mandatului încredințat și pentru expunerea Rusiei bolșevice la pericolul invaziei, Troțki și-a apărat, cu hotărâre, acțiunea, arătând că bolșevicii au acceptat tratativele de pace în speranța ridicării la lupta revoluționară a muncitorimii din Europa Centrală în sprijinul tânărului stat proletar rus.
 Reluarea ostilităților
 Consecințele retragerii de la tratativele de pace au fost mai rele pentru bolșevici decât s-ar fi gândit ei vreodată în decembrie. Puterile Centrale au denunțat armistițiul, la 18 februarie 1918, și în următoarele zile au invadat și ocupat cea mai mare parte din Ucraina, Belarus și Țările Baltice. Printre ghețurile Mării Baltice, o flotă germană se apropia de Golful Finlandei și de capitala Rusiei, Sankt Petersburg. În ciuda demonstrațiilor și protestelor care au avut în loc luna de dinaintea atacului, muncitorii din Germania și Austro-Ungaria nu au reușit o revoltă de proporții, iar la 3 martie 1918 bolșevicii au căzut de acord asupra unor condiții de pace chiar mai dezavantajoase decât cele pe care le respinseseră mai înainte.
 Tratatul de pace
 Tratatul, semnat între Rusia bolșevică, pe de-o parte, și Imperiul German, Austro-Ungaria, Bulgaria și Turcia (numite, în mod colectiv, Puterile Centrale), pe de altă parte, a marcat încetarea stării de beligeranță în niște condiții neașteptat de umilitoare, care au umbrit victoria bolșevicilor în Revoluția din Octombrie 1917.
 Noul guvern bolșevic (comunist) rus a renunțat, integral, la pretențiile asupra Finlandei, viitoarelor state baltice (Estonia, Letonia și Lituania), Poloniei, Belarusului și a districtelor turcești Erdehan și Kars, precum și asupra districtului georgian Batumi.
 Cea mai mare parte a acestor teritorii au fost cedate Imperiului German, care intenționa să le transforme,de facto, în părți ale imperiului, prin impunerea unor regi sau duci dependenți de Imperiu. În legătură cu teritoriile cedate, tratatul stipula că "Germania și Austro-Ungaria vor hotărî soarta lor viitoare de comun acord cu populația locală ". Se intenționa, de fapt, să fie impuși candidați germani pe tronurile Finlandei, Letoniei și Lituaniei.
 Până în cele din urmă, înfrângerea Germaniei în Primul Război Mondial (marcată de armistițiul cu țările Antantei de la Compiègne, din 11 noiembrie 1918) a făcut posibilă declararea independenței reale a Finlandei, Estoniei, Lituaniei, Letoniei, și Poloniei. Monarhii germani impuși țărilor respective au fost nevoiți să renunțe la tron.
 Daunele de război
 Un nou tratat, semnat la Berlin pe 2 august 1918, a impus Rusiei plata unor substanțiale daune de război.
 Efectele de durată ale tratatului
 Tratatul de la Brest-Litovsk a avut efect numai pentru opt luni, fiind denunțat în noiembrie 1918 de guvernul bolșevic, care a profitat, astfel de înfrângerea Germaniei și aliaților ei la sfârșitul Primului Război Mondial. În aprilie 1922, prin Tratatul de la Rapallo, Germania a acceptat anularea Tratatului de la Brest-Litovsk, cele două țări semnatare fiind de acord să renunțe reciproc la orice pretenție financiară sau teritorială.
 În 1939, prin Pactul Molotov-Ribbentrop, s-au inversat, practic, cele mai multe dintre prevederile Tratatului de la Brest-Litovsk.
 Tratatul de la Brest-Litovsk a marcat o reducere importantă a teritoriului controlat de bolșevici. În timp ce independența Poloniei și Finlandei a fost, în principiu,acceptată, pierderea Ucrainei și a țărilor baltice a creat o bază primejdioasă pentru acțiunile antibolșevice în Războiul civil rus care avea să vină (1918–1920). Mulți naționaliști ruși și chiar și unii dintre revoluționarii bolșevici erau înfuriați de acceptarea de către bolșevici a condițiilor tratatului, ei înrolându-se în forțele Armatei Albe anticomuniste. Deși cea mai mare parte a Ucrainei a fost recucerită până în 1920, Țările Baltice și districtele poloneze din Ucraina și Belarusul din zilele noastre au rămas în mâinile antibolșevicilor până la sfârșitul celui de al Doilea Război Mondial, când au fost integrate, pentru o perioadă de 5 decenii și jumătate, în URSS.
 Vezi și
 Istoria Belarus
 Războiul Polono-Sovietic
 Mitteleuropa
 Legături externe
 Tratatul de la Brest-Litovsk
 Tratate de pace
 Tratatul de la Brest-Litovsk
 Tratate de pace rusești
 Primul Război Mondial
 Anul 1918 din punct de vedere juridic
 Istoria Rusiei
 Istoria Uniunii Sovietice
 Tratate internaționale


text:
 20.12.2012
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 350/76
 BESCHLUSS DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS
 vom 23. Oktober 2012
 über die Entlastung zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit für das Haushaltsjahr 2010
 (2012/800/EU)
 DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT —
 —
 in Kenntnis des endgültigen Rechnungsabschlusses der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit für das Haushaltsjahr 2010,
 —
 in Kenntnis des Berichts des Rechnungshofs über den Jahresabschluss 2010 der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit zusammen mit den Antworten der Behörde (1),
 —
 in Kenntnis der Empfehlung des Rates vom 21. Februar 2012 (06083/2012 — C7-0051/2012),
 —
 unter Hinweis auf seinen Beschluss vom 10. Mai 2012 (2) betreffend den Aufschub des Entlastungsbeschlusses zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit für das Haushaltsjahr 2010 und seine begleitende Entschließung sowie in Kenntnis der Antworten der Verwaltungsdirektorin der Behörde,
 —
 gestützt auf Artikel 319 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1605/2002 des Rates vom 25. Juni 2002 über die Haushaltsordnung für den Gesamthaushaltsplan der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (3), insbesondere auf Artikel 185,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 178/2002 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (4) zur Errichtung der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit, insbesondere auf Artikel 44,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 2343/2002 der Kommission vom 19. November 2002 betreffend die Rahmenfinanzregelung für Einrichtungen gemäß Artikel 185 der Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1605/2002 des Rates über die Haushaltsordnung für den Gesamthaushaltsplan der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (5), insbesondere auf Artikel 94,
 —
 unter Hinweis auf die Gemeinsame Erklärung zu den dezentralen Agenturen und den dieser Erklärung beigefügten Gemeinsamen Ansatz, die zwischen dem Europäischen Parlament, dem Rat und der Kommission im Juni 2012 im Anschluss an die Arbeiten der im März 2009 gegründeten interinstitutionellen Arbeitsgruppe zu den dezentralen Agenturen vereinbart wurden, und insbesondere die Abschnitte betreffend Verwaltung, Arbeitsweise, Programmplanung, Rechenschaftspflicht und Transparenz des Gemeinsamen Ansatzes,
 —
 gestützt auf Artikel 77 und Anlage VI seiner Geschäftsordnung,
 —
 in Kenntnis des zweiten Berichts des Haushaltskontrollausschusses und der Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit (A7-0299/2012),
 1.
 erteilt der Verwaltungsdirektorin der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit Entlastung zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans der Behörde für das Haushaltsjahr 2010;
 2.
 legt seine Bemerkungen in der nachstehenden Entschließung nieder;
 3.
 beauftragt seinen Präsidenten, diesen Beschluss und die als integraler Bestandteil dazugehörige Entschließung der Verwaltungsdirektorin der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit, dem Rat, der Kommission und dem Rechnungshof zu übermitteln und die Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union (Reihe L) zu veranlassen.
 Der Präsident
 Martin SCHULZ
 Der Generalsekretär
 Klaus WELLE
 (1) ABl. C 366 vom 15.12.2011, S. 106.
 (2) ABl. L 286 vom 17.10.2012, S. 367.
 (3) ABl. L 248 vom 16.9.2002, S. 1.
 (4) ABl. L 31 vom 1.2.2002, S. 1.
 (5) ABl. L 357 vom 31.12.2002, S. 72.
 ---documentbreak---
 20.12.2012
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 350/77
 ENTSCHLIESSUNG DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS
 vom 23. Oktober 2012
 mit den Bemerkungen, die integraler Bestandteil des Beschlusses betreffend die Entlastung zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit für das Haushaltsjahr 2010 sind
 DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT —
 —
 in Kenntnis des endgültigen Rechnungsabschlusses der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit für das Haushaltsjahr 2010,
 —
 in Kenntnis des Berichts des Rechnungshofs über den Jahresabschluss 2010 der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit zusammen mit den Antworten der Behörde (1),
 —
 in Kenntnis der Empfehlung des Rates vom 21. Februar 2012 (06083/2012 — C7-0051/2012),
 —
 unter Hinweis auf seinen Beschluss vom 10. Mai 2012 (2) betreffend den Aufschub des Entlastungsbeschlusses zur Ausführung des Haushaltsplans der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit für das Haushaltsjahr 2010 und seine begleitende Entschließung sowie in Kenntnis der Antworten der Verwaltungsdirektorin der Behörde,
 —
 gestützt auf Artikel 319 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1605/2002 des Rates vom 25. Juni 2002 über die Haushaltsordnung für den Gesamthaushaltsplan der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (3), insbesondere auf Artikel 185,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 178/2002 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates (4) zur Errichtung der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit, insbesondere auf Artikel 44,
 —
 gestützt auf die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 2343/2002 der Kommission vom 19. November 2002 betreffend die Rahmenfinanzregelung für Einrichtungen gemäß Artikel 185 der Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1605/2002 des Rates über die Haushaltsordnung für den Gesamthaushaltsplan der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (5), insbesondere auf Artikel 94,
 —
 unter Hinweis auf die Gemeinsame Erklärung zu den dezentralen Agenturen und den beigefügten Gemeinsamen Ansatz, die zwischen dem Europäischen Parlament, dem Rat und der Kommission im Juni 2012 im Anschluss an die Arbeiten der im März 2009 gegründeten interinstitutionellen Arbeitsgruppe zu den dezentralen Agenturen vereinbart wurden, und insbesondere die Abschnitte betreffend Verwaltung, Arbeitsweise, Programmplanung, Rechenschaftspflicht und Transparenz des Gemeinsamen Ansatzes,
 —
 gestützt auf Artikel 77 und Anlage VI seiner Geschäftsordnung,
 —
 in Kenntnis des zweiten Berichts des Haushaltskontrollausschusses und der Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit (A7-0299/2012),
 A.
 in der Erwägung, dass das Europäische Parlament am 10. Mai 2012 seinen Beschluss über die Entlastung und den endgültigen Rechnungsabschluss der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit (im Folgenden „Behörde“) für das Haushaltsjahr 2010 vertagt hat;
 B.
 in der Erwägung, dass die Behörde der Entlastungsbehörde in ihren Schreiben vom 29. Juni 2012 und 20. August 2012 ausführlich geantwortet hat;
 C.
 in der Erwägung, dass die Entlastung in diesem Zusammenhang ein wertvolles Instrument des Europäischen Parlaments ist, wobei eine Beschlussfassung auf der Grundlage von Fakten und inhaltlichen Argumenten erforderlich ist; verweist in diesem Kontext auf die geltenden Vorschriften, d. h. das Statut für die Beamten und die Beschäftigungsbedingungen für die sonstigen Bediensteten der Europäischen Union, die Haushaltsordnung für den Gesamthaushaltsplan der Europäischen Union, die Gründungsverordnung der Behörde und die von der Behörde beschlossenen spezifischen Maßnahmen und Verfahren;
 Haushaltsführung und Finanzmanagement
 1.
 nimmt die Erklärung der Behörde zur Kenntnis, dass inzwischen geeignete Maßnahmen ergriffen wurden, um das Finanzmanagement zu verbessern und 2011 bei Ermächtigungen ein Ausführungswert von beinahe 100 % erreicht wurde;
 2.
 begrüßt die Informationen über die beträchtlichen Einsparungen bei den Kosten für die Sitzungen des Verwaltungsrats in Höhe von 6 175 EUR pro Mitglied im Jahr 2010; begrüßt insbesondere die Einsparungen bei den Kosten um 66 % verglichen mit 2010 durch den Einsatz von Audio-Streaming bei Bedarf, die Nutzung von Englisch als einziger Sprache in den Sitzungen des Verwaltungsrats und die Abhaltung sämtlicher Sitzungen in den Räumlichkeiten der Behörde in Parma;
 Vertragsmanagementverfahren
 3.
 nimmt zur Kenntnis, dass die Behörde ein Instrument für Zuschüsse und Beschaffungsmaßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Beaufsichtigung von Ausschreibungen, des Vertragsmanagements und der Kapazitäten zur Zahlungsprognose entwickelt hat; nimmt ferner zur Kenntnis, dass die neue Datenbank über Zuschüsse und Beschaffungsmaßnahmen seit dem 28. Juni 2012 in Betrieb ist;
 Interessenkonflikte und Transparenz
 4.
 stellt fest, dass die Hauptaufgabe der Behörde darin besteht, unabhängige und transparente wissenschaftliche Beratung in Fragen mit unmittelbaren oder mittelbaren Auswirkungen auf Lebens- und Futtermittelsicherheit zu erbringen;
 5.
 verweist auf die Notwendigkeit, Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, die die Glaubwürdigkeit der Behörde erhalten;
 6.
 begrüßt die Abhaltung einer für alle Mitglieder des Verwaltungsrats verbindlichen Tagung zu Fragen der Ethik und Integrität, die für Oktober 2012 geplant ist und fordert den Verwaltungsrat auf, seinen Verhaltenskodex effektiv umzusetzen und Bestimmungen anzunehmen, die Wechsel von Mitarbeitern in die Privatwirtschaft künftig verhindern bzw. sanktionieren, um Fälle wie den den früheren Direktor der Behörde im Jahr 2010 betreffenden zu verhindern;
 7.
 hat bereits gewisse Mängel im Zusammenhang mit Interessenkonflikten, Interessenerklärung und Transparenz aufgezeigt; weist darauf hin, dass die ehemalige Vorsitzende des Verwaltungsrates der Behörde es 2010 versäumte, ihre Mitgliedschaft im Vorstand des International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) zu deklarieren, obwohl das ILSI von Unternehmen des Nahrungsmittel-, des Chemie- und des Pharmaziesektors finanziert wird; stellt fest, dass die Mitglieder des Verwaltungsrates der Behörde nicht vom Verwaltungsdirektor bzw. der -direktorin ernannt und von diesem/dieser daher auch nicht entlassen werden können;
 8.
 begrüßt die feste Zusage der Behörde, ihrem Verwaltungsrat vorzuschlagen, seinen Vorsitzenden bzw. seine Vorsitzende in einem offenen Verfahren zu wählen; vertritt die Auffassung, dass ein transparentes Verfahren die Verantwortung des Verwaltungsrats erhöht;
 9.
 nimmt interessiert alle neuen Verfahren, Vorschriften, Durchführungsbestimmungen und Maßnahmen zur Kenntnis, die seit 2007 verankert wurden, um Interessenkonflikte zwischen wissenschaftlichen Sachverständigen und Bediensteten zu vermeiden; begrüßt in diesem Zusammenhang den Verhaltenskodex des Verwaltungsrates der Behörde und deren Maßnahmen zur Überprüfung ihrer Interessenerklärungen sowie die neuen Vorschriften für die Überprüfung von Interessenkonflikten, die seit Juli 2012 in Kraft sind und bei der Neubesetzung der wissenschaftlichen Gremien aktiv genutzt wurden; ist entschlossen, die Wirkung dieser Maßnahmen zu kontrollieren; beabsichtigt, die Verwaltungsdirektorin weiterhin regelmäßig zum Meinungsaustausch einzuladen sowie den Informationsaustausch auch durch die unter seinen Mitgliedern ernannte Kontaktperson und Besuche bei der Behörde alle zwei Jahre zu fördern; weist darauf hin, dass der bisher letzte Besuch im Mai 2012 stattfand;
 10.
 stellt fest, dass die neue Politik der Behörde zur Unabhängigkeit und zu den wissenschaftlichen Entscheidungsfindungsprozessen zusammen mit den entsprechenden Durchführungsbestimmungen im Juli 2012 in Kraft trat, und dass sich die neue Definition der Behörde von Interessenkonflikten im Einklang mit den Leitlinien der OECD befindet; nimmt seitens der Behörde zur Kenntnis, dass ihr praktischer Ansatz bezüglich eines Sachverständigen, der gegen die Unabhängigkeitsbestimmungen verstoßen hat, einen Ausschluss für einen Zeitraum von fünf Jahren vorsieht; schlägt vor, ein endgültiges Paket angemessener Sanktionen in die Durchführungsbestimmungen der Regelungen zur Unabhängigkeit aufzunehmen;
 11.
 nimmt zur Kenntnis, dass die Behörde für Ende 2013 eine Überprüfung ihrer Unabhängigkeitsbestimmungen angesetzt hat, in deren Rahmen unter anderem die Möglichkeit geprüft werden soll, die Ergebnisse von Verfahren im Fall eines Vertrauensbruchs öffentlich zu machen, einschließlich der Ergebnisse der Verfahren zur Kontrolle der Integrität der wissenschaftlichen Überprüfungen, sowie das Mandat ihres Ausschusses für den Umgang mit Interessenkonflikten auszuweiten und zu stärken und ihn zum Beispiel mit einem Mandat auszustatten, über das der Ausschuss für Ethische Standards und die Verhütung von Interessenkonflikten der französischen Behörde für Ernährungssicherheit, Umwelt- und Arbeitsschutz (ANSES) verfügt; erwartet, dass die Behörde die Entlastungsbehörde über diese Punkte zu Beginn des kommenden Entlastungsverfahrens unterrichtet;
 12.
 fordert die Behörde auf, ihre Unabhängigkeitsbestimmungen zu verstärken und die Annahme von Bestimmungen zu prüfen, einschließlich zu Sanktionen und zur Veröffentlichung von Lebensläufen und Interessenerklärungen der hauseigenen Sachverständigen und Wissenschaftler;
 13.
 ist der festen Überzeugung, dass die notwendigen Schritte unternommen werden müssen, sollten Fälle verzeichnet werden, in denen die geltenden Vorschriften nicht eingehalten werden; ist der Auffassung, dass die Behörde in solchen Fällen ein Aktionsprogramm mit einem genauen Zeitplan aufstellen sollte, das auf die Behebung der Mängel abzielt und dessen Umsetzung vom Europäischen Parlament überwacht werden sollte, wobei diese Probleme durch eine Änderung der bestehenden Vorschriften und Regelungen zum Zwecke der Schließung möglicher Gesetzeslücken angegangen werden sollten;
 14.
 nimmt die Erklärung der Behörde zur Kenntnis, dass sie am 4. Juli 2012 Bestimmungen zur Akzeptanz von Geschenken und Zuwendungen verabschiedet hat; begrüßt diese Initiative und fordert die Behörde auf, diese Bestimmungen auf ihrer Webseite zu veröffentlichen;
 15.
 stellt fest, dass die Behörde für den 1. Oktober 2012 ihre erste Bewertung von zufällig ausgewählten Interessenerklärungen plant, um deren Kohärenz mit den vor kurzem angenommenen Unabhängigkeits- und Durchführungsbestimmungen zu überprüfen; erwartet, dass die Behörde der Entlastungsbehörde bis zum 1. März 2013 die Ergebnisse dieser Bewertung mitteilt, damit diese beim nächsten Entlastungsverfahren berücksichtigt werden können;
 16.
 begrüßt die feste Zusage der Behörde, mit der Kommission zusammenzuarbeiten, um die Modalitäten für einen vollständigen Zugang der Öffentlichkeit zu unveröffentlichten Rohdaten festzulegen;
 17.
 stellt fest, dass acht Gremien der Behörde und ihr Wissenschaftlicher Ausschuss im Juni 2012 neu besetzt wurden; begrüßt die Veröffentlichung der Interessenerklärungen der neu benannten Sachverständigen auf der Webseite der Behörde, bemängelt jedoch, dass einige Lebensläufe noch nicht verfügbar sind; fordert die Behörde auf, diese bis zum 1. Januar 2013 zu veröffentlichen;
 18.
 nimmt zur Kenntnis, dass 2011 insgesamt 37 Sachverständige für zwei Gremien benannt wurden, ehe die neue Politik der Behörde zur Unabhängigkeit und zu wissenschaftlichen Entscheidungsprozessen angenommen wurde; begrüßt deshalb die Initiative der Behörde, bis zum 31. Oktober 2012 deren Interessenerklärungen unter Berücksichtigung der neu angenommenen Politik und Durchführungsbestimmungen zu prüfen; fordert die Behörde auf, die Entlastungsbehörde bis zum Beginn des kommenden Entlastungsverfahrens über das Ergebnis dieser Überprüfung zu unterrichten;
 19.
 fordert die Agentur auf, in ihre jährlichen Tätigkeitsberichte einen speziellen Abschnitt aufzunehmen, in dem die Maßnahmen erläutert werden, die sie unternimmt, um Interessenkonflikten vorzubeugen und bestehende Interessenkonflikte zu bewältigen, und der u. a. Folgendes umfassen sollte:
 —
 die Zahl der vermutlichen Fälle von Interessenkonflikten, die verifiziert wurden;
 —
 die Zahl der Fälle des Wechsels eines Mitarbeiters in den Privatsektor;
 —
 die Maßnahmen, die in Bezug auf jede Kategorie von Fällen getroffen wurden;
 —
 die Zahl der eingeleiteten Verfahren im Fall eines Vertrauensbruchs und die Ergebnisse;
 —
 die angewandte Sanktionen;
 20.
 fordert die Behörde auf, die Offenheit und Transparenz im Rahmen des Prozesses der Risikobewertung zu erhöhen, von unabhängigen Fachkreisen begutachtete wissenschaftliche Literatur verstärkt zu berücksichtigen und Ablehnungen von abweichenden Meinungen ausführlich zu begründen; fordert die Behörde ferner auf, den Dialog und die Zusammenarbeit mit auswärtigen Sachverständigen und nationalen Agenturen zu vertiefen, insbesondere wenn diese in Bezug auf einen bestimmten Prozess der Risikobewertung abweichende Meinungen vertreten;
 21.
 begrüßt generell die vorstehend genannte Gemeinsame Erklärung und den Gemeinsamen Ansatz in Bezug auf die dezentralen Agenturen, die einige Elemente, die für das Entlastungsverfahren von Bedeutung sind, angehen und aufgreifen, und ist der Ansicht, dass der Fahrplan für die Weiterverfolgung des Gemeinsamen Ansatzes, der von der Kommission bis Ende 2012 vorzulegen ist, diesen Aspekten gebührend Rechnung tragen wird;
 22.
 verweist, was weitere horizontale Bemerkungen zum Entlastungsbeschluss betrifft, auf seine Entschließung vom 10. Mai 2012 zu Leistung, Finanzmanagement und Kontrolle der Agenturen (6).
 (1) ABl. C 366 vom 15.12.2011, S. 106.
 (2) ABl. L 286 vom 17.10.2012, S. 367.
 (3) ABl. L 248 vom 16.9.2002, S. 1.
 (4) ABl. L 31 vom 1.2.2002, S. 1.
 (5) ABl. L 357 vom 31.12.2002, S. 72.
 (6) ABl. L 286 vom 17.10.2012, S. 388.


text:
Júnia Marise Azeredo Coutinho (Belo Horizonte, 21 de junho de 1945) é uma jornalista, advogada e política brasileira que foi vice-governadora de Minas Gerais, estado que representou no Congresso Nacional.
 Dados biográficos
 Filha de Ladislau Augusto de Azeredo Coutinho e Maria de Leão Correia Coutinho. Iniciou sua carreira jornalística no Correio de Minas em 1962 e três anos mais tarde foi trabalhar na assessoria de imprensa do governo mineiro então chefiado por Magalhães Pinto, cargo que deixou em 1967 ao se formar em Direito pela Universidade Federal de Uberlândia. Trabalhou ainda em veículos como o Diário de Minas, Rádio Itatiaia e a atual TV Bandeirantes Minas.
 Formada em Cinema na Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, foi aluna do curso de Literatura Brasileira na Academia Mineira de Letras e do curso intensivo de Ciência Política da Universidade de Brasília.
 Carreira política
 Três anos após ingressar no MDB foi eleita vereadora em Belo Horizonte em 1970 e 1972 e depois foi eleita deputada estadual em 1974 e deputada federal em 1978, neste último caso a primeira mulher a representar os mineiros na Câmara dos Deputados desde a cassação de Nísia Carone pelo Ato Institucional Número Cinco em 1969. Com o fim do bipartidarismo entrou no PMDB e foi reeleita deputada federal em 1982. Nessa legislatura votou a favor da Emenda Dante de Oliveira em 1984 e em Tancredo Neves no Colégio Eleitoral em 1985, além de ter chegado à vice-liderança de sua bancada.
 Eleita vice-governadora de Minas Gerais na chapa de Newton Cardoso em 1986, foi governadora interina nas ausências do titular. Dele, porém, se afastou ao apoiar Fernando Collor na eleição presidencial de 1989. Mudou de partido e foi eleita senadora em 1990 pelo PRN, dividindo com Marluce Pinto a honra de ser a primeira mulher escolhida para o Senado Federal por voto popular na história do Brasil. Mesmo correligionária do novo presidente da República, votou a favor do impeachment de Fernando Collor em 1992 em julgamento realizado pelos senadores no fim do ano. Em 1993 filiou-se ao PDT e foi derrotada ao disputar a prefeitura da capital mineira em 1996 e ao tentar reeleger-se senadora em 1998. Quatro anos depois desistiu de buscar um novo mandato de senadora pelo PPS.
 Júnia Marise é irmã de Vera Coutinho, eleita vereadora em Belo Horizonte em 1976 e deputada estadual em 1982, além de possuir laços de parentesco com Renato Azeredo e com o General Dale Coutinho.
 Vice-governadores de Minas Gerais
 Senadores do Brasil por Minas Gerais
 Deputados estaduais de Minas Gerais
 Deputados federais do Brasil por Minas Gerais
 Naturais de Belo Horizonte
 Mulheres de Minas Gerais na política
 Membros do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (1980)
 Membros do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro (1966)
 Membros do Agir (Brasil)
 Membros do Partido Democrático Trabalhista
 Membros do Cidadania (partido político) de Minas Gerais
 Membros do Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira