text:
RAPPORT dwar il-kwittanza għall-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit tal-aġenziji tal-Unjoni Ewropea għas-sena finanzjarja 2015: prestazzjoni, ġestjoni finanzjarja u kontroll
 Proċedura : 2016/2206(DEC)
 Ċiklu relatat mad-dokument : A8-0149/2017
 875k 76k
 dwar il-kwittanza għall-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit tal-aġenziji tal-Unjoni Ewropea għas-sena finanzjarja 2015: prestazzjoni, ġestjoni finanzjarja u kontroll
 – wara li kkunsidra d-deċiżjonijiet tiegħu dwar il-kwittanza fir-rigward tal-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit tal-aġenziji tal-Unjoni Ewropea għas-sena finanzjarja 2015,
 – wara li kkunsidra r-rapport tal-Kummissjoni dwar is-segwitu għall-kwittanza għas-sena finanzjarja 2014 (COM(2016)0674) u d-dokumenti ta' ħidma tas-servizzi tal-Kummissjoni li jakkumpanjawh (SWD(2016)0338 u SWD(2016)0339),
 – wara li kkunsidra r-rapporti annwali speċifiċi tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri(1) dwar il-kontijiet annwali tal-aġenziji deċentralizzati għas-sena finanzjarja 2015,
 – wara li kkunsidra r-rapport speċjali tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri Nru 12/2016 dwar "L-użu li l-aġenziji jagħmlu minn għotjiet: mhuwiex dejjem xieraq u mhux dejjem jista' jintwera li huwa effettiv",
 – wara li kkunsidra r-rapport tal-Kumitat għall-Kontroll tal-Baġit u l-opinjonijiet tal-Kumitat għall-Impjiegi u l-Affarijiet Soċjali kif ukoll tal-Kumitat għal-Libertajiet Ċivili, il-Ġustizzja u l-Intern (A8-0149/2017),
 A. billi din ir-riżoluzzjoni fiha, għal kull entità skont it-tifsira tal-Artikolu 208 tar-Regolament (UE, Euratom) Nru 966/2012, l-osservazzjonijiet trasversali li jakkumpanjaw id-deċiżjonijiet ta' kwittanza skont l-Artikolu 110 tar-Regolament ta' Delega tal-Kummissjoni (UE) Nru 1271/2013 u l-Artikolu 3 tal-Anness IV tar-Regoli ta' Proċedura tal-Parlament,
 B. billi, fil-kuntest tal-proċedura ta' kwittanza, il-Parlament jisħaq fuq l-importanza speċjali li nkomplu nsaħħu l-leġittimità demokratika tal-istituzzjonijiet tal-Unjoni permezz ta' titjib fit-trasparenza u r-responsabilità, bl-implimentazzjoni tal-kunċett ta' bbaġitjar abbażi tal-prestazzjoni u governanza tajba tar-riżorsi umani;
 1. Jenfasizza li l-aġenziji għandhom influwenza sinifikanti fuq il-politiki u t-teħid ta' deċiżjonijiet u fuq l-implimentazzjoni tal-programmi f'oqsma ta' importanza vitali għaċ-ċittadini Ewropej, bħalma huma s-saħħa, l-ambjent, id-drittijiet tal-bniedem u soċjali, il-migrazzjoni, ir-rifuġjati, l-innovazzjoni, is-superviżjoni finanzjarja, is-sikurezza u s-sigurtà; itenni l-importanza tal-kompiti mwettqa mill-aġenziji u l-impatt dirett li għandhom fuq il-ħajja ta' kuljum taċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni; jinsisti fuq l-impatt pożittiv li l-aġenziji għandhom itejbu l-viżibilità tal-Unjoni fl-Istati Membri; itenni wkoll l-importanza li l-awtonomija tal-aġenziji, b'mod partikolari dik tal-aġenziji regolatorji u ta' dawk li għandhom il-funzjoni tal-ġbir indipendenti tal-informazzjoni; ifakkar li r-raġuni ewlenija għat-twaqqif tal-aġenziji kienet għall-fini li jitwettqu valutazzjonijiet indipendenti ta' natura teknika jew xjentifika;
 2. Jinnota mis-sommarju tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri (il-"Qorti") dwar ir-riżultati tal-awditi annwali tagħha tal-2015 tal-Aġenziji Ewropej u korpi oħra (is-"Sommarju tal-Qorti") li l-baġit 2015 tal-aġenziji ammonta għal madwar EUR 2,8 biljun, li jirrappreżenta żieda ta' 7,7 % meta mqabbel mal-2014 u madwar 2 % tal-baġit ġenerali tal-Unjoni; jindika li l-ikbar parti tal-baġit tal-aġenziji huwa ffinanzjat minn sussidji tal-Kummissjoni, filwaqt li l-bqija huwa introjtu minn tariffi jew minn sorsi oħra li jammonta għal kważi terz;
 3. Jieħu nota li l-aġenziji jimpjegaw 9 965 membru permanenti, temporanju, kuntrattwali jew issekondat li jirrappreżentaw żieda ta' 6,25 % meta mqabbla ma' dik tas-sena ta' qabel, b'hekk joħolqu l-ħtieġa li jsir monitoraġġ mill-qrib tal-iżviluppi f'dan ir-rigward; jifhem madankollu li l-għadd ta' membri tal-persunal żdied l-aktar f'aġenziji li jittrattaw kwistjonijiet ta' migrazzjoni u għall-prevenzjoni ta' delitti serji u terroriżmu, li t-tnejn li huma ġġeddu u ssaħħu bħala prijoritajiet tal-Unjoni fl-2015;
 4. Jinnota mis-sommarju tal-Qorti li kien ħareġ opinjoni mhux kwalifikata dwar l-affidabilità tal-kontijiet annwali tal-aġenziji kollha minbarra l-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Gwardja tal-Fruntiera u tal-Kosta (Frontex); jinnota, barra minn hekk, li t-tranżazzjonijiet ta' bażi tal-kontijiet tal-aġenziji kienu legali u regolari għall-aġenziji kollha għajr għall-Istitut Ewropew tal-Innovazzjoni u t-Teknoloġija (EIT) li għalih il-Qorti ħarġet opinjoni kwalifikata;
 5. Jirrikonoxxi li fl-2015 l-aġenziji pproċedew bl-eżekuzzjoni tal-programmi ta' ħidma tagħhom, kif kien previst; jinnota madankollu li d-diskussjonijiet li għaddejjin dwar ir-reviżjoni tar-Regolament Finanzjarju u tal-qafas finanzjarju pluriennali futur wara l-2020 jippreżentaw opportunità prezzjuża biex tittieħed ħarsa 'l quddiem u biex jiġu sfruttati dawn l-opportunitajiet biex jimplimentaw bidla pożittiva rigward il-ġestjoni tal-baġits tal-aġenziji, ir-riżultati u l-programmi ta' ħidma pluriennali tagħhom;
 6. Ifakkar li d-diskussjoni dwar l-abbozzi ta' programmi ta' ħidma annwali u l-istrateġiji pluriennali tal-aġenziji fil-kumitati responsabbli għandhom jgħinu biex jiġi żgurat li l-programmi u l-istrateġiji jkunu bilanċjati, jirriflettu l-prijoritajiet politiċi reali u jikkontribwixxu biex jintlaħqu l-għanijiet stabbiliti fl-istrateġija Ewropa 2020;
 7. Jinnota b'sodisfazzjon li xi aġenziji diġà jikkooperaw skont il-gruppi tematiċi tagħhom, bħalma huma l-aġenziji tal-ġustizzja u l-intern(4) u l-awtoritajiet superviżorji Ewropej(5); jinkoraġġixxi aġenziji oħrajn li ma jkunux diġà bdew, biex jikkooperaw aktar ma' aġenziji oħra fi ħdan l-istess grupp tematiku kull meta jkun possibbli, mhux biss biex jistabbilixxu servizzi u sinerġiji komuni, iżda fl-oqsma ta' politika komuni tagħhom ukoll; jinkoraġġixxi lill-Qorti biex tikkunsidra li tippreżenta analiżi panoramika tal-oqsma ta' politika komuni tal-aġenziji; jistieden lill-Kummissjoni u lill-Kunsill, meta jkunu qegħdin jiddeċiedu dwar it-trasferiment tal-aġenziji bbażati fir-Renju Unit biex iqisu wkoll il-possibbiltajiet għal aktar kooperazzjoni ma' aġenziji oħra fl-istess grupp tematiku u jintroduċi servizzi komuni;
 8. Jemmen li fil-qafas tad-diskussjonijiet dwar l-approċċ il-ġdid għal baġit tal-Unjoni bbażat fuq ir-riżultati, kif ukoll fuq il-bażi kemm tal-progress miksub fit-titjib tal-kooperazzjoni tematika u kif ukoll l-eżerċizzju magħmul mill-aġenziji fir-rapport "Kif l-aġenziji u l-korpi l-oħra tal-UE jikkontribwixxu għall-Istrateġija Ewropa 2020 u l-Aġenda tal-Kummissjoni Juncker?", l-istituzzjonijiet kollha involuti tal-Unjoni, jiġifieri l-Kummissjoni, il-Parlament u l-Qorti, għandhom ukoll jieħdu inkunsiderazzjoni dan l-approċċ tematiku fil-proċedura ta' kwittanza annwali, wara l-abbozz ta' proposta fl-Anness 1;
 9. Jinnota bi tħassib li l-aġenziji regolatorji tal-Unjoni responsabbli mill-valutazzjoni tar-riskju ta' prodotti regolati, b'mod partikolari l-Awtorità Ewropea dwar is-Sigurtà fl-Ikel, l-Aġenzija Ewropea għas-Sustanzi Kimiċi jew l-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini m'għandhomx ir-riżorsi finanzjarji u ġuridiċi biex iwettqu l-missjoni tagħhom b'mod xieraq;
 Approċċ komuni u l-Pjan Direzzjonali tal-Kummissjoni
 10. Ifakkar li f'Lulju 2012, il-Parlament, il-Kunsill u l-Kummissjoni adottaw approċċ komuni dwar l-aġenziji deċentralizzati(6) (l-"Approċċ Komuni"), ftehim politiku dwar il-ġestjoni futura u r-riforma tal-aġenziji; ifakkar barra minn hekk li l-Approċċ Komuni ġie implimentat permezz tal-Pjan Direzzjonali tal-Kummissjoni ta' Diċembru 2012 (il-"Pjan Direzzjonali");
 11. Jinnota t-tieni rapport ta' progress dwar l-implimentazzjoni tal-Approċċ Komuni u japprezza l-progress li sar f'ħafna oqsma favur ir-razzjonalizzazzjoni tal-funzjonament tagħhom; jilqa' l-isforzi tal-Kummissjoni u tal-aġenziji u l-progress li għamlu fl-implimentazzjoni tal-pjan direzzjonali;
 12. Jinnota li l-biċċa l-kbira tal-azzjonijiet tal-Pjan Direzzjonali implimentati mill-aġenziji għinu biex itejbu r-responsabilità u t-trasparenza, li juri ulterjorment l-isforzi konsiderevoli meħuda mill-aġenziji biex jimplimentaw l-Approċċ Komuni, minkejja pressjoni f'termini ta' riżorsi, u juri li l-aġenziji huma responsabbli, trasparenti u jagħtu rendikont ta' għemilhom; jinnota, barra minn hekk, kif osserva n-Netwerk tal-Aġenziji tal-UE ("in-Netwerk"), li l-implimentazzjoni tal-azzjonijiet previsti fl-Approċċ Komuni hija effettivament kompluta;
 13. Madankollu jinsab imħasseb li l-implimentazzjoni tal-azzjonijiet, barra minn hekk, kellha b'mod ġenerali, impatt negattiv fuq l-effiċjenza tal-aġenziji, kif ukoll li f'ċerti oqsma l-implimentazzjoni rriżultat f'żieda sinifikanti fl-ispejjeż, kemm f'termini ta' riżorsi umani kif ukoll finanzjarji; jinnota, barra minn hekk, li dawn l-ispejjeż miżjuda kienu esperjenzati matul l-implimentazzjoni tal-azzjonijiet, iżda ser tkompli wkoll fuq bażi regolari fil-futur;
 14. Jirrikonoxxi l-piż amministrattiv li l-implimentazzjoni tal-Pjan Direzzjonali kkawżat lill-aġenziji, kif ukoll l-"esternalizzazzjoni" ta' diversi kompiti relatati mal-ġbir u l-konsolidament tad-data tal-aġenziji u l-input lin-Netwerk, b'mod partikolari fir-rigward tal-proċedura tal-baġit u tal-kwittanza; jistieden lill-Kummissjoni u lill-awtorità baġitarja sabiex jirrikonoxxu dawn l-isforzi; jistieden lin-Netwerk biex jagħti studju analitiku li jivvaluta jekk l-appoġġ attwalment ipprovdut mis-segretarjat permanenti eżistenti huwiex suffiċjenti biex jissodisfa l-ħtiġijiet tal-aġenziji;
 15. Jinnota li fil-kuntest tal-implimentazzjoni ta' mekkaniżmi ġodda biex jittejbu l-proċeduri ta' rappurtar, il-mekkaniżmi ta' rappurtar preċedenti għandhom jintemmu sabiex tiġi evitata duplikazzjoni ta' kompiti u sistemi ta' rappurtar doppju ħalli tintlaħaq effiċjenza ikbar;
 16. Jemmen li l-aġenziji għandhom ikomplu jiżviluppaw, f'kooperazzjoni mill-qrib mal-Kummissjoni, il-Parlament u l-Qorti, indikaturi komprensivi li jkejlu r-riżultati ġenerali u l-effiċjenza tal-attivitajiet tagħhom; jinnota li l-għan ġenerali għandu jkun numru bilanċjat ta' indikaturi li jsaħħu t-trasparenza u r-responsabilità tal-aġenziji u jappoġġjaw deċiżjonijiet tal-awtorità baġitarja dwar l-allokazzjoni tal-baġit u l-persunal;
 17. Ifakkar li l-prinċipju tal-annwalità huwa wieħed mit-tliet prinċipji bażiċi tal-kontabilità, flimkien ma' dawk tal-unità u tal-bilanċ, li huma indispensabbli biex tiġi żgurata l-implimentazzjoni effiċjenti tal-baġit tal-Unjoni; jieħu nota mis-sommarju tal-Qorti li l-aktar kwistjoni frekwenti tal-ġestjoni baġitarja u finanzjarja li taffettwa 32 aġenzija, meta mqabbla ma' 28 fl-2014, jibqa' livell għoli ta' riporti ta' approprjazzjonijiet impenjati; barra minn hekk jinnota mill-Qorti li, wara l-limitu tagħha ddefinit internament għat-titoli differenti tal-baġit tal-aġenziji, hija baqgħet tirrapporta dwar dawn il-kwistjonijiet;
 18. Jirrimarka, madankollu, li r-riporti ħafna drabi huma parzjalment jew għal kollox ġustifikabbli minħabba n-natura pluriennali tal-programmi operattivi tal-aġenziji, li mhux neċessarjament jindikaw dgħufijiet fl-ippjanar u fl-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit, u li lanqas ma jmorru dejjem kontra l-prinċipju baġitarju tal-annwalità; jirrikonoxxi l-fatt li l-ammonti riportati li jirriżultaw minn dawn il-programmi operattivi huma, f'ħafna każijiet, ippjanati minn qabel mill-aġenziji u jkunu kkomunikati lill-Qorti, li jiffaċilita d-distinzjoni espliċita bejn ir-riporti ppjanati u dawk mhux ippjanati;
 19. Jindika li l-Fondazzjoni Ewropea għat-Titjib tal-Kondizzjonijiet tal-Ħajja u tax-Xogħol (Eurofound) qablet, fil-prinċipju, dwar distinzjoni trasparenti bejn riporti "ippjanati" u "mhux ppjanati" li ġiet segwita mill-Eurofound għal ħafna snin; iħeġġeġ lin-Netwerk, l-aġenziji u lill-Qorti biex jeżaminaw jekk il-proċedura għad-distinzjoni bejn ir-riporti ppjanati u dawk mhux ippjanati u l-komunikazzjonijiet trasparenti tagħhom tistax tiġi stabbilita, sakemm il-kwistjoni tkun inkluża fir-Regolament Finanzjarju;
 20. Jenfasizza li l-livell ta' tħassir ta' riporti huwa indikattiv ta' kemm l-aġenziji antiċipaw korrettament il-ħtiġijiet finanzjarji tagħhom, u li dan huwa indikatur aqwa ta' ppjanar baġitarju tajjeb milli huwa l-livell ta' riporti;
 21. Jenfasizza, għaldaqstant, il-ħtieġa li jiġu stabbiliti definizzjonijiet ċari ta' riporti "ppjanati u kkomunikati" sabiex jiġi ssemplifikat ir-rappurtar tal-Qorti dwar din il-kwistjoni, kif ukoll li tippermetti lill-awtorità ta' kwittanza biex wieħed jiddistingwi bejn ir-riporti li jindikaw ippjanar baġitarju skars u r-riporti bħala għodda għall-baġit li jappoġġjaw programmi ta' appoġġ pluriennali kif ukoll ippjanar tal-akkwist;
 22. Jitlob f'dan ir-rigward biex tiddaħħal id-definizzjoni ta' riporti "ppjanati u kkomunikati" flimkien ma' linji gwida neċessarji oħra fir-reviżjoni li jmiss tar-Regolament Finanzjarju u r-Regolament Finanzjarju Qafas; jistieden lill-Kummissjoni, il-Qorti u n-Netwerk biex jiddiskutu u jipproponu soluzzjonijiet possibbli għal din il-kwistjoni, bl-għan li jissemplifikaw b'mod partikolari il-ġestjoni finanzjarja fl-oqsma tal-programmazzjoni pluriennali u tal-akkwist;
 23. Josserva li r-rapporti awditjati tal-implimentazzjoni baġitarja ta' ċerti aġenziji huma differenti mil-livell ta' dettall ipprovdut mill-biċċa l-kbira tal-aġenziji l-oħra, li juri li hemm ħtieġa għal linji gwida ċari dwar ir-rappurtar tal-baġit mill-aġenziji. jirrikonoxxi li l-aġenziji bir-rappurtar differenti esternalizzaw ir-rwol ta' uffiċjal tal-kontabilità lill-uffiċjal tal-kontabilità tal-Kummissjoni, kif ukoll li l-livell ta' dettall differenti huwa bbażat fuq il-prattiki tar-rappurtar tal-Kummissjoni; jappoġġja l-intenzjoni tal-Kummissjoni li tistabbilixxi linji gwida għal rappurtar tal-baġit tal-aġenziji għall-kontijiet tal-2016; jistieden lin-Netwerk u lill-Kummissjoni biex jirrapportaw lill-awtorità ta' kwittanza dwar l-iżviluppi futuri rigward din il-kwistjoni;
 24. Jinnota li l-aġenziji ġeneralment aġġudikaw u ħallsu l-għotjiet b'mod konformi mar-regoli; jistieden lill-aġenziji jtejbu l-ġestjoni tal-għotja u jiffukaw fuq it-tkejjil tal-effettività tal-għotjiet li ngħataw;
 25. Iħeġġeġ lill-aġenziji kollha biex kull wieħed u waħda minnhom jifformulaw pjan komprensiv tal-kontinwità tal-attivitajiet li jindirizza r-riskji konnessi tal-ibbaġitjar u l-volatilità tal-attivitajiet li jistgħu jinħolqu bħala riżultat ta' avvenimenti jew ċirkostanzi serji u mhux mistennija;
 26. Jilqa' s-sejbiet u r-rakkomandazzjonijiet tal-Qorti fir-rapport speċjali tagħha Nru 12/2016 dwar l-użu li l-aġenziji jagħmlu minn għotjiet;
 27. Jenfasizza l-benefiċċji tal-kondiviżjoni tas-servizzi, li jippermettu applikazzjoni konsistenti tar-regoli u l-proċeduri ta' implimentazzjoni amministrattivi li jikkonċernaw ir-riżorsi umani u kwistjonijiet finanzjarji, kif ukoll titjib fl-effiċjenza potenzjali tas-servizzi ta' kondiviżjoni bejn l-aġenziji, b'mod partikolari meta wieħed iqis it-tnaqqis li l-baġit u l-persunal tal-aġenziji qed jiffaċċjaw;
 28. Jinnota bi tħassib li ċerti aġenziji għad għandhom is-sedi operattivi u amministrattivi doppji; iqis li hu essenzjali li s-sedi doppji li ma joffru l-ebda valur miżjud operattiv għandhom jitneħħew mill-aktar fis possibbli;
 29. Jirrikonoxxi mill-osservazzjonijiet tan-Netwerk li bl-għan li jiġi garantit titjib fl-effiċjenza f'termini ta' riżorsi finanzjarji u umani, l-aġenziji ħadmu biex jevitaw id-duplikazzjoni u jagħmlu l-informazzjoni tajba, korretta u faċilment aċċessibbli; jinnota b'sodisfazzjon li dawn l-isforzi jirriżultaw f'katalgu ta' servizzi komuni online fejn l-aġenziji kollha fi ħdan in-Netwerk huma mistennija li jipparteċipaw fih, jew billi joffru u jipproponu servizzi ġodda jew billi jitolbu servizzi permezz ta' pjattaforma ċentralizzata, u fejn, minn Jannar 2017, 21 aġenzija joffru total ta' 184 servizz li jridu jiġu kondiviżi, inkluż l-iskambju ta' dokumentazzjoni u parteċipazzjoni fil-fora ta' esperti;
 30. Jirrikonoxxi, barra minn hekk, li l-Uffiċċju tal-Proprjetà Intellettwali tal-Unjoni Ewropea (EUIPO) u l-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Kontroll tas-Sajd iffirmaw proġett pilota ta' "prova tal-kunċett" li jista' jservi biex jesploraw il-vijabilità tal-EUIPO biex jipprovdu servizzi tal-IT għal irkupru minn diżastri bi prezz baxx ħafna għal aġenziji oħra fi ħdan in-Netwerk; jaqbel li skema bħal din tista' ġġib mhux biss benefiċċji f'termini ta' servizzi tal-ICT aħjar u spejjeż operattivi iktar baxxi, iżda wkoll Netwerk aktar b'saħħtu u użu miżjud tal-ICT; jistieden lin-Netwerk biex jirrapporta lill-awtorità ta' kwittanza dwar l-iżviluppi ulterjuri rigward dan il-proġett pilota;
 31. Josserva li l-Awtorità Ewropea dwar is-Sigurtà fl-Ikel (EFSA), f'isem 20 aġenzija, nediet sejħa għall-offerti konġunta bl-għan li jintgħażel fornitur tal-"Cloud Service Brokerage"; jinnota b'sodisfazzjon li l-kuntratt, aġġudikat f'Settembru 2016, jista', skont l-Awtorità Ewropea dwar is-Sigurtà fl-Ikel, jipprovdi ffrankar finanzjarju kumplessiv ta' EUR 2,5 miljun lill-aġenziji;
 32. Jirrikonoxxi li n-Netwerk bħalissa qed jiżviluppa għodda ġdida dwar l-akkwist konġunt, li hija inkluża fi ħdan żona ta' servizzi komuni fl-"Extranet tal-Aġenziji tal-UE"; jinnota b'sodisfazzjon li din l-għodda sservi u tappoġġja diversi aġenziji, biex b'hekk jinħoloq effett ta' lieva addizzjonali għall-kondiviżjoni ta' fornitur tas-servizz estern komuni, bi tfaddil fir-riżorsi sussegwenti u effett tal-volum;
 33. Jenfasizza l-importanza tal-kooperazzjoni u l-iskambju ta' ideat u prattiki fost l-aġenziji fil-qafas tan-netwerk għall-iżvilupp tal-prestazzjoni tal-aġenziji tal-Unjoni, li jikkontribwixxi għal governanza aktar bilanċjata u aktar koerenza bejniethom; jenfasizza li n-netwerk jeħtieġ jikkontribwixxi għal aktar effiċjenza u mhux joħloq spejjeż addizzjonali u aktar burokrazija;
 34. Jilqa' ż-żieda fis-sistematizzazzjoni tal-kooperazzjoni bejn il-Fondazzjoni Ewropea għat-Taħriġ u ċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Iżvilupp ta' Taħriġ Professjonali, li toħloq aktar sinerġiji fil-mandati rispettivi tagħhom permezz tal-programm ta' ħidma annwali konġunt tagħhom, b'mod partikolari bl-iżvilupp ta' Qafas ta' Monitoraġġ komuni ta' Riga u bil-kollaborazzjoni tagħhom mal-Organizzazzjoni Internazzjonali tax-Xogħol dwar il-finalizzazzjoni tal-ħidma fuq sitt linji gwida metodoloġiċi dwar l-antiċipazzjoni tal-ħiliet u l-adattament ta' għodod u metodi;
 35. Ifakkar li l-paragrafu 27 tal-Ftehim Interistituzzjonali(7) jitlob tnaqqis progressiv ta' 5 % tal-persunal fl-istituzzjonijiet, il-korpi u l-aġenziji kollha li jrid isir bejn l-2013 u l-2017; jilqa' l-fatt li l-biċċa l-kbira tal-aġenziji diġà laħqu jew qabżu t-tnaqqis ta' 5 % abbażi tal-organigrammi rispettivi tagħhom għall-2012;
 36. Jinnota bi tħassib li l-Kummissjoni applikat imposta addizzjonali ta' 5 % tal-persunal għall-aġenziji sabiex toħloq ippuljar ta' riallokazzjoni minn fejn talloka postijiet għall-aġenziji b'kompiti ġodda fdati lilhom jew waqt fażi ta' tnedija; huwa partikolarment imħasseb li bi tnaqqis addizzjonali tal-persunal, it-twettiq tal-mandati u l-programmi ta' ħidma annwali tal-Aġenzija se jkunu dejjem aktar diffiċli, b'mod partikolari għall-aġenziji kklassifikati mill-Kummissjoni bħala "aġenziji b'veloċità kostanti"; jistieden lill-Kummissjoni u l-awtorità baġitarja biex jiżguraw li kwalunkwe miżura potenzjali ta' ffrankar ta' spejjeż ulterjuri ma xxekkilx il-kapaċità tal-aġenziji li jwettqu l-mandat tagħhom; jinnota li hemm ħafna każijiet fejn il-kapaċità tal-aġenziji biex iwettqu r-responsabilitajiet tagħhom tkun ġiet kompromessa, bħalma huma l-kapaċità tal-Awtorità Ewropea dwar is-Sigurtà fl-Ikel biex tiggarantixxi s-sikurezza tal-ikel, jew il-kapaċità tal-Eurofound biex twettaq kompiti ġodda relatati mal-migranti u r-rifuġjati;
 37. Jenfasizza li jkun tajjeb li l-bilanċ ġeografiku, speċifikament ir-relazzjoni bejn in-nazzjonalità tal-persunal u d-daqs tal-Istati Membri, jibqa' element importanti tal-ġestjoni tar-riżorsi, b'mod partikolari fir-rigward tal-Istati Membri li ngħaqdu mal-Unjoni mill-2004 'l hawn, u jilqa' l-fatt li l-aġenziji tal-Unjoni laħqu kompożizzjoni aktar ibbilanċjata bejn l-uffiċjali mill-Istati Membri li ngħaqdu mal-Unjoni qabel l-2004 u dawk li ngħaqdu wara; iżda jindika li dawn l-Istati Membri għadhom sottorappreżentati fil-livell superjuri tal-amministrazzjoni u fil-karigi maniġerjali, fejn għadu mistenni li jkun hemm progress;
 38. Huwa konvint li l-persunal tal-aġenziji ffinanzjat minn ħlasijiet magħmula mill-industrija, u konsegwentement mhux iffinanzjat mill-baġit tal-Unjoni, m'għandux, bħala prinċipju, ikun milqut minn tnaqqis addizzjonali tal-persunal 'il fuq minn 5 % kif mitlub mill-ftehim interistituzzjonali; iħeġġeġ lill-Kummissjoni u l-awtorità baġitarja jittrattaw bħala każ separat l-aġenziji li huma ffinanzjati primarjament mill-baġit tal-Unjoni, u jressqu qafas speċifiku għall-aġenziji li huma ffinanzjati primarjament mill-industrija, li għandu jkun proporzjonat għas-servizzi mogħtija mill-aġenzija kkonċernata;
 39. Jinnota li permezz tal-implimentazzjoni ta' proġetti u programmi ffinanzjati mill-Unjoni, l-aġenziji għandhom rwol dirett fil-ħolqien tal-impjiegi madwar l-Unjoni; jinnota, barra minn hekk, li nħolqu impjiegi permezz tad-diversi programmi ta' finanzjament tal-Unjoni f'bosta modi differenti ħafna, inkluż l-użu ta' inċentivi, bħal bonusijiet, li jirriżultaw f'differenzi sinifikanti fil-kwalità tal-impjiegi maħluqa mill-Unjoni; iħeġġeġ lill-Kummissjoni sabiex tagħmel evalwazzjoni bir-reqqa u komprensiva dwar l-impatt ta' fondi, programmi u proġetti ffinanzjati permezz tal-baġit tal-Unjoni fuq il-ħolqien dirett ta' impjiegi; jitlob lill-Kummissjoni biex tippubblika tali evalwazzjoni malajr kemm jista' jkun u biex tippreżentaha lill-Parlament;
 40. Jirrikonoxxi l-isforzi meħuda biex tiġi stabbilita l-preżentazzjoni ugwali taż-żewġ sessi fost il-persunal u l-membri tal-maniġment tal-aġenziji; iħeġġeġ lil dawk l-aġenziji li t-tagħrif dwar il-persunal tagħhom juri bilanċ fis-sessi insodisfaċenti għal dan l-iżbilanċ biex ikomplu jirrettifikawh u biex jikkomunikaw ir-riżultati lill-awtorità ta' kwittanza mill-aktar fis possibbli;
 41. Jinnota min-Netwerk li l-aġenziji kollha diġà adottaw regoli ġeneriċi dwar l-iżvelar ta' informazzjoni protetta bħala parti mil-linji gwida tal-etika dwar l-iżvelar ta' informazzjoni protetta skont id-dispożizzjonijiet tar-regolamenti tal-persunal; jinnota bi tħassib, madankollu, li huma biss 65 % tal-aġenziji li adottaw aktar regoli interni dwar l-iżvelar ta' informazzjoni protetta; jirrikonoxxi l-osservazzjoni tan-Netwerk li, fil-każijiet fejn għad m'hemmx fis-seħħ regoli rilevanti, il-proċess għadu għaddej u għad irid jiġi adottat; jinnota li f'diversi każijiet, l-aġenziji qed jistennew li jingħataw gwida jew il-kontribut mill-Kummissjoni qabel ma jkunu jistgħu jiffinalizzaw ir-regoli tagħhom; jirrikonoxxi barra minn hekk li r-regoli għandhom jiġu ffinalizzati u implimentati fl-ewwel nofs tal-2017; jistieden lill-aġenziji li għadhom ma adottawx ir-regoli interni dwar l-iżvelar ta' informazzjoni protetta biex jagħmlu dan mingħajr dewmien u permezz ta' dan isaħħu l-politiki interni tagħhom dwar l-iżvelar ta' informazzjoni protetta sabiex irawmu kultura ta' trasparenza u responsabbiltà fuq il-post tax-xogħol, jinfurmaw u jħarrġu b'mod regolari lill-impjegati dwar dmirijiethom u drittijiethom, jiżguraw il-protezzjoni tal-informaturi minn ritaljazzjoni, isegwu s-sustanza tat-twissijiet tal-informaturi f'waqthom filwaqt li jżommu lill-informaturi u kull persuna involuta infurmata dwar il-progress tal-proċedura, u jistabbilixxu mezz għal rappurtar intern anonimu; jistieden lill-aġenziji jirrappurtaw lura annwalment lill-awtorità tal-kwittanza dwar numru ta' każijiet tal-informaturi u l-attivitajiet ta' segwitu tagħhom.; jistieden lill-aġenziji u bl-istess mod lill-Kummissjoni biex jipprovdu gwida u approvazzjoni xierqa fejn meħtieġ;
 42. Jinnota li minn 16-il aġenzija li jużaw gruppi ta' esperti, panels u kumitati xjentifiċi, 13 qiesu, fil-politiki tal-persunal tagħhom, it-tħassib imqajjem minn inkjesta fuq inizjattiva proprja tal-Ombudsman OI/6/2014/NF dwar il-kompożizzjoni tal-gruppi esperti tal-Kummissjoni; iħeġġeġ lill-aġenziji li jifdal biex iqisu t-tħassib tal-Ombudsman mill-aktar fis possibbli;
 43. Jieħu nota tal-fatt li s-CVs u d-dikjarazzjonijiet ta' interess tal-membri tal-bord tat-tmexxija, tal-persunal maniġerjali u tal-esperti interni ġew ippubblikati minn 84 % tal-aġenziji, meta mqabbla ma' 74 % fis-sena preċedenti; jinnota, barra minn hekk, li 60 % tal-aġenziji jiċċekkjaw il-korrettezza fattwali mogħtija tad-dikjarazzjonijiet ta' interess tal-esperti, tal-bord tat-tmexxija u l-persunal mill-inqas darba fis-sena; jistieden lill-aġenziji kollha biex jadottaw linji gwida stretti għal politika koerenti dwar il-prevenzjoni u l-ġestjoni tal-kunflitti ta' interess u biex jimplimentaw dan bi qbil mal-Pjan Direzzjonali dwar is-segwitu għal Approċċ Komuni; jistieden lill-aġenziji li jifdal li għadhom ma introduċewx tali politika sabiex jivverifikaw regolarment id-dikjarazzjonijiet sabiex ikunu żgurati s-sorveljanza u l-iskrutinju pubbliku meħtieġa tal-maniġment;
 44. Jilqa' l-isforzi tal-aġenziji biex jiżdiedu kemm jista' jkun it-trasparenza bil-pubblikazzjoni ta' dikjarazzjonijiet ta' interess u CVs fuq il-websajt tagħhom; jinnota madankollu, li f'diversi każijiet, ftit minn dawn id-dokumenti huma neqsin; ifakkar madankollu li l-aġenziji m'għandhomx id-dispożizzjonijiet xierqa fir-regolamenti fundaturi tagħhom biex jagħmlu tali dokument dispożizzjoni obbligatorja; jistenna, għalhekk, li kwalunkwe reviżjoni tar-regolamenti fundaturi tal-aġenziji ikkonċernati se jistipulaw dikjarazzjoni obbligatorja ta' interess u CV minn kull membru tal-bord; jistieden ukoll lill-Kummissjoni biex tieħu vantaġġ mir-reviżjoni li għaddejja tar-Regolament Finanzjarju biex bl-istess mod tindirizza din il-kwistjoni kemm jista' jkun;
 45. Jistieden lill-aġenziji biex, f'dan ir-rigward, tieħu aktar passi lejn ġestjoni aktar trasparenti; jenfasizza li l-monitoraġġ intern kostanti u effiċjenti hija essenzjali għall-monitoraġġ u l-iskoperta ta' kunflitti ta' interess possibbli;
 46. Jinnota li l-aġenziji wrew impenn lejn il-prevenzjoni, l-identifikazzjoni u l-iskoraġġiment ta' frodi jew kwalunkwe irregolarità oħra u t-twettiq ta' azzjonijiet xierqa fl-eventwalità li din isseħħ; jinnota b'sodisfazzjon li n-Netwerk stabbilixxa grupp ta' ħidma kontra l-frodi tan-Netwerk Legali Inter-Aġenzjali, bl-għan li jitjiebu l-approċċi standardizzati u armonizzati għal strateġiji kontra l-frodi fost l-Aġenziji; jirrikonoxxi l-osservazzjonijiet tan-Netwerk li l-biċċa l-kbira tal-aġenziji indikaw żieda fl-għarfien tal-prevenzjoni kontra l-frodi; jirrikonoxxi, barra minn hekk, li sabiex jiġu ffaċilitati u kondiviżi l-aħjar prattiki, kelliema mill-Uffiċċju Ewropew Kontra l-Frodi u/jew il-Qorti ġew mistiedna b'mod regolari għall-grupp ta' ħidma tan-Netwerk Legali Inter-Aġenzjali msemmi hawn fuq, biex jippreżentaw il-perspettiva istituzzjonali tagħhom kif ukoll biex jipprovdi appoġġ u jissensibilizzaw l-aġenziji dwar kwistjonijiet relatati ma' frodi;
 47. Jenfasizza li l-aġenziji kollha għandu jkollhom kontrolli u gwida fir-rigward tal-ispejjeż legali fir-rigward ta' proċedimenti ġudizzjarji li fihom kienet jew hija parti aġenzija; iħeġġeġ lill-aġenziji biex jaqsmu l-aħjar prattiki f'dan il-qasam;
 48 Jistieden lill-aġenziji biex jiżviluppaw linji gwida komuni għall-applikazzjoni ta' aċċess pubbliku għad-dokumenti, speċjalment rigward id-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali;
 49. Iħeġġeġ lill-aġenziji biex ikomplu jsaħħu l-viżibilità tagħhom u biex ikomplu jiżviluppaw diversi mezzi ta' komunikazzjoni li jippreżentaw il-ħidma tagħhom u l-attivitajiet għall-pubbliku ġenerali;
 50. F'bosta aġenziji, il-membri tal-bord ta' tmexxija u l-eżekuttivi ppubblikaw dikjarazzjoni ta' nuqqas ta' kunflitt ta' interess minflok dikjarazzjoni ta' interess; jissottolinja l-fatt li mhijiex responsabilità tal-bord ta' tmexxija jew tal-eżekuttivi li jiddikjaraw li m'għandhom l-ebda kunflitt ta' interess; jenfasizza li dan fih innifsu jikkostitwixxi kunflitt ta' interess; jitlob li ssir verifika indipendenti tad-dikjarazzjonijiet ta' interess;
 51. Jieħu nota li l-aġenziji qed jippromwovu attivament il-ħidma tagħhom permezz ta' diversi mezzi, b'mod partikolari billi jaġġornaw regolarment is-siti web tagħhom biex jipprovdu informazzjoni u jippromwovu l-ħidma mwettqa; jinnota, barra minn hekk, li l-midja soċjali qed issir aktar u aktar għodda ta' komunikazzjoni standard għall-aġenziji; josserva li open-days, kampanji mmirati u filmati li jispjegaw ix-xogħol bażiku tal-aġenziji huma wħud mill-attivitajiet użati fl-edukazzjoni taċ-ċittadini u li jipprovduhom b'opportunitajiet biex jitgħallmu aktar dwar il-ħidma tal-aġenziji u l-istituzzjonijiet tal-Unjoni; jirrikonoxxi li l-attivitajiet tar-relazzjonijiet tal-midja ġenerali jew speċjalizzati huma regolarment imkejla permezz ta' indikaturi differenti, kif ukoll li kull aġenzija għandha l-pjan ta' komunikazzjoni tagħha b'attivitajiet speċifiċi mfassla apposta għall-bżonnijiet tagħha;
 52. Itenni l-pożizzjoni tiegħu mill-proċeduri ta' kwittanza 2013 u 2014 li, skont il-ftehim tal-Parlament, il-Kunsill u l-Kummissjoni fil-paragrafu 54 tal-Approċċ Komuni, l-aspetti kollha tal-awditjar estern esternalizzat "jibqgħu taħt ir-responsabilità sħiħa tal-Qorti, li tamministra l-proċeduri amministattivi u ta' akkwist kollha meħtieġa"; itenni, barra minn hekk, li l-approċċ il-ġdid ta' awditjar li jinvolvi l-awdituri tas-settur privat irriżulta f'żieda sinifikanti fil-piż amministrattiv fuq l-aġenziji, kif ukoll li ż-żmien użat fuq l-akkwist u l-amministrazzjoni tal-kuntratti ta' awditjar ħoloq nefqa addizzjonali u b'hekk kien piż ulterjuri fuq ir-riżorsi li qed jonqsu tal-aġenziji; jesprimi t-tħassib tiegħu dwar il-kunflitti ta' interess possibbli f'każijiet fejn tali awdituri privati jew il-kumpaniji rispettivi tagħhom ukoll jieħdu xogħol ta' awditjar jew ta' konsulenza għal kumpaniji tas-settur privat b'interessi ekonomiċi ċari mal-aġenziji tal-Unjoni; jenfasizza li huwa importanti ħafna li tissolva din il-kwistjoni fil-kuntest tar-reviżjoni li għaddejja bħalissa tar-Regolament Finanzjarju u r-reviżjoni sussegwenti tar-Regolament Finanzjarju Qafas; jistieden lill-partijiet kollha involuti f'dawn ir-reviżjonijiet biex jipprovdu ċarezza dwar din il-kwistjoni bħala kwistjoni ta' urġenza sabiex jitnaqqas b'mod sinifikanti l-piż amministrattiv eċċessiv u biex jerġa' jkun hemm l-approċċ preferut ta' skema tal-awditjar pubblika;
 53. Jinnota mis-sommarju tal-Qorti li l-votazzjoni tar-referendum taċ-ċittadini tar-Renju Unit (UK) li jħalli l-Unjoni, li seħħ fit-23 ta' Ġunju 2016 u wara d-data tal-karta tal-bilanċ, ġie osservat fil-paragrafu "Kwistjonijiet oħrajn" fir-rapporti annwali tal-Awtorità Bankarja Ewropea u tal-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini, li t-tnejn jinsabu f'Londra, flimkien ma' postijiet oħra tal-Unjoni fir-Renju Unit bħall-uffiċċji tal-informazzjoni tal-Unjoni; jinnota li dan il-paragrafu jiċċara li l-kontijiet u n-noti relatati taż-żewġ aġenziji tħejjew bl-użu tal-informazzjoni li kienet disponibbli fid-data tal-iffirmar ta' dawn il-kontijiet, meta r-riżultat tal-votazzjoni taċ-ċittadini tar-Renju Unit kien għadu mhux magħruf u n-notifika formali li tattiva l-Artikolu 50 tat-Trattat dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea kienet għadha ma ġietx ippreżentata; jirreferi, għal osservazzjonijiet dwar l-implikazzjonijiet speċifiċi għall-Awtorità Bankarja Ewropea u l-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini dwar din il-kwistjoni, għar-riżoluzzjoni tiegħu ta' [ir-riżoluzzjoni dwar il-kwittanza għall-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit tal-Awtorità Bankarja Ewropea għas-sena finanzjarja 2015 (XXXX XXXX 2017)] u [ir-riżoluzzjoni dwar il-kwittanza fir-rigward tal-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit tal-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini għas-sena finanzjarja 2015 (XXXX XXXX 2017)];
 54. Jinnota l-pubblikazzjoni simultanja ta' proposti għar-reviżjoni tar-regolamenti rispettivi li jistabbilixxu t-tliet aġenziji tripartitiċi tal-Unjoni f'konformità mal-prinċipji stabbiliti fid-Dikjarazzjoni Konġunta tal-Parlament Ewropew, il-Kunsill u l-Kummissjoni dwar l-aġenziji deċentralizzati tad-19 ta' Lulju 2012; jenfasizza l-importanza li tinżamm u tittejjeb il-governanza tripartitika sħiħa attwali ta' dawn l-aġenziji, filwaqt li tiġi żgurata l-parteċipazzjoni attiva tal-awtoritajiet nazzjonali, tal-organizzazzjonijiet tal-impjegaturi Ewropej u tal-organizzazzjonijiet tal-ħaddiema Ewropej fil-governanza u fil-funzjonament tagħhom; ifakkar li ġie implimentat tnaqqis fil-persunal u jtenni t-tħassib tiegħu li aktar tnaqqis jista' jillimita l-kapaċità tal-aġenziji li jaqdu l-mandati tagħhom;
 55. Jinnota l-evalwazzjoni u l-kontroll tal-idoneità li għaddejjin bħalissa fil-konfront tal-erba' aġenziji tal-Unjoni taħt il-mandat tad-Direttorat Ġenerali għall-Impjiegi, l-Affarijiet Soċjali u l-Inklużjoni (DĠ EMPL), li kellhom jibdew f'Diċembru 2016 u jitlestew f'Diċembru 2017(8); huwa tal-fehma li dawn l-evalwazzjonijiet għandhom jikkontribwixxu għal deċiżjonijiet infurmati min-naħa tal-Parlament fir-rigward tal-effikaċja u l-impatt tal-kontributi tal-aġenziji; jenfasizza wkoll il-ħtieġa li jiġu sfruttati s-sinerġiji fl-attivitajiet tal-erba' aġenziji li jikkoinċidu ma' xulxin, kif ukoll bejn l-aġenziji u l-Kummissjoni nfisha, u li jiġi evitat xogħol doppju.
 56. Jilqa' r-riżultat solidu u l-flessibilità tal-aġenziji kollha fil-qasam tal-libertà, is-sigurtà u l-ġustizzja; jilqa' l-flessibilità tagħhom biex jadattaw ruħhom għal prijoritajiet politiċi li qed jevolvu u biex jirreaġixxu għal avvenimenti mhux mistennija; jiddispjaċih, madankollu, dwar in-nuqqas ta' indikaturi effettivi li jirriflettu l-impatt tal-ħidma tagħhom fuq is-sigurtà interna, il-migrazzjoni, il-ġestjoni tal-fruntieri u l-iżvilupp tad-drittijiet fundamentali; jilqa' l-isforzi li saru minn diversi aġenziji biex itejbu l-ġestjoni baġitarja tagħhom billi jottimizzaw l-użu tal-baġits tagħhom u billi jimplimentaw proċess ta' ppjanar baġitarju aħjar;
 57. Jilqa' l-impenn tal-aġenziji kollha tal-ġustizzja u l-affarijiet interni biex jipperfezzjonaw ulterjorment il-proċeduri baġitarji, iżda jenfasizza, madankollu, li l-prijorità tagħhom għandha tkun li jtejbu l-effiċjenza operattiva fil-post u li jindirizzaw il-kwistjonijiet strutturali identifikati mill-Qorti u mis-Servizz tal-Awditjar Intern;
 58. Jirrikonoxxi li twaqqfu għadd kbir ta' aġenziji fil-qasam tal-libertà, sigurtà u ġustizzja, iżda jtenni l-importanza tal-missjonijiet li jwettqu u l-impatt dirett li għandhom fuq il-ħajja taċ-ċittadini; jenfasizza li l-aġenziji kollha twaqqfu bħala rispons għal ħtiġijiet speċifiċi; jinsab konvint li l-aġenziji kollha f'dan il-qasam politiku jiżvolġu rwol distint u meħtieġ, li jipprovdi valur miżjud Ewropew;
 59. Jitlob li l-aġenziji kollha tal-ġustizzja u l-affarijiet interni jidentifikaw l-ostakli finanzjarji, l-ostakli relatati mar-riżorsi jew punti ta' konġestjoni oħra li jxekklu l-prestazzjoni operattiva tagħhom u li jitolbu li jsiru aġġustamenti f'waqthom.
 60. Jagħti istruzzjonijiet lill-President tiegħu biex jgħaddi din ir-riżoluzzjoni lill-aġenziji soġġetti għal din il-proċedura ta' kwittanza, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kummissjoni kif ukoll lill-Qorti, u biex jiżgura li tiġi ppubblikata f'Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea (serje L).
 ANNESS 1: ABBOZZ TA' PROPOSTA GĦALL-IGGRUPPAR TA' AĠENZIJI GĦALL-KWITTANZA TAL-PE
 LIBERTAJIET ĊIVILI, ĠUSTIZZJA U AFFARIJIET INTERNI
 DRITTIJIET TAN-NISA U UGWALJANZA BEJN IS-SESSI,
 1. Jinnota l-pubblikazzjoni simultanja ta' proposti għar-reviżjoni tar-regolamenti rispettivi li jistabbilixxu t-tliet aġenziji tripartitiċi tal-Unjoni f'konformità mal-prinċipji stabbiliti fid-Dikjarazzjoni Konġunta tal-Parlament Ewropew, il-Kunsill tal-UE u l-Kummissjoni Ewropea dwar l-aġenziji deċentralizzati tad-19 ta' Lulju 2012; jenfasizza l-importanza li tinżamm u tittejjeb il-governanza tripartitika sħiħa attwali ta' dawn l-aġenziji, filwaqt li tiġi żgurata l-parteċipazzjoni attiva tal-awtoritajiet nazzjonali, tal-organizzazzjonijiet tal-impjegaturi Ewropej u tal-organizzazzjonijiet tal-ħaddiema Ewropej fil-governanza u fil-funzjonament tagħhom; ifakkar li ġie implimentat tnaqqis fil-persunal u jtenni t-tħassib tiegħu li aktar tnaqqis jista' jillimita l-kapaċità tal-aġenziji li jaqdu l-mandati tagħhom;
 2. Ifakkar li d-diskussjoni dwar l-abbozzi ta' programmi ta' ħidma annwali u l-istrateġiji pluriennali tal-aġenziji fil-kumitati responsabbli għandha tgħin biex jiġi żgurat li l-programmi u l-istrateġiji jkunu bilanċjati, jirriflettu l-prijoritajiet politiċi reali u jikkontribwixxu biex jintlaħqu l-għanijiet stabbiliti fl-istrateġija Ewropa 2020;
 3. Jenfasizza l-kooperazzjoni u l-iskambju ta' ideat u prattiki fost l-aġenziji fil-qafas tan-netwerk għall-iżvilupp tal-prestazzjoni tal-aġenziji tal-Unjoni, li jikkontribwixxi għal governanza aktar bilanċjata u aktar koerenza bejniethom; jenfasizza li n-netwerk jeħtieġ jikkontribwixxi għal aktar effiċjenza u mhux joħloq spejjeż addizzjonali u aktar burokrazija;
 4. Jilqa' ż-żieda fis-sistematizzazzjoni tal-kooperazzjoni bejn l-ETF u s-CEDEFOP, li toħloq aktar sinerġiji fil-mandati rispettivi tagħhom permezz tal-programm ta' ħidma annwali konġunt tagħhom, b'mod partikolari bl-iżvilupp ta' qafas komuni ta' monitoraġġ ta' Riga u bil-kollaborazzjoni tagħhom mal-ILO dwar il-finalizzazzjoni tal-ħidma fuq sitt linji gwida metodoloġiċi dwar l-antiċipazzjoni tal-ħiliet u l-adattament ta' għodod u metodi;
 5. Jinnota t-tieni rapport ta' progress dwar l-implimentazzjoni tal-Approċċ Komuni dwar l-aġenziji deċentralizzati tal-UE(9) u japprezza l-progress li sar f'ħafna oqsma favur ir-razzjonalizzazzjoni tal-funzjonament tagħhom; jilqa' l-isforzi tal-Kummissjoni u tal-aġenziji u l-progress li għamlu fl-implimentazzjoni tal-pjan direzzjonali;
 6. Jinnota l-evalwazzjoni u l-kontroll tal-idoneità li għaddejjin bħalissa fil-konfront tal-aġenziji tal-Unjoni taħt il-mandat tad-DĠ EMPL, li kellhom jibdew f'Diċembru 2016 u jitlestew f'Diċembru 2017(10); huwa tal-fehma li dawn l-evalwazzjonijiet għandhom jikkontribwixxu għal deċiżjonijiet infurmati min-naħa tal-Parlament fir-rigward tal-effikaċja u l-impatt tal-kontribut tal-aġenziji; jenfasizza wkoll il-ħtieġa li jiġu sfruttati s-sinerġiji fl-attivitajiet tal-erba' aġenziji li jikkoinċidu ma' xulxin, kif ukoll bejn l-aġenziji u l-Kummissjoni nfisha, u li jiġi evitat xogħol doppju.
 1. Jilqa' l-konklużjonijiet tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri li l-kontijiet annwali finali tal-aġenziji kollha fil-qasam tal-ġustizzja u l-intern (l-Aġenziji tal-ĠAI) jippreżentaw b'mod ġust, fl-aspetti materjali kollha, il-pożizzjoni finanzjarja tagħhom fil-31 ta' Diċembru 2015 u li t-tranżazzjonijiet tagħhom huma legali u regolari;
 2. Jilqa' r-riżultat solidu u l-flessibilità tal-aġenziji kollha fil-qasam tal-libertà, is-sigurtà u l-ġustizzja; Jilqa' l-flessibilità tagħhom biex jadattaw irwieħhom għal prijoritajiet politiċi li qed jevolvu u biex jirreaġixxu għal avvenimenti mhux mistennija; jiddispjaċih, madankollu, dwar in-nuqqas ta' indikaturi effettivi li jirriflettu l-impatt tal-ħidma tagħhom fuq is-sigurtà interna, il-migrazzjoni, il-ġestjoni tal-fruntieri u l-iżvilupp tad-drittijiet fundamentali; jilqa' l-isforzi li saru minn diversi aġenziji biex itejbu l-ġestjoni baġitarja tagħhom billi jottimizzaw l-użu tal-baġits tagħhom u billi jimplimentaw proċess ta' ppjanar baġitarju aħjar;
 3. F'bosta aġenziji l-membri tal-Bord ta' Tmexxija u l-Eżekuttivi ppubblikaw "dikjarazzjoni ta' nuqqas ta' kunflitt ta' interess" minflok "dikjarazzjoni ta' interess"; jissottolinja l-fatt li mhijiex responsabilità tal-Bord ta' Tmexxija jew tal-Eżekuttiv li jiddikkjaraw li m'għandhom l-ebda kunflitt ta' interess; jenfasizza li dan fih innifsu jikkostitwixxi kunflitt ta' interess; jitlob li ssir verifika indipendenti tad-"dikjarazzjonijiet ta' interess"; itenni li t-trasparenza hija kruċjali fil-mitigazzjoni tar-riskji ta' kunflitti ta' interess; jiddeplora l-fatt li mhux l-aġenziji kollha stabbiliew regoli ċari fir-rigward tal-protezzjoni tal-informaturi u r-"revolving doors" u jħeġġiġhom jistabbilixxu tali regoli bħala kwistjoni ta' urġenza;
 4. Jiddispjaċih, madankollu, li xi aġenziji ma jħarsux il-prinċipju tal-annwalità bħala wieħed mit-tliet prinċipji kontabilistiċi bażiċi; jistieden lill-aġenziji jtejbu l-ippjanar baġitarju fir-rigward tal-attivitajiet u jnaqqsu r-riporti;
 5. Jiddeplora l-fatt li l-Qorti tal-Awdituri ilha mill-2012 ma tippreżenta rapport speċjali dwar il-kunflitt ta' interess fl-aġenziji kollha, b'mod partikolari f'dawk relatati mal-industriji; iħeġġeġ lill-Qorti tal-Awdituri tagħmel il-verifiki effettivi ta' din il-kwistjoni u tipproduċi tali rapporti speċjali dwar il-kunflitt ta' interess sa tmiem Ġunju 2017;
 6. Jilqa' l-impenn tal-Aġenziji kollha tal-ĠAI li jirfinaw ulterjorment il-proċeduri baġitarji, iżda jenfasizza, madankollu, li l-prijorità tagħhom għandha tkun li jtejbu l-effiċjenza operattiva fil-post u li jindirizzaw il-kwistjonijiet pjuttost strutturali identifikati mill-Qorti tal-Awdituri u mis-Servizz tal-Awditjar Intern (IAS);
 7. Jirrikonoxxi li twaqqfu għadd kbir ta' aġenziji fl-ispazju ta' libertà, sigurtà u ġustizzja, iżda jtenni l-importanza tal-missjonijiet li jwettqu u l-impatt dirett li għandhom fuq il-ħajja taċ-ċittadini; jenfasizza li l-aġenziji kollha twaqqfu bħala rispons għal ħtiġijiet speċifiċi; jinsab konvint li l-aġenziji kollha f'dan il-qasam politiku jiżvolġu rwol distint u meħtieġ, li jipprovdi valur miżjud Ewropew;
 8. Jitlob li l-Aġenziji kollha tal-ĠAI jidentifikaw l-ostakli finanzjarji, l-ostakli relatati mar-riżorsi jew punti ta' konġestjoni oħra li jxekklu l-prestazzjoni operattiva tagħhom u li jitolbu li jsiru aġġustamenti f'waqthom.
 ĠU C 449, 1.12.2016.
 L-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Gwardja tal-Fruntiera u tal-Kosta (Frontex), l-Aġenzija Ewropea għat-Tmexxija Operattiva tas-Sistemi tal-IT Fuq Skala Kbira fl-Ispazju ta' Libertà, Sigurtà u Ġustizzja (eu-LISA), l-Uffiċċju Ewropew ta' Appoġġ fil-qasam tal-Asil (EASO), l-Istitut Ewropew għall-Ugwaljanza bejn is-Sessi (EIGE), iċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Monitoraġġ tad-Droga u d-Dipendenza fuq id-Droga (EMCDDA), il-Kulleġġ Ewropew tal-Pulizija (CEPOL), l-Uffiċċju Ewropew tal-Pulizija (Europol), l-Aġenzija tal-Unjoni Ewropea għad-Drittijiet Fundamentali (FRA), l-Unità tal-Unjoni Ewropea ta' Kooperazzjoni Ġudizzjarja (Eurojust)
 l-Awtorità Bankarja Ewropea (EBA), l-Awtorità Ewropea dwar l-Assigurazzjoni u l-Pensjonijiet tax-Xogħol (EIOPA), u l-Awtorità Ewropea tat-Titoli u s-Swieq (ESMA).
 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/MT/TXT/PDF/?uri=COM:2015:179:FIN&from=MT


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 9.8.2007
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 209/20
 SKLEP SKUPNEGA ODBORA EGP
 št. 12/2007
 z dne 27. aprila 2007
 o spremembi Priloge II (Tehnični predpisi, standardi, preskušanje in certificiranje) k Sporazumu EGP
 SKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE –
 ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, kakor je bil spremenjen s Protokolom o prilagoditvi Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, v nadaljnjem besedilu „Sporazum“, in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Priloga II k Sporazumu je bila spremenjena s Sklepom Skupnega odbora EGP št. 148/2006 z dne 8. decembra 2006 (1).
 (2)
 Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1451/2006 z dne 29. septembra 2006 o spremembi prilog I in II k Uredbi Sveta (EGS) št. 2377/90 o določitvi postopka Skupnosti za določanje najvišjih mejnih vrednosti ostankov zdravil za uporabo v veterinarski medicini v živilih živalskega izvora glede fluazurona, natrijevega nitrita in peforelina (2) je treba vključiti v Sporazum -
 SKLENIL:
 Člen 1
 V točki 14 (Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 2377/90) poglavja XIII Priloge II k Sporazumu se doda naslednja alinea:
 „—
 32006 R 1451: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1451/2006 z dne 29. septembra 2006 (UL L 271, 30.9.2006, str. 37).“
 Člen 2
 Besedilo Uredbe (ES) št. 1451/2006 v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavi v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, je verodostojno.
 Člen 3
 Ta sklep začne veljati 28. aprila 2007, pod pogojem, da so bila Skupnemu odboru EGP predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma (3).
 Člen 4
 Ta sklep se objavi v sklopu EGP Uradnega lista Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije.
 V Bruslju, 27. aprila 2007
 Za Skupni odbor EGP
 Predsednik
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) UL L 89, 29.3.2007, str. 18.
 (2) UL L 271, 30.9.2006, str. 37.
 (3) Navedena ni nobena ustavna zahteva.


text:
 16.9.2010
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 L 244/17
 DECISÃO DO COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE
 N.o 66/2010
 de 11 de Junho de 2010
 que altera o anexo II (Regulamentação técnica, normas, ensaios e certificação) do Acordo EEE
 O COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE,
 Tendo em conta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, tal como alterado pelo Protocolo que adapta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, a seguir designado «o Acordo», nomeadamente o artigo 98.o,
 Considerando o seguinte:
 (1)
 O anexo II do Acordo foi alterado pela Decisão do Comité Misto do EEE n.o 46/2010, de 30 de Abril de 2010 (1).
 (2)
 O Regulamento (CE) n.o 551/2009 da Comissão, de 25 de Junho de 2009, que altera o Regulamento (CE) n.o 648/2004 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, relativo aos detergentes, a fim de adaptar os respectivos Anexos V e VI (derrogação para os agentes tensioactivos) (2), deve ser incorporado no Acordo.
 (3)
 A Decisão 2009/428/CE da Comissão, de 4 de Junho de 2009, que altera, para efeitos de adaptação ao progresso técnico, o anexo da Directiva 2002/95/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho no que respeita à isenção relativa à aplicação de chumbo como impureza em rotores de Faraday RIG utilizados em sistemas de comunicação por fibra óptica (3), deve ser incorporada no Acordo.
 (4)
 A Decisão 2009/443/CE da Comissão, de 10 de Junho de 2009, que altera, para efeitos de adaptação ao progresso técnico, o anexo da Directiva 2002/95/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho no que respeita a isenções relativas a aplicações de chumbo, cádmio e mercúrio (4), deve ser incorporada no Acordo,
 DECIDE:
 Artigo 1.o
 O capítulo XV do anexo II do Acordo é alterado do seguinte modo:
 1.
 Ao ponto 12q (Directiva 2002/95/CE do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho) são aditados os seguintes travessões:
 «—
 32009 D 0428: Decisão 2009/428/CE da Comissão, de 4 de Junho de 2009 (JO L 139 de 5.6.2009, p. 32),
 —
 32009 D 0443: Decisão 2009/443/CE da Comissão, de 10 de Junho de 2009 (JO L 148 de 11.6.2009, p. 27).»
 2.
 Ao ponto 12u [Regulamento (CE) n.o 648/2004 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho] é aditado o seguinte travessão:
 «—
 32009 R 0551: Regulamento (CE) n.o 551/2009 da Comissão, de 25 Junho 2009 (JO L 164 de 26.6.2009, p. 3).»
 Artigo 2.o
 Fazem fé os textos do Regulamento (CE) n.o 551/2009 e das Decisões 2009/428/CE e 2009/443/CE nas línguas islandesa e norueguesa, que serão publicados no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Artigo 3.o
 A presente decisão entra em vigor em 12 de Junho de 2010, desde que tenham sido efectuadas ao Comité Misto do EEE todas as notificações previstas no artigo 103.o, n.o 1, do Acordo (5).
 Artigo 4.o
 A presente decisão será publicada na Secção EEE e no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Feito em Bruxelas, em 11 de Junho de 2010.
 Pelo Comité Misto do EEE
 O Presidente
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) JO L 181 de 15.7.2010, p. 14.
 (2) JO L 164 de 26.6.2009, p. 3.
 (3) JO L 139 de 5.6.2009, p. 32.
 (4) JO L 148 de 11.6.2009, p. 27.
 (5) Não foram indicados requisitos constitucionais.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 233 Md. 512 (1964)
 197 A.2d 245
 DI BLASIO
 v.
 KOLODNER ET AL.
 [No. 116, September Term, 1963.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided February 11, 1964.
 The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
 David Kimmelman, with whom was William O. Goldstein on the brief, for the appellant.
 David L. Bowers, with whom was S. Herbert Harris on the brief, for the appellee Fred Kolodner.
 M. King Hill, Jr., with whom were Smith, Somerville & Case on the brief, for the appellee Frank M. Rezek.
 BRUNE, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 In this suit for libel, the plaintiff, Di Blasio, appeals from separate judgments of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in favor of the defendants, Kolodner and Rezek. The alleged libel was contained in a declaration filed in a prior suit (sometimes referred to below as the "original suit" or the "criminal conversation" or "crim. con." suit) brought by Rezek, through his attorney, Kolodner, against Di Blasio. Both judgments in the libel suit were based upon the privileged character of the publication  that in favor of Kolodner, the attorney, being entered after his demurrer had been sustained, and that in favor of Rezek, the client, being entered upon his motion for summary judgment. The pleadings in the original suit have been incorporated in the record in this case, and a brief statement with regard to that suit is necessary to the consideration of the instant case.
 *515 The original suit by Rezek against Di Blasio, filed on July 27, 1961, contained three counts. Each of them contained an allegation that the defendant, Di Blasio, debauched and carnally knew the wife of Rezek, the plaintiff, and caused her to become pregnant. The first count was limited to such an allegation. The second count alleged Di Blasio's debauching and carnal knowledge of Rezek's wife with intent to injure Rezek and to deprive him of the society and assistance of his wife and to alienate and destroy her affection for him, that such results had followed, and that Di Blasio had caused Rezek's wife to become pregnant. The third count alleged that by "wrongful and wicked enticements, allurements and persuasions" Di Blasio had alienated the affections of Rezek's wife, that he had "wrongfully and maliciously" induced her to abandon Rezek's home for short periods of time, and that she was pregnant as a result of Di Blasio's debauching and carnally knowing her.
 The defendant in the original suit (Di Blasio) first filed the general issue plea in September, 1961, and on December 29, 1961, he filed a motion for summary judgment. The grounds therefor here pertinent were in substance that the declaration on its face showed the suit to be for alienation of affections, that such a cause of action had been abolished by Art. 75 C of the Code,[1] and that the declaration was in violation of that Article. Rezek's answer to this motion was to the effect that the declaration stated a cause of action for criminal conversation and that such cause of action had not been abolished. Judge Menchine, of the Circuit Court, held that the torts of alienation of affections and of criminal conversation were separate wrongs and that a cause of action for the latter had not been abolished. He noted, however, that the declaration was "replete with language alleging alienation of affections, subject *516 matter now forbidden as a cause of action, which allegations are unnecessary, impertinent, scandalous, irrelevant and improper within the meaning of Rule 301 (i)." Pursuant to that Rule, the court on its own initiative ordered the plaintiff, Rezek, to file an amended declaration limited specifically to criminal conversation. This Rezek proceeded to do on May 24, 1962. He filed a second amended declaration on September 5, 1962, after a demurrer to the first amended declaration had been sustained (apparently on a ground not here important). Without reviewing in detail the subsequent pleadings, we note that a motion to dismiss filed by Di Blasio on October 4, 1962, was overruled by Judge Lindsay on October 18, 1962. At the time when this case came to us the original suit was still open on Rezek's claim for criminal conversation.
 In the instant suit for libel which is based upon allegations contained in the original declaration filed in the criminal conversation case, the issue which we regard as controlling, as did Judge Menchine, is that of privilege. There were other issues in the trial court, and one of them  whether the suit is premature  is also sought to be raised here by the appellees. We find it unnecessary to pass upon any of those other issues. We shall assume, as did the trial court, that all of the allegations complained of were libelous, and we shall assume without deciding (the trial court so held) that this suit is not premature. No question of limitations is raised on appeal, and therefore none is before us. (Rezek did originally raise such a question in the trial court; Kolodner did not.) Likewise, no challenge to the validity of the statute is here involved and we express no opinion with regard thereto. Cf. the similar comment in Babb v. Bolyard, 194 Md. 603, at 608, 72 A.2d 13, a case which did not involve this statute and which seems to be the only prior case in this Court to mention it. For the purposes of this case, we shall assume its validity.[2]
 Because it is the most sweeping, we shall consider first the *517 appellant's contention that actions for criminal conversation as well as for breach of promise have been abolished by Ch. 1010 of the Acts of 1945, now incorporated in Art. 75 C of the Code, 1957 Ed., as now amended. These are §§ 1-6 and §§ 8-9, both inclusive (see note 1, supra), and they are collectively referred to herein as Art. 75 C. Section 1 of that Article recites abuses to which remedies for breach of promise to marry and for alienation of affections have been subjected, state that they have in many cases resulted in a perpetration of fraud, and declares "as the public policy of the State that the best interests of the people of the State will be served by the abolition of such remedies."
 §§ 2, 4 and 5 of Art. 75 C provide as follows:
 (§ 2) "The rights of action heretofore existing to recover sums of money as damages for breach of promise to marry, excepting in cases where pregnancy exists, and for the alienation of affections are hereby abolished."
 (§ 4) "No act hereafter done within this State shall operate to give rise, either within or without this State, to any of the rights of action abolished by this article."
 (§ 5) "It shall hereafter be unlawful for any person, either as a party or attorney, * * * to file or serve, [or] cause to be filed or served * * * any process or pleading, in any court of the State, setting forth or seeking to recover a sum of money upon any cause of action abolished or barred by this article, * * *."
 § 8 of the same Article makes a violation of any provision of the Article a misdemeanor subject to a fine of $1,000 to $5,000, or imprisonment of one to five years, or both. § 9 directs that the Article "shall be liberally construed to effectuate the objects and purposes thereof and the public policy of the State as hereby declared." Then follows a separability clause.
 Alienation of affections and criminal conversation are two different torts, though they may often be rather closely related. Restatement, Torts, Vol. 3, §§ 683, 685; Callis v. Merrieweather, *518 98 Md. 361, 57 A. 201; Hillers v. Taylor, 108 Md. 148, 69 A. 715 (close relationship as to damages); Annarina v. Boland, 136 Md. 365, 111 A. 84; Tinker v. Colwell, 193 U.S. 473; Antonelli v. Xenakis, 363 Pa. 375, 69 A.2d 102. Cf. Prosser, Torts (2nd Ed.), § 103, p. 686, where the author argues that although actions for criminal conversation, enticement and alienation of affections are often treated as separate torts they should not be, and notes some tendency to confuse the three and lump them together. He observes that in an action for criminal conversation, proof of enticement or of alienation of affections will go to increase the damages, and that the converse also is true.
 The New York statute, urged upon us by the appellant, in terms abolishes causes of action for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, seduction and breach of contract to marry. Its inclusiveness is obviously greater than that of our statute. The Pennsylvania statute (Purdon's Pa. St. Ann., title 48, § 170, Cum. Supp., 1962, et seq.) is much closer to ours. It abolishes, with certain exceptions, causes of action for alienation of affections and says nothing about causes of action for criminal conversation. In construing this statute the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that causes of action for criminal conversation were not thereby abolished. Antonelli v. Xenakis, supra. This case has been followed in Baldridge v. Matthews, 378 Pa. 566, 106 A.2d 809, and in Karchner v. Mumie, 398 Pa. 13, 156 A.2d 537. For other cases reaching similar conclusions, see Prosser, Torts (2nd Ed.), § 103, p. 698 and cases cited in note 95.
 The appellant seeks to distinguish the Antonelli case on several grounds, two of which are manifestly incorrect and others of which are not persuasive. Contrary to his assertions, the Pennsylvania statute does contain a "liberal construction" clause (§ 177) very similar to ours, and it does contain penal provisions. He is correct in saying that the Pennsylvania statute does not have a declaration of public policy such as ours does (and as the New York statute does), but our public policy is declared only as to the causes of action mentioned, and the public policy to be served is, we think, implicit in the Pennsylvania Act. The appellant is also correct in stating that Pennsylvania does have *519 a statute (Purdon's Pa. St. Ann., title 46, § 558) providing that statutes decreasing the jurisdiction of a court of record are to be strictly construed. He does not point out that this is one of several provisions for strict construction included in the same section which abolished the rule for the construction of statutes thereafter enacted that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed. That rule still prevails in Maryland. City of Baltimore v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 232 Md. 123, 135, 192 A.2d 87.
 It is, of course, obvious that the statute here involved is in derogation of common law rights, and it is also evident that it was intended to be remedial in barring two kinds of suits that had often been used as instruments of fraud. On the language of the statutory provisions here involved, we think that it makes no difference in the result whether this statute is construed primarily as one in derogation of the common law or primarily as one remedial in character. As we have already said, the terms of the statute do not apply to actions for criminal conversation.
 We find no reason for holding that the General Assembly did not mean exactly what it said  no more and no less  with regard to the kinds of causes of action which it undertook to abolish. It will be observed that even as to one of such causes of action which it did undertake to abolish generally  breach of promise to marry  it carefully made an exception "in cases wherein pregnancy exists." Our Art. 75 C says nothing whatever about causes of action for criminal conversation, and we think that they are not abolished by it. See Antonelli v. Xenakis, supra. Our reading of Art. 75 C as covering only the two causes of action specifically mentioned in it is in accord with Judge Markell's description of its scope in Babb v. Bolyard, supra.
 We cannot read into § 9 of Art. 75 C, which provides for liberal construction to effectuate the objects and purposes of the Article and the public policy of the State thereby declared, any broadening of the statute so as to make it operative beyond the field which it undertakes to cover. See Franklin v. Franklin, 1 Md. Ch. 342, 344, holding that remedial statutes are "to be *520 construed liberally to advance the remedy and obviate the mischief," but are "not to be so expanded as to comprehend cases altogether beyond their purview;" and Crowner v. Baltimore United Butchers Ass'n., 226 Md. 606, 175 A.2d 7, involving the Workmen's Compensation Act. § 63 of that Act (Art. 101 of the Code (1957)) provides: "The rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed shall have no application to this article; but this article shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose." The appellant there urged that in keeping with the social purpose of the Compensation law, which is remedial in character, the construction given to the language of the statute should be in favor of the claimant. In rejecting this contention, we stated the provisions of § 63 and said: "This does not require a disregard of the clear meaning of the Act so as to favor any one group." (226 Md. at 610.) It may be observed that the first clause of § 63 has no counterpart in the terms of Art. 75 C, and that the second clause is generally similar to the liberal construction provision of § 9 of Art. 75 C.
 Our conclusion that actions for criminal conversation are still maintainable in this State derives some further support from the recognition of such actions in our present Maryland Rule 325 d, which exempts from the operation of Rule 325 (dealing with payment into court) several kinds of actions, among them "prosecution for criminal conversation." Rule 325 d was adopted substantially in its present form in 1956 to take effect January 1, 1957. (It superseded § 24 of Art. 75 of the 1951 Code, which found its origin in § 94 of Ch. 112 of the Acts of 1856 and was repealed by Ch. 399 of the Acts of 1957.)
 Since a right of action for criminal conversation was a recognized right under the common law, and since it was not abolished by Art. 75 C, it follows that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to entertain the criminal conversation suit. That being so, the requirement for invoking privilege for matter written or spoken in judicial proceedings that the court have jurisdiction over the case is met. The question is then narrowed down to whether the language complained of is within the privilege. In the light of Kennedy v. Cannon, 229 Md. 92, 182 A. *521 2d 54, no extended review of the authorities seems necessary here.
 The principal contention raised by the appellant on this phase of the case is that a qualified privilege may not be set up successfully by demurrer or on motion for summary judgment. Though it is the general rule that a qualified privilege may not be taken advantage of by demurrer (Walker v. D'Alesandro, 212 Md. 163, 129 A.2d 148; Pollitt v. Brush Moore Newspapers, 214 Md. 570, 136 A.2d 573; Thompson v. Upton, 218 Md. 433, 146 A.2d 880), and though the trial court characterized the defense as one of qualified privilege, we do not think that rule applicable, nor do we think that the trial court intended to depart from the views we expressed in Kennedy v. Cannon, supra. On the contrary, we think that the result which he reached and the actual basis therefor was in accord with those views.
 Kennedy v. Cannon, supra, actually involved a statement made in connection with but outside of a judicial proceeding, and it was held not to be privileged. However, Judge Sybert, speaking for the Court, went into a careful examination of authorities bearing on the nature of the privilege for words spoken or written in judicial proceedings and the purpose underlying the protection afforded by the privilege even though malice be present. After referring to Maulsby v. Reifsnider, 69 Md. 143, 14 A. 505, and quoting an extensive passage from that case (69 Md. at 151) including a statement that "this privilege is not an absolute and unqualified privilege," Judge Sybert continued (229 Md. at 96): "The Court went on to hold that the words, to be privileged, must also be relevant to the judicial proceeding in which they were spoken." In the Maulsby case, the court, in Judge Robinson's majority opinion, expressed a preference for the use of such terms as "having reference" or "made with reference" or "having relation to the cause or subject matter" (69 Md. at 162) rather than the word "relevant" or "pertinent"; and where we use the term "relevant" in this opinion, we use it as including the terms regarded as preferable in the Maulsby case. In that case, a majority of this Court upheld a judgment for the defendant lawyer rendered upon a directed verdict on the ground that, since "the words * * *522 were spoken by the defendant as counsel, and had reference to the subject-matter then before the court, this action cannot be maintained." Judge McSherry concurred in the result on the ground that the privilege of counsel was absolute. Judge Stone also concurred in the result. He found it unnecessary to decide whether the privilege was absolute or qualified, but was inclined to agree with Judge McSherry on that question.
 After stating the holding of Maulsby that, to be privileged, words spoken in a judicial proceeding, must be relevant thereto, Judge Sybert set forth the law which we think is controlling here as follows: "The statement just quoted reflects the view of a majority of the jurisdictions in this country, although the semantics in this area of tort law have changed somewhat since the date of the Maulsby case. What was characterized in that case as a qualified privilege for communications, conditioned on their being pertinent or relevant to a judicial proceeding, without regard to the motive of the speaker, is referred to by modern text writers and in case law as an absolute privilege. See, for example, Brush-Moore Newsp. v. Pollitt, 220 Md. 132, 137, 151 A.2d 530 (1959); Sanders v. Leeson Air Conditioning Corporation, 108 N.W.2d 761 (Mich. 1961); Ramstead v. Morgan, 347 P.2d 594 (Ore. 1959); Bailey v. McGill, 100 S.E.2d 860 (N.C. 1957); Prosser, Torts (2nd ed.), pp. 606, et seq.; 69 Harv. L. Rev. 875, 920. This absolute immunity extends to the judge as well as to witnesses and parties to the litigation, for defamatory statements uttered in the course of a trial or contained in pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and other documents directly related to the case. 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, § 5.22, and cases there cited. An absolute privilege is distinguished from a qualified privilege in that the former provides immunity regardless of the purpose or motive of the defendant, or the reasonableness of his conduct, while the latter is conditioned upon the absence of malice and is forfeited if it is abused. Carr v. Watkins, 227 Md. 578, 177 A.2d 841 (1962)." Cf. Eliason v. Funk, 233 Md. 351, 196 A.2d 887.
 To the authority cited above in support of the rule that the privilege is available to parties as well as to counsel, we may add: Bartlett v. Christhilf, 69 Md. 219, 14 A. 518; and Gore v. Condon, 87 Md. 368, 377, 39 A. 1042.
 *523 Whether the allegations here complained of were relevant or had reference to the claim for criminal conversation was a proper matter for determination by the court. Maulsby v. Reifsnider, supra; Bartlett v. Christhilf, supra. Here the allegations were all contained in the declaration in the criminal conversation suit, which was before the court. The authorities which we have referred to earlier in this opinion in considering whether causes of action for criminal conversation have or have not been abolished make clear the close relationship between alienation of affections and criminal conversation. Indeed, the appellant's argument is that the connection is so close that the abolition of the one carried with it the abolition of the other. That the allegations of alienation of affections were ordered to be deleted does not destroy that relationship and hence does not destroy the privilege. See Johnston v. Schlarb, 7 Wash.2d 528, 110 P.2d 190, 134 A.L.R. 483; McCartney v. Schierenbeck, 200 Misc. 549, 107 N.Y.S.2d 973; annotation, 134 A.L.R. 483.
 The appellant urges that to uphold the privilege here would circumvent the legislative purpose embodied in Art. 75 C. We note, however, that the Legislature itself has provided sanctions for violation of the statute, which it apparently deemed sufficient and which do not include abolition of the privilege. If the Legislature desires to remove the privilege, it can easily amend the statute.
 It could hardly be contended in the face of our holding that an action for criminal conversation is maintainable, that allegations of that charge are not privileged. It would seem a somewhat incongruous result to hold that the appellees are nevertheless liable for the less serious allegations of alienation of affections, the libelous character of which we have assumed but not determined.
 We think that in this instance, the facts required to bring the privilege into operation were apparent from the pleadings before the trial court, that when so brought into operation it was an absolute privilege which was not dependent upon the question of the existence or non-existence of malice, and that the judgments in favor of each of the appellees should be affirmed.
 Judgments affirmed; the appellant to pay the costs.
 NOTES
 [1] The present Art. 75 C of the Code, the 1957 Edition, as amended by Ch. 62 of the Acts of 1962, is derived mainly from Ch. 1010 of the Acts of 1945. Sec. 7 of the 1957 Ed. was derived from Ch. 42 of the Acts of 1952 and its subject was unrelated to Ch. 1010 of the Acts of 1945. Ch. 62 of the Acts of 1962 transferred that section to another Article. Two sections not relevant to this suit were added by Chs. 826 and 829, respectively, of the Acts of 1963.
 [2] See Prosser, Torts (2nd Ed.), § 103, p. 697, and cases cited in n. 92; annotations, 158 A.L.R. 617, and 167 A.L.R. 235, and cases therein collected, on the validity of such statutes. Albert v. McGrath, 278 F.2d 16 (C.A., D.C. Circ.) held the Maryland statute inapplicable, but did not consider its validity.


type: other

text:
Arta de a dezbina comunitatea și de a aliena badmintonul local. Pribegia Liceului de Arte Plastice Timișoara afectează și ”pepiniera” la fileu de la CSM Timișoara - sporttim.ro
 marți 6 Mar 2018, de Mihai Comşulea
 Un veritabil lanț al slăbiciunilor în capitala Banatului, ultima verigă afectată fiind suflarea celor de la fileul de badminton al Clubului Sportiv Municipal Timișoara, victimă indirectă prin ricoșeu a expedierii pe strada Lorena a Liceului de Arte Plastice Timișoara, altădată la loc de cinste și pe care și-l merita în centrul a ceea ce avea să devină capitala culturală europeană din anul 2021.
 Căreia nu-i stă deloc bine să constate turbulențele în timp ale unei unități de învățământ cu profil cultural, răsfrânte acum și împotriva leagănului badmintonului românesc, căci da, sportul cu fileu și minge a fost lansat pe plan național în Timișoara, cu succes peste ani în ramură.
 Un nou caz acut, semnalând agravarea problemelor induse pe plan local de deficiențele din sfera infrastructurii spațiilor de învățământ dar și a arenei sportive, neajunsuri care interferează fără nimic bun pentru părțile dintr-odată direct implicate, dând bătăi de cap cu potențial de a dezbina oameni. Iar Municipalitatea doar asistă impasibilă la urmările în efect de domino ale gestionării situației în care a fost pus în timp Liceul de Arte Plastice, semn al minusurilor administrative fără sorți de izbândă în a fi șterse cu una, cu două pe malurile Begăi.
 Într-atât de complicate au devenit problemele Timișoarei în ceea ce privește spațiile ”cetății”, sau mai bine zis lipsa lor, încât s-a ajuns până și la o coliziune directă între vitregitele sfere ale culturii și sportului, victimă fiecare în felul ei. Această convulsie pe axa suferinței artă – sport este însă cât se poate de sugestivă în privința inadecvatei infrastructuri locale, presurizată tot mai mult sub valul necesităților în creștere, unele firești, altele doar artificial generate.
 Iar din aceste zile a mai fost luat un prizonier în bătălia liceului pentru spații, declanșată de Municipalitate, și anume badmintonul. Care s-a autogospodărit peste decenii în sala de sport a fostului Liceu UMT, cu un întreg istoric al dificultăților de a rezista pe baricade, dar totuși stoic în a supraviețui pe alocuri cu spectaculoase rezultate, cu mult peste ceea ce s-ar fi putut aștepta în condițiile date.
 Însă badmintonul local înrădăcinat pe strada Lorena, unde a dat naștere înfloririi unei frumoase ”case” de suflet, devenită poate cea mai notabilă între sălile de sport ale orașului ca expunere a nișei sale particulare, dedicate ”pepinierei” acestei discipline dar și amatorilor săi cotizanți, este pus în fața unei și mai mari încercări, după toate cele în urma cărora chiar își permitea să creadă că a prins în sfârșit un binemeritat și firesc curs lin.
 Se pare așadar că badmintonului nu-i este dat să-și crească în liniște viitoarele generații, și nu puțini sunt copiii care trec pragul sălii de sport în cauză, inevitabil prinși la rândul lor în menghina nesfârșitelor neajunsuri de pe plan local, prin prisma cărora devine pe zi ce trece mai clar că administratorii municipiului sunt incapabili a le soluționa.
 Cu preșul tras de sub picioare din zona zero și expediat cu cortul prin oraș, Liceul de Arte Plastice Timișoara a sfârșit în cele din urmă pe strada Lorena 35, fără a-i displace noua ”casă”, o pălărie locativă însă mult prea mare pe creștetul instituției de învățământ prin prisma cheltuielilor cu utilitățile, de unde și tendința în regim de necesitate de a căuta variante de finanțare. Numărul elevilor și liceenilor de la ”Arte” fiind insuficient pentru ca unitatea de învățământ să fie eligibilă unei anumite subvenții, alternativele pentru completarea bugetului afectează terțe părți.
 Iar lovitura a fost aplicată tocmai pe adresa lumii badmintonului care și-a conturat încetul cu încetul din puțin o ”casă” în sala de sport din strada Lorena – foto, utilizată deopotrivă de copii și juniori dar și de sportivi amatori, cu toții participanți în respectiva incintă la antrenamente însă și întreceri competiționale. De prisos de menționat investițiile efectuate în timp de cei la fileu pentru îmbunătățirea de la A la Z și chiar reamenajarea pe alocuri de la zero a sălii, dar mai ales sufletul pus în toate aceste demersuri de ordin administrativ, întru sprijinirea efortului competițional răsplătit prin bune rezultate la nivel național, evidențe în fața cărora o reacție la zi pe plan local dinspre Inspectoratul Școlar Județean a sunat și de genul ”dar pe cine mai interesează așa ceva în ziua de astăzi, rezultate și performanță în sport!?”
 Esențial de subliniat este că tot Primăria Timișoara a fost cea care a ”dat verde” badmintonului să-și continue activitatea peste ani în sala de sport a fostului Liceu UMT, ulterior Grupul Școlar ”Tudor Tănăsescu”, și bine a făcut dat fiind tradiția, palmaresul, continuitatea în timp și reușitele pe plan național ale acestei discipline care necesita un loc de ancorare pe plan local. Iar ca o paranteză, apropo de lanțul slăbiciunilor, cel puțin la fel de gros și lung și la nivel național, dacă n-ar fi fost cândva șuntat prolificul badminton juvenil de pe Bega din schema Clubului Sportiv Școlar numărul 1, un prim colac de salvare fiindu-i aruncat de Clubul Sportiv Municipal Timișoara, atunci nici suflarea la fileu n-ar fi avut aceleași bătăi de cap peste ani în privința finanțării și cheltuielilor, o circulară ministerială asigurând grupărilor sportive școlare dreptul de accedere fără plată în incintele de profil.
 Așa însă, badmintonul preluat acum câțiva ani sub aripă de gruparea CSM Timișoara a ajuns la cheremul programului croit cu orar limitat de noii beneficiari ai spațiului de învățământ din strada Lorena și a sumelor percepute drept chirie tot de către Liceul de Arte Plastice pentru utilizarea sălii de sport în care cei la fileu au tot investit și investit. Să plătești cu ora pentru folosirea unei incinte pe care ai reamenajat-o de la un stadiu ca și jalnic, iată ce mai lovitură la fileu! Iar numărul orelor sportivilor să fie și acesta stabilit prin subțiere tocmai din pixul domeniului artelor, iată o bizarerie numai prin România posibilă!
 Badmintonul a fost așadar chemat la ordine, directorul CSM Timișoara, Lucian Reclaru, fiind invitat în cadrul ședinței Consiliului de Administrație al instituției de învățământ în cauză. Însă veștile n-au fost deloc bune pentru Clubul Sportiv Municipal...
 1.400 de lei pe săptămână pentru utilizarea sălii pe durata a doar 40 de ore, într-o reducere a timpului rezervat badmintoniștilor în respectiva incintă cu aproape o treime, de la 57 de ore, sarea pe rană fiind aplicată în ultimul paragraf al răspunsului Liceului de Arte Plastice Timișoara pe adresa solicitării Clubului Sportiv Municipal, și anume că ”în cazul în care condițiile aprobate în CA vor fi acceptate de solicitant, urmează ca părțile interesate să stabilească de comun acord un orar de folosință pentru sala de sport, în funcție de celelalte cluburi sportive care solicită folosirea acestui spațiu”, conform documentului inserat mai jos.
 S-au mai perindat pe-acolo și în trecut echipe din alte ramuri și din rândul cărora unora puțin le păsa că ”gazdele” din badminton repară, dau cu mopul ori aruncă totul frumos la coș după ei, iar acum se redeschide pare-se poarta. Dezinteresat? Nici pe departe. Interesul poartă fesul și ar exista chiar și anumite influențe în favoarea anumitor grupări sub panou de ordin privat.
 Ion-Ardeal Ieremia, influent din rolul său de regizor, a pus badmintonul pe jăratec prin discursul său din respectiva ședință a Consiliului de Administrație al Liceului de Arte Plastice Timișoara, iar cei de la fileu se simt cu spatele la zid, în condițiile în care CSM Timișoara poate acoperi doar cheltuielile competiționale ale secției de badminton, cu un plus pentru oarece materiale, astfel încât autogospodărirea în sala de sport intrată în colimatorul altora cădea pe umerii pasionaților din această disciplină. A beneficia de vitalele mingi de pregătire și joc, mingi din pene, accesorii fără de care învățăceii și-ar putea lua adio de la deprinderea cum se cuvine a tainelor badmintonului, implică nimic altceva decât achitarea de către sportivii amatori de la fileu a unei cotizații modice de utilizare a incintei, într-o întrajutorare în mica ”familie” a acestei ramuri, iar participarea acelorași copii și juniori la concursuri peste graniță ar fi imposibilă fără aportul părinților, de unde că toți cei implicați sunt și așa la limită în ceea ce privește potențialul de a finanța activitatea în curs, darmite să aibă rezervele și pentru asigurarea săptămânală a unui fond de chirie în valoare de 1.400 de lei.
 Vorba aceea, Daniel Popescu este pe lista celor 3 badmintoniști români identificați de Comitetul Olimpic și Sportiv Român prin prisma analizei șanselor de calificare pentru continuarea acestui parcurs de accedere spre Jocurile Olimpice de Tineret de la Buenos Aires, din vara acestui an, sportivul de la CSM Timișoara beneficiind implicit de programul de finanțare aprobat de COSR, dar el și colegii săi de club de la CSM ar putea ajunge tocmai acum în postura pribeagului prin oraș, atât de neplăcută, după cum cei de la Liceul de Arte Plastice constatau pe propria piele. Iar ceea ce ție nu-ți place, altuia nu-i face.
 Se pare însă că freamătă oarecare interese din umbră, indiferent de aportul peste ani al suflării badmintonistice în incinta în speță sau pe terenurile arenei naționale, cu soli sub ”tricolor” la nivel internațional. Însă cum tare puțini cunosc cât de cât măcar în linii mari istoria aureolată a badmintonului timișorean, o filă a mândriei locale în sportul autohton, se poate ajunge și la asemenea subțieri ale orarului dar și umflări a notei de plată. Și asta, culmea, după ce standardele în incinta sălii de sport au fost ridicate de badmintoniști printr-o frumoasă săritură la fileu, în contrast cu paragina din jurul clădirii, mediu propice șerpuirii lascive a reptilelor. Da, cât se poate de adevărat, oricât de incredibil ar părea, șerpii ducându-și nestingherit traiul prin zona fostei piste atletice din preajmă, cândva o altă utilă bornă a infrastructurii sportive locale.
 Cu o vorbă nu prea bună din domeniul regizoral și niște umeri ridicați în ignoranță dinspre responsabilului arenei sportive al Municipalității, ”pepiniera” badmintonului de la CSM Timișoara este pe punctul de a cădea în gol, totul pe fondul neajunsurilor în creștere din acest oraș, antagonizând cultura și sportul. Halal armonie orchestrată de o administrație incompetentă și halal infrastructură demnă de mileniul III pentru ambele prețioase domenii ale unei vieți sociale adecvate.
 Acest articol a fost publicat în Badminton, Exclusiv, Sport de masă, Sport juvenil și etichetat cu badminton, CSM Timişoara, HCL Timișoara, Liceul de Arte Plastice Timișoara, sala sport Liceul Ferdinand I, sport. Salvează legătura permanentă.


type: legislation

text:
 15.9.2020
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 301/4
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2020/1280 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 14 септември 2020 година
 за неподновяване на одобрението на активното вещество беналаксил в съответствие с Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно пускането на пазара на продукти за растителна защита и за изменение на приложението към Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 на Комисията
 (текст от значение за ЕИП)
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 21 октомври 2009 г. относно пускането на пазара на продукти за растителна защита и за отмяна на директиви 79/117/ЕИО и 91/414/ЕИО на Съвета (1), и по-специално член 20, параграф 1 и член 78, параграф 2 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 С Директива 2004/58/ЕО на Комисията (2) беналаксилът бе включен като активно вещество в приложение I към Директива 91/414/ЕИО на Съвета (3).
 (2)
 Активните вещества, включени в приложение I към Директива 91/414/ЕИО, се смятат за одобрени съгласно Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 и са посочени в част А от приложението към Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 на Комисията (4).
 (3)
 Срокът на одобрението на активното вещество беналаксил, определен в част А от приложението към Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011, изтича на 31 юли 2021 г.
 (4)
 В съответствие с член 1 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 844/2012 на Комисията (5) в предвидения в същия член срок бе подадено заявление за подновяване на одобрението на активното вещество беналаксил.
 (5)
 Заявителят представи допълнителните досиета, изисквани съгласно член 6 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 844/2012. Според докладващата държава членка заявлението е пълно.
 (6)
 Докладващата държава членка изготви доклад за оценка във връзка с подновяването, като се консултира със съдокладващата държава членка, и на 12 октомври 2016 г. го представи на Европейския орган по безопасност на храните („Органa“) и на Комисията.
 (7)
 Органът направи обществено достъпно допълнителното обобщено досие. Той освен това изпрати доклада за оценка във връзка с подновяването до заявителя и до държавите членки за коментар и започна обществена консултация по него. Органът препрати получените коментари на Комисията.
 (8)
 На 19 декември 2019 г. Органът предаде на Комисията заключението си (6) за това дали може да се очаква беналаксилът да отговаря на критериите за одобряване, предвидени в член 4 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009.
 (9)
 В заключението си Органът определи редица поводи за опасение. По-специално не може да се изключи възможността за замърсяване на подпочвените води със съответните метаболити. Освен това, като проблемна област бе определен дългосрочният риск от вторично отравяне с беналаксил за птиците и за хранещите се със земни червеи птици. Бяха установени и опасения във връзка с дългосрочния риск за нецелевите членестоноги при всички представителни видове употреба. И накрая, наред с това, след като Органът поиска допълнителна информация, за да оцени потенциала на веществото беналаксил да нарушава функциите на ендокринната система, заявителят потвърди, че няма да бъдат извършени или представени допълнителни изследвания. Следователно не може да се заключи, че веществото няма свойства, нарушаващи функциите на ендокринната система.
 (10)
 Комисията прикани заявителя да представи своите коментари относно заключението на Органа. Освен това в съответствие с член 14, параграф 1, трета алинея от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 844/2012 Комисията прикани заявителя да представи коментари по доклада във връзка с подновяването на одобрението. Заявителят представи своите коментари, които бяха разгледани внимателно.
 (11)
 Независимо от изложените от заявителя аргументи обаче не бе възможно да бъдат отхвърлени опасенията по отношение на активното вещество.
 (12)
 Вследствие на това по отношение на един или повече представителни видове употреба на най-малко един продукт за растителна защита не беше установено, че посочените в член 4 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 критерии за одобрение са изпълнени. Затова в съответствие с член 20, параграф 1, буква б) от посочения регламент е целесъобразно одобрението на активното вещество беналаксил да не бъде подновено.
 (13)
 Поради това Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 следва да бъде съответно изменен.
 (14)
 На държавите членки следва да се предостави достатъчно време да отнемат разрешенията за продукти за растителна защита, съдържащи беналаксил.
 (15)
 За продуктите за растителна защита, съдържащи беналаксил, за които държавите членки предоставят гратисен период в съответствие с член 46 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009, този период не трябва да надвишава 12 месеца след влизането в сила на настоящия регламент.
 (16)
 С Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) 2020/869 на Комисията (7) срокът на одобрението на беналаксил бе удължен до 31 юли 2021 г., за да се даде възможност процедурата по подновяването да приключи, преди срокът на одобрението на посоченото вещество да изтече. Тъй като обаче решението за неподновяване на одобрението се взема, преди да изтече удълженият срок, настоящият регламент следва да започне да се прилага възможно най-скоро.
 (17)
 Настоящият регламент не възпрепятства подаването на ново заявление за одобрение на беналаксил в съответствие с член 7 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009.
 (18)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Постоянния комитет по растенията, животните, храните и фуражите,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Неподновяване на одобрението на активното вещество
 Одобрението на активното вещество беналаксил не се подновява.
 Член 2
 Изменение на Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011
 В част А от приложението към Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 ред No 84 относно беналаксил се заличава.
 Член 3
 Преходни мерки
 Държавите членки отнемат разрешенията за продукти за растителна защита, съдържащи беналаксил като активно вещество, не по-късно от 5 април 2021 г.
 Член 4
 Гратисен период
 Всеки гратисен период, предоставен от държавите членки в съответствие с член 46 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009, изтича най-късно на 5 октомври 2021 г.
 Член 5
 Влизане в сила
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на двадесетия ден след деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 14 септември 2020 година.
 За Комисията
 Председател
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) ОВ L 309, 24.11.2009 г., стр. 1.
 (2) Директива 2004/58/ЕО на Комисията от 23 април 2004 г. за изменение на Директива 91/414/ЕИО на Съвета за включването на алфациперметрин, беналаксил, бромоксинил, десмедифам, йоксинил и фенмедифам като активни вещества (ОВ L 120, 24.4.2004 г., стр. 26).
 (3) Директива 91/414/ЕИО на Съвета от 15 юли 1991 г. относно пускането на пазара на продукти за растителна защита (ОВ L 230, 19.8.1991 г., стр. 1).
 (4) Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 на Комисията от 25 май 2011 г. за прилагане на Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета по отношение на списъка на одобрените активни вещества (ОВ L 153, 11.6.2011 г., стр. 1).
 (5) Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 844/2012 на Комисията от 18 септември 2012 г. за определяне на разпоредбите, необходими за изпълнението на процедурата по подновяване по отношение на активните вещества в съответствие с Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно пускането на пазара на продукти за растителна защита (ОВ L 252, 19.9.2012 г., стр. 26).
 (6) ЕОБХ (Европейски орган за безопасност на храните). 2019 г. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance benalaxyl („Заключение относно партньорската проверка на оценката на риска от употребата на активното вещество беналаксил като пестицид“). EFSA Journal (Бюлетин на ЕОБХ) 2020;18(1):5985, 41 стр. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5985.
 (7) Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) 2020/869 на Комисията от 24 юни 2020 г. за изменение на Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 по отношение на удължаването на срока на одобренията на активните вещества бефлубутамид, беналаксил, бентиаваликарб, бифеназат, боскалид, бромоксинил, каптан, циазофамид, диметоморф, етефон, етоксазол, фамоксадон, фенамифос, флумиоксазин, флуоксастробин, фолпет, форметанат, метрибузин, милбемектин, Paecilomyces lilacinus, щам 251, фенмедифам, фосмет, пиримифос-метил, пропамокарб, протиоконазол и S-метолахлор (ОВ L 201, 25.6.2020 г., стр. 7).


text:
 28.9.2015
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 320/45
 Recurso interpuesto el 5 de agosto de 2015 — AlzChem/Comisión
 (Asunto T-451/15)
 (2015/C 320/63)
 Lengua de procedimiento: inglés
 Partes
 Demandante: AlzChem AG (Trostberg, Alemania) (representante: A. Borsos, abogado)
 Demandada: Comisión Europea
 Pretensiones
 La parte demandante solicita al Tribunal General que:
 —
 Declare la admisibilidad y el carácter fundado del recurso.
 —
 Anule la Decisión Ares (2015) 2176662 de la Comisión Europea, de 26 de mayo de 2015, adoptada con arreglo al artículo 4 de las disposiciones de aplicación del Reglamento (CE) no 1049/2001 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 30 de mayo de 2001, relativo al acceso del público a los documentos del Parlamento Europeo, del Consejo y de la Comisión, en respuesta a la solicitud no GESTDEM 2015/1640.
 —
 Condene en costas a la Comisión.
 Motivos y principales alegaciones
 En apoyo de su recurso, la parte demandante invoca tres motivos.
 1.
 Primer motivo, basado en un error de Derecho y un error manifiesto de apreciación en relación con la aplicación de una presunción general con respecto a la excepción relativa a la protección del objetivo de las actividades de investigación de la Unión. La demandante alega los siguientes errores:
 —
 error de Derecho de la Comisión en lo que respecta a la aplicación de las excepciones generales;
 —
 error de Derecho de la Comisión en lo que respecta a la protección del objetivo de las actividades de investigación;
 —
 error de Derecho y error manifiesto de apreciación de la Comisión en relación con la apreciación del interés público superior de garantizar la tutela judicial efectiva (artículo 47 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea), y
 —
 error de Derecho de la Comisión en relación con la aplicación del derecho fundamental de acceso a los documentos (artículo 42 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea).
 2.
 Segundo motivo, basado en un error de Derecho y un error manifiesto de apreciación en relación con la aplicación de la excepción de protección de los intereses comerciales.
 3.
 Tercer motivo, basado en la falta de motivación de la denegación de acceso a una versión no confidencial o de acceso in situ a los documentos.


text:
§ 53 HSG 2014 (Hochschülerinnen- und Hochschülerschaftsgesetz 2014), Zuweisung der Mandate für die Bundesvertretung und die Hochschulvertretungen - JUSLINE Österreich
 § 53 HSG 2014 Zuweisung der Mandate für die Bundesvertretung und die Hochschulvertretungen
 (1) Die auf Grund der Wahlen auf eine wahlwerbende Gruppe entfallenden Mandate sind den Bewerberinnen und Bewerbern in der Reihenfolge des Wahlvorschlages zuzuweisen. Die auf diesem Wahlvorschlag enthaltenen nicht gewählten Personen sind Ersatzpersonen.
 § 53 HSG 2014 merken
 Kommentare zu § 53 HSG 2014
 Sie können den Inhalt von 53 HSG 2014 selbst erläutern, also einen kurzen eigenen Fachkommentar verfassen. Klicken Sie einfach einen der nachfolgenden roten Links an!
 Entscheidungen zu § 53 HSG 2014
 Diskussionen zu § 53 HSG 2014
 Sie können zu § 53 HSG 2014 eine Frage stellen oder beantworten. Klicken Sie einfach den nachfolgenden roten Link an!
 § 44 HSG 2014 Ausstellung einer Wahlkarte§ 45 HSG 2014 Stimmabgabe mit einer Wahlkarte§ 45a HSG Einsprüche gegen die Wahlen der Studiengangsvertretung an Pädagogischen Hochschulen und Fachhochschul-Studiengängen (aufgehoben)§ 46 HSG 2014 Wahladministrationssystem§ 47 HSG 2014 Wahlberechtigte§ 48 HSG 2014 Wahlausschließungsgründe§ 49 HSG 2014 Wahlwerbende Gruppen und Zustellungsbevollmächtigte§ 50 HSG 2014 Zusammensetzung der Wahlkommissionen§ 51 HSG 2014 Aufgaben der Wahlkommissionen und Unterwahlkommissionen§ 52 HSG 2014 Wahlverfahren§ 53 HSG 2014 Zuweisung der Mandate für die Bundesvertretung und die Hochschulvertretungen§ 54 HSG 2014 Zuweisung der Mandate für die Studienvertretungen§ 55 HSG 2014 Erlöschen von Mandaten§ 56 HSG 2014 Einsprüche gegen die Wahl der Bundesvertretung§ 57 HSG 2014 Einsprüche gegen die Wahlen der Hochschulvertretungen und der Studienvertretungen§ 58 HSG 2014 Wahlwiederholung§ 58a HSG Vermögensübergang auf die Hochschülerinnen- und Hochschülerschaften der Medizinischen Universität Wien, Graz, Innsbruck (aufgehoben)§ 59 HSG 2014 Konstituierung der Bundesvertretung, der Hochschulvertretungen und der Studienvertretungen§ 60 HSG 2014 Hochschülerinnen- und Hochschülerschaftswahlordnung§ 61 HSG 2014 Antragsrecht§ 62 HSG 2014 Urabstimmung
 https://www.jusline.at/gesetz/hsg/paragraf/53
 § 52 HSG 2014
 § 54 HSG 2014


text:
 29.1.2008
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 L 24/42
 DÉCISION DU CONSEIL
 du 20 décembre 2007
 portant modification du protocole sur le statut de la Cour de justice
 (2008/79/CE, Euratom)
 LE CONSEIL DE L’UNION EUROPÉENNE,
 vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne, et notamment son article 245, deuxième alinéa,
 vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne de l’énergie atomique, et notamment son article 160, deuxième alinéa,
 vu la demande de la Cour de justice du 11 juillet 2007,
 vu l’avis de la Commission du 20 novembre 2007,
 vu l’avis du Parlement européen du 29 novembre 2007,
 considérant ce qui suit:
 Il convient de prévoir la possibilité de déroger à certaines dispositions du protocole sur le statut de la Cour relatives à la procédure dans le cadre de l’introduction d’une procédure préjudicielle d’urgence pour les renvois préjudiciels relatifs à l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, et il y a lieu, pour le bon ordre, de viser également dans la disposition autorisant ces dérogations la procédure accélérée prévue par le règlement de procédure de la Cour,
 DÉCIDE:
 Article premier
 Après l’article 23 du protocole sur le statut de la Cour de justice est inséré l’article suivant:
 «Article 23 bis
 Une procédure accélérée et, pour les renvois préjudiciels relatifs à l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, une procédure d’urgence peuvent être prévues par le règlement de procédure.
 Ces procédures peuvent prévoir, pour le dépôt des mémoires ou observations écrites, un délai plus bref que celui prévu à l’article 23, et, par dérogation à l’article 20, quatrième alinéa, l’absence de conclusions de l’avocat général.
 La procédure d’urgence peut prévoir, en outre, la limitation des parties et autres intéressés visés à l’article 23 autorisés à déposer des mémoires ou observations écrites, et, dans des cas d’extrême urgence, l’omission de la phase écrite de la procédure.»
 Article 2
 La présente décision entre en vigueur le premier jour du deuxième mois suivant celui de sa publication au Journal officiel de l’Union européenne.
 Fait à Bruxelles, le 20 décembre 2007.
 Par le Conseil
 Le président
 F. NUNES CORREIA


text:
 26.1.2013
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 C 26/65
 Talan väckt den 21 november 2012 — Conrad Electronic mot harmoniseringsbyrån — Sky IP International (EuroSky)
 (Mål T-510/12)
 2013/C 26/128
 Rättegångsspråk: tyska
 Parter
 Sökande: Conrad Electronic SE (Hirschau, Tyskland) (ombud: advokaterna P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M.Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier och A. Kramer)
 Svarande: Byrån för harmonisering inom den inre marknaden (varumärken, mönster och modeller) (harmoniseringsbyrån)
 Motpart vid överklagandenämnden: Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, Förenade kungariket)
 Yrkanden
 Sökanden yrkar att tribunalen ska
 —
 ogiltigförklara beslut R 1138/2001-4, som fattats av fjärde överklagandenämnden vid harmoniseringsbyrån den 20 september 2012,
 —
 förplikta svaranden att ersätta rättegångskostnaderna samt kostnaderna för förfarandet vid överklagandenämnden.
 Grunder och huvudargument
 Sökande av gemenskapsvarumärke: Sökanden
 Sökt gemenskapsvarumärke: Ordmärket ”EuroSky” för varor i klass 9 — Ansökan om registrering som gemenskapsvarumärke nr 4 539 896
 Innehavare av det varumärke eller kännetecken som åberopats som hinder för registrering i invändningsförfarandet: Sky IP International Ltd
 Varumärke eller kännetecken som åberopats: Gemenskaps- och nationella ord och figurmärken ”SKY” för varor och tjänster i klasserna 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43 och 45
 Invändningsenhetens beslut: Bifall till invändningen
 Överklagandenämndens beslut: Avslag på överklagandet
 Grunder: Åsidosättande av artikel 8.1 b i förordning nr 207/2009