text:
 21.2.2008
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea
 L 47/58
 DECISIONE DEL COMITATO MISTO SEE
 n. 127/2007
 del 28 settembre 2007
 che modifica l'allegato XX (Ambiente) dell'accordo SEE
 IL COMITATO MISTO SEE,
 visto l'accordo sullo Spazio economico europeo, modificato dal protocollo che adegua tale accordo, in seguito denominato «l'accordo», in particolare l'articolo 98,
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 L'allegato XX dell'accordo è stato modificato dalla decisione del Comitato misto SEE n. 92/2007 del 6 luglio 2007 (1).
 (2)
 Occorre integrare nell'accordo la direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 12 marzo 2001, sull'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di organismi geneticamente modificati e che abroga la direttiva 90/220/CEE del Consiglio (2).
 (3)
 Occorre integrare nell'accordo la decisione 2002/623/CE della Commissione, del 24 luglio 2002, recante note orientative ad integrazione dell'allegato II della direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sull'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di organismi geneticamente modificati e che abroga la direttiva 90/220/CEE del Consiglio (3).
 (4)
 Occorre integrare nell'accordo la decisione 2002/811/CE del Consiglio, del 3 ottobre 2002, che stabilisce note orientative ad integrazione dell'allegato VII della direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sull'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di organismi geneticamente modificati e che abroga la direttiva 90/220/CEE del Consiglio (4).
 (5)
 Occorre integrare nell'accordo la decisione 2002/812/CE del Consiglio, del 3 ottobre 2002, che stabilisce, ai sensi della direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, il modello per la sintesi delle notifiche sull'immissione in commercio di organismi geneticamente modificati come tali o contenuti in prodotti (5).
 (6)
 Occorre integrare nell'accordo la decisione 2002/813/CE del Consiglio, del 3 ottobre 2002, che stabilisce, ai sensi della direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, il modello per la sintesi delle notifiche sull'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di organismi geneticamente modificati per scopi diversi dall'immissione in commercio (6).
 (7)
 Occorre integrare nell'accordo la decisione 2003/701/CE della Commissione, del 29 settembre 2003, che stabilisce, conformemente alla direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, il modello di presentazione dei risultati dell'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di piante superiori geneticamente modificate per scopi diversi dall'immissione in commercio (7).
 (8)
 Occorre integrare nell'accordo la decisione 2004/204/CE della Commissione, del 23 febbraio 2004, che stabilisce disposizioni dettagliate per il funzionamento dei registri destinati alla conservazione delle informazioni sulle modificazioni genetiche degli OGM di cui alla direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio (8),
 DECIDE:
 Articolo 1
 L’allegato XX dell’accordo è modificato come segue:
 1)
 dopo il punto 25c (decisione 93/584/CEE della Commissione) viene inserito il punto seguente:
 «25d.
 32001 L 0018: direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 12 marzo 2001, sull'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di organismi geneticamente modificati e che abroga la direttiva 90/220/CEE del Consiglio (GU L 106 del 17.4.2001, pag. 1).
 Ai fini dell’accordo, le disposizioni della direttiva si intendono adattate come in appresso:
 a)
 Alla fine dell'articolo 30, paragrafo 2, viene aggiunta la frase seguente:
 “Gli Stati AELS (EFTA) partecipano a pieno titolo ai lavori del comitato, ma non hanno diritto di voto. Il regolamento interno del comitato viene adeguato per dare piena efficacia alla partecipazione degli Stati EFTA.”
 b)
 Il testo dell'articolo 23 è sostituito dal seguente:
 “1. Se una parte contraente ha fondati motivi di ritenere che un OGM come tale o contenuto in un prodotto debitamente notificato e autorizzato per iscritto in base alla presente direttiva rappresenti un rischio per la salute umana o l'ambiente, può temporaneamente limitarne o vietarne l'uso o la vendita sul proprio territorio. La parte contraente provvede affinché, in caso di grave rischio, siano attuate misure di emergenza, quali la sospensione o la cessazione dell'immissione in commercio, e l'informazione del pubblico.
 La parte contraente interessata informa immediatamente, tramite il Comitato misto SEE, le altre parti contraenti delle azioni intraprese a norma del presente articolo, motivando la sua decisione.
 2. Se una parte contraente lo richiede, hanno luogo consultazioni in seno al Comitato misto SEE sulla pertinenza delle misure adottate. In questo caso si applica la parte VII dell'accordo.”
 c)
 Le parti contraenti convengono che la direttiva disciplina esclusivamente gli aspetti relativi ai rischi potenziali per l'uomo, la flora, la fauna e l'ambiente. Gli Stati AELS (EFTA) si riservano pertanto il diritto di applicare le rispettive legislazioni nazionali in materia per quanto riguarda problematiche diverse dalla salute e dall'ambiente, purché esse siano compatibili con l'accordo.
 d)
 Il Liechtenstein non è obbligato a ricevere e/o trattare le richieste relative alla prima immissione in commercio di OGM (articoli 12-24). Tuttavia riceve tutte le informazioni fornite dagli altri Stati membri nel quadro delle procedure di autorizzazione previste dalla direttiva.»;
 2)
 dopo il punto 25d (direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio) vengono inseriti i punti seguenti:
 «25e.
 32002 D 0623: decisione 2002/623/CE della Commissione, del 24 luglio 2002, recante note orientative ad integrazione dell'allegato II della direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sull'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di organismi geneticamente modificati e che abroga la direttiva 90/220/CEE del Consiglio (GU L 200 del 30.7.2002, pag. 22).
 25f.
 32002 D 0811: decisione 2002/811/CE del Consiglio, del 3 ottobre 2002, che stabilisce note orientative ad integrazione dell'allegato VII della direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sull'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di organismi geneticamente modificati e che abroga la direttiva 90/220/CEE del Consiglio (GU L 280 del 18.10.2002, pag. 27).
 25g.
 32002 D 0812: decisione 2002/812/CE del Consiglio, del 3 ottobre 2002, che stabilisce, ai sensi della direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, il modello per la sintesi delle notifiche sull'immissione in commercio di organismi geneticamente modificati come tali o contenuti in prodotti (GU L 280 del 18.10.2002, pag. 37).
 25h.
 32002 D 0813: decisione 2002/813/CE del Consiglio, del 3 ottobre 2002, che stabilisce, ai sensi della direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, il modello per la sintesi delle notifiche sull'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di organismi geneticamente modificati per scopi diversi dall'immissione in commercio (GU L 280 del 18.10.2002, pag. 62).
 25i.
 32003 D 0701: decisione 2003/701/CE della Commissione, del 29 settembre 2003, che stabilisce, conformemente alla direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, il modello di presentazione dei risultati dell'emissione deliberata nell'ambiente di piante superiori geneticamente modificate per scopi diversi dall'immissione in commercio (GU L 254 dell'8.10.2003, pag. 21).
 25j.
 32004 D 0204: decisione 2004/204/CE della Commissione, del 23 febbraio 2004, che stabilisce disposizioni dettagliate per il funzionamento dei registri destinati alla conservazione delle informazioni sulle modificazioni genetiche degli OGM di cui alla direttiva 2001/18/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio (GU L 65 del 3.3.2004, pag. 20).»;
 3)
 il testo del punto 25 (direttiva 90/220/CEE del Consiglio) è soppresso.
 Articolo 2
 I testi della direttiva 2001/18/CE e delle decisioni 2002/623/CE, 2002/811/CE, 2002/812/CE, 2002/813/CE, 2003/701/CE e 2004/204/CE nelle lingue islandese e norvegese, da pubblicare nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea, fanno fede.
 Articolo 3
 La presente decisione entra in vigore il 29 settembre 2007, a condizione che tutte le notificazioni previste dall'articolo 103, paragrafo 1, dell'accordo (9) siano pervenute al Comitato misto SEE.
 Articolo 4
 La presente decisione è pubblicata nella sezione SEE e nel supplemento SEE della Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, il 28 settembre 2007.
 Per il Comitato misto SEE
 Il presidente
 Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON
 (1) GU L 328 del 13.12.2007, pag. 42.
 (2) GU L 106 del 17.4.2001, pag. 1.
 (3) GU L 200 del 30.7.2002, pag. 22.
 (4) GU L 280 del 18.10.2002, pag. 27.
 (5) GU L 280 del 18.10.2002, pag. 37.
 (6) GU L 280 del 18.10.2002, pag. 62.
 (7) GU L 254 dell'8.10.2003, pag. 21.
 (8) GU L 65 del 3.3.2004, pag. 20.
 (9) Comunicata l’esistenza di obblighi costituzionali.


type: wikipedia

text:
Poveljnik Evropskega poveljstva Združenih držav (angleško Commander, United States European Command; kratica CDRUSEUCOM) je vrhovni poveljnik vseh ameriških oboroženih sil v Evropi (Evropsko poveljništvo Združenih držav).
 Poveljnik Evropskega poveljstva Združenih držav je v teoriji podrejen vrhovnemu poveljniku zavezniških sil v Evropi (SACEUR), toda ker je le-ta po dogovoru Američan (pripadnik oboroženih sil ZDA), združeni načelniki štabov postavijo za obe funkciji enega generala, ki hkrati poveljuje dvema poveljstvoma, ki sta povezani. V praksi pomeni, da ta general poveljuje samemu sebi, saj je kot SACEUR nadrejen funkciji CDRUSUCOM, ki jo tudi opravlja.
 Zgodovina
 Poveljništvo je bilo ustanovljeno leta 1952 za potrebe koordinacije enot oboroženih sil ZDA v Evropi. Ker je SACEUR zmeraj Američan, hkrati opravlja še dolžnost CDRUSEUCOMa. Do 24. oktobra 2002 se je položaj imenoval Commander in Chief, United States European Command (COMUSEUCOM oz. COMEUCOM), dokler niso na ukaz Donalda Rumsfelda spremenili vse Commander in Chief v Commander.
 Seznam poveljnikov
 general Matthew Bunker Ridgway, KOV ZDA (1952 - 1953)
 general Alfred Maximilian Gruenther, KOV ZDA (1953 - 1956)
 general Lauris Norstad, VL ZDA (1956 - 1962)
 general Lyman Louis Lemnitzer, KOV ZDA (1963 - 1969)
 general Andrew Jackson Goodpaster, KOV ZDA (1969 - 1974)
 general Alexander Meigs Haig mlajši, KOV ZDA (1974 - 1979)
 general Bernard William Rogers, KOV ZDA (1979 - 1987)
 general John Rogers Galvin, KOV ZDA (1987 - 1992)
 general John Malchase David Shalikashvili, KOV ZDA (1992 - 1993)
 general George Alfred Joulwan, KOV ZDA (1993 - 1997)
 general Wesley Kanne Clark, KOV ZDA (1997 - 2000)
 general Joseph W. Ralston, VL ZDA (2000 - 2003)
 general James Logan Jones mlajši, KMP ZDA (2003 - 2006)
 general Bantz John Craddock, KOV ZDA (2006 - 2009)
 admiral James Stavridis, VM ZDA (2009 - danes)
 Glej tudi
 Vrhovni poveljnik zavezniški sil
 Zunanje povezave
 Uradna stran
 Poveljstva Oboroženih sil ZDA


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 306 Md. 36 (1986)
 506 A.2d 1183
 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
 v.
 WILLIAM JAMES PARKER, JR.
 Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 8, September Term, 1985.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 April 7, 1986.
 Melvin Hirshman, Bar Counsel, for the Atty. Grievance Com'n of Maryland.
 John Wheeler Glenn, Baltimore, for respondent.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.
 SMITH, Judge.
 Bar Counsel, acting pursuant to the provisions of Maryland Rule BV9, filed a petition with us on behalf of the Attorney Grievance Commission seeking disciplinary action against William James Parker, Jr., a member of the Maryland Bar since May 24, 1979. He charged violation of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(3), (4), and (6); 6-101(A)(1) and (3); 7-101(A)(1), (2), and (3); and 9-102(B)(3) and (4).[1] He also charged a violation of what is now Maryland Code (1957, 1981 Repl.Vol., 1985 Cum.Supp.) Art. 10, § 44.[2]
 I
 Pursuant to Rule BV9 b we referred the matter for hearing to a judge of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Maryland. He has filed a comprehensive report with us in which he states:
 "FACTS
 "In late December 1980 or early January 1981 Mrs. Dianeray Chanudet was introduced to the Respondent by his next door neighbor, Mrs. Kassem. At that time Mrs. Chanudet who was of Belgian origin was looking for the American equivalent of a `l'homme d' affairs' in her native land. Such a person would advise her upon business matters such as investing her money at the highest rate of interest. She had made her desire known to Mrs. Kassem whose husband practiced medicine in the hospital where Mrs. Chanudet worked as a director of the Physical Therapy Department. Mrs. Kassem suggested that her next door neighbor the Respondent who was an attorney, might help and arranged the introduction. Mrs. Chanudet met Respondent at his house, never went to his office and never regarded him as her attorney but only as her `investment man'. She was never billed for Respondent's services or paid him anything although she expected she would be billed and pay after he rendered services just as she paid her accountant or her attorney.
 "Respondent agreed to look for investments for her that would be safe (whether secure or secured) and yield a higher than normal rate of interest.
 "On January 24, 1981, Mrs. Chanudet delivered to Respondent her check for $20,000.00 which he placed in his Attorney Escrow Account. He loaned $8,500.00 of this at 20% interest to Mrs. Betty A. Perrie. Mrs. Perrie was a friend of Mr. Parker who worked in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. The note was a confessed judgment note calling for payments of interest each six months and due in full 2 years from its date January 20, 1981. Mrs. Perrie needed the money to pay an annual installment due to the Federal Land Bank on a mortgage covering the tobacco and grain farm which she owned. Her estranged husband had failed to make this payment and she had to make it to save her property. At the time she borrowed this money her equity in the farm which Respondent personally inspected was about $132,000.00. This loan was clearly for a business purpose and was amply secured by the note. It was subsequently paid in full together with all earned interest. The last payment was made by check dated July 22, 1983.
 "At about the same time he learned about Mrs. Perrie's need for money he also learned that the Messrs. Cassidy would be willing to borrow $30,000.00 at 20% interest to finance certain alterations they wished to make in the space they were renting to the Maryland District Court in office buildings which they owned in Upper Marlboro. Respondent sought and obtained an additional $19,000.00 from Mrs. Chanudet on May 29, 1981. He had in the meantime obtained from the Cassidys a Promissory Note for the full $30,000.00 which was secured by a Deed of Trust on two rental properties in Upper Marlboro in which they had an equity of roughly $343,000.00. This loan closed as any other loan and was ultimately repaid in full with all of the interest due on 10/31/83.
 "An indication of the relationship of Mrs. Chanudet to the Respondent and of the borrowers to the Respondent may be gleaned from the fact that she gave him $20,000.00 without receiving so much as a written receipt and the Cassidys both practicing lawyers acting for themselves signed and delivered to him a Promissory Note for $30,000.00 when they had received only $11,000.00. Both borrowers and lender benefited financially in these transactions.
 "Respondent thereafter became obsessed with the idea that he had to be able to pay over to Mrs. Chanudet any unexpended part of her capital ($500.00) and any earned interest whether paid or unpaid by the borrowers. He put the $500.00 in cash in a part of a safe which he had at his house and there it remained until he discovered it after these proceedings had begun and well after Mr. Mudd representing Mrs. Chanudet had declared that all of her money had been repaid. He reported this matter promptly and paid over to her this amount.
 "Mrs. Chanudet never complained to anyone including the Respondent about his handling of her affairs. She went to another lawyer for the preparation of a will. When this lawyer, Mr. Munday inquired of Respondent about his handling of Mrs. Chanudet's money, Respondent was unable to provide him with documentation of his dealings with the $39,000.00 entrusted to Respondent. After a series of correspondence with Respondent, Mr. Munday reported the matter to the Commission. The `accounting' furnished with this correspondence was something made up by Respondent and is worthless as such. Even the Respondent cannot now decipher it.
 "Respondent deposited Mrs. Chanudet's initial check for $20,000.00 in his escrow account as well as her subsequent check for $19,000.00. He drew checks to borrowers for all but $500.00 of that. After he put the $500.00 cash in his safe he regarded the $500.00 remaining in his escrow account as his money to use if he wished. From that point on it is impossible to reconstruct from his escrow account or any other of his documents when he received or what he did with funds received on her behalf. On the Perrie loan we can determine what happened from her cancelled checks. On the Cassidy loan we cannot because of problems peculiar to the borrowers. Their records are in disarray because of the illness and death of Mr. Lewis Cassidy. Respondent did not maintain any written record of the dates or amounts of payments of interest or principal. Until Mr. Munday made inquiry of him March 25, 1983 he had paid to Mrs. Chanudet at her request $3,000.00. Up until that time this was the only money she had requested of him. Her testimony was that she thought he was going to deposit the interest to her account when received. His testimony was that he believed he was to hold on to it and reinvest it if suitable opportunity to do so was found. On this issue I think his understanding of his instructions was the correct one. During a part of the time that these events were taking place the Respondent was involved in serious domestic difficulties which culminated in his divorce in February 1985. [(Emphasis by the trial judge.)]
 "CONCLUSIONS
 "Disciplinary Rule 1-102
 `Misconduct.
 (A) A lawyer shall not:
 (3) Engage in illegal conduct involving moral turpitude.
 (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
 (6) Engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law.'
 "Respondent did not `expeditiously deposit in an account ... for funds belonging to others' all of the funds he received belonging to Mrs. Chanudet. His deposits into his escrow account of the capital sums satisfied the requirements of Article 10 Section 44 but his handling of the interest payments he received did not. This statute does not turn on whether there is an attorney client relationship. It is clear, unambiguous and compelling. I conclude that Respondent's conduct in putting funds he believed belonged to Mrs. Chanudet in cash in his safe in his house, in substitution for her funds which had been properly deposited in his escrow account and his cashing of a check from one of the borrowers at a store together with his failure to promptly deposit all other checks for payment of interest as required by this statute are violations of this statute. The statute requires only a general intent to do the act not a specific intent to commit the crime. (McBurney v. State 280 Md. 21) Respondent's acts were knowing and intentional acts which because of his status as an attorney were a violation of this law. I conclude that the violation of this statute in cashing an interest check, commingling funds and misrepresenting to another attorney the handling of the funds entrusted to him constitute violations of this Rule.
 "Respondent violated DR 1-102.
 "Disciplinary Rule 6-101
 `Failing to Act Competently.
 (A) A lawyer shall not:
 (1) Handle a legal matter which he knows or should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who is competent to handle it.
 (3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.'
 "I conclude that Respondent's handling of the investment aspects of this matter was competent. I further conclude that he knew or should have known that the course of conduct he followed in handling and accounting for this money was not appropriate and grossly incompetent, for anyone, let alone for a member of the bar who at one time or another taught elementary accounting. His obsession with being able to return Mrs. Chanudet's money to her in cash at any time is unexplainable in the evidence or any inference I can draw from it. In a transaction such as this which involved evaluating the safety of investments, passing upon the validity of instruments evidencing debt, security therefor, and negotiating the terms and interest rates of loans I conclude that the relationship of attorney and client existed even though neither attorney nor client thought so and there was no formal retainer or agreement as to fee. I conclude that his failure to deposit the funds of Mrs. Chanudet as they were returned to him in payments by the borrowers in some form of interest bearing account also violates both subsections of this Rule.
 "I conclude that Respondent violated DR 6-101.
 "Disciplinary Rule 7-101
 `Representing a Client Zealously.
 (A) A lawyer shall not intentionally:
 (1) Fail to seek the lawful objectives of his client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR 7-101(B). A lawyer does not violate this Disciplinary Rule, however, by acceding to reasonable requests of opposing counsel which do not prejudice the rights of his client, by being punctual in fulfilling all professional commitments, by avoiding offensive tactics, or by treating with courtesy and consideration all persons involved in the legal process.
 (2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but he may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110, DR 5-102, and DR 5-105.
 (3) Prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship, except as required under DR 7-102(B).'
 "I conclude that there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated this Rule. Anything which might arguably violate this Rule would relate to subsections (2) and (3) and is more exactly and specifically dealt with [in] the conclusions relating to other Rules. I am absolutely convinced that Respondent intended to do the very best he could for Mrs. Chanudet within his understanding and knowledge at that time.
 "I conclude the Respondent did not violate DR 7-101(A)(1)(2)(3).
 "Disciplinary Rule 9-102
 `Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of a Client.
 (B) A lawyer shall:
 (3) Maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his client regarding them.
 (4) Promptly pay or deliver to the client as requested by a client the funds, securities, or other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client is entitled to receive.'
 "There can be no doubt, whatsoever, that Respondent failed to maintain any records of the funds he received as interest payments or to render an appropriate account regarding them.
 "Respondent did, however, pay or deliver with reasonable promptness the funds in his possession when requested. I am not able to conclude that his conduct in this respect was inappropriate considering his lack of records or accounts.
 "I conclude that Respondent violated DR 9-102(B)(3) but did not violate DR 9-102(B)(4)."
 II
 Both Bar Counsel and Parker have filed exceptions. We accept a trial judge's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Collins, 295 Md. 532, 548, 457 A.2d 1134, 1142 (1983); Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Kahn, 290 Md. 654, 678, 431 A.2d 1336, 1349 (1981).
 a
 Bar Counsel has excepted to the failure of the trial judge to find a misuse of the funds belonging to Mrs. Chanudet by Parker and a failure to find dishonesty under DR 1-102(A)(4). We are disturbed by Parker's conduct here as our sanction will indicate. However, we cannot say that the conclusions drawn by the trial judge from the evidence before him were clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we overrule these exceptions.
 b
 Parker has filed seven exceptions which he suggests "actually fall into three basic categories," namely:
 "1. Was there an attorney-client relationship between Mrs. Chanudet and Respondent? (Exception No. 4)
 "2. Did the Respondent `misrepresent' to another attorney his handling of the funds of Mrs. Chanudet? (Exception No. 2)
 "3. Was the activity of Respondent in violation of those provisions of law dealing with the obligation of an attorney to properly deposit, account for and pay over funds of a client? (Exceptions 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7)"
 At oral argument Parker's counsel said that he could "live with the findings and recommendations of the trial judge," that his exceptions did not go to the issue of culpability but to the issue of degree of responsibility. We have reviewed the record and, as in the case of the exceptions of Bar Counsel, we conclude that the trial judge did not clearly err in the conclusions he drew from the evidence before him. Therefore, we overrule these exceptions.
 III
 Given the findings of the trial judge, the case we have before us is not one of misappropriation of funds. If it were, then under our cases, absent compelling extenuating circumstances, disbarment would be the sanction to be imposed. We have said that the duty rests upon the courts and the profession as a whole to uphold the highest standards of professional conduct and to protect the public from imposition by the unfit or unscrupulous practitioner. Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Andresen, 281 Md. 152, 159, 379 A.2d 159, 163 (1977). We are much concerned by the violation in this case of Art. 10, § 44 and of the failure of Parker to maintain any kind of comprehensible records so that he could render an intelligent accounting in this case. We conclude that the proper sanction to be imposed is suspension from the practice of law in this State for ninety days beginning thirty days after the filing of the opinion in this case. The suspension shall continue thereafter until all costs in this case have been paid.
 IT IS SO ORDERED; RESPONDENT SHALL PAY ALL COSTS AS TAXED BY THE CLERK OF THIS COURT, INCLUDING THE COSTS OF TRANSCRIPTS, PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE BV15 c FOR WHICH SUM JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION AGAINST WILLIAM JAMES PARKER, JR.
 NOTES
 [1] The text of the relevant rules is set forth in the opinion of the trial judge.
 [2] The statute currently provides in relevant part:
 "(a)(1) If any attorney is entrusted with, or receives and accepts, or otherwise holds, deposit moneys or other trust moneys, of whatever kind or nature, such moneys, in the absence of court order to the contrary shall be expeditiously deposited in an account or accounts maintained as a separate account or accounts for funds belonging to others. In no event shall the attorney commingle any such funds with such attorney's funds or use any such funds for any purpose other than the purpose for which they were entrusted to the attorney.
 * * * * * *
 "(b) Any attorney wilfully violating the provisions of this section shall be charged with professional misconduct, malpractice, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and shall be proceeded against for reprimand, suspension, or disbarment under any applicable provision of this article or any other law or the Maryland Rules.
 "(c) Any attorney wilfully violating the provisions of this section, in addition to the penalties set forth in subsection (b) of this section, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor for each such violation and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) or be imprisoned for not more than five (5) years, or both in the discretion of the court."
 As to the origins of this statute see Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Lockhart, 285 Md. 586, 589 n. 2, 403 A.2d 1241, 1243 n. 2 (1979).


text:
Mlynica je obec na Slovensku v okrese Poprad. Disponuje výhodnou polohou pre turistiku. Najvýznamnejšou pamiatkou je románsko-gotický Kostol sv. Margity Antiochijskej z polovice 13. storočia stojaci v opevnenom vyvýšenom areáli. V 15. storočí bol goticky prestavaný a zmenený na dvojlodie. Donedávna sa v obci nachádzalo aj Múzeum veteránov, ktoré sa presunulo do Kežmarku. Múzeum sa nachádzalo v evanjelickom kostole, ktorý je v súčasnosti bez vhodného využitia.
 Referencie
 Externé odkazy
 www.apsida.sk - profil románsko-gotického kostola
 Mlynica - evanjelický kostol (www.ohrozenekostoly.sk)
 Obce okresu Poprad


text:
|componenta=46 cartiere
 |suprafață_totală_km2=248.31
 |suprafata_metropolitana_km2=
 |altitudine=112
 |populație_note_subsol=
 |populație=691518
 |recensământ=2011-12-31
 |densitate=
 |populatie_urbana=
 |populatie_metropolitana=5,800,000
 |an=Secolul I
 |fus_orar=CET
 |fus_orar_DST=CEST
 |utc_offset=+1
 |utc_offset_DST=+2
 |camp1_gol_nume=Număr de înmatriculare (auto)
 |camp1_gol_info=F
 |cod_poștal=60001-60599, 65901-65936
 |tip_cod=Cod zonal
 |cod=069, 06109, 06101
 |website=www.frankfurt.de
 |descriere_hartă2=
 | Gemeinde| comună = comunei
 | Stadt | Town | Großstadt | City | oraș = orașului
 | Kreisfreie Stadt | Stadtteil | Stadtsbezirk | Suburb | Ward | Borrough =
 | #default =
 }} {{#if: Frankfurt pe Main (Frankfurt am Main) | Frankfurt pe Main (Frankfurt am Main) | }} }}
 }}
 Frankfurt pe Main (în germană ) este cel mai mare oraș din landul federal german Hessa și al cincilea oraș ca mărime din Germania. Este situat pe râul Main și are o populație de aproximativ 670.000 de locuitori. Numele colocvial al orașului este Frankfurt, însă numele său oficial este Frankfurt am Main, care se traduce Frankfurt pe Main. În Frankfurt își au sediul numeroase instituții financiare. Aeroportul Internațional Frankfurt este cel mai mare aeroport german și se situează pe locul opt în lista celor mai mari aeroporturi din lume, având peste 52 de milioane de pasageri anual.
 Introducere
 Cei trei piloni ai economiei Frankfurtului sunt finanțele, comerțul și transportul. Totodată, orașul deține de mult timp titlul de capitală financiară a Germaniei. Bursa din Frankfurt este cea mai mare din țară, ocupându-se de 85% din acțiunile din Germania și este una dintre cele mai mari din lume.
 În Frankfurt se află de asemenea sediul Băncii Centrale Europene, cel al Băncii Federale (de stat) Germane (Deutsche Bundesbank), precum și sediile unui număr mare de bănci comerciale private, ca de pildă Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank ș.a. Frankfurtul este și centru pentru o serie de afaceri comerciale pe scară largă, cum ar fi renumitul Târg anual de la Frankfurt (Messe Frankfurt).
 În timpul celui de-al Doilea Război Mondial orașul a fost puternic bombardat și distrus, însă după război a fost reconstruit rapid.
 Frankfurt este poreclit „Bankfurt” precum și „Mainhattan”, o aluzie la zgârie-norii din Manhattan și la râul Main. Este unul dintre cele trei orașe europene care au un număr important de zgârie-nori. Cu 9 clădiri înalte de peste 150 de metri în 2004, Frankfurt este al doilea după Paris (La Défense și Montparnasse: 12 zgârie-nori mai înalți de 150 de metri), dar înaintea Londrei (Canary Wharf și City: 8 zgârie-nori mai înalți de 150 de metri). În Frankfurt se află cea mai înaltă clădire din Europa, Turnul Commerzbank. În Germania numai la Berlin există un număr mai mare de zgârie-nori.
 Frankfurt este recunoscut pentru industria sa financiară, alături de Londra și Paris, fiind amplasat propice în centrul Europei de Vest, cu zone foarte populate împrejur. Are o infrastuctură de ceea mai bună calitate precum și un important aeroport internațional, Aeroportul Internațional Frankfurt. Acesta este considerat ca al doilea sau al treilea din Europa ca număr de zboruri sau de pasageri, în funcție de sursa de informație. Traficul de pasageri în 2003 a fost de 48.351.664, locul doi în Europa după Aeroportul Heathrow de lângă Londra (63.487.136), și aproape la egalitate cu Aeroportul Internațional Charles de Gaulle de la Paris (48.220.436).
 În Frankfurt se află un mare număr de instituții importante de cultură germană; printre ele se numără universitatea Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität, muzee aflate în mare parte pe așa-numitul Mal al muzeelor (Museumsufer) al Maine-ului. La Frankfurt se află de asemeni și imensa grădină botanică numită Palmengarten, care adăpostește printre altele o impresionantă seră de palmieri. Cele mai cunoscute muzee sunt Städelsches Kunstinstitut und Städtische Galerie, sau pe scurt Städel, și Naturmuseum Senckenberg. De asemenea Museum für moderne Kunst (Muzeul de artă modernă) și Schirn Kunsthalle (Galeria de artă Schirn) sunt notabile.
 Istorie
 În această zonă s-au stabilit la început câteva așezări romane, probabil în secolul I, a căror existență este confirmată de multe obiecte arheologice. De asemenea, numele cartierului frankfurtez Bonames provine probabil din vremurile romane de la bona me(n)sa. Așezarea romană Nida (pe teritoriul cartierului actual Heddernheim) era capitala unei civitas romane, situate pe râulețul Nidda.
 Numele Frankfurt pe Main derivă de la Franconofurt, denumire compusă din numele vechiului trib germanic al francilor și substantivul comun furt, în trad. "vad", adică o porțiune cu ape puțin adânci în cursul unui râu (atestat în numeroase alte denumiri din spațiul de limbă germană: Erfurt, Klagenfurt, Ochsenfurt, Schweinfurt etc.). Franconofurd (și -furt, -vurd) este menționat pentru prima dată în 794, la un ansamblu imperial și sinod ecumenic condus de Carol cel Mare. Frank înseamnă în germana veche și „liber”, motiv pentru care Frankfurt poate însemna nu numai "vadul francilor", ci și "vadul liber", o oportunitate de a traversa râul Main, fără să se fi construit vreun pod.
 În Sfântul Imperiu Roman, Frankfurt a fost unul dintre cele mai importante orașe. Din 855 regii și împărații romano-germani sunt aleși în Frankfurt (Lothar al II-lea fiind primul din ei) și încoronați la Aachen. Începând din 1562 regii și împărații sunt nu numai aleși, dar și încoronați la Frankfurt (începând cu Maximilian al II-lea). Această tradiție s-a terminat în 1792, odată cu încoronarea lui Francisc al II-lea, ultimul împărat al Sfântului Imperiu Roman de Națiune Germană. El a fost încoronat pe 14 iulie, aniversarea căderii Bastiliei. Alegerile și încoronările au avut loc în catedrala Sfântului Bartolomeu, cunoscută sub numele de Kaiserdom (Catedrala Împăraților, sau pur și simplu Domul din Frankfurt).
 Messe Frankfurt (Târgul de la Frankfurt) a fost menționat pentru prima dată în 1150. În 1240, împăratul Frederic al II-lea a asigurat vizitatorilor târgului privilegii imperiale, însemnând că ei sunt protejați de către Imperiu. Din 1478 au loc la Frankfurt târguri de carte. Frankfurter Buchmesse este în prezent cel mai important târg de carte din Germania, și unul din cele mai importante târguri de acest fel din întreaga lume.
 În 1372 Frankfurt a devenit un Reichsstadt (oraș imperial liber), adică un oraș subordonat direct împăratului roman și nu unui rege sau unui nobil local.
 Frankfurt a reușit să rămână neutru în timpul Războiului de Treizeci de Ani, dar a suferit mult din cauza ciumei aduse în oraș de către refugiați. După sfârșitul războiului, Frankfurt și-a recuperat bunăstarea.
 În timpul războaielor napoleonice Frankfurt a fost ocupat și distrus de mai multe ori de trupele franceze. Marele Ducat al Frankfurtului, un stat vasal al Franței, a funcționat doar o scurtă perioadă, din 1810 până în 1813. Congresul de la Viena a dizolvat entitatea, iar Frankfurt a intrat în nou-fondata Confederație Germană, ca oraș liber. A devenit sediul Bundestag-ului, care era parlamentul acestei confederații.
 După revoluția de la 1848, în Frankfurt s-a stabilit primul Ansamblu Național German (Nationalversammlung), care își avea sediul în Biserica Sfântului Paul (Paulskirche) și care s-a deschis la 18 mai 1848. Instituția a fost dizolvată în 1849, când regele prusac a declarat că el nu va accepta „coroana din mocirlă”. În anul de existență al său, Ansamblul a elaborat o constituție comună pentru o Germanie unificată cu regele prusac ca monarh. Acestea au fost începuturile democrației germane.
 Frankfurt și-a pierdut independența în 1866. După încheierea Războiului Austro-Prusac, Prusia a anexat o serie de state și teritorii mai mici, printre care și Frankfurtul. Administrația prusacă a încorporat orașul în provincia sa Hessa-Nassau.
 În 1914, cetățenii Frankfurtului au fondat Universitatea din Frankfurt, redenumită mai târziu Universitatea Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Această fondare este singura cu caracter civic din Germania. Universitatea este una dintre cele mai mari din Germania de astăzi.
 În timpul Germaniei naziste, sinagoga din Frankfurt a fost distrusă. Orașul a fost puternic bombardat în timpul celui de Al Doilea Război Mondial. După încheierea războiului, Frankfurt a devenit parte din statul (landul) federal nou fondat numit Hessa (Land Hessen). Frankfurt a fost prima opțiune luată în considerare pentru stabilirea capitalei Germaniei de Vest; astfel s-a ajuns chiar la construirea unei noi clădiri pentru parlament, dar aceasta nu a mai fost utilizată pentru scopurile ei inițiale, ci doar ca studio radio (Hessischer Rundfunk). În final, Konrad Adenauer, primul cancelar federal postbelic, a preferat drept capitală micul oraș Bonn, nu numai pentru că acesta era orașul său natal, dar și dintr-un alt motiv: în acel moment, germanii s-au temut că, stabilind capitala Germaniei de Vest la Frankfurt, s-ar fi dat americanilor prea multă influență asupra guvernului german, Frankfurt fiind centrul zonei americane a ocupației aliate.
 Demografie
 Evoluția populației
 Transporturi
 Orașul Frankfurt este un important nod rutier, feroviar, aerian și de transport al datelor.
 DE-CIX este cel mai mare nod de trafic digital din lume.
 Monumente
 Domul
 Catedrala Sfântul Bartolomeu (Dom Sankt Bartholomäus) este o construcție gotică, care a fost ridicată în secolele XIV-XV pe fundația unei biserici mai vechi din vremurile merovingiene. Este cea mai mare biserică din oraș. Din 1356 împărații Sfântului Imperiu Roman de Națiune Germană au fost aleși în această biserică, iar din 1562 până în 1792 au fost aici și încoronați.
 Din secolul XVIII domul este denumit adeseori în limbajul colocvial „Catedrala Sfântul Bartolomeu”, deși nu a fost niciodată sediu de episcopat. În 1867 catedrala a fost distrusă într-un incendiu și reconstruită în stilul prezent. Înălțimea catedralei este de 95 m.
 Primăria Römer
 Römer este numele clădirii primăriei Frankfurtului, în traducere „cetățean al Romei, roman”. Ea este alcătuită de fapt din trei case gotice învecinate, care au fost cumpărate de consiliul local în 1405 de la o familie bogată de negustori. Casa din mijloc este Römer-ul propriu-zis, care mai târziu a fost legat și de clădirile înconjurătoare. La primul etaj se află „Sala împăratului” sau „Sala împăraților” (Kaisersaal), unde aveau loc banchetele împăraților proaspăt încoronați. În ea se află expuse portretele tuturor celor 52 împărați ai Imperiului Roman de Națiune Germană, executate în perioada 1838 - 1853.
 Römer a fost distrus în Al Doilea Război Mondial, dar reconstruit identic mai târziu.
 Biserica Sf. Paul
 Biserica Sfântul Paul (Paulskirche) este o biserică relativ nouă. Construcția acestei biserici protestante a început în 1789 și s-a terminat abia în 1833. Importanța sa provine în special de la Parlamentul de la Frankfurt, care a fost găzduit aici în 1848/49 pentru a elabora o constituție pentru o Germanie unificată și democratică. Acțiunea a eșuat pentru că monarhii din Prusia și Austria nu doreau să-și piardă puterea; în 1849 trupe prusace au încheiat experimentul democratic prin forța armelor, iar parlamentul a fost dizolvat. După aceea, clădirea a fost folosită din nou pentru servicii religioase.
 Sf. Paul a fost distrusă complet în cel de al doilea război mondial, dar reconstruită
 ulterior. În prezent, nu mai are scopul de clădire sacră, ci este folosită pentru expoziții și întruniri importante. În 1963, președintele american John F. Kennedy a ținut aici un discurs, în cadrul vizitei sale la Frankfurt.
 Opera Veche
 Faimoasa „Operă Veche” din Frankfurt (Alte Oper) a fost construită în 1880 de către arhitectul Richard Lucae. A fost una dintre cele mai mari opere din Germania până la distrugerea ei aproape totală în timpul celui de Al Doilea Război Mondial. După război și încă până în 1981, clădirea nu a fost reconstruită (a fost o ruină). În ziua de astăzi ea adăpostește o sală mare de concerte (cu scenă relativ mică) plus câteva săli mai mici, în timp ce spectacolele de operă propriu-zise au loc într-o altă clădire din Frankfurt - opera actuală.
 Personalități născute la Frankfurt
 Carol cel Pleșuv
 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749 - 1832), scriitor, filozof;
 Bettina von Arnim (1785 - 1859), scriitoare;
 Otto Hahn
 Erich Fromm
 Theodor Adorno
 Anne Frank
 Anke Sevenich
 Martin Lawrence
 Marika Kilius;
 Tré Cool (n. 1972), muzician.
 Note
 Legături externe
 Architectură în Frankfurt (engleză)
 Situl oficial al orașului (germană)
 City Panoramas - Vederi panoramice în Frankfurt (engleză)
 Universitatea Frankfurt (germană)
 Universitatea de Științe Aplicate (germană)
 Banca Centrală Europeană (engleză)
 Bursa Germană (Deutsche Börse) (germană)
 Târgul din Frankfurt (Messe Frankfurt) (germană)
 Târgul de Carte din Frankfurt (Frankfurter Buchmesse) (germană)
 Städelsches Kunstinstitut und Städtische Galerie (germană)
 Naturmuseum Senckenberg (germană)
 Schirn Kunsthalle (germană)
 www.frankfurt360.de Panorame de 360° - Panorame interioare și exterioare, ziua și noaptea, în ecran complet și cu sunet (engleză)
 Istorie romană (germană)
 Frankfurt - bani și tradiții culturale , 18 februarie 2009, Revista Magazin
 Orașul lui Goethe , 6 septembrie 2006, Revista Magazin
 Germania, paradis al plăcerilor trupești, 12 mai 2012, Ciprian Enea, Adevărul
 Frankfurt


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 30.10.2014
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 L 310/34
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉNS BESLUT
 nr 81/2014
 av den 16 maj 2014
 om ändring av bilaga II (Tekniska föreskrifter, standarder, provning och certifiering) till EES-avtalet
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉN HAR FATTAT DETTA BESLUT
 med beaktande av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet (nedan kallat EES-avtalet), särskilt artikel 98, och
 av följande skäl:
 (1)
 Kommissionens genomförandeförordning (EU) nr 1235/2013 av den 2 december 2013 om ändring av bilagan till förordning (EU) nr 37/2010 om farmakologiskt aktiva substanser och deras klassificering med avseende på MRL-värden i animaliska livsmedel vad gäller substansen diclazuril (1) bör införlivas med EES-avtalet.
 (2)
 Bilaga II till EES-avtalet bör därför ändras i enlighet med detta.
 HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.
 Artikel 1
 Följande strecksats ska läggas till i kapitel XIII punkt 13 (kommissionens förordning (EU) nr 37/2010) i bilaga II till EES-avtalet:
 ”—
 32013 R 1235: Kommissionens genomförandeförordning (EU) nr 1235/2013 av den 2 december 2013 (EUT L 322, 3.12.2013, s. 21)”
 Artikel 2
 Texten till genomförandeförordning (EU) nr 1235/2013 på isländska och norska, som ska offentliggöras i EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, ska vara giltig.
 Artikel 3
 Detta beslut träder i kraft den 17 maj 2014 under förutsättning att alla anmälningar enligt artikel 103.1 i EES-avtalet har gjorts till gemensamma EES-kommittén (2).
 Artikel 4
 Detta beslut ska offentliggöras i EES-delen av och EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning.
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den 16 maj 2014.
 På gemensamma EES-kommitténs vägnar
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 Ordförande
 (1) EUT L 322, 3.12.2013, s. 21.
 (2) Inga konstitutionella krav angivna.


text:
 26.5.2014
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 159/14
 Cerere de decizie preliminară introdusă de Augstākās tiesa (Letonia) la 8 martie 2014 – Andrejs Surmačs/Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija
 (Cauza C-127/14)
 2014/C 159/20
 Limba de procedură: letona
 Instanța de trimitere
 Augstākās tiesa
 Părțile din procedura principală
 Reclamant: Andrejs Surmačs
 Pârâtă: Finanšu un kapitāla tirgus komisija
 Întrebările preliminare
 1)
 Punctul 7 din anexa I la Directiva 94/19/CE (1) a Parlamentului și a Consiliului privind sistemele de garantare a depozitelor trebuie interpretat în sensul că lista persoanelor care trebuie considerate ca aflându-se în legătură cu instituţia de credit în cauză și cărora trebuie să li se refuze dreptul la compensația garantată este exhaustivă?
 2)
 O persoană care, în conformitate cu fișa postului ocupat, are dreptul de a planifica, de a coordona şi de a supraveghea un domeniu de activitate al instituţiei de credit sau exercitarea unei funcții [a acesteia], dar nu activitatea globală a instituţiei de credit și care nu are capacitatea de a emite ordine sau de a adopta decizii obligatorii pentru alte persoane, poate fi considerată manager al unei instituții de credit sau o altă persoană dintre cele menționate la punctul 7 din anexa I la directivă? Trebuie să se ia în considerare conţinutul respectivului domeniu de activitate al instituției de credit sau al funcției menționate?
 3)
 Punctul 7 din anexa I la directivă trebuie interpretat în sensul că un stat membru poate refuza dreptul de a acorda compensația garantată unei persoane care, în conformitate cu drepturile și obligațiile funcției ocupate, prevăzute în fișa postului, nu poate fi considerată director, dar care are, de fapt, o influență semnificativă asupra deciziilor directorilor instituției de credit sau ale persoanelor direct responsabile pentru instituția respectivă? În acest context, poate fi relevantă o influență strict informală, derivată din autoritatea, competențele sau cunoștințele persoanei în raport cu activitatea instituției de credit?
 (1) JO L 135, p. 5, Ediție specială, 06/vol. 2, p. 163.