type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 25.6.2011
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 186/10
 Tiesas (sestā palāta) 2011. gada 18. marta rīkojums (Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spānija) lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu) — David Montoya Medina/Fondo de Garantia Salarial, Universidad de Alicante
 (Lieta C-273/10) (1)
 (Reglamenta 104. panta 3. punkts - Sociālā politika - Direktīva 1999/70/EK - Pamatnolīguma par darbu uz noteiktu laiku 4. klauzula - Uz noteiktu laiku noslēgtie darba līgumi publiskajā sektorā - Tiesības uz trīsgadu darba stāža piemaksu - Nediskriminācijas princips)
 2011/C 186/16
 Tiesvedības valoda — spāņu
 Iesniedzējtiesa
 Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana
 Lietas dalībnieki pamata procesā
 Prasītājs: David Montoya Medina
 Atbildētāji: Fondo de Garantia Salarial, Universidad de Alicante
 Priekšmets
 Lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana — Padomes 1999. gada 28. jūnija Direktīvas 1999/70/EK par UNICE, CEEP un EAK noslēgto pamatnolīgumu par darbu uz noteiktu laiku (OV L 175, 43. lpp.) pielikuma 4. klauzulas 4. punkta interpretācija — Ar valsts universitātēm noslēgtie mācībspēku un pētnieku darba līgumi — Atsevišķu tiesību izslēgšana attiecībā uz līgumiem, kas noslēgti uz noteiktu laiku
 Rezolutīvā daļa:
 Pamatnolīguma par darbu uz noteiktu laiku, kas ietverts Padomes 1999. gada 28. jūnija Direktīvas 1999/70/EK par UNICE, CEEP un EAK noslēgto pamatnolīgumu par darbu uz noteiktu laiku pielikumā, 4. klauzula jāinterpretē tādējādi, ka tā nepieļauj tādu valsts tiesisko regulējumu, ar kuru bez jebkāda objektīva pamatojuma tiesības saņemt piemaksu par darba stāžu paredzētas vienīgi lektoriem, ar kuriem līgumi noslēgti uz nenoteiktu laiku, izslēdzot lektorus, ar kuriem līgumi noslēgti uz noteiktu laiku, ja attiecībā uz šīs piemaksas saņemšanu šīs divas darba ņēmēju kategorijas atrodas salīdzināmās situācijās.
 (1) OV C 221, 14.08.2010.


type: wikipedia

text:
Actaea oficialmente designado de (120347) Salácia I Actaea é um satélite natural do objeto transnetuniano Salácia. Ele foi descoberto no dia 21 de julho de 2006, pela Equipe formada pelos astrônomos Harold Levison, Denise Stephens e Will Grundy, através do Telescópio Espacial Hubble.
 Nome
 O satélite recebeu o nome de Actaea em 18 de fevereiro de 2011. Actaea na mitologia é uma nereida ou ninfa do mar. O nome de seu primário, Salácia, foi também atribuído no mesmo dia. Salácia é a deusa da água salgada e mulher de Netuno.
 Características físicas
 Actaea completa uma órbita ao redor de Salácia a cada 5,494 dias a uma distância de 5.619 ±87 km e com uma excentricidade de 0,0084 ±0,0076. O seu diâmetro é de 303 ± 35 km.
 Satélites naturais
 Satélites transnetunianos
 Objetos astronômicos descobertos em 2006


text:
Is é is brí le stair na Polainne ná an t-eolas atá ar fáil sna foinsí liteartha faoi shaol na Polainne fadó agus faoi na himeachtaí a chuir cor i gcinniúint a muintire.
 Tháinig na treibheanna Slavacha go dtí limistéar na Polainne i mblianta Imirce Mhór na Náisiún, sna sálacha ag na Teotanaigh agus na Húnaigh a rinne spior spear d'Impireacht na hIar-Róimhe i dtús na Meánaoiseanna. Thosaigh an t-eagar ceart polaitiúil ag teacht ar an bPolainn sa deichiú haois, faoi stiúir an rítheaghlaigh atá ainmnithe as Piast, sinsear finscéalach na clainne nach raibh ann ar dtús ach treabhdóir bocht.
 Rítheaghlach Piast
 Carachtar finscéalach is ea Piast, ach is é Mieszko a hAon an chéad rí de mhuintir Piast a bhfuil níos mó eolais ná finscéalta againn air. B'eisean thar aon duine eile a ghlac chuige an creideamh Críostaí, le go mbeadh sé sábháilte ó iarrachtaí na ríthe Críostaí a thír a ionsaí is a fhorghabháil. Phós sé banphrionsa Seiceach sa bhliain 965 le comhghuaillíocht a chur ar bun leis na Seicigh, a bhí ina gCríostaithe cheana faoin am seo, agus ba chuid den chonradh go rachadh Mieszko agus a mhuintir leis an gcreideamh nua anois.
 An chéad rí Polannach a fuair faomhadh an Phápa is an Impire Naofa dá chorónú, b'é mac Mieszko é, Boleslaw Chrobry, - is é sin, Boleslas Cróga (967-1025). Bhí sé go tréan ag cur catha ar a chomharsana san oirthear lena thaispeáint chomh hionraic is a bhí sé faoin gcreideamh Críostaí - agus, ar ndóigh, le tuilleadh tailte agus géillsineach a bhaint amach dá thír. Thar aon rud eile, áfach, cuireadh ord agus eagar ar chúrsaí na hEaglaise lena linn. Bunaíodh deoisí nua agus ceapadh easpaig ar áiteanna ar nós Chracó. Rinneadh ceannchathair eaglasta na tíre de Gniezno, arbh í príomhchathair shaolta na tíre í freisin, an áit inar corónaíodh ríthe theaghlach Piast.
 I ndiaidh bhás Bholeslas, thosaigh géarchéim agus idir-ríocht nár fuasclaíodh i gceart sular bhain Kazimierz Odnowiciel - Casimir Athnuaiteoir (1016-1058) - amach an ríchathaoir. Lena linn, bhí an tír á streachailt as a chéile ag cogaí agus ceannaircí áitiúla. Mar shampla, d'éirigh muintir na Mór-Pholainne (Wielkopolska) - an cúige in iarthar na tíre, ina bhfuil Gniezno suite - d'éirigh siad amach in aghaidh rítheaghlach Piast agus na Críostaíochta, agus an Phágántacht á hathbheochan acu. Sa chogadh a chuir Casimir ar na ceannairceoirí Págánta, fágadh Gniezno léirscriosta go hiomlán, agus dá dheasca sin, athraíodh ceannchathair na hEaglaise go Cracó. Sin é an fáth, go bunúsach, nach bhfuil in Gniezno, inniu féin, ach cathair bheag chúigiúil, agus Cracó ar an dara cathair is mó sa Pholainn.
 I ndiaidh Casimir, b'é a mhac Boleslaw (Boleslas) II Smialy ("Misniúil"), nó Szczodry ("Flaithiúil"), nó Okrutny ("Cruálach"). Thacaigh Boleslas leis an bPápa Gréagóir VII i gcoinne an Impire sa chonspóid faoin insealbhú, ach ní fhágadh sé cead cearmansaíochta ag na heaspaig ina thír féin: chuir sé Stanislaw, easpag Chracó, chun báis toisc an mórtachas a bhí ag an easpag leis na huaisle a bhí ag déanamh uisce faoi thalamh in éadan an rí. Nuair a básaíodh an t-easpag, áfach, d'éirigh na heaspaig amach in aghaidh Bholeslas agus ruaig siad go dtí an Ungáir é sa bhliain 1076, áit a bhfuair sé bás cúig bliana ina dhiaidh sin.
 B'é Wladyslaw (Ladislas) Herman, a dheartháir, a tháinig i gcomharbas ar Bholeslas, ach níor éirigh leis an tír a choinneáil le chéile, agus an réigiúnachas is na cogaí áitiúla ag bagairt ar an bPolainn. B'é a mhac, Boleslaw III Krzywousty (Boleslas Cambhéal) a shéalaigh an fhorbairt seo, nó bhí sé den tuairim gurbh é an leigheas ab fhearr ar na conspóidí comharbais i measc chlann mhac an rí ná an tír a dheighilt eatarthu ina bprionsachtaí beaga. Ar ndóigh, bhí baint nár bheag ag an bhforbairt seo le treisiú an fheodachais agus an réigiúnachais ar fud na hEorpa.
 Bhí trioblóidí ag dul leis an réigiúnachas seo, ach b'í an trioblóid ba mhó acu ná an dóigh ar fháiltigh Konrad Mazowiecki (1188-1247), nó Conrad, prionsa na Masóive, isteach na Ridirí Teotanacha le cuidiú a fháil in aghaidh na bPágánach Baltach ón bPrúis a bhí ag bagairt ar a thír. Bhí na Ridirí seo araiciseach chun troda ar na Págánaigh, ar ndóigh, agus chuir siad na Prúsaigh Bhaltacha faoi chois in imeacht an chéad leathchéad bliain eile. Déanta na fírinne, bhí siad chomh héifeachtach san obair seo is go ndeachaigh teanga is cultúr na bPrúsach de dhroim an tsaoil, le géilleadh don Ghearmáinis agus do nósanna na nGearmánach. Feasta, thugtaí "na Prúsaigh" ar na Gearmánaigh a bhíodh ina gcónaí sna seantailte Prúsacha.
 B'é an smaoineamh a bhí ag Conrad go gcabhródh na Ridirí leis fáil réitithe den bhagairt Phrúsach agus tír na bPrúsach a ghabháil don Pholainn. Ní dheachaigh na cúrsaí an bealach sin, áfach. Is é an rud a tharla ná gur bhunaigh na Ridirí stát dá gcuid féin sa Phrúis agus iad ag éirí níos bagraí ar an bPolainn ná mar a bhí na Págánaigh riamh. Is iomaí Polannach a bhí le hamaidí Chonrad a mhaslú sna blianta a bhí le teacht.
 Nuair a bhítear ag trácht ar "naimhdeas oidhreachtúil na bPolannach is na nGearmánach", - mar a deir an nathán, jak swiat swiatem, nie bedzie Niemiec Polakowi bratem ("a fhad is a mhairfidh an saol ina shaol, ní bheidh an Gearmánach ina dheartháir ag an bPolannach") - is iad na ridirí seo, thar aon chineál "Gearmánaigh" eile, atá i gceist leis an "namhaid Ghearmánach". Leis an bhfírinne a dhéanamh, bhí caidreamh sách cairdiúil ag an bPolainn agus ag na Polannaigh le go leor de na stáitíní agus na mionphrionsachtaí Gearmánacha agus a muintir, agus nuair a tosaíodh ar chathracha nua-aimseartha tráchtála a bhunú sa Pholainn sna Meánaoiseanna, bhí gá le ceardaithe agus le tráchtálaithe Gearmánacha chun cuma cheart a chur ar chúrsaí gnó agus eacnamaíochta sna cathracha seo, agus tháinig na mílte acu isteach freisin, gan mórán fadhbanna leis an muintir dhúchasach. Na seaniasachtaí Gearmáinise sa Pholainnis inniu, cosúil le handel ("tráchtáil"), ratusz ("bardas"), murarz ("brícléir, bríceadóir"), warsztat ("ceardlann, ceárta") agus araile, déanann siad fianaise le caidreamh nach raibh cogúil ar aon nós.
 Casimir Mór
 B'é an rí Kazimierz III Wielki (1310-1370), nó Casimir Mór, a chuir cuma cheart ar an bPolainn arís i ndiaidh na gcogaí cúigiúla. Thuill sé a leasainm ar níos mó ná aon bhealach amháin, nó bhí sé lán chomh héirimiúil ag cur cogaí agus ag tógáil is ag leasú an stáit is na sochaí. Corónaíodh ina rí é sa bhliain 1333, tar éis bhás a athara, Wladyslaw Lokietek (Ladislas ar Airde na hUillinne), a bhí díreach tar éis an Pholainn a athaontú. B'éigean dó ar dtús síocháin a shocrú le hEoin Lucsamburg, a bhí ina rí ar an tSeic ag an am, agus é ag iarraidh tuilleadh tailte a ghabháil ón bPolainn. D'fhéach sé freisin leis an gcoimhlint leis na Ridirí Teotanacha a thabhairt chun síochána le taidhleoireacht is le comhchainteanna. Sa bhliain 1340, áfach, phléasc cogadh amach idir an Pholainn agus na treibheacha Slavacha sa Rúitéin - is é sin, Úcráin an lae inniu. Mhair an chogaíocht i bhfad idir an dá thír, ach d'éirigh le Casimir cuid mhór tailte in iarthar na Rúitéine a fhorghabháil. B'ansin a thit cathair Lwów - L'viv (?????), as Úcráinis - leis an bPolainn, maille leis na ceantair ina timpeall. Siúd is go raibh an Úcráinis (nó na canúintí Slavacha Oirthearacha as ar fáisceadh an Úcráinis) riamh á labhairt faoin tuath thart ar an áit, d'iompaigh Lwów ina cathair Pholannach in imeacht na gcéadta bliain.
 Rinne Casimir cuid mhaith leasuithe ar chóras riaracháin agus ar chúirteanna dlí na tíre. Thairis sin, threisigh sé an t-arm trí dhualgaisí nua cosanta agus earcaithe a chur i bhfeidhm ar na huaisle agus ar rialtais áitiúla na gcathrach. D'infheistigh sé cuid mhór de chiste an stáit in oibreacha foirgneoireachta leis na cathracha a dhaingniú. Bhunaigh sé Acadamh Chracó - Ollscoil Chracó inniu - in aithris ar ollscoileanna Bologna agus Padova san Iodáil. Deirtear go bhfuair sé an Pholainn roimhe ina tír adhmaid agus gur fhág sé tír chloiche ina dhiaidh. Cuid mhór de na seanfhoirgnimh is clúití sa Pholainn, baineann siad le tréimhse Chasimir.
 Cé gur rí maith a bhí ann, mar Chasimir, níor éirigh na cúrsaí comharbais go rómhaith leis. Níor saolaíodh mac dó riamh, agus nuair a shíothlaigh sé sa bhliain 1370, thit a ríocht le Ludwik Wegierski nó Lajos Nagy - Laoiseach Mór, rí na hUngáire.
 Tréimhse Anjou agus Jagiello
 Ba de rítheaghlach Anjou é Laoiseach na hUngáire. Níor bhac sé mórán leis an bPolainn i gcomparáid leis an spéis a bhí aige ina thír féin, ach ar a laghad, d'fhéach sé chuige go dtitfeadh coróin na Polainne le bean dá chuid iníonacha. Nuair a bhásaigh Laoiseach sa bhliain 1382, níor theastaigh ó uaisle na Polainne go mairfeadh comhcheangal pearsanta na Polainne agus na hUngáire i bhfeidhm i ndiaidh bhás Laoisigh, agus mar sin, thug siad droim láimhe don bhean is sine acu, Máire. Ina hionad sin, ghlac siad chucu a deirfiúr óg, Jadwiga (Hedwig nó Hedwigis), nach raibh ach ina gearrchaile ocht mbliana d'aois nuair a d'éag a hathair. Dhá bhliain i ndiaidh bhás Laoisigh, corónaíodh an cailín ina Rí ar an bPolainn. De réir na téarmaíocht a úsáideadh, ní banríon a bhí inti go hoifigiúil ach rí, Hedwigis Rex Poloniae seachas Hedwigis Regina Poloniae.
 Ní díol éada a bhí inti, áfach. Nó bhí na Ridirí Teotanacha ag éirí bagrach ar an bPolainn arís, agus iad ag luí ar na Liotuánaigh chomh maith. Sa deireadh thiar thall, shocraigh uaisle an dá thír go bpósfadh Ard-Diúc na Liotuáine, Jogaila (Jagiello), - go bpósfadh sé Jadwiga agus go rachadh an dá thír le chéile. Ba chuid den chonradh é go rachadh tonn bhaiste ar an Ard-Diúc chomh maith lena mhuintir. Go dtí sin, ba thír Phágánta í an Liotuáin, rud a d'fhág gan chosaint ar ionsaithe na Ridirí í, ó bhí gach Pápa sásta a leithéid d'ionradh a fhaomhadh agus a bheannú. Ní bheadh an caoinchead céanna le fáil chomh réidh sin, dá rachadh na Liotuánaigh leis an gCríostaíocht. Mar sin a rinneadh, nó tháinig an pósadh i gcrích sa bhliain 1386. Baisteadh Jogaila ina Chríostaí, agus is é an t-ainm baiste a fuair sé ná Ladislas, nó Wladyslaw i bPolainnis an lae inniu. (Leagan Seicise é an leagan seo, áfach - Wlodzislaw an leagan dúchasach Polainnise den ainm, nach n-úsáidtear go rómhinic a thuilleadh.)
 Cibé cé acu ainm a thugtaí ar Jogaila, fear fásta meánaosta de phór na bPágánach a bhí ann ar chuir a radharc féin eagla ar an gcailín. Nuair a pósadh iad, bhí seisean ag tarraingt go tiubh téirimeach ar an dá scór bliain d'aois, agus í féin ina puirtleog ghirsí dhá bhliain déag. Le sólás a lorg, chuaigh sí le caitheamh aimsire fónta: carthanas agus oideachas. Ní raibh fad saoil i ndán do Jadwiga, nó fuair sí bás den bhreoiteacht a tháinig uirthi i ndiaidh bhreith a céadghine sa bhliain 1399. Thiomnaigh sí a cuid saibhris d'Acadamh Chracó, agus dá bharr sin, fairsingíodh an tAcadamh agus rinneadh ollscoil de a ainmníodh as fear céile Jadwiga - Ollscoil Jagiello i gCracó, nó Uniwersytet Jagiellonski w Krakowie.
 Aontas na Polainne is na Liotuáine
 Nuair a phós Jagiello agus Jadwiga, chuir siad tús le haontas fadsaolach na Polainne - na "Corónach" (Korona), mar a thugtaí ar an leath Pholannach den tír dhúbailte - agus na Liotuáine - Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów, nó Poblacht an Dá Náisiún. Ar ndóigh, tá sé cineál neamhchruinn an focal mór sin rzeczpospolita a aistriú go Gaeilge mar phoblacht. Nó bíodh is go raibh cineál "daonlathas" i bhfeidhm ar feadh tamaill mhaith de stair na Polainne, ní raibh ach na huaisle i dteideal páirt a ghlacadh i gcúrsaí rialaithe na "poblachta". Ón taobh eile de, d'éirigh siad chomh láidir i gcumhacht, in imeacht aimsire, agus gur fhág siad an rialtóir ar an imeall.
 Cuireadh an chéad bhun le forlámhas na n-uasal sa bhliain 1430 - nuair a bhí Wladyslaw II Jagiello ina rí i gcónaí - nuair a tugadh isteach an prionsabal ar a dtugtar as Laidin neminem captivabimus nisi iure victum, is é sin, "ní chaithfidh muid aon duine i dtóin an phríosúin gan bhreithiúnas ceart cúirte". Go bunúsach, is ionann seo agus an prionsabal habeas corpus. Pribhléid de chuid na n-uasal a bhí ann - níor fairsingíodh an prionsabal ar na buirgéisigh ach ag druidim le deireadh na hochtú haoise déag, go gairid sula ndeachaigh an chríochdheighilt ar an bPolainn.
 Tá aithne go forleathan ar an dá phrionsabal úd eile liberum veto agus liberum conspiro ar a ndearctar go minic mar shamhailchomharthaí do dhúchas ainrialach na Polainne. Is é is brí le liberum veto ná ceart crosta gan srian: nuair a thagadh na huaisle i ndáil chomhairle ar an Sejm, ar pharlaimint an chéad Rzeczpospolita, ní fhéadfaí dlí a reachtú ná cinneadh a ghlacadh, dá mbeadh freasúra ar bith - fiú freasúra aon duine amháin - ann. Maidir le liberum conspiro, cineál cead comhcheilge atá ann. Is é sin, más é an rún atá agat agus ag do chuid comhghuaillithe comhcheilg a chur ar bun le cur in aghaidh an rí, tá cead agaibh a leithéid de chomhcheilg - konfederacja nó comhcheangal an téarma Polainnise - a bhunú, ach é a dhéanamh go hoscailte bunreachtúil agus a fhoilsiú don tsaol mhór mar is cuí.
 B'é ba chúis leis an gcineál seo ainrialachais ná an dóigh a raibh an Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów curtha i dtoll le chéile as réigiúin a raibh rialtas láidir áitiúil dá gcuid féin acu.Mar shampla, bhí sé de nós ag na ríthe Polannacha ar feadh i bhfad na Cosacaigh san Úcráin a áireamh mar ghéillsinigh Pholannacha agus dearcadh ar a gcuid tailte mar chúige Polannach, ach ó am go ham, d'éirídís amach in aghaidh na lárchumhachta le pribhléidí níos fearr a bhaint amach dóibh féin ón rí.
 Críochdheighiltí na Polainne
 In imeacht aimsire, fuair na Polannaigh iad féin i bponc idir na Prúsaigh, na hOstaraigh agus na Rúisigh. B'é droch-sheachthoradh an phrionsabail sin liberum veto ná go bhféadfadh na comharsana seo polaitíocht na Polainne a chur i bhfostú le síntiúis airgid chuig Feisirí aonair. De réir a chéile, d'éirigh leis na comharsana an-tionchar a fháil ar chúrsaí inmheánacha na tíre. Mar sin, d'fhéadfá a rá gurbh é Sár na Rúise a cheapadh ríthe na Polainne sa chéad leath den ochtú haois déag.
 An Chéad Chríochdheighilt
 Bhí na comharsana meáite ar reachtaíocht na Polainne a choinneáil gan athrú, ó b'í seanainriail na tíre ba mhó a chuidíodh leosan smacht a chur ar na Polannaigh. Nuair a thosaigh na Polannaigh, áfach, ar iarrachtaí leis an reachtaíocht a fheabhsú agus a leasú, shocraigh na comharsana lámh láidir a chur i bhfeidhm orthu. I bhFeabhra na bliana 1772, d'ionsaigh na comharsana an Pholainn, agus iad ag sealbhú na gcúigí ba chóngaraí dá dtíortha féin. Rinne na Polannaigh a ndícheall cur in aghaidh na n-ionsaitheoirí, ach sa deireadh thiar thall, cloíodh iad. Ní bhfuair achainí an Rí Stanislaus (Stanislaw August Poniatowski) freagra ar bith ó chumhachtaí an Iarthair. Mar sin, b'éigean dó agus dá chuid Feisirí a bhfaomhadh a thabhairt don Chéad Chríochdheighilt seo i Meán Fómhair na bliana 1773.
 An Dara Críochdheighilt
 I ndiaidh an Chéad Chríochdheighilt, chrom na Polannaigh ar a gcóras polaitiúil a leasú chun an tír a dhéanamh níos láidre arís. As an obair seo a fáisceadh Bunreacht an Tríú Lá den Bhealtaine - is é sin, an bunreacht forásach, dul-chun-cinniúil a hachtaíodh ar an tríú lá de Mhí Bhealtaine, 1791. Bhí an bunreacht seo dírithe ar an gcuid ba díobhálaí de na pribhléidí a bhaint de na huaisle - liberum veto, ach go háirithe - agus an chuid eile a bhronnadh ar na buirgéisigh chomh maith leis na huaisle. Thairis sin, mhaolaigh an bunreacht ar chruachás na scológ a bhí faoi bhráca an tseirfeachais. B'é Bunreacht Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá a bhí mar réamhshampla ag na Polannaigh don bhunreacht s'acu féin.
 Níor thaitin an bunreacht le cách sa Pholainn féin. Tháinig roinnt uaisle frithghníomhacha le chéile i gComhcheangal Targowica, agus d'iarr siad cabhair agus tarrtháil ar Chaitríona Mhór, Banimpire na Rúise. Ní raibh an dara cuireadh de dhíth uirthi siúd. Ar an tríú lá fichead d'Eanáir den bhliain 1793, shocraigh Feardorcha (Friedrich) a Dó, rí na Prúise, agus Caitríona Mhór na Rúise faoi rún an Pholainn a ionsaí, agus lom díreach ina dhiaidh sin, chuaigh trúpaí na Rúise agus na Prúise isteach. An turas seo, ní raibh Máire Treasa na hOstaire ag glacadh páirt sa chríochdheighilt.
 An Tríú Críochdheighilt
 I ndiaidh an Dara Críochdheighilt, ní raibh muinín ar bith ag mionuaisle ag na Polannaigh as a Rí ná as móruaisle Chomhcheangal Targowica ach an oiread. Ar an dóú lá déag de Mhí na Márta 1794, d'éirigh siad amach faoi cheannas Tadeusz Kosciuszko, ar a ndearctar inniu mar laoch náisiúnta na Polainne. Ghnóthaigh na ceannairceoirí cúpla cath ar dtús, ach ní raibh an lá leo i ndeireadh báire. Ar an gceathrú lá fichead de Mhí Dheireadh Fómhair 1795, shínigh Rí na Prúise agus Banimpirí na hOstaire agus na Rúise conradh a chuir neamhspleáchas na Polainne ar ceal go deifnídeach. Thréig an Rí Stanislaw August an Pholainn agus chuaigh sé go dtí Cathair Pheadair, príomhchathair na Rúise, áit ar shíothlaigh mo dhuine sa bhliain 1798.
 I ndiaidh an Tríú Críochdheighilt, chuaigh cuid mhór saighdiúirí Polannacha ar imirce go tíortha iartharacha, an Fhrainc ach go háirithe. D'fhéadfá a rá go raibh an imirce seo sách cosúil le hÉalú na nGéanna Fiaine ó Éirinn. Liostáil roinnt mhaith de na saighdiúirí seo in arm Napoleon, agus iad ag glacadh páirte ina chuid cogaí siúd le súil is go bhfaighfeadh an Pholainn a saoirse ar ais le cuidiú Napoleon. Chuir Napoleon ar bun sórt stáit sa chuid den Pholainn a thit leis an bPrúis sna críochdheighiltí, mar atá, Ard-Diúcacht Vársá. Níor mhair an stáitín seo ach ón mbliain 1807 go dtí an bhliain 1815, ná ní raibh ann riamh ach satailít de chuid na Fraince.
 I ndiaidh Chomhdháil Vín
 I ndiaidh Chomhdháil Vín, cóiríodh an chuid lárnach de na críocha Polannacha ina ríocht leathneamhspleách a raibh bunreacht agus cineál rialtas dúchais aici, mar atá, Ríocht na Polainne, Królestwo Kongresowe nó Kongresówka, mar a thugadh na Polannaigh uirthi - is é sin, Ríocht na Comhdhála. Bhí an ríocht in aontacht phearsanta leis an Rúis, rud a ghoill go mór ar na Polannaigh, agus cathracha tábhachtacha Polannacha taobh amuigh di. Bhí cathair Chracó ina stáitín neamhspleách, mar Rzeczpospolita Krakowska, is é sin, Poblacht Chracó. Ós rud é nach raibh sa phoblacht sin ach cathair aonair, bhí sé sodhéanta ar fad ag na comharsanaigh chumhachtacha droichead a dhéanamh de neamhspleáchas na poblachta, nuair a tháinig orthu. Bhí Poznan ina cathair Phrúiseach anois, agus Posen mar ainm uirthi go hoifigiúil, nó b'í an Ghearmáinis an teanga oifigiúil in "Ard-Diúcacht Posen". Maidir le Lwów, thugtaí Lemberg uirthi anois, agus í mar phríomhchathair do Ríocht na Gailise agus na Lodaiméire, Königreich Galizien und Lodomerien as Gearmáinis. Bhí an ríocht seo - an Ghailis - ina cuid den Impireacht Ostarach-Ungárach, agus sórt rialtas dúchais aici a chuir ar chumas na n-uasal áitiúil Polannach a gcearta teanga a chur chun cinn. hAinmníodh an ríocht as an dá chathair úd Halicz agus Wlodzimierz-Wolynski, ach, greannmhar go leor, bhí an dara ceann acu sealbhaithe ag an Rúis!
 Ard-Diúcacht Posen
 B'í Ard-Diúcacht Posen an chuid den Pholainn a raibh an Phrúis ina seilbh. Sa chéad tréimhse, bhí na húdaráis Phrúiseacha sách caoinfhulangach i leith na bPolannach agus a dteanga, ach nuair a d'éirigh Polannaigh Ríocht na Comhdhála amach in aghaidh an Impire Rúisigh sa bhliain 1830, tháinig malairt polasaí i bhfeidhm sa Phrúis féin. Ruaigeadh na Polannaigh as an gcóras riaracháin, agus rinneadh iarrachtaí a dteanga a chur faoi chois. Mhaolaigh ar an bpolasaí i ndiaidh deich mbliana, ach má mhaolaigh féin, tháinig péindlíthe úra i bhfeidhm tar éis na ceannairce uile-Pholannaí sa bhliain 1846 agus na dtrioblóidí réabhlóideacha ar fud na hEorpa sa bhliain 1848 ("bliain mire na hEorpa", no "Earrach na Náisiún"). De dheasca na ceannairceoireachta, chaill an cúige stádas na hArd-Diúcachta, agus ní raibh ann feasta ach cúige, Provinz as Gearmáinis.
 Sna hochtóidí a rinneadh iarracht nua dhíograiseach leis an teanga a chur de dhroim an tsaoil sa chúige. An turas seo, b'é an Kulturkampf ba chúis leis. Is é is brí leis an bhfocal mór Gearmáinise sin Kulturkampf ná cath na gcultúr. B'é sin an t-ainm a bhí ag an Seansailéir Otto von Bismarck ar an bhfeachtas in aghaidh an Chaitliceachais a bhí idir lámhaibh aige ó na seachtóidí anuas. Is é sin, nuair a thosaigh an feachtas, bhí sé dírithe ar iarsmaí an Chaitliceachais a ruaigeadh as an bPrúis, ach ó ba rud é gurbh iad na críocha ba mhó Polainnise an chuid ba mhó Caitliceachais sa stát, is dócha nach raibh sé le seachaint go gcuirfí an cath céanna ar an bPolainnis mar theanga sa deireadh.
 Ní raibh mórán ratha ar an gcath seo sa deireadh thiar thall. Nó ní dhearna sé ach coimhthíos a chur ar na Polannaigh roimh an stát Prúiseach agus iad a spreagadh chun troda agus scliúchais le cearta teanga a chosaint. Beag beann ar na péindlíthe, tháinig gluaiseacht náisiúnaíoch na bPolannach go mór mór chun cinn i gcúige Posen. I ndeireadh na bliana 1918, agus greim na Gearmáine á scaoileadh den chúige, d'éirigh muintir na Mór-Pholainne - mar a thugtar ar chúige Poznan as Polainnis - d'éirigh siad amach in aghaidh na Prúise, agus cuireadh a gcuid tailte le Poblacht nua na Polainne.
 An Ghailis
 Níorbh ionann cás Poznan agus cás na Gailise, áfach. Sa Phrúis, b'iad na feirmeoirí agus muintir na tuaithe a bhí chun tosaigh i ngluaiseacht náisiúnaíoch na bPolannach. San Ostair, áfach, b'uaisle iad na Polannaigh, agus iad ag rialú scológa bochta Giúdacha nó Úcránacha.
 Bhí Ríocht na Gailise is na Lodaiméire ar ceann de na cúigí ba bhoichte san Ostair. Ba nós le muintir na ríochta Królestwo Golicji i Glodomerii a thabhairt uirthi in áit Królestwo Galicji i Lodomerii - is é sin, Ríocht na Loime is an Ocrais (glód an focal Polainnise a chiallaíonn "ocras", agus "lomnocht" is brí le goly). Bhí tearmann agus dídean ann do radacaigh na dtailte Polannacha eile, uaireanta, ach b'é ba phríomhchúis leis ná go raibh an Ghailis chomh tearcfhorbartha is nach gcuirfeadh bochtáin an réigiúin féin mórán suime, abair, i mbolscaireacht Shóisialach. Ní raibh an Sóisialachas ag baint le fíor-fhadhbanna sóisialta na Gailise mórán, nó bhí an tionsclaíocht chomh gann sa réigiún agus nach rithfeadh le haon duine "caipitlíochas" a mhilleánú faoin gcruatán. Is é sin, bhí an feodachas i bhfad ní ba mheasa.
 Sa bhliain 1846, d'fhorghabh na hOstaraigh Cracó, a bhí ina Poblacht neamhspleách go dtí sin. Cuireadh an chathair leis an nGailis.
 Nuair a bhris arm na Prúise an cath ar na hOstaraigh ag Königgrätz (inniu, Hradec Králové sa tSeic) sa bhliain 1866, fuair an tImpire Ostarach riachtanach leasuithe a chur i bhfeidhm ar an gcóras polaitiúil le dílseacht na mionlach náisiúnta a chinntiú don choróin. B'é an toradh ba tábhachtaí don Ausgleich seo, mar a thugtaí air (focal Gearmáinise é a chiallaíonn comhghéilleadh nó cothromú) gur bhain uaisle na hUngáire rialtas láidir dúchais amach dá leath féin den impireacht Hapsburgach, mar atá, Ríocht na hUngáire. Sa teagmháil chéanna, d'éirigh le Polannaigh na Gailise córas polaitiúil a réigiúin féin a athrú. Bronnadh tuilleadh cumhachtaí ar Dháil réigiúnda na Gailise, nó Sejm, agus d'fhorbair scoil áitiúil d'intleachtóirí coimeádacha a roghnaigh dílseacht don Impire thar sheancheannairceoireacht na bPolannach.
 "Kongresówka"
 Is é is brí le Kongresówka ná déantús na Comhdhála, is é sin, an ríocht a bunaíodh thart ar Vársá i ndiaidh Chomhdháil Vín. Bhí an ríocht seo thart ar 127 000 ciliméadar cearnach ar achar, nó an t-ochtú cuid de shean-Phoblacht an Dá Náisiún, agus is é an daonra a bhí ann ná dhá go leith milliún - nó an ceathrú cuid de mhuintir na seanríochta.
 B'é Adam Jerzy Czartoryski a chuir bun le Ríocht na Comhdhála mar stáitín. Polannach ab ea Czartoryski, ach nuair a fuair sé é féin cimithe ag na Rúisigh, i ndiaidh an tríú críochdheighilt, chuaigh sé ag déanamh seirbhíse don Rúis, agus sa deireadh thiar thall, d'iompaigh sé ina pholaiteoir Rúiseach. D'fhéadfá a rá go raibh sé ag déanamh chúis an Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha don Rúis Impiriúil nuair a bhí Comhdháil Vín ar siúl. Theastaigh ó Czartoryski an Pholainn a athbheochan mar chomhghuaillí de chuid na Rúise, i gcruth is go bhféadfadh a mhuintir a dteanga is a nósanna féin a chleachtadh gan cur isteach ar an Sár.
 Níor éirigh an t-éacht leis ach go lagmheasartha. Go bunúsach, bhí rialtas dúchais ag na Polannaigh faoi fhorlámhas an Impire Rúisigh, agus srianta bunreachtúla curtha le cumhacht an tSáir. I dtús báire, corónaíodh Alastair a hAon mar rí ar an bPolainn, agus é ag gealladh go dtabharfadh sé urraim cheart do dhlíthe na ríochta. Go praiticiúil, áfach, d'fhág an tImpire an tír faoi chomandracht dhian an Ard-Diúic Constaintín mac Phóil (Konstantin Pavlovitch), agus nuair a fuair Alastair bás, tháinig Nioclás a hAon i gcomharbas air - anlaith uafásach a raibh fuath na ndaol aige ar an bhfocal féin "bunreacht".
 Ní raibh Nioclás agus na Polannaigh in ann treabhadh le chéile, ní nárbh ionadh, agus an dearcadh seo ag an Impire nua ar chearta na Polainne. I Mí na Samhna 1830, d'éirigh na Polannaigh amach in aghaidh an tSáir - b'é seo Éirí Amach na Samhna, nó Powstanie Listopadowe. Cloíodh frithbheartaíocht na bPolannach le lámh láidir agus cuireadh rialtas dúchais na Polainne ar ceal. Sna blianta i ndiaidh an éirí amach, d'imigh forais sóisialta na Polainne, ar nós Bhanc na Polainne, de dhroim an tsaoil ceann i ndiaidh a chéile, siúd is nár cuireadh deireadh le Ríocht na Polainne ach i ndiaidh éirí amach eile, mar atá, Éirí Amach Mhí Eanáir, sna blianta 1863-1865. Thóg sé dhá bhliain ar shaighdiúirí an Impire na ceannairceoirí a smachtú an turas seo, nó cé nár éirigh leis na Polannaigh aon dúnfort nó bunáit mhíleata de chuid na Rúiseach a shealbhú, bhí siad in ann na Rúisigh a choinneáil sáite sa chogadh leis an treallchogaíocht a bhí ar siúl acu.
 Aiséirí na Polainne
 I dtús an Chéad Chogadh Domhanda, bhí na Gearmánaigh agus na hOstaraigh in ann an-ascnamh a dhéanamh ar an bhfronta thoir agus na Rúisigh a ruaigeadh rompu as an gcuid is mó den Pholainn. Ansin, i Mí na Samhna den bhliain 1916, hathbhunaíodh an Pholainn mar stát satailíteach don Ghearmáin, agus sórt rialtais - nó comhairle shealadach rialtais, Rada Regencyjna - i gceannas ar an tír. Nuair a chúlaigh na saighdiúirí Gearmánacha ar ais ón bPolainn i Mí Dheireadh Fómhair den bhliain 1918, d'fhógair an Rada Regencyjna go raibh sí dírithe ar neamhspleáchas a bhaint amach don tír. I dtús báire, ní raibh na Polannaigh in ann aontú le chéile faoin rialtas, agus bhí cogadh cathartha idir na buirgéisigh agus na Sóisialaithe ag bagairt, nuair a bhunaigh an eite chlé rialtas Sóivéadach dá chuid féin. I dtús na bliana 1919, áfach, tháinig an Marascal Józef Pilsudski go Vársá, agus na Gearmánaigh díreach tar éis é a scaoileadh saor as príosún Magdeburg. Ós rud é go raibh dintiúirí gan cháim ag Pilsudski mar náisiúnaí agus mar Shóisialaí, óna laethanta mar ghníomhaí de chuid an fhreasúra rúnda sa Pholainn Rúiseach, bhí sé in ann tacaíocht na sluaite móra a fháil, agus b'é deireadh an scéil gur bronnadh cumhachtaí an deachtóra air, a bheag nó a mhór.
 Sna blianta 1919-1922, chuir na Polannaigh cogadh i ndiaidh cogaidh lena gcuid tailte a aontú agus an tír a chur i dtoll le chéile arís. I ndeireadh na bliana 1918, d'fhág muintir Poznan agus an chúige timpeall na cathrach - Wielkopolska, nó an Mhór-Pholainn - slán ag na Gearmánaigh leis an éirí amach ar a dtugann na Polannaigh Powstanie Wielkopolskie, nó Éirí Amach na Mór-Pholainne. Shocraigh Conradh Versailles teorainneacha na Polainne is na Gearmáine i réigiún na Bailte, ach is iomaí ceist nár fuasclaíodh go fóill. Rinneadh saorchathair neamhspleách de Danzig (Gdansk), cathair cois farraige a bhí ceangailte den Pholainn agus den Ghearmáin araon. Roinn Sasana agus an Fhrainc an tSiléis, ceantar tionsclaíoch in Iarthar na Polainne, idir an Pholainn agus an Ghearmáin, ach ní raibh na náisiúnaithe Polannacha áitiúla sásta leis an roinnt a rinne na cumhachtaí Iartharacha ar an gcúige, agus d'éirigh siad amach cúpla uair le teacht slán ón nGearmáin.
 Bhí an teorainn idir an Ghearmáin agus an Pholainn chomh fada agus chomh casta is go raibh dlúth-chomhchabhair an dá thír ag teastáil le go bhféadfaí na fadhbanna críochadóireachta ar fad a réiteach. Mar is eol dúinn ón stair, níor éirigh leis an gcomhchabhair sin go rómhaith, agus an oiread naimhdis is a bhí ag an dá thír dá chéile, agus bhí Hitler lena úsáid féin a bhaint as na fadhbanna sin. Thóg sé na blianta fada ar na Polannaigh, freisin, na hiar-chúigí Prúiseacha a aontú leis an gcuid eile den Pholainn, agus bhí córas riaracháin ar leith ag freastal orthu go dtí an bhliain 1923.
 Maidir le teorainneacha na Polainne san oirthear, b'í an ghleic armtha a shocraigh iad. Nuair a bhí an cogadh cathartha ag cur i dtíortha sa Rúis i ndiaidh na réabhlóide, chreid Pilsudski go bhféadfadh sé iomlán na dtailte a bhain leis an bPolainn roimh na críochdheighiltí a athghabháil. B'ionann sin agus an Liotuáin, an Úcráin, agus an Bhealarúis, go bunúsach. B'é oighear an scéil, áfach, go raibh náisiúnachas agus gluaiseachtaí neamhspleáchais dá gcuid féin ag na tíortha seo san am, agus ní bheidís sásta le coimirceas na Polainne mar mhalairt ar an neamhspleáchas. Na comhchainteanna a tosaíodh le Miedzymorze nó comhghuaillíocht na dtíortha iar-Pholannacha faoi cheannas na Polainne a shroichfeadh ón Muir Bhailt go dtí an Mhuir Dhubh a chur ar bun, níor éirigh leo, agus sa deireadh thiar, bhí na Polannaigh ag cur cogaidh ar an Liotuáin, ar an Úcráin, agus ar an Rúis Shóivéadach faoi Léinín. Bhí Léinín féin den bharúil gur chóir an Pholainn a chloí le go bhféadfadh na fórsaí Rúiseacha réabhlóid a thosú i gcroílár na hEorpa, sa Ghearmáin ach go háirithe, ó bhí prólatáireacht mhór ansin, agus an oiread sin tionsclaíochta ann.


type: contracts

text:
 20.7.2017
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 L 189/54
 ETA:n SEKAKOMITEAN PÄÄTÖS
 N:o 34/2016,
 annettu 5 päivänä helmikuuta 2016,
 ETA-sopimuksen liitteen XXI (Tilastot) muuttamisesta [2017/1317]
 ETA:n SEKAKOMITEA, joka
 ottaa huomioon Euroopan talousalueesta tehdyn sopimuksen, jäljempänä ’ETA-sopimus’, ja erityisesti sen 98 artiklan,
 sekä katsoo seuraavaa:
 (1)
 Neuvoston asetuksessa (ETY) N:o 3924/91 säädetyn teollisten tuotteiden Prodcom-luettelon vahvistamisesta vuodeksi 2015 17 päivänä syyskuuta 2015 annettu komission asetus (EU) No 2015/1711 (1) olisi otettava osaksi ETA-sopimusta.
 (2)
 Sen vuoksi olisi muutettava ETA-sopimuksen liitettä XXI,
 ON HYVÄKSYNYT TÄMÄN PÄÄTÖKSEN:
 1 artikla
 Lisätään ETA-sopimuksen liitteessä XXI olevan 4am kohdan (komission asetus (EU) N:o 842/2014) jälkeen kohta seuraavasti:
 ”4an
 32015 R 1711: komission asetus (EU) N:o 2015/1711, annettu 17 päivänä syyskuuta 2015, neuvoston asetuksessa (ETY) N:o 3924/91 säädetyn teollisten tuotteiden Prodcom-luettelon vahvistamisesta vuodeksi 2015 (EUVL L 254, 30.9.2015, s. 1)”.
 2 artikla
 Asetuksen (EU) 2015/1711 islanniksi ja norjaksi laaditut tekstit, jotka julkaistaan Euroopan unionin virallisen lehden ETA-täydennysosassa, ovat todistusvoimaisia.
 3 artikla
 Tämä päätös tulee voimaan 6 päivänä helmikuuta 2016, jos kaikki ETA-sopimuksen 103 artiklan 1 kohdan mukaiset ilmoitukset on tehty (*1).
 4 artikla
 Tämä päätös julkaistaan Euroopan unionin virallisen lehden ETA-osastossa ja ETA-täydennysosassa.
 Tehty Brysselissä 5 päivänä helmikuuta 2016.
 ETA:n sekakomitean puolesta
 Puheenjohtaja
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) EUVL L 254, 30.9.2015, s. 1.
 (*1) Valtiosäännön asettamista vaatimuksista ei ole ilmoitettu.


text:
Kaligrafija (grčki: καλλιγραφία / kalligrafia; κάλλος / kallos = lijepo, γράφειν / grafein = pisati) ili krasopis umjetnost je lijepog pisanja rukom uz pomoć pera, kista, tinte ili nekog drugog pribora za pisanje. Osoba koja se bavi krasopisom zove se krasopisac ili kaligraf.
 Poznato je da je službeni matematički font (kakav se koristi na matematičkim fakultetima) oblik kompjuterskog krasopisa.
 Od 2021. godine na UNESCO.vom je popisu nematerijalne svjetske baštine.
 Uvod
 Važnost kaligrafije u povijesti kulture ogromna je svuda gdje je prepisivanje svetih tekstova imalo samo po sebi duhovnu vrijednost: primjerice u islamu, gdje je bismillah najčešći kaligrafski oblik. U kineskoj i japanskoj kulturi pisanja kaligrafija je i danas vrlo važna i inspirativna. Važnije od čitljivosti je postizanje savršene estetske uravnoteženosti i pokazivanje osjećaja.
 Mnogi kaligrafi ukazuju na meditativni karakter svog posla:
 (Andreas Schenk).
 Zapadna kaligrafija
 Iako je kaligrafija u Europi nakon početka novog doba značajno izgubila na važnosti, još živi kao oblik umjetnosti i kao hobi. Praktičnu primjenu ima još u oblikovanju nekih dokumenata, plakata ili upisivanja u neke knjige u određenim svečanim prigodama.
 U cijeloj Europi postoje povijesna djela antičkih i srednjovjekovnih kaligrafa, koja su u više primjeraka nastajali u samostanima i vrlo su bogato opremljena s puno detalja (svečani kodeksi ili oslikani (iluminirani) rukopisi). Savršenstvo prepisivanja postignuto je kod poluuncijala, karolinškog i humanističkog pisma.
 Nakon izuma tiska, kaligrafija se koristila kod pisanja svečanih službenih dokumenata (diploma, povelja i sl.). Krasopis se predavao u mnogim školama, za što je najvažniji udžbenik kaligrafa (krasopisca) i umjentika pisanja, Edwarda Johnstona, iz 1906. godine, Writing & Illuminating, & Lettering ("Pisanje i oslikavanje, te oblikovanje slova"). Njegova se kaligrafija i danas koristi u Londonskoj podzemnoj željeznici.
 Arapska kaligrafija
 Arapski kaligrafi imaju višestoljetnu tradiciju. Zbog zabrane slika u Kuranu koristilo se kurzivno arapsko pismo u kaligrafskoj umjetnosti, čime su nastale slike od slova, tzv. kaligrami.
 Naročiti oblik umjetničke arapske kaligrafije razvio se početkom 20. stoljeća u Osmanskom carstvu.
 Turska kaligrafija
 U turskom su pravu postojali nišandži koji su bili krasopisci. Vladareve su isprave prolazile njihovu redakturu. Imali su jednak status kao defterdari. Zajedno s kadijaskerima, bili su dijelom divana, vijeća velikog vezira.
 Hebrejska kaligrafija
 Još od talmudskih vremena, osoba koja piše hebrejske tekstove naziva se sofer (naglasak na "e"). Zanimanje sofera iziskuje višegodišnje školovanje i unutar židovstva vrlo je cijenjeno. Biblijski tekstovi pišu se guščjim perom i tintom bez dodataka metala, a sofer je sam priprema. Podloga na kojoj se piše uvijek je posebno u tu svrhu ručno izrađen pergament. Hebrejski su tekstovi bez vokala, ali imaju posebne ukrase koji se opisuju kao "krunice". Tekstovi moraju biti pisani bez ijedne pogreške i vrlo točno. Sofer ne smije pisati napamet, nego mora svako pojedino slovo kopirati iz predloška.
 Istočnoazijska kaligrafija
 Kaligrafija u Aziji, uglavnom na prostoru Kine i Japana (Koukai znanstvenik i umjetnik, poznati krasopisac iz 9.st.) ima još uvijek visoki položaj u društvenom i umjetničkom životu. Najčešće se za pisanje koristi kist, štapići tuša i kamen za tuš, na papiru. Prije samog pisanja, dio štapića tuša nariba se i u kamenoj posudi miješa s vodom ili vinom. Čin pisanja je danas najčešće impulzivan, što znakove čini teško čitljivim, ali zato utoliko izražajnijim.
 Kaligrafska umjetnička djela ukrašavaju kao okomite pločice u paru i kao vodoravne pločice s imenima kineske vrtove. U organiziranju vrta gotovo su neizostavne i čine njegov značajan ukrasni element. To su često stihovi iz poznatih pjesama, kojima se naglašava posebnost okoline u koju se stavlja.
 Bilješke
 Vanjske poveznice
 Tečaj kaligrafije
 Siniša Reberski: Zapadna kaligrafija
 Pismo
 Primijenjene umjetnosti
 Nematerijalna svjetska baština


text:
 19.10.2017
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 270/13
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 47/2016,
 18. märts 2016,
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu II lisa „Tehnilised normid, standardid, katsetamine ja sertifitseerimine“ [2017/1877]
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut (edaspidi „EMP leping“), eriti selle artiklit 98,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 EMP lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 28. septembri 2015. aasta määrus (EL) 2015/1725, millega muudetakse määruse (EL) nr 231/2012 (millega kehtestatakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1333/2008 II ja III lisas loetletud toidu lisaainete spetsifikatsioonid) lisa seoses etüüllauroüülarginaadi (E 243) spetsifikatsiooniga (1).
 (2)
 EMP lepingusse tuleb inkorporeerida komisjoni 28. septembri 2015. aasta määrus (EL) 2015/1739, millega muudetakse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 1333/2008 II lisa ning komisjoni määruse (EL) nr 231/2012 lisa seoses raudtartraadi kasutamisega paakumisvastase ainena soolas ja selle asendajates (2).
 (3)
 Käesolev otsus käsitleb toiduainetega seotud õigusakte. Toiduaineid käsitlevaid õigusakte ei kohaldata Liechtensteini suhtes seni, kuni Liechtensteini suhtes hakatakse kohaldama Euroopa Ühenduse ja Šveitsi Konföderatsiooni vahelist põllumajandustoodetega kauplemise kokkulepet, nagu see on sätestatud EMP lepingu II lisa XII peatüki sissejuhatuses. Seetõttu ei kohaldata käesolevat otsust Liechtensteini suhtes.
 (4)
 Seetõttu tuleks EMP lepingu II lisa vastavalt muuta,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 EMP lepingu II lisa XII peatükki muudetakse järgmiselt.
 1)
 Punkti 54zzzzr (Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 1333/2008) lisatakse järgmine taane:
 „—
 32015 R 1739: komisjoni määrus (EL) 2015/1739, 28. september 2015 (ELT L 253, 30.9.2015, lk 3).“
 2)
 Punkti 69 (komisjoni määrus (EL) nr 231/2012) lisatakse järgmised taanded:
 „—
 32015 R 1725: komisjoni määrus (EL) 2015/1725, 28. september 2015 (ELT L 252, 29.9.2015, lk 12).
 —
 32015 R 1739: komisjoni määrus (EL) 2015/1739, 28. september 2015 (ELT L 253, 30.9.2015, lk 3).“
 Artikkel 2
 Määruste (EL) 2015/1725 ja (EL) 2015/1739 islandi- ja norrakeelsed tekstid, mis avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP kaasandes, on autentsed.
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus jõustub 19. märtsil 2016, tingimusel et kõik EMP lepingu artikli 103 lõike 1 kohased teated on edastatud (*1).
 Artikkel 4
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 18. märts 2016
 EMP ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) ELT L 252, 29.9.2015, lk 12.
 (2) ELT L 253, 30.9.2015, lk 3.
 (*1) Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole nimetatud.


type: other

text:
3 VSOL 876/2015-A-9
 KSBR 44 INS 19816/2015 3 VSOL 876/2015-A-9
 Vrchní soud v Olomouci rozhodl v senátě složeném z předsedkyně senátu JUDr. Věry Vyhlídalové a soudkyň JUDr. Ivany Wontrobové a JUDr. Heleny Krejčí v insolvenční věci dlužníků a) Rastislava anonymizovano , nar. 29.12.1986, bytem Otnice, Školní 480, PSČ 683 54, identifikační číslo: 74479300, a b) Markéty anonymizovano , anonymizovano , bytem Otnice, Školní 480, PSČ 683 54, identifikační číslo: 87929589, o insolvenčním návrhu dlužníků, o odvolání dlužníků proti usnesení Krajského soudu v Brně ze dne 3.8.2015, č.j. KSBR 44 INS 19816/2015-A-4,
 Krajský soud v Brně usnesením, označeným v záhlaví tohoto rozhodnutí, uložil dlužníkům, aby do tří dnů od právní moci tohoto usnesení zaplatili na blíže označený účet Krajského soudu v Brně nebo v hotovosti zálohu na náklady insolvenčního řízení ve výši 50.000 Kč.
 V odůvodnění svého rozhodnutí soud prvního stupně uvedl, že podáním, doručeným soudu dne 31.7.2015, se dlužník domáhá vydání rozhodnutí o úpadku a povolení oddlužení. Poté, co soud prvního stupně citoval ustanovení § 389 odst. 1 a odst. 2, ustanovení § 390 odst. 3 a § 396 odst. 1 zákona č. 182/2006 Sb., o úpadku a způsobech jeho řešení (insolvenční zákon), ve znění pozdějších předpisů (dále jen IZ ), dále uvedl, že podle údajů v příloze návrhu část závazků dlužníka vznikla v souvislosti s jeho podnikatelskými činnostmi, a z dalších příloh vyplývá, že se jedná minimálně o závazek vůči věřiteli Všeobecné zdravotní pojišťovně České republiky ve výši 182.778 Kč a o závazek vůči věřiteli Městské správě sociálního zabezpečení Brno ve výši 260.616 Kč. Dlužník však ve svém návrhu netvrdí žádné skutečnosti, z nichž by se dalo usuzovat, že se jedná o dluhy, které řešení jeho úpadku oddlužením ve smyslu ustanovení § 389 odst. 2 IZ nebrání. Soud prvního stupně dovodil, že vzhledem k tomu, že dlužník neprokázal svou aktivní legitimaci k podání návrhu na povolení oddlužení, je jediným možným způsobem řešení jeho úpadku konkurs. Pro krytí nákladů konkursu je třeba zajistit již v této fázi řízení finanční prostředky ve formě zálohy na náklady insolvenčního řízení. S ohledem na rozsahu majetku dlužníka, který v současné době nedisponuje pohotovými finančními prostředky k úhradě nákladů konkursu, a předpokládaným nákladům řízení při konkursu, postupoval podle ustanovení § 108 IZ a stanovil zálohu k jejich krytí, neboť prostředky k tomu nelze zajistit jinak.
 Proti tomuto usnesení podali dlužníci odvolání. Odvolatelé zdůraznili, že soud prvního stupně nesprávně interpretuje novelizované znění insolvenčního zákona, účinné od 1.1.2014, neboť z důvodové zprávy k této novele insolvenčního zákona vyplývá, že je možné, aby se úspěšně domáhala oddlužení také fyzická osoba mající závazky z podnikatelské činnosti, pokud s řešením podnikatelských závazků oddlužením budou souhlasit věřitelé. Insolvenční zákon však v žádném ze svých ustanovení nevyžaduje, aby spolu s návrhem na povolení oddlužení byl zároveň předkládán písemný souhlas věřitelů s tím, že podnikatelské závazky dlužníka budou řešeny formou oddlužení, takže i dlužník, který má závazky pocházející z podnikatelské činnosti, je legitimní podat návrh na povolení oddlužení. Ustanovení 403 IZ naopak vyžaduje aktivní projev vůle věřitelů, jejichž pohledávky pochází z podnikatelské činnosti dlužníka, že s oddlužením takového dlužníka nesouhlasí, což plyne jednak z § 397 IZ, tak i zejména z ustanovení § 403 odst. 2 IZ. Soud prvního stupně požadavkem k doložení souhlasu věřitelů peněžitých závazků, které pochází z dlužníkovy podnikatelské činnosti, s řešením dlužníkova úpadku oddlužením nerespektuje právní názory obsažené v ustálené rozhodovací praxi soudů vyšší instance. V této souvislosti odkázali odvolatelé na usnesení Vrchního soudu v Praze ze dne 2.9.2014, sen. zn. 4 VSPH 1277/2014-A-28, ze dne 18.7.2014, sen. zn. 3 VSPH 517/2014, a ze dne 23.6.2014, sen. zn. 1 VSPH 1211/2014-A-17, z jejichž závěrů v odvolání citovali. Odvolatelé poukázali i na faktickou a logickou neochotu věřitelů vyjádřit se k možnosti oddlužení u dlužníků, jejichž závazky pocházejí také z podnikatelské činnosti s tím, že věřitelé ve stavu, kdy nejsou přihlášeny pohledávky ostatních věřitelů, nemohou vyhodnotit poměr pohledávek vzniklých z podnikání, neznají celkovou výši závazků přihlášených věřitelů, přesný dlužníkův příjem, ocenění dlužníkova majetku, a nemohou tedy rozhodnout, který způsob oddlužení vzhledem k uvedeným faktorům bude pro ně výhodnější. Tyto informace však na přezkumném jednání, popřípadě na schůzi věřitelů, již budou známy, a tudíž se mohou jasně rozhodnout, zda navrhnou konkurs nebo oddlužení. V této souvislosti odvolatelé dále citovali ze závěrů v rozhodnutích vrchních soudů, podle odvolatelů zásadních, a to v usnesení Vrchního soudu v Olomouci ze dne 29.1.2014, sen. zn. 1 VSOL 1197/2013-A-17, ze dne 16.4.2014, sen. zn. 1 VSOL 297/2014-A-9, a ze dne 24.3.2014, sen. zn. 3 VSOL 15/2014-A-16, a v usnesení Vrchního soudu v Praze ze dne 15.5.2014, sen. zn. 2 VSPH 961/2014, z nichž vyplývá, že není zapotřebí, aby dlužníci předkládali souhlasy věřitelů s pohledávkami, pocházejícími z podnikatelské činnosti dlužníka, s oddlužením dlužníka. Odvolatelé navrhli, aby odvolací soud usnesení soudu prvního stupně zrušil, případně aby usnesení soudu prvního stupně změnil a uložil dlužníkům zálohu na náklady insolvenčního řízení ve výši maximálně 20.000 Kč.
 Odvolací soud po zjištění, že odvolání bylo podáno včas a osobou oprávněnou, přezkoumal usnesení soudu prvního stupně, jakož i řízení, které jeho vydání předcházelo (§ 212, § 212a odst. 1, odst. 5 a odst. 6 o.s.ř.), aniž nařizoval jednání (§ 94 odst. 2, písm. c/ IZ), a dospěl k závěru, že odvolání dlužníků není důvodné.
 Podle ustanovení § 108 IZ, insolvenční soud může před rozhodnutím o insolvenčním návrhu uložit insolvenčnímu navrhovateli, aby ve stanovené lhůtě zaplatil zálohu na náklady insolvenčního řízení, je-li to nutné ke krytí nákladů řízení a prostředky k tomu nelze zajistit jinak. Tuto zálohy nelze uložit insolvenčnímu navrhovateli, který je zaměstnancem dlužníka a jehož pohledávka spočívá pouze v pracovněprávních nárocích (odstavec 1). Výši zálohy může insolvenční soud určit až do částky 50.000 Kč. Je-li insolvenčních navrhovatelů více, jsou povinni zaplatit zálohu společně a nerozdílně (odstavec 2).
 Z obsahu spisu vyplývá, že dlužníci se insolvenčním návrhem spojeným se společným návrhem manželů na povolení oddlužení, doručeným soudu dne 31.7.2015, domáhají zjištění svého úpadku a povolení oddlužení plněním splátkového kalendáře. V návrhu uvedli, že jsou v úpadku, neboť mají více věřitelů, peněžité závazky více než 30 dnů po lhůtě splatnosti a tyto nejsou schopni plnit, řada věřitelů zahájila proces vymáhání svých závazků. Celková výše závazků vzniklých v rámci společného jmění manželů činí 643.911 Kč, jde o závazky nezajištěné. Dlužníci současně specifikovali jednotlivé závazky označením věřitele, druhu závazku , uvedli výši a splatnost jednotlivých závazků, ve vztahu ke všem závazkům uvedli, že se jedná o závazky nezajištěné, a že tyto závazky nepopírají co do důvodu a výše. Dále uvedli, že dlužník má příjem jako osoba samostatně výdělečně činná ve výši 15.700 Kč čistého měsíčně, dlužnice pobírá mzdu v průměrné výši 12.483 Kč čistého měsíčně, kromě vzájemné vyživovací povinnosti mají vyživovací povinnost k jednomu dítěti. S přihlédnutím ke svým příjmům a k celkové výši nezajištěných závazků jsou schopni za dobu 5 let uhradit svým věřitelům alespoň 30 % hodnoty jejich nezajištěných pohledávek. K návrhu dlužníci připojili, mimo jiné, seznam majetku, seznam závazků a seznam zaměstnanců, opatřené podepsaným prohlášením o jejich úplnosti a správnosti. V seznamu závazků dlužníci označili jednotlivé své věřitele, uvedli údaj k druhu závazku , údaj o výši a splatnosti jednotlivých závazků, ve vztahu ke všem označeným závazkům uvedli, že se jedná o závazky nezajištěné a že tyto závazky nepopírají co do důvodu a výše. Z údajů, uvedených v seznamu majetku, vyplývá, že dlužníci nevlastní žádné nemovitosti, jsou vlastníky movitých věcí-obvyklého vybavení domácnosti celkem v odhadované hodnotě asi 22.800 Kč a dvou automobilů-jeden automobil je v odhadované hodnotě 10.000 Kč a druhý automobil v odhadované hodnotě 40.000 Kč. Podle údajů uvedených v seznamu zaměstnanců nemají dlužníci žádné zaměstnance. K návrhu bylo dále připojeno tzv. prohlášení dlužníka Rastislava anonymizovano a prohlášení dlužníka Markéty anonymizovano , v prohlášení dlužníka Rastislava anonymizovano je uvedeno, že ke dni podání insolvenčního návrhu spojeného s návrhem na povolení oddlužení je podnikatelem a část závazků pochází z podnikatelské činnosti, v prohlášení dlužnice Markéty anonymizovano je uvedeno, že ke dni podání návrhu spojeného s návrhem na povolení oddlužení je podnikatelem a její současné závazky nepochází z podnikatelské činnosti. Na tomto základě rozhodl soud prvního stupně odvoláním napadeným usnesením.
 Po vyhodnocení údajů, uvedených dlužníky v insolvenčním návrhu a v zákonem vyžadované příloze-seznamu závazků, lze předběžně uzavřít, že dlužníci se nacházejí v úpadku ve formě platební neschopnosti, neboť mají peněžité závazky vůči více věřitelům, které jsou po dobu delší 30 dnů po lhůtě splatnosti a které nejsou schopni plnit, neboť je neplní (jak vyplývá z údajů o datu splatnosti jednotlivých závazků) po dobu delší tří měsíců po lhůtě splatnosti (§ 3 odst. 1 a odst. 2, písm. b/ IZ).
 Uložení povinnosti zaplatit zálohu dlužníkovi, který podal insolvenční návrh, je odůvodněno zejména v případě, kdy podle předběžného závěru insolvenčního soudu bude úpadek dlužníka řešen konkursem a struktura jeho majetku je taková, že po rozhodnutí o úpadku nebudou v majetkové podstatě dostatečné pohotové peněžní prostředky k zajištění činnosti insolvenčního správce. V konkursu-na rozdíl o oddlužení plněním splátkového kalendáře-totiž nejsou náklady řízení hrazeny postupně, ale vznikají ve větší míře krátce po rozhodnutí o úpadku a hradí se právě z majetkové podstaty.
 Ze shora citovaného ustanovení § 389 IZ vyplývá, že dlužníka-fyzickou osobu-nelze předem vylučovat z oddlužení jenom proto, že dlužník má, jako v této věci (což odvolatelé nezpochybňovali), dluhy z podnikání. I když tedy s účinností od 1.1.2014 insolvenční zákon připouští, aby soud povolil oddlužení i fyzické osobě, která je podnikatelem, případně již nepodniká, avšak má (i) závazky z podnikání, musí zde být nicméně splněny podmínky uvedené v ustanovení § 389 odst. 2 IZ. Uvedené znamená, že pokud dlužník-fyzická osoba má závazky z podnikání, pak s jeho oddlužením musí souhlasit (každý) nezajištěný věřitel, o jehož pohledávku, pocházející z podnikání dlužníka, jde. Souhlasu není třeba pouze tehdy, jde-li sice o věřitele, který má vůči dlužníku pohledávku, pocházející z podnikatelské činnosti dlužníka, tato jeho pohledávka je však zajištěna, nebo jde o pohledávku, která zůstala neuspokojena po skončení (předchozího) insolvenčního řízení, ve kterém soud zrušil konkurs pro nedostatek majetku nebo po splnění rozvrhového usnesení (§ 308 odst. 1, písm. c/ nebo d/ IZ).
 Nutno ovšem zdůraznit, že tento postup (postup podle ustanovení § 397 odst. 1 IZ) se uplatní tehdy, jsou-li pochybnosti o tom, zda dlužník je skutečně oprávněn podat návrh na povolení oddlužení, to je, zda splňuje uvedená kritéria. Podle přesvědčení odvolacího soudu je proto nutno z tohoto důvodu již v návrhu na povolení oddlužení tvrdit takové skutečnosti, z nichž by bylo možno usuzovat,
 že se jedná o dluhy, které řešení úpadku oddlužením ve smyslu ustanovení § 389 odst. 2, písm. a), písm. b) nebo písm. c) IZ nebrání. Takové skutečnosti však dlužníci ve svém návrhu na povolení oddlužení současně neuplatnili, naopak je zjevné, že s věřiteli, vůči nimž mají závazky z podnikání (přičemž se nejedná o pohledávky věřitelů, které zůstaly neuspokojeny po skončení insolvenčního řízení, v němž insolvenční soud zrušil konkurs na majetek dlužníka a podle § 308 odst. 1, písm. c/ nebo d/ IZ, a nejde o pohledávky zajištěných věřitelů.) nejednali, a jejich stanoviska, pokud se týká jejich souhlasu s oddlužením, ani nezjišťovali.
 Za tohoto stavu se tak jeví pravděpodobným odmítnutí návrhu dlužníků na povolení oddlužení (§ 390 odst. 3 IZ) a prohlášení konkursu na jejich majetek (§ 396 IZ).
 Soud prvního stupně také správně uložil dlužníkům povinnost k zaplacení zálohy na náklady insolvenčního řízení.
 Záloha na náklady insolvenčního řízení je v případě řešení dlužníkova úpadku konkursem potřebná především pro počáteční činnost správce a je rovněž zárukou úhrady jeho odměny pro případ, že by ji nebylo možno hradit z majetkové podstaty (§ 38 odst. 2 IZ). Náklady insolvenčního řízení nelze totiž přenášet na stát, který by hradil odměnu a hotové výdaje správce v případě, pokud by prověřování majetkové situace dlužníka insolvenčním správcem nevedlo ke zjištění a zpeněžení majetku, případně majetku v potřebném rozsahu. Nelze rovněž přehlédnout, že pokud správce po prohlášení konkursu zpeněžuje, pak jen jeho minimální odměna, jak správně uvedl soud prvního stupně, činí 45.000 Kč a je nepochybné že správci vzniknou další hotové výdaje (cestovné, poplatky apod.). Pokud správce v rámci konkursu nezjistí žádný zpeněžitelný majetek a tedy nic nezpeněží, pak mu ovšem zůstává nárok na odměnu z počtu jím přezkoumaných přihlášek pohledávek, nejméně opět ve výši 45.000 Kč (viz § 1, § 2a vyhlášky č. 313/2007 Sb., ve znění účinném od 1.1.2014).
 K argumentaci odvolatelů, v níž odkázali na citovaná rozhodnutí Vrchního soudu v Praze a Vrchního soudu v Olomouci, považuje odvolací soud za potřebné uvést, že zálohu na náklady insolvenčního řízení může insolvenční soud požadovat jen do doby, než rozhodne o insolvenčním návrhu, tedy do rozhodnutí o úpadku, nikoliv v pozdější fázi insolvenčního řízení. Pokud by se věřitelé s pohledávkou pocházející z podnikání dlužníka vyjádřili až v pozdější fázi insolvenčního řízení, tj. na schůzi věřitelů (§ 403 IZ) tak, že s řešením jejich pohledávek v rámci oddlužení dlužníka nesouhlasí a insolvenční soud by musel z tohoto důvodu rozhodnout o řešení úpadku dlužníka konkursem, nemohl by dlužníkovi zaplacení zálohy uložit, neboť mu to v pozdější fázi insolvenčního řízení již zákon neumožňuje (§ 108 odst. 1 IZ). V takovém případě by pak správce jednak zůstal bez potřebných finančních prostředků, které jsou nutné bezprostředně po rozhodnutí o úpadku (je-li úpadek řešen konkursem) a v případě, že by nebyl zpeněžen žádný majetek, či majetek v potřebném rozsahu, náklady na odměnu a výdaje správce by hradil stát z rozpočtových prostředků. Tomu má předejít právě institut zálohy na náklady insolvenčního řízení.
 Soudní praxe insolvenčních soudů (prvního stupně) a Vrchního soudu v Olomouci, která se po novele insolvenčního zákona účinné od 1.1.2014 postupně vyvíjela, se proto ustálila na závěru, že dlužník, který hodlá řešit svůj úpadek oddlužením a má závazky z podnikání [které nejsou zajištěny majetkem dlužníka a ani nejde o pohledávky, které zůstaly neuspokojeny po skončení předchozího insolvenčního řízení, ve kterém soud zrušil konkurs na majetek dlužníka dle ust. § 308 odst. 1 písm. c) nebo d) IZ], by měl s věřiteli pohledávek, jež mají původ v podnikatelské činnosti dlužníka, jednat, seznámit je podrobně se svou majetkovou situací, včetně nabídky pro zvažované oddlužení a v dostatečném časovém předstihu souhlas s oddlužením od nich vyžádat, tak aby ve svém návrhu na oddlužení byl schopen tuto právně významnou skutečnost (tj. souhlas věřitelů dle ustanovení § 389 odst. 1, písm. a/ IZ) tvrdit a případně také i doložit. Jinak řečeno, hodlá-li se dlužník v rámci oddlužení poctivě vyrovnat i s věřiteli, kteří mají vůči němu pohledávky z podnikání, neměl by pouze spoléhat na to, že se tito věřitelé se svými pohledávkami do insolvenčního řízení nepřihlásí (ať již vědomě či v důsledku neinformovanosti), nebo že v důsledku jejich pasivity v průběhu insolvenčního řízení založí svůj souhlas s oddlužením dlužníka.


text:
Село Кладенец е основано през 1610 година. Кладенец е село в Североизточна България. То се намира в община Шумен, област Шумен.
 География
 Селото се намира на 29 километра от Шумен и на 32 км от Провадия.
 История
 Старото име на селото е Юнуз бунар. Кладенец е основано от преселили се родове от село Марково.
 Население
 Численост на населението според преброяванията през годините:
 Етнически състав
 Преброяване на населението през 2011 г.
 Численост и дял на етническите групи според преброяването на населението през 2011 г.:
 Културни и природни забележителности
 Край селото има прекрасна чешма с беседка и мястото е предпочитано за пикник и отмора.
 Редовни събития
 Празникът на селото е на 15 август – Голяма Богородица.
 Източници
 Села в област Шумен
 Населени места в община Шумен


jurisdiction: US

text:
The appeal in this case was taken from a decree of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, sustaining a demurrer to an amended bill of complaint and dismissing the bill. It presents two points: (1) Whether a court of equity has the power to compel the specific performance of a contract for the sale of leasehold property improved by an unfinished house which the vendor in a written and sealed contract agreed to complete, where under the circumstances of the case the vendee has no adequate remedy at law, and (2) whether the allegations of the bill are sufficient to bring this case within that rule. The question first stated grows out of the following facts alleged in the bill and conceded by the demurrer:
 On March 4th, 1921, the Clifton Realty Company, Inc., sold to Victor O. Brummel and Edna M. Brummel, his wife, a leasehold property described as 4201 Park Heights Avenue, in Baltimore City, for $7,500, and on the same day the parties to that transaction executed a contract under seal which, among other provisions, contained these, which may be regarded as pertinent to the question before us. It provided first that the purchase price should be paid in this manner: $500 cash upon the execution of the agreement, $500 cash upon the execution of a deed, and to quote from *Page 58
 the contract, "and the execution of a building association mortgage for $5,000.00 and a second mortgage for two years at 6% for $1,500.00. The vendee reserves the right to make the cash payment of $1,000.00 and the second mortgage of $1,000.00. The vendor is to secure the building association loan of $5,000.00 and the vendee agrees to pay the usual fees for securing the same and examining the title." It also provided that the property sold should be "completed as stated on the reverse side of this contract," and the terms stated on the reverse side of the contract were these:
 "All necessary plumbing work, which shall include connecting up the gas range in the kitchen and installing the gas range in the kitchen, to run a gas pipe to the second floor, leaving an outlet for gas connection. The vendor guarantees that the plumbing shall be in accordance with the regulations of the Health Department of Baltimore City. 2. All woodwork to be painted throughout the house. 3. Heating plant installed, using the Bibb furnace and guaranteeing the same to heat the house properly. 4. All necessary electric fixtures to be installed, with the privilege on the part of the vendee to select fixtures of about the same character as used in 4207 Park Heights Avenue. 5. All rooms to be papered except kitchen and bathroom, which can be painted as the purchaser desires, paper and paint to be selected by purchaser. 6. Lead from porch roof to take care of water on roof. 7. Front lawn to be sodded when weather permits. 8. Cut extra door between two rear rooms on second floor, using present swinging door on first floor, leaving no door between kitchen and dining room, but vendor will hang door that vendee supplies. No grill on second floor. 9. Vendor to connect up sink on second floor on the same line with sink on first floor; vendee to supply sink and spigots and other necessary parts of sink, vendor to supply labor and pipe. 10. Side of house where hole is to be filled in. 11. Front steps to be straightened up." *Page 59
 On April 4th, 1921, the vendees paid to the vendor $1,400 in cash, took a deed for the property, and executed one mortgage to the Bloomingdale Building Savings Association, Inc., for $5,000, and a second mortgage for $1,100 to the vendor. At the time they took title to the property, while it was still unfinished, it was in course of completion, but as soon as the title passed the work of completing it ceased, and the vendor failed in the following particulars to carry out and perform his agreement to complete it. That is, to quote from the bill:
 "The defendant has failed to paint the bath tub and the woodwork under the sink in the kitchen on the first floor of said premises; secondly, the heating plant installed by the defendant, to wit, the Bibb furnace, does not heat the house properly; thirdly, the defendant has failed to complete the hall lamp on the third floor and the light in the dining room of said premises; fourthly, the defendant has failed to have the front steps of said premises straightened up."
 The vendor, both before and after the execution of the written contract, made certain oral statements and promises not contained in the written contract, which are set out in the bill in these words: "that the cellar was a dry cellar; that the defendant would have the cellar of said premises cemented and the windows thereof completed and a front doorbell installed and certain tile work in the bath room completed and that the roof of said house was sound and weatherproof and was guaranteed." These promises were omitted from the written contract upon the vendor's request but upon assurance that it would perform them, and, to quote again from the bill "said premises constituted part of the moving cause and of the inducement for their entering into the contract of sale and making final settlement therefor, and for signing the mortgage interest notes under the second mortgage to the defendant; and furthermore, your orators aver that they would not and did not sign the mortgage interest notes in respect to the second mortgage made to the *Page 60
 defendant and withheld their signature therefrom and the delivery of said mortgage interest notes to the defendant until the defendant promised to carry out the aforesaid promises recited in paragraph 6 hereof." Notwithstanding these promises the vendor "failed to complete the roof, and through its failure so to do the wall paper in the kitchen on the second floor of said premises became mildewed and the window blinds badly damaged, and the wall paper in the hall leading from the second floor to the third floor and the wall paper in the front room on the third floor has become badly damaged therefrom; * * * failed to complete the windows of said premises, the cost of completion whereof would involve an expenditure of several hundred of dollars" and "has failed to have the said front door bell installed and the said tile work in the bath room completed" and "has failed to have the cellar cemented, and through its failure so to do, water gathers therein and renders the premises damp and unhealthful."
 The vendors put all the money they had in the property, and their joint earnings are not sufficient to complete the house and keep up the necessary payments on account of the mortgages and expenses on it and, to quote again from the bill: "If your orators completed the house at their own expense they would be unable to meet the payments as they fall due on said mortgages and be subject to foreclosure proceedings which would wipe out the savings of a life time and deprive them of their home which they have acquired through the practice of frugality and self-denial; and furthermore, your orators would also be subject to personal judgments or decrees for the reason that the said property is not worth the purchase price through the failure of consideration to a considerable extent, through the default of the defendant, as heretofore alleged in this amended bill of complaint."
 Upon those facts they asked the court to decree that "said agreement may be specifically enforced, and that said defendant may be decreed to paint the woodwork under the sink in the kitchen on the first floor, to paint the bath tub, to install *Page 61
 a proper heating plant, to complete the hall lamp on the third floor, to complete the light in the dining room, and to straighten the front steps."
 The question first stated is not free from difficulty. Generally speaking, where a valid contract has been broken, the rule which should guide the acts of a court of equity to which the injured party has applied for relief is very clearly stated in Williston, Contracts, par. 1418, where that learned and careful author says: "The general rule defining the instances where specific performance will be granted is — where damages are an inadequate remedy and the nature of the contract is such that specific performance of it will not involve too great practical difficulties, equity will grant a decree of specific performance. The fact that there is a remedy at law does not preclude the equitable remedy." And in Dailey v. New York, 170 N.Y. App. Div. 267, cited in support of the text, it is said: "In order to deny one the relief which a court of equity can give, it is not in all cases sufficient that there be a remedy at law. The remedy must be plain and adequate, and as certain, prompt, complete and efficient to attain the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity."
 In Pomeroy, Spec. Perf., sec. 7, after referring to the statement of Sir John Leach, who, in Adderly v. Dixon, 1 Sim. St. 610, said: "Courts of equity decree the specific performance of contracts, not upon any distinction between realty and personalty, but because damages at law may not, in theparticular case, afford a complete remedy," as accurate but not exhaustive, the author thus states the rule: "The cases of insufficiency of damages, which admit a recourse to equity for a specific enforcement of the contract, are reducible to two distinct classes — or, in other words, the insufficiency of damages as a remedy may be referred to two distinct grounds connected with the contract. 1. The first is where the subject-matter of the contract is of such a special nature, or of such a peculiar value, that the damages, when ascertained according to legal rules, would not be a just and reasonable substitute for *Page 62
 or representation of that subject-matter in the hands of the party who is entitled to its benefit — or, in brief, where the damages are inadequate. 2. The second is where from some special and practical features or incidents of the contract inhering either in its subject-matter, in its terms, or in the relations of the parties, it is impossible to arrive at a legal measure of damages at all, or at least with any sufficient degree of certainty, so that no real compensation can be obtained by means of an action at law — or, in brief, where damages areimpracticable. All the particular instances in which a specific performance is decreed may be referred to one or the other of these two causes, and it will not unfrequently happen that both are involved in the facts of one and the same case."
 These statements of the rule were not used in connection with building or construction contracts, and whether there is necessarily anything in the nature of a contract such as that involved in this case presenting administrative difficulties so serious as to make its specific enforcement in a court of equity impracticable is a question upon which there is much conflict and confusion in the decisions both in this country and in England. The fact that such courts, in supervising the administration of receiverships and the management of estates, are constantly engaged in directing work of the same general character as that incident to the relief sought in this case, might indicate that there is nothing inherent in the nature of that work which makes it so difficult or so impracticable for a court of equity to supervise and direct it that it must refuse the relief prayed. For while the general rule is that courts of equity will not usually enforce contracts for the construction or repair of buildings, yet, as stated in Pomeroy, Spec. Perf., sec. 23, "there are certain exceptions; and contracts for building or for the construction of works and the like, falling within them, may be specifically enforced. 1. It has been said that if an agreement for erecting a building is in its nature defined, there is no difficulty in entertaining a suit for its specific performance. (2) But a contract to build a house of a certain value merely does not come within this description *Page 63
 of an agreement sufficiently defined, and will not be enforced. 2. Whether or not the opinion of Lord Rosslyn is to be regarded as a correct statement of the law, it is settled by the recent English decisions, that where the defendant has contracted to construct some work which is defined on his own land, and where the plaintiff has a material interest in the execution thereof, which is not susceptible of adequate compensation in damages, a specific performance of the undertaking will be compelled. 3. Where the defendant has undertaken to construct certain works upon land acquired by conveyance from the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff, having parted with his land, cannot erect the stipulated structures thereon at his own cost, and thus ascertain the amount which he should be entitled to recover from defendant as damages for the breach of the contract, a court of equity will, if possible, decree a specific performance by the defendant of his agreement. The relation of the parties and the situation of the subject-matter would render the damages, in such a case, almost wholly conjectural. 4. Finally, where there has been a part performance of such a contract, so that the defendant has received and is enjoying the benefits of it in specie, the court may compel its specific execution, when, without such part performance, it might not have interfered, but left the plaintiff to his legal remedy." A number of cases illustrating the application of the principles involved in those exceptions, collected in the notes to the paragraph last cited, indicate that the difficulties in the way of granting such relief anticipated by the courts in the earlier cases were more conjectural than real. Courts have, it is true, again and again said that specific performance of building, repair or construction contracts cannot be enforced in equity because of the insurmountable difficulty of supervising the work done under such a contract, and that view is very strongly stated in Beck v. Allison, 56 N.Y. 366, which rests at last upon the authority of certain English cases cited in it. But in Wolverhampton v. Emmons, (1901) 1 Q.B. 515, in the English Court of Appeals, a somewhat different view was expressed, and, in *Page 64
 referring to the apparent absence of any fixed principle controlling courts in dealing with such cases, Collins, L.J., said in that case: "I must confess that I cannot altogether understand the principle upon which courts of equity have acted in sometimes granting orders for specific performance in these cases, and sometimes not. I think that possibly the explanation is that the courts have not uniformly adhered to one principle in such cases. It looks to me as if the views of the courts of equity have gone through a process of development with regard to the subject. In early times they seem to have granted decrees for specific performance in such cases. Then came a period in which they would not grant such decrees on the ground that the court could not undertake to supervise the performance of the contract. Later on again they seem to have attached less importance to this consideration, and returned to some extent to the more ancient practice, holding that they could order specific performance in certain cases in which the works were specified by the contract in a sufficiently definite manner." But, as already stated, while the supposed difficulty of supervising the work to be done under a building contract as a general rule will prevent a court of equity from specifically enforcing such a contract, the same consideration will not, as has been pointed out, prevent them from granting such relief in certain classes of cases which are excepted from that rule. And as this case clearly falls within the exception, it becomes unnecessary to refer further to the general rule than to say that because of the conflict and confusion in the cases applying it there is no reason for extending its application to cases not clearly within its scope. In Wolverhampton v. Emmons, supra, ROMER, L.J., assumed that to constitute an exception from that rule three things must concur: (1) That the work to be done under the contract must be defined; (2) that the plaintiff must have a substantial interest in its execution; (3) that the defendant must have obtained under the contract possession of the land on which the work is to be done, but in Ward v. Newbold, 115 Md. 696, this Court, citingBeck v. Allison, *Page 65 supra, treated any one of those three elements as sufficient to constitute an exception to the general rule, and in that connection it said: "The general rule is certainly well settled that courts will not specifically enforce contracts to build or repair, although some exceptions have been made to this rule.Story's Equity Jurisprudence, section 726; Fry on Spec. Per.,
 section 98; Pomeroy on Spec. Per., 2nd Ed., section 23; 36thCyc., page 581. In Beck v. Allison, 56 N.Y. 366, these exceptions are thus enumerated: `1st. Where the work to be done is defined; 2nd, where the plaintiff has a substantial interest in its execution which cannot be adequately compensated for by damages, and 3rd, where the defendant has by the contract obtained for the plaintiff possession of the land upon which the work is to be done.'" And in Williams v. Lowe, 79 N.J. Eq. 175, the Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey, dealing with a contract to convey an unfinished house, said: "The objection that the decree as amended is one to enforce a construction contract cannot avail the appellant, first, because the agreement is not a construction contract, but a contract to convey a house the completion of which was an incident and not the object of such contract; second, because the rule invoked while it justifies the court in refusing to do what it cannot be required to do does not prevent it from so doing as incidental to other relief in exceptional cases; and, third, because the appellant cannot lay as a ground for reversal a feature of the decree made at his own suggestion." From an examination of these and other cases, this at least seems to be clear that in this State a court of equity may compel the vendee to specifically perform such a contract as that involved in this case, where the work remaining to be done under it is clearly defined, and where the complainant had no adequate remedy at law. It is also clear that the work to be done under the written contract filed in this case is sufficiently defined. But while that is true, it is equally true that there is no allegation in the pleadings to show that the complainant has no adequate remedy at law, *Page 66
 but in view of section 231, article 16, C.P.G.L. of Maryland, as construed in Neal v. Parker, 98 Md. 269, that cannot be regarded as a fatal omission.
 In respect to the parol agreement to do certain work on the house in addition to that specified in the contract of sale, in the absence of any sufficient allegation of fraud, under the rule excluding evidence offered to show a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement to vary, add to, take from or contradict a written instrument, that agreement will be deemed to have been merged in the written contract, and cannot be regarded as a sufficient basis for an application to a court of equity for relief of the character sought in this case.
 For the reasons stated the decree appealed from will be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
 Decree reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings inaccordance with this opinion, with costs to the appellants.


text:
Si tratta di un santo che fu vescovo a Mende. Si trova il suo nome in santi di due secoli diversi ma pare che solo quello che partecipò al Concilio di Clermont, tenutosi nel novembre 535, sia realmente esistito. Il sant'Yles, citato da Bertrando di Marsiglia nella sua Vida de Santa Enimia, che partecipò alla lotta di Santa Enimia contro il drago non visse effettivamente in quel periodo. Secondo Buffière, potrebbe trattarsi di una presenza metaforica creata dal poeta.
 Biografia
 Ilario aveva costruito sopra Mende un piccolo eremitaggio ove viveva con tre confratelli. Egli si recava spesso presso la cripta di san Privato a notte avanzata. È così che, grazie alla Vita di Sant'Ilario, testo risalente al VII secolo, si viene a conoscenza di che dal 530 esisteva una chiesa eretta sulla tomba di San Privato.
 Una delle ipotesi resta la presenza di un monastero risalente alla sua epoca a Burlatis, ove egli avrebbe d'altra parte inviato numerosi monaci. È in questo che Ilario poté aiutare sant'Enimia nella sua lotta contro il drago, come ci dice Bertrando da Marsiglia.
 Nelle gole del Tarn, che egli fronteggiò un assedio condotto dai franchi al castello di Merlot, sopra La Malène.
 L'8 novembre 535 egli partecipò al Concilio di Clermont ove sottoscrisse i decreti sulla morale e sulla disciplina interiore. Egli vi partecipò insieme ad altri quindici vescovi, fra i quali Cesario, arcivescovo di Arles, Gallo, vescovo di Clermont e san Nicezio, vescovo di Treviri.
 Si ritrova egualmente la presenza d'Ilario in numerosi ritiri che egli teneva abitualmente presso l'Abbazia di Lerino sull'isola di Sant'Onorato.
 Egli trascorse gran parte della propria vita a combattere gli usi religiosi pagani. Egli li combatté così nei pressi di Marsiglia, di ritorno dall'isola di Lerino, ma anche nelle gole del Tarn. Lo si ritrova inoltre nel medesimo ruolo sulle rive del lago di Saint-Andéol, altro luogo di venerazione pagana dei Gabali. La gente veniva al lago per gettarvi offerte, tutti gli anni, per quattro giorni. Ciò ci viene narrato da san Gregorio di Tours, che scrive: «... un prete, che aveva ricevuto la consacrazione episcopale, venne dal capoluogo (urbe ipsa) da queste parti...» È sempre Gregorio che c'informa che Ilario sarebbe riuscito a far cessare queste pratiche erigendovi una basilica in onore di sant'Ilario di Poitiers. Circa tale basilica sorge tuttavia il dubbio che il soggetto sia stato semplicemente Ilario di Mende e che quindi sia stata ivi eretta dopo la sua morte. I riti pagani non scomparvero verosimilmente tanto presto, continuando sotto diverse forme, fra le quali un pellegrinaggio che riuniva un gran numero di persone.
 Ilario ricevette nel Gévaudan, ad Arisenicus (senza dubbio l'attuale Arzenc-de-Randon), il re dei Franchi Teodeberto I, ch'egli aveva respinto durante l'assedio a La Malnère. Il territorio dei Franchi si estendeva fino all'Alvernia ( e senza dubbio anche al Gévaudan), dopo che essi ebbero respinto i Visigoti in Settimania.
 I miracoli
 Fra i miracoli o gli altri eventi eccezionali di cui ci è pervenuta notizia, vi è quello della sua scomparsa per effetto di un soffio di vento mentre rientrava dalla cripta di San Privato. I suoi compagni lo ritrovarono tre giorni dopo assorto in preghiera in una radura. Il luogo era inaccessibile e fu necessario aprirsi la strada a colpi d'ascia.
 Egli avrebbe avuto anche la capacità di far sgorgare l'acqua da un pozzo in secca ormai da sette anni.
 Le reliquie
 Si trovano tracce delle sue reliquie in Lorena nel VI secolo, nella chiesa a Salonnes Esse furono in seguito traslate nell'Abbazia di Saint-Denis con quelle di San Privato, ma mentre di là quelle di san Privato furono riportate nel Gévaudan, pare che quelle di Sant'Ilario siano rimaste a Parigi. Esse sarebbero scomparse nei saccheggi del 1793.
 I luoghi connessi
 Nel corso degli anni, il Sanch-Éli della lingua occitana (sanch significava santo) si è trasformato, con un'approssimativa traduzione in francese, in Saint-Chély
 Numerosi comuni ne contengono il nome :
 Saint-Chély-d'Apcher (Lozère)
 Saint-Chély-du-Tarn (Lozère)
 Saint-Chély-d'Aubrac (Aveyron)
 Saint-Hilaire-de-Lavit (Lozère)
 Note
 Collegamenti esterni
 Vescovi di Mende


text:
 21.3.2016
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 106/5
 Unionin tuomioistuimen tuomio (ensimmäinen jaosto) 4.2.2016 (ennakkoratkaisupyyntö, jonka on esittänyt Amtsgericht Sonthofen – Saksa) – Rikosoikeudenkäynti Sebat Inceä vastaan
 (Asia C-336/14) (1)
 ((Palvelujen tarjoamisen vapaus - SEUT 56 artikla - Onnenpelit - Julkinen urheiluvedonlyöntimonopoli - Hallinnollinen ennakkolupa - Yksityisten toimijoiden poissulkeminen - Vedonlyöntien kerääminen toiseen jäsenvaltioon sijoittautuneen toimijan lukuun - Rikosoikeudelliset seuraamukset - Unionin oikeuden vastainen kansallinen säännös - Poissulkeminen - Siirtyminen järjestelmään, jossa säädetään rajallisesta määrästä yksityisille toimijoille myönnettäviä toimilupia - Avoimuusperiaate ja puolueettomuuden periaate - Direktiivi 98/34/EY - 8 artikla - Tekniset määräykset - Palveluja koskevat määräykset - Ilmoittamista koskeva velvollisuus))
 (2016/C 106/05)
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: saksa
 Ennakkoratkaisua pyytänyt tuomioistuin
 Amtsgericht Sonthofen
 Rikosoikeudenkäynnin asianosainen pääasiassa
 Sebat Ince
 Tuomiolauselma
 1)
 SEUT 56 artiklaa on tulkittava siten, että se on esteenä sille, että jäsenvaltion lainvalvontaviranomaiset määräävät seuraamuksia siitä, että yksityinen toimija välittää urheiluvedonlyöntejä ilman lupaa sellaisen toisen yksityisen toimijan lukuun, jolla ei ole lupaa järjestää urheiluvedonlyöntejä tässä jäsenvaltiossa mutta jolla on toimilupa toisessa jäsenvaltiossa, kun velvollisuus hankkia urheiluvedonlyöntien järjestämistä tai välittämistä koskeva lupa on osa julkisen monopolin järjestelmää, jonka kansalliset tuomioistuimet ovat todenneet unionin oikeuden vastaiseksi. SEUT 56 artikla on esteenä tällaiselle seuraamukselle silloinkin, kun yksityinen toimija voi teoriassa saada urheiluvedonlyöntien järjestämistä tai välittämistä koskevan luvan, koska tiedon saamista tällaisen luvan myöntämismenettelystä ei ole varmistettu ja kun julkinen urheiluvedonlyöntimonopoli, joka on kansallisten tuomioistuinten mukaan unionin oikeuden vastainen, on edelleen olemassa tällaisen menettelyn käyttöön ottamisesta huolimatta.
 2)
 Teknisiä standardeja ja määräyksiä ja tietoyhteiskunnan palveluja koskevia määräyksiä koskevien tietojen toimittamisessa noudatettavasta menettelystä 22.6.1998 annetun Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivin 98/34/EY, sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna 20.7.1998 annetulla Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivillä 98/48/EY, 8 artiklan 1 kohtaa on tulkittava siten, että alueellista lainsäädäntöä koskevaan ehdotukseen, jossa pysytetään voimassa asianomaisella alueella jäsenvaltion eri alueille yhteisen sellaisen lainsäädännön säännökset, jonka voimassaolo on päättynyt, sovelletaan kyseisen 8 artiklan 1 kohdassa säädettyä tiedoksiantovelvollisuutta, kun tämä ehdotus sisältää tämän direktiivin 1 artiklassa tarkoitettuja teknisiä määräyksiä, minkä vuoksi tämän velvollisuuden noudattamatta jättäminen johtaa siihen, ettei näihin teknisiin määräyksiin voida vedota yksityistä vastaan rikosoikeudellisessa menettelyssä. Tätä velvollisuutta ei saata kyseenalaiseksi se seikka, että kyseinen yhteinen lainsäädäntö oli aiemmin annettu tiedoksi komissiolle ennen sen hyväksymistä kyseisen direktiivin 8 artiklan 1 kohdan mukaisesti ja että siinä säädettiin nimenomaisesti voimassaolon jatkamisen mahdollisuudesta, jota ei kuitenkaan käytetty.
 3)
 SEUT 56 artiklaa on tulkittava siten, että se on esteenä sille, että jäsenvaltio määrää seuraamuksia siitä, että sen alueella välitetään urheiluvedonlyöntejä ilman lupaa sellaisen toimijan lukuun, jolla on urheiluvedonlyöntien järjestämistä koskeva toimilupa toisessa jäsenvaltiossa,
 —
 kun urheiluvedonlyöntien järjestämistä koskevan luvan myöntämisen edellytys on, että kyseinen toimija saa toimiluvan pääasiassa kyseessä olevan kaltaisessa toimilupien myöntämismenettelyssä, kun ennakkoratkaisua pyytänyt tuomioistuin toteaa, että tässä menettelyssä ei noudateta yhdenvertaisen kohtelun ja kansalaisuuteen perustuvan syrjinnän kiellon periaatteita ja niistä johtuvaa avoimuusvelvollisuutta, ja
 —
 siltä osin kuin sellaisen kansallisen säännöksen voimaantulosta riippumatta, jolla mahdollistetaan toimilupien myöntäminen yksityisille toimijoille, urheiluvedonlyöntien järjestämistä ja välittämistä koskevan julkisen monopolijärjestelmän käyttöön ottamista koskevien säännösten, jotka kansalliset tuomioistuimet ovat todenneet unionin oikeuden vastaisiksi, soveltaminen on jatkunut käytännössä.
 (1) EUVL C 339, 29.9.2014.