type: legislation

text:
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,14.12.2020
 COM(2020) 802 final
 2020/0354(NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh i gcruinnithe na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú
 MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁIN
 1.Ábhar an togra
 Baineann an togra seo leis an gcinneadh lena mbunaítear an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais ag cruinnithe na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú.
 2.Comhthéacs an togra
 2.1.An Comhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú
 Is é an Comhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú (‘an Comhaontú’) an chéad chomhaontú idirnáisiúnta ceangailteach lena ndírítear go sonrach ar an iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte (NNN).
 Is é is príomhchuspóir don Chomhaontú an iascaireacht NNN a chosc, a dhíspreagadh agus a dhíothú trí chosc a chur ar shoithí atá i mbun iascaireacht NNN calafoirt a úsáid agus a ngabhálacha a thabhairt isteach sna margaí. Ar an gcaoi sin, laghdaítear leis an gComhaontú an dreasacht atá ann do na soithí sin leanúint de bheith ag feidhmiú, agus san am céanna cuirtear bac leis an gComhaontú le táirgí iascaigh a dhíorthaítear ón iascaireacht NNN margaí náisiúnta agus idirnáisiúnta a bhaint amach. Sa deireadh, cuireann cur chun feidhme éifeachtach an Chomhaontaithe le caomhnú fadtéarmach agus le húsáid inbhuanaithe beo‐acmhainní muirí agus éiceachóras muirí. Tá feidhm ag forálacha an Chomhaontaithe maidir le soithí iascaireachta atá ag iarraidh dul isteach i gcalafort de chuid Stáit nach é a Stát brataí é.
 Rinneadh an Comhaontú a chaibidliú faoi chuimsiú na hEagraíochta Bia agus Talmhaíochta, a bhfuil an tAontas Eorpach ina bhall di. Rinne Comhdháil FAO é a fhormheas ag a séú Seisiún is tríocha an 22 Samhain 2009, trí Rún Uimh. 12/2009, faoi Airteagal XIV, mír 1 de Bhunreacht FAO. Tháinig sé i bhfeidhm an 5 Meitheamh 2016 agus tá 67 bPáirtí ann anois
 1
 .
 Bhí an tAontas Eorpach ar cheann de na chéad pháirtithe a bhí ina pháirtí sa Chomhaontú
 2
 , in 2011.
 2.2.Cruinniú na bPáirtithe
 Is é cruinniú na bPáirtithe an comhlacht cinnteoireachta faoin gComhaontú a thiocfaidh le chéile gach dara bliain nó níos minice má chinneann sé amhlaidh
 3
 .
 Foráiltear freisin in Airteagal 24 mír 2 den Chomhaontú go ndéanfaidh FAO, ceithre bliana tar éis theacht i bhfeidhm an Chomhaontaithe, cruinniú de na Páirtithe a thionól chun athbhreithniú agus measúnú a dhéanamh ar éifeachtacht an Chomhaontaithe sin maidir lena chuspóir a bhaint amach
 4
 . Déanfaidh na Páirtithe cinneadh ansin maidir le cruinnithe eile den sórt sin de réir mar is gá.
 Féadfar cruinnithe speisialta de na Páirtithe a thionól freisin cibé tráthanna eile a mheasfaidh na Páirtithe is gá, nó arna iarraidh sin i scríbhinn d'aon Pháirtí
 5
 .
 2.3.Cinntí ó chruinniú na bPáirtithe
 Tá an t‐údarás ag cruinniú na bPáirtithe bearta a ghlacadh chun iascaireacht neamhdhleathach, neamhthuairiscithe agus neamhrialáilte a chosc, a dhíspreagadh agus a dhíothú agus tá na bearta sin ina gceangal ar na páirtithe conarthacha.
 I bprionsabal, is de chomhthoil a ghlacann Páirtithe cinntí maidir le substaint ach, i gcás ina gcinnfidh an Cathaoirleach go bhfuil na hiarrachtaí uile chun teacht ar chomhthoil ídithe, is le tromlach simplí de na vótaí a chaitear a dhéanfar an cinneadh
 6
 .
 Féadfar leasuithe ar na Rialacha Nós Imeachta le haghaidh Chruinnithe na bPáirtithe a ghlacadh de chomhthoil agus, mura féidir teacht ar chomhthoil, glacfar an cinneadh le tromlach dhá thrian de na vótaí a chaitear, ar choinníoll gur mó an tromlach sin ná leath de na Páirtithe
 7
 . Tá cearta rannpháirtíochta agus vótála ag an Aontas.
 3.An seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais
 Maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontas i gcruinniú na bPáirtithe, moltar an seasamh a bhunú de réir cur chuige dhá leibhéal. Leagfar amach le Cinneadh ón gComhairle bunphrionsabail agus treoshuíomhanna sheasamh an Aontais ar bhonn ilbhliantúil, agus, dá éis sin, déantar an seasamh a choigeartú le haghaidh gach cruinnithe le páipéir leathoifigiúla ón gCoimisiún a phléifear i Meitheal na Comhairle.
 Leantar den chur chuige sin freisin faoi láthair in eagraíochtaí réigiúnacha bainistithe iascaigh (ERBInna) arb é an seasamh é atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais sna cruinnithe sin.
 Cuimsítear sa chinneadh seo prionsabail agus treoshuíomhanna an chomhbheartais iascaigh (CBI), mar a leagtar síos i Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1380/2013 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle
 8
 , agus tá sé bunaithe ar an gcóras Comhphobail chun iascaireacht neamhdhleathach, neamhthuairiscithe agus neamhrialáilte a chosc, a dhíspreagadh agus a dhíothú, a bunaíodh le Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008. Cuirtear san áireamh ann forálacha Rialachán (CE) 1224/2009 ón gComhairle lena mbunaítear córas rialaithe de chuid an Chomhphobail chun comhlíonadh rialacha an Chomhbheartais Iascaigh a áirithiú
 9
 , Rialachán (AE) 2017/2403 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 12 Nollaig 2017 maidir le bainistiú inbhuanaithe a dhéanamh ar chabhlaigh iascaireachta sheachtracha
 10
 , Rialachán (AE) 2019/1241 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 20 Meitheamh 2019 maidir le hacmhainní iascaigh a chaomhnú agus éiceachórais mhuirí a chosaint trí bhearta teicniúla
 11
 agus Rialachán Cur Chun Feidhme (AE) 404/2011 ón gCoimisiún lena leagtar síos rialacha mionsonraithe maidir le cur chun feidhme Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1224/2009 ón gComhairle lena mbunaítear córas rialaithe Comhphobail chun comhlíonadh rialacha an Chomhbheartais Iascaigh a áirithiú
 12
 .
 Cuirtear san áireamh leis an gcinneadh seo freisin gealltanais idirnáisiúnta an Aontais faoi Choinbhinsiún na Náisiún Aontaithe maidir le Dlí na Farraige an 10 Nollaig 1982 (UNCLOS), faoi Chomhaontú na Náisiún Aontaithe maidir le Caomhnú agus Bainistiú Stoc Éisc Traslimistéir agus Stoc Éisc Mór‐imirceach an 4 Lúnasa 1995 (Comhaontú na Náisiún Aontaithe maidir le Stoic Éisc), an Comhaontú chun Comhlíontacht Bád Iascaireachta ar an Mórmhuir i dtaca le Bearta Idirnáisiúnta Caomhantais agus Bainistíochta a chur chun cinn an 24 Samhain 1993 ó Eagraíocht Bhia agus Talmhaíochta na Náisiún Aontaithe (Comhaontú maidir le comhlíontacht FAO) mar aon le bearta iltaobhacha agus déthaobhacha eile.
 Léirítear leis an gcinneadh seo na cuspóirí a leagtar amach sa Teachtaireacht ón gCoimisiún maidir le gné sheachtrach CBI
 13
 agus sna Conclúidí gaolmhara ón gComhairle, sna Conclúidí ón gComhairle maidir leis na hAigéin agus na Farraigí
 14
 , sna Conclúidí ón gComhairle
 15
 maidir leis an Teachtaireacht Chomhpháirteach ó Ardionadaí an Aontais do Ghnóthaí Eachtracha agus don Bheartas Slándála agus ón gCoimisiún maidir le ‘International ocean governance: an agenda for the future of oceans’
 16
 [Rialachas idirnáisiúnta na n‐aigéan: clár oibre le haghaidh thodhchaí na n‐aigéan], lena n‐áirítear i ndáil le comhar le tríú tíortha chun an Comhaontú ar Bhearta Stáit an Chalafoirt a chur chun feidhme. Breithnítear ann freisin gnéithe den iascaireacht NNN i Straitéis Slándála Muirí an Aontais Eorpaigh
 17
 agus sa Phlean Gníomhaíochta
 18
 cur chun feidhme athbhreithnithe a ghabhann léi.
 Ar deireadh, bunaítear an Cinneadh seo ar an ráiteas sa Teachtaireacht ón gCoimisiún maidir leis an gComhaontú Glas
 19
 go nglacfadh an Coimisiún cur chuige neamhfhulaingthe a ghlacadh i leith iascaireacht neamhdhleathach, neamhthuairiscithe agus neamhrialáilte, cuspóir a athdhearbhaíodh ina dhiaidh sin sa dá Theachtaireacht ón gCoimisiún maidir le ‘Straitéis Bhithéagsúlachta an Aontais le haghaidh 2030’
 20
 agus maidir le ‘Straitéis ón bhFeirm go dtí an Forc le haghaidh Córas Bia atá Cothrom, Sláintiúil agus Neamhdhíobhálach don Chomhshaol’
 21
 .
 4.Bunús dlí
 4.1.Bunús dlí nós imeachta
 4.1.1.Na prionsabail
 In Airteagal 218(9) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh (CFAE), déantar foráil maidir le cinntí lena leagtar síos ‘na seasaimh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais i gcomhlacht arna chur ar bun le comhaontú nuair a iarrtar ar an gcomhlacht sin gníomhartha a ghlacadh a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo, seachas gníomhartha lena bhforlíonfar nó lena leasófar creat institiúideach an chomhaontaithe’.
 Áirítear ar na ‘gníomhartha a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo’ gníomhartha a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo de bhua rialacha an dlí idirnáisiúnta lena rialaítear an comhlacht atá i gceist. Áirítear orthu freisin ionstraimí nach bhfuil éifeacht cheangailteach leo faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta, ach ‘a bhféadfadh tionchar cinntitheach a bheith acu ar ábhar na reachtaíochta a ghlacfaidh reachtas an Aontais Eorpaigh’
 22
 .
 4.1.2.Cur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an gcás seo
 Is comhlacht é cruinniú na bPáirtithe arna bhunú le comhaontú, eadhon an Comhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú.
 Na gníomhartha a iarrtar ar Chruinniú na bPáirtithe a ghlacadh is gníomhartha iad a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo. Beidh na gníomhartha atá beartaithe ag cruinnithe na bPáirtithe ceangailteach faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta agus beidh siad in ann tionchar cinntitheach a imirt ar inneachar reachtaíocht an Aontais, eadhon:
 ·Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008 ón gComhairle lena mbunaítear córas Comhphobail chun iascaireacht neamhdhleathach, neamhthuairiscithe agus neamhrialáilte (NNN) a chosc, a dhíspreagadh agus a dhíothú
 23
 ;
 ·Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1224/2009 ón gComhairle lena mbunaítear córas rialaithe de chuid an Chomhphobail chun comhlíonadh rialacha an Chomhbheartais Iascaigh a áirithiú
 24
 ;
 ·Rialachán (AE) 2017/2403 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 12 Nollaig 2017 maidir le bainistiú inbhuanaithe a dhéanamh ar chabhlaigh iascaireachta sheachtracha
 25
 ;
 ·Rialachán (AE) 2019/1241 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 20 Meitheamh 2019 maidir le hacmhainní iascaigh a chaomhnú agus éiceachórais mhuirí a chosaint trí bhearta teicniúla
 26
 ;
 ·Rialachán Cur Chun Feidhme (AE) Uimh. 404/2011 ón gCoimisiún lena leagtar síos rialacha mionsonraithe maidir le cur chun feidhme Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1224/2009 ón gComhairle lena mbunaítear córas rialaithe Comhphobail chun comhlíonadh rialacha an chomhbheartais iascaigh a áirithiú
 27
 .
 Leis na gníomhartha atá beartaithe ní fhorlíontar ná ní leasaítear creat institiúideach an Chomhaontaithe.
 Dá bhrí sin, is é Airteagal 218(9) CFAE an bunús dlí nós imeachta don chinneadh atá beartaithe.
 4.2.Bunús dlí substainteach
 4.2.1.Na prionsabail
 An bunús dlí substainteach atá le cinneadh faoi Airteagal 218(9) CFAE, braitheann sé go príomha ar chuspóir agus ábhar an ghnímh atá beartaithe agus a bhfuiltear ag glacadh seasamh thar ceann an Aontais ina leith. Má tá dhá aidhm ag an ngníomh atá beartaithe nó má tá dhá chomhpháirt ann agus más féidir ceann de na haidhmeanna nó de na comhpháirteanna sin a shainaithint mar phríomhaidhm nó mar phríomh‐chomhpháirt agus an ceann eile mar aidhm nó comhpháirt theagmhasach, ní mór an cinneadh faoi Airteagal 218(9) CFAE a bhunú ar bhunús dlí substainteach aonair, is é sin an bunús dlí a éilítear de réir na príomhaidhme nó na príomh‐chomhpháirte.
 4.2.2.Cur i bhfeidhm maidir leis an gcás seo
 Is le hiascaigh a bhaineann príomhchuspóir agus inneachar na ngníomhartha atá beartaithe. Is é Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1380/2013 an bunús dlí lena leagtar amach na prionsabail atá le léiriú leis an seasamh seo.
 Dá bhrí sin, is é Airteagal 43(2) CFAE an bunús dlí substainteach don chinneadh atá beartaithe.
 4.3.Conclúid
 Ba cheart Airteagal 43(2) CFAE, i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) CFAE, a bheith ina mbunús dlí don chinneadh atá beartaithe.
 2020/0354 (NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh i gcruinnithe na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú
 TÁ COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,
 Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe Airteagal 43(2), i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) de,
 Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,
 De bharr an mhéid seo a leanas:
 (1)An Comhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú (‘an Comhaontú’), a caibidlíodh faoi choimirce na hEagraíochta Bia agus Talmhaíochta (FAO), a bhfuil an tAontas ina Bhall di, rinne an tAontas é a fhormheas le Cinneadh (AE) 2011/443 ón gComhairle
 28
 . Tháinig an Comhaontú i bhfeidhm an 5 Meitheamh 2016.
 (2)Is é cruinniú na bPáirtithe an comhlacht cinnteoireachta faoin gComhaontú agus tá an t‐údarás aige bearta a ghlacadh atá ina gceangal ar na Páirtithe chun iascaireacht neamhdhleathach, neamhthuairiscithe agus neamhrialáilte a chosc, a dhíspreagadh agus a dhíothú. Tiocfaidh sé le chéile gach dara bliain nó níos minice má chinneann sé amhlaidh.
 (3)Foráiltear freisin in Airteagal 24 mír 2 den Chomhaontú go ndéanfaidh FAO, ceithre bliana tar éis theacht i bhfeidhm an Chomhaontaithe, cruinniú de na Páirtithe a thionól chun athbhreithniú agus measúnú a dhéanamh ar éifeachtacht an Chomhaontaithe maidir lena chuspóir a bhaint amach. Déanfaidh na Páirtithe cinneadh ansin maidir le cruinnithe eile den sórt sin de réir mar is gá. Féadfar cruinnithe speisialta de na Páirtithe a thionól freisin cibé tráthanna eile a mheasfaidh na Páirtithe is gá, nó arna iarraidh sin i scríbhinn d'aon Pháirtí.
 (4)Is iomchuí an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais i gcruinniú na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú a bhunú le haghaidh an chéad chruinnithe athbhreithnithe den Chomhaontú
 29
 mar a leagtar amach in Airteagal 24(2) den Chomhaontú, agus le haghaidh na dtrí chruinniú dhébhliantúla ina dhiaidh sin de chuid na bPáirtithe agus le haghaidh aon chruinniú idirsheisiúnach gaolmhar i ndáil leis sin, amhail ó ghlacadh an tseasaimh reatha, toisc go mbeidh bearta faoin gComhaontú ina gceangal ar an Aontas agus beidh siad in ann tionchar cinntitheach a bheith acu ar inneachar dhlí an Aontais, eadhon Rialacháin (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008
 30
 agus (CE) Uimh. 1224/2009
 31
 ón gComhairle agus Rialachán (AE) 2017/2403
 32
 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle agus Rialachán Cur Chun Feidhme (AE) 404/2011 ón gCoimisiún lena leagtar síos rialacha mionsonraithe maidir le cur chun feidhme Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1224/2009 ón gComhairle lena mbunaítear córas rialaithe Comhphobail chun comhlíonadh rialacha an chomhbheartais iascaigh a áirithiú
 33
 .
 (5)I bhfianaise an ghá atá ann forbairtí nua a chur san áireamh le seasamh an Aontais, bunaithe ar fhaisnéis ábhartha arna cur i láthair roimh chruinnithe na bPáirtithe nó lena linn, ba cheart nósanna imeachta a bhunú freisin, i gcomhréir le prionsabal an chomhair dhílis i measc institiúidí an Aontais a chumhdaítear in Airteagal 13(2) den Chonradh ar an Aontas Eorpach, le haghaidh sonrú sheasamh an Aontais ó bhliain go bliain le haghaidh an chéad chruinnithe athbhreithnithe den Chomhaontú a leagtar amach i mír 2 d'Airteagal 24, chomh maith le trí chruinniú dhébhliantúla na bPáirtithe ina dhiaidh sin agus aon seisiún gaolmhar.
 (6)Is é is príomhchuspóir don Chomhaontú iascaireacht neamhdhleathach, neamhthuairiscithe agus neamhrialáilte (NNN) a chosc, a dhíspreagadh agus a dhíothú trí chosc a chur ar shoithí atá i mbun iascaireacht NNN calafoirt a úsáid agus a ngabhálacha a thabhairt isteach sna margaí. Ar an gcaoi sin, laghdaítear leis an gComhaontú an dreasacht atá ann do na soithí sin leanúint de bheith ag feidhmiú, agus san am céanna cuirtear bac leis an gComhaontú le táirgí iascaigh a dhíorthaítear ón iascaireacht NNN margaí náisiúnta agus idirnáisiúnta a bhaint amach.
 (7)Tá an iascaireacht NNN ar cheann de na bagairtí is mó dá bhfuil ann i ndáil le saothrú inbhuanaithe beo‐acmhainní uisceacha agus cuireann sí bunsraith Chomhbheartas Iascaigh an Aontais i mbaol mar aon le hiarrachtaí idirnáisiúnta arb é is aidhm dóibh rialachas níos fearr ar na haigéin a chur chun cinn.
 (8)Tá cruinniú na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú freagrach as bearta a ghlacadh atá ceaptha chun cur chun feidhme an Chomhaontaithe a áirithiú, agus ar an gcaoi sin caomhnú fadtéarmach agus úsáid inbhuanaithe beo‐acmhainní muirí agus éiceachóras muirí a áirithiú. Ba cheart ról gníomhach, éifeachtach agus cuiditheach a bheith ag an Aontas sna cruinnithe sin chun cur chun feidhme an Chomhaontaithe a áirithiú agus chun comhar idirnáisiúnta maidir le hiascaireacht NNN a chothú.
 TAR ÉIS AN CINNEADH SEO A GHLACADH:
 Airteagal 1
 Leagtar amach in Iarscríbhinn I an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais i gcruinnithe na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú.
 Bunaítear an seasamh sin le haghaidh an chéad chruinnithe athbhreithnithe den Chomhaontú mar a leagtar amach é ina Airteagal 24(2) agus le haghaidh na dtrí chruinniú dhébhliantúla de na Páirtithe ina dhiaidh sin agus le haghaidh aon chruinniú idirsheisiúnach gaolmhar.
 Airteagal 2
 Seolfar i gcomhréir le hIarscríbhinn II sonraíocht sheasamh an Aontais ó bhliain go bliain atá le glacadh i gcruinnithe na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú a luaitear sa dara mír d'Airteagal 1.
 Airteagal 3
 Déanfaidh an Chomhairle seasamh an Aontais a leagtar amach in Iarscríbhinn I a mheasúnú agus, i gcás inarb iomchuí, a athbhreithniú ar thogra a fháil ón gCoimisiún tar éis an tríú cruinniú débhliantúil dá dtagraítear sa dara mír d'Airteagal 1 ar a dhéanaí le haghaidh chruinniú na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú.
 Airteagal 4
 Dírítear an Cinneadh seo chuig an gCoimisiún.
 Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,
 Thar ceann na Comhairle
 An tUachtarán
 (1)
 Deireadh Fómhair 2020;
 http://www.fao.org/port‐state‐measures/background/parties‐psma/en/
 (2)
 Cinneadh (AE) 2011/443 ón gComhairle an 20 Meitheamh 2011 maidir le formheas, thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh, an Chomhaontaithe maidir le Bearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú (IO L 191, 22.7.2011, lch. 1).
 (3)
 Riail 5.1 de na Rialacha Nós Imeachta le haghaidh Chruinnithe na bPáirtithe.
 (4)
 Ba cheart an cruinniú seo, a bheidh á óstáil ag an Aontas, a bheith ann in 2020 ach cuireadh siar é go dtí 2021 mar gheall ar COVID‐19.
 (5)
 Riail 5.2. de na Rialacha Nós Imeachta le haghaidh Chruinnithe na bPáirtithe.
 (6)
 Rialacha 7.2 agus 7.3 de na Rialacha Nós Imeachta le haghaidh Chruinnithe na bPáirtithe.
 Riail XVII.3(a) Rialacha Ginearálta na hEagraíochta.
 (7)
 Riail 13 de na Rialacha Nós Imeachta le haghaidh Chruinnithe na bPáirtithe.
 (8)
 Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1380/2013 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle maidir leis an gComhbheartas Iascaigh, lena leasaítear Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1954/2003 ón gComhairle agus Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1224/2009 ón gComhairle agus lena n‐aisghairtear Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 2371/2002 ón gComhairle, Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 639/2004 ón gComhairle agus Cinneadh 2004/585/CE ón gComhairle (IO L 354, 28.12.2013, lch. 22).
 (9)
 IO L 343, 22.12.2009, lch. 1.
 (10)
 IO L 347, 28.12.2017, lch. 81.
 (11)
 IO L 198, 25.7.2019, lch. 105.
 (12)
 IO L 112, 30.4.2011, lch. 1.
 (13)
 COM (2011) 424, 13.7.2011.
 (14)
 14249/19, 19.11.2019.
 (15)
 7348/1/17 REV 1, 24.3.2017.
 (16)
 JOIN (2016) 49 final, 10.11.2016.
 (17)
 Doic. 11205/14 ó Chomhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh, 24.6.2014
 (18)
 Doic. 10494/18 ó Chomhairle an Aontais Eorpaigh, 26.6.2018
 (19)
 COM (2019) 640 final, 11.12.2019.
 (20)
 COM (2020) 380 final, 20.5.2020.
 (21)
 COM (2020) 381 final, 20.5.2020.
 (22)
 Breithiúnas ó Chúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh an 7 Deireadh Fómhair 2014, an Ghearmáin v an Chomhairle, C‐399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, míreanna 61 go 64.
 (23)
 IO L 286, 29.10.2008, lch. 1.
 (24)
 IO L 343, 22.12.2009, lch. 1.
 (25)
 IO L 347, 28.12.2017, lch. 81.
 (26)
 IO L 198, 25.7.2019, lch. 105.
 (27)
 IO L 112, 30.4.2011, lch. 1.
 (28)
 Cinneadh (AE) 2011/443 ón gComhairle an 20 Meitheamh 2011 maidir le formheas, thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh, an Chomhaontaithe maidir le Bearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú (IO L 191, 22.7.2011, lch. 1).
 (29)
 Comhaontú atá beartaithe faoi láthair ón 31ú Bealtaine go dtí an 4ú Meitheamh 2021.
 (30)
 IO L 286, 29.10.2008, lch. 1.
 (31)
 IO L 343, 22.12.2009, lch. 1.
 (32)
 IO L 347, 28.12.2017, lch. 81.
 (33)
 IO L 112, 30.4.2011, lch. 1.
 ---documentbreak---
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,14.12.2020
 COM(2020) 802 final
 IARSCRÍBHINNÍ
 a ghabhann leis an
 Togra le haghaidh CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh i gcruinnithe na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú
 IARSCRÍBHINN I
 An seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh i gcruinnithe na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú
 1.PRIONSABAIL
 Faoi chuimsiú an Chomhaontaithe ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú, urramóidh an tAontas inter alia na prionsabail seo a leanas:
 (a)a áirithiú go bhfuil na bearta a ghlacfar faoin gComhaontú comhsheasmhach leis an gComhaontú é féin agus leis an dlí idirnáisiúnta, agus go háirithe le gealltanais idirnáisiúnta an Aontais faoi Choinbhinsiún na Náisiún Aontaithe maidir le Dlí na Farraige (UNCLOS)
 1
 , le Comhaontú 1995 i ndáil le Caomhnú agus le Bainistiú Stoc Éisc Traslimistéir agus Stoc Éisc Mór‐imirceach (UNFSA)
 2
 , le Comhaontú 1993 chun comhlíontacht bád iascaireachta ar an mórmhuir i dtaca le bearta idirnáisiúnta caomhantais agus bainistíochta a chur chun cinn
 3
 ;
 (b)gníomhú i gcomhréir leis na cuspóirí agus leis na prionsabail atá á saothrú ag an Aontas laistigh den Chomhbheartas Iascaigh mar a leagtar síos i Rialachán (AE) 1380/2013 agus i gcomhréir le forálacha chóras an Aontais, arna bunú le Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1005/2008, chun iascaireacht neamhdhleathach, neamhthuairiscithe agus neamhrialáilte a chosc, a dhíspreagadh agus a dhíothú;
 (c)gníomhú i gcomhréir leis na Conclúidí ón gComhairle an 19 Márta 2012 maidir leis an Teachtaireacht ón gCoimisiún i ndáil le gné sheachtrach an chomhbheartais iascaigh
 4
 , agus beidh sé d’aidhm aige go gcomhlíonfaidh an ghné sheachtrach na prionsabail chéanna agus go gcuirfidh sé chun cinn na caighdeáin chéanna maidir le bainistiú agus rialú iascaigh agus a chuirtear i bhfeidhm in uiscí an Aontais; cothroime iomaíochta a chur chun cinn, inter alia chun tacú leis an trádáil thrédhearcach i dtáirgí iascaigh atá faoi réir caighdeáin a breathnaítear agus a rialaítear go docht; agus tionscnaimh a chur chun cinn a bhaineann leis an ról atá ag Stáit an chalafoirt agus ag Stáit bhrataí sa chomhrac i gcoinne iascaireacht neamhdhleathach, neamhrialáilte agus neamhthuairiscithe (NNN);
 (d)gníomhú i gcomhréir leis an méid seo a leanas: conclúidí ón gComhairle maidir le hAigéin agus Farraigí
 5
 , conclúidí ón gComhairle
 6
 maidir leis an Teachtaireacht Chomhpháirteach ó Ardionadaí an Aontais do Ghnóthaí Eachtracha agus don Beartas Slándála agus ón gCoimisiún Eorpach maidir le International ocean governance: an agenda for the future of oceans
 7
 [Rialachas idirnáisiúnta na n‐aigéan: clár oibre le haghaidh thodhchaí na n‐aigéan], agus bearta a chur chun cinn chun tacú le cur chun feidhme éifeachtach an Chomhaontaithe ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt, agus feabhas a chur ar an gcur chun feidhme sin, chun rannchuidiú le bainistíocht inbhuanaithe na n‐aigéan i ngach gné de;
 (e)cloí le cur chuige neamhfhulaingthe i leith iascaireacht NNN, ag cur san áireamh go háirithe go bhféadfadh na dálaí polaitiúla agus socheacnamaíocha a thagann chun cinn mar thoradh ar COVID‐19 timpeallacht chumasúcháin a chruthú do ghníomhaithe neamhscrupallacha chun iascaireacht NNN a dhéanamh nó chun an trádáil inti a éascú, rud a fhágann gur gá bearta diana a dhéanamh faoin gComhaontú seo;
 2.TREOSHUÍOMHANNA
 Déanfaidh an tAontas gach iarracht ar ghlacadh na ngníomhaíochtaí agus na dtreoshuíomhanna seo a leanas a fhorbairt agus tacú lena nglacadh, agus é d’aidhm aige rannpháirtíocht uilíoch sa Chomhaontú agus cur chun feidhme éifeachtach an Chomhaontaithe a áirithiú:
 (a)comhleanúnachas le beartais eile an Aontais a áirithiú, go háirithe i réimse an chaidrimh sheachtraigh, an chomhshaoil, na trádála, na fostaíochta, na forbartha, an taighde agus na nuálaíochta, agus féachaint le comhsheasmhacht agus sineirge a bheith ann leis na beartais atá á saothrú ag an Aontas i gcomhthéacs a chaidrimh dhéthaobhaigh iascaigh le tríú tíortha;
 (b)seasaimh atá comhsheasmhach le dea‐chleachtais na n‐eagraíochtaí réigiúnacha bainistithe iascaigh (ERBInna) agus na gcomhlachtaí réigiúnacha iascaigh (RFBanna) a chur chun cinn agus comhordú na n‐eagraíochtaí sin leis an gComhaontú a chur chun cinn chomh maith;
 (c)tacú le cláir forbartha acmhainneachta domhanda a ghlacadh chun cuidiú le Stáit atá i mbéal forbartha ullmhú don Chomhaontú a chur chun feidhme nó é a chur chun feidhme, agus san am céanna, i gcás inar gá, comhlántacht le cúnamh do thríú tíortha a áirithiú, ar cúnamh é a sholáthraíonn an tAontas sa chomhrac in aghaidh iascaireacht NNN;
 (d)bearta a chur chun cinn lena neartaítear an comhar idir an Comhaontú agus eagraíochtaí domhanda agus réigiúnacha eile, laistigh dá sainorduithe, i gcás inarb iomchuí, agus le Stáit nach Páirtithe sa Chomhaontú iad, i gcás inarb inmhianaithe agus inarb infheidhme;
 (e)tacú le bearta a chuireann chun cinn daingniú an Chomhaontaithe ag tíortha nach Páirtithe iad, lena n‐áirítear trí fheasacht a ardú agus trí acmhainní a fhothú ar fud an domhain chun a áirithiú go dtuigfidh Stáit buntáistí an Chomhaontaithe mar aon leis na ceanglais a bhaineann lena chur chun feidhme, dá dtiocfaidís chun bheith ina bPáirtí;
 (f)tacú le bearta lena bhforbraítear agus lena gcuirtear chun cinn úsáid uirlisí (teicneolaíochtaí, córais malartaithe faisnéise, cláir, etc.) chun tacú le cur chun feidhme an Chomhaontaithe agus chun a chur chun feidhme a éascú, agus chun a áirithiú go bhfuil siad comhoiriúnach leis na bearta sin a forbraíodh laistigh den Aontas chun aghaidh a thabhairt ar chuspóirí comhchosúla;
 (g)tacú le bearta atá dírithe ar thrédhearcacht, idirphlé agus comhar le geallsealbhóirí ábhartha a neartú, lena n‐áirítear iascairí, tionscal na hiascaireachta, eagraíochtaí na sochaí sibhialta, eolaithe agus lucht léinn, agus geallsealbhóirí nach iad, maidir le hábhair a bhaineann le cur chun feidhme an Chomhaontaithe, agus, i gcás inarb iomchuí, bearta arb é is aidhm dóibh feabhas a chur ar a rannpháirtíocht san obair a bhaineann le cur chun feidhme an Chomhaontaithe i gcomhréir leis an gcleachtas coiteann arna ghlacadh i gcomhaontuithe iltaobhacha eile.
 IARSCRÍBHINN II
 Sonraíocht sheasamh an Aontais ó bhliain go bliain i gcruinnithe na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú ar Bhearta Stát an Chalafoirt chun Iascaireacht Neamhdhleathach, Neamhthuairiscithe agus Neamhrialáilte a Chosc, a Dhíspreagadh agus a Dhíothú
 Roimh gach cruinniú de chuid na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú, nuair a iarrtar ar an gcomhlacht sin cinntí a ghlacadh a bhfuil éifeacht dhlíthiúil leo ar an Aontas, glacfar na céimeanna is gá ionas go mbeidh an fhaisnéis eolaíoch is déanaí agus aon fhaisnéis ábhartha eile, a cuireadh chuig an gCoimisiún, á gcur san áireamh sa seasamh atá le cur in iúl thar ceann an Aontais, i gcomhréir leis na prionsabail, na critéir agus na treoshuíomhanna a leagtar amach in Iarscríbhinn I.
 Chuige sin, agus bunaithe ar an bhfaisnéis sin, tarchuirfidh an Coimisiún chuig an gComhairle, in am trátha roimh gach cruinniú de chuid na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú, doiciméad i scríbhinn ina leagfar amach sonraí na sonraíochta atá beartaithe maidir le seasamh an Aontais atá le plé agus mionsonraí an tseasaimh atá le cur in iúl thar ceann an Aontais atá le formhuiniú.
 Más rud é, le linn cruinniú de chuid na bPáirtithe sa Chomhaontú, nach féidir teacht ar chomhaontú, lena n‐áirítear comhaontú ar an láthair, chun go gcuirfidh seasamh an Aontais gnéithe nua san áireamh, cuirfear an t‐ábhar faoi bhráid na Comhairle nó faoi bhráid a comhlachtaí ullmhúcháin.
 (1)
 IO L 179, 23.6.1998, lch. 3
 (2)
 IO L 189, 3.7.1998, lch. 16.
 (3)
 IO L 177, 16.7.1996, lch. 26.
 (4)
 7087/12 REV 1 ADD 1 COR 1.
 (5)
 14249/19 an 19.11.2019.
 (6)
 7348/1/17 REV 1 an 24.3.2017.
 (7)
 JOIN(2016) 49 final an 10.11.2016.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 8.6.2015
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 190/33
 Postanowienie Sądu do spraw Służby Publicznej (pierwsza izba) z dnia 23 kwietnia 2015 r. – Bensai/Komisja
 (Sprawa F-131/14) (1)
 ((Służba publiczna - Członek personelu kontraktowego - Wynagrodzenie - Rozliczenie wynagrodzenia - Charakter potwierdzający - Niespełnienie wymogów postępowania poprzedzającego wniesienie skargi - Nowelizacja regulaminu pracowniczego urzędników - Wydłużenie czasu pracy bez dostosowania wynagrodzenia - Brak wpływu na charakter potwierdzający rozliczenia wynagrodzenia - Nierówne traktowanie personelu kontraktowego i personelu miejscowego - Artykuł 81 regulaminu postępowania))
 (2015/C 190/38)
 Język postępowania: francuski
 Strony
 Strona skarżąca: David Bensai (Mullendorf, Luksemburg) (przedstawiciel: adwokat A. Salerno)
 Strona pozwana: Komisja Europejska (przedstawiciele: C. Berardis-Kayser i G. Berscheid, pełnomocnicy)
 Przedmiot sprawy
 Żądanie stwierdzenia nieważności decyzji Komisji o niepodwyższeniu wynagrodzenia skarżącego, który jest członkiem personelu kontraktowego, ze względu na zwiększenie tygodniowej liczby godzin pracy do 40 w następstwie wejścia w życie w dniu 1 stycznia 2014 r. nowego regulaminu pracowniczego.
 Sentencja postanowienia
 1)
 Skarga zostaje odrzucona jako oczywiście niedopuszczalna i w każdym wypadku oczywiście bezzasadna.
 2)
 D. Bensai pokrywa własne koszty oraz koszty poniesione przez Komisję Europejską.
 (1) Dz.U. C 7 z 12.1.2015, s. 61.


type: other

text:
Absence bez bližších podrobností
 01. listopadu 2011, 14:23
 Šéf žalobců Pavel Zeman špatným postupem zhatil řádné dokončení soudního procesu.
 Případ, o němž už se nedozvíme, který ze soudů jej řešil správně, začal v roce 2007. Počátkem dubna toho roku podal předseda představenstva akciové společnosti Multys Tomáš Linhart přihlášku pohledávky do konkurzního řízení, které bylo vedeno proti úpadci – Mezinárodnímu svazu studenstva. Linhart nárokoval sumu 60,102 milionu korun, která měla vyplývat ze smluvní pokuty stanovené v dodatku ke kontraktu uzavřenému mezi Mezinárodním svazem studenstva a Multysem. Multys se svazem podepsal smlouvu na nájem nebytového prostoru v domě v pražské Pařížské ulici. Zmiňovaný dodatek se smluvní pokutou měl Linhart předložit pouze v kopii opatřené takzvanou vidimační doložkou (ověřením pravosti), kterou vystavila notářská tajemnice Daniela Hošková. Správkyně konkurzní podstaty Jarmila Veselá tento dodatek uznala a Městský soud v Praze v listopadu roku 2008 pohledávku schválil. Nárokovaná suma přesto nakonec nebyla vyplacena, protože se případu ujala policie a částka byla na účtu konkurzní správkyně z pokynu státního zástupce zmrazena. Po následném vyšetřování pak pražský městský soud v červnu roku 2010 uznal Tomáše Linharta vinným ze zvlášť závažného podvodu ve stadiu pokusu. Konstatoval, že dodatek, z něhož měla smluvní pokuta vyplývat, nikdy nebyl podepsán statutárními zástupci Mezinárodního svazu studenstva. A Linharta poslal na devět let za mříže. Notářské tajemnici Daniele Hoškové pak soud udělil nejvyšší možnou podmínku – tři roky s odkladem na pět let.
 Pražský vrchní soud ovšem případ uchopil jinak. Uznal sice, že všechna zjištění podřízené instance byla v pořádku a že Tomáš Linhart v odvolání nepřinášel žádné nové podpůrné důkazy pro svoji nevinu. „Městský soud se s případem přesvědčivě vypořádal, a proto vrchní soud námitky nepřijal,“ usnesl se letos v lednu tříčlenný senát pražského vrchního soudu. Neztotožnil se však s tím, že první soudní instance konstatovala, že k trestné činnosti mělo dojít uvedením v omyl orgánů veřejné moci. Laicky řečeno, podle pražského vrchního soudu není možné, aby soud neověřil, zda je nárokovaná pohledávka reálná a že je možné ji uplatnit. „Esenciální náležitostí uvedeného trestného činu je uvedení v omyl. V případě sporného civilního řízení je otázkou, zda lze orgán veřejné moci, před nímž je tento spor veden, uvést v omyl,“ konstatoval senát. Opřel se přitom o dvě judikatury Nejvyššího a Ústavního soudu. Verdikt tedy zní, že soudní orgány činné v konkurzním řízení nelze uvést v omyl, a trestný čin se proto nestal. Soud navíc konstatoval, že Mezinárodní svaz studenstva se v konkurzním řízení proti fiktivní pohledávce řádně nebránil. Oba obžalovaní byli zproštěni viny. Stát měl případ definitivně a podle práva rozřešit takzvaným dovoláním k Nejvyššímu soudu do dvou měsíců od doručení rozsudku vrchního soudu. Na Nejvyšší soud došlo v zákonné lhůtě dovolání v neprospěch Tomáše Linharta a Daniely Hoškové, jenže podal je v zastoupení nejvyššího státního zástupce Pavla Zemana jeho první náměstek Igor Stříž. „Nejvyšší státní zástupce ve svém vyjádření z 2. září sdělil, že 17. března nebyl z osobních důvodů na pracovišti, a proto odvolání podepsal jeho náměstek Igor Stříž,“ zdůvodnil Zeman absenci svého podpisu. Na základě tohoto sdělení Nejvyšší soud dovolání odmítl, a případ Linharta a Hoškové tak definitivně skončil. Náměstek neplatí
 Oprávnění podat dovolání má podle Nejvyššího soudu pouze sám nejvyšší státní zástupce. „Zákonné zastupování u výlučných pravomocí nejvyššího státního zástupce přichází v úvahu jen v případě, že mu v jejich výkonu brání důležitá překážka, například smrt, nemoc nebo dlouhodobá zahraniční cesta. Je na něm, aby si organizoval svou práci a přítomnost na pracovišti tak, aby v zásadě mohl své výlučné pravomoci svěřené mu zákonem vykonávat osobně, a nikoli prostřednictvím svých zastupujících náměstků,“ odůvodnil rozhodnutí senát Nejvyššího soudu vedený Jiřím Pácalem. Soudu údajně nebyla sdělena podstatná překážka, kvůli níž nemohl dovolání podat sám Zeman. A jak se k problému staví Pavel Zeman? „V níže uvedené věci podepsal mimořádný opravný prostředek - dovolání – první náměstek nejvyššího státního zástupce v zastoupení z důvodu jeho dlouhodobé nepřítomnosti na pracovišti. Tento postup předpokládá a je upraven zákonem o státním zastupitelství,“ odpověděla na otázky týdeníku Euro mluvčí Nejvyššího státního zastupitelství Helena Markusová. Na dodatečný dotaz, co bylo důvodem Zemanovy absence a proč nepodal dovolání sám, Markusová dodala: „Důvody nepřítomnosti byly osobního rázu a doba nepřítomnosti přesahovala jeden týden. Bližší podrobnosti uvádět nebudeme.“


text:
 26.11.2005
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 296/35
 A 2005. szeptember 23-án benyújtott kereset – Spanyol Királyság kontra Bizottság
 (T-369/05 sz. ügy)
 (2005/C 296/72)
 Az eljárás nyelve: spanyol
 Felek
 Felperes: Spanyol Királyság (képviselő: D. Fernando Díez Moreno)
 Alperes: az Európai Közösségek Bizottsága
 Kereseti kérelmek
 —
 az Elsőfokú Bíróság semmisítse meg a Bizottság 2005. július 15-i (2005/555/2685) határozatát annyiban, amennyiben az a Spanyolországban a szőlőültetvények ésszerűsítésére és átalakítására vonatkozó pénzügyi korrekciókkal, valamint a méztermelés és értékesítés javítására tett intézkedésekkel kapcsolatos; és
 —
 az Elsőfokú Bíróság a Bizottságot kötelezze a költségek viselésére.
 Jogalapok és fontosabb érvek
 A jelen kereset a Bizottságnak az EMOGA Garanciarészlege terhére a tagállamok által kifizetett egyes kiadásoknak a közösségi finanszírozásból való kizárásáról szóló 2005. július 15-i (2005/555/2685) határozata ellen irányul. Bizonyos kizárások kihatással vannak a Spanyol Királyságra, a gyümölcs-zöldség, a tejágazat, a közraktározás, a bor- és dohányágazat, az állattenyésztési támogatások és a mézágazat tekintetében.
 A jelen kereset kizárólag a borágazatban a bevételkiesés megtérítése címén kifizetett összegek (4 790 799,61 euró) valamint a mézágazatban a HÉA-nak az EMOGA finanszírozásba való bevonása révén végrehajtott korrekcióra vonatkozik. A felperes tagállam álláspontja szerint a Bizottság a határozatot a borpiac közös szervezéséről szóló 1493/1999/EK rendelet (1) megszorító alkalmazására alapozza, továbbá a fenti tagállam ellentétes állásponton van a méztermelés és értékesítés javítására vonatkozó HÉA-rendszerrel kapcsolatban.
 A spanyol hatóságok álláspontja szerint:
 —
 a bevételkiesés nem a kikeléshez, hanem a növények elültetéséhez kapcsolódik; és
 —
 minden jogalapot nélkülöz a Bizottság azon megállapítása, amely szerint a HÉA-t nem lehet a piac stabilizációját célzó intervenciónak tekinteni, és ezért azt nem lehet az EMOGA Garanciarészlege terhére finanszírozni.
 (1) HL L 179, 1999.7.14., 1. o.; magyar nyelvű különkiadás 3. fejezet 6. kötet 25. o.


type: wikipedia

text:
Anton Kuh (írói álneve: Yorick) (Bécs, 1890. július 12. – New York, 1941. január 18.) osztrák származású újságíró, elbeszélő, esszéíró.
 Élete
 Az író élt Bécsben, Prágában, majd 1933-ig Berlinben. 1938-ban az Amerikai Egyesült Államokba menekült.
 Életműve
 Kitűnő rövidebb lélegzetű prózai műveiről vált ismertté. Szatirikus-kritikus hangú glosszái és kommentárjai kortörténeti forrásnak számítanak. Az 1960-as években fedezték fel újra.
 Művei, esszék, kisprózai alkotások
 Juden und Deutsche, 1921
 Von Goethe abwärts, 1922
 Der Affe Zarathustras, 1925 (vitairat K. Kraus ellen)
 Der unsterbliche Österreicher, 1930
 Nebbich im Glück, 1987
 Források
 http://www.aeiou.at Österreich-Lexikon
 Kuh Anton
 1890-ben született személyek
 1941-ben elhunyt személyek
 Osztrák újságírók
 Osztrák esszéírók
 Bécsiek


text:
 17.5.2018
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 122/29
 RICHTLINIE (EU) 2018/725 DER KOMMISSION
 vom 16. Mai 2018
 zur Änderung — zwecks Anpassung an den technischen und wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt — von Anhang II Teil III Nummer 13 der Richtlinie 2009/48/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Sicherheit von Spielzeug hinsichtlich Chrom VI
 DIE EUROPÄISCHE KOMMISSION —
 gestützt auf den Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union,
 gestützt auf die Richtlinie 2009/48/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 18. Juni 2009 über die Sicherheit von Spielzeug (1), insbesondere auf Artikel 46 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b,
 in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
 (1)
 In der Richtlinie 2009/48/EG wird ein Grenzwert für Chrom VI in abgeschabten Spielzeugmaterialien wie Farben auf Spielzeugen, harten und weichen Polymeren, Holz, Textilien und sonstigen Materialien festgelegt. Der derzeit geltende Grenzwert (0,2 mg/kg) beruht auf einer praktisch sicheren Dosis (virtually safe dose) von 0,0053 μg Chrom VI je kg Körpergewicht, die vom Amt für die Bewertung umweltbedingter Gesundheitsgefährdungen (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, OEHHA) der kalifornischen Umweltschutzbehörde (2) vorgeschlagen wurde.
 (2)
 Auf Ersuchen der Europäischen Kommission wurde 2015 vom Wissenschaftlichen Ausschuss „Gesundheits- und Umweltrisiken“ (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks, SCHER) das Krebspotenzial von Chrom VI bei oraler Aufnahme geprüft. In seiner am 22. Januar 2015 verabschiedeten Stellungnahme zu „Chrom VI in Spielzeug“ (3) berichtete der SCHER, er habe unter anderem die dem gesundheitspolitischen Ziel betreffend den Chrom-VI-Gehalt des Trinkwassers zugrunde liegende technische Unterlage (4) und eine Studie des US-amerikanischen National Toxicology Programm (NTP) (5) überprüft. Der SCHER betrachtete eine tägliche Dosis von 0,0002 μg Chrom VI je kg Körpergewicht pro Tag, bei der, wie von der OEHHA abgeleitet, ein zusätzlicher Krebsfall pro einer Million Exponierter eintritt, als angemessene praktisch sichere Dosis.
 (3)
 Da Kinder Chrom VI nicht nur über Spielzeug, sondern auch aus anderen Quellen ausgesetzt sind, sollte nur ein gewisser Prozentsatz der praktisch sicheren Dosis als Grundlage für die Berechnung des Chrom-VI-Grenzwertes herangezogen werden. Der Wissenschaftliche Ausschuss „Toxizität, Ökotoxizität und Umwelt“ empfiehlt in seiner Stellungnahme von 2004 (6), dass Spielzeug höchstens 10 % zur täglichen Chrom-VI-Aufnahme beitragen sollte. Dieser Prozentsatz wurde vom Wissenschaftlichen Ausschuss „Gesundheits- und Umweltrisiken“ im Jahr 2010 zweimal bestätigt (7)
 (8).
 (4)
 In Erwägungsgrund 22 der Richtlinie 2009/48/EG wird außerdem empfohlen, die Grenzwerte für Chrom VI und andere besonders toxische chemische Stoffe auf die Hälfte der vom zuständigen wissenschaftlichen Ausschuss als sicher angesehenen Werte festzusetzen, um sicherzustellen, dass nur Spuren davon vorhanden sind, die mit bewährten Herstellungsverfahren vereinbar sind.
 (5)
 Ausgehend von 10 % der praktisch sicheren Dosis, multipliziert mit dem auf 7,5 kg geschätzten Durchschnittsgewicht eines Kindes unter drei Jahren, dividiert durch die auf 8 mg geschätzte täglich aufgenommene Menge von abgeschabten Spielzeugmaterialien und multipliziert mit
 , schlug der SCHER in seiner genannten Stellungnahme zu „Chrom VI in Spielzeug“ einen überarbeiteten Grenzwert von 0,0094 mg/kg für Chrom VI in abgeschabten Spielzeugmaterialien vor.
 (6)
 Die Einhaltung des vorgeschlagenen Grenzwertes kann jedoch nicht mit dem Prüfverfahren der europäischen Norm EN 71-3:2013+A1:2014, deren Fundstelle im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union veröffentlicht wurde (9), überprüft werden. Der vorgeschlagene Grenzwert ist fast sechsmal niedriger als die geringste mit dem Prüfverfahren der Norm verlässlich quantifizierbare Konzentration, nämlich 0,053 mg/kg.
 (7)
 Unter diesen Umständen empfahl die Untergruppe „Chemikalien“ der von der Kommission eingerichteten Sachverständigengruppe für die Sicherheit von Spielzeug (10) auf ihrem Treffen am 14. Oktober 2016 den Grenzwert für Chrom VI von derzeit 0,2 mg/kg auf 0,053 mg/kg herabzusetzen. Die Untergruppe „Chemikalien“ empfahl auch, die verfügbaren Testverfahren für Chrom VI alle zwei Jahre zu überprüfen, um möglicherweise ein Verfahren zu ermitteln, mit dem noch geringere Konzentrationen zuverlässig gemessen werden können, bis der vom SCHER vorgeschlagene Grenzwert erreicht ist.
 (8)
 Das Europäische Komitee für Normung (CEN) überprüft derzeit das Testverfahren der Norm EN 71-3 im Hinblick auf den Nachweis von Chrom VI. Ein überarbeitetes Prüfverfahren, das die Messung von Konzentrationen bis zu 0,0025 mg/kg erlaubt, dürfte bald zur Verfügung stehen. Dann wäre es möglich, die Grenzwerte für Chrom VI in abgeschabten Spielzeugmaterialien weiter zu verschärfen.
 (9)
 Die Richtlinie 2009/48/EG sollte daher entsprechend geändert werden.
 (10)
 Die in dieser Richtlinie vorgesehenen Maßnahmen entsprechen der Stellungnahme des Ausschusses für die Sicherheit von Spielzeug —
 HAT FOLGENDE RICHTLINIE ERLASSEN:
 Artikel 1
 In Anhang II Teil III der Richtlinie 2009/48/EG erhält der Eintrag für Chrom VI unter Nummer 13 folgende Fassung:
 Element
 mg/kg
 in trockenen, brüchigen, staubförmigen oder geschmeidigen Spielzeugmaterialien
 mg/kg
 in flüssigen oder haftenden Spielzeugmaterialien
 mg/kg
 in abgeschabten Spielzeugmaterialien
 „Chrom (VI)
 0,02
 0,005
 0,053“
 Artikel 2
 (1) Die Mitgliedstaaten erlassen und veröffentlichen spätestens am 17. November 2019 die erforderlichen Rechts- und Verwaltungsvorschriften, um dieser Richtlinie nachzukommen. Sie teilen der Kommission unverzüglich den Wortlaut dieser Vorschriften mit.
 Sie wenden diese Rechtsvorschriften spätestens ab 18. November 2019 an.
 Bei Erlass dieser Vorschriften nehmen die Mitgliedstaaten in den Vorschriften selbst oder durch einen Hinweis bei der amtlichen Veröffentlichung auf diese Richtlinie Bezug. Die Mitgliedstaaten regeln die Einzelheiten der Bezugnahme.
 (2) Die Mitgliedstaaten teilen der Kommission den Wortlaut der wichtigsten nationalen Rechtsvorschriften mit, die sie auf dem unter diese Richtlinie fallenden Gebiet erlassen.
 Artikel 3
 Diese Richtlinie tritt am zwanzigsten Tag nach ihrer Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union in Kraft.
 Artikel 4
 Diese Richtlinie ist an die Mitgliedstaaten gerichtet.
 Brüssel, den 16. Mai 2018
 Für die Kommission
 Der Präsident
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) ABl. L 170 vom 30.6.2009, S. 1.
 (2) OEHHA (1999). „Public health goal for chromium in drinking water“ (Gesundheitspolitisches Ziel betreffend den Chromgehalt des Trinkwassers), Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency (Abteilung Pestizide und Umwelttoxikologie, Amt für die Bewertung umweltbedingter Gesundheitsgefährdungen, kalifornische Umweltschutzbehörde), datiert vom Februar 1999. Zitiert in: „Chemicals in Toys. A general methodology for assessment of chemical safety of toys with a focus on elements“ (Chemikalien in Spielzeug — eine allgemeine Methodik für die Bewertung der chemischen Sicherheit von Spielzeug mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von chemischen Elementen), RIVM-Bericht 320003001/2008, Nationales Institut für öffentliche Gesundheit und Umwelt (RIVM) der Niederlande, S. 114, Tabelle 8-1.
 (3) Wissenschaftlicher Ausschuss „Gesundheits- und Umweltrisiken“ (SCHER), Stellungnahme zu „Chrom VI in Spielzeug“), angenommen am 22. Januar 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_167.pdf.
 (4) OEHHA (2011). Public health goal for chromium in drinking water. Hexavalent chromium (Cr VI), http://oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/072911Cr6PHG.html.
 (5) National Toxicology Program (2008), „Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Dichromate Dihydrate (CAS No. 7789-12-0) in F344/N Rates and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking Water Studies)“ (Studien zur Toxikologie und zur krebserregenden Wirkung von Natriumdichromatdihydrat, CAS-Nr. 7789-12-0) an F344/N-Ratten und B6C3F1-Mäusen (Trinkwasserstudien)), NTP TR 546, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, NC, NIH-Veröffentlichung Nr. 08-5887.
 (6) Wissenschaftlicher Ausschuss „Toxizität, Ökotoxizität und Umwelt“ (Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment, CSTEE), Stellungnahme „Assessment of the bioavailability of certain elements in toys“ (Bewertung der Bioverfügbarkeit bestimmter chemischer Elemente in Spielzeug), angenommen am 22. Juni 2004, http://ec.europa.eu/health/archive/ph_risk/committees/sct/documents/out235_en.pdf.
 (7) Wissenschaftlicher Ausschuss „Gesundheits- und Umweltrisiken“ (SCHER), Stellungnahme „Risk from organic CMR substances in toys“ (Risiken durch organische krebserzeugende, erbgutverändernde oder fortpflanzungsgefährdende Stoffe in Spielzeug), angenommen am 18. Mai 2010.
 (8) Wissenschaftlicher Ausschuss „Gesundheits- und Umweltrisiken“ (SCHER), Opinion on „Evaluation of the migration limits for chemical elements in Toys“ (Stellungnahme zur „Evaluierung der Migrationswerte für chemische Elemente im Spielzeug“), angenommen am 1. Juli 2010.
 (9) ABl. C 378 vom 13.11.2015, S. 1.
 (10) Siehe Register der Expertengruppen der Kommission, Sachverständigengruppe für die Sicherheit von Spielzeug (E01360), http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=1360&Lang=DE.


text:
Starehe Boys' Centre and School (popularly known as "Starehe") is a partial-board,
 boys-only school in Nairobi, Kenya. The school was founded in 1959 by Dr. Geoffrey William Griffin, MBS, OBE, Geoffrey Gatama Geturo and Joseph Kamiru Gikubu. It started as a rescue centre in Nairobi. Starehe and Brookhouse School are the only African schools south of the Sahara and north of the Limpopo distinguished as Round Square members.
 Status
 Starehe Boys' Centre and School educates at least 70% of its students free, and the rest at a reduced rate. This stems from its founding charter as a charitable school. School fees are paid on a means-tested basis, with substantial subsidies paid by the school, so that students from all walks of life are able to have a public school education that would otherwise be beyond their means.
 The entrance process uses results from the national KCPE exams and prefers to award school places to those who show academic potential.
 The school is governed by a Managing Committee chaired by Jimmy Mugerwa, Country Chairman of Kenya Shell and BP, the school's main sponsors since its inception.
 Admissions
 Admission of students is by open competitive examination. Each year about 20,000 applications are received; only 250 are selected to join the student body and about 6 places are left for very needy situations where the applicant might not have found a chance to apply but is still merited.
 Candidates are judged according to need and parental income and their performance in the national KCPE examinations. Selection is solely on merit.
 History
 Starehe Boys' Centre was the result of the vision of Geoffrey William Griffin, assisted by Joseph Gikubu, and Geoffrey Geturo. Its genesis was the earlier State of Emergency declared by the Governor of Colonial Kenya during the 1952 Mau Mau Uprising and the resultant overflow on to the streets of poor and destitute Mau Mau orphans.
 The first 17 boys entered the school from Kariokor Rescue Centre, Nairobi, and it was established in two tin huts donated by Kenya Shell and BP in 1959. After a few months it moved to its current location at Starehe, Nairobi.
 The name "Starehe" is Swahili for 'Tranquility', 'Peace', or 'Comfort', signifying a place where orphaned boys could find solace in its humble beginnings. It is also the name of the place in which the institution is situated.
 The school is a member of the international Round Square school organisation, offering education to children from diverse backgrounds, many of whom are poor.
 Traditions
 The school uniform is blue short trousers and red shirt, worn with a black tie and blazer or wind-breaker.
 Links with the country and the community are maintained, with a monthly vacation spent in voluntary service to the community, either in hospitals, clinics, dispensaries or government offices, or any other institution that the students deem fit. This is referred to as the Voluntary Service Scheme, and is a way of giving back to society.
 Starehe hosts an annual football grudge match against Lenana School immediately before Founders' Day Dinner.
 Accommodation
 Students take 'githeri' (mixture of beans and maize), a staple of the school since its inception. Starehe's education places emphasis on academic excellence as well as duty and discipline. An inscription at the Assembly Hall entrance reads "the path of Duty is the way to Glory".
 Students perform daily duties that include cleaning their dormitories and the school compound as well as classes and laboratories. These duties are assigned and supervised by the prefects.
 Discipline
 Starehe follows a rank-based prefect system. A student may become a prefect from the second year at the school but never are full prefects. They only bear the rank of sub-prefect and are so confirmed during assembly where the Director announces their promotion. Promotion through the ranks is assessed by School Prefects (normally referred to as House Captains), who form the Cabinet of the School. Any potential prefect is vetted by the Cabinet, which consists of the School Prefects, the School Captains and the Director.
 Commoners are divided according to year. Those in Form One and Two are Junior Boys, Form Three and Four are Senior boys. Starehe also has a technical training institute called Starehe Technical Training Institute for post Secondary education. Starehe Institute students are referred to as "collegers".
 When corporal punishment was legal in Kenya, only the Director was allowed to use the cane at Starehe. This was so that he kept abreast of all serious offences in the school.
 Dr. Griffin took issue with the government's ban on caning, saying the government was bowing to international pressure and that little thought had been given to the implications. It would lead to an escalation in indiscipline and a decline in educational standards, he said.
 Notable alumni
 Paul Ereng – Olympic Gold Medallist – 1988 Seoul Summer Olympics - 800m
 Peter Kenneth – Assistant Minister in the Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, former MP for Gatanga Constituency, presidential candidate in Kenya's 2013 election
 George Magoha - the current Kenyan cabinet secretary for education
 Kinuthia Murugu – Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Youth and Sports
 Peter Ndegwa – Chief Executive Officer of Safaricom since 1 April 2020.
 Ken Okoth – a Kenyan politician who served as the Member of Parliament for Kibra Constituency from 2013 to 26 July 2019 when he died from complications caused by colorectal cancer.
 Raphael Tuju – former Minister of Foreign Affairs
 Starehe UK
 Starehe UK was founded in 1970 to help support Starehe Boys' Centre. In 1994–1996 it raised over £1M through the Aim High Appeal to establish an endowment fund in the UK for the Centre. It has supported Starehe Girls' Centre since its founding. 2009 was the fiftieth anniversary of the Starehe Boys' Centre. The Girls’ Centre was opened in 2005.
 See also
 The Save the Children Fund Film
 References
 External links
 Official Starehe Boys' Centre and School website
 Roundsquare Affiliation
 Founders' Day Speech
 Global Connections
 Excellence in Examinations
 Prof Magoha Award
 StareheFuture
 Schools in Nairobi
 Boys' schools in Kenya
 Round Square schools
 Educational institutions established in 1959
 1959 establishments in Kenya
 High schools and secondary schools in Kenya
 Private schools in Kenya


jurisdiction: US

text: b'September 23, 2010\n\nMARK A. MARTINEZ\nDISTRICT MANAGER, MID-AMERICA DISTRICT\n\nSUBJECT: Management Advisory Report \xe2\x80\x93 The Effects of the Flats Sequencing\n System on Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n (Report Number DR-MA-10-001)\n\nThis report presents the results of our review of the Flats Sequencing System (FSS)\n(Project Number 10XG006DR002). Our objective was to evaluate the effects of the\nFSS on delivery operations and operating costs at selected Mid-America District\ndelivery units. This self-initiated audit addresses operational risk. See Appendix A for\nadditional information about this audit.\n\nIn October 2006, the U.S. Postal Service recommended approval to acquire, develop,\npurchase, and deploy 100 FSS machines at 33 sites. FSS machines sort flat-sized mail\nsuch as large envelopes, newspapers, catalogs, circulars, and magazines into delivery\nwalk sequence at high speeds and at a much higher productivity rate than the manual\nprocess. In full deployment, the FSS is expected to produce annual operational savings\nfor the Postal Service. Delivery units should achieve this savings by eliminating manual\ncarrier casings and reducing the number of routes, resulting in reduced workhours.\n\nConclusion\n\nThe six Mid-America District delivery units1 reviewed have improved delivery\noperations during FSS full production. These units cut operating costs by $605,788 and\nreduced city carrier office hours, manual distribution clerk workhours, and city carrier\nroutes. Although the FSS improved delivery operations, these delivery units received\nover 8.7 million flat mailpieces that were not processed on FSS. Approximately 2\nmillion of these mailpieces were not carrier routed2 and required manual sorting and\n\n\n\n\n1\n The six Mid-America District delivery units reviewed were:\n\n These unworked pieces must be manually sorted by the clerks and cased by the carriers. The carrier-routed\nmailpieces are only handled by the carriers.\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\ncasing to put them in delivery walk sequence. This occurred because this mail did not\nmeet flat mail automation requirements.3 See Appendix B for our detailed analysis of\nthis topic.\n\nAs a result, the Postal Service missed the opportunity to further reduce workhour costs\nand, consequently, we estimated incurred unrecoverable questioned costs of\napproximately $145,515 for fiscal year (FY) 2010. See Appendix C for our monetary\nimpact.\n\nWe recommend the district manager, Mid-America District:\n\n1. Continue to collaborate with business mailers to ensure flat mailpieces meet\n automation requirements and reduce the amount of unworked flat mail sent to\n delivery units.\n\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\nManagement agreed with the finding, recommendation, and monetary impact.\nManagement stated they will work with the Business Service Network (BSN) to identify\nmailings and mailpieces that could be altered to meet automation requirements. In\naddition, management will ensure the BSN periodically sends updates on the criteria of\nflat automation compatibility to their mailing community. Further, management stated\nthese actions will help further reduce workhour and future-incurred unrecoverable\nquestioned costs. Finally, management stated there will be no estimated completion\ndate for this corrective action, because this will be an ongoing process. See Appendix\nD for management\xe2\x80\x99s comments in their entirety.\n\nEvaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\nThe U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) considers management\xe2\x80\x99s\ncomments responsive to the recommendation and management\xe2\x80\x99s corrective actions\nshould resolve the issue identified in the report. In subsequent discussions,\nmanagement agreed with the unrecoverable questioned costs of $145,515.\n\n\n\n\n3\n Automation flats are not more than 11-1/2 inches long or more than 6-1/8 inches high, or more than 1/4 inch thick\nin size. The piece should be able to bend at least 1 inch vertically without being damaged. Flat-sized mailpieces\nmust be uniformly thick so that any bumps, protrusions, or other irregularities do not cause more than a 1/4-inch\nvariance in thickness. Mailers using polywrap film or similar material to enclose or cover flat-sized mailpieces must\napply the cover in the correct direction and ensure the label is readable.\n\n\n 2\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation and courtesies provided by your staff. If you have any\nquestions or need additional information, please contact Rita F. Oliver, director,\nDelivery or me at 703-248-2100.\n\n E-Signed by Robert Batta\n VERIFY authenticity with ApproveIt\n\n\n\n\nRobert J. Batta\nDeputy Assistant Inspector General\n for Mission Operations\n\nAttachments\n\ncc: Patrick R. Donahoe\n Steven J. Forte\n Dean J. Granholm\n Elizabeth A. Schaefer\n Sylvester Black\n Alan B. Catlin\n David A. Martinez\n Corporate Audit and Response Management\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nIn October 2006, the Postal Service approved a Phase I Decision Analysis Report\n(DAR) to develop, purchase, and deploy 100 FSS machines at 33 sites. The FSS\nmachines sort flat-sized mail such as large envelopes, newspapers, catalogs, circulars,\nand magazines into delivery sequence at high speeds and at a much higher\nproductivity rate than the manual process. FSS-processed mail will arrive at the\ndelivery unit in walk sequence order, ready for delivery by the carrier with no additional\nmail movement or manual sorting required.\n\nThe Postal Service had a difficult FY 2009. Mail volume declined by approximately 25\nbillion pieces. Due to declining mail volume of catalogs and Periodicals mail, the Postal\nService decided to add nearly 300 ZIP Codes\xe2\x84\xa2 to the list of areas that FSS machines\nwill serve. Postal Service Headquarters officials will spread the 100 machines in\nPhase I of the FSS program among 42 city locations \xe2\x80\x94 including new sites in Houston,\nTX; Philadelphia, PA; Charlotte, NC; and Minneapolis and St. Paul, MN \xe2\x80\x94 rather than\namong the 33 original city locations.\n\nThe FSS is a critical component of the Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s strategy to contain costs\nthrough automating the flat mail stream. In full deployment, the FSS is expected to\nproduce annual operational savings of $613 million. These savings should result when\ndelivery units can eliminate the requirement for mail carriers to manually case flat mail.\nSince mail clerks would no longer need to manually sort flats, there should be a\nreduction in clerks\xe2\x80\x99 workhours at delivery units. Full production of FSS began in June\n2009 and 80 delivery units are currently receiving FSS-processed mail.\n\nOBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nOur objective was to evaluate the effects of the FSS on delivery operations and\noperating costs at selected Mid-America District delivery units. Due to staggered FSS\nfull production testing start dates, the selected delivery units reviewed were integrated\ninto the process during different months of FYs 2009 and 2010. Our audit scope\ncovered February 2009 to May 2010, which includes the performance period prior to\nthe units receiving FSS-processed mail and the performance period during which the\nreviewed units received FSS-processed mail.4 See Table 1.\n\n\n\n\n4\n The scope limitations are due to differences in FSS production start dates for each delivery unit.\n\n\n 4\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n\n Table 1. FSS Review Periods\n Performance Months Prior to Performance Months of\n FSS Site Receiving FSS Mailpieces Receiving FSS Mailpieces in FY 2010\n April 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 September 2009 October 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010\n February 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 July 2009 August 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010\n April 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 September 2009 October 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010\n April 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 September 2009 October 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010\n April 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 September 2009 October 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010\n March 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 August 2009 September 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010\n Source: Postal Service Mid-America District Management\n\n To accomplish our objective, we:\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 Statistically selected five5 FSS delivery unit locations in the Mid-America District.\n In addition, we reviewed the as a request from district\n management.\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 Reviewed operational issues throughout the district associated with delivery\n units receiving FSS-sequenced flat mail.\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 Reviewed applicable documentation, policies, and procedures such as the FSS\n DAR, dated October 20, 2006; the approved FSS Work Methods Memorandum\n of Understanding between the Postal Service and the National Association of\n Letter Carriers, dated November 24, 2008; the FSS Implementation Guide,\n Version 1, dated May 2009; and the Domestic Mail Manual, Section 300,\n Commercial Mail Flats, dated May 2008.\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 Extracted and analyzed data from the Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW)\n Delivery Data Mart for cased and FSS mailpieces, city carrier office and\n overtime workhours, carriers returning after 5 p.m., managed service scans, and\n mail distribution clerk office hours.\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 Extracted and analyzed Customer Service Delivery Reporting System (CSDRS)\n Mail Condition, Curtailed and Delayed Mail, and Management Comment reports\n to determine the tracking and status of the mail as it arrives at the delivery unit.\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 Extracted and analyzed CSDRS mail performance indicators from the Web\n Executive Information System (WEBEIS).\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 Extracted and analyzed eFlash data to determine delivery units\xe2\x80\x99 weekly\n operating reporting management system in delivery and mail processing.\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 Conducted site visits at selected delivery unit locations.\n\n\n5\n Our sample included\n delivery units.\n\n\n 5\n\x0c The Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 Interviewed Postal Service Headquarters, Western Area, and Mid-America\n District officials.\n\n We conducted this review from February through September 2010 in accordance with\n the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, Quality Standards for Inspections.6\n We discussed our observations and conclusions with management officials on August\n 10, 2010, and included their comments where appropriate.\n\n We extracted and analyzed data from EDW, CSDRS, and WEBEIS. We assessed the\n reliability of data such as delivery performance indicators, cased and FSS flat\n mailpieces, carrier and clerk workhours, and mail condition reports by interviewing\n agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were\n sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.\n\n PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE\n\n The (OIG) has issued eight reports and the Government Accountability Office (GAO)\n has issued one report related to our objective in the last several years.\n\n Final\n Report Report Monetary\n Report Title Number Date Impact Report Results\nFlats Sequencing DR-AR-10-005 7/1/2010 $852,336 The report identified that Northern Virginia\nSystem Operational District delivery units have improved\nIssues delivery operations with the FSS. These\n units\xe2\x80\x99 improvements contributed to a\n 6 month cost reduction of $196,271.\n However, we identified several FSS\n machines that were unavailable for\n several months and processing issues\n that negatively impacted delivery\n operations. Management agreed with the\n finding and recommendations.\nFlats Sequencing DR-AR-09-011 9/28/2009 None The five selected Northern Virginia District\nSystem on Delivery delivery units improved in delivery\nOperation \xe2\x80\x93 Northern operations during the initial 6 months of\nVirginia District FSS testing. Flat volumes decreased by\n more than 50 percent during this testing\n period, so we could not determine how\n much of these operational gains were due\n to implementation of the FSS. We made\n no recommendations in this report.\n\n\n\n 6\n These standards were last promulgated by the President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) and the\n Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency (ECIE) in January 2005. Since then, The Inspector General Act of 1978\n as amended by the IG Reform Act of 2008 created the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency\n (CIGIE), which combined the PCIE and ECIE. To date, the Quality Standards for Inspections have not been\n amended to reflect adoption by the CIGIE and, as a result, still reference the PCIE and ECIE.\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c The Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n Final\n Report Report Monetary\n Report Title Number Date Impact Report Results\nFlats Sequencing DA-AR-09-012 9/4/2009 None Although FSS machine performance has\nSystem: First Article improved since the original test, the\nRetest Results system failed to meet key statement of\n work (SOW) performance parameters.\n The Postal Service attributed FSS\n performance shortcomings to the lack of\n additional hardware and software\n solutions incorporated into the First Article\n Testing 2A system. Failure to meet SOW\n performance requirements would reduce\n forecasted savings and increase\n operational burdens. Management\n partially agreed with the finding and\n recommendation.\nFlats Sequencing CA-AR-09-006 7/1/2009 $7,733,522 This audit determined that management of\nSystem Contractual the FSS contract process resulted in\nRemedies increased financial risk to the Postal\n Service. Management agreed with findings\n and recommendations 1 and 2 but only\n partially agreed with the finding and\n recommendation 3.\nFlats Sequencing DA-AR-09-001 12/23/2008 None The report determined that program\nSystem: Program management was attentive to system\nStatus performance and schedule risks.\n Management agreed with the finding and\n recommendation in this report.\nManagement of CA-MA-09-002 12/1/200 8 None The report did not identify any\nContract Changes \xe2\x80\x93 unnecessary or inappropriate increased\nFlats Sequencing costs to the Postal Service because of\nSystem changes to the FSS contract.\n Management agreed with the finding and\n recommendation in this report.\nFlats Sequencing DA-AR-08-006 6/4/2008 None The report determined the Postal Service\nSystem: Production needed to focus greater attention on\nFirst Article Testing workload, the First Article Testing\nReadiness and schedule, and critical deliverables.\nQuality Management generally agreed with the\n finding and recommendation in this report.\nFlats Sequencing DA-AR-07-003 7/31/200 7 None The report determined that Postal Service\nSystem Risk Engineering needed to focus greater\nManagement attention on risk management standards\n to ensure the significant risks associated\n with deployment of the FSS were\n adequately identified and managed.\n Management agreed with findings and\n recommendations 1 and 2, but disagreed\n with the findings and recommendations 3\n and 4 of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c The Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n Final\n Report Report Monetary\n Report Title Number Date Impact Report Results\nMail Delivery GAO-09-696 7/15/200 9 None The Postal Service has taken steps to\nEfficiency Has deliver mail more efficiently, including\nImproved, but adjusting delivery routes to reflect\nAdditional Actions declining volumes and investing in more\nNeeded to Achieve efficient mail-sorting technologies. This\nFurther Gains report addressed how the Postal Service\n monitors delivery efficiency,\n characteristics of delivery units that affect\n their efficiency, and the status and results\n of the Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s actions to improve\n delivery efficiency, in particular FSS. We\n made no recommendations in this report.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n APPENDIX B: DETAILED ANALYSIS\n\nImprovements in City Delivery\n\nThe selected Mid-America District delivery units improved their delivery operations and\nreduced operating costs during the initial 6 months of FSS full production. Specifically,\nwe found reductions in:\n\n \xef\x82\xa7 City carrier office hours.\n \xef\x82\xa7 Manual distribution clerk workhours.\n \xef\x82\xa7 City carrier routes.\n\nCity Carrier Office Hours\n\nCity carrier office hours declined at the selected units. In the 6 months prior to receiving\nFSS-processed flat mail, city carriers used 58,285 office hours. During the initial 6\nmonths of receiving FSS-processed mail, the number of office hours declined to 43,566\n\xe2\x80\x94 a reduction of 14,719 hours. According to delivery unit officials, the reductions were\ndue to adjustments to carriers\xe2\x80\x99 start times resulting from less time required to case flat\nmailpieces. See Chart 1.\n\n Chart 1. City Carriers Office Hours\n\n\n\n\n Source: EDW\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n\nFor the 6 months prior to units receiving FSS-processed mail, city carriers\xe2\x80\x99 office hour\ncosts were $2,458,335. During the initial 6 months of receiving FSS-processed mail,\nthe office hour costs declined to $1,889,399, which resulted in a cost reduction of\n$568,936. See Chart 2.\n\n Chart 2. City Carrier Office Hour Costs\n\n\n\n\n Source: EDW\n\nManual Distribution Clerk Workhours\n\nThe FSS environment caused a change in the manual distribution clerks\xe2\x80\x99 workload.\nManual distribution clerk workhours decreased by 1,267 hours. For the 6 months prior\nto units receiving FSS-processed mail, Manual Distribution clerks used 18,473\nworkhours to manually sort mail at the selected delivery units compared to the 17,206\nworkhours they used during the initial 6 months of receiving FSS-processed mail. See\nChart 3.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n\n Chart 3. Manual Distribution Clerk Workhours\n\n\n\n\n Source: EDW\n\nFor the 6 months prior to units receiving FSS-processed mail, manual distribution\nworkhour costs were $843,663 and during the initial 6 months of units receiving\nFSS-processed mail the workhour costs declined to $806,809. This resulted in a cost\nreduction of $36,854. See Chart 4.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n Chart 4. Manual Distribution Clerk Workhour Costs\n\n\n\n\n Source: EDW\n\nCity Carrier Routes\n\nThe delivery units receiving FSS mail will be the ultimate driver of the savings from\nFSS processing. The savings are a result of reductions in the number of routes\nbased on reduced casing of flats from the FSS. For the selected delivery units\nreceiving FSS-processed mail, management conducted route adjustments to reduce\nthe number of routes from 174 to 162, resulting in the elimination of 12 city carrier\nroutes. See Table 2.\n\n Table 2. FSS Route Adjustments for City Delivery\n Total City Routes Total City Routes\n Before Rout After Route\n Delivery Unit Adjustments Adjustments\n 24 23\n 34 29\n 36 34\n 18 17\n 42 40\n 20 19\n Totals 174 162\n Source: Postal Service Mid-America District Management\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\nUnworked Flat Mailpieces\n\nThese delivery units received approximately 22.9 million flat mailpieces,7 approximately\n8.7 million of which could not be processed on FSS machines (see Table 3). Of the 8.7\nmillion mailpieces, about 2 million were not carrier-routed and required both manual\nsorting by the clerks and manual casing by the carriers.\n\n Table 3. October 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010 Flat Mail Volume\n Total\n Total Cased Flat\n Delivered Total Other Total Mailpieces\n Flat FSS Sequence Cased Flat Not Carrier\n Delivery Unit Mailpieces Mailpieces Volume Mailpieces Routed\n 3,244,428 1,555,407 596,611 1,092,410 353,25 0\n 6,156,253 3,463,926 1,009,091 1,683,236 621,120\n 5,176,832 2,441,331 641,290 2,094,211 353,902\n 2,139,752 1,073,252 272,337 794,163 247,960\n 4,061,731 1,664,289 72,307 2,325,135 275,06 0\n 2,071,277 904,939 460,151 706,187 131,789\n Totals 22,850,273 11,103,144 3,051,787 8,695,342 1,983,081\n Source: eFlash\n\nThis condition occurred because the mail did not meet automation requirements.8 The\ndistrict manager stated that he monitors FSS operations and conducts daily\nteleconference meetings with district delivery unit officials and business mailers to\ndiscuss FSS improvements. In addition, the district manager participates in a weekly\nteleconference with Western Area and Postal Service Headquarters officials to discuss\nany FSS issues occurring in the field. Finally, district management is working directly\nwith the processing plant to identify mailpieces by type, zone, and mail arrival time to\ncontinue to reduce the number of flat mailpieces that require manual processing.\n\nUnworked flat mailpieces that arrive at delivery units and are not processed on the FSS\nmachines negatively impact delivery operations by requiring manual casing and sorting\nto put the mailpieces in sequenced order for delivery. Consequently, we estimated\nunrecoverable questioned costs of approximately $145,515 for FY 2010. See Appendix\nC for our monetary impact.\n\n\n\n\n7\n From October 2009 through May 2010, the processing facility sent 22,850,273 flat mailpieces to these six selected\nunits during full production. These flat mailpieces included 14,154,931 in sequenced order (11,103,144 flat\nmailpieces processed on an FSS machine and 3,051,787 other sequenced flat mailpieces such as advertisement\nflyers and newspapers) and 8,695,342 cased flat mailpieces.\n8\n Automation flats are not more than 11-1/2 inches long or more than 6-1/8 inches high or more than 1/4-inch thick in\nsize. The piece should be flexible to bend at least 1 inch vertically without being damaged. Flat-sized mailpieces\nmust be uniformly thick so that any bumps, protrusions, or other irregularities do not cause more than a 1/4-inch\nvariance in thickness. Mailers using polywrap film or similar material to enclose or cover flat-size mailpieces must\napply the cover in the correct direction and ensure that label is readable.\n\n\n 13\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n APPENDIX C: MONETARY IMPACT\n\nWe estimated a monetary impact of $145,515 in unrecoverable questioned costs9 for\nFY 2010. We calculated the cost savings10 based on additional labor cost incurred by\nselected Mid-America delivery units due to city carriers and manual distribution clerks\ncasing and sorting flat mailpieces. See Tables 4, 5, and 6.\n\n Table 4. Summary of Cost Savings\n Impact\n Findings Category Amount\n Unrecoverable $99,661\n Unworked Flats City Carriers October 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010 questioned\n FY 2010 Costs for Manual Casing (see Table 5) costs\n Unrecoverable 45,854\n Unworked Flats Manual Distribution Clerks October 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010 questioned\n FY 2010 Costs for Manual Sorting (see Table 6) costs\n Total $145,515\n Source: OIG Analysis\n\n\n\n\n Table 5. City Carrier Costs for Manual Casing of Flat Mail October 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010\n Total\n Total FY 2010 Cased FY 2010 Total FY 2010\n Cased Cost of Unworked Cost of Cased Cost of\n FY 2010 Unworked Casing Flat Casing Unworked Casing\n Number of Flat Pieces Workhours Pieces Workhours Flat Pieces Workhours\n Casing (100 (100 (80 (80 (62 (62\nDelivery Unit Workhours Percent) Percent) Percent) Percent) Percent) Percent)\n 820 353,250 $35,792 282,600 $28,634 175,21 2 $17,753\n 1,441 621,120 62,933 496,896 50,347 308,07 6 31,215\n 821 353,902 35,858 283,122 28,687 175,53 5 17,786\n 575 247,960 25,124 198,368 20,099 122,98 8 12,461\n 638 275,060 27,870 220,048 22,296 136,43 0 13,823\n 306 131,789 13,353 105,431 10,683 65,367 6,623\n Totals 4,601 1,983,081 $200,930 1,586,465 $160,746 983,608 $99,661\n Source: eFlash and OIG Analysis\n\n\n\n\n9\n Unrecoverable costs that are unnecessary, unreasonable or an alleged violation of law or regulation.\n10\n According to the DAR for the FSS program, delivery units should expect to capture an 85 percent savings rate for\ncity carriers and an 80 percent savings rate for manual distribution clerks; we used the lower percent to be\nconservative in our estimates. We based the calculated savings on a carrier productivity rate of 431 flats per hour\nand clerk productivity of 1,006.25 mailpieces per hour. The manual distribution clerk calculation does not consider\ncarrier route mailpieces because the piece count is not available. Calculations used FY 2010 wage rates.\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n\n Table 6. Manual Distribution Clerk Costs for Manual Sorting of Flat Mail October 2009 \xe2\x80\x93 May 2010\n Total Total\n Total Cased FY 2010 Sorted FY 2010\n Sorted Unworke Cost of Unworked Cost of\n FY 2010 Unworked FY 2010 Cost d Flat Casing Flat Sorting\n Number of Flat Pieces of Sorting Pieces Workhours Mailpieces Workhours\n Sorting (100 Workhours (80 (80 (62 (62\nDelivery Unit Workhours Percent) (100 Percent) Percent) Percent) Percent) Percent)\n\n351 353,250 $16,468 282,600 $13,1 74 175,2 12 $8,168\n 617 621,120 28,956 496,8 96 23,165 308,076 $14,362\n 352 353,902 16,498 283,1 22 13,199 175,535 $8,183\n 246 247,960 11,560 198,3 68 9,248 122,988 $5,734\n 273 275,060 12,823 220,0 48 10,258 136,430 $6,360\n\n 131 131,789 6,144 105,431 4,915 65,367 $3,047\n Totals 1,970 1,983,081 $92,449 1,586,465 $73,959 983,608 $45,854\n Source: eFlash and OIG Analysis\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n\n APPENDIX D: MANAGEMENT\xe2\x80\x99S COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cThe Effects of the Flats Sequencing System on DR-MA-10-001\n Delivery Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Mid-America District\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c'


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 32000L0082
 Richtlinie 2000/82/EG der Kommission vom 20. Dezember 2000 zur Änderung der Anhänge der Richtlinien 76/895/EWG, 86/362/EWG, 86/363/EWG und 90/642/EWG des Rates über die Festsetzung von Höchstgehalten an Rückständen von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln in und auf Obst und Gemüse, Getreide, Lebensmitteln tierischen Ursprungs bzw. bestimmten Erzeugnissen pflanzlichen Ursprungs, einschließlich Obst und Gemüse (Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 003 vom 06/01/2001 S. 0018 - 0026
 Richtlinie 2000/82/EG der Kommissionvom 20. Dezember 2000zur Änderung der Anhänge der Richtlinien 76/895/EWG, 86/362/EWG, 86/363/EWG und 90/642/EWG des Rates über die Festsetzung von Hoechstgehalten an Rückständen von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln in und auf Obst und Gemüse, Getreide, Lebensmitteln tierischen Ursprungs bzw. bestimmten Erzeugnissen pflanzlichen Ursprungs, einschließlich Obst und Gemüse(Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)DIE KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN -gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft,gestützt auf die Richtlinie 76/895/EWG des Rates vom 23. November 1976 über die Festsetzung von Hoechstgehalten an Rückständen von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln auf und in Obst und Gemüse(1), zuletzt geändert durch die Richtlinie 2000/57/EG der Kommission(2), insbesondere auf Artikel 5,gestützt auf die Richtlinie 86/362/EWG des Rates vom 24. Juli 1986 über die Festsetzung von Hoechstgehalten an Rückständen von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln auf und in Getreide(3), zuletzt geändert durch die Richtlinie 2000/81/EG der Kommission(4), insbesondere auf Artikel 10,gestützt auf die Richtlinie 86/363/EWG des Rates vom 24. Juli 1986 über die Festsetzung von Hoechstgehalten an Rückständen von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln auf und in Lebensmitteln tierischen Ursprungs(5), zuletzt geändert durch die Richtlinie 2000/81/EG, insbesondere auf Artikel 10,gestützt auf die Richtlinie 90/642/EWG des Rates vom 27. November 1990 über die Festsetzung von Hoechstgehalten an Rückständen von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln auf und in bestimmten Erzeugnissen pflanzlichen Ursprungs, einschließlich Obst und Gemüse(6), zuletzt geändert durch die Richtlinie 2000/81/EG, insbesondere auf Artikel 7,in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:(1) Bei Getreide und Erzeugnissen pflanzlichen Ursprungs, einschließlich Obst und Gemüse, sollten die Rückstandsgehalte den Einsatz der Mindestmenge an Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln widerspiegeln, die erforderlich ist, um einen wirksamen Pflanzenschutz zu erzielen. Diese sind so zu verwenden, dass die Rückstandsmenge so gering wie möglich und toxikologisch vertretbar ist, insbesondere im Hinblick auf den Umweltschutz und die geschätzte Aufnahme mit der Nahrung durch die Verbraucher. Bei Lebensmitteln tierischen Ursprungs sollten die Rückstandsgehalte die Aufnahme von mit Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln behandeltem Getreide und Erzeugnissen pflanzlichen Ursprungs durch Tiere sowie gegebenenfalls die unmittelbaren Folgen des Einsatzes von Veterinärarzneimitteln widerspiegeln.(2) Die Rückstandshöchstgehalte für Schädlingsbekämpfungsmittel sollten ständig überprüft werden. Sie können geändert werden, um neuen Informationen und Daten Rechnung zu tragen. Ergibt die zugelassene Verwendung von Pflanzenschutzmitteln keine bestimmbaren Rückstände von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln in oder auf dem Lebensmittel, oder ist die Verwendung nicht zugelassen, oder ist die von Mitgliedstaaten zugelassene Verwendung nicht durch die erforderlichen Daten gestützt, oder werden in Drittländern Pflanzenschutzmittel verwendet, die zu Rückständen in oder auf Lebensmitteln führen, die auf den Gemeinschaftsmarkt gelangen können und über die keine ausreichenden Daten vorliegen, so sollte die untere analytische Bestimmungsgrenze als Rückstandshöchstgehalt festgesetzt werden.(3) Es wurden Entscheidungen der Kommission erlassen, folgende Wirkstoffe nicht in Anhang I der Richtlinie 91/414/EWG des Rates vom 15. Juli 1991 über das Inverkehrbringen von Pflanzenschutzmitteln(7), zuletzt geändert durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2000/80/EG(8), aufzunehmen: Azinphos-ethyl (Entscheidung 95/276/EG der Kommission(9), Propham (Entscheidung 96/586/EG der Kommission(10)), Dinoterb (Entscheidung 98/269/EG der Kommission(11), DNOC (Entscheidung 1999/164/EG der Kommission(12)), Pyrazophos (Entscheidung 2000/233/EG der Kommission(13)), Monolinuron (Entscheidung 2000/234/EG der Kommission(14)), Chlozolinat (Entscheidung 2000/626/EG der Kommission(15)) und Tecnazen (Entscheidung 2000/725/EG der Kommission(16)). Mit diesen Entscheidungen wurden die Zulassungen für die Verwendung der Pflanzenschutzmittel, die die betreffenden Wirkstoffe enthalten, in der Gemeinschaft widerrufen. Alle Rückstände von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln, die sich aus der Verwendung dieser Pflanzenschutzmittel ergeben, müssen daher in die Anhänge der Richtlinien 86/362/EWG, 86/363/EWG und 90/642/EWG aufgenommen werden, um eine ordnungsgemäße Überwachung und Kontrolle ihrer Verwendung zu ermöglichen und den Verbraucher zu schützen. Um berechtigte Erwartungen hinsichtlich der Verwendung vorhandener Vorräte an Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln zu erfuellen, ist in den Entscheidungen der Kommission über die Nichtaufnahme ein Übergangszeitraum vorgesehen. Es empfiehlt sich, dass Rückstandshöchstgehalte, die auf dem Grundsatz basieren, dass die Verwendung des betreffenden Stoffs in der Gemeinschaft nicht zugelassen ist, erst nach Ablauf des für diesen Stoff festgesetzten Übergangszeitraums gelten sollten.(4) In Anhang II der Richtlinie 76/895/EWG des Rates (geändert durch die Richtlinie 82/528/EWG der Kommission(17)) wurden Rückstandshöchstgehalte von Azinphosethyl in einigen Erzeugnissen festgesetzt, doch die Mitgliedstaaten durften höhere Rückstandshöchstgehalte festsetzen. Um auf Gemeinschaftsebene harmonisierte Rückstandshöchstgehalte von Azinphos-ethyl in und auf Obst und Gemüse festzusetzen, müssen diese Rückstandshöchstgehalte in die Richtlinie 90/642/EWG aufgenommen werden. Außerdem sollten sie nach dem Widerruf der Zulassungen auf Gemeinschaftsebene geändert werden.(5) Die gemeinschaftlichen Rückstandshöchstgehalte und die vom Codex Alimentarius empfohlenen Werte werden nach ähnlichen Verfahren festgelegt und bewertet. Es gibt keine Codex-Rückstandshöchstgehalte für Azinphos-ethyl, Dinoterb, DNOC, Monolinuron, Propham und Chlozolinat. Es gibt eine begrenzte Zahl von Codex-Rückstandshöchstgehalten für Pyrazophos und Tecnazen; diesen wurde bei der Festsetzung der in dieser Richtlinie angegebenen Rückstandshöchstgehalte Rechnung getragen. Die Gemeinschaft hat der Welthandelsorganisation den Entwurf einer Richtlinie der Kommission notifiziert und die dazu eingegangenen Anmerkungen bei der Endfassung der Richtlinie berücksichtigt. Die Europäische Gemeinschaft wird die Möglichkeit der Festlegung von Toleranzhöchstgehalten für die Einfuhr von spezifischen Schädlingsbekämpfungsmittel/Erzeugnis-Kombinationen auf der Grundlage von vertretbaren Daten und von Bewertungen der vertretbaren Aufnahme durch die Verbraucher prüfen(18).(6) Die in dieser Richtlinie vorgesehenen Maßnahmen entsprechen der Stellungnahme des Ständigen Ausschusses für Pflanzenschutz -HAT FOLGENDE RICHTLINIE ERLASSEN:Artikel 1In Anhang II der Richtlinie 76/895/EWG werden die Einträge zu Azinphos-ethyl gestrichen.Artikel 2In der Tabelle in Anhang II Teil A der Richtlinie 86/362/EWG werden Einträge für folgende Rückstände von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln hinzugefügt:>PLATZ FÜR EINE TABELLE>Artikel 3Anhang II der Richtlinie 86/363/EWG wird wie folgt geändert:1. In der Tabelle in Teil A werden Einträge für folgende Rückstände von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln hinzugefügt:>PLATZ FÜR EINE TABELLE>2. In der Tabelle in Teil B werden Einträge für folgende Rückstände von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln hinzugefügt:>PLATZ FÜR EINE TABELLE>Artikel 4In der Tabelle in Anhang II der Richtlinie 90/642/EWG werden die im Anhang zur vorliegenden Richtlinie aufgeführten Einträge für Rückstände von Schädlingsbekämpfungsmitteln hinzugefügt.Artikel 5(1) Diese Richtlinie tritt zwanzig Tage nach ihrer Veröffentlichung in Kraft.(2) Die Mitgliedstaaten erlassen und veröffentlichen die erforderlichen Rechts- und Verwaltungsvorschriften, um dieser Richtlinie spätestens am 1. Juli 2001 nachzukommen. Sie setzen die Kommission unverzüglich davon in Kenntnis.(3) Sie wenden diese Maßnahmen ab 1. Juli 2001 auf Azinphos-ethyl, Propham und Dinoterb an.(4) Sie wenden diese Maßnahmen ab 1. Juli 2002 auf DNOC, Pyrazophos und Monolinuron an.(5) Sie wenden diese Maßnahmen ab 1. Januar 2003 auf Chlozolinat und Tecnazen an.(6) Bei Erlass dieser Vorschriften nehmen die Mitgliedstaaten in den Vorschriften selbst oder durch einen Hinweis bei der amtlichen Veröffentlichung auf diese Richtlinie Bezug. Die Mitgliedstaaten regeln die Einzelheiten dieser Bezugnahme.Artikel 6Diese Richtlinie ist an alle Mitgliedstaaten gerichtet.Brüssel, den 20. Dezember 2000Für die KommissionDavid ByrneMitglied der Kommission(1) ABl. L 340 vom 9.12.1976, S. 26.(2) ABl. L 244 vom 29.9.2000, S. 76.(3) ABl. L 221 vom 7.8.1986, S. 37.(4) ABl. L 326 vom 22.12.2000, S. 56.(5) ABl. L 221 vom 7.8.1986, S. 43.(6) ABl. L 350 vom 14.12.1990, S. 71.(7) ABl. L 230 vom 19.8.1991, S. 1.(8) ABl. L 309 vom 9.12.2000, S. 14.(9) ABl. L 170 vom 20.7.1995, S. 22.(10) ABl. L 257 vom 10.10.1996, S. 41.(11) ABl. L 117 vom 21.4.1998, S. 13.(12) ABl. L 54 vom 2.3.1999, S. 21.(13) ABl. L 73 vom 22.3.2000, S. 16.(14) ABl. L 73 vom 22.3.2000, S. 18.(15) ABl. L 263 vom 13.10.2000, S. 32.(16) ABl. L 292 vom 21.11.2000, S. 30.(17) ABl. L 234 vom 9.8.1982, S. 1.(18) Leitfaden zu Einfuhrtoleranzen - Dokument 7169/VI/99 Rev. 1.ANHANG>PLATZ FÜR EINE TABELLE>


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22003D0123
 Gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 123/2003 av den 26 september 2003 om ändring av bilaga XX (Miljö) till EES-avtalet
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning nr L 331 , 18/12/2003 s. 0050 - 0051
 Gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslutnr 123/2003av den 26 september 2003om ändring av bilaga XX (Miljö) till EES-avtaletGEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉN HAR BESLUTAT FÖLJANDEmed beaktande av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, ändrat genom protokollet med justeringar av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, nedan kallat "avtalet", särskilt artikel 98 i detta, ochav följande skäl:(1) Bilaga XX till avtalet ändrades genom Gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 93/2003 av den 11 juli 2003(1).(2) Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2003/4/EG av den 28 januari 2003 om allmänhetens tillgång till miljöinformation och om upphävande av rådets direktiv 90/313/EEG(2) bör införlivas med avtalet.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1Bilaga XX till avtalet skall ändras på följande sätt:1. Punkt 2 (rådets direktiv 90/313/EEG) skall utgå med verkan från och med den 14 februari 2005.2. Följande punkt skall införas efter punkt 2i (Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2001/42/EG):"2j. 32003 L 0004: Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2003/4/EG av den 28 januari 2003 om allmänhetens tillgång till miljöinformation och om upphävande av rådets direktiv 90/313/EEG (EUT L 41, 14.2.2003, s. 26)."Artikel 2Texterna till direktiv 2003/4/EG på isländska och norska, som skall offentliggöras i EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, skall vara giltiga.Artikel 3Detta beslut träder i kraft den 27 september 2003 under förutsättning att alla anmälningar enligt artikel 103.1 i avtalet har gjorts till Gemensamma EES-kommittén(3).Artikel 4Detta beslut skall offentliggöras i EES-delen av och EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning.Utfärdat i Bryssel den 26 september 2003.På Gemensamma EES-kommitténs vägnarOrdförandeHans furstliga höghet prins Nikolaus von Liechtenstein(1) EUT L 272, 23.10.2003, s. 29.(2) EUT L 41, 14.2.2003, s. 26.(3) Konstitutionella krav finns angivna.


text:
 12.9.2016
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 335/18
 Sentenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja (L-Ewwel Awla) tat-13 ta’ Lulju 2016 (talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari tal-Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf – il-Ġermanja) – Joachim Pöpperl vs Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
 (Kawża C-187/15) (1)
 ((Rinviju għal deċiżjoni preliminari - Artikolu 45 TFUE - Moviment liberu tal-ħaddiema - Uffiċjal ta’ Stat Membru li telaq mis-servizz pubbliku sabiex jeżerċita impjieg fi Stat Membru ieħor - Leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali li f’dan il-każ tipprevedi t-telf tad-drittijiet għall-pensjoni tax-xjuħija miksuba fis-servizz pubbliku u s-sħubija retroattiva fl-iskema ġenerali ta’ assigurazzjoni għax-xjuħija))
 (2016/C 335/23)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: il-Ġermaniż
 Qorti tar-rinviju
 Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf
 Partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali
 Rikorrent: Joachim Pöpperl
 Konvenut: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
 Dispożittiv
 1)
 L-Artikolu 45 TFUE għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li dan jipprekludi leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali, bħal dik inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, li skontha persuna li għandha l-istatus ta’ uffiċjal fi Stat Membru li titlaq mill-funzjonijiet tagħha b’mod volontarju sabiex teżerċita impjieg fi Stat Membru ieħor titlef id-drittijiet tagħha għal pensjoni tax-xjuħija taħt l-iskema ta’ pensjoni tax-xjuħija tal-uffiċjali u tiġi msieħba b’mod retroattiv fl-iskema ġenerali ta’ assigurazzjoni għax-xjuħija, li tagħti dritt għal pensjoni tax-xjuħija inferjuri għal dik li kieku tirriżulta minn dawk id-drittijiet.
 2)
 L-Artikolu 45 TFUE għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li hija l-qorti nazzjonali li għandha tiżgura l-effett sħiħ ta’ dan l-artikolu u li tagħti lill-ħaddiema, f’sitwazzjoni bħal dik inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, drittijiet għal pensjoni tax-xjuħija komparabbli ma’ dawk tal-uffiċjali li jżommu d-drittijiet għal pensjoni tax-xjuħija li, minkejja bdil fil-persuna li timpjega pubblika, jikkorrispondu għas-snin ta’ servizz li dawn wettqu, billi tinterpreta d-dritt intern konformement mal-imsemmi artikolu jew, jekk tali interpretazzjoni ma tkunx possibbli, billi ma tapplikax kull dispożizzjoni kuntrarja tad-dritt intern bl-għan li tapplika l-istess skema bħal dik applikabbli għall-imsemmija uffiċjali.
 (1) ĠU C 245, 27.7.2015.