text:
Herrljunga Folkpark Furulund u.p.a. 2011-03 -13
 Medverkande Andelsägare: Kjell Olofsson, Mevlida Huskanovic, Anna-Greta Gilbertsson, Lillemor Fritioff
 Gun-Britt Flogberg, Pauli Asunmaa, Jan Olsson , Lars-Erik Fritioff, Britt-Marie Emilsson, Anders Stålberg, Gunilla Flogberg, Gösta Larsson
 Befullmäktigat ombud: SAP (Birgitta Larsson)
 Övriga: Gösta Johansson, Harry Nilsson, Sören Holm
 § 1. Mötet öppnas: styrelsens ordf. Kjell hälsar de närvarande välkomna och förklarar mötet öppnat.
 § 2. Val av mötesfunktionärer:
 a) Ordförande Harry Nilsson
 b) Sekreterare Lillemor Fritioff
 a) 2 protokollsjusterare och rösträknare: Britt-Marie Emilsson, Gösta Johansson
 § 3. Närvarolista och fullmaktsgranskning: Enl bif. lista
 § 4. Dagordningens godkännande: Mötet beslutade att anta dagordningen i sin helhet.
 § 5. Godkännande av kallelse till mötet: Mötet har annonserats i lokala annonsbladet "Knallebladet". Dessutom har kallelse funnits uppsatt på 1 anslagstavla, i två livsmedelsaffärer och på hemsidan. De andelsägare som vi har mailadress till har också fått kallelse. Mötet beslutade att godkänna kallelsen till mötet.
 § 6. Verksamhets/årsberättelse: Styrelsens ordförande Kjell läste upp årets verksamhetsberättelse som mötet antog. Bifogas
 § 7. Ekonomisk redovisning: Styrelsens ordförande redogjorde för årets resultat och balansräkning som visade på ett underskott på ca. 9 500:- Att resultatet blivit negativt framgår av årsberättelsen. Mötet godkände denna redovisning.
 § 8. Revisionsberättelse: Sören Holm, revisor, redogjorde för revisionen, som utifrån situationen med en inte så väl insatt kassör, varit något komplicerad. Gun-Britt tog några veckor före årsmötet, på styrelsens uppdrag, på sig uppgiften att reda ut bokföringen. Revisorerna godkände den redovisning som Gun-Britt lagt ner stort arbete på och mötet framförde ett stort tack till henne för detta. Revisionsberättelse bifogas
 § 9. Beslut om ansvarsfrihet för styrelsen:
 Mötet beslutade att ge styrelsen ansvarsfrihet för det gångna året
 § 10. Beslut i anledning av föreningens vinst eller förlust enligt balansräkning: Mötet beslutade att föra över årets förlust till ny räkning.
 § 11. Beslut om ersättning för bil, släp:
 Mötet beslutade om fortsatt 18 kronor/mil vid resor på styrelsens uppdrag.
 § 12. Beslut om arvoden för ordförande och kassör:
 Mötet beslutade om 1 000: - i arvode för ordförande och kassör vardera.
 § 13. Beslut om taxa vid uthyrning av Parken:
 Kommersiellt eller sällskap över 100 personer
 Per dag 3 500: -
 Privat per dag, max 100 pers 1 500: -
 Kök 500: -
 Ideella föreningar olika taxa beroende på verksamhet och syfte
 Ex. Axet 750:-
 Styrelsen fick i uppdrag att forma en taxa som även tar hänsyn till antalet besökare/gäster vid uthyrning.
 § 14. Val av styrelse. ( sluten eller öppen omröstning?): Mötet valde öppen omröstning.
 a) Till ordförande 2 år valdes Kjell Olofsson
 b) Till ordinarie ledamöter:
 2 år valdes
 Lillemor Fritioff omval
 Anna-Greta Gilbertsson omval
 Ulrika Johansson omval
 1 år fyllnadsval
 c) Till styrelsesuppleanter 1 år valdes
 Gun-Britt Flogberg
 Pauli Asunmaa
 Lars-Erik Fritioff
 Britt-Marie Emilsson
 Gunilla Flogberg
 § 15. Val av 2 revisorer 1 år: Sören Holm, Pia Ohlin
 § 16. Val av revisorssuppleant 1 år: Carla Carli
 § 17. Val av ombud till Folkets Hus och Parker: Kjell Olofsson
 § 18. Val av valberedning: Britt-Marie Emilsson sammank. Harry Nilsson, Birgitta Larsson
 § 19. Information om verksamheten: Ordf. Kjell informerar om hur vädrets makter varit onådiga mot föreningen på loppisdagarna. Inkomsterna från loppmarknaderna är basen till ekonomin i parken. Ordf. informerade om att den tilltänkta tillbyggnaden av danslokalen med nya toaletter, garderob och kök inte blev av eftersom Boverket inte beviljade något bidrag under 2010. Handlingar om bidrag från Boverket är åter inlämnade och föreningen hoppas på denna gång få ett positivt svar denna gången. Vid ett positivt svar hoppas tillbyggnaden komma igång snarast för att kunna vara klar till hösten.
 Ombyggnaden av stora scenen till kombinerad scen och disco är inte helt färdig men Mikael, Monica och ev. någon mera kommer att färdigställa den snarast. Även taket måste tätas eller läggas om.
 Ett samarbete med PRO har inletts och boulebanorna är nästan helt klara att tas i bruk. Man planerar en invigning med olika temalag och senare en mästerskapstävling. En skrivelse lämnades till kommunen förra året om önskemål att kommunen iordningställer ytterligare en parkering närmare Boråsvägen. Tyvärr hänvisade man till att ekonomin inte tillåter detta.
 Föreningens ordförande framför positiva tankar kring samarbetet med PRO och hälsar Gösta välkommen till styrelsen. I stället för hyra kommer PRO att hjälpa till med underhåll i parken som gräsklippning m.m.
 Parken kommer även att användas till att rasta hundar lösa under tillsyn av Lillemor och med hänsyn till att inte boulebanorna skadas.
 Styrelsen tackade Gun-Britt för insatsen med bokföringen genom att överräcka en bukett blommor.
 § 21. Avslutning: Ordförande tackar för visat förtroende och förklarar mötet avslutas
 Sekreterare Lillemor Fritioff Ordförande Harry Nilsson
 Justerare Britt-Marie Emilsson Justerare Gösta Johansson


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 |
 52012PC0512
 Togra le haghaidh RIALACHÁIN Ó PHARLAIMINT NA hEORPA AGUS ÓN gCOMHAIRLE lena leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1093/2010 lena mbunaítear Údarás Maoirseachta Eorpach (Údarás Baincéireachta Eorpach) maidir lena idirghníomhú le Rialachán (AE) Uimh. .../... ón gComhairle lena dtugtar cúraimí sonracha don Bhanc Ceannais Eorpach i ndáil le beartais a bhaineann le maoirseacht stuamachta a dhéanamh ar institiúidí creidmheasa /* COM/2012/0512 final - 2012/0244 (COD) */
 MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁN
 1. COMHTHÉACS AN TOGRA
 Sa lá atá inniu ann, is minic a bhíonn
 stóinseacht earnáil na baincéireachta nasctha go dlúth leis an mBallstát ina
 bhfuil sí bunaithe. Is cúis é an imní atá ar dhaoine i ndáil le
 hinbhuanaitheacht an fhiachais phoiblí, ionchais maidir le fás eacnamaíoch agus
 inmharthanacht na n-institiúidí creidmheasa, le treochtaí diúltacha margaidh a
 bhfuil drochthionchar acu ar a chéile leis. D'fhéadfadh sé a bheith mar thoradh
 air sin go mbeidh rioscaí ann d'inmharthanacht institiúidí creidmheasa áirithe
 agus do chobhsaíocht an chórais airgeadais, agus d'fhéadfaí ualach trom a chur
 freisin ar airgeadas poiblí na mBallstát lena mbaineann, atá faoi bhrú cheana
 féin.
 Baineann rioscaí ar leith leis an staid seo i
 limistéar an euro. De bharr airgeadra aonair a bheith ann, is mó an seans go
 gcuirfí forbairt eacnamaíoch agus cobhsaíocht limistéar an euro ina iomláine i
 mbaol de bharr forbairtí i mBallstát amháin. Ina theannta sin, toisc an baol
 atá ann go dtitfidh cúrsaí airgeadais as a chéile feadh na dteorainneacha
 náisiúnta, tá an bonn á bhaint den mhargadh aonair le haghaidh seirbhísí
 airgeadais agus tá sé á chosc ar chabhrú le téarnamh eacnamaíoch.
 Chuidigh bunú an Údaráis Bhaincéireachta
 Eorpaigh (ÚBE), le Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1093/2010
 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 24 Samhain 2010 lena
 mbunaítear Údarás Maoirseachta Eorpach (Údarás Baincéireachta Eorpach), agus
 bunú an Chórais Eorpaigh um Maoirseacht Eorpach cheana féin le comhar
 feabhsaithe a chur chun cinn idir na maoirseoirí náisiúnta agus le forbairt
 leabhair rialacha aonair do sheirbhísí airgeadais san AE. Mar sin féin,
 déantar maoirseacht ar bhainc laistigh de theorainneacha náisiúnta den chuid is
 mó fós agus, dá bhrí sin, teipeann uirthi cos a choinneáil leis na margaí
 baincéireachta comhtháite. Tá muinín in earnáil baincéireachta an AE ídithe go
 mór de dheasca mar a theip ar iarrachtaí maoirseachta ó thosaigh an ghéarchéim
 baincéireachta, agus cuireann sé sin leis an teannas i margaí fiachais
 cheannasaigh i limistéar an euro.
 Dá bhrí sin, mar chuid d'fhís fhadtéarmach i
 ndáil le comhtháthú eacnamaíoch agus fioscach, d'iarr an Coimisiún i mí na
 Bealtaine 2012 aontas baincéireachta a bhunú chun muinín an phobail sna
 bainc agus san euro a athbhunú. Ba cheart é a bheith mar phríomhghné den aontas
 baincéireachta sásra aonair maoirseachta a bheith ann a dhéanfaidh
 formhaoirseacht dhíreach ar bhainc, rialacha stuamachta a fhorfheidhmiú ar
 bhealach dian agus neamhchlaonta agus a dhéanfaidh formhaoirseacht éifeachtach
 ar mhargaí baincéireachta trasteorann. Má áirithítear go gcloíonn maoirseacht
 baincéireachta ar fud limistéar an euro le hardchaighdeáin choiteanna,
 cuideoidh sé sin leis an muinín is gá a bhunú idir na Ballstáit, rud atá ina
 réamhchoinníoll le haon chúlstacáin choiteanna a thabhairt isteach.
 Ag cruinniú mullaigh limistéar an euro an 29 Meitheamh 2012,
 d'iarr na Ceannairí Stáit nó Rialtais ar an gCoimisiún tograí a thíolacadh chun
 sásra aonair maoirseachta a bhunú go luath. Agus an sásra sin i bhfeidhm do na
 bainc i limistéar an euro, d'fhéadfadh an Sásra Eorpach um Chobhsaíocht, tar
 éis cinnidh rialta, athchaipitliú díreach a dhéanamh ar na bainc. I gconclúidí
 na Comhairle Eorpaí ón gcruinniú a tionóladh an 28/29 Meitheamh 2012,
 cuireadh in iúl gur cheart an ráiteas sin faoi limistéar an euro agus na tograí
 a thíolacfaidh an Coimisiún dá réir sin, gur cheart go gcuirfear san áireamh
 iontu forbairt plean oibre shonraigh uainithe d'fhonn fíor-Aontas Eacnamaíoch
 agus Airgeadaíochta a bhaint amach.
 Faoin sásra nua sin, tabharfaidh an BCE faoi
 réimse leathan príomhchúraimí maoirseachta i ndáil le hinstitiúidí creidmheasa
 sna Ballstáit atá i limistéar an euro. D'fhonn
 an margadh inmheánach a chothabháil agus a neartú, ceadófar do Bhallstáit eile
 dul i ndlúthchomhar leis an BCE.
 Chun ilroinnt an mhargaidh inmheánaigh a
 sheachaint tar éis an sásra aonair maoirseachta a bhunú, ní foláir feidhmiú cuí
 an ÚBE a áirithiú. Ba cheart ról an ÚBE a
 chaomhnú, dá bhrí sin, chun tuilleadh forbartha a dhéanamh ar an leabhar rialacha
 aonair agus chun a áirithiú go ndéanfar cleachtais mhaoirseachta a chóineasú ar
 fud an AE.
 Sa bhreis ar an togra le haghaidh Rialacháin
 ón gComhairle lena dtugtar cúraimí sonracha don BCE maidir le beartais a
 bhaineann le maoirseacht stuamachta a dhéanamh ar institiúidí creidmheasa i
 gcomhréir le hAirteagal 127(6) CFAE, tugtar isteach leis an togra seo
 leasuithe spriocdhírithe ar an Rialachán lena mbunaítear an tÚdarás Eorpach
 Baincéireachta.
 2. TORTHAÍ AN CHOMHAIRLIÚCHÁIN LEIS NA
 PÁIRTITHE LEASMHARA AGUS MEASÚNUITHE TIONCHAIR
 Tá sé curtha san áireamh ag an gCoimisiún an
 anailís a rinneadh i gcomhthéacs ghlacadh an 'phacáiste maoirseachta' lenar
 cruthaíodh na hÚdaráis Mhaoirseachta Eorpacha, a rinne measúnú ar na gnéithe
 oibríochtúla, rialachais, airgeadais agus dlíthiúla ar fad a bhaineann le sásra
 aonair maoirseachta a bhunú. Ní raibh sé indéanta measúnú tionchair foirmiúil a
 ullmhú laistigh den am a leagadh síos ag cruinniú mullaigh limistéar an euro an
 29 Meitheamh.
 3. EILIMINTÍ DLÍTHIÚLA AN TOGRA
 Tá an togra bunaithe ar Airteagal 114
 CFAE ós rud é go ndéanann sé leasú ar Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1093/2010 a
 glacadh faoin mbunús dlí céanna.
 Tá an togra teoranta do choigeartú a dhéanamh
 ar na rialacha mionsonraithe maidir le nós imeachta faoina bhfeidhmíonn an ÚBE,
 chun a chur san áireamh na cúraimí maoirseachta atá tugtha don BCE agus chun a
 áirithiú gur féidir leis an ÚBE leanúint dá fheidhmeanna a shaothrú chun
 sláine, éifeachtúlacht agus feidhmiú ordúil an mhargaidh inmheánaigh do
 sheirbhísí airgeadais a chosaint agus chun cobhsaíocht an chórais airgeadais
 laistigh den mhargadh inmheánach a chothabháil. Ní chuireann sé isteach ar
 chothromaíocht na n‐inniúlachtaí ábhartha idir an ÚBE agus na húdaráis
 náisiúnta. Ní théann na forálacha sa togra thar a bhfuil riachtanach chun na
 cuspóirí atá á saothrú a bhaint amach. Tá an togra, dá bhrí sin, i gcomhréir le
 prionsabal na coimhdeachta agus prionsabal na comhréireachta atá leagtha amach
 in Airteagal 5 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 4. Míniú mionsonraithe ar an Togra
 Cumhachtaí
 an ÚBE, go háirithe i gcás idirghabhála ceangailtí/éigeandálaí
 Leasaítear an fhoclaíocht in Airteagal 4,
 Airteagal 18(1) agus in Airteagal 35(1) go (3) chun a áirithiú gur
 féidir leis an ÚBE a chúraimí i ndáil leis an BCE a chur i gcrích, trína
 shoiléiriú go n-áirítear i gcoincheap na 'n-údarás inniúil' an BCE freisin, mar
 atá sna hairteagail eile a dhéanann tagairt do 'údaráis inniúla'.
 Chun a áirithiú gur féidir leis an ÚBE a
 chúraimí a chur i gcrích chun easaontais a réiteach agus chun gníomhú in
 éigeandálaí i ndáil leis an BCE freisin, in Airteagal 18 agus in Airteagal 19,
 cuirtear isteach mír 18(3a) agus mír 19(3a) chun foráil a dhéanamh maidir le
 nós imeachta sonrach i ndáil leis an gcinneadh arna ghlacadh ag an ÚBE faoi Airteagal 18(3)
 nó faoi Airteagal 19(3). Foráiltear sa nós imeachta sin go mbeidh ar an
 BCE cúiseanna a thabhairt mura gcomhlíonann sé beart de chuid an ÚBE maidir le
 heasaontas a réiteach nó chun dul i ngleic le héigeandáil. Cé nach dóchúil é, i
 gcás ina bhfuil na ceanglais ábhartha leagtha amach i ndlí an Aontais atá
 infheidhme go díreach, féadfaidh an ÚBE cinneadh aonair a ghlacadh atá dírithe
 ar an institiúid airgeadais lena mbaineann chun a bheart a fhorfheidhmiú, agus
 bítear ag súil de ghnáth go ndéanfaidh sé amhlaidh. Áiritheofar leis sin go
 bhforfheidhmeofar ina iomláine réiteach easaontais ag an ÚBE agus gníomhú an
 ÚBE in éigeandáil.
 Rialacha mionsonraithe maidir le vótáil
 Toisc gurb é an BCE a dhéanfaidh seasamh na
 mBallstát i limistéar an euro a chomhordú, beidh athbhreithniú ag teastáil ar
 na rialacha mionsonraithe maidir le vótáil dá ndéantar foráil faoi láthair sa
 rialachán ÚBE, chun a áirithiú go nglactar cinntí an ÚBE ar mhaithe leis an
 margadh inmheánach do sheirbhísí airgeadais a chothabháil agus a neartú.
 Faoin Rialachán ÚBE, glacann an Bord
 Maoirseoirí cinntí maidir le cúrsaí rialála (caighdeáin cheangailteacha
 theicniúla, treoirlínte agus moltaí dá bhforáiltear in Airteagail 10, 15 agus
 16, agus cinntí chun srianta ar ghníomhaíochtaí airgeadais dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 9.5
 a mheas an athuair) agus maidir le cúrsaí buiséadacha (Caibidil VI) ar
 bhonn tromlaigh cháilithe a chomhaltaí, mar atá sainmhínithe in Airteagal 16(4)
 den CAE agus Airteagal 3 de Phrótacal Uimh. 36 maidir le forálacha
 idirthréimhseacha.
 Glacann an Bord Maoirseoirí cinntí maidir le
 saincheisteanna eile (e.g. maidir le sárú dlí de réir Airteagal 17,
 réiteach easaontais faoi Airteagal 19, agus maidir leis an mBord
 Bainistíochta a thoghadh) le tromlach simplí de na comhaltaí a bhfuil vóta acu
 de réir na rialach 'vóta amháin an duine'.
 Mura dtagann athrú ar na cearta vótála, ní
 féidir a áirithiú gur ar mhaithe le leasanna an Aontais ina iomláine a bheidh
 na cinntí a ghlacfaidh tromlach simplí. Ní foláir, dá bhrí sin, na socruithe
 vótála a choigeartú i gcásanna áirithe ina bhfuil tromlach simplí chun a
 áirithiú go gcaomhnaítear sláine an mhargaidh inmheánaigh ach nach gcuirtear
 bac ar chumas cinnteoireachta an ÚBE.
 Is é an rogha is fearr i ndáil leis an
 gcuspóir sin a bhaint amach, cumhachtaí cinnteoireachta a thabhairt do phainéal
 neamhspleách agus foráil a dhéanamh maidir le tromlach aisiompaithe láidir a
 áiritheoidh go dtacaíonn na Ballstáit atá i limistéar an euro agus na Ballstáit
 nach bhfuil i limistéar an euro leis an togra arna réiteach ag an bpainéal
 neamhspleách. Áiritheofar leis sin freisin nach féidir leis na Ballstáit i
 limistéar an euro mionlach blocála a bheith acu i gcás beart a dhéantar ina
 gcoinne.
 Leasaítear Airteagal 41 den Rialachán ÚBE
 chun cumhachtaí cinnteoireachta níos mó a thabhairt don phainéal neamhspleách i
 ndáil le sáruithe ar dhlí an AE agus réiteach easaontas, agus chun rialacha
 maidir lena chomhdhéanamh a oiriúnú dá réir sin.
 Leasaítear Airteagal 44 den Rialachán ÚBE
 chun go bhforálfar go nglacfar na cinntí arna moladh ag an bpainéal
 neamhspleách ach amháin má dhiúltaíonn tromlach simplí dóibh, tromlach ina
 mbeidh trí vóta ar a laghad ó na Ballstáit rannpháirteacha agus na Ballstáit
 nach Ballstáit rannpháirteacha iad. Cuirtear foráil shonrach leis maidir leis
 an bpainéal neamhspleách a cheapadh.
 Comhdhéanamh an Bhoird Bhainistíochta
 I bhfianaise thionchar cinntitheach chomhaltaí
 na mBallstát atá páirteach sa sásra aonair maoirseachta nó a fheidhmíonn i
 ndlúthchomhar leis agus an Bord Bainistíochta á thoghadh (tromlach simplí na
 gcomhaltaí atá i láthair), ní fhéadfadh ionadaíocht iomchuí a bheith ag
 comhaltaí na mBallstát nach bhfuil páirteach sa sásra aonair maoirseachta ar an
 mBord Bainistíochta. Chun cothromaíocht i gcomhdhéanamh an Bhoird
 Bhainistíochta a áirithiú, a léireoidh an AE ina iomláine agus ina n-áireofar
 na Ballstáit nach bhfuil páirteach sa sásra aonair maoirseachta, déanann an
 togra leasú ar chomhdhéanamh Bhord Bainistíochta an ÚBE chun a áirithiú go
 mbeidh ar a laghad beirt chomhalta ó na Ballstáit nach bhfuil páirteach sa
 sásra aonair maoirseachta ar an mBord Bainistíochta.
 Leasaítear Airteagal 45 den Rialachán
 ÚBE, dá bhrí sin, chun a áirithiú go bhfuil ar an mBord Bainistíochta dhá
 Bhallstát ar a laghad nach bhfuil rannpháirteach sa sásra aonair maoirseachta.
 Athbhreithniú ar rialacha mionsonraithe
 maidir le vótáil i bhfianaise forbairtí amach anseo
 Ar deireadh, chun athruithe ar líon na
 mBallstát sin a bhfuil an euro mar airgeadra acu, nó a bhfuil a n-údaráis
 inniúla ag feidhmiú i ndlúthchomhar le hAirteagal 6 de Rialachán .../...,
 a chur san áireamh, ní mór don Choimisiún athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar na
 forálacha atá beartaithe chun féachaint an bhfuil gá le tuilleadh coigeartuithe
 i bhfianaise na n‐athruithe sin, lena áirithiú go ndéantar cinntí an ÚBE
 d'fhonn an margadh inmheánach do sheirbhísí airgeadais a chothabháil agus a
 neartú.
 5. IMPLEACHT BHUISÉADACH
 Níl aon
 impleachtaí ag an togra do bhuiséad an AE.
 2012/0244 (COD)
 Togra le haghaidh
 RIALACHÁIN Ó PHARLAIMINT NA hEORPA AGUS
 ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 lena leasaítear Rialachán (AE)
 Uimh. 1093/2010 lena mbunaítear Údarás Maoirseachta Eorpach (Údarás
 Baincéireachta Eorpach) maidir lena idirghníomhú le Rialachán (AE)
 Uimh. .../... ón gComhairle lena dtugtar cúraimí sonracha don Bhanc
 Ceannais Eorpach i ndáil le beartais a bhaineann le maoirseacht stuamachta a
 dhéanamh ar institiúidí creidmheasa
 TÁ PARLAIMINT NA hEORPA AGUS
 COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,
 Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an
 Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe Airteagal 114 de,
 Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,
 Tar éis dóibh an dréachtghníomh reachtach a
 chur chuig na parlaimintí náisiúnta,
 Ag féachaint don tuairim ó Choiste Eacnamaíoch
 agus Sóisialta na hEorpa[1],
 Ag féachaint don tuairim ón mBanc Ceannais
 Eorpach[2],
 Ag gníomhú dóibh i gcomhréir leis an ngnáthnós
 imeachta reachtach,
 De bharr an méid seo a leanas:
 (1) An 29 Meitheamh 2012, d'iarr
 Ceannairí Stáit nó Rialtais limistéar an euro ar an gCoimisiún tograí a
 thíolacadh chun foráil a dhéanamh maidir le sásra aonair maoirseachta a mbeidh
 baint ag an mBanc Ceannais Eorpach (BCE) leis. I gconclúidí na Comhairle Eorpaí
 an 29 Meitheamh 2012, tugadh cuireadh d'Uachtarán na Comhairle Eorpaí plean
 oibre sonrach uainithe a fhorbairt i ndlúthchomhar le hUachtarán an
 Choimisiúin, le hUachtarán an Eurogroup agus le hUachtarán an BCE, d'fhonn
 fíor-Aontas Eacnamaíoch agus Airgeadaíochta a bhaint amach, plean ina n‐áireofar
 tograí nithiúla maidir le haontachas agus sláine an mhargaidh aonair a chaomhnú
 sna seirbhísí airgeadais, agus ina gcuirfear san áireamh an ráiteas faoi
 limistéar an euro agus rún an Choimisiúin tograí atá bunaithe ar Airteagal 127
 den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh a thabhairt isteach.
 (2) Is é an fhoráil seo maidir le
 sásra aonair maoirseachta an chéad chéim i dtreo aontas baincéireachta Eorpach
 a bhunú, aontas a mbeidh mar bhunús aige leabhar rialacha aonair dílis le
 haghaidh na seirbhísí airgeadais agus a bheidh comhdhéanta freisin de scéim i
 leith árachais taiscí agus creat réitigh.
 (3) Chun foráil a dhéanamh maidir
 leis an sásra aonair maoirseachta, tugann Rialachán (AE) Uimh. .../...[3] [127(6) Rialachán] ón
 gComhairle cúraimí sonracha don BCE maidir le beartais a bhaineann le
 maoirseacht stuamachta a dhéanamh ar institiúidí creidmheasa sna Ballstáit a
 bhfuil an euro mar airgeadra acu. Féadfaidh Ballstáit eile a bheith páirteach i
 ndlúthchomhar leis an BCE. Faoin Rialachán sin, tá an BCE le seasamh na
 mBallstát sin a chomhordú agus a chur in iúl maidir leis na cinntí atá le glacadh
 ag Bord Maoirseoirí an Údaráis Bhaincéireachta Eorpaí (ÚBE) agus a thagann faoi
 chuimsiú chúraimí an BCE.
 (4) Níor cheart go gcuirfeadh sé
 isteach ar fheidhmiú an mhargaidh inmheánaigh i réimse na seirbhísí airgeadais
 cúraimí maoirseachta a thabhairt don BCE san earnáil baincéireachta i gcás
 roinnt de na Ballstáit san Aontas. Ní foláir, dá bhrí sin, feidhmiú cuí an ÚBE
 a áirithiú tar éis na cúraimí sin a thabhairt.
 (5) I bhfianaise na gcúraimí
 maoirseachta arna dtabhairt don BCE le Rialachán (AE) Uimh. .../...
 [127(6) Rialachán] ón gComhairle, ba cheart go mbeadh an ÚBE in ann a chúraimí
 i ndáil leis an BCE a chomhlíonadh freisin. Chun a áirithiú go bhfanann na
 sásraí atá ann cheana i ndáil le heasaontais a réiteach agus na gníomhaíochtaí
 i gcás éigeandálaí de bheith éifeachtach, ba cheart foráil a dhéanamh maidir le
 nós imeachta sonrach. Go háirithe, mura gcomhlíonann an BCE beart de chuid an
 ÚBE maidir le easaontas a réiteach nó chun dul i ngleic le héigeandáil, ba
 cheart go mbeadh dualgas air cúiseanna a thabhairt. Sa chás sin, i gcás inar
 féidir leis an ÚBE, bunaithe ar cheanglais atá leagtha amach i ndlí an Aontais
 is infheidhme go díreach, cinneadh aonair a ghlacadh atá dírithe ar an
 institiúid airgeadais lena mbaineann, ba cheart go ndéanfadh sé amhlaidh
 (6) Chun a áirithiú go bhfuil
 leasanna na mBallstát ar fad á gcur san áireamh ar bhealach cuí, agus chun gur
 féidir leis an ÚBE feidhmiú go cuí d'fhonn an margadh inmheánach i réimse na
 seirbhísí airgeadais a chothabháil agus a threisiú, ba cheart na rialacha
 mionsonraithe maidir le vótáil ar an mBord Maoirseoirí a oiriúnú, go háirithe i
 ndáil le cinntí arna nglacadh ag an ÚBE le tromlach simplí.
 (7) Ba cheart do phainéal
 neamhspleách atá comhdhéanta de chomhaltaí an Bhoird Mhaoirseoirí a bhfuil vóta
 acu agus nach mbaineann coinbhleacht leasa dóibh, arna cheapadh ag an mBord
 Maoirseoirí, scrúdú a dhéanamh ar chinntí a bhaineann le sáruithe ar dhlí an
 Aontais agus ar réiteach easaontas. Ba cheart glacadh leis go bhfuil cinntí
 arna moladh ag an bpainéal don Bhord Maoirseoirí glactha ach amháin má
 dhiúltaíonn tromlach simplí dóibh, tromlach ina mbeidh dóthain vótaí ó
 chomhaltaí ó Bhallstáit atá páirteach sa sásra aonair maoirseachta agus ó
 Bhallstáit nach bhfuil páirteach sa sásra aonair maoirseachta.
 (8) Níor cheart a mheas go
 mbaineann coinbhleacht leasa do chomhaltaí den phainéal neamhspleách arna bhunú
 de réir Airteagal 41(2) de Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1093/2010 díreach
 toisc gur ionadaithe iad de na húdaráis inniúla ar cuid den sásra aonair
 maoirseachta iad agus go mbaineann an cás a bhfuil cinneadh le déanamh ag an
 bPainéal ina leith leis an sásra aonair maoirseachta sin. Ba cheart don ÚBE
 rialacha nós imeachta a fhorbairt don phainéal a áiritheoidh go mbeidh
 sé neamhspleách agus oibiachtúil.
 (9) Ba cheart cothromaíocht a
 bheith i gcomhdhéanamh an Bhoird Bhainistíochta agus ba cheart go ndéanfadh sé
 ionadaíocht chuí do na Ballstáit nach bhfuil páirteach sa sásra aonair
 maoirseachta.
 (10) Chun a áirithiú go
 bhfeidhmíonn an ÚBE go cuí agus go dtugtar ionadaíocht leordhóthanach do na
 Ballstáit ar fad, ba cheart athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar na rialacha
 mionsonraithe maidir le vótáil, ar chomhdhéanamh an Bhoird Bhainistíochta, agus
 ar chomhdhéanamh an phainéil neamhspleách agus an t‐athbhreithniú sin a
 dhéanamh tar éis tréimhse iomchuí ama, ag cur san áireamh aon taithí agus
 forbairtí a tharla i rith na tréimhse sin.
 (11) Ós rud é nach féidir leis na
 Ballstáit cuspóirí an Rialacháin seo a bhaint amach go leordhóthanach, eadhon
 leibhéal ard, éifeachtach agus comhsheasmhach rialála agus maoirseachta
 stuamachta a áirithiú ar fud an Aontais Eorpaigh, sláine, éifeachtúlacht agus
 feidhmiú ordúil na margaí airgeadais a chosaint agus cobhsaíocht an chórais
 airgeadais a chothabháil, agus gur fearr, dá bhrí sin, de bharr fhairsinge an
 bhirt, is féidir iad a bhaint amach ar leibhéal an Aontais, féadfaidh an
 tAontas bearta a ghlacadh i gcomhréir le prionsabal na coimhdeachta atá leagtha
 amach in Airteagal 5 den Chonradh ar an Aontas Eorpach. I gcomhréir le
 prionsabal na comhréireachta atá leagtha amach san Airteagal sin, ní théann an
 Rialachán seo thar a bhfuil riachtanach chun na cuspóirí sin a bhaint amach,
 TAR ÉIS AN RIALACHÁN SEO A GHLACADH:
 Airteagal 1
 Leasaítear Rialachán (AE) Uimh. 1093/2010
 mar seo a leanas:
 1. Cuirtear an méid seo a leanas
 in ionad Airteagal 4(2)(i):
 "(i) Údaráis inniúla arna sainmhíniú i
 dTreoir 2006/48/CE agus i dTreoir 2006/49/CE, lena n-áirítear an BCE
 i ndáil le cúrsaí a bhaineann leis na cúraimí a thugtar dó le Rialachán (AE) Uimh. .../...*[127(6)
 CFAE Rialachán ón gComhairle] ón gComhairle, i dTreoir 2007/64/CE, agus dá
 dtagraítear i dTreoir 2009/110/CE.
 __________________________
 * IO L ..., ....., lch.... "
 2. Leasaítear Airteagal 18
 mar seo a leanas:
 (a) cuirtear an méid seo a leanas in ionad mhír 1:
 "1. I gcás ina dtarlaíonn forbairtí dochracha a d’fhéadfadh feidhmiú ordúil
 agus sláine na margaí airgeadais nó cobhsaíocht an chórais airgeadais ina
 iomláine san Aontas, nó cobhsaíocht cuid den chóras sin, a chur i mbaol,
 déanfaidh an tÚdarás aon ghníomhaíochtaí a dtugann na húdaráis inniúla
 maoirseachta ábhartha fúthu a éascú go gníomhach agus, má mheastar gur gá sin,
 a chomhordú.
 Chun a bheith in ann an ról sin maidir le
 héascú agus comhordú a chomhlíonadh, cuirfear an tÚdarás ar an eolas go hiomlán
 maidir le haon fhorbairtí ábhartha, agus iarrfar air páirt a ghlacadh mar
 bhreathnadóir in aon chruinniú ábhartha de chuid na n-údarás inniúil
 maoirseachta ábhartha."
 (b) cuirtear an mhír seo a leanas isteach i
 ndiaidh mhír 3:
 "3a I gcás ina n-iarrann an tÚdarás
 ar an BCE ina ról mar údarás inniúil an beart is gá a dhéanamh i gcomhréir le
 mír 3, comhlíonfaidh an BCE an iarraidh sin nó tabharfaidh sé réasún cuí
 don Údarás maidir lena neamhchomhlíonadh laistigh de 48 uair.
 3. Cuirtear an mhír seo a leanas
 isteach i ndiaidh mhír 3 d'Airteagal 19:
 "3a. I gcás ina n-iarrann an tÚdarás ar
 an BCE ina ról mar údarás inniúil beart sonrach a dhéanamh nó staonadh ó bheart
 a dhéanamh i gcomhréir le mír 3, comhlíonfaidh an BCE an iarraidh sin nó
 tabharfaidh sé réasún cuí don Údarás maidir lena neamhchomhlíonadh laistigh de
 10 lá ón iarraidh sin a fháil."
 4. Cuirtear an méid seo a leanas
 in ionad míreanna 1, 2 agus 3 d'Airteagal 35.
 "1. Arna iarraidh sin ag an Údarás, déanfaidh na húdaráis inniúla gach
 faisnéis is gá a sholáthar don Údarás chun go mbeidh sé in ann na dualgais a
 shanntar dó faoin Rialachán seo a chur i gcrích, ar choinníoll go bhfuil
 rochtain dhlíthiúil acu ar an bhfaisnéis ábhartha, agus ar choinníoll go bhfuil
 an iarraidh ar fhaisnéis riachtanach i ndáil le cineál an dualgais i dtrácht.
 2. Féadfaidh
 an tÚdarás a iarraidh freisin go soláthrófar faisnéis ag eatraimh
 athfhillteacha agus i bhformáidí sonraithe. Más
 féidir, déanfar na hiarrataí sin trí úsáid a bhaint as formáidí coiteanna
 tuairiscithe.
 3. Tar
 éis don Údarás iarraidh a bhfuil údar maith léi a fháil ó údarás inniúil,
 féadfaidh sé aon fhaisnéis a sholáthar atá riachtanach lena chumasú don údarás
 inniúil a chuid dualgas a chomhall, i gcomhréir leis na hoibleagáidí i dtaobh
 rúndachta gairmiúla atá leagtha síos i reachtaíocht earnálach agus in Airteagal 70."
 5. Cuirtear an méid seo a leanas
 in ionad míreanna 2, 3 agus 4 d'Airteagal 41.
 "2. Chun críocha Airteagal 17 agus Airteagal 19,
 bunóidh an Bord Maoirseoirí painéal neamhspleách a bheidh comhdhéanta den
 Chathaoirleach agus de bheirt chomhalta arna gceapadh ag an mBord Maoirseoirí
 as measc a chomhaltaí a bhfuil vóta acu. Beidh comhalta amháin ar a laghad ar
 an bpainéal neamhspleách a thiocfaidh ó Bhallstát nach Ballstát rannpháirteach
 é i gcomhréir le Rialachán (AE) Uimh. .../... [127(6) CFAE Rialachán ón
 gComhairle].
 Gníomhóidh comhaltaí an phainéil go
 neamhspleách agus go hoibiachtúil i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 42, ní bheidh
 siad ina n-ionadaithe don údarás inniúil lena mbaineann ná do na húdaráis
 inniúla atá ina bpáirtithe san easaontas.
 3. Molfaidh an painéal cinneadh lena ghlacadh
 go críochnaitheach ag an mBord Maoirseoirí, i gcomhréir leis an nós imeachta
 atá leagtha amach sa tríú fomhír d’Airteagal 44(1).
 4. Glacfaidh an Bord Maoirseoirí rialacha nós
 imeachta don phainéal dá dtagraítear i mír 2, lena n-áirítear rialacha
 lena gcuirtear chun feidhme an ceanglas atá leagtha amach sa dara fomhír den
 mhír sin."
 6. Cuirtear an mhír seo a leanas
 isteach in Airteagal 42.
 "Tá an chéad mhír agus an dara mír gan
 dochar do na cúraimí a thugtar don BCE le Rialachán (AE) Uimh. .../...[127(6)
 CFAE Rialachán ón gComhairle]."
 7. Cuirtear an méid seo a leanas
 in ionad Airteagal 44(1):
 "1. Déanfar cinntí an Bhoird Maoirseoirí a ghlacadh trí thromlach simplí dá
 chuid comhaltaí. Beidh vóta amháin ag gach
 comhalta.
 Maidir leis na gníomhartha a shonraítear in Airteagal 10
 go hAirteagal 16 agus maidir le bearta agus cinntí a ghlactar faoin tríú
 fomhír d’Airteagal 9(5) agus faoi Chaibidil VI, agus de mhaolú ar an gcéad
 fhomhír den mhír seo, déanfaidh an Bord Maoirseoirí cinntí ar bhonn tromlaigh
 cháilithe a chomhaltaí, mar atá sainmhínithe in Airteagal 16(4) den
 Chonradh ar an Aontas Eorpach agus in Airteagal 3 den Phrótacal (Uimh. 36)
 maidir le forálacha idirthréimhseacha.
 Maidir le cinntí i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 17
 agus Airteagal 19, measfar go bhfuil an cinneadh arna mholadh ag an
 bpainéal glactha ach amháin má dhiúltaíonn tromlach simplí dó, tromlach ina
 mbeidh trí vóta ar a laghad ó chomhaltaí ó na Ballstáit rannpháirteacha agus
 trí vóta ó chomhaltaí ó na Ballstáit nach Ballstáit rannpháirteacha iad i
 gcomhréir le Rialachán (AE) Uimh. .../... [127(6) CFAE Rialachán ón
 gComhairle] ná nach bhfuil ag feidhmiú i ndlúthchomhar leis an BCE i gcomhréir
 le Rialachán [127(6) CFAE Rialachán ón gComhairle].
 De mhaolú ar an tríú fomhír, ón dáta nach
 Ballstáit rannpháirteacha iad ceithre Bhallstát nó níos lú i gcomhréir le
 Rialachán (AE) Uimh. .../... [127(6) CFAE Rialachán ón gComhairle] ná nach
 siad ag feidhmiú i ndlúthchomhar leis an BCE i gcomhréir leis an Rialachán sin,
 measfar go bhfuil an cinneadh arna mholadh ag an bpainéal glactha ach amháin má
 dhiúltaíonn tromlach simplí dó, tromlach ina mbeidh vóta amháin ar a laghad ó
 chomhaltaí na mBallstát sin.
 Beidh vóta amháin ag gach comhalta.
 Maidir le comhdhéanamh an phainéil i gcomhréir
 le hAirteagal 41(2), déanfaidh an Bord Maoirseoirí gach iarracht teacht ar
 chomhaontú. In éagmais comhaontaithe,
 glacfaidh tromlach trí cheathrú den Bhord Maoirseoirí na cinntí. Beidh vóta amháin ag gach comhalta."
 8. Cuirtear an méid seo a leanas
 in ionad an tríú fomhír d'Airteagal 45(1):
 "Dhá bhliain go leith a bheidh i dtéarma
 oifige na gcomhaltaí arna dtoghadh ag an mBord Maoirseoirí. Féadfar an téarma sin a fhadú uair amháin. Beidh comhdhéanamh an Bhoird Bhainistíochta
 cothrom, comhréireach agus léireoidh sé an tAontas ina iomláine. Ar an mBord Bainistíochta beidh beirt ionadaí ar a
 laghad ó na Ballstáit nach Ballstáit rannpháirteacha iad i gcomhréir le
 Rialachán [127(6) CFAE Rialachán ón gComhairle] ná nach bhfuil ag feidhmiú i
 ndlúthchomhar leis an BCE i gcomhréir leis an Rialachán sin. Beidh tréimhsí forluiteacha sainordaithe ann agus
 beidh feidhm ag socrú uainíochta iomchuí."
 Airteagal 2
 Gan dochar d'Airteagal 81 de Rialachán
 (AE) Uimh. 1093/2010, faoin 1 Eanáir 2016, foilseoidh an
 Coimisiún tuarascáil maidir le cur i bhfeidhm fhorálacha an Rialacháin seo i
 ndáil leis an méid seo a leanas:
 (a)
 a oiriúnaí is atá na rialacha mionsonraithe maidir
 le vótáil;
 (b)
 comhdhéanamh an Bhoird Bhainistíochta; agus
 (c)
 comhdhéanamh an phainéil neamhspleách a ullmhaíonn
 cinntí chun críocha Airteagal 17 agus Airteagal 19.
 Cuirfear san áireamh sa tuarascáil sin aon
 athruithe ar líon na mBallstát sin a bhfuil an euro mar airgeadra acu, nó a
 bhfuil a n-údaráis inniúla ag feidhmiú i ndlúthchomhar le hAirteagal 6 de
 Rialachán .../..., agus déanfar scrúdú chun féachaint an bhfuil gá le tuilleadh
 coigeartuithe ar na forálacha sin i bhfianaise na n‐athruithe sin, lena
 áirithiú go ndéantar cinntí an ÚBE d'fhonn an margadh inmheánach do sheirbhísí
 airgeadais a chothabháil agus a neartú.
 Airteagal 3
 Tiocfaidh an Rialachán seo i bhfeidhm an lá
 tar éis lá a fhoilsithe in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 Beidh an Rialachán seo ina cheangal
 go huile agus go hiomlán agus beidh sé infheidhme go díreach i ngach Ballstát.
 Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,
 Thar ceann Pharlaimint na hEorpa Thar
 ceann na Comhairle
 An tUachtarán An
 tUachtarán
 [1] IO C , , lch. .
 [2] IO C , , lch. .
 [3]


type: caselaw

text:
 19.9.2016
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 343/22
 Cerere de decizie preliminară introdusă de Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germania) la 13 mai 2016 – flightright GmbH/Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA
 (Cauza C-274/16)
 (2016/C 343/33)
 Limba de procedură: germana
 Instanța de trimitere
 Amtsgericht Düsseldorf
 Părțile din procedura principală
 Reclamantă: flightright GmbH
 Pârâtă: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA
 Întrebarea preliminară
 În cazul unui transport aerian de persoane efectuat în două etape, fără o escală notabilă pe aeroportul de tranzit, atunci când acțiunea se îndreaptă împotriva operatorului efectiv de transport aerian care a efectuat prima etapă a călătoriei pe care s-a produs abaterea, iar în a doua etapă a călătoriei transportul este efectuat de alt operator de transport aerian, se consideră că, în sensul articolului 7 punctul (1) litera (a) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1215/2012 (1), locul de executare este locul de sosire din a doua etapă a călătoriei?
 (1) Regulamentul (UE) nr. 1215/2012 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 12 decembrie 2012 privind competența judiciară, recunoașterea și executarea hotărârilor în materie civilă și comercială (JO 2012 L 351, p. 1).


text:
 16.3.2013
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 79/8
 2012 m. gruodžio 20 d. pareikštas ieškinys byloje Europos Komisija prieš Lenkijos Respubliką
 (Byla C-598/12)
 2013/C 79/14
 Proceso kalba: lenkų
 Šalys
 Ieškovė: Europos Komisija, atstovaujama P. Hetsch, O. Beynet ir K. Herrmann
 Atsakovė: Lenkijos Respublika
 Ieškovės reikalavimai
 —
 Pripažinti, kad nepriėmusi visų įstatymų ir kitų teisės aktų, būtinų įgyvendinti 2009 m. liepos 13 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos direktyvos 2009/72/EB dėl elektros energijos vidaus rinkos bendrųjų taisyklių, panaikinančios Direktyvą 2003/54/EB (1), 2 straipsnio 1, 22, 32 ir 33 punktams, 3 straipsnio 7, 8 ir 13 dalims, 6 straipsnio 1 ir 3 dalims, 9 straipsniui, 13, 14 ir 17–23 straipsniams, 10 ir 11 straipsniams, 16 straipsnio 1 ir 2 dalims, 26 straipsnio 2 dalies b, c punktams ir d punkto trečiam ir ketvirtam sakiniams, 29 straipsniui, 38 straipsnio 1–4 dalims, 39 straipsnio 1–4 dalims, 40 straipsnio 1–3 ir 5–7 dalims bei I priedo 1 ir 2 punktams, ir bet kuriuo atveju nepranešusi Komisijai apie šiuos aktus, Lenkijos Respublika neįvykdė įsipareigojimų pagal šios direktyvos 49 straipsnio 1 dalį.
 —
 Remiantis SESV 260 straipsnio 3 dalimi, už pareigos pranešti apie Direktyvos 2009/72/EB perkėlimo priemones pažeidimą skirti Lenkijos Respublikai 84 378,24 EUR dydžio periodinę baudą, mokėtiną kasdien nuo sprendimo šioje byloje paskelbimo dienos.
 —
 Priteisti iš Lenkijos Respublikos bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 Ieškinio pagrindai ir pagrindiniai argumentai
 Terminas perkelti direktyvą 2009/72/EB baigėsi 2011 m. kovo 3 dieną.
 (1) OL L 211, p. 55


text:
 31.3.2012
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 98/5
 Решение на Съда (четвърти състав) от 16 февруари 2012 г. (преюдициално запитване от Cour constitutionnelle (по-рано Cour d'arbitrage) — Белгия) Marie-Noëlle Solvay и др./Région wallonne
 (Дело C-182/10) (1)
 (Оценка на въздействието на проекти върху околната среда - Понятие за законодателен акт - Стойност и обхват на уточненията, направени с Ръководството за прилагане на Орхуската конвенция - Разрешаване на проект без да е направена подходяща оценка на въздействието му върху околната среда - Достъп до правосъдие по въпроси на околната среда - Обхват на правото на обжалване - Директива за местообитанията - План или проект, който има отрицателно влияние върху съответната територия - Императивно съображение от значим обществен интерес)
 2012/C 98/06
 Език на производството: френски
 Запитваща юрисдикция
 Cour constitutionnelle (по-рано Cour d'arbitrage)
 Страни в главното производство
 Жалбоподатели: Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, Alix Walsh, Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l'Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels south Charleroi Airport) ASBL — A.R.A.Ch, Grégoire Stassin, André Gilliard, Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez, Gouvernement flamand, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Nicole Laloux, François Gevers, Annabelle Denoël-Gevers, Marc Traversin, Joseph Melard, Chantal Michiels, Thierry Regout, René Canfin, Georges Lahaye, Jeanine Postelmans, Christophe Dehousse, Christine Lahaye, Jean-Marc Lesoinne, Jacques Teheux, Anne-Marie Larock, Bernadette Mestdag, Jean-François Seraffin, Françoise Mahoux, Ferdinand Wallraf, Mariel Jeanne, Agnès Fortemps, Georges Seraffin, Jeannine Melen, Groupement Cerexhe-Heuseux/Beaufays ASBL, Action et Défense de l'Environnement de la vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL, Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne, Philippe Daras, Bernard Croiselet, Bernard Page, Intercommunale du Brabant Wallon SCRL, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, La Hulpe, Notre village ASBL, André Philips, Charleroi South Air Pur ASBL, Pierre Grymonprez, Sartau SA, Philippe Grisard de la Rochette, Antoine Boxus, Pierre Deneye, Jean-Pierre Olivier, Paul Thiry, Willy Roua, Guido Durlet, Agrebois SA, Yves de la Court
 Ответник: Région wallonne
 в присъствието на: Infrabel SA, Codic Belgique SA, Federal Express European Services Inc. (FEDEX), Société wallonne des aéroports (SOWEAR), Société régionale wallonne du transport (SRWT), Société Intercommunale du Brabant wallon (IBW),
 Предмет
 Преюдициално запитване — Cour constitutionnelle (по-рано Cour d'arbitrage) — Тълкуване на членове 2 (точка 2), 3 (параграф 9), 6 (параграф 9) и 9 (параграфи 2, 3 и 4) от Орхуската конвенция за достъп до информация, участие на обществеността в процеса на вземане на решения и достъп до правосъдие по екологични въпроси, сключена на 25 юни 1998 г. и одобрена от името на Европейската общност с Решение 2005/370/ЕО на Съвета от 17 февруари 2005 година (ОВ L 124, стр. 1; Специално издание на български език, 2007 г., глава 15, том 14, стр. 201) — Тълкуване на членове 1 (параграф 5), 9 (параграф 1) и 10а от Директива 85/337/ЕИО на Съвета от 27 юни 1985 година относно оценката на въздействието на някои публични и частни проекти върху околната среда (ОВ L 175, стр. 40; Специално издание на български език, 2007 г., глава 15, том 1, стр. 174) — Тълкуване член 6, параграфи 3 и 4 от Директива 92/43/ЕИО на Съвета от 21 май 1992 година за опазване на естествените местообитания и на дивата флора и фауна (ОВ L 206, стр. 7; Специално издание на български език, 2007 г., глава 15, том 2, стр. 109) — Понятие за държавен орган — Стойност и обхват на уточненията, направени с Ръководството за прилагане на Орхуската конвенция — Изключване от приложното поле на Конвенцията на законодателните актове, като разрешенията за градоустройствено проектиране или екологичните разрешенията, предоставени въз основа на декрет от регионален законодател — Съвместимост с Конвенцията и с общностното право на процедура, в резултат от която се издават разрешения, които могат да бъдат оспорвани само пред Cour constitutionnelle и пред общите съдилища — Разрешаване на проект без да е направена подходяща оценка на въздействието му върху околната среда
 Диспозитив
 1.
 Макар за тълкуването на член 2, параграф 2 и член 9, параграф 4 от Конвенцията за достъп до информация, участие на обществеността в процеса на вземане на решения и достъп до правосъдие по екологични въпроси, сключена на 25 юни 1998 г. и одобрена от името на Европейската общност с Решение 2005/370/ЕО на Съвета от 17 февруари 2005 година, да може да се вземе предвид Ръководството за прилагането на тази конвенция, то няма нито задължителна сила, нито нормативния характер, присъщ на разпоредбите на посочената конвенция.
 2.
 Член 2, параграф 2 от Конвенцията за достъп до информация, участие на обществеността в процеса на вземане на решения и достъп до правосъдие по екологични въпроси и член 1, параграф 5 от Директива 85/337/ЕИО на Съвета от 27 юни 1985 година относно оценката на въздействието на някои публични и частни проекти върху околната среда, изменена с Директива 2003/35/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 26 май 2003 година, трябва да се тълкуват в смисъл, че от съответното приложно поле на тези текстове се изключват единствено проектите, подробностите по които са приети чрез отделен законодателен акт, така че целите на посочените текстове да са били постигнати в рамките на законодателната процедура. Националният съд трябва да провери дали тези две условия са били изпълнени, отчитайки както съдържанието на приетия законодателен акт, така и законодателната процедура, довела до приемането му, в нейната цялост, и по-специално подготвителните актове и парламентарните обсъждания. В тази връзка законодателен акт, с който само и единствено се „ратифицира“ заварен административен акт, като същият законодателен акт се ограничава да посочи наличието на императивни съображения от обществен интерес, без преди това да е открита законодателна процедура по същество, позволяваща да се изпълнят тези условия, не може да се счита за отделен законодателен акт по смисъла на посочената разпоредба и следователно не е достатъчен за изключването на проект от съответното приложно поле на тази конвенция и тази директива, съответно изменена.
 3.
 Член 3, параграф 9 и член 9, параграфи 2—4 от Конвенцията за достъп до информация, участие на обществеността в процеса на вземане на решения и достъп до правосъдие по екологични въпроси и член 10а от Директива 85/337, изменена с Директива 2003/35, трябва да се тълкуват в смисъл, че:
 —
 когато проект, който попада в приложното поле на тези разпоредби, е приет със законодателен акт, въпросът дали този законодателен акт отговаря на условията по член 1, параграф 5 от тази директива, съответно изменена, съгласно националните процесуални норми трябва да може да бъде отнесен до съд или до независим и безпристрастен орган, установен със закон, и
 —
 ако срещу такъв акт не е предвидено никакво производство за обжалване с припомнените по-горе естество и обхват, всяка национална юрисдикция, която е сезирана в рамките на своята компетентност, следва да упражни описания в предходното тире контрол и въз основа на него да изведе съответните последици, като евентуално остави този законодателен акт без приложение.
 4.
 Член 6, параграф 9 от Конвенцията за достъп до информация, участие на обществеността в процеса на вземане на решения и достъп до правосъдие по екологични въпроси и член 9, параграф 1 от Директива 85/337, изменена с Директива 2003/35, трябва да се тълкуват в смисъл, че не изискват самото решение да съдържа съображенията, поради които компетентният орган е решил, че приемането му е необходимо. При поискване от заинтересовано лице обаче компетентният орган е длъжен да му представи мотивите за приемането на решението или релевантните сведения и документи, в отговор на направеното искане.
 5.
 Член 6, параграф 3 от Директива 92/43/ЕИО на Съвета от 21 май 1992 година за опазване на естествените местообитания и на дивата флора и фауна, трябва да се тълкува в смисъл, че не допуска национален орган, дори законодателен, да разреши план или проект, без да е установил, че същият няма да има отрицателно влияние върху съответната територия.
 6.
 Член 6, параграф 4 от Директива 92/43 трябва да се тълкува в смисъл, че изграждането на инфраструктура, предназначена за настаняване на административен център, по принцип не може да се счита за императивно съображение от значим обществен интерес, включително и такова от социален или икономически характер, по смисъла на тази разпоредба, което да може да обоснове осъществяването на план или проект, който има отрицателно влияние върху съответната територия.
 (1) ОВ C 179, 3.7.2010 г.


type: wikipedia

text:
6. märts on Gregoriuse kalendri 65. (liigaastal 66.) päev. Juliuse kalendri järgi 21. veebruar (liigaastal 22. veebruar; 1901–2099). Aasta lõpuni on 300 päeva.
 Sündmused
 Eestis
 1939 – Tallinnas toimus üleriiklik meierite päev.
 1939 – Draamastuudio Ühing ostis Eestimaa Saksa Teatri Seltsilt Tallinna saksa teatri hoone.
 1944 – Teine maailmasõda: 200 Nõukogude lahingulennukit heitis 11 tunniga Narvale ligi 4000 pommi, hävitades Narva vanalinna.
 2011 – Eestis toimusid Riigikogu 12. koosseisu valimised.
 Maailmas
 1714 – Hispaania pärilussõda: Rastatti rahulepinguga lõpetati sõda Prantsusmaa ja Austria vahel.
 1834 – senine York, Briti Ülem-Kanada provintsi pealinn, nimetati ümber Torontoks.
 1882 – Serbia vürstiriik nimetati ümber Serbia Kuningriigiks.
 1899 – ettevõte Bayer AG registreeris aspiriini kaubamärgi.
 1945 – Teine maailmasõda: Ungaris Balatoni piirkonnas alustasid Saksa väed pealetungioperatsiooni Punaarmee vastu.
 1957 – Briti kroonikoloonia Kullarannik ja protektoraat Briti Togomaa ühinesid Ghanaks ning iseseisvusid. Ghanast sai esimene Aafrika riigist Briti Rahvaste Ühenduse täisliige.
 1967 – Stalini tütar Svetlana Allilujeva palus USA-s poliitilist varjupaika.
 1975 – Iraagi president Saddam Hussein ja Iraani šahh Mohammad Reza Pahlavi sõlmisid Alžiiri lepingu, millega määrati kindlaks piiri kulgemine Shaţţ al-‘Arabi jõel.
 1978 – tulistati ajakirja Hustler väljaandjat Larry Flynti, mille tagajärjel ta jäi halvatuks.
 1987 – Belgia ranniku lähedal La Manche'i väinas uppus Briti parvlaev Herald of Free Enterprise.
 1997 – Suurbritannia kuninganna Elizabeth II avas esimese ametliku kuningliku veebilehe.
 1998 – tapeti Kosovo Vabastusarmee juht Adem Jasari.
 2006 – New Yorgi börs läks esmakordselt ise börsile.
 Sündinud
 1475 – Michelangelo Buonarroti, itaalia kunstnik
 1619 – Cyrano de Bergerac, prantsuse luuletaja
 1786 – Charles John Napier, Briti mereväelane
 1911 – Nikolai Baibakov, NSV Liidu poliitik ja majandustegelane
 1926 – Andrzej Wajda, poola filmirežissöör
 1927 – Wes Montgomery, ameerika džässkitarrist
 1927 – Gabriel García Márquez, Colombia kirjanik
 1937 – Valentina Tereškova, esimene naiskosmonaut
 1944 – Kiri Te Kanawa, Uus-Meremaa ooperilaulja
 1946 – David Gilmour, inglise muusik (Pink Floyd)
 1947 – Richard Fosbury, ameerika kõrgushüppaja
 1947 – Kiki Dee, briti laulja
 1953 – Jan Kjærstad, norra kirjanik
 1955 – Helle Aan, eesti ajakirjanik
 1962 – Peeter Laurits, eesti kunstnik
 1972 – Shaquille O'Neal, ameerika korvpallur
 1976 – Antoine Dénériaz, Prantsusmaa mäesuusataja
 1977 – Giórgos Karagkoúnis, kreeka jalgpallur
 Surnud
 1900 – Gottlieb Wilhelm Daimler, saksa insener, konstruktor ja tööstur
 1967 – Zoltán Kodály, ungari helilooja
 2006 – Iser Kuperman, seitsmekordne maailmameister kabes
 2017 – Kalju Komissarov, eesti näitleja, teatri- ja filmilavastaja
 Pühad
 Märtrite Perpetua ja Felicitasi mälestamispäev
 Ghana iseseisvuspäev (1957)
 Nimepäev
 Eestikeelse kalendri järgi: Tarmo, Tarmu
 Ilmarekordid
 Tallinna maksimumtemperatuur +6,4 °C (1961)
 Tallinna miinimumtemperatuur –22,9 °C (1987)
 Tartu maksimumtemperatuur +8,7 °C (1961)
 Tartu miinimumtemperatuur –28,4 °C (1964)
 Viited
 Märts 06


text:
 28.5.2005
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 132/1
 SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL DE JUSTICIA
 (Sala Segunda)
 de 14 de abril de 2004
 en el asunto C-460/01: Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas contra Reino de los Países Bajos (1)
 («Incumplimiento de Estado - Reglamentos (CEE) nos 2913/92 y 2454/93 - Tránsito comunitario externo - Autoridades aduaneras - Procedimientos dirigidos a la percepción de los derechos de entrada - Plazos - Incumplimiento - Recursos propios de las Comunidades - Puesta a disposición - Plazo - Incumplimiento - Intereses de demora - Estado miembro afectado - Falta de pago»)
 (2005/C 132/01)
 Lengua de procedimiento: neerlandés
 En el asunto C-460/01, que tiene por objeto un recurso por incumplimiento con arreglo al artículo 226 CE, interpuesto el 28 de noviembre de 2001, Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas (agentes: Sres. G. Wilms y H.M.H. Speyart) contra Reino de los Países Bajos (agente: Sra. H.G. Sevenster), el Tribunal de Justicia (Sala Segunda), integrado por el Sr. C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidente de Sala, y los Sres. R. Schintgen y J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Ponente), Jueces; Abogado General: Sra. C. Stix-Hackl; Secretaria: Sra. M.-F. Contet, administradora principal, ha dictado el 14 de abril de 2005 una sentencia cuyo fallo es el siguiente:
 1)
 Declarar que, entre el 1 de enero de 1991 y el 31 de diciembre de 1995, el Reino de los Países Bajos incumplió las obligaciones que le incumben en virtud del artículo 11 bis, apartado 2, párrafo segundo, segunda frase, del Reglamento (CEE) no 1062/87 de la Comisión, de 27 de marzo de 1987, por el que se establecen disposiciones de aplicación y medidas de simplificación del régimen de tránsito comunitario, modificado por el Reglamento (CEE) no 2560/92 de la Comisión, de 2 de septiembre de 1992, del artículo 49, apartado 2, tercera frase, del Reglamento (CEE) no 1214/92 de la Comisión, de 21 de abril de 1992, por el que se establecen disposiciones de aplicación y medidas de simplificación del régimen de tránsito comunitario, modificado por el Reglamento (CEE) no 3712/92 de la Comisión, de 21 de diciembre de 1992, y del artículo 379, apartado 2, tercera frase, del Reglamento (CEE) no 2454/93 de la Comisión, de 2 de julio de 1993, por el que se fijan determinadas disposiciones de aplicación del Reglamento (CEE) no 2913/92 del Consejo por el que se establece el Código aduanero comunitario, así como en virtud de los artículos 2, 9, 10 y 11 del Reglamento (CEE, Euratom) no 1552/89 del Consejo, de 29 de mayo de 1989, por el que se aplica la Decisión 88/376/CEE, Euratom relativa al sistema de recursos propios de las Comunidades:
 —
 al no haber contraído la deuda aduanera y los demás derechos correspondientes ni haber comunicado al deudor el importe de ésta a más tardar al tercer día después de transcurrido el plazo fijado, respectivamente, en los artículos 3, apartado 3, y 6, apartado 1, del Reglamento (CEE) no 1854/89 del Consejo, de 14 de junio de 1989, relativo a la contracción y a las condiciones de pago de las cuantías de derechos de importación o de derechos de exportación resultantes de deudas aduaneras, y en los artículos 218, apartado 3, y 221, apartado 1, del Reglamento (CEE) no 2913/92 del Consejo, de 12 de octubre de 1992, por el que se aprueba el Código aduanero comunitario, o posteriormente con arreglo a lo dispuesto en el Reglamento (CEE, Euratom) no 1182/71 del Consejo, de 3 de junio de 1971, por el que se determinan las normas aplicables a los plazos, fechas y términos, cuando el obligado principal de una operación de tránsito comunitario externo no probaba, en el plazo de tres meses tras la notificación por parte de la aduana de partida de que el envío no había sido presentado a la aduana de destino dentro del plazo establecido al efecto, la regularidad de dicha operación de tránsito;
 —
 al no haber puesto a disposición de la Comisión los recursos propios correspondientes dentro del plazo establecido al efecto, y
 —
 al haberse negado a pagar los intereses de demora correspondientes.
 2)
 Condenar en costas al Reino de los Países Bajos.
 (1) DO C 84, de 6.4.2002.


text:
Heksadesimaalijärjestelmä on kantalukujärjestelmä, jonka kantaluku on 16. Heksadesimaalijärjestelmä käyttää tavallisten numeroiden 0–9 lisäksi kirjainmerkkejä A–F merkitsemään lukuja 1010–1510. (Lukujen alaindeksissä oleva luku ilmoittaa lukujärjestelmän kantaluvun.)
 Hexadecimal-sanan otti ensimmäisenä käyttöön IBM, joka halusi korvata aiemman sexidecimal-sanan.
 Lukujen muuntaminen
 Heksadesimaalisesta desimaaliseksi
 Laskenta tapahtuu samalla tavoin kuin muissa kantalukujärjestelmissä. Muunnos heksadesimaalijärjestelmästä kymmenkantaiseen tapahtuu kertomalla luvun paikkaa vastaava numero vastaavalla 16:n potenssilla, niin että oikeanpuoleisimman paikka on nolla. Esimerkiksi luku ”FE16” on desimaalisena
 .
 Pidempi luku ”ABCD16” on desimaalisena
 .
 Binääri- ja heksadesimaalijärjestelmän välillä
 Jokainen neljän binäärinumeron (bitin) ryhmä vastaa yhtä heksadesimaalinumeroa. Muuntamisessa voidaan käyttää yllä oikealla olevaa taulukkoa. On huomattava, että bittien ryhmittely tehdään lopusta alkaen. Esimerkiksi
 1001111002 = 1 0011 11002 = 13C16 (ei 9E016!)
 ja toisin päin
 13C16 = 1 0011 11002 = 1001111002.
 Samankaltaista muunnosmenetelmää voi soveltaa muihinkin lukujärjestelmiin, joissa toisen kantaluku on toisen kantaluvun kerrannainen.
 Murtoluvut
 Tietotekniikassa
 Heksadesimaalijärjestelmää käytetään yleisesti tietotekniikassa, koska yksi 16-kantaisen järjestelmän merkki vastaa suoraan puolitavua () eli binäärijärjestelmän neljää peräkkäistä bittiä. Näin esimerkiksi 8-bittisen tavun arvo voidaan ilmaista kahden merkin pituisella heksadesimaaliluvulla.
 Ohjelmoinnissa heksadesimaaliluvut erotetaan desimaaliluvuista muun muassa seuraavin tavoin:
 \xAB
 0xCD (esimerkiksi C johdannaisineen)
 xEF
 $1A (mm. eräät MOS 6502 -assemblerit)
 BC$
 &HDE (mm. QBasic)
 16h
 x'40'
 '00'x
 #F3
 Väriarvot HTML:ssä ja CSS:ssä
 Heksadesimaalijärjestelmää käytetään mm. HTML- ja CSS-kielissä väriarvojen merkitsemiseen siten, että kuusinumeroisesta heksadesimaaliluvusta kaksi ensimmäistä numeroa ilmoittavat punaisen (R) määrän, kaksi seuraavaa vihreän (G) määrän ja kaksi viimeista sinisen (B) määrän. Tässä tapauksessa luku erotetaan yleensä laittamalla risuaitamerkki (#) luvun eteen. Esimerkkejä:
 #FF8000: punaisen osavärin arvo on FF16 eli 255 eli täysi, vihreän 8016 eli 128 ja sinisen 016 eli 0. Kun osavärit yhdistetään, saadaan tulokseksi oranssi väri.
 #FFFFFF: täysin valkoinen väri, koska kaikki osavärit ovat maksimiarvoissaan (FF16 eli 255).
 Vaihtoehdot heksadesimaalijärjestelmälle
 Toinen ohjelmointiin sopiva kantalukujärjestelmä, jonka kantaluku on kahden potenssi, on oktaalijärjestelmä eli kahdeksanjärjestelmä.
 Lähteet
 Aiheesta muualla
 Heksadesimaaliluvut – tut.fi
 https://jkorpela.fi/sanat/heksa.html
 Lukujärjestelmät
 Tietokonearitmetiikka
 Seulonnan keskeiset artikkelit


type: contracts

text:
 2.7.2020
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 L 210/3
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT TAŻ-ŻEE Nru 47/2019
 tad-29 ta’ Marzu 2019
 li temenda l-Anness I (Kwistjonijiet veterinarji u fitosanitarji) tal-Ftehim ŻEE [2020/801]
 IL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT TAŻ-ŻEE,
 Wara li kkunsidra l-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea (“il-Ftehim ŻEE”), u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 98 tiegħu,
 Billi:
 (1)
 Ir-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2018/1936 tal-10 ta’ Diċembru 2018 li temenda r-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni (UE) Nru 371/2011 fir-rigward tal-limitu massimu tad-dimetilamminoetanol (DMAE) (1) għandu jiġi inkorporat fil-Ftehim ŻEE.
 (2)
 Ir-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2018/1957 tal-11 ta’ Diċembru 2018 li jemenda r-Regolament (UE) Nru 885/2010 fir-rigward tat-termini ta’ awtorizzazzjoni tal-preparazzjoni ta’ narasin u nikarbażin bħala addittiv għat-tiġieġ għat-tismin (detentur tal-awtorizzazzjoni Eli Lilly and Company Ltd) (2) għandu jiġi inkorporat fil-Ftehim ŻEE.
 (3)
 Ir-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2018/1980 tat-13 ta’ Diċembru 2018 li jemenda r-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni (UE) 2017/2325 fir-rigward tat-termini tal-awtorizzazzjoni ta’ preparazzjonijiet ta’ leċitini likwidi, leċitini idrolizzati u leċitini li jkun tneħħielhom iż-żejt bħala addittivi tal-għalf għall-ispeċijiet kollha tal-annimali (3) għandu jiġi inkorporat fil-Ftehim ŻEE.
 (4)
 Din id-Deċiżjoni tikkonċerna l-leġiżlazzjoni dwar l-għalf. Il-leġiżlazzjoni li tirrigwarda l-għalf ma għandiex tapplika għal-Liechtenstein sakemm l-applikazzjoni tal-Ftehim bejn il-Komunità Ewropea u l-Konfederazzjoni Żvizzera dwar il-kummerċ fil-prodotti agrikoli tibqa’ estiża għal-Liechtenstein, kif speċifikat fl-adattamenti settorjali tal-Anness I tal-Ftehim ŻEE. Għaldaqstant, din id-Deċiżjoni ma tapplikax għal-Liechtenstein.
 (5)
 Għaldaqstant, l-Anness I tal-Ftehim ŻEE jenħtieġ li jiġi emendat skont dan,
 ADOTTA DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:
 Artikolu 1
 Il-Kapitolu II tal-Anness I tal-Ftehim ŻEE għandu jiġi emendat kif ġej:
 1.
 Dan li ġej jiżdied mal-punt 2k (ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (UE) Nru 885/2010):
 “, kif emendat bi:
 —
 32018 R 1957: Ir-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2018/1957 tal-11 ta’ Diċembru 2018 (ĠU L 315, 12.12.2018, p. 23).”
 2.
 L-inċiż segwenti jiżdied fil-punt 2za (ir-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) Nru 371/2011):
 “—
 32018 R 1936: Ir-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2018/1936 tal-10 ta’ Diċembru 2018 (ĠU L 314, 11.12.2018, p. 34).”
 3.
 Dan li ġej jiżdied fil-punt 238 (Ir-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2017/2325):
 “, kif emendat bi:
 —
 32018 R 1980: Ir-Regolament ta’ Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni (UE) 2018/1980 tat-13 ta’ Diċembru 2018 (ĠU L 317, 14.12.2018, p. 12).”
 Artikolu 2
 It-testi tar-Regolamenti ta’ Implimentazzjoni (UE) 2018/1936, (UE) 2018/1957 u (UE) 2018/1980 bl-Iżlandiż u bin-Norveġiż, li se jiġu ppubblikati fis-Suppliment taż-ŻEE ta’ Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea, għandhom ikunu awtentiċi.
 Artikolu 3
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fit-30 ta’ Marzu 2019, bil-kundizzjoni li jkunu saru n-notifiki kollha skont l-Artikolu 103(1) tal-Ftehim ŻEE (*1).
 Artikolu 4
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tiġi ppubblikata fit-Taqsima taż-ŻEE ta’ Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea u fis-Suppliment tiegħu dwar iż-ŻEE.
 Magħmul fi Brussell, id-29 ta’ Marzu 2019.
 Għall-Kumitat Konġunt taż-ŻEE
 Il-President
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) ĠU L 314, 11.12.2018, p. 34.
 (2) ĠU L 315, 12.12.2018, p. 23.
 (3) ĠU L 317, 14.12.2018, p. 12.
 (*1) Ma huwa indikat l-ebda rekwiżit kostituzzjonali.


jurisdiction: US

text:
 296 Md. 304 (1983)
 462 A.2d 1206
 EDNA J. FRICK
 v.
 NOEL V. MALDONADO
 [No. 23, September Term, 1982.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided August 4, 1983.
 The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.
 C. Christopher Brown for appellant.
 *305 William B. Ellinger for appellee.
 SMITH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 In this case, because of a later decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, we shall be obliged to overrule our decision in Thompson v. Thompson, 285 Md. 488, 404 A.2d 269 (1979), appeal dismissed, 444 U.S. 1062 (1980), which upheld the constitutionality of the two-year statute of limitation applicable to paternity actions appearing in Maryland Code (1957, 1973 Repl. Vol.) Art. 16, § 66 (e). It states in pertinent part:
 "Proceedings to establish paternity under the subtitle `Paternity Proceedings' and to charge the putative father of an illegitimate child ... with their support and maintenance shall be commenced during the pregnancy of the mother thereof or within two (2) years after the birth of such child ...; except that if the putative father of such child . .. has acknowledged in writing the paternity of the child ... or has made payment or otherwise provided for the support and maintenance of the child ..., it is sufficient if the proceedings are commenced within two (2) years of the date of such acknowledgment or the last such payment or provision...."
 The child involved in this controversy was born on August 22, 1978. The paternity proceeding was filed on March 20, 1981. The alleged father pleaded limitations. No evidence was presented indicating that he had "acknowledged in writing the paternity of the child" or "ha[d] made payment or otherwise provided for the support and maintenance of the child...." In response to the putative father's motion for a directed verdict[1], the Assistant State's Attorney who *306 appeared on behalf of the mother pursuant to the provisions of Art. 16, § 66C and Code (1957, 1979 Repl. Vol.) Art. 88A, § 59 (c) argued that the period of limitations "is a denial of equal protection on the part of the child." He referred to Mills v. Habluetzel, 456 U.S. 91, 102 S. Ct. 1549, 71 L. Ed. 2d 770 (1982), then pending in the Supreme Court. The motion for a directed verdict was granted. An appeal to the Court of Special Appeals was entered on behalf of the mother. We granted her petition for a writ of certiorari prior to argument in the intermediate appellate court.
 The argument presented to us was based upon the concurring opinion of Justice O'Connor in Mills. Insofar as we were able to ascertain immediately after argument but three courts had considered the issue since Mills. The first was the Court of Appeals of Oregon in State, ex rel. Adult & Fam. Serv. v. Bradley, 58 Or. App. 663, 650 P.2d 91 (1982), where that intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court's determination that the Oregon six-year statute of limitations was unconstitutional, denying the child equal protection of the law. There was a strong dissent in that case based upon its reading of Mills. The next case was Pickett v. Brown, 638 S.W.2d 369 (Tenn. 1982), upholding a two-year statute. It reviewed a number of pre-Mills cases, including Thompson, and referred to the fact that the Tennessee statute was similar to Maryland's. The third appellate opinion was Astemborski v. Susmarski, 499 Pa. 99, 451 A.2d 1012 (1982), which held constitutional a six-year statute of limitations. (That case has since been vacated and remanded to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania for further consideration in light of Pickett, infra. U.S., 103 S. Ct. 3105, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1360 (1983)).
 *307 After argument in this case we learned that the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in Pickett. Accordingly, we postponed the filing of an opinion until after the Supreme Court's decision in Pickett v. Brown, 462 U.S., 103 S. Ct. 2199, 76 L. Ed. 2d 372 (1983).
 The Court referred in Pickett to Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-224 (2) (1977), which reads as follows:
 "(2) Proceedings to establish the paternity of the child and to compel the father to furnish support and education for the child may be instituted during the pregnancy of the mother or after the birth of the child, but shall not be brought after the lapse of more than two (2) years from the birth of the child, unless paternity has been acknowledged by the father in writing or by the furnishing of support. Provided, however, that the department of human services or any person shall be empowered to bring a suit in behalf of any child under the age of eighteen (18) who is, or is liable to become a public charge."
 It will be seen that the Tennessee act is similar in content to the Maryland statute. The Court referred to the fact that "[u]nder Tennessee law both fathers and mothers are responsible for the support of their minor children." A similar provision is found in Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, § 88 (b) (1).
 The Court observed that in Mills it considered the constitutionality of a one-year statute of limitations governing suits to identify the natural fathers of illegitimate children. It found that the Texas statute failed to satisfy either of two related equal protection requirements, that the period for obtaining paternal support has to be long enough to provide a reasonable opportunity for those with an interest in illegitimate children to bring suit on their behalf, and that any time limit on that opportunity has to be substantially related to the State's interest in preventing the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims. It pointed out that in *308 a concurring opinion in Mills Justice O'Connor, joined by four other members of the Court, suggested that longer periods also might be unconstitutional.
 Justice Brennan said for the Court, "Much of what was said in the opinions in Mills is relevant here, and the principles discussed in Mills require us to invalidate this limitations period on equal protection grounds." 103 S. Ct. at 2206. The Court then went into a discussion of these various principles. It said the first question is whether the two-year limitations period is sufficiently long to provide a reasonable opportunity to those with an interest in illegitimate children to bring suit on their behalf. It found that for an illegitimate child whose claim is not covered by one of the exceptions in the statute the two-year limitations period severely restricts his right to paternal support.
 Inquiry was made as to whether the time limitation placed on an illegitimate child's right to obtain support is substantially related to the State's interest in avoiding the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims. It found a two-year limitations period to be only a small improvement in degree over the one-year period at issue in Mills. The exception in the Tennessee statute for the department of human services to bring a suit on behalf of any child under the age of eighteen who is or is liable to become a public charge was found to "seriously undermine[] the State's argument that the different treatment accorded legitimate and illegitimate children is substantially related to the legitimate state interest in preventing the prosecution of stale or fraudulent claims and compel[] a conclusion that the two-year limitations period is not substantially related to a legitimate state interest." The Court pointed out that Tennessee tolls most actions during a child's minority, citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-106 (1980). We have a similar provision in Code (1974) § 5-201 (a), Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. It said that "the relationship between a statute of limitations and the State's interest in preventing the litigation of stale or fraudulent paternity claims has become more attenuated as scientific advances in blood testing have alleviated the problems of *309 proof surrounding paternity actions." Effective July 1, 1982, Maryland Code (1957, 1981 Repl. Vol., 1982 Cum. Supp.) Art. 16, § 66G provides for admission of tests "in cases in which exclusion is not established, if testing was sufficiently extensive to exclude 97.3 percent of putative fathers who are not biological fathers, and the statistical probability of the alleged father's paternity is at least 97.3 percent." Because of its effective date that Maryland statute is not applicable to this case but it does illustrate the point made by the Supreme Court relative to advances in proof.
 Justice Brennan concluded his opinion for the Court by stating:
 "The two-year limitations period established by Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-224(2) does not provide certain illegitimate children with an adequate opportunity to obtain support and is not substantially related to the legitimate state interest in preventing the litigation of stale or fraudulent claims. It therefore denies certain illegitimate children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment." 462 U.S., 103 S. Ct. at 2209.
 It follows, therefore, that Thompson must be overruled and the judgment here must be reversed.
 Judgment reversed; appellee to pay the costs.
 NOTES
 [1] Actually, the motion purported to be made under Maryland Rule 535 which pertains to "any action tried by the court without a jury at law or in equity...." This case was before a jury. Oddly enough, the signed order purports to be pursuant to Rule 530 which concerns dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or prosecution. "Jurisdiction" in that instance refers to "[a]n action against any defendant over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction," with the suit's being subject to dismissal without prejudice as to that defendant at the expiration of one year from the last issuance of original process directed to that defendant. It is obvious that the motion was intended to be under Rule 552 pertaining to an action tried by a jury and permitting a motion "at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent or at the close of all the evidence [] for a directed verdict in his favor on any or all of the issues."


type: other

text:
Gerechtshof - Jurisprudentie
 Hoger beroep (36250)
 Eerste aanleg - meervoudig (5988)
 Eerste aanleg - enkelvoudig (3736)
 Hoger beroep kort geding (1719)
 Raadkamer (507)
 Voorlopige voorziening (77)
 Wraking (62)
 Kort geding (61)
 Verzet (57)
 Herziening (36)
 Cassatie (36)
 Voorlopige voorziening+bodemzaak (22)
 Verstek (10)
 Uitspraak No 200.242.837_01. Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch, 2019-01-31
 Uitspraak No 200.248.060_01. Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch, 2019-01-31
 Uitspraak No 200.234.460_01. Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch, 2019-01-31
 Uitspraak No ISD P18/0331. Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 2019-01-31
 Uitspraak No 21-005008-17. Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 2019-01-31
 Uitspraak No 200.247.395_01. Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch, 2019-01-31
 Uitspraak No 200.236.030_01. Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch, 2019-01-31
 Uitspraak No 200.247.738_01. Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch, 2019-01-31
 Uitspraak No 200.250.069/01. Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 2019-01-31
 Uitspraak No 200.241.529_01. Gerechtshof 's-Hertogenbosch, 2019-01-31
 Hoger beroep van Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 16 mei 2012
 Vastgoedhandelaar P. in hoger beroep veroordeeld tot 4 jaar cel wegens witwassen, oplichting, valsheid in geschrift en belastingfraude: - witwassen van 10 betalingen van in totaal ruim 17 miljoen euro. De betalingen zijn aan de verdachte gedaan door Endstra en het gevolg van de afpersing van...
 Hoger beroep van Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 17 januari 2013
 Prejudiciële vragen aan het HvJ EU over ‘Papillon-achtige’ (HvJ EU 27/11/08, C-418/07, LJN:BG7357) casus. De antwoorden op de vragen moeten duidelijkheid verschaffen over de vraag of - gelet op de in de artikelen 43 EG (thans: artikel 49 VWEU) juncto 48 EG (thans: artikel 54 VWEU) gewaarborgde...
 Hoger beroep van Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 25 april 2013
 In geding is de naheffingsaanslag omzetbelasting bij een gemeente die twee "Brede scholen" heeft gebouwd en deze heeft overgedragen een stichting voor het beheren van de gebouwen en het bevorderen van de samenwerking van de gebruikers van deze centra. Het Hof oordeelt dat een onderscheid...
 Uitspraak No 23-000672-13. Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 2017-06-29
 Uitspraak No 23-000647-13. Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 2017-06-29
 Uitspraak No 22-005123-11. Gerechtshof Den Haag, 2015-04-30
 Uitspraak No 21-003541-15. Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, 2017-01-18
 Uitspraak No 23-000810-13. Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 2017-06-29
 Uitspraak No 23-001217-13. Gerechtshof Amsterdam, 2017-06-29


text:
Noul șef al DNA, Crin Bologa, critică CCR pentru dezincriminarea tentativei de abuz în serviciu | Newsweek Romania
 DE Mircea Marian | Actualizat: 28.05.2020 - 14:11
 Actualitate eveniment dna sri CCR interceptari abuz in serviciu crin bologa
 „Au apărut deciziile CCR referitoare la abuzul în serviciu, dezincriminarea parțială a acestuia. Abuzul în serviciu se pedepsește numai atunci când conduita sau norma pe care trebuie să o respecte cetățenii este prevăzută într-un act normativ primar și nu secundar.
 Dezincriminarea totală a tentativei de abuz în serviciu, împreună cu toate celelalte date, au făcut ca DNA să dea soluții de clasare în aproape 800 de dosare cu prejudicii de sute de milioane de euro. Dosare care, dacă CCR nu intervenea, ajungeau în judecată“, a arătat Crin Bologa, în interviul pentru Presshub.
 Procurorul șef a atacat și decizia CCR care a obligat DNA să rupă cooperarea cu SRI în ceea ce privește efectuarea interceptărilor.
 „O altă decizie a Curții s-a referit la colaborarea dintre DNA și Serviciile de Informații, colaborare care era prevăzută de normele legale și încă mai e prevăzută. Numai că decizia CCR a stabilit că nu se mai pot face înregistrări audio-video, înregistrări ambientale, astfel că au apărut și în practica judiciară decizii care au dus la constatarea nulității absolute a unor astfel de probe.
 Desigur, practica este neunitară, pentru că există instanțe de judecată care constată că aceste probe sunt valabile“, a explicat noul șef al DNA.


text:
Lægelig diagnose er ikke afgørende for definitionen af et handicap efter forskelsbehandlingsloven - DAHL Advokatfirma
 Højesteret har i november 2017 afsagt to afklarende domme om forskelsbehandling på grund af handicap, hvor handicappet relaterer sig til en sygdom. Dommene giver betydelige problemer for arbejdsgivere, som formodes at være bekendte med eksistensen af et handicap, selv hvis der ikke foreligger en lægelig diagnose, der fastslår medarbejderens helbredsmæssige tilstand.
 I den ene Højesteretssag havde en medarbejder været igennem en hjerneoperation og som følge heraf udviklet en invaliderende træthed. Arbejdsgiveren var bekendt med årsagen til fraværet (hjerneoperationen), men havde ikke modtaget nogen oplysninger af objektiv karakter omkring lidelsens karakter og omfang.
 Under sagen blev det afklaret, at træthed ifølge lægelige oplysninger var en almindelig følge efter denne type operation, men der forelå ikke nogen specifik diagnose for lidelsen. Det fremgik af en speciallægeerklæring, at der ikke var udsigt til bedring, da sygdommen i bedste fald var stationær og i værste fald progressiv.
 Den anden sag omhandlede svimmelhed. En medarbejder havde haft problemer med svimmelhed efter en kikkertoperation i knæet. Igen var arbejdsgiveren bekendt med den foretagne operation, men var ikke i øvrigt blevet orienteret om eller forelagt oplysninger omkring lidelsens karakter og omfang.
 Der var sparsomme oplysninger om årsagen til medarbejderens sygefravær og om udsigterne til, at medarbejderen kunne genoptage arbejdet på fuld tid.
 Forskelsbehandlingslovens handicapbegreb er nærmere fastslået ved retspraksis fra både EU-Domstolen og de danske domstole.
 Her fremgår det, at handicapbegrebet også omfatter sygdom, når en lidelse medfører en begrænsning som følge af fysiske, mentale eller psykiske skader, der hindrer en medarbejder i at deltage i arbejdslivet på lige fod med andre arbejdstagere. Funktionsbegrænsningen skal desuden være langvarig.
 Spørgsmålet i de to Højesteretsafgørelser var, om handicapbegrebet i forskelsbehandlingsloven – når anvendt på sygdom - stiller krav om, at funktionsbegrænsningen skal skyldes en sygdom, der er lægeligt diagnosticeret.
 Højesteret henviste i begge afgørelser til, at der i EU-Domstolens praksis ikke direkte fremgår noget om, at der skal være tale om en lægelig diagnosticeret lidelse. Ved vurderingen af om en medarbejder er handicappet, må der i stedet foretages en konkret vurdering af samtlige omstændigheder, herunder oplysninger fra læger og andre sundhedspersoner.
 I sagen om svimmelhed tog Højesteret ikke stilling til, om svimmelheden konkret udgjorde et handicap i forskelsbehandlingslovens forstand, da Højesteret fandt, at opsigelsen intet havde at gøre med medarbejderens sygdom eller sygefravær. Opsigelsen var begrundet i medarbejderens adfærd, og der var derfor ikke sket en overtrædelse af forskelsbehandlingsloven.
 I sagen om træthed fandt Højesteret, at medarbejderen havde et handicap som følge af hendes træthedstilstand. Der blev navnlig lagt vægt på speciallægeerklæringen, samt at der ikke var nogen udsigt til, at medarbejderen snart ville være i stand til at arbejde på fuld tid.
 Da træthedstilstanden udgjorde et handicap, skulle Højesteret tage stilling til, om arbejdsgiveren var bekendt med medarbejderens handicap, samt om arbejdsgiveren havde opfyldt sin tilpasningsforpligtelse.
 Arbejdsgiverens tilpasningsforpligtelse og kendskab til handicappet
 Efter forskelsbehandlingsloven kan en handicappet medarbejder kun opsiges lovligt, hvis arbejdsgiveren har foretaget hensigtsmæssige tilpasningsforpligtelser forinden, at der skrides til opsigelse. Sådanne tilpasningsforpligtelser kan eksempelvis være nedsat tid og andre skånehensyn.
 For at en arbejdsgiver kan anses for at have tilsidesat tilpasningsforpligtelsen, er det en forudsætning, at arbejdsgiveren vidste eller burde vide, at medarbejderen er handicappet i forskelsbehandlingslovens forstand.
 I træthedssagen var arbejdsgiveren bekendt med medarbejderens hjerneoperation og det efterfølgende sygefravær på grund af træthed, der indebar, at medarbejderen arbejdede på væsentlig nedsat tid. Der blev afholdt løbende opfølgningsmøder, hvor arbejdsgiveren fra medarbejderen modtog oplysninger omkring udviklingen i sygdomsforløb. Herudover havde et hjerneskadecenter flere gange rettet henvendelse til virksomheden for at drøfte medarbejderens muligheder for at vende tilbage til arbejdet, men arbejdsgiveren havde afvist tilbud om information og møder.
 Både landsretten og Højesteret fandt, at arbejdsgiveren på opsigelsestidspunktet burde vide, at medarbejderens sygefravær var begrundet i en alvorlig følge af en hjerneoperation, ligesom arbejdsgiveren var bekendt med den tidsmæssige udstrækning af sygemeldingen. Arbejdsgiveren burde derfor være bekendt med, at medarbejderen var handicappet i forskelsbehandlingslovens forstand.
 Arbejdsgiveren havde ikke foretaget hensigtsmæssige tilpasningsforpligtelser, da denne afviste at ansætte medarbejderen i fleksjob eller i en deltidsstilling med et realistisk antal arbejdstimer.
 Højesteret fandt derfor, at opsigelsen var sket i strid med forskelsbehandlingsloven og udmålte en godtgørelse på 12 måneders løn til medarbejderen.
 Konsekvenser af dommene
 Med de to afgørelser har Højesteret fastslået, at en medarbejder kan være handicappet, selvom der ikke er tale om en lægeligt diagnosticeret lidelse. Det afgørende er, om lidelsen medfører en langvarig funktionsbegrænsning, der hindrer medarbejderen i at deltage i arbejdslivet på lige fod med andre arbejdstagere.
 Arbejdsgivere, som vil opsige medarbejdere, der i perioden op til en opsigelse har haft et sygdomsbetinget fravær fra arbejdspladsen, skal overveje, om de vil tage den risiko, at medarbejderen viser sig at lide af en langvarig funktionsbegrænsning.
 Sammenligner vi med praksis efter Ligebehandlingsloven, er det ved graviditet fast antaget, at en arbejdsgiver, som opsiger en medarbejder, der er gravid, ikke kan anses for at have overtrådt loven, såfremt arbejdsgiveren ikke vidste, at medarbejderen var gravid. Dette gælder i princippet også, uanset om medarbejderen er en nygift, barnløs 34-årig kvinde, der har angivet morgenkvalme som årsag til sine sygemeldinger.
 Anderledes altså nu ved forskelsbehandling. Medarbejderen kan godt være handicappet, uanset at hverken medarbejderen, arbejdsgiveren eller en privat praktiserende eller speciallæge har positiv viden herom, hvis det blot viser sig efterfølgende, at betingelsen om varig funktionsnedsættelse var opfyldt.
 Et andet problem som efterlades uløst af denne retspraksis er medarbejdere, som sygemelder sig under henvisning til f.eks. smerter, men hvor tilstanden ikke kan diagnosticeres. Får arbejdsgiveren den mistanke, at sygdommen ikke er reel, vil fraværet af en lægelig diagnose i forbindelse med uvildig lægeundersøgelse ikke længere nødvendigvis kunne give tilstrækkeligt grundlag for at opsige medarbejderen.
 Tilbage bliver for arbejdsgiverne at anvende 120-dages reglen i Funktionærlovens § 5, stk. 2. Som beskrevet i en tidligere artikel, har Højesteret opretholdt bestemmelsen som sagligt opsigelsesgrundlag – også hvor fraværet skyldes et sygdomsbetinget handicap, når blot ikke sygdommen er fremkaldt af arbejdets udførelse.
 Har du spørgsmål til ovenstående eller behov for at drøfte en konkret sag relateret til arbejds- eller ansættelsesret, er du altid velkommen til at kontakte en af vores specialister.
 22. aug. 2018 Sådan tæller du til 120 dage ved deltidssygemelding
 10. jun. 2016 Handicappet medarbejder havde ikke krav på nedsat tid