type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 26.10.2012
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 297/15
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) št. 990/2012
 z dne 25. oktobra 2012
 o izdaji dovoljenja za pripravek iz Propionibacterium acidipropionici (CNCM MA 26/4U) kot krmni dodatek za vse živalske vrste
 (Besedilo velja za EGP)
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1831/2003 z dne 22. septembra 2003 o dodatkih za uporabo v prehrani živali (1) in zlasti člena 9(2) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Uredba (ES) št. 1831/2003 določa izdajo dovoljenj za dodatke za uporabo v prehrani živali ter razloge in postopke za izdajo takih dovoljenj. Člen 10(7) Uredbe (ES) št. 1831/2003 v povezavi s členom 10(1) do (4) navedene uredbe določa posebne določbe za vrednotenje proizvodov, ki se v Uniji uporabljajo kot silirni dodatki na datum začetka veljavnosti navedene uredbe.
 (2)
 V skladu s členom 10(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1831/2003 je bil pripravek Propionibacterium acidipropionici (CNCM MA 26/4U) (v nadaljnjem besedilu: pripravek) vpisan v register krmnih dodatkov Skupnosti kot obstoječ proizvod iz funkcionalne skupine silirnih dodatkov za vse živalske vrste.
 (3)
 V skladu s členom 10(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1831/2003 in v povezavi s členom 7 navedene uredbe je bil vložen zahtevek za dovoljenje za pripravek kot krmni dodatek za vse živalske vrste ter za njegovo uvrstitev v kategorijo „tehnoloških dodatkov“ in funkcionalno skupino „silirnih dodatkov“. V skladu s členom 7(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1831/2003 so bili navedenemu zahtevku priloženi zahtevani podatki in dokumenti.
 (4)
 Evropska agencija za varnost hrane (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Agencija) je v svojem mnenju z dne 25. aprila 2012 (2) navedla, da pripravek v predlaganih pogojih uporabe nima škodljivega vpliva na zdravje živali, ljudi ali na okolje in da lahko uporaba pripravka izboljša aerobno stabilnost obdelane silaže. Agencija meni, da ni potrebe po posebnih zahtevah v zvezi s poprodajnim nadzorom. Potrdila je tudi poročilo o analitski metodi krmnega dodatka, ki ga je predložil referenčni laboratorij Skupnosti, ustanovljen z Uredbo (ES) št. 1831/2003.
 (5)
 Ocena pripravka je pokazala, da so pogoji za dovoljenje iz člena 5 Uredbe (ES) št. 1831/2003 izpolnjeni. Zato je treba dovoliti uporabo pripravka, kakor je opredeljeno v Prilogi k tej uredbi.
 (6)
 Ker ni varnostnih razlogov, ki bi zahtevali takojšnje izvajanje spremenjenih pogojev za izdajo dovoljenja, je primerno, da se omogoči prehodno obdobje, da se lahko vse zainteresirane strani pripravijo na izpolnjevanje novih zahtev zaradi izdaje dovoljenja.
 (7)
 Ukrepi, predvideni s to uredbo, so v skladu z mnenjem Stalnega odbora za prehranjevalno verigo in zdravje živali –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Dovoljenje
 Pripravek iz Priloge, ki spada v kategorijo dodatkov „tehnološki dodatki“ in funkcionalno skupino „silirni dodatki“, se dovoli kot dodatek v prehrani živali v skladu s pogoji iz navedene priloge.
 Člen 2
 Prehodni ukrepi
 Pripravek, ki je opredeljen v Prilogi, in krma, ki vsebuje navedeni pripravek, ki sta proizvedena in označena pred 15. majem 2013 v skladu s pravili, ki se uporabljajo pred 15. novembrom 2012, se lahko še naprej dajeta na trg in uporabljata do porabe obstoječih zalog.
 Člen 3
 Začetek veljavnosti
 Ta uredba začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 25. oktobra 2012
 Za Komisijo
 Predsednik
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) UL L 268, 18.10.2003, str. 29.
 (2) EFSA Journal 2012, 10(5):2673.
 PRILOGA
 Identifikacijska številka dodatka
 Ime imetnika dovoljenja
 Dodatek
 Sestava, kemijska formula, opis, analitska metoda
 Vrsta ali kategorija živali
 Najvišja starost
 Najnižja vsebnost
 Najvišja vsebnost
 Druge določbe
 Datum poteka veljavnosti dovoljenja
 CFU/kg sveže snovi
 Kategorija tehnoloških dodatkov. Funkcionalna skupina: silirni dodatki
 1k2111
 —
 Propionibacterium acidipropionici (CNCM MA 26/4U)
 Sestava dodatka
 Pripravek iz Propionibacterium acidipropionici (CNCM MA 26/4U) z najnižjo vsebnostjo 1x108 CFU/g dodatka
 Lastnosti aktivne snovi
 Propionibacterium acidipropionici (CNCM MA 26/4U)
 Analitska metoda
 (1)
 Metoda štetja pri krmnem dodatku: metoda razmaza na plošči (EN 15787).
 Identifikacija: gelska elektroforeza v utripajočem polju (PFGE).
 vse živalske vrste
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 V navodilih za uporabo dodatka in premiksa je treba navesti temperaturo skladiščenja in rok trajanja.
 2.
 Najnižji odmerek dodatka, kadar se ne uporablja v kombinaciji z drugimi mikroorganizmi kot silirnimi dodatki: 1x108 CFU/kg sveže snovi.
 3.
 Zaradi varnosti se pri ravnanju priporoča uporaba zaščite za dihala in rokavic.
 15. november 2022
 (1) Podrobnosti o analitskih metodah so na voljo na naslednjem naslovu referenčnega laboratorija: http://irmm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EURLs/EURL_feed_additives/Pages/index.aspx.


type: caselaw

text:
 12.6.2004
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 156/5
 Az Európai Közösségek Elsőfokú Bíróságának második tanácsa a Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG által a Belső Piaci Harmonizációs Hivatal (védjegyek és formatervezési minták) ellen indított, a T-146/02. sz. – T-153/02. sz. egyesített ügyekben 2004. január 28-án hozott ítélete ellen, Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG által 2004. április 8-án (faxon 2004. április 6-án) benyújtott fellebbezés
 (C-173/04 P. sz. ügy)
 (2004/C 156/09)
 A Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, 2004. április 8-án (faxon 2004. április 6-án) fellebbezést nyújtott be az Európai Közösségek Bíróságához az Európai Közösségek Elsőfokú Bírósága második tanácsának a Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG által a Belső Piaci Harmonizációs Hivatal (védjegyek és formatervezési minták) ellen indított, a T-146/02. sz. – T-153/02. sz. egyesített ügyekben 2004. január 28-án hozott ítélete ellen. A felperest a fellebbezési eljárásban Anja Franke, ügyvéd, Grünecker Kinkeldey Stockmair & Schwanhäusser, Maximilianstr. 58, D-80538 München képviseli együttműködve Martin Aufenanger, szabadalmi ügyvivővel, Maximilianstr. 58, D-80538 München.
 A fellebbező felek a következő döntés meghozatalát kéri a Bíróságtól:
 1.
 helyezze hatályon kívül az Elsőfokú Bíróság T-146/02. sz. – T-153/02. sz. egyesített ügyekben 2004. január 28-án hozott ítéletét (1);
 2.
 kötelezze az alperest és a fellebbezés alperesét a jelen eljárás és az Elsőfokú Bíróság előtti eljárás költségei viselésére.
 Jogalapok és fontosabb jogi érvek:
 A fellebbezés az Elsőfokú Bíróság közösségi jogsértésén alapul.
 —
 az Elsőfokú Bíróság tévesen ítéli meg a termékpiacot és következésképpen a csomagolási formákat is, amelyek összehasonlítási alapul szolgálnak a 40/94 rendelet 7. cikk (1) bekezdés b) pont alkalmazásakor a bejegyzés iránti kérelemben szereplő védjegyek megkülönböztető képességének megítélésénél. Az Elsőfokú Bíróság vizsgálatát nem a piacon már jelen levő, ténylegesen egyes termékek vonatkozásában, azaz „gyümölcsitalok és gyümölcslevek” vonatkozásában, már bejegyzett csomagolási formákra terjeszti ki, hanem általában a „folyékony élelmiszerekre”. Azzal a kérdéssel, hogy a bejegyzés iránti kérelemben szereplő védjegyek mennyiben térnek el az italok szokásos csomagolási formájától, nem foglalkozik. A vizsgálat a bejegyzés iránti kérelemben szereplő védjegyek kizárólag fiktív alapformáira, valamint a „gyümölcsitalok és gyümölcslevek” tárolására szolgáló álló tasakok lehetséges jövőbeli használatára terjed ki.
 —
 mérlegelése során az Elsőfokú Bíróság túl magas követelményeket támaszt a bejegyzés iránti kérelemben szereplő védjegyek formáját illetően, tekintettel a megkívánt megkülönböztető képesség alacsony fokára.
 —
 a 40/94 rendelet 7. cikk (1) bekezdés b) pont keretében az általános érdek értékelése érdekében, az Elsőfokú Bíróság érvelését kizárólag az esetleges versenytársak általános érdekére alapítja, anélkül, hogy a tényeket figyelembe venné, ti. a fellebbező fél több évtizede álló tasakokat használ, anélkül, hogy bárki utánozta volna. A Bíróság a fogyasztók általános érdekét teljesen figyelmen kívül hagyja.
 (1) EBHT-ben még nem tették közzé.


type: wikipedia

text:
L este a douăsprezecea literă din alfabetul latin și a cincisprezecea din alfabetul limbii române. În limba română această literă marchează o consoană sonantă laterală alveolară (uneori numită dentală în loc de alveolară) cu simbolul fonetic .
 Istorie
 Utilizări
 În matematică
 L reprezintă, în sistemul cifrelor romane, numărul 50.
 L (L mare) reprezintă, lungimea unui dreptungi, iar l (L mic) reprezintă lățimea.
 Alfabetul latin
 L


text:
 5.2.2011
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 38/18
 Wyrok Sądu do spraw Służby Publicznej (trzecia izba) z dnia 15 grudnia 2010 r. — Almeida Campos i in. przeciwko Radzie
 (Sprawa F-14/09) (1)
 (Służba publiczna - Urzędnicy - Awans - Postępowanie w sprawie awansu za 2008 r. - Porównanie osiągnięć administratorów zajmujących stanowiska lingwistyczne z osiągnięciami administratorów zajmujących stanowiska ogólne)
 2011/C 38/34
 Język postępowania: francuski
 Strony
 Strona skarżąca: Ana Maria Almeida Campos (Bruksela, Belgia) i inni (przedstawiciele: adwokaci S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.N. Louis i É. Marchal)
 Strona pozwana: Rada Unii Europejskiej (przedstawiciele: M. Bauer i G. Kimberley, pełnomocnicy)
 Przedmiot sprawy
 Stwierdzenie nieważności decyzji organu powołującego o nieawansowaniu skarżących do grupy zaszeregowania AD 12 w ramach postępowania w sprawie awansu za 2008 r. oraz w razie potrzeby decyzji wydanych w ramach tego samego postępowania o awansowaniu do tej grupy urzędników, których nazwiska zamieszczone zostały na liście osób awansowanych, opublikowanej w drodze komunikatu do personelu nr 72/08 z dnia 21 kwietnia 2008 r.
 Sentencja wyroku
 1)
 Stwierdza się nieważność decyzji, mocą których Rada Unii Europejskiej odmówiła awansowania A.M. Almeidy Campos, R. Dariol, S. Morello i K. Verstreken do grupy zaszeregowania AD 12 w ramach postępowania w sprawie awansu za 2008 r.
 2)
 W pozostałym zakresie skarga zostaje odrzucona.
 3)
 Rada Unii Europejskiej pokrywa całość kosztów postępowania.
 (1) Dz.U. C 90 z 18.4.2009, s. 40.


type: other

text:
90/1993 Z. z. Zákon o opatreniach v oblasti priemyselného vlastníctva | Aktuálne znenie
 Hľadaj v 90/1993 ×
 Zákon č. 90/1993 Z. z.Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky o opatreniach v oblasti priemyselného vlastníctva
 (v znení č. 185/1994 Z. z., 55/1997 Z. z., 146/2000 Z. z.(nepriamo), 469/2003 Z. z.(nepriamo), 344/2004 Z. z.(nepriamo), 517/2007 Z. z.(nepriamo))
 Platnosť od 29.04.1993
 1. V § 11 ods. 4 sa vypúšťajú slová „českom alebo“.
 2. V § 24 ods. 2 a § 76 ods. 1 sa slovo „československé“ nahrádza slovom „slovenské“.
 3. V § 82 ods. 3 písm. b) sa slová „československý orgán“ nahrádzajú slovami„orgán Slovenskej republiky“.
 4. V § 88 ods. 2 sa slová „upravia vyhláškami Ministerstvo zdravotníctva Českej republiky a“ nahrádzajú slovami „upraví vyhláškou“.
 5. V § 88 ods. 3 druhá veta znie:
 (1) Patentoví zástupcovia, ktorí sú občanmi Slovenskej republiky, majú trvalý pobyt na jej území a boli zapísaní do registra podľa doterajších predpisov13), sa považujú za patentových zástupcov zapísaných do registra, ktorý vedie Komora patentových zástupcov so sídlom v Bratislave.
 (2) Do ustanovenia orgánov Komory patentových zástupcov ich pôsobnosť vykonáva prípravný výbor vymenovaný predsedom Úradu priemyselného vlastníctva Slovenskej republiky.
 (3) Prípravný výbor zvolá ustanovujúcu konferenciu Komory patentových zástupcov do 30. júna 1993.
 13) § 2 a 4 zákona č. 237/1991 Zb. o patentových zástupcoch.


jurisdiction: US

text:
 985 A.2d 565 (2009)
 MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION, et al.
 v.
 Herschell B. CLAGGETT, Sr.
 No. 142, September Term, 2008.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 December 22, 2009.
 *567 Steven M. Sullivan, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen., Craig A. Nielsen, Thomas F. Filbert, Asst. Attys. Gen.), on brief, for Petitioners.
 Willard C. Parker, II (Sarah M. Everhart, Parker Counts & Melton, LLP, Easton), on brief, for Respondent.
 Margaret Ann Nolan, County Solicitor, Lisa Stello O'Brien, Sr. Asst. County Solicitor, Melissa Shane Shipkey, Asst. County Solicitor, Amicus Curiae.
 Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
 ADKINS, J.
 In this appeal, we construe the terms of an agricultural easement conveyed by respondent Herschell Claggett, Sr. to petitioner Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation ("Foundation") over his 208.39-acre Kent County property ("Claggett Property") for the sum of $262,190.50.[1] At issue is whether the Foundation must grant a release from that easement for a two-acre lot which allows Claggett to not only construct a dwelling *568 house thereon, but also to sell that lot to a third-party free of the agricultural easement. We shall hold that the Deed of Easement and Preliminary Release only allow for the release of acreage to construct a dwelling house for the use of the landowner or landowner's child and that they do not permit a transfer to a third-party free of that restriction.
 FACTS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
 The Foundation, Its Governing Statute, And Provisions In Effect At Deed Execution
 As the Court of Special Appeals explained:
 The Foundation is empowered "[t]o acquire... easements ... to restrict the use of agricultural land ... to maintain the character of the land as agricultural land...." Md.Code (2007 Repl.Vol., 2008 Supp.), § 2-504 of the Agriculture Article ("Agric."). [Footnote omitted.] See also Agric. § 2-502 (establishing the Foundation). The terms of such easements are dictated by the Agriculture Article, and require the grantors to covenant, "for so long as profitable farming is feasible" on the burdened land, Agric. § 2-514(a), that the land will not be used "for any commercial, industrial, or residential purpose." Agric. § 2-513(b).
 Claggett v. Md. Agric. Land Pres. Found., 182 Md.App. 346, 352-53, 957 A.2d 1083, 1086 (2008).
 The General Assembly created the Foundation to acquire easements by purchase and other means "to restrict the use of agricultural land and woodland as may be designated to maintain the character of the land as agricultural land or woodland[.]" Md.Code (1974, 1999 Repl.Vol.), § 2-504(3) of the Agriculture Article (AG-1999).[2] In preserving agricultural land and woodland, the legislature's intent was to:
 provide sources of agricultural products within the State for the citizens of the State; control the urban expansion which is consuming the agricultural land and woodland of the State; curb the spread of urban blight and deterioration; and protect agricultural land and woodland as open-space land.
 AG-1999 § 2-501.[3] The legislature also provided for provisions to be included in those easements, expressed in AG-1999 Section 2-513. Under AG-1999 Section 2-513(b)(1), a landowner "whose land is subject to an easement, may not use the land for any commercial, industrial, or residential purpose." AG-1999 Section 2-513(b)(2) allows a landowner to obtain a release for the construction of a dwelling house:
 Except as provided in paragraph (5) of this subsection, on written application, the Foundation shall release free of easement restrictions only for the landowner who originally sold an easement, 1 acre or less for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house for the use only of that landowner or *569 child of the landowner subject to the following conditions:
 * * *
 (iii) The landowner shall pay the State for any acre or portion released at the price per acre that the State paid the owner for the easement.
 (iv) Before any conveyance or release, the landowner and the child, if there is a conveyance to a child, shall agree not to subdivide further for residential purposes any acreage allowed to be released. The agreement shall be recorded among the land records where the land is located and shall bind all future owners.
 (v) After certifying that the landowner or child of the landowner has met the conditions provided in subparagraphs (i) through (iv) of this paragraph, the Foundation shall issue a preliminary release which shall:
 1. Become final when the Foundation receives and certifies a non-transferrable building permit in the name of the landowner or child of the landowner for construction of a dwelling house; or
 2. Become void upon the death of the person for whose benefit the release was intended if the Foundation has not yet received a building permit as provided in this subparagraph.
 (vi) Any release or preliminary release issued under this paragraph shall include a statement of the conditions under which it was issued, a certification by the Foundation that all necessary conditions for release or preliminary release have been met, and copies of any pertinent documents.
 (vii) Any release, preliminary release, building permit, or other document issued or submitted in accordance with this paragraph shall be recorded among the land records where the land is located and shall bind all future owners.
 (viii) The Foundation may not restrict the ability of a landowner who originally sold an easement to acquire a release under this paragraph beyond the requirements provided in this section.
 (Emphasis added.)
 Finally, under AG-1999 Section 2-513(b)(5)(i), the Foundation may grant a modified release of up to two acres for a dwelling house if regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the jurisdiction in which the land is situated require a minimum lot size of at least two acres.
 The Deed Of Easement
 On February 1, 2000, Claggett conveyed an agricultural preservation easement to the Foundation "in consideration of the sum of ... $262,190.50[.]" The Easement contains the following general covenant, stating the intention of the parties:
 [T]he Grantor covenants for and on behalf of Grantor, the personal representatives, successors and assigns of the Grantor, with the Grantee, its successors and assigns, to do and refrain from doing upon the ... land all and any of the various acts set forth, it being the intention of the parties that the said land shall be preserved solely for agricultural use in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Article, Title 2, Subtitle 5, Annotated Code of Maryland, and that the covenants, conditions, limitations and restrictions hereinafter set forth, are intended to limit the use of the above described land and are to be deemed and construed as real covenants running with the land.
 The Easement then specifies particular "COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS[,]" which *570 reflect the provisions contained in AG-1999 Section 2-513(b):
 A. Subject to the reservations hereinafter contained, the Grantor for the Grantor, the heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the Grantor, covenants and agrees as follows:
 (1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this instrument, the [Claggett Property] may not be used for any commercial, industrial, or residential purpose.
 (b) As a personal covenant only and one that is not intended to run with the land, the Grantee, on written application from the Grantor, shall release free of easement restrictions only for the Grantor who originally sold this easement, 1 acre or less for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house for the use only of that Grantor or the Grantor's child subject to the following conditions:
 (i) The total number of lots allowed to be released under this paragraph may not exceed 10 lots of 1 acre or less at a maximum of not more than 1 lot for each 20 acres or portion thereof;
 * * *
 (iii) Before any conveyance or release, the Grantor and the child, if there is a conveyance to a child, shall agree not to subdivide further any acreage allowed to be released; the agreement shall be recorded among the land records where the land is located and shall bind all future owners[.] (Emphasis added).
 Subsection (A)(1)(c) of the Easement provides what must be included in an "Application for Lot Exclusion" before a lot may be released "for the construction of a dwelling house[.]" Among other requirements, an application must contain "a declaration that the lot and dwelling house are only for the use of the landowner or the landowner's child, whichever is the case[.]" Subsection (A)(1)(d) copies the AG-1999 Section 2-513(b)(2)(v) two-step procedure by which the Foundation shall issue a release:
 After certifying that the landowner or child of the landowner has met the conditions provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Foundation shall issue a Preliminary Release which shall:
 (i) Become final when the Foundation receives and certifies a non-transferrable building permit in the name of the landowner (or child of the landowner if the proposed lot is intended for the landowner's child's use) for the construction of a dwelling house; or
 (ii) Become void upon the death of the person for whose benefit the release was intended if the Foundation has not yet received a building permit as provided in this regulation.
 The Easement provides further that "[t]he right reserved to the Grantor under paragraph (1)(b) belongs only to the Grantor who originally sold this easement and may be exercised only by the Grantor named in the instrument."
 Section B in the Easement contains additional covenants. Among these is Subsection (7), which states: "If the Grantor has any doubts concerning the easement, covenants conditions, limitations or restrictions herein contained with respect to any particular use of the said land, the Grantor may submit a written request to the Grantee for consideration and approval of such use."
 The Preliminary Release
 Claggett requested a release "to exclude a 2.00 acre owner's lot from [his] 208.39 *571 acre easement property for the construction of a dwelling intended for [his] use" (hereinafter "Owner's Lot"), which the Foundation approved on June 28, 2001. The Foundation indicated in a letter that "[t]his lot exclusion was approved as presented in accordance with the provisions of [his] Deed of Easement and in accordance with [the] Agricultural Article ... which grants an allowance of a maximum lot size of up to 2.00 acres if required by regulations adopted by the Department of the Environment or the county."
 The letter informed Claggett that any lot released would be done so pursuant to the "two-stage release process" articulated in AG-1999 Section 2-513 and that a Preliminary Release and Agreement would be recorded in the land records outlining conditions of the release. The Foundation's letter further stated that upon compliance with all of the terms and conditions of the Preliminary Release and Agreement, a "second (final) Release and Agreement [would] also be recorded upon request releasing the lot of all easement restrictions once a non-transferrable building permit [was] presented to the Foundation in [Claggett's] name." Finally, the letter indicated that "[b]efore a preliminary release [could] be prepared, [Claggett must provide] the following: 1. Reimbursement of the amount paid to [Claggett] by the Foundation for the requested lot. Our records show this total amount to be $2,470, @ $1,235 per acre. 2. A metes and bounds description of the lot[.]"
 Following receipt of the letter, Claggett remitted payment and a metes and bounds description of the Owner's Lot. The Foundation then sent Claggett a Preliminary Release and Agreement, which was filed on October 17, 2002, with the following pertinent provisions:
 WHEREAS, pursuant to Agriculture Article 2-513(b)(3) of the Annotated Code of Maryland and Section A(1) of the Covenants, Conditions, Limitations and Restrictions of the said Deed of Easement, as a personal covenant, the Releasees only may exclude from the easement restrictions up to two (2) acres... upon written application to the Releasor for the owner's use for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house for owner's residence.
 * * *
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, payment by the Releasees to the Releasor of the sum of $2,470.00 and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Releasor hereby conditionally releases [the Owner's Lot] ... from restriction contained in the agricultural land preservation easement, subject, however, to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, including the condition that its use be for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house for the owner's residence. [(Emphasis added).]
 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS
 1. The Releasees, on behalf of themselves, their Personal Representatives and assigns, the survivor of them, his or her Personal Representatives and assigns, grant and relinquish the right to subdivide the above described 2.00 acres of land that is to be released from easement restrictions recorded among the land records of Kent County, Maryland in Liber 0190, Folio 558. This grant and relinquishment of right shall be deemed and construed as a real covenant, running with the land, and shall bind all current and future owners and any other person, firm or corporation having any interest in the subject property.
 2. This preliminary release shall:
 *572 (a) Become final when the Foundation receives and certifies a nontransferable building permit in the name of the landowner for the construction of a dwelling house and issues a final release; or
 (b) Become null and void upon the death of the person whose benefit the release was intended if the Foundation has not received a building permit as provided in the subparagraph.
 3. Subject to the proceeding Paragraphs 1 and 2 it is the intent of this instrument to release the above described 2.00 acres parcel of land from agricultural easement restrictions set forth in the above mentioned Deed of Easement for the purpose of constructing a dwelling. The parties agree that this right may not be transferred to any person. However, all of the terms, covenants, conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth in the Deed of Easement shall remain in force, operation and effect on the remaining portions of the Releasees' land not herein or heretofor expressly released.
 4. The Releasor does not warrant or represent to the Releasees, their assigns, the survivor of them, or the survivor's Personal Representatives/Successors or assigns, that the release and conveyance of the above described one (2.00) acre or less will comply with county or local zoning laws or requirements or imply an approval which could negate any county or local zoning laws, requirements, or any specific use for which the Releasees may have intended.
 5. Upon compliance with all of the terms and conditions hereinabove set forth, the Releasees shall have the right to request that the above described parcel of 2.00 acres be released from the operation and effect of the Deed of Easement subject only to the Terms and Conditions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 above.
 Amendments To Section 2-513
 The 2003 Amendment
 Effective October 1, 2003, the General Assembly enacted 2003 Maryland Laws Chapter 258 ("Chapter 258"), which added a new Section 2-513(b)(3), allowing a landowner to reserve a single lot for exclusion from easement restrictions in lieu of the right to reserve an owner's lot:
 A landowner may reserve the right to exclude 1 unrestricted lot from an easement in lieu of all owner's and children's lots to which the landowner would otherwise be entitled under [Section 2-513(b)(2)].
 * * *
 (ii) An unrestricted lot may be subdivided by the landowner from the easement and sold to anyone to construct one residential dwelling[.]
 The 2004 Amendment
 This section was modified when the General Assembly enacted Maryland Laws, Chapter 498 ("Chapter 498"), which mandated that different terms be included in a release made pursuant to Section 2-513(b)(2)(vi) of the Agriculture Article, to be effective October 1, 2004 (hereinafter "AG-2004"):
 Any release or preliminary release issued under this paragraph shall include:
 1. A statement of the conditions under which it was issued, a certification by the Foundation that all necessary conditions for release or preliminary release have been met, and copies of any pertinent documents; and
 2. A statement that the owner's or child's lot may not be transferred for 5 years from the date of the final release, except on:
 *573 A. Approval by the Foundation; or
 B. Notwithstanding any conditions on transfers imposed under item 1 of this subparagraph, a lender providing notice to the Foundation of a transfer pursuant to a bona fide foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust or to a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
 (Emphasis added.)
 The Disputed Final Release
 Claggett submitted a building permit and request for final release in 2005. On June 7, 2005, the Foundation sent Claggett a Final Release and Agreement ("Final Release") with a letter requesting that he "return the signed document to the Foundation" so that it could be signed on behalf of the Foundation and then recorded in the Kent County land records. The Final Release included the following language reflecting the 2004 amendment to Section 2-513(b)(2)(vi)(2):
 [I]t is the intent of this instrument to release the [Owner's Lot] for the personal residential use of the person named in the building permit[.] ... The parties agree that this right may not be transferred to any other person for five (5) years from the date of the final release, except on:
 (a) Approval by the Foundation; or
 (b) Notwithstanding any conditions on transfers imposed under item 1 of this subparagraph, a lender providing notice to the Foundation of a transfer pursuant to a bona fide foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust or to a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
 (emphasis added).
 Claggett refused to sign the Final Release. In a letter to the Foundation, Claggett's counsel questioned whether Claggett was subject to the Final Release requirement prohibiting a transfer of the Owner's Lot "`to any other person for five (5) years from the date of final release[.]'" In a September 12, 2005 letter, the Foundation responded:
 By ["Chapter 498"] Mr. Claggett is subject to the requirements described in... the final release, and by this law also, the Foundation does not have the authority to release his lot until this requirement is met.
 * * *
 As the easement grantor, only Mr. Claggett has the one time right to an owner's lot for the purpose of constructing a dwelling solely for his personal use. Before Chapter 498's enactment the law did not allow a released lot for a dwelling to be conveyed to any other person but restricted its use to the landowner who sold the easement. This left the released owner's lot in legal limbo with lenders and others that was corrected by the enactment of Chapter 498 (effective October 1, 2004) that now allows certain transfers.
 * * *
 Chapter 498 ... provides a benefit to landowners, such as Mr. Claggett, who make application for allowable lot releases after October 1, 2005; again, this benefit allows them to transfer owner's lots to others, whereas before, the law did not provide this opportunity.
 Lastly, the Foundation does not have the authority to waive the language release requirements of Chapter 498; Mr. Claggett applied for a lot release after Chapter 498's effective date and he is subject to its requirements.
 Circuit Court Proceedings
 Claggett filed a Complaint for a Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment in the Circuit Court for Kent County on November 9, 2006 and an amended complaint *574 on January 8, 2007. In his complaint, Claggett requested a declaratory judgment that Chapter 498 "may not be applied retroactively to modify the terms and conditions of the Deed of Easement or the terms and conditions of the final release to which [Claggett] is entitled." He also petitioned for a writ of mandamus ordering the Foundation to execute a final release that did not include the terms derived from Chapter 498. Finally, Claggett sought damages in the amount of $100,000.
 The Foundation filed a Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment and the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Foundation on April 24, 2007. The court denied Claggett's claim for damages under the doctrine of sovereign immunity and ruled that Claggett was subject to the terms of the Final Release and Chapter 498.
 The Court Of Special Appeals Decision
 Claggett appealed the Circuit Court's judgment to the Court of Special Appeals (the CSA) and it reversed. Claggett, 182 Md.App. at 393, 957 A.2d at 1110. After reviewing legislative history, the CSA concluded that "until Chapter 498 was enacted, [AG-1999 Section 2-513] permitted a landowner who obtained the release of an owner's lot, and constructed a dwelling on the lot, to sell the lot and house free of easement restrictions." Id. at 390, 957 A.2d at 1108. The CSA held, moreover, that "neither the Preliminary Release nor the Deed of Easement explicitly included any restriction on the alienability of the Owner's Lot. Rather, the two documents are subject to the same ambiguities as [AG-1999 Section 2-513]." Id. at 391, 957 A.2d at 1109. The CSA rejected the Foundation's contention that Claggett's release request was subject to 2004 amendment to Section 2-513:
 Chapter 498 prospectively altered the substantive terms of agricultural preservation easements. As noted, the Foundation makes no argument that the Legislature intended for a statute that substantively altered the vested rights of landowners to have retroactive effect; it merely argues that Chapter 498 did not alter vested rights. Because we conclude otherwise, we also conclude that Chapter 498 may not be applied retroactively to [Claggett] with respect to his Owner's Lot.
 Id. at 393, 957 A.2d at 1110.
 We granted a writ of certiorari to consider the Foundation's following questions:
 I. Do the requirements of [AG-2004 Section 2-513(b)], as amended by 2004 Laws of Maryland, Chapter 498, apply to a final release from land preservation easement for construction of a dwelling for the use of the landowner, which the landowner requested in 2005?
 II. Prior to the October 1, 2004 effective date of [Chapter 498], did the landowner have a vested right to obtain final release of easement allowing him to construct a dwelling and to sell the dwelling and lot at any time to any unrelated third party, where such a right was not expressly provided by statute, regulation, or deed of easement, and where the landowner did not apply for the final release or satisfy the necessary conditions by submitting the required building permit until sometime in 2005, more than six months after the effective date of the 2004 legislation?
 DISCUSSION
 Standard of Review
 "Our standard of review of the declaratory judgment entered as the result of the grant of a motion for summary judgment is whether that declaration was correct as a matter of law." S. Easton *575 Neighborhood Ass'n v. Town of Easton, 387 Md. 468, 487, 876 A.2d 58, 70 (2005). "We review the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and construe any reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts against the moving party." Educ. Testing Serv. v. Hildebrant, 399 Md. 128, 140, 923 A.2d 34, 41 (2007). Where there is no genuine dispute of material fact, as is the case here, we proceed to review determinations of law. Remsburg v. Montgomery, 376 Md. 568, 579, 831 A.2d 18, 24 (2003).
 The Parties' Contentions
 The Foundation contends that Claggett's final release request is subject to the five-year restriction on transfers found in Chapter 498the 2004 amendment to Section 2-513(b). See AG-2004 § 2-513(b)(2)(vi). In other words, it asserts that Claggett's requested final release must include the language provided in the amended version of the statute. The Foundation offers several reasons why the 2004 amendment should govern, and Claggett responds to these with arguments of his own.
 We do not address these arguments about the applicability of the 2004 Amendment because in our view, the case is more readily resolved by interpretation of the language of the Deed of Easement granted by Claggett and the Preliminary Release executed by the Foundation. In this regard, the Foundation argues that the Easement did not reserve for the Grantor the right to transfer an owner's lot to a third party free of the use restrictions contained in the Easement. In response, Claggett contends that "the plain meaning of the [Easement does not] authoriz[e] the inclusion of a restriction on the transfer of title to an Owner's Lot once the requirements for a release have been met by the original grantor of the easement." (formatting altered.).
 Claggett first focuses on both paragraph (A)(1)(b) of the Easement, which refers to the Owner's Lot release as a "personal covenant only and one that is not intended to run with the land," and language in the preliminary release which provided that "it is the intent of this instrument to release [the Owner's Lot] from agricultural easement restrictions set forth in the [Easement] for the purpose of constructing a dwelling. The parties agree that this right may not be transferred to any person." Claggett argues that these provisions merely reserve to the original grantor the right to apply for the release of an Owner's Lot and thereafter construct a dwelling, rather than prohibit the owner from subsequently transferring that parcel to a third party.
 Court's Analysis
 We begin our construction of the Deed of Easement by reviewing the principles that govern interpretation of such instruments.
 In construing the language of a deed, the basic principles of contract interpretation apply. The grant of an easement by deed is strictly construed. The extent of an easement created by an express grant depends upon a proper construction of the conveyance by which the easement was created. The primary rule for the construction of contracts generallyand the rule is applicable to the construction of a grant of an easementis that a court should ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties at the time the contract was made, if that be possible.
 Miller v. Kirkpatrick, 377 Md. 335, 351, 833 A.2d 536, 545 (2003) (quotation marks and citations omitted). As we stated in White v. Pines Community Improvement *576 Association, Inc., 403 Md. 13, 32, 939 A.2d 165, 176 (2008), the language of the agreement itself is of foremost importance:
 "`A court construing an agreement under this test must first determine from the language of the agreement itself what a reasonable person in the position of the parties would have meant at the time it was effectuated. In addition, when the language of the contract is plain and unambiguous there is no room for construction, and a court must presume that the parties meant what they expressed.'"
 (Citations omitted.) The principles of deed construction require, moreover, consideration of "the character of the contract, its purpose, and the facts and circumstances of the parties at the time of execution[.]" Chevy Chase Land Co. v. United States, 355 Md. 110, 123, 733 A.2d 1055, 1062 (1999) (citations omitted). "[W]e must consider the deed as a whole, viewing its language in light of the facts and circumstances of the transaction at issue as well as the governing law at the time of conveyance." Id. "[T]he primary consideration in construing the scope of an express easement is the language of the grant." Id. at 143, 733 A.2d at 1073. Furthermore,
 [i]f the grant contains no limitations, the court will attempt to discern what the parties would have reasonably expected, and will usually be generous in its interpretation. The language of the easement can grant to the easement holder a good deal of discretion in the use of the easement or limit the use very narrowly; if the grant is not clear, the court will interpret the scope of the easement in favor of free and untrammeled use of the land.
 Id. at 145, 733 A.2d at 1074 (citing 7 THOMPSON ON REAL PROPERTY § 60.04(a), at 451 (Thomas ed.1994) (quotation marks, footnotes, and citations omitted)).
 In applying these principles, we must first clarify what is at issue in this appeal. Although as a practical matter, use and title may go hand in hand, when analyzing an easement, it is use, not title that is involved. With this in mind, we look carefully at the Deed of Easement. Claggett, in granting the Easement, agreed: "Except as otherwise provided in this instrument, the [Claggett Property] may not be used for any ... residential purpose." (Emphasis added). Thus, our task is to determine what, if any, exceptions from this general prohibition against residential use are contained in the document.
 Section A(1)(b) contains a limited exception:
 As a personal covenant only and one that is not intended to run with the land, the Grantee, on written application from the Grantor, shall release free of easement restrictions only for the Grantor who originally sold this easement, 1 acre or less for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house for the use only of that Grantor or the Grantor's child[.]
 It is clear from this language that the dwelling house may only be used by the Grantor or the Grantor's child. This provision excludes any possible inference that the parties to the Easement, speaking objectively, intended that an unrelated third party could dwell in a house on the Claggett Property.
 Claggett would have us construe the language in Section A(1)(b) that classifies the right to a release for a dwelling as "a personal covenant only and one is not intended to run with the land" to mean that if the Owner's Lot is transferred, it is free of all easement restrictions and can be used by anyone for any purpose. We do not see this as a reasonable construction of *577 the instrument. This language simply means that if Claggett were to transfer title to the servient property or to the "owner's lot" contained therein, which he may do, the new owner does not acquire the right to obtain a release to use the property as a dwelling, free of the agricultural preservation easement. The Easement is written this way because the agricultural preservation Easement is not a grant to the Foundation of title to the land, and it does not restrict land transfer. The Easement simply prescribes use of the land for certain purposes. So the instrument makes clear that, while the land may be transferred, the new owner does not receive the same right to a limited release of a lot (for a dwelling) from the agricultural preservation restrictions. In short, the new owner could use the Claggett Property for any agricultural activities, but cannot use the property as a dwelling.
 Subsection A(1)(c) reiterates this intent with its requirement that any release from the easement restrictions must contain "a declaration that the lot and dwelling house are only for the use of the landowner or the landowner's child, whichever is the case[.]"
 Subsection A(1)(d), regarding the two-step procedure to obtain a release, says:
 After certifying that the landowner or child of the landowner has met the conditions provided in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Foundation shall issue a Preliminary Release which shall:
 (i) Become final when the Foundation receives and certifies a non-transferrable building permit in the name of the landowner (or child of the landowner if the proposed lot is intended for the landowner's child's use) for the construction of a dwelling house; or
 (ii) Become void upon the death of the person whose benefit the release was intended if the Foundation has not yet received a building permit as provided in this regulation.
 We see this subsection as perfectly consistent with the others discussed aboveit creates a procedure whereby a building permit can be obtained in order to allow Claggett or his child to build a house. Although Claggett takes comfort in subparts (d)(i) and (ii), arguing that they mean that once the house is built, it can be used as a dwelling for any person, we do not read this language as he does. Not only does the clause fail to state that a third person may live there, but such an interpretation is diametrically opposed to the clear language in section A(1)(b) restricting use of the property released from the Easement to use as a dwelling for Claggett or his children.
 Subsection (A)(1)(e) is equally clear, providing that "[t]he right reserved to the Grantor under paragraph (1)(b) belongs only to the Grantor who originally sold this easement and may be exercised only by the Grantor named in the instrument." Claggett's argument that this right consists of a right to obtain a building permit, build a house, and then sell the house for use as a dwelling for a third person is inconsistent with this languageif the intent were to allow the Grantor to profit by a sale of the lot free of the use restrictions, there would be no reason to require that he be the one to obtain the building permit and construct the house.
 Claggett points to no other language in the Easement, and we find none, which creates an exemption from his covenant that his property "may not be used for any... residential purpose." (Emphasis added). Without additional language in the Easement which would meet the "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this instrument" *578 requirement, the overall restriction in section A(1)(a) prohibiting use of the property "for any commercial, industrial, or residential purpose" still applies. We do not see any ambiguity in the instrument, and construe it according to its plain language. Contrary to Claggett's argument, there is no need for any further explicit provision against third party use after the house is built because the express covenant against use of the entire property, which is subject to the easement, contains this use restriction, and there is nothing in the instrument that states a contrary intent.
 Preliminary Release
 We next examine the Preliminary Release. We agree with Claggett that even if the Easement did not accord Claggett a right to transfer a lot free of the agricultural preservation restrictions, any grant of release from the terms of the Easement in the Preliminary Release would bind the Foundation. Thus we carefully examine the Preliminary Release, keeping in mind the terms of the Easement for interpretive purposes.
 The Preliminary Release states in the introductory paragraph that "as a personal covenant, the Releasees only may exclude from the easement restrictions up to two (2) acres ... for the owner's use for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house for owner's residence." (Emphasis added). In the formal grant of the release, the instrument states: "the Releasor hereby conditionally releases [the Owner's lot]... from restriction contained in the agricultural land preservation easement, subject, however, to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, including the condition that its use be for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house for the owner's residence." Later, a condition set forth in paragraph 3 of the instrument states the intent that the lot be released "for the purpose of constructing a dwelling. The parties agree that this right may not be transferred to any person." Paragraph 5 states that "the Releasees shall have the right to request that the above described parcel of 2.00 acres be released from the operation and effect of the Deed of Easement subject only to the Terms and conditions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 above."
 Claggett maintains, quoting the CSA, that neither the Easement or the Preliminary Release conditions include an explicit restriction on the alienability of the Owner's Lot. At most, it restricted the dwelling house to be for the owner's residence, but made no provisions for the event that the owner might sell the lot. See Claggett, 182 Md.App. at 377, 957 A.2d at 1101. The Deed and Preliminary Release are silent on the question of transfer to a third party and, he argues, because these instruments are "susceptible of two interpretations, public policy favors the interpretation least restrictive of the right to alienate freely." See Julian v. Christopher, 320 Md. 1, 9, 575 A.2d 735, 738-39 (1990) (holding that "[b]ecause there is a public policy against restraints on alienation, if a lease is silent on the subject, a tenant may freely sublease or assign.").
 We disagree with Claggett and the CSA because we think the notion of selling the lot is inconsistent with the language of the Easement and Preliminary Release. These instruments are silent on the topic of a third party dwelling in and owning the lot because the parties intended to restrict that from happening. There was no intent that a person granting an agricultural easement, who benefitted from the price paid by the government-supported Foundation while retaining the ability to farm the land at a profit, also be able to develop a lot and sell it at a profit. The profits are enhanced by the Easement *579 the fair market value of that lot might increase substantially because it was located amidst land protected by an agricultural easement.
 In the preliminary clauses, the instrument states that the Preliminary Release "conditionally releases [the Claggett Property] from restriction contained in the agricultural land preservation easement, subject, however, to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, including the condition that its use be for the purpose of constructing a dwelling house for the owner's residence." (Emphasis added). We do not see language in the Preliminary Release expressing any intent that the instrument intends to release the restrictions so clearly stated in the Easement with regard to who may dwell on the Owner's Lot.
 The CSA considered meritorious Claggett's argument that language in AG-1999 indicated an intent that the easements would permit transfer of a lot free of agricultural restrictions. It opined:
 In our view, the Foundation's interpretation is problematic in terms of the plain text of the statute. In essence, the Foundation believes that the statute creates a de facto restriction on the ability to sell an owner's lot, because the Foundation believes that only the original landowner may use the lot for residential purposes. But the statute plainly contemplates that an owner's lot will be owned by other persons after the original owner. The statute provides: "Any release, preliminary release, building permit, or other document issued or submitted in accordance with this paragraph shall be recorded among the land records where the land is located and shall bind all future owners." AG-1999 § 2-513(b)(2)(vii).
 Claggett, 182 Md.App. at 381, 957 A.2d. at 1103. In our view the quoted language in the statute does not suggest that the transfer may be made free of the agricultural restrictions. It simply recognizes that the title can be changed by execution and recordation of a deed, but if it does, the restrictions, including limitations on who may live in the dwelling, remain in effect. Their efficacy is assured by record notice to any buyer that the covenants and restrictions run with the land and are binding on future owners.[4]
 The CSA went on to make a more interesting point:
 Indeed, given the finite duration of a human life, one must expect that persons other than the original landowner will one day own an owner's lot. If the Foundation were correct that such subsequent owners could not "use" the lot for residential purposes, any subsequent owner would be forced to tear down the dwelling on the owner's lot and return the land to agricultural use. Although this result is, in some sense, in harmony with the purpose of the agricultural preservation easement scheme to preserve land for agricultural use, it seems *580 a perverse way of ensuring agricultural preservation.
 182 Md.App. at 381, 957 A.2d at 1103. Although this observation is astute, we do not think that consideration of the future prospects for the house after the death of both Claggett and his children should require our deviation from the language of the Easement and the Preliminary Release. Moreover, in light of the passage of AG-2004, and the Foundation's expressed adoption of the 5-year limitation on any use restriction that would prohibit transfer of such lot to a third party free of the restrictions, the issue is moot.
 The CSA interpreted this language differently, pointing out that, although the Easement restricted use of the lot for the grantor's dwelling, it did not contain an explicit restriction on alienability of the Owner's Lot. At most, it restricted the dwelling house to be for the owner's residence, but made no provision for the event that the owner might sell the lot. See Claggett, 182 Md.App. at 377, 957 A.2d at 1101. Our analysis differs, perhaps because we view this dispute as one about the use of land rather than the ownership of land-the Easement restricted use, not transfers. Because the Easement contained covenants running with the land, and recorded among the appropriate land records, it was not necessary to restrict transfer of title in order to effectuate the intended restrictions on use.
 These restrictions in the Deed of Easement are consistent with the agricultural preservation purpose as stated in AG-1999 Section 2-501. The General Assembly created the Foundation to preserve agricultural land as open-space land and curb the spread of "urban blight and deterioration[.]" AG-1999 § 2-501. The owner's lot release conditions reflect an intent to limit new construction on program-participating properties. An unrestricted right to sell an owner's lot once released would undermine this purpose by facilitating potential real estate speculation through an ostensible request to build a dwelling for the grantor or his children. The Easement reflects this purpose, expressly stating an intention that the property "shall be preserved solely for agricultural use in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Article, Title 2, Subtitle 5 ... and that the covenants, conditions, limitations and restrictions ... are intended to limit the use of the [property under easement] and are to be deemed and construed as real covenants running with the land."
 The General Assembly clearly entrusted the Foundation with stewardship responsibility over program-participating properties to ensure that the program's preservation purposes are fulfilled. See AG-1999 Section 2-513(b)(1) (stating that a landowner "may not use the land for any ... residential purpose.")[5] This intent is carried *581 forward in Claggett's Deed of Easement. See § B(7) (stating that "[i]f the Grantor has any doubts concerning the easement, covenants conditions, limitations or restrictions herein contained with respect to any particular use of the said land, the Grantor may submit a written request to the Grantee for consideration and approval of such use"). Under these terms, Claggett certainly may request authorization to transfer his lot to a third-party, but ultimately it is the Foundation's province to grant his request. Indeed, the Foundation maintains that its practice has been to grant such requests when "it would be impracticable for the dwelling to be occupied by the owner."
 Because Claggett did not possess an unrestricted right to transfer the Owner's Lot to a third-party when he obtained the Preliminary Release and Agreement, he was not deprived of any vested right when the Foundation incorporated Chapter 498's five-year restriction on transfer in the Final Release. Indeed, according Claggett the right to transfer his lot after five years actually expanded Claggett's transfer rights under the terms of the Preliminary Release and Agreement. There was no retroactive application of Chapter 498 that worked to his detriment.
 Accordingly, Claggett may not transfer the dwelling constructed on his requested Owner's Lot to a third-party without first obtaining approval from the Foundation. Neither the Deed of Easement nor the Preliminary Release provide Claggett with an unrestricted right of transfer. The Final Release issued by the Foundation lawfully includes a statement that the lot "may not be transferred to any other person for five (5) years" from the date of the release except on "[a]pproval by the Foundation[.]"
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH DIRECTIONS TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR KENT COUNTY. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT.
 Judge MURPHY joins in the judgment only.
 NOTES
 [1] We shall refer to respondent as "Claggett," and to petitioner as "the Foundation." The agricultural easement dated February 1, 2000 will be termed "The Easement" or "Deed of Easement." A preliminary limited release of the Easement, effective October 17, 2002 will be called "the Preliminary Release."
 [2] This case involves amendments to the Agriculture Article that are pertinent to the issue on appeal. We shall refer to the 1999 Replacement Volume of the Agriculture Articlethe law in effect at the time of the Deed of Easement's executionas "AG-1999."
 [3] The Foundation reports that it has acquired or has contracted to acquire, as of the end of FY 2007, permanent conservation easements on 1,933 farms with 265,691 acres. MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION FOUNDATION FIVE-YEAR ANNUAL REPORT, FISCAL YEARS 2003-2007 1 (January 11, 2008), available at http://www.malpf.info/reports/AR2007Distn.pdf. The Foundation has expended nearly $500 million to acquire its easements. Id.
 [4] The intermediate appellate court also carefully analyzed and found unpersuasive some arguments by the Foundation based on legislative changes occurring after the Easement was executed. See Claggett v. Md. Agric. Land Pres. Found., 182 Md.App. 346, 386, 957 A.2d 1083, 1107 (2008). We do not rely on these contentions of the Foundation for our decision. Additionally, the CSA mentions a letter written by a legislative drafting analyst for the General Assembly to Senator John A. Cade in answer to his inquiry about the status of the restrictions on a lot owned by a grantor's child upon the death of the child. Although this is legitimate legislative source for interpretation, we are not bound to agree with this drafting analyst. Nor does the inquiry address the question of application of the use restrictions during the lifetime of the Grantor.
 [5] A 2004 Floor Report for the bill that was ultimately enacted as 2004 Laws of Maryland Chapter 498 reflects these pre-2004 limitations on transfer and the Foundation's role in ensuring that Owner's Lot transfers are for legitimate purposes:
 According to [the Foundation], most program participants understand the restrictions on the development rights that they have sold to [the Foundation]. However, [the Foundation] reports that sometimes there is an incentive to develop family lots for commercial profit by selling those lots to ineligible third parties. Though the two-stage lot release process makes it difficult for the lot to be transferred to an ineligible third party before a house is constructed, a substantial incentive still exists to build a house as a speculative investment to be sold to a third party once the house is ready for occupancy. Under current law, [the Foundation] has no way to verify that lots are developed for legitimate purposes. This bill is intended to allow [the Foundation] to review the subsequent transfer of family lots for five years after they have been released from the easement to verify that the transfer is legitimate.
 (Emphasis added.)


text:
15. august 2018 Tjenestemandsretten har netop fastslået, at en chef i Hjemmeværnet ikke havde ret til rådighedstillæg for sin funktion som bagvagt.
 Nyt bidrag til afklaring af overlap mellem PSD2 og GDPR
 15. august 2018 Det Europæiske Databeskyttelsesråd mener, at virksomheder ikke nødvendigvis behøver indhente samtykke til behandling af personoplysninger fra den passive part i en betalingstransaktion, typisk betalingsmodtageren. Vurderingen er et væsentligt fortolkningsbidrag vedrørende samspillet mellem PSD2 og GDPR.
 Kammeradvokaten i samarbejde med Center for Ret & Digitalisering
 15. august 2018 Kammeradvokaten er med, når det nye Center for Ret & Digitalisering på Juridisk Institut ved Aarhus Universitet holder åbningsreception på fredag.
 It-advokater tilpasser sig kundernes agile fremmarch
 13. august 2018 To af Kammeradvokatens specialister inden for it og digitalisering har tilegnet sig den anerkendte SAFe® certificering, hvilket skal understøtte fortsat værdibaseret rådgivning til kunderne.
 Orientering om Udbudsret - uge 27 - 28 2018
 18. juli 2018 Siden sidste Orientering om Udbudsret er der offentliggjort to kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud og en dom fra Retten.
 11. juli 2018 I denne orientering omtaler vi tre kendelser fra Klagenævnet fra Udbud, der er blevet offentliggjort i uge 25 og 26. To af kendelserne er delkendelser afsagt tidligere, men hvor klagerne efterfølgende er tilbagekaldt, og delkendelserne derfor bliver klagenævnets endelige afgørelser. Derudover omtaler vi en nyhed fra Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen.
 9. juli 2018 Østre Landsret har givet Skatteministeriet medhold i, at en leasingtager skulle hæfte for køretøjets fulde registreringsafgift, idet landsretten fandt det godtgjort, at leasingtageren havde anvendt køretøjet med viden om, at der ikke var betalt den korrekte registreringsafgift af køretøjet.
 EBA lancerer ny vejledning
 4. juli 2018 Den 22. juni 2018 lancerede European Banking Authority (EBA) en offentlig høring vedrørende en ny vejledning for outsourcing i den finansielle sektor.
 Udvidet adgang for fonde til at foretage uddelinger
 3. juli 2018 Justitsministeriet har sendt et lovforslag i høring, der giver almenvelgørende fonde en udvidet adgang til at uddele aktiver, som tilfalder fonden som arv eller gave. Med lovforslaget foreslås det således, at arv og gaver bliver aktiver, der kan anvendes til uddeling, fremfor kapitalaktiver, der indgår i fondens bundne kapital.
 3. juli 2018 De nye ændringer til selskabsloven, herunder bl.a. nedsættelse af kapitalkrav for aktieselskaber samt kravet til oplysninger om reelle ejere, trådte i kraft den 1. juli 2018. Dette sker, efter at Folketinget vedtog det endelige ændringsforslag den 17. maj i år.
 3. juli 2018 En sygeplejerske var ikke uarbejdsdygtig pga. elektromagnetisk hypersensitivitet (EHS). Ankestyrelsen havde derfor truffet afgørelse om, at kvinden ikke var berettiget til sygedagpenge. I en retssag om rigtigheden af afgørelsen blev Ankestyrelsen frifundet.
 Fredede (slots-)bygninger og fradragsret for moms
 3. juli 2018 En fond, der ejede et fredet slot, havde ikke krav på ekstraordinær genoptagelse af sit moms- og afgiftstilsvar i medfør af skatteforvaltningslovens § 32, stk. 1, nr. 2, idet det ikke var godtgjort, at en af fonden påberåbt højesteretsdom fra 2004 indebar en underkendelse af en momspraksis.
 Ny dom om varemærker – navnet på en fast ejendom (Kokkedal Slot)
 2. juli 2018 Sø- og Handelsretten fandt ikke grundlag for at tilsidesætte Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærkers afgørelse om opretholdelse af varemærket KOKKEDAL SLOT som navnet på en fast ejendom i Brovst, uanset at der også ligger et Kokkedal Slot i Kokkedal i Nordsjælland. KOKKEDAL SLOT manglede ikke oprindeligt særpræg og var ikke vildledende, som anført af ejeren af Kokkedal Slot i Kokkedal.
 Finanstilsynet frifindes i sagen vedrørende Amagerbanken
 29. juni 2018 Østre Landsret har i dag afsagt dom i sagen vedrørende Amagerbanken. Landsretten frifandt Finansiel Stabilitet og Finanstilsynet for at have handlet erstatningspådragende i forbindelse med kapitaludvidelsen i sommeren 2010 og afviste således konkursboet efter Amagerbanken og Foreningen Amagerinvestors krav.
 Er en soldat funktionær?
 28. juni 2018 Højesteret har netop fastslået, at funktionærstatus kan udstrækkes til også at gælde soldater, hvis de i overvejende grad er beskæftiget med kontorarbejde.
 Poul Schmith bistår Universal Music med opkøb
 26. juni 2018 Poul Schmith har rådgivet Universal Music i forbindelse med købet af landets største independent label ArtPeople Music og bookingbureauet Nord Booking Agency.
 Advokat Niels Banke optaget i UC Syds bestyrelse
 20. juni 2018 Partner og advokat hos Kammeradvokaten Niels Banke er blevet optaget som medlem af bestyrelsen for professionshøjskolen UC Syd.
 20. juni 2018 Ifølge EU-Domstolen strider det imod EU-retten, at danske selskaber ifølge selskabsskatteloven ikke kan fradrage ”endelige tab” hidrørende fra udenlandske filialer, medmindre der er valgt international sambeskatning.
 20. juni 2018 Siden sidste Orientering er der offentliggjort to kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud.
 Nederlandsk fond var ikke et skattesubjekt
 20. juni 2018 Ifølge Højesteret har skattemyndighederne med rette nægtet at anerkende en hollandsk fond som værende et selvstændigt skattesubjekt, med følge at fondens stifter skal anses for skattepligtig af et udbytte udloddet fra et dansk holdingselskab, som fonden var eneaktionær i.
 Ny rapport om virksomheders arbejde med samfundsansvar
 20. juni 2018 Erhvervsministeriet har offentliggjort en ny rapport, hvori 24 store danske børsnoterede virksomheders arbejde med samfundsansvar analyseres. Rapporten har blandt andet haft til formål at bidrage til inspiration og derved fremme arbejdet med samfundsansvar i andre virksomheder.
 19. juni 2018 Ny voldgiftskendelse fastslår, at tillidsrepræsentanter i staten har krav på at kunne identificere medarbejdere der påtænkes afskediget, men at orienteringen først skal ske samtidig med eller umiddelbart efter, at medarbejderen selv er blevet orienteret.
 15. juni 2018 Kammeradvokaten tager ligesom sidste år et godt spring op ad ranglisten i Berlingske Business' årlige imageanalyse ’Guld Image 2018’.
 Ingen ret til erstatning for forsinket kræftdiagnose
 12. juni 2018 Højesteret frifinder i en principiel dom Ankenævnet for Patienterstatningen for et krav om erstatning for en forsinket kræftdiagnose.
 Nordiske spydspidser inden for compliance mødes i København
 11. juni 2018 Hui Chen er hovedtaler, når ledende stillinger inden for compliance i større private virksomheder og ministerier er samlet onsdag den 13. juni hos Kammeradvokaten.
 Zoologiske anlæg var ikke museer
 8. juni 2018 Højesteret har fastslået, at zoologiske anlæg ikke er fritaget for lønsumsafgift, da de ikke udøver museumsvirksomhed.
 Orientering om Udbudsret - uge 20 - 22 2018
 7. juni 2018 I uge 20, 21 og 22 er der offentliggjort tre kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud, hvoraf den ene er en delkendelse, der er afsagt tidligere, men hvor klagen efterfølgende er tilbagekaldt, hvorfor delkendelsen bliver klagenævnets endelige afgørelse. Endvidere er der offentliggjort en relevant dom fra EU-Domstolen samt en dom fra Østre Landsret. Desuden omtaler vi en enkelt nyhed til sidst.
 6. juni 2018 Kreditorbeskyttelsen af midler omfattet retsplejelovens § 513, stk. 1, var bortfaldet som følge af udlån af midlerne til tredjemand, og de indgik herefter i konkursmassen.
 5. juni 2018 Kammeradvokaten vil gerne gøre Grundlovsdag mindeværdig for landets unge og skabe en forståelse for og indsigt i, hvad grundloven og demokratiet betyder i dag.
 5. juni 2018 Direktør blev pålagt konkurskarantæne bl.a. henset til en gennem længere tid oparbejdet gæld til SKAT på over kr. 10 mio. og da skattegælden ikke kunne forventes indfriet via den almindelige drift.
 Højesteret: Indgrebet i lærerkonflikten i 2013 (lov 409) var ikke i strid med arbejdstidsdirektivet
 4. juni 2018 Højesteret gav ved dom af 1. juni 2018 Beskæftigelsesministeriet medhold i en sag anlagt af Lærernes Centralorganisation vedrørende indgrebet i lærerkonflikten i 2013. Indgrebslovens bestemmelser havde karakter af overenskomst.
 Tiltag på det sociale område: besparelser og stigende kvalitet
 4. juni 2018 Kammeradvokaten har i samarbejde med konsulentfirmaet Prokura igennem det seneste halve år gennemført en omfattende analyse af en række kommuners forbrug. Analysen viser, at der er betydelige besparelser at høste ved, at kommunerne fokuserer mere på deres indkøb og tager nye indkøbsværktøjer fra det private i brug.
 Direktør pålagt konkurskarantæne i tre år
 4. juni 2018 Direktør blev pålagt konkurskarantæne navnlig henset til, at direktøren havde drevet forretning, der havde haft til formål metodisk og systematisk at medvirke til konkursmisbrug og konkursrytteri.
 Fordeling af dividende mellem fordring og regreskrav
 4. juni 2018 En kreditors fordring og en medskyldners regreskrav vedrørte ikke ”samme fordring”, og kreditoren var dermed ikke fortrinsberettiget til at modtage dividende indtil fuld dækning.
 Ny partner hos Kammeradvokaten pr. 1. juni 2018
 1. juni 2018 Advokat Hanne Marthine Møller Jensen er nyudnævnt partner hos Kammeradvokaten.
 31. maj 2018 Kulturministeriet gav en journalist afslag på aktindsigt i brevudveksling med kongehuset vedrørende kronprinsens deltagelse i IOC under henvisning til, at brevvekslingen var intern. Da kronprinsen ikke havde varetaget sine opgaver i IOC som ”led i statsstyret”, var det ombudsmandens opfattelse, at den omhandlede brevveksling ikke var intern.
 31. maj 2018 Københavns Byret har frifundet Forsvarsministeriet og ministeriets underliggende styrelser i den såkaldte kampflysag.
 31. maj 2018 Ankestyrelsens Beskæftigelsesudvalg traf afgørelse om tilbagebetaling af et dagpengebeløb over for en borger på et mangelfuldt grundlag. Udvalget ændrede senere afgørelsen, så tilbagebetalingskravet bortfaldt. Ombudsmanden udtalte, at udvalget i medfør af god forvaltningsskik også burde have redegjort for og beklaget sagsbehandlingsfejlen.
 31. maj 2018 Folketingets Ombudsmand har i to nye udtalelser om offentligt ansattes ret til at udtrykke sig på Facebook fundet, at offentligt ansatte ikke er forpligtet til først at rejse kritik internt i organisationen ligesom offentligt ansatte gerne offentligt må udtrykke sig både skarpt og polemisk, når ytringerne ikke derved bliver åbenbart urigtige eller urimeligt grove.
 25. maj 2018 Det kan være svært at designe en miljøafgift eller sundhedsfremmende afgift på en sådan måde, at den ønskede adfærdsregulering opnås. EU’s statsstøtteregler gør det ikke nemmere, da det kan udgøre statsstøtte i strid med TEUF artikel 107, stk. 1, at fritage visse former for adfærd fra en afgift. En ny afgørelse fra Kommissionen om en irsk sukkerafgift og tre domme fra EU-domstolen om spanske regionale miljøafgifter (”ANGED-dommene”) kaster nyt lys over medlemsstaternes råderum, når afgifterne skal udtænkes.
 Alpha Insurance A/S taget under konkursbehandling
 25. maj 2018 Ved dekret afsagt af Sø- og Handelsrettens skifteafdeling den 8. maj 2018 blev Alpha Insurance A/S, CVR-nr. 21 06 44 40, taget under konkursbehandling.
 Fristberegneren får flere funktioner
 24. maj 2018 Nu kan udbudsdanmark som noget nyt beregne frister efter forsyningsvirksomhedsdirektivet samt forsvars- og sikkerhedsdirektivet med Kammeradvokatens gratis digitale værktøj Fristberegneren.
 24. maj 2018 Vestre Landsret fandt, at der ved prøvelse af en afgørelse om et lovliggørelsespåbud ikke kunne tages stilling til proportionalitet og værdispild, da prøvelsen ikke kunne omfatte forhold, som var endelig afgjort i den forudgående sag, hvor der var meddelt afslag på lovliggørende landzonetilladelse til en garage og en mur.
 24. maj 2018 Østre Landsret frifandt ved dom af 30. april 2018 en kommune i en sag om afslag på godkendelse af fysisk lovliggørelse af et kolonihavehus. Landsretten fandt samtidig, at kommunens afgørelse herom ikke var i strid med lighedsgrundsætningen.
 24. maj 2018 EU-Domstolen udtaler, at afværgeforanstaltninger ikke kan tages i betragtning i forbindelse med screeningen af, om der skal foretages en habitatkonsekvensvurdering.
 Kammeradvokaten vinder ICI-udbud
 24. maj 2018 Kammeradvokaten har vundet et udbud fra Udviklings- og Forenklingsstyrelsen, ICI, om juridisk bistand til implementering af nyt inddrivelsessystem.
 Kammeradvokatens popularitet blandt de studerende vokser
 23. maj 2018 Analysevirksomheden Universum gennemfører hvert år en omfattende landsdækkende undersøgelse af landets mest attraktive arbejdspladser blandt jurastuderende. Kammeradvokaten er iblandt.
 22. maj 2018 På kontoret i midtergangen, midt i sin karriere og som nyudnævnt partner sidder hun blandt bunker af sagsmapper og papirer med paragraffer. Sorteret og prioriteret. Her hersker overblik og ordentlighed med et skarpt blik for detaljen. Luften er tung, ikke støvet, men emmer af koncentration og fordybelse, som kompleksiteten i arbejdet kræver: Om det er næste store konkursbo, retssag - eller udviklingen af et kunderettet it-system. Partner og advokat hos Kammeradvokaten, Trine Irene Brodersen, er karrieremenneske, konkursadvokat og krimilæser, og den 25. maj fylder hun 40 år.
 Er I klar til digitale udbud fra 1. juli?
 17. maj 2018 De fleste, der arbejder med udbud ved, at 1. juli 2018 er en skelsættende dato, hvor udbudsprocessen skal digitaliseres. Men hvad dette præcist indebærer, er måske ikke helt så klart. Få overblik over de nye krav her.
 Orientering om Udbudsret - uge 18 - 19 2018
 17. maj 2018 Siden sidste Orientering er der offentliggjort fire kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud og en dom fra EU-Domstolen.
 16. maj 2018 Demokrati, digitalisering, kunstig intelligens, dataetik, cybersikkerhed, sociale investeringer, fintech og kryptovalutaer er blandt de emner, der er til debat hos Kammeradvokaten på årets Folkemøde.
 Nye regler i patienterstatningsordningen
 14. maj 2018 Folketinget vedtog d. 5. april en ændring af klage- og erstatningsloven med det overordnede formål at forbedre patienterstatningsordningen.
 Succesful defence in the Siri-appeal
 9. maj 2018 Co-counsels Poul Schmith and Nielsen Nørager have succesfully defended 24 insurance companies against the USD 383.5m marine insurance claim brought by Nowegian based energy company Noreco regarding damage to the Siri-platform in the oilfield Siri in the North Sea.
 9. maj 2018 I et eftersyn af den finansielle regulering konkluderer en arbejdsgruppe nedsat af Erhvervsministeriet, at de skærpede finansielle reguleringstiltag, der er gennemført siden finanskrisen, generelt har været nødvendige. Arbejdsgruppen peger imidlertid også på en række steder, hvor der er plads til forenklinger i lovgivningen.
 8. maj 2018 Vestre Landsret har fastslået, at Slots- og Kulturstyrelsens dokumentation af tilstandsændringer på et fortidsminde i Jelling Kommune var tilstrækkelig. Vestre Landsret udtalte samtidig, at en administrativ prøvelsesbegrænsning i museumsloven medførte, at prøvelsen i en retssag mod Miljø- og Fødevareklagenævnet var afgrænset tilsvarende.
 8. maj 2018 Vestre Landsret har afsagt dom i en sag, som handlede om, hvorvidt Naturklagenævnets afslag på fortsat tørveindvinding var erstatningsfri regulering eller ekspropriation. Sagen var anlagt af Pindstrup Mosebrug A/S (herefter ”Pindstrup”) og angik et område i Lille Vildmose. Da landsretten fandt, at der var tale om ekspropriation, tog landsretten også stilling til størrelsen på den erstatning, som Pindstrup var berettiget til.
 Forsikringsselskaber vinder Siri-sagen
 4. maj 2018 Østre Landsret har i det væsentlige frifundet et konsortium af 24 internationale forsikringsselskaber for det dansk/norske olieselskab Norecos erstatningskrav på ca. 383,5 mio. USD.
 4. maj 2018 Østre Landsret har den 3. maj 2018 afsagt dom i ankesag om Direktoratet for Kriminalforsorgens udbudsforretning af en entreprise på byggeriet af nyt fængsel på Nordfalster.
 4. maj 2018 I uge 15, 16 og 17 er der fra Klagenævnet for Udbud offentliggjort ni kendelser, som vi har valgt at omtale i denne orientering. Derudover har EU-Domstolen afsagt to domme, uden at der er afgivet forudgående udtalelser fra generaladvokaten. Dommene vedrører hver især helt særlige italienske forhold samt fortolkningen af ældre udbudsdirektiver. Imidlertid bidrager dommene begge med enkelte fortolkningsbidrag, som kan være af almindelig interesse. Dommene omtales derfor kort nedenfor, uden at alle detaljer omkring faktum gengives.
 1. maj 2018 Kammeradvokaten har pr. 1. maj udnævnt advokat Anni Noes Westergaard til juniorpartner.
 Advokat Thomas Dithmer kåret til Talent100
 20. april 2018 Berlingske Business Magasin har netop kåret advokat Thomas Dithmer fra Kammeradvokaten/Advokatfirmaet Poul Schmith som et af landets største unge erhvervstalenter i den årlige Talent 100-nominering.
 Kammeradvokaten går ind på markedet for Offshore
 18. april 2018 Kammeradvokaten har hyret advokat Klint Klingberg-Jensen ind som partner og leder af firmaets nyeste satsning, rådgivningsområdet Offshore med fokus på olie, gas og vind. Han kommer til firmaet med solidt branchekendskab.
 Poul Schmith has advised on the investment in Worksome
 17. april 2018 Poul Schmith has advised a group of professional investors with an eight-digit investment in Worksome. Worksome is the largest platform for freelancers in Denmark and facilitates contact between companies and consultants.
 16. april 2018 Højesteret har den 13. april 2018 afsagt dom i en principiel skattesag, som har betydning i de mange tilfælde, hvor generationsskifte sker ved succession og berigtiges helt eller delvis ved gave.
 Orientering om Udbudsret - uge 13 - 14 2018
 16. april 2018 I uge 13 og 14 er der offentliggjort tre kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud, hvoraf én af disse er en delkendelse, der er afsagt tidligere, men hvor klagen efterfølgende er tilbagekaldt, hvorfor delkendelsen er klagenævnets endelige afgørelse. Derudover omtaler vi en nyhed om nyt vejledningsmateriale fra Trafik-, Bygge- og Boligstyrelsen.
 Ikke bevislempelse trods faglig fejl
 13. april 2018 Der var begået faglige fejl, da man overså symptomer, der senere viste sig at være livmoderhalskræft. Efter bevisførelsen fandt landsretten imidlertid ikke, at der var tale om en erstatningspådragende fejl efter den almindelige culparegel, og at der derfor ikke var grundlag for at lempe kravet til beviset for årssammenhæng mellem patientskaden og appellantens krav på yderligere erstatning.
 Nyt forskningsprojekt: Digital Entrepriseret
 12. april 2018 Digitaliseringen af byggeriet tager for alvor fart i disse år, og Kammeradvokaten deltager i et større forskningsprojekt med titlen ”Digital Entrepriseret”.
 11. april 2018 Folketinget har den 10. april 2018 vedtaget lov om forretningshemmeligheder. Loven træder i kraft den 9. juni 2018.
 10. april 2018 Hver dag søger borgere om aktindsigt hos offentlige myndigheder. Hver sag er forskellig, og kræver tid og ressourcer inden for stramme tidsfrister. Mange steder bruger man den digitale hjælp Aktindsigtshaandbogen.dk for at effektivisere disse sager. Nu relanceres sitet i ny, stærkt forbedret udgave.
 10. april 2018 Kammeradvokatens Konkursportalen.dk er nu udvalgt som finalist til Danish Design Award 2018 i kategorien Outstanding Service.
 Dom i første sag om transfer pricing
 9. april 2018 Østre Landsret har truffet afgørelse i den første sag ved domstolene om transfer pricing.
 9. april 2018 Højesteret har ud fra en helhedsvurdering tilsidesat et skattearrangement, hvor formålet med arrangementet var at skabe konstruerede tab, der kunne fratrækkes skattemæssigt.
 Orientering om Udbudsret - uge 11 - 12 2018
 5. april 2018 I uge 11 og 12 er der offentliggjort to kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud og en dom fra EU-Domstolen.
 23. marts 2018 Københavns Byret har frifundet Forsvarsministeriet og ministeriets underliggende styrelser i den såkaldte kampflysag.
 Skatteretsadvokat Bodil Søes Petersen fylder 50 år
 22. marts 2018 Partner og skatteretsadvokat Bodil Søes Petersen fylder 50 år. I de senere år har hun oplevet en stor glæde i at kombinere juraen med ledelse, men omdrejningspunktet for hendes virke vil altid være den gode og retfærdige afgørelse.
 Orientering om Udbudsret - uge 9 - 10 2018
 22. marts 2018 I uge 9 og 10 er der offentliggjort fem kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud, hvoraf to af disse er delkendelser, der er afsagt tidligere, men hvor klagerne efterfølgende er tilbagekaldt, hvorfor delkendelserne bliver klagenævnets endelige afgørelser. Derudover er der offentliggjort en relevant dom fra EU-Domstolen.
 22. marts 2018 Højesteret har fastslået, at domstolenes prøvelse af Ankenævnet for Patienterstatningens afgørelser vedrørende genoptagelse skal ske på baggrund af patientens forhold på tidspunktet for myndighedens afgørelse.
 20. marts 2018 Østre Landsret afsagde den 16. marts 2018 dom i en principiel sag om ekstraordinær genoptagelse efter skatteforvaltningslovens § 27, stk. 1, nr. 7 og 8.
 16. marts 2018 Justitsministeriet har d. 21. februar 2018 fremsat lovforslag L 147 om ændring af straffeloven, der har til formål at styrke den strafferetlige indsats mod hvidvask.
 Nyt lovforslag om vidnefritagelse for patentrådgivere
 16. marts 2018 I denne uge har Folketinget 1. behandlet et nyt lovforslag fremsat af Justitsministeren om vidnefritagelse for patentrådgivere. Forslaget går ud på, at patentrådgivere på lige fod med advokater, skal fritages for at vidne om forhold, de er blevet bekendt med ved udførelsen af deres virksomhed.
 Højesterets dom i stemmeretssagen
 14. marts 2018 Højesteret har afsagt en principiel dom om fortolkning af grundloven og forholdet til Danmarks internationale forpligtelser.
 14. marts 2018 Ombudsmanden fandt på baggrund af en generel undersøgelse, at Skatteankestyrelsens sagsbehandlingstider på op til fem måneder i klager over afgørelser om partsaktindsigt var for lange.
 Vejle Havn anset som en selvstændig myndighed
 14. marts 2018 Vejle Havn kunne ikke undtage en rapport fra aktindsigt efter offentlighedslovens § 23 om interne dokumenter. En kommunal selvstyrehavn er ifølge ombudsmanden en selvstændig myndighed, og videregivelsen af rapporten til kommunen skulle derfor anses som en afgivelse til udenforstående.
 Myndigheders ansvar for it-løsninger
 14. marts 2018 Arbejdsmarkedets Feriefond benyttede en fejlbehæftet it-løsning. Ombudsmanden havde forståelse for, at tilslutningen til Digital Post havde været vanskelig, men at det er myndighedens ansvar at sikre, at dens it-løsninger lever op til de forvaltningsretlige krav.
 Ombudsmandsudtalelse om vejledningspligten i forvaltningsloven
 14. marts 2018 Ombudsmanden fandt i en ny udtalelse, at Udlængestyrelsens vejledning ikke levede op til kravene i forvaltningsloven.
 12. marts 2018 Sagen drejede sig om udmåling af erstatning til en hjerneskadet kvinde, hvis kæreste i vidt omfang havde besøgt hende, deltaget i hendes træning og givet hende omsorg. Retten fandt ikke, at kvinden kunne kræve erstatning for udgifter, som hun i den forbindelse havde sparet ved at undgå at antage ekstern hjælp.
 Orientering om Udbudsret - uge 7 - 8 2018
 12. marts 2018 I uge 7 og 8 er der offentliggjort fire kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud, hvoraf to kendelser er delkendelser afsagt tidligere, men hvor klagerne efterfølgende er tilbagekaldt, og delkendelserne derfor bliver klagenævnets endelige afgørelser.
 9. marts 2018 Skatteministeriet har fået medhold i, at SKATs praksis ved værdiansættelse af brugte biler er lovlig og sagligt begrundet.
 Frifindelse i sag om afskedigelse af tjenestemand
 8. marts 2018 Østre Landsret har stadfæstet byrettens dom, hvorefter det var berettiget at afskedige en tjenestemandsansat arbejdsmiljørepræsentant begrundet i betydelige samarbejdsvanskeligheder over en længere periode.
 8. marts 2018 En bygningshåndværker havde forladt byggepladsen for at hente og spise sin frokost i arbejdsgivers bil. Da han under frokosten blev påkørt af en anden bilist, var denne skade ikke omfattet af arbejdsskadedækningen, da der ikke forelå en naturlig eller nødvendig sammenhæng med arbejdets udførelse.
 7. marts 2018 Østre Landsret har den 22. november 2017 slået fast, at Roskilde Kommunes ekspropriation af et areal ved Roskilde Dyrskueplads var lovlig. Arealet skal benyttes til boldbaner samt servicearealer til større arrangementer på dyrskuepladsen, herunder Roskilde Festival.
 7. marts 2018 Lodsejere blev ikke tilkendt yderligere erstatning ved domstolene i det økonomiske opgør efter Danmarks hidtil største naturfredning.
 7. marts 2018 Afståelse af vejarealer, der i forvejen kan benyttes af ejere af flere ejendomme, kan som udgangspunkt ikke siges at medføre noget tab for vejejerne, idet en ejer ikke har en almindelig ejendomsråden over sådanne arealer.
 7. marts 2018 Vestre Landsret har i en dom fra december 2017 anerkendt, at der på grund af lokale forhold kan opstå et beskyttet biologisk overdrev inden for en kortere periode end 30 år. Landsretten fandt samtidig, at oplysninger i en skønserklæring ikke kunne føre til, at Miljø- og Fødevareklagenævnets afgørelse skulle tilsidesættes som ugyldig.
 7. marts 2018 I en retssag om et afslag på landzonetilladelse til udstykning kunne lokalplanens overensstemmelse med kommuneplanen ikke prøves, da lokalplanen var endeligt vedtaget godt 13 år før, retssagen blev anlagt.
 7. marts 2018 Sagen angår et principielt spørgsmål om forholdet mellem vejlovens gæsteprincip og ledningsejerloven (LER-lovgivningen). Kommunen mente, at betalingsforpligtelsen påhvilede ledningsejeren som gæst i vejen. Ledningsejerens synspunkt var, at denne havde opfyldt sine forpligtelser efter LER-lovgivningen og derfor ikke skulle betale for prøvegravningsarbejdet.
 7. marts 2018 Generaladvokat Kokott fremkom den 1. marts 2018 med forslag til afgørelser i 6 såkaldte ”Beneficial owner-sager”, hvori landsretterne har stillet en række præjudicielle spørgsmål.
 6. marts 2018 En radiolog begik en faglig fejl, da han på et røntgenbillede overså en proces, der senere viste sig at være kræft. Efter bevisførelsen fandt landsretten imidlertid ikke, at der var tale om en erstatningspådragende fejl efter den almindelige culparegel.
 5. marts 2018 Vi ser frem til at møde jer på MIPIM 2018.
 Steffen Sværke indtræder i Kammeradvokatens bestyrelse
 1. marts 2018 Advokat og partner hos Kammeradvokaten Steffen Sværke bliver pr 1. marts medlem af firmaets bestyrelse.
 1. marts 2018 Virksomheden Blockshipping lancerer nu den første initial coin offering – en såkaldt ICO – hvor virksomheden udsteder deres egen kryptovaluta: ”Container Crypto Coin”.
 Forsvarsministeriets Personalestyrelse får medhold i vigtig ankesag om pensionsrettigheder
 28. februar 2018 Østre Landsret har fastslået, at civile ansatte i forsvaret ikke havde retskrav på tildeling af op til 10 års yderligere pensionsalder efter afskedigelse som følge af forsvarsforlig 2013-2017. Byretten var i første instans kommet frem til det modsatte resultat.
 Konkursportalen.dk shortlistet til Danish Design Award
 23. februar 2018 Kammeradvokatens Konkursportalen.dk er blevet shortlistet til Danish Design Award 2018 i kategorien Outstanding Service.
 19. februar 2018 I uge 5 og 6 er der offentliggjort fem kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud, hvoraf tre kendelser er delkendelser afsagt tidligere, men hvor klagerne efterfølgende er tilbagekaldt, og delkendelserne derfor bliver klagenævnets endelige afgørelser. Derudover omtaler vi to nyheder fra Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen.
 15. februar 2018 I en konkret sag om momstilsvar har Højesteret fastslået, at en retsvildfarelse ikke medfører, at offentlige myndigheder er erstatningsansvarlige på objektivt grundlag. Dommen indeholder tilsvarende nogle generelle betragtninger vedrørende forældelse af erstatningskrav.
 Dom om rækkevidden af patentlovens § 11
 14. februar 2018 Sø- og Handelsretten gav Ankenævnet for Patenter og Varemærker medhold i, at en ansøger af et patent ikke med hjemmel i patentlovens § 11 kunne afdele en national patentansøgning på basis af en europæisk patentansøgning.
 9. februar 2018 Skatteministeriet har i en dom afsagt af Vestre Landsret den 1. februar 2018 fået medhold i, at en personlig fallent ikke havde ret til aktindsigt efter forvaltningslovens regler, da han ikke kunne anses som part. Ministeriet fik også medhold i, at den personlige fallent heller ikke havde ret til aktindsigt efter reglerne i offentlighedsloven.
 Politiets crowd control var ifølge Højesteret lovlig
 8. februar 2018 Københavns Politis crowd control i form af et optisk følge af personer fra gadefesten Reclaim the Streets var efter politiloven en lovlig frihedsberøvelse og efter EMRK end ikke en frihedsberøvelse.
 Kollisionen mellem Højesteret og EU: Indspark til Ajos-debatten
 8. februar 2018 Rass Holdgaard, Daniella Elkan og Gustav K. Schaldemose fra Kammeradvokaten bidrager til debatten om den spektakulære Ajos-sag med to artikler i hhv. Common Market Law Review og EU-ret og Menneskeret.
 8. februar 2018 Vestre Landsret giver Skatteministeriet medhold i sag om fradrag på 280 mio. kr. på tab på valutaterminsforretninger.
 7. februar 2018 Retten på Frederiksberg har den 6. februar 2018 afsagt en kendelse i henhold til retsplejelovens kap. 40 om midlertidigt forbud og påbud, hvor to teleselskaber forbydes at formidle adgang til en række hjemmesider, herunder 6 skinbettingsider, der udbyder spil i Danmark. Teleselskaberne blev samtidig pålagt at etablere en blokering af hjemmesiderne.
 6. februar 2018 Siden sidste Orientering er der offentliggjort fem kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud. Bemærk at to af kendelserne blev afsagt i hhv. uge 48 og uge 51 i 2017, men de er først blevet offentliggjort efterfølgende.
 Skatteministeriet får medhold i principiel sag om omgørelse
 29. januar 2018 Skatteministeriet har i en dom afsagt af Østre Landsret den 25. januar 2018 fået medhold i, at et amerikansk selskab, der alene havde været begrænset skattepligtig til Danmark i medfør af selskabsskattelovens § 2, stk. 1, litra d, (renter af kontrolleret gæld) ikke kunne påberåbe sig skatteforvaltningslovens § 29 om omgørelse.
 Må du optage et møde med din chef?
 26. januar 2018 Datatilsynet fandt det kritisabelt, at en medarbejder ikke informerede sin daværende chef efter optagelse af samtaler mellem de to, samt at medarbejderen opbevarede og videregav de fulde optagelser til brug for en ansættelsesretlig voldgiftssag. Medarbejderen kunne dog lovligt foretage optagelserne.
 26. januar 2018 Erhvervsstyrelsen har sendt et lovforslag i høring, som skal bane vejen for automatiseret bekæmpelse af organiseret svig med moms og afgifter.
 Hvornår er man dataansvarlig eller databehandler?
 26. januar 2018 I det persondataretlige univers er det afgørende at vide, om man er dataansvarlig eller databehandler. Der er hjælp at hente til vurderingen i en ny vejledning fra Datatilsynet og Justitsministeriet.
 26. januar 2018 Digitaliseringsstyrelsen har lanceret et kravkatalog, der skal understøtte arbejdet med sikkerhed. Kataloget kan bl.a. anvendes i kontrakter med leverandører, der behandler information, f.eks. personoplysninger, for en kunde. Kravkataloget er udarbejdet i samarbejde med Kammeradvokaten.
 26. januar 2018 Har du ansvaret for, at din organisation eller dele af den overholder de komplekse persondataretlige regler og krav fremadrettet? Så kan DPO-netværket være din vej til at holde dig løbende opdateret og få metoder til at sikre vedvarende compliance.
 24. januar 2018 Af ressourcemæssige årsager kunne intervallet for mammografiscreening ikke overholdes, men den forsinkede indkaldelse til screening var ikke omfattet af ansvarsgrundlaget i klage- og erstatningsloven.
 Dom i sag om beskatning af USD 200 mio.
 23. januar 2018 Skatteministeriet har fået medhold i, at et beløb på USD 200 mio. skulle beskattes som personlig indkomst i stedet for som aktieindkomst, sådan som skatteyderen ellers havde selvangivet beløbet.
 Henrik Puggaard indtræder som partner
 22. januar 2018 Advokat Henrik Puggaard indtræder som partner hos Kammeradvokaten/ Advokatfirmaet Poul Schmith.
 22. januar 2018 Højesteret har fastslået, at et datterselskabs ledelse, der også var moderselskab, handlede ansvarspådragende ved at lade datterselskabet føre en omfattende retssag mod tre myndigheder. Retssagen blev ført under den forudsætning, at en finansierende tredjemand dækkede alle selskabets egne udgifter til sagen, mens der ikke var afsat midler til myndighedernes krav på sagsomkostninger.
 Moderniseringsstyrelsen justerer indkøbsstrategi
 21. januar 2018 Finansministeriet vil i løbet af 2018 tage initiativ til at in- og outsource nærmere definerede områder, som hidtil har hørt under Kammeradvokataftalen.
 18. januar 2018 Advokat og partner Anders Vangsø Mortensen fylder 60 år. I snart 25 år har han arbejdet passioneret med skatteret hos Kammeradvokaten.
 Dom fra Retten i EDF-sagen
 18. januar 2018 Retten afsagde den 16. januar 2018 en dom, som er endnu et bidrag til den omfattende praksis om, hvornår stater kan handle/faktisk handler markedsmæssigt. Dette spørgsmål er af stor praktisk betydning, da transaktioner, som staten gennemfører på markedsmæssige vilkår, ikke udgør statsstøtte, og derfor ikke skal anmeldes til Kommissionen.
 Forslag fra generaladvokaten i dansk skattesag
 18. januar 2018 Ifølge EU-Domstolens generaladvokat strider det imod EU-retten, at danske selskaber ifølge selskabsskatteloven kun kan fradrage underskud hidrørende fra udenlandske filialer, hvis der er valgt international sambeskatning.
 Dom fra EU-Domstolen om ibrugtagning af leasingkøretøjer i Danmark
 18. januar 2018 EU-Domstolen har i en sag forelagt af Østre Landsret taget stilling til SKATs praksis om betingelserne for ibrugtagning af et leasingkøretøj her i landet.
 Højesterets dom i grundlovssag om stemmeret til Folketinget
 18. januar 2018 Højesteret har i dag afsagt en principiel dom om fortolkning af grundloven og forholdet til Danmarks internationale forpligtelser.
 17. januar 2018 Skatteministeriet får medhold i sag om fristen for ansøgning om værditabsberegning på et brugt leasingkøretøj og om ret til ”eksportgodtgørelse” af udførte brugte leasingkøretøjer.
 Skatteministeriet frifundet i Danmarkshistoriens største skattesag
 16. januar 2018 Østre Landsret har i dag frifundet Skatteministeriet i to sager om opgørelsen af afskrivningsgrundlaget for distributionsnet m.v. i vandselskaber.
 Nye hvidvaskregler får betydning for virtuelle valutaer
 16. januar 2018 Formandskabet og Europa-Parlamentet er nået til enighed om en udvidelse af de europæiske hvidvaskregler. Parlamentet og Rådet vil nu blive opfordret til at vedtage det foreslåede direktiv ved førstebehandlingen. Med de foreslåede ændringer får vi nu en officiel definition af virtuelle valutaer, ligesom kryptobørser og udbydere af virtuelle wallets i vidt omfang bliver underlagt samme krav til kundekendskabsprocedurer (KYC) som andre finansielle virksomheder.
 Vækstfonden har ydet lån til Joe & the Juice
 16. januar 2018 Advokatfirmaet Poul Schmith har rådgivet Vækstfonden i forbindelse med ydelsen af et ikke offentliggjort beløb til Joe & the Juice.
 15. januar 2018 Advokat Andreas Estrup Ippolito er udnævnt til partner hos Kammeradvokaten.
 15. januar 2018 Advokat Cathrine Wollenberg Zittan er udnævnt til partner hos Kammeradvokaten.
 12. januar 2018 Højesteret fastslår i en ny dom, at SKAT efter en særlig regel i skatteforvaltningsloven kan varsle forhøjelse af en skatteansættelse i forbindelse med strafbart forhold efter udløbet af den almindelige varslingsfrist på seks måneder.
 12. januar 2018 Østre Landsret har afsagt dom i en sag mellem Skatteministeriet og Kasi ApS, der drejede sig om, hvorvidt det var berettiget, at SKAT havde tilbagekaldt en tilladelse til, at Kasi ApS’ tilførsel af aktiver til et nyoprettet selskab ejet af Kasi ApS og Pandora i fællesskab kunne ske skattefrit.
 Banedanmark kunne lovligt opsige fribefordringsordning
 9. januar 2018 Østre Landsret har fastslået, at Banedanmark lovligt kunne opsige retten til fribefordring, idet ordningen, for så vidt angår tjenestemænd, ikke berørte karakteren eller indholdet af tjenestemændenes stillinger eller arbejdsopgaver i øvrigt, ligesom der heller ikke var tale om et lønvilkår eller andet væsentligt vilkår. I forhold til overenskomstansatte fandt landsretten, at ordningen var blevet opsagt med et passende varsel.
 Skatteministeriet får medhold i principiel sag om tonnageskat
 8. januar 2018 I en principiel sag om, hvornår et skib forretningsmæssigt drives fra Danmark i tonnageskattelovens forstand, har fem selskaber taget bekræftende til genmæle over for Skatteministeriets påstand. Sagen var indbragt for domstolene af Skatteministeriet.
 5. januar 2018 Højesteret har i en ny dom fastslået, at en dansk skatteyder, der arbejdede om bord på et norsk konstruktionsskib i farvandet ud for Angola, skulle betale skat til Danmark af lønindtægten fra arbejdet. Sagen blev afgjort efter den nordiske dobbeltbeskatningsoverenskomst, hvor begrebet international trafik spillede en afgørende rolle.
 4. januar 2018 Ifølge EU-Domstolens generaladvokat er de danske regler om kildeskattefritagelse for hjemmehørende ”udloddende investeringsforeninger” begrundet i tvingende almene hensyn, men reglerne går dog videre end nødvendigt.
 Orientering om Udbudsret - uge 50 - 52 2017
 4. januar 2018 Siden sidste Orientering er der offentliggjort syv kendelser fra Klagenævnet for Udbud og et generaladvokatsforslag til afgørelse i en præjudiciel sag for EU-Domstolen.
 3. januar 2018 Her bringes et kort overblik over de væsentligste foreslåede ændringer til selskabsloven, herunder hvad der er nyt sammenholdt med gældende ret.