jurisdiction: US

text:
 113 S2672 IS: Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act of 2014
 U.S. Senate
 2014-07-28
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 II
 113th CONGRESS2d Session
 S. 2672
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
 July 28, 2014
 Mr. Cruz introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
 A BILL
 To terminate the authority to waive certain provisions of law requiring the imposition of sanctions
 with respect to Iran, to codify certain sanctions imposed by executive
 order, and for other purposes.
 1.Short title
 This Act may be cited as the
 Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act of 2014 or the SISA Act.
 2.FindingsCongress makes the following findings:(1)A nuclear-capable Iran poses a direct and existential threat to the United States, Israel, and
 allies around the world.(2)Iran is a leading state sponsor of terrorism, arming and funding terrorist groups around the world,
 including by providing material support for the terrorist organization
 Hamas in its relentless attacks on Israel.(3)The Government of Iran has violated United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737
 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), and 1929 (2010), relating
 to Iran’s nuclear program.(4)The Government of Iran has received significant economic benefits from the relaxation of economic
 sanctions pursuant the Joint Plan of Action, signed November 24, 2013, by
 Iran and by France,
 Germany, the Russian Federation, the People’s Republic of China, the
 United Kingdom, and the United States (in this section referred to as the Joint Plan of Action), including increased economic growth, reduced inflation, and a strengthened currency, while
 making no substantive reductions in its nuclear program.(5)Any deal relating to Iran's nuclear weapons program that does not completely dismantle the entire
 nuclear weapons program would repeat the same mistakes observed with
 negotiations with North Korea, a totalitarian country that exported its
 nuclear technology to Syria and has shared similar nuclear and ballistic
 missile technology with Iran.(6)The Agreed Framework between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,
 signed in Geneva on October 21, 1994, which called for North Korea to
 freeze and dismantle its nuclear weapons program in exchange for eased
 sanctions and normalized relations with the United States, should serve as
 a reminder of previous failed negotiations resulting in billions of
 dollars made available for the development of nuclear weapons.(7)Economic sanctions imposed with respect to Iran are designed for the purpose of ending Iran’s
 pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, not of initiating negotiations.
 Therefore, any easing of sanctions in pursuit of negotiations undermines
 the purpose of the sanctions, as is demonstrated by the case of North
 Korea.3.Modification and elimination of waiver authorities for certain sanctions with respect to Iran(a)Modification of waiver of sanctions relating to the transportation of crude oil from Iran(1)In generalSection 9(c)(1)(A) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–172; 50 U.S.C.
 1701 note) is amended by inserting (other than the requirement in paragraph (7) of such section) after section 5(a).(2)Termination of waiversAny waiver of the requirement in section 5(a)(7) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996
 (Public Law 104–172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) exercised by the President under
 section 9(c)(1)(A) of such Act shall cease to be in
 effect on and after the date of the enactment of this Act.(b)Elimination of waiver with respect to mandatory sanctions with respect to financial institutions
 that engage in certain transactions(1)In generalSection 104 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22
 U.S.C. 8513) is amended—(A)by striking subsection (f); and(B)by redesignating subsections (g) through (i) as subsections (f) through (h), respectively.(2)Termination of waiversAny waiver of the imposition of sanctions exercised by the President under section 104(f) of the
 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010
 (22
 U.S.C. 8513(f)), as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment
 of this Act, shall cease to be in effect on and after such date of
 enactment.(3)Conforming amendments(A)Sanctions with respect to financial sector of IranSection 1245(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(h))
 is amended by striking section
 104(i) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability,
 and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513(i)) and inserting section
 104 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability,
 and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513).(B)Expansion of mandatory sanctions with respect to certain financial institutionsSection
 104A(d)(2) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability,
 and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513b(d)(2)) is amended by striking section 104(i) and inserting section 104.(C)Definitions for Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012Section 1242(a)(5) of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8801(a)(5))
 is
 amended by striking section
 104(i) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability,
 and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513(i)) and inserting section
 104 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability,
 and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513).(c)Elimination of waiver of sanctions with respect to the financial sector of Iran(1)In generalSection 1245(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22
 U.S.C. 8513a(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (5).(2)Termination of waiversAny waiver exercised by the President under section 1245(d)(5) of the National
 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(5)), as
 in
 effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall
 cease to be in effect on and
 after such date of enactment.(d)Elimination of waiver of sanctions with respect to persons that support or conduct certain
 transactions with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps or other sanctioned
 persons(1)In generalSection 302 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (22
 U.S.C. 8742) is amended by—(A)striking subsections (d) and (e); and(B)redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (d).(2)Termination of waiversAny waiver exercised by the President under subsection (d) or (e) of section 302 of the Iran
 Threat
 Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8742(d)), as in
 effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall
 cease to be in effect on and after such date of enactment.(e)Elimination of waiver of sanctions with respect to the energy, shipping, and shipbuilding sectors
 of Iran(1)In generalSection 1244 of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8803) is amended
 by striking subsection (i).(2)Termination of waiversAny waiver of the imposition of sanctions under section 1244(i) of the Iran Freedom
 and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8803(i)), as in effect on
 the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall cease to be in
 effect on and after such date of enactment.(f)Elimination of waiver of sanctions with respect to the sale, supply, or transfer of certain
 materials to or from Iran(1)In generalSection 1245 of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8804) is
 amended—(A)by striking subsection (g); and(B)by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (g).(2)Termination of waiversAny waiver of the imposition of sanctions under section 1245(g) of the Iran Freedom
 and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8804(g)), as in effect on
 the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall cease to be in
 effect on and after such date of enactment.(g)Elimination of waiver of sanctions with respect to the provision of underwriting services or
 insurance or reinsurance for activities or persons with respect to which
 sanctions have been imposed(1)In generalSection 1246 of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8805) is amended
 by striking subsection (e).(2)Termination of waiversAny waiver of the imposition of sanctions under section 1246(e) of the Iran Freedom
 and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8805(e)), as in effect on
 the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall cease to be in
 effect on and after such date of enactment.(h)Elimination of waiver of sanctions with respect to foreign financial institutions that facilitate
 financial transactions on behalf of specially designated nationals(1)In generalSection 1247 of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8806) is amended
 by striking subsection (f).(2)Termination of waiversAny waiver of the imposition of sanctions under subsection section 1247(f) of the Iran Freedom
 and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8806(f)), as in effect on
 the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall cease to be in
 effect on and after such date of enactment.(i)Technical amendmentSection 1253(c) of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C.
 8809(c)) is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking , and, as appropriate, instead of sections 1244(i), 1245(g), and 1246(e) of this Act.4.Sanctions with respect to purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum,
 petroleum products, or petrochemical products
 from Iran(a)In generalSubtitle B of title II of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C.
 8721 et seq.) is amended—(1)by redesignating sections 222, 223, and 224 as sections 225, 226, and 227, respectively; and(2)by inserting after section 221 the following:222.Imposition of sanctions with respect to purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of
 petroleum, petroleum products, and petrochemical products
 from Iran(a)Limitations on correspondent and payable-Through accountsThe President shall prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict
 conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent
 account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President
 determines has knowingly
 conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction, on or
 after July 31, 2012—(1)for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products
 from Iran; or(2)for the purchase,
 acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from
 Iran.(b)Application of sanctions from Iran Sanctions Act of 1996The President shall impose on a person
 one or more of the sanctions described in section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public
 Law
 104–172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) upon determining
 that the person knowingly, on or after July 31, 2012, engaged in
 a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport,
 or marketing of—(1)petroleum or
 petroleum products from Iran; or(2)petrochemical
 products from Iran.(c)ApplicabilitySubsections (a)(1) and (b)(1) shall apply with respect to a person
 only if—(1)the President determines under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (4) of section 1245(d) of the
 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C.
 8513a(d)) that there is a sufficient supply of petroleum
 and petroleum products from countries other than Iran to permit a significant reduction in the
 volume of petroleum and petroleum products purchased from Iran by or
 through foreign financial institutions; and(2)an exception under subparagraph (D) of that paragraph from the imposition of sanctions under
 paragraph (1) of that
 section does not apply with respect to the country with primary jurisdiction
 over the person.(d)DefinitionsIn this section:(1)Account; correspondent account; payable-through accountThe terms account, correspondent account, and payable-through account have the meanings given those terms in section 5318A of title 31, United States Code.
 (2)Financial institutionThe term financial institution means a financial institution specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H),
 (I), (J), (M), or (Y) of section 5312(a)(2) of title 31, United States
 Code.
 (3)Foreign financial institutionThe term foreign financial institution has the meaning of that term as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section
 104 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment
 Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513).
 (4)PetroleumThe term petroleum means a mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural underground reservoirs and
 remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through surface
 separating facilities.(5)Petroleum products(A)In generalThe term petroleum products includes unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum gases, pentanes plus, aviation gasoline, motor
 gasoline, naphtha-type jet fuel, kerosene-type jet fuel, kerosene,
 distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, petrochemical feedstocks, special
 naphthas, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke, asphalt, road oil, still gas,
 and miscellaneous products obtained from the processing of crude oil
 (including lease condensate), natural gas, and other hydrocarbon
 compounds.(B)ExceptionThe term petroleum products does not include natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biofuels, methanol, and other non-petroleum
 fuels.(6)Petrochemical productsThe term petrochemical products includes any aromatic, olefin, and synthesis gas, and any of derivatives of such a gas, including
 ethylene, propylene, butadiene, benzene, toluene, xylene, ammonia,
 methanol, and urea.223.Imposition of sanctions with respect to support for the National Iranian Oil Company, the
 Naftiran Intertrade Company, or
 the Central Bank of IranThe President shall block and prohibit all transactions in property and interests
 in property of a person the President determines has, on or after July 31,
 2012,
 materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or
 goods or services in support of, the National Iranian Oil Company, the
 Naftiran Intertrade Company, or
 the Central Bank of Iran if such property and interests in property are in the
 United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the
 possession or control of a United States person.224.Imposition of sanctions with respect to support for the purchase of United States bank notes or
 precious metals
 by the Government of IranThe President shall block and prohibit all transactions in property and interests
 in property of a person the President determines has, on or after July 31,
 2012,
 materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or
 goods or services in support of, the purchase or acquisition of United
 States bank notes
 or precious metals by the Government of Iran, if such property and interests in property are in the
 United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the
 possession or control of a United States person..(b)Clerical amendmentThe table of contents for the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 is amended
 by striking the items relating to sections 222, 223, and 224 and inserting
 the following:Sec. 222. Imposition of sanctions with respect to purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or
 marketing of petroleum, petroleum products, and petrochemical products
 from Iran.
 Sec. 223. Imposition of sanctions with respect to support for the National Iranian Oil Company, the
 Naftiran
 Intertrade Company, or the Central Bank of Iran.
 Sec. 224. Imposition of sanctions with respect to support for the purchase of United States bank
 notes or
 precious metals by the Government of Iran.Sec. 225. Sense of Congress and rule of construction relating to certain authorities of State and
 local governments.Sec. 226. Government Accountability Office report on foreign entities that invest in the energy
 sector of Iran or export refined petroleum products to Iran.Sec. 227. Reporting on the importation to and exportation from Iran of crude oil and refined
 petroleum products..5.Imposition of sanctions with respect to transactions with specially designated nationals and with
 respect to the automotive sector
 of Iran(a)In generalThe Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 1241 et seq.) is amended by
 inserting after section 1247 the following:1247A.Imposition of sanctions with respect to certain transactions with specially designated nationals(a)Blocking of propertyThe President shall block and prohibit all transactions in property and interests
 in property of a person the President determines has, on or after June 1,
 2013,
 materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or
 goods or services in support of, any person specified in subsection (b) if
 such property and interests in property are in the
 United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the
 possession or control of a United States person.(b)Persons specifiedA person specified in this subsection is any person as follows:(1)Any Iranian person included on the list
 of specially designated nationals
 and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the
 Treasury (other than an Iranian
 depository institution whose property
 and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order
 13599 (78 Fed. Reg. 33,951)).(2)Any person included on such list whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to
 subsection (a) or Executive Order 13599 (other than an Iranian depository
 institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely
 pursuant to Executive Order 13599).1247B.Imposition of sanctions with respect to the automotive sector of Iran(a)In generalThe President shall impose sanctions described in one or more of paragraphs (1), (2), (4), (5),
 (10),
 and (11) of section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law
 104–172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) with respect to a person that the
 President determines has, on or after June 1, 2013, knowingly
 engaged in a significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or
 transfer to Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with
 the automotive sector of Iran.(b)Facilitation of certain transactionsThe President shall prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the
 maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a
 payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the
 President determines has, on or after June 1, 2013, knowingly facilitated
 a significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or
 transfer to Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with
 the automotive sector of Iran.1247C.Certification required for government contracts with persons in automotive sector of any country(a)Modification of Federal Acquisition RegulationNot later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act of 2014, the Federal Acquisition
 Regulation shall be revised to require a certification from each person
 described in subsection (b)
 that is a prospective contractor that the person, and any person owned or
 controlled by the person—(1)has not, in the previous 90 days, conducted any transaction with an Iranian person or any entity
 owned or controlled by an Iranian
 person; and(2)does not have a business relationship with the Government of Iran.(b)Persons describedA person described in this subsection is a person that is part of the automotive sector of any
 foreign country.(c)Remedies(1)In generalIf the head of an executive agency determines that a person has submitted a false certification
 under subsection (a) on or after the date on which the revision
 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation required by this subsection becomes
 effective, the head of that executive agency shall terminate a contract
 with such person or debar or suspend such person from eligibility for
 Federal contracts for a period of not less than 2 years. Any such
 debarment or suspension shall be subject to the procedures that apply to
 debarment and suspension under the Federal Acquisition Regulation under
 subpart 9.4 of part 9 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.(2)Inclusion on list of parties excluded from Federal procurement and nonprocurement programsThe Administrator of General Services shall include on the List of Parties Excluded from Federal
 Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs maintained by the Administrator
 under part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation each person that is
 debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment or suspension by the head
 of an executive agency on the basis of a determination of a false
 certification under paragraph (1).(d)Clarification regarding certain productsThe remedies set forth in subsection (c) shall not apply with respect to the procurement of
 eligible
 products, as defined in section 308(4) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1974
 (19 U.S.C. 2518(4)), of any foreign country or instrumentality designated
 under section 301(b) of that Act (19 U.S.C. 2511(b)).(e)Rule of constructionThis section shall not be construed to limit the use of other remedies available to the head of
 an executive agency or any other official of the Federal Government on the
 basis of a determination of a false certification under subsection (a).(f)ApplicabilityThe revisions to the Federal Acquisition Regulation required under subsection (a) shall apply
 with respect to contracts for which solicitations are issued on or after
 the date of the enactment of the
 Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act of 2014.(g)Government Accountability Office reportNot later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of the Sanction Iran, Safeguard America Act of 2014, and every 30 days thereafter, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the
 appropriate
 congressional
 committees a list of all persons that are part of the automotive sector of
 any foreign
 country that—
 (1)during the 30-day period preceding the submission of the report, have conducted a transaction with
 an Iranian
 person or any entity owned or controlled by an Iranian person; or(2)have a business relationship with the Government of Iran.(h)DefinitionsIn this section:(1)Executive agencyThe term executive agency has the meaning given that term in section 133 of title 41, United States Code.(2)Federal Acquisition RegulationThe term Federal Acquisition Regulation means the regulation issued pursuant to section 1303(a)(1) of title 41, United States Code..(b)DefinitionsSection 1242 of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8801) is amended—(1)in subsection (a)—(A)by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (14) as paragraphs (9) through (16), respectively;(B)by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as paragraphs (4) through (7), respectively;(C)by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:(3)Automotive sectorThe term automotive sector means, with respect to a country, the following:(A)The manufacturing or
 assembling in that country of vehicles, including passenger cars,
 trucks, buses, minibuses, pick-up trucks, and motorcycles.(B)The manufacturing in that country of original
 equipment relating to
 such vehicles.(C)The manufacturing in that country of after-market parts relating to such vehicles.; and(D)by inserting after paragraph (7), as redesignated by subparagraph (B), the following:(8)Iranian depository institutionThe term Iranian depository institution means an entity that—(A)is—(i)organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction within Iran, including a foreign branch of
 such an institution;(ii)located in Iran;(iii)owned or controlled by the Government of Iran; or(iv)owned or controlled by an entity described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); and(B)is engaged primarily in the business of banking, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury.; and(2)in subsection (b)—(A)by striking financial transactions or financial services and inserting financial transactions, financial services, goods, or other services; and(B)by inserting , with respect to financial transactions or financial services, after including.6.Expansion of sanctions with respect to foreign financial institutions that facilitate financial
 transactions with specially designated nationalsSection 1247(a) of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8806(a))
 is amended by striking the President determines has and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting “the President determines has—(1)on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, knowingly
 facilitated a significant financial transaction on behalf of any Iranian
 person included on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked
 persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the
 Department of the Treasury (other than an Iranian financial institution
 described in subsection (b)); or(2)on or after June 1, 2013, knowingly facilitated a significant financial transaction on behalf of
 any person included on
 such list whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to
 section 1247A or Executive Order 13599 (78 Fed. Reg. 33,951) (other than an Iranian depository
 institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely
 pursuant to Executive Order 13599)..7.Termination of loophole allowing importation of refined petroleum products made from Iranian origin
 crude oil(a)In generalSection 103(b)(1) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010
 (22 U.S.C. 8512(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:(C)Application to refined petroleum products made from Iranian origin crude oilThe prohibition in subparagraph (A) includes a prohibition on the importation into the United
 States of refined petroleum products produced using Iranian origin crude
 oil without regard to whether such crude oil was commingled with crude oil
 not of Iranian origin during the process of producing the refined
 petroleum products..(b)Termination of regulatory exceptions(1)In generalSection 103(d) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22
 U.S.C. 8512(d)) is amended to read as follows:(d)Regulatory authority(1)In generalThe President shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section.(2)Prohibition on regulatory exceptionsNo exception to the prohibition under subsection (b)(1) may be made by regulation..(2)Termination of exceptionsAny regulatory exception to the prohibition under section 103(b)(1) of the Comprehensive Iran
 Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C.
 8512(b)(1)) in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this
 Act shall cease to be in
 effect on and after such date of enactment.8.Applicability of sanctions with respect to petroleum transactions(a)In generalSection 1245(d)(4)(D)(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C.
 8513a(d)(4)(D)(i)) is amended—(1)in subclause (I), by striking reduced reduced its volume of crude oil purchases from Iran and inserting reduced the volume of its purchases of petroleum from Iran or of Iranian origin; and(2)in subclause (II), by striking crude oil purchases from Iran and inserting purchases of petroleum from Iran or of Iranian origin.(b)DefinitionsSection 1245(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(h))
 is amended—(1)by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively; and(2)by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:(3)Iranian originThe term Iranian origin, with respect to petroleum, means extracted, produced, or refined in Iran.(4)PetroleumThe term petroleum includes crude oil, lease condensates, fuel oils, and other unfinished oils..(c)Conforming amendmentsSection 102(b) of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8712(b))
 is amended—(1)in paragraph (3)—(A)by striking crude oil purchases from Iran and inserting purchases of petroleum from Iran or of Iranian origin; and(B)by striking as amended by section 504,; and(2)in paragraph (4), by striking crude oil purchases and inserting purchases of petroleum from Iran or of Iranian origin.(d)Effective dateThe
 amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to determinations
 under section 1245(d)(4)(D)(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act
 for
 Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(D)(i)) on or after the date that
 is 90
 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.9.Sanctions with respect to proliferators of weapons of mass destruction(a)In generalThe President shall block and prohibit all transactions in property and interests
 in property of a person the President determines knowingly, on or after
 June 29, 2005, provides, or attempts to provide,
 financial, material,
 technological or other support for, or goods or services in support of,
 any activity or transaction described in subsection (b)
 or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to Executive Order
 13382 (70 Fed. Reg. 38,567; relating to blocking property of weapons of
 mass destruction
 proliferators and their supporters), if such property and interests in property are in the
 United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the
 possession or control of a United States person.(b)Activities and transactions describedAn activity or transaction described in this subsection is an activity or transaction that has
 materially contributed to, or poses a risk of materially
 contributing to, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the
 means of delivery of such weapons (including missiles capable of delivering such weapons),
 including any efforts to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport,
 transfer or use such weapons or means of delivery, by any person or foreign country the President
 determines to be of proliferation
 concern.(c)United States person definedIn this section, the term United States person has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
 Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8511).10.Prohibition on funding for negotiations with Iran without consent of CongressNo funds authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2014 or any fiscal year thereafter may be
 obligated or expended to participate in a diplomatic negotiation with
 Iran until the date of the enactment of a joint resolution certifying
 that—(1)the Government of Iran has freed all American prisoners of conscience who are being unjustly held
 in Iranian jails;(2)the Government of Iran is complying with all inspections conducted by the International Atomic
 Energy Agency to fulfill its obligations under the Treaty on the
 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and
 Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (commonly known
 as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), to which Iran is a party;(3)the United States can verifiably determine, through certification by the International Atomic
 Energy Agency, that the Government of Iran—(A)has dismantled its nuclear program in its entirety, including all centrifuges, capabilities, and
 facilities for
 enrichment and reprocessing of uranium and plutonium;(B)has relinquished all stockpiles of enriched uranium; and(C)does not have any ballistic missiles with a range of 300 kilometers or more and a payload of 500
 kilograms or more and has dismantled its research and development programs
 for such weapons;(4)the Secretary of the Treasury no longer finds that the Central Bank of Iran is a financial
 institution of primary money laundering concern pursuant to section 5318A
 of title 31, United States Code; and(5)the Government of Iran has demonstrated its renunciation of state-sponsored terrorism by
 acknowledging its participation in, assisting the investigation, if any,
 into, relinquishing any suspects currently harbored by the Government of
 Iran, and accepting legal responsibility for—(A)the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on March 17, 1992;(B)the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York on February 26, 1993;(C)the bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires,
 Argentina, on July 18, 1994; and(D)the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, on June 25, 1996.


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 30.7.2015
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 202/96
 BESCHLUSS DES GEMEINSAMEN EWR-AUSSCHUSSES
 Nr. 208/2014
 vom 30. September 2014
 zur Änderung von Anhang XX (Umweltschutz) des EWR-Abkommens [2015/1276]
 DER GEMEINSAME EWR-AUSSCHUSS —
 gestützt auf das Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum (im Folgenden „EWR–Abkommen“), insbesondere auf Artikel 98,
 in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
 (1)
 Die Richtlinie 2009/128/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. Oktober 2009 über einen Aktionsrahmen der Gemeinschaft für die nachhaltige Verwendung von Pestiziden (1), berichtigt in ABl. L 161 vom 29.6.2010, S. 11, ist in das EWR-Abkommen aufzunehmen.
 (2)
 Anhang XX des EWR-Abkommens sollte daher entsprechend geändert werden —
 HAT FOLGENDEN BESCHLUSS ERLASSEN:
 Artikel 1
 In Anhang XX des EWR-Abkommens wird nach Nummer 1k (Richtlinie 2003/35/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates) folgende Nummer eingefügt:
 „1 l.
 32009 L 0128: Richtlinie 2009/128/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. Oktober 2009 über einen Aktionsrahmen der Gemeinschaft für die nachhaltige Verwendung von Pestiziden (ABl. L 309 vom 24.11.2009, S. 71), berichtigt in ABl. L 161 vom 29.6.2010, S. 11.
 Die Richtlinie gilt für die Zwecke dieses Abkommens mit folgender Anpassung:
 In Bezug auf Norwegen wird in Artikel 4 Absatz 2 das Datum ‚26. November 2012‘ durch das Datum ‚1. Januar 2016‘ ersetzt.“
 Artikel 2
 Der Wortlaut der Richtlinie 2009/128/EG in isländischer und norwegischer Sprache, der in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht wird, ist verbindlich.
 Artikel 3
 Dieser Beschluss tritt am 1. Oktober 2014 in Kraft, sofern dem Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss alle Mitteilungen nach Artikel 103 Absatz 1 des Abkommens vorliegen (2), oder am Tag des Inkrafttretens des Beschlusses des Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschusses Nr. 203/2014 vom 30. September 2014 (3), je nachdem, welcher Zeitpunkt der spätere ist.
 Artikel 4
 Dieser Beschluss wird im EWR-Abschnitt und in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht.
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am 30. September 2014.
 Für den Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss
 Der Präsident
 Kurt JÄGER
 (1) ABl. L 309 vom 24.11.2009, S. 71.
 (2) Das Bestehen verfassungsrechtlicher Anforderungen wurde mitgeteilt.
 (3) Siehe Seite 57 dieses Amtsblatts.


text:
 19/Sv. 009
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 70
 42000A0922(06)
 L 239/83
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 25.06.1991.
 SPORAZUM O PRISTUPANJU HELENSKE REPUBLIKE
 Konvenciji o provedbi Schengenskoga sporazuma od 14. lipnja 1985. između vlada država Ekonomske unije Beneluksa, Savezne Republike Njemačke i Francuske Republike o postupnom ukidanju kontrola na zajedničkim granicama, potpisanoj u Schengenu 19. lipnja 1990., kojoj je Talijanska Republika pristupila Sporazumom potpisanim u Parizu 27. studenoga 1990., a Kraljevina Španjolska i Portugalska Republika Sporazumima potpisanima u Bonnu 25. lipnja 1991.
 KRALJEVINA BELGIJA, SAVEZNA REPUBLIKA NJEMAČKA, FRANCUSKA REPUBLIKA, VELIKO VOJVODSTVO LUKSEMBURG I KRALJEVINA NIZOZEMSKA, stranke Konvencije o provedbi Schengenskog sporazuma od 14. lipnja 1985. između vlada država Ekonomske unije Beneluksa, Savezne Republike Njemačke i Francuske Republike o postupnom ukidanju kontrola na zajedničkim granicama, potpisanoj u Schengenu 19. lipnja 1990., u nastavku „Konvencija iz 1990.”, kao i Talijanska Republika, koja je Konvenciji iz 1990. pristupila Sporazumom potpisanim u Parizu 27. studenoga 1990., te i Kraljevina Španjolska i Portugalska Republika, koje su Konvenciji iz 1990. pristupile Sporazumima potpisanim u Bonnu 25. lipnja 1991., s jedne strane,
 i HELENSKA REPUBLIKA, s druge strane,
 uzimajući u obzir da je vlada Helenske Republike, dana šestog studenoga godine tisuću devetsto devedeset druge, u Madridu potpisala Protokol o pristupanju Helenske Republike Schengenskom sporazumu od 14. lipnja 1985. između vlada država Ekonomske unije Beneluksa, Savezne Republike Njemačke i Francuske Republike o postupnom ukidanju kontrola na zajedničkim granicama, izmijenjenog Protokolom o pristupanju vlade Talijanske Republike potpisanom u Parizu 27. studenoga 1990. i Protokolima o pristupanju vlada Kraljevine Španjolske i Portugalske Republike potpisanih u Bonnu 25. lipnja 1991.,
 na osnovi članka 140. Konvencije iz 1990,
 SPORAZUMJELI SU SE KAKO SLIJEDI:
 Članak 1.
 Helenska Republika pristupa Konvenciji iz 1990.
 Članak 2.
 1. Službenici koji se spominju u članku 40. stavku 4. Konvencije iz 1990. u Helenskoj Republici su: policijski službenici Ελληνική Αστυνομία (grčke policije) i Λιμενικό Σώμα (lučke uprave) u granicama njihovih ovlasti, kao i službenici carinske uprave, pod uvjetima postavljenim u odgovarajućim bilateralnim sporazumima o kojima je riječ u članku 40. stavku 6. Konvencije iz 1990., s obzirom na njihove ovlasti u pitanjima nedopuštene trgovine opojnim drogama i psihotropnim tvarima, trgovine oružjem i eksplozivom i nedopuštenog transporta toksičkog i opasnog otpada.
 2. Tijelo koje se spominje u članku 40. stavku 5. Konvencije iz 1990. u Helenskoj Republici je: Διεύθυνση Διεθνούς Αστυνομικής Συνεργασίας του Υπουργείου Δημοσίας Τάξεως (Uprava za međunarodnu policijsku suradnju pri Ministarstvu za javni poredak).
 Članak 3.
 Nadležno Ministarstvo koje se spominje u članku 65. stavku 2. Konvencije iz 1990 u Helenskoj Republici je Ministarstvo pravosuđa.
 Članak 4.
 U svrhu izručivanja između ugovornih stranaka Konvencije iz 1990, Helenska Republika će se suzdržati od ostvarivanja pridržanih prava u odnosu na članke 7., 18. i 19. Europske konvencije o izručivanju od 13. prosinca 1957.
 Članak 5.
 U svrhu uzajamne pomoći u kaznenim pitanjima između ugovornih stranaka Konvencije iz 1990, Helenska Republika će se suzdržati od ostvarivanja pridržanih prava u odnosu na članke 4. i 11. Europske konvencije o uzajamnoj pomoći u kaznenim pitanjima od 20. travnja 1959.
 Članak 6.
 1. Ovaj Sporazum podliježe ratifikaciji, prihvaćanju ili potvrđivanju. Isprave o ratifikaciji, prihvaćanju ili potvrđivanju polažu se pri vladi Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga, koja o tome obavješćuje svaku od ugovornih stranaka.
 2. Ovaj Sporazum stupa na snagu prvog dana drugog mjeseca nakon polaganja isprava o ratifikaciji, prihvaćanju ili potvrđivanju od strane država za koje je Konvencija iz 1990. stupila na snagu i od strane Helenske Republike.
 U pogledu ostalih država, ovaj Sporazum stupa na snagu prvog dana drugog mjeseca nakon polaganja njihovih isprava o ratifikaciji, prihvaćanju ili potvrđivanju, ako je ovaj Sporazum stupio na snagu u skladu s odredbama prethodnog podstavka.
 3. Vlada Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga obavješćuje svaku od ugovornih stranaka o datumu stupanja na snagu.
 Članak 7.
 1. Vlada Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga prosljeđuje vladi Helenske Republike ovjerenu presliku Konvencije iz 1990. na nizozemskom, francuskom, njemačkom, talijanskom, portugalskom i španjolskom jeziku.
 2. Tekst Konvencije iz 1990. sastavljen na grčkom jeziku dodat je ovom Sporazumu i vjerodostojan je pod jednakim uvjetima kao i tekstovi Konvencije iz 1990. sastavljeni na nizozemskom, francuskom, njemačkom, talijanskom, portugalskom i španjolskom jeziku.
 U POTVRDU NAVEDENOG, niže potpisani, pravovaljano ovlašteni za to, potpisali su ovaj Sporazum.
 Sastavljeno u Madridu, dana šestog studenoga godine tisuću devetsto devedeset druge u jednom izvorniku na nizozemskom, francuskom, njemačkom, grčkom, talijanskom, portugalskom i španjolskom jeziku, svih sedam tekstova su jednako vjerodostojni, a takav je izvornik položen u arhivu vlade Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga, koja ovjerenu presliku prosljeđuje svakoj od ugovornih stranaka.
 Za vladu Kraljevine Belgije
 Za Vladu Savezne Republike Njemačke
 Za Vladu Helenske Republike
 Za Vladu Kraljevine Španjolske
 Za Vladu Francuske Republike
 Za Vladu Talijanske Republike
 Za Vladu Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga
 Za Vladu Kraljevine Nizozemske
 Za Vladu Portugalske Republike
 ZAVRŠNI AKT
 I. Istodobno s potpisivanjem Sporazuma o pristupanju Helenske Republike Konvenciji o provedbi Schengenskog sporazuma od 14. lipnja 1985. između vlada država Ekonomske unije Beneluksa, Savezne Republike Njemačke i Francuske Republike o postupnom ukidanju kontrola na zajedničkim granicama, potpisanoj u Schengenu 19. lipnja 1990., a kojoj je Talijanska Republika pristupila Sporazumom potpisanim u Parizu 27. studenoga 1990., a Kraljevina Španjolska i Portugalska Republika Sporazumima o pristupanju potpisanima u Bonnu 25. lipnja 1991., vlada Helenske Republike je potpisala i Završni akt, Zapisnik i Zajedničku izjavu ministara i državnih tajnika, koji su potpisani u isto vrijeme kad i Konvencija iz 1990.
 Vlada Helenske Republike je potpisala Zajedničke izjave, primivši na znanje jednostrane izjave sadržane u njima.
 Vlada Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga prosljeđuje vladi Helenske Republike ovjerenu presliku Završnog akta, Zapisnika i Zajedničke izjave ministara i državnih tajnika, koji su potpisani u isto vrijeme kada i Konvencija iz 1990, na nizozemskom, francuskom, njemačkom, talijanskom, portugalskom i španjolskom jeziku.
 Tekstovi Završnog akta, Zapisnika i Zajedničke izjave ministara i državnih tajnika, koji su potpisani u isto vrijeme kada i Konvencija iz 1990, sastavljeni na grčkom jeziku, dodati su Završnom aktu i vjerodostojni su pod jednakim uvjetima kao i tekstovi sastavljeni na nizozemskom, francuskom, njemačkom, talijanskom, portugalskom i španjolskom jeziku.
 II. Istodobno s potpisivanjem Sporazuma o pristupanju Helenske Republike Konvenciji o provedbi Schengenskoga sporazuma od 14. lipnja 1985. između vlada država Ekonomske unije Beneluksa, Savezne Republike Njemačke i Francuske Republike o postupnom ukidanju kontrola na zajedničkim granicama, potpisanoj u Schengenu 19. lipnja 1990., a kojoj je Talijanska Republika pristupila Sporazumom potpisanim u Parizu 27. studenoga 1990., a Kraljevina Španjolska i Portugalska Republika Sporazumom o pristupanju potpisanim u Bonnu 25. lipnja 1991., ugovorne stranke su usvojile sljedeće izjave:
 1.
 Zajednička izjava o članku 6. Sporazuma o pristupanju
 Države potpisnice, prije stupanja na snagu Sporazuma o pristupanju, obavješćuju jedna drugu o svim okolnostima koje bi mogle značajno utjecati na područja obuhvaćena Konvencijom iz 1990. kao i na stupanje na snagu Sporazuma o pristupanju.
 Ovaj Sporazum o pristupanju između država za koje je Konvencija iz 1990. već stupila na snagu i Helenske Republike ne stupa na snagu dok se u tim državama ne ispune preduvjeti za provedbu Konvencije iz 1990. kao i dok kontrole na vanjskim granicama ne postanu učinkovite.
 U pogledu ostalih država, ovaj Sporazum o pristupanju stupa na snagu isključivo onda kad se u državama potpisnicama ovog Sporazuma o pristupanju ispune svi preduvjeti za provedbu Konvencije iz 1990. i kad nadzor na vanjskim granicama postane učinkovit.
 2.
 Zajednička izjava o članku 9. stavku 2. Konvencije iz 1990.
 Ugovorne stranke određuju da u trenutku potpisivanja Sporazuma o pristupanju Helenske Republike Konvenciji iz 1990. zajednički sustav viza, o kojem je riječ u članku 9. stavku 2. Konvencije iz 1990., označava zajednički sustav koji stranke potpisnice spomenute Konvencije primjenjuju od 19. lipnja 1990.
 3.
 Zajednička izjava o zaštiti podataka
 Ugovorne stranke primaju na znanje da se vlada Helenske Republike obvezuje poduzeti sve korake nužne kako bi osigurala da, prije ratifikacije Sporazuma o pristupanju Konvenciji iz 1990., grčko zakonodavstvo bude dopunjeno u skladu s Konvencijom Vijeća Europe o zaštiti pojedinaca pri automatskoj obradi osobnih podataka od 28. siječnja 1981. i u skladu s Preporukom br. R (87) 15 od 17. rujna 1987. Odbora ministara Vijeća Europe, kojom se uređuje korištenje osobnih podataka u policijskom sektoru, kako bi se osigurala puna primjena odredbi članaka 117. i 126. Konvencije iz 1990. koje se odnose na zaštitu osobnih podataka s ciljem postizanja one razine zaštite koja je u skladu s relevantnim odredbama Konvencije iz 1990.
 4.
 Zajednička izjava o članku 41. Konvencije iz 1990.
 Ugovorne stranke primaju na znanje da, s obzirom na geografski položaj Helenske Republike, odredbe članka 41. stavka 5. točke (b) sprečavaju primjenu članka 41. u odnosima između Helenske Republike i drugih ugovornih stranaka. Helenska Republika stoga nije imenovala tijela u duhu članka 41. stavka 6. ni donijela izjavu u duhu članka 41. stavka 9.
 Ovakav postupak grčke vlade nije u suprotnosti s odredbama članka 137.
 5.
 Zajednička izjava o gori Athos
 Priznavajući poseban status gore Athos, zajamčen člankom 105. Helenskog ustava i Poveljom o gori Athos, a koji je opravdan razlozima koji su isključivo duhovne i religiozne naravi, ugovorne stranke će zajamčiti da se taj status uzme u obzir prilikom primjene i daljnje razrade odredbi Sporazuma iz 1985. i Konvencije iz 1990.
 III. Ugovorne stranke su primile na znanje sljedeće izjave Helenske Republike:
 1.
 Izjava Helenske Republike o Sporazumima o pristupanju Talijanske Republike, Kraljevine Španjolske i Portugalske Republike
 Vlada Helenske Republike prima na znanje sadržaj Sporazuma o pristupanju Talijanske Republike, Kraljevine Španjolske i Portugalske Republike Konvenciji iz 1990. kao i sadržaj Završnih akata i izjava dodanih spomenutim Sporazumima.
 Vlada Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga ovjerenu presliku gore spomenutih isprava prosljeđuje vladi Helenske Republike.
 2.
 Izjava Helenske Republike o uzajamnoj pomoći u kaznenim pitanjima
 Helenska Republika se obvezuje da će uz dužan mar obrađivati zahtjeve za pomoć drugih ugovornih stranaka, uključujući i slučajeve kad su upućeni izravno grčkim sudskim tijelima, u skladu s postupkom predviđenim u članku 53. stavku 1. Konvencije iz 1990.
 3.
 Izjava o članku 121. Konvencije iz 1990.
 Vlada Helenske Republike izjavljuje da će, osim u slučaju svježih plodova limuna, pamuka i sjemena djeteline, od dana potpisivanja Sporazuma o pristupanju Konvenciji iz 1990. primjenjivati pojednostavljenu kontrolu zdravstvenoga stanja biljaka i onoga što se zahtijeva u članku 121. Konvencije iz 1990.
 U pogledu svježih plodova limuna, Helenska Republika će, ipak, početi s primjenom odredbi članka 121. kao i odnosnih mjera najkasnije od dana 1. siječnja 1993.
 Sastavljeno u Madridu dana šestog studenoga godine tisuću devetsto devedeset druge u jednom izvorniku na nizozemskom, francuskom, njemačkom, grčkom, talijanskom, portugalskom i španjolskom jeziku, svih sedam tekstova su jednako vjerodostojni, a takav je izvornik položen u arhivu vlade Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga, koja ovjerenu presliku prosljeđuje svakoj od ugovornih stranaka.
 Za Vladu Kraljevine Belgije
 Za Vladu Savezne Republike Njemačke
 Za Vladu Helenske Republike
 Za Vladu Kraljevine Španjolske
 Za Vladu Francuske Republike
 Za Vladu Talijanske Republike
 Za Vladu Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga
 Za Vladu Kraljevine Nizozemske
 Za Vladu Portugalske Republike
 IZJAVA MINISTARA I DRŽAVNIH TAJNIKA
 Dana šestog studenoga godine tisuću devetsto devedeset druge, predstavnici vlada Kraljevine Belgije, Savezne Republike Njemačke, Kraljevine Španjolske, Francuske Republike, Helenske Republike, Talijanske Republike, Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga, Kraljevine Nizozemske i Portugalske Republike potpisali su u Madridu Sporazum o pristupanju Helenske Republike Konvenciji o provedbi Schengenskog sporazuma od 14. lipnja 1985. između vlada država Ekonomske unije Beneluksa, Savezne Republike Njemačke i Francuske Republike o postupnom ukidanju kontrola na zajedničkim granicama, potpisanoj u Schengenu 19. lipnja 1990., kojoj je Talijanska Republika pristupila Sporazumom potpisanim u Parizu 27. studenoga 1990., a Kraljevina Španjolska i Portugalska Republika Sporazumima potpisanima u Bonnu 25. lipnja 1991.
 Oni su primili na znanje da je predstavnik vlade Helenske Republike izrazio potporu Izjavi koju su 19. lipnja 1990. u Schengenu donijeli ministri i državni tajnici kao predstavnici vlada Kraljevine Belgije, Savezne Republike Njemačke, Francuske Republike, Velikog Vojvodstva Luksemburga i Kraljevine Nizozemske kao i odluci, potvrđenoj istog dana, a u vezi s potpisivanjem Konvencije o provedbi Schengenskog sporazuma, izjavi i odluci koje su poduprle i vlade Talijanske Republike, Kraljevine Španjolske i Portugalske Republike.


text:
 15.12.2016
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 341/70
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG 170/2015 HATÁROZATA
 (2015. június 11.)
 az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás XX. mellékletének (Környezet) módosításáról [2016/2205]
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: az EGT-megállapodás) és különösen annak 98. cikkére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A hulladékgazdálkodási tervek és a hulladékmegelőzési programok elfogadására és lényegi módosításaira vonatkozó tájékoztatások formátumának megállapításáról szóló, 2013. december 6-i 2013/727/EU bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletet (1) bele kell foglalni az EGT-megállapodásba.
 (2)
 Az EGT-megállapodás XX. mellékletét ezért ennek megfelelően módosítani kell,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A HATÁROZATOT:
 1. cikk
 Az EGT-megállapodás XX. melléklete a 32ffd. pont (2011/753/EU bizottsági határozat) után a következő ponttal egészül ki:
 „32ffe.
 32013 D 0727: a Bizottság 2013. december 6-i 2013/727/EU végrehajtási rendelete a hulladékgazdálkodási tervek és a hulladékmegelőzési programok elfogadására és lényegi módosításaira vonatkozó tájékoztatások formátumának megállapításáról (HL L 329., 2013.12.10., 44. o.)”.
 2. cikk
 A 2013/727/EU végrehajtási határozatnak az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja EGT-kiegészítésében közzéteendő izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövege hiteles.
 3. cikk
 Ez a határozat 2015. június 12-én lép hatályba, feltéve, hogy az EGT-megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdésében előírt összes bejelentést megtették (*1).
 4. cikk
 Ezt a határozatot az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében és EGT-kiegészítésében ki kell hirdetni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2015. június 11-én.
 az EGT Vegyes Bizottság részéről
 az elnök
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) HL L 329., 2013.12.10., 44. o.
 (*1) Alkotmányos követelmények fennállását nem jelezték.


type: other

text:
56 ICm 2228/2017
 Č.j.: 56 ICm 2228/2017-38 (KSPA 56 INS 20963/2013)
 Krajský soud v Hradci Králové-pobočka v Pardubicích, rozhodl samosoudkyní JUDr. Marií Pavlíčkovou v právní věci žalobkyně: Monika Sodomová, nar. 10. srpna 1987, bytem 569 53 Cerekvice nad Loučnou 4, zastoupená opatrovnicí Obcí Cerekvice nad Loučnou, 569 53 Cerekvice nad Loučnou 132, IČO 00276537, ta zastoupená Mgr. Barborou Dostálovou, advokátkou se sídlem 570 01 Litomyšl, Újezdec 56, proti žalovanému: Mgr. Jan Urban, 563 01 Lanškroun, Purkyňova 101, insolvenční správce dlužnice Stanislavy Štětinové, nar. 24. května 1966, bytem i místem podnikání 569 53 Cerekvice nad Loučnou 4, IČO 18880681, o žalobě na vyloučení majetku z majetkové podstaty dlužnice,
 I. Žaloba, aby z majetkové podstaty dlužnice Stanislavy Štětinové, nar. 24. května 1966, bytem i místem podnikání 569 53 Cerekvice nad Loučnou 4, IČO 18880681, v insolvenčním řízení vedeném u Krajského soudu v Hradci Králové-pobočka v Pardubicích pod sp.zn. KSPA 56 INS 20963/2013, byl vyloučen spoluvlastnický podíl ve výši 1/2 k celku na nemovitostech zapsaných na listu vlastnictví č. 1030 pro obec a katastrální území Cerekvice nad Loučnou, vedeném u Katastrálního úřadu pro Pardubický kraj, Katastrální pracoviště Svitavy, tj. pozemek-pozemková parcela č. 55/5 (zahrada), pozemek-pozemková parcela č. 56/1 (zahrada) a stavba čp. 4-rod. dům, stojící na stavební parcele č. 1 (LV č. 904), se zamítá.
 Shodu s prvopisem potvrzuje Lucie Cejpková. isir.justi ce.cz
 Dne 4. května 2017 podala shora uvedená žalobkyně u Krajského soudu v Hradci Králové-pobočka v Pardubicích, žalobu, jíž se vůči žalovanému domáhala vyloučení podílu 1/2 k celku nemovitých věcí zapsaných na listu vlastnictví č. 1030 pro obec a katastrální území Cerekvice nad Loučnou, vedeném u Katastrálního úřadu pro Pardubický kraj, Katastrální pracoviště Svitavy, které jsou sepsané do majetkové podstaty dlužnice Stanislavy Štětinové v rámci insolvenčního řízení sp. zn. KSPA 56 INS 20963/2013. Sdělovala, že jí dne 11. dubna 2017 žalovaný oznámil zahrnutí uvedeného majetku do majetkové podstaty dlužnice. Rozsudkem Krajského soudu v Hradci Králové-pobočka v Pardubicích ze dne 10. dubna 2017, č.j. 56 ICm 3260/2014 byla zamítnuta žaloba o určení neúčinnosti darovací smlouvy ze dne 3. prosince 2010, na základě které měly být nemovitosti převedeny do vlastnictví žalobkyně, a to z důvodu neplatnosti smlouvy pro nesvéprávnost žalobkyně v době jejího uzavření. Rozhodnutí o nesvéprávnosti je z roku 2013, důvodem je duševní porucha trvalého rázu. Ze stejného důvodu nemohlo dojít k uzavření smlouvy o půjčce ze dne 22. prosince 2011, na základě které vznikla pohledávka věřitelky Jany Riedlové a zástavní právo smluvní sepsané formou notářského zápisu č. NZ 887/2011 a N 951/2011. K tomu odkázala i na rozhodnutí Okresního soudu Svitavy ze dne 28. března 2017, který projednával návrh na soudní prodej zástavy týkající se předmětné nemovitosti k návrhu zástavní věřitelky na soudní prodej zástavy. Soud konstatoval, že smlouva o půjčce i zástavní smlouva jsou neplatné a zástavní právo nemohlo platně vzniknout. Pohledávka věřitelky Jany Riedlové byla v roce 2014 na přezkumném jednání insolvenčním správcem zjištěna. S ohledem na nyní známé skutečnosti se jednalo o zmatečné jednání, neboť zjištění bylo učiněno v rozporu se zákonem, byla přezkoumána neexistující pohledávka. Pravost pohledávky je možno zpochybnit i po stránce hmotněprávní, když nedošlo k doložení faktického předání peněžní částky půjčky a půjčka platně nevznikla ani vůči žalobkyni ani vůči dlužnici. Žalobkyně navrhla opětovné posouzení platnosti či neplatnosti darovací smlouvy z roku 2010, podíl na domu i zahradách užívá s manželem i synem a je v jejím zájmu užívat je i nadále. Nemovitosti nabyla v době, kdy jednala samostatně, ač nemohla jednat bez opatrovníka. Takové právní jednání lze podle současné právní úpravy prohlásit za neplatné, jen působí-li dotyčnému újmu. Současný opatrovník považuje uzavření darovací smlouvy za jednání v zájmu žalobkyně a v souladu s ustanovením § 65 zákona č. 89/2012 Sb., občanský zákoník v rozhodném znění (dále jen o.z. ), jej schvaluje. K důkazu navrhla pouze listiny, které přiložila.
 Dne 5. října 2017 se k žalobě vyjádřil žalovaný insolvenční správce, nárok na vyloučení v celém rozsahu neuznal. Uvedl, že z odůvodnění citovaného rozsudku ze dne 14. dubna 2017 vyplývá, že darovací smlouva nemohla být určena jako neúčinná, protože žalobkyně v době jejího uzavření doposud trpí duševní poruchou, která je trvalá a darovací smlouva je neplatným právním úkonem ve smyslu ustanovení § 38 odst. 2 zákona č. 40/1964 Sb., občanský zákoník ve znění pozdějších předpisů (dále jen obč. zák. ). Darovací smlouva tak nevyvolává žádné právní účinky. Na schůzi věřitelů po přezkumném jednání dlužnice uvedla, že předmětná darovací smlouva byla uzavřena v době, kdy měla dluhy u více věřitelů a nemovitosti byly převedeny za účelem ochrany majetku. Takové jednání samo o sobě způsobuje neúčinnost darovací smlouvy. Soud však dospěl k tomu, že smlouva je absolutně neplatná. Nic na tom nemění, že současná opatrovnice právní úkon dodatečně schvaluje podle ustanovení § 65 o.z., když právní úkon je nutno posuzovat podle předpisů účinných v době jejího uzavření. Žalovaný odkázal na ustanovení § 6 o.z. s tím, že jednání žalobkyně se jeví jako nepoctivé. I kdyby žalobkyně si nebyla vědoma, že k převodu dochází účelově, aby byli zkráceni věřitelé dlužnice, jedná se o objektivní skutečnost. Účelem daru bylo jednání v rozporu se zákonem i s dobrými mravy. Opatrovnice jedná nepoctivě, pokud účelově schvaluje darovací smlouvu jako jednání v zájmu žalobkyně až ve chvíli, kdy žaloba o neúčinnost byla zamítnuta a tím zneužívá práva za účelem dosažení výhody pro žalobkyni a konvalidaci neplatného právního úkonu. Na posouzení věci nemá vliv skutečnost, zda
 Shodu s prvopisem potvrzuje Lucie Cejpková.
 žalobkyně platně sjednala smlouvu o půjčce, resp. zástavní smlouvu, protože na přezkumném jednání byly přezkoumávány pouze pohledávky věřitelů vůči dlužnici Stanislavě Štětinové, která ve způsobilosti k právním úkonům omezena nebyla. Nakonec navrhl žalobu zamítnout. Ve vyjádření ze dne 18. října 2017 k důkazu navrhl listiny obsažené ve spisu sp. zn. 56 ICm 3260/2014.
 Podle ustanovení § 225 odst. 1 zákona č. 182/2006 Sb., zákon o úpadku a způsobech jeho řešení (insolvenční zákon) v rozhodném znění (dále jen ins. zák. ) osoby, které tvrdí, že označený majetek neměl být do soupisu zahrnut proto, že to vylučuje jejich právo k majetku nebo že tu je jiný důvod, pro který neměl být zahrnut do soupisu, se mohou žalobou podanou u insolvenčního soudu domáhat rozhodnutí, že se tento majetek vylučuje z majetkové podstaty. Podle odstavce 2 tohoto paragrafu žaloba musí být podána proti insolvenčnímu správci, a to ve lhůtě 30 dnů ode dne, kdy osobě uvedené v odstavci 1 bylo doručeno vyrozumění o soupisu majetku, k němuž uplatňuje právo. Lhůta je zachována, dojde-li žaloba nejpozději posledního dne lhůty insolvenčnímu soudu.
 Soud seznal, že žaloba byla podána včas. Jelikož v dané věci byly navrženy pouze listinné důkazy, účastníci netrvali s odkazem na ustanovení 115a zákona číslo 99/1963 Sb., občanský soudní řád v platném znění (dále jen o.s.ř. ), ve spojení s ustanovením § 7 ins. zák., na nařízení jednání a věc šlo rozhodnout jen na základě listinných důkazů, jednání se nekonalo. S odkazem na ustanovení § 120 odst. 3 o.s.ř. soud ohledně zjištění skutkového stavu konstatuje, že mezi stranami nebylo sporu o tom, že dne 25. února 2014 byl usnesením č.j. KSPA 56 INS 20963/2013-A-29 k insolvenčnímu návrhu věřitele zjištěn úpadek dlužnice, na její majetek byl prohlášen konkurs, který je projednáván jako konkurs nepatrný a insolvenčním správcem byl ustanoven žalovaný Mgr. Jan Urban. Dále bylo nesporné, že dne 3. prosince 2010 uzavřela dlužnice jako dárkyně a žalobkyně, tj. její dcera jako obdarovaná, darovací smlouvu, kterou bylo bezúplatně převedeno vlastnické právo k ideální1/2 nemovitost í, a to objektu bydlení č.p. 4 na st.p.č. 1, dále st.p.č. 1, p.p.č. 56/1 a p.p.č. 55/5, spolu se všemi součástmi a příslušenstvím (nemovitosti v obci a katastrálním území Cerekvice nad Loučnou, LV č. 904). Vklad práva byl povolen rozhodnutím Katastrálního úřadu pro Pardubický kraj, Katastrální pracoviště Svitavy, č.j. V-2498/2011-609 a zapsán do katastru nemovitostí dne 19. července 2011 s právními účinky vkladu ke dni 1. června 2011. Nesporným byl i rozsudek Okresního soudu ve Svitavách ze dne 8. prosince 2014 č.j. ONc 1341/2013-49, v němž soud výrokem ad I. omezil svéprávnost žalobkyně na dobu 3 roků tak, že není způsobilá mimo jiné i nakládat s majetkem, jehož hodnota přesahuje 2.000 Kč a zavazovat se k plnění, jehož hodnota přesahuje částku 2.000 Kč. Výrokem ad II. byla současně žalobkyni jmenována opatrovnice, a to Obec Cerekvice nad Loučnou, která podle výroku ad III. je oprávněna a povinna opatrovanku zastupovat při právních jednáních a vykonávat běžnou správu jejího jmění ve všech věcech, k nímž není způsobilá. Okresní soud vycházel ze znaleckého posudku ze dne 17. května 2014, který vypracoval MUDr. Alexander Štorek, soudní znalec v oboru zdravotnictví-psychiatrie, jmenovaný rozhodnutím Krajského soudu v Hradci Králové ze dne 17. prosince 1985 č.j. Spr 1213/85; znalecký úkon je zapsán pod poř.č. 3086. Znalec došel k závěru, že u žalobkyně zjistil mentální retardaci v pásmu lehké mentální retardace, při její dolní hranici, jde o poruchu trvalou, léčbou neovlivnitelnou. Tato porucha významným způsobem negativně ovlivňuje její schopnost právně jednat, mohla by být ze strany svého nejbližšího okolí zmanipulovaná tak, aby z toho tito blízcí měli prospěch. Žalobkyně by mohla právně jednat proti svým zájmům. Je zvýšeně ovlivnitelná a zneužitelná jinými osobami. Není schopna spravovat své jmění a majetek a nakládat s ním a to bez ohledu na jeho výši. Není schopna porozumět důsledkům uzavření smluv (kupních, darovacích, zástavních, úvěrových, o dodávkách energií, s telekomunikačními operátory a podobně). Dne 10. dubna 2017 Krajský soud v Hradci Králové-pobočka v Pardubicích vydal pod č.j. 56 ICm 3260/2014-83 rozsudek ve věci žaloby na určení neúčinnosti předmětné darovací smlouvy a na vydání plnění do
 Shodu s prvopisem potvrzuje Lucie Cejpková. majetkové podstaty dlužnice, kdy výrokem ad I. žalobu ohledně určení neúčinnosti zamítl a výrokem ad II. řízení ohledně žaloby na vydání plnění zastavil. Dospěl k závěru, že ze znaleckého posudku ze dne 17. května 2014 vyplývá, že Monika Sodomová trpí duševní poruchou, která je trvalá, není léčbou ovlivnitelná. Z důvodu této poruchy (aniž by už došlo k soudnímu rozhodnutí o-v té době-zbavení nebo omezení způsobilosti k právním úkonům), nebyla jmenovaná schopna porozumět důsledkům uzavření smluv. Bylo tak bezpečně zjištěno, že duševní porucha trvala i v době uzavření předmětné darovací smlouvy dne 3. prosince 2010, a proto smlouva je s odkazem na ustanovení § 38 odst. 2 obč. zák. neplatným právním úkonem. S odkazem na ustanovení § 40a obč. zák. se jedná o neplatnost absolutní. U neplatného právního úkonu není relevantní zkoumat jeho neúčinnost, když z podstaty věci vyplývá, že neplatný právní úkon nemůže být neúčinný. Na základě uvedeného rozsudku, který insolvenční správce napadl odvoláním a nenabyl zatím právní moci, vyhotovil insolvenční správce 11. dubna 2017 doplnění soupisu majetkové podstaty, kde zapsal předmětnou ideální 1/2 nemovitostí zapsaných na listu vlastnictví č. 1030 pro obec a katastrální území Cerekvice nad Loučnou tak, jak je vedeno u Katastrálního úřadu pro Pardubický kraj, Katastrální pracoviště Svitavy, včetně poznámky o vydaném rozsudku. Mezi stranami nebyl rozpor v hodnocení skutkového stavu věci, soud měl učinit jeho právní posouzení.
 Podle ustanovení § 205 odst. 2 ins. zák. podal-li insolvenční návrh věřitel, náleží do majetkové podstaty majetek, který dlužníkovi patřil k okamžiku, kdy nastaly účinky předběžného opatření, kterým insolvenční soud zcela nebo zčásti omezil právo dlužníka nakládat s jeho majetkem, majetek, který dlužníkovi patřil k okamžiku, kdy nastaly účinky rozhodnutí o úpadku dlužníka, a majetek, který dlužník nabyl v průběhu insolvenčního řízení poté, co nastaly účinky těchto rozhodnutí. Podle odstavce 3, věta první, tohoto paragrafu je-li dlužník spoluvlastníkem majetku podle odstavců 1 a 2, náleží do majetkové podstaty podíl dlužníka na tomto majetku.
 Podle ustanovení § 65 odst. 1 o.z. jednal-li opatrovanec samostatně, ač nemohl jednat bez opatrovníka, lze jeho právní jednání prohlásit za neplatné, jen působí-li mu újmu. Postačí-li však k nápravě jen změna rozsahu opatrovancových povinností, soud tak učiní, aniž je vázán návrhy stran. Podle odstavce 2 tohoto paragrafu jednal-li opatrovanec samostatně, ač nemohl jednat bez opatrovníka, považuje se opatrovancovo jednání za platné, pokud je opatrovník schválil. To platí i v případě, že takové právní jednání schválil jednající sám poté, co nabyl svéprávnosti.
 Podle ustanovení § 3028 odst. 2 o.z. není-li dále stanoveno jinak, řídí se ustanoveními tohoto zákona i právní poměry týkající se práv osobních, rodinných a věcných; jejich vznik, jakož i práva a povinnosti z nich vzniklé přede dnem nabytí účinnosti tohoto zákona se však posuzují podle dosavadních právních předpisů.
 Při právním hodnocení věci vyšel soud ze závěrů rozsudku Krajského soudu v Hradci Králové-pobočka v Pardubicích ze dne 10. dubna 2017, č.j. 56 ICm 3260/2014-83, neboť není důvod se od něho odchylovat ani v projednávané věci. Darovací smlouva ze dne 3. prosince 2010 je s odkazem na ustanovení § 38 odst. 2 obč. zák. neplatným právním úkonem a s odkazem na ustanovení § 40a obč. zák. se jedná o neplatnost absolutní. Smlouva tak nemohla vyvolat žádné právní účinky, a proto vlastnické právo k ideální 1/2 předmětných nemovitostí zapsaných na LV č. 1030 nadále svědčí dlužnici. S odkazem na ustanovení § 205 odst. 2 a 3, věta první, ins. zák. tak insolvenční správce správně předmětný podíl sepsal do majetkové podstaty dlužnice. Nic na tom nemění to, že současná opatrovnice žalobkyně považuje uzavření darovací smlouvy za jednání v zájmu opatrovanky a s odkazem na ustanovení § 65 o.z. jej schválila. Podle ustanovení § 3028 odst. 2 o.z. se sice řídí ustanoveními tohoto zákona i právní poměry týkající se práv osobních, rodinných a věcných; jejich vznik, jakož i práva a povinnosti z nich vzniklé přede dnem nabytí
 účinnosti tohoto zákona se však posuzují podle dosavadních právních předpisů. Z toho vyplývá, že vznik darovací smlouvy ze dne 3. prosince 2010, jakož i práva a povinnosti z ní vzniklé se řídí obč. zák. Proto i s odkazem na ustanovení § 65 odst. 1 o.z. bylo možné právní jednání žalobkyně prohlásit za neplatné, i když jí nepůsobilo újmu. A i když opatrovnice jednání opatrovanky dodatečně schválila, ke konvalidaci s odkazem na ustanovení § 65 odst. 2 o.z. nedošlo, protože obč. zák. takové jednání nepřipouštěl. Zbylá argumentace žalobkyně týkající se pravosti pohledávky ze smlouvy o půjčce včetně jejího případného zajištění plynoucí z neplatné zástavní smlouvy, je pro danou věc bezpředmětná a žalobkyně není ani účastnicí uvedeného insolvenčního řízení. Tvrzení žalobkyně, že označený majetek neměl být do soupisu zahrnut proto, že to vylučuje její právo k majetku nebo že tu je jiný důvod, pro který neměl být zahrnut do soupisu, se neprokázalo. Soud proto ze všech uvedených důvodů uzavřel, že žaloba není po právu a jako nedůvodnou ji zamítl.
 O náhradě nákladů řízení rozhodl soud podle ustanovení § 163 ins. zák., ve spojení s ustanovením § 142 odst. 1 o.s.ř., kdy měl-li účastník ve věci plný úspěch, přizná mu soud náhradu nákladů potřebných k účelnému uplatňování nebo bránění práva proti účastníku, který ve věci úspěch neměl. Žalobkyně ve věci úspěch neměla, proto nemá právo na náhradu nákladů řízení. Žalovaný měl ve věci plný úspěch, ale z obsahu soudního spisu neplyne, že by mu nějaké náklady vznikly.
 Poučení: Proti tomuto rozsudku lze podat odvolání do 15 dnů ode dne jeho doručení, a to k Vrchnímu soudu v Praze, prostřednictvím Krajského soudu v Hradci Králové-pobočka v Pardubicích (ustanovení § 201 a § 204 odst. 1 o.s.ř.).
 Pardubice dne 8. ledna 2018


type: wikipedia

text:
Villa Peking of Cleyn Peking aan de Javalaan 3 is een Baarns gemeentelijk monument in de provincie Utrecht. Peking staat aan het eind van de Torenlaan, van oorsprong een zichtas van het buiten De Eult op de Pauluskerk in Baarn.
 In de achtergevel zitten twee stenen, waarvan er een verwijst naar een huis dat tevoren de naam Peking droeg. Op de oudste steen staat de tekst: R. Scheerenberg Stigter van dit gebouw 9 aug. 1791. De tweede vermeldt De vernieuwing geschiedde voor Jh. B.Ph. de Beaufort in den jare 1890.<ref>T. van den Oudenalder: In Steen gebeiteld deel 5, Baarnsche Courant, 22 december 2017</ref> Het eerste Peking werd in 1791 en 1792 gebouwd door Reinhard Scheerenberg, een Amsterdamse koopman die zijn fortuin vergaard had met handel op China. Hij besloot tot de bouw van drie landhuizen in Chinese stijl. Het was eind achttiende eeuw mode om chinoiserie te bouwen, woningen in Chinees aandoende stijl. De villa's Peking en Canton zijn ook gebouwd, maar de bouw van villa Nanking is in de Franse Tijd niet doorgegaan.
 Voor de bouw werden veel exotische bouwmaterialen uit China aangevoerd en de villa's kregen landelijke bekendheid. Tot de gasten die Scheerenberg op Canton ontving behoorde ook de schilder Johan Tischbein. Om financiële redenen werden Peking en Canton verkocht aan Lodewijk Napoleon, die de villa's bij het domein van Soestdijk voegde. In 1882 kwam Peking in het bezit van burgemeester jhr. B. Ph. de Beaufort. De villa was niet praktisch in het gebruik en De Beaufort verving de villa in 1890 door een Hollandse villa.
 In 1910 wordt de bewoner van villa Canton, August Janssen eigenaar. Na diens overlijden wordt het pand verhuurd en als goederenopslagplaats gebruikt. In de Tweede Wereldoorlog wordt het gebouw geblindeerd door de bezetter. Het wordt dan korte tijd gebruikt door de Nederlandse Arbeidsdienst. Na de bevrijding wordt het pand verhuurd aan de gemeente. Na verkoop in 1979 aan het Rijk wordt Peking verbouwd en gerestaureerd. Het wordt dan samengevoegd met het naastgelegen Huis Holland. Het gebouw werd nadien gebruikt als belastingkantoor. In 2012 werd huize Peking verkocht en kreeg het de bestemming verzorgingshuis.
 De huidige villa in neo-renaissancestijl is niet symmetrisch ingedeeld. Het bouwjaar 1890 staat in een gedenksteen in de achtergevel en onder de topgevel aan de voorzijde staat de naam Peking''. Boven de entree is een balkon, en op de bovenste verdieping een torentje. Op het dak staat links en rechts van de geveltop een oeil de boeuf.
 Eigenaren
 Eerste Peking (1791 – 1890 of eerder)
 1791 - Reinhard Scheerenberg
 1806 - Lodewijk Napoleon
 Joan Melchior Kemper
 1833 - Willem II
 1849 - Sophie van Oranje-Nassau
 1882 - Baarnsche Bouwterrein Maatschappij
 1882 - B. Ph. de Beaufort
 Tweede Peking (1890 – heden)
 1898 - Henriette de Beaufort
 1910 - August Janssen
 1948 - inspectie en ontvanger der directe belastingen
 1991 - eenheid Particulieren van de belastingen
 2012 - woonzorglocatie van Portaal Woningcorporatie
 Villa in Baarn
 Gemeentelijk monument in Baarn