type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 26.5.2005
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 133/42
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE OTSUS
 nr 180/2004,
 16. detsember 2004,
 millega muudetakse EMP lepingu protokolli 31 koostöö kohta teatavates valdkondades väljaspool nelja vabadust
 EMP ÜHISKOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut, mida on muudetud Euroopa Majanduspiirkonna lepingut kohandava protokolliga (edaspidi “leping”), eriti selle artikleid 86 ja 98
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 Lepingu protokolli 31 on muudetud EMP Ühiskomitee 8. juuni 2004. aasta otsusega nr 90/2004. (1)
 (2)
 On asjakohane soodustada lepinguosaliste koostööd nõukogu 21. mai 2002. aasta määrusega (EÜ) nr 876/2002 loodud ühisettevõtte Galileo tegevusvaldkonda kuuluvates küsimustes. (2)
 (3)
 Seetõttu tuleks muuta lepingu protokolli 31, et oleks võimalik kõnealuse laiendatud koostöö toimumine,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD JÄRGMISE OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Lepingu protokolli 31 artikli 1 (“Teadusuuringud ja tehnoloogia arendamine”) lõike 7 järele lisatakse järgmine lõige:
 “8.
 Lepinguosalised soodustavad asjakohast koostööd oma vastavate territooriumide pädevate organisatsioonide, asutuste ja muude organite vahel, kui see võiks kaasa aidata koostöö tugevdamisele ja laiendamisele ühisettevõtte Galileo tegevusvaldkonda kuuluvates küsimustes (3).
 Artikkel 2
 Käesolev otsus jõustub järgmisel päeval pärast EMP Ühiskomitee viimast teavitamist vastavalt lepingu artikli 103 lõikele 1. (4)
 Artikkel 3
 Käesolev otsus avaldatakse Euroopa Liidu Teataja EMP osas ja EMP kaasandes.
 Brüssel, 16. detsember 2004
 EMP Ühiskomitee nimel
 eesistuja
 Kjartan JÓHANNSSON
 (1) EÜT L 349, 25.11.2004, lk 52.
 (2) EÜT L 138, 28.5.2002, lk 1.
 (3) 32002 R 0876: nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 876/2002, 21. mai 2002, millega luuakse ühisettevõte Galileo.”
 (4) Põhiseadusest tulenevaid nõudeid ei ole nimetatud.


type: legislation

text:
 20.5.2011
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 133/4
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 484/2011
 z dnia 18 maja 2011 r.
 rejestrujące w rejestrze chronionych nazw pochodzenia i chronionych oznaczeń geograficznych nazwę [Gönci kajszibarack (ChOG)]
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 510/2006 z dnia 20 marca 2006 r. w sprawie ochrony oznaczeń geograficznych i nazw pochodzenia produktów rolnych i środków spożywczych (1), w szczególności jego art. 7 ust. 4 akapit pierwszy,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 Zgodnie z art. 6 ust. 2 akapit pierwszy oraz w zastosowaniu art. 17 ust. 2 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 510/2006 wniosek Węgier o rejestrację nazwy „Gönci kajszibarack” został opublikowany w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej
 (2).
 (2)
 Ponieważ do Komisji nie wpłynęło żadne oświadczenie o sprzeciwie zgodnie z art. 7 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 510/2006, nazwa ta powinna zostać zarejestrowana,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Nazwa wymieniona w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia zostaje zarejestrowana.
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 18 maja 2011 r.
 W imieniu Komisji, za Przewodniczącego,
 Dacian CIOLOŞ
 Członek Komisji
 (1) Dz.U. L 93 z 31.3.2006, s. 12.
 (2) Dz.U. C 247 z 14.9.2010, s. 6.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Produkty rolne przeznaczone do spożycia przez ludzi wymienione w załączniku I do Traktatu:
 Klasa 1.6. Owoce, warzywa i zboża świeże lub przetworzone
 WĘGRY
 Gönci kajszibarack (ChOG)


type: wikipedia

text:
Tatra T3 (projekt a prototyp označován původně TIII) je typ československé tramvaje, vyráběný od začátku 60. let do druhé poloviny 90. let 20. století podnikem ČKD Praha v závodě Tatra Smíchov. S přibližně 14 000 kusy se jedná o nejpočetněji vyráběný tramvajový vůz na světě.
 Konstrukce
 Tramvaj typu T3 vychází ze svého předchůdce, tramvaje Tatra T2, a je dalším členem typové řady tramvají odpovídajících americké koncepci PCC. To znamená, že jde o jednosměrný jednočlánkový motorový tramvajový vůz se dvěma dvounápravovými podvozky a podlahou v jedné úrovni, určený pro provoz sólo nebo v soupravě shodných spřažených vozů, bez vlečného vozu (dobově někdy označován jako „velkoprostorový vůz“). Všechna dvojkolí jsou poháněna stejnosměrnými elektromotory se sériovým buzením; vždy dva motory téhož podvozku jsou elektricky spojeny do série a obě skupiny jsou trvale spojeny paralelně. V podvozku jsou umístěny podélně a pohánějí dvojkolí přes kloubový hřídel a kuželovou převodovku konstruovanou s ohledem na nízký vyzařovaný hluk. Hluk jízdy snižují také pryžové vložky v kolech.
 Na svou dobu patřila k nejmodernějším vozidlům, byly použity nové materiály (např. plasty a sklolaminát). Hlavním konstruktérem tramvaje T3 je Antonín Honzík, konstrukci elektrické výzbroje TR37 vedl Vladimír Zouhar a autorem vnějšího vzhledu vozidla je František Kardaus. který navrhl i design modelu T2.
 T3 byla vyvinuta především kvůli velké hmotnosti typu Tatra T2, který nebyl pro menší provozovatele s nekvalitním kolejovým svrškem ideální. Oproti T2 byla zcela přepracována stavba skříně s cílem snížení hmotnosti, k tomu přispívalo i použití skořepinových laminátových čel.
 Počínaje druhým vozem byly sjednoceny šířky dveří. Pokud jde o interiér, v prvních výrobních sériích byly použity koženkové červené sedačky v příčném uspořádání 1+1. Od roku 1964 byly instalovány laminátové od návrháře Miroslava Navrátila (vycházející z návrhu původně určeného pro podnik Vertex Litomyšl); zpestřením bylo střídání šedého a červeného provedení. K větrání sloužila posuvná horní část bočních oken (u prvních sérií nižší, u dalších zabírající cca polovinu výšky okna) a tři klapkové střešní větrače (nejprve se šroubovým ovládáním odnímatelnou kličkou, později s pákovým ovládáním přístupným i pro cestující). Osvětlení interiéru je zářivkové na trolejové napětí s předřadným odporníkem (zajímavým prvkem bylo povinné ruční přepínání polarity v každé konečné stanici, protože běžné zářivky na střídavé napětí byly použity se stejnosměrným napájením). Interiér byl temperován odporovými tělesy ve stojanech sedaček. Původní provedení vozu předpokládalo usměrněný pohyb cestujících kolem pevného stanoviště průvodčího, od 70. let po zrušení funkce průvodčích byly vozy dodávány upravené pro samoobslužný provoz (bez pokladny).
 Elektrická výzbroj byla vylepšená odporová se zrychlovačem typu TR37. Z dalších navenek patrných změn oproti T2 možno uvést: Byly použity dva čelní reflektory. V ovládání bylo upuštěno od šlapky bdělosti. Jako sběrač proudu byl montován pantograf (u některých vozů s elektrickým stahovákem, převážně však s ručním stahováním). V prvním stupni brzdění kolejnicovými brzdami brzdí plným účinkem trámce zadního podvozku, ve druhém stupni všechny čtyři.
 Podvozky zůstaly beze změny. Je možno montovat podvozky jak pro normální rozchod kolejí 1435 mm, tak i pro rozchody 1524 mm a 1000 mm. Taktéž je možný provoz i na jiných, nestandardních rozchodech podle požadavků dopravních podniků.
 Do roku 1978 byly do Sovětského svazu dodávány vozy T3SU ve dvoudveřovém provedení (bez středních dveří). Celkem bylo v této verzi vyrobeno více než 5 tisíc tramvají, což je zhruba polovina vozidel T3 dodaných do SSSR.
 Prototypy
 První prototyp (evidenční číslo 6101) byl vyroben v roce 1960. Na podzim téhož roku byly v Praze zahájeny zkušební jízdy. V běžném provozu jezdil vůz od 21. června 1961. Na jaře 1962 byl po vážné dopravní nehodě odstaven, oprava byla provedena až po zahájení sériové výroby tramvají T3 na podzim 1963. Poté byl znovu zařazen do provozu. Z osobní dopravy byl vyřazen v roce 1984, dalších sedm měsíců byl veden jako služební s ev.č. 5513 (pouze administrativní přečíslování, fyzicky nebylo nikdy provedeno). V květnu 1985 byl vůz zlikvidován.
 Prototyp se od sériového provedení odlišoval především provedením dveří, které se podobalo vozům T2, tj. přední a zadní dveře měly šířku 1300 mm, střední byly užší (1050 mm). U sériových vozů se přešlo k jednotným rozměrům dveří, průchozí šířce cca 1300 mm.
 Tzv. předsunutý vůz (někdy označován jako druhý prototyp) s evidenčním číslem 6102 byl vyroben v roce 1962, téhož roku byl v Praze zařazen do provozu. Vyřazen byl v roce 1996, přičemž byl určen pro likvidaci. Díky několika nadšencům byla tramvaj zachráněna a na přelomu 20. a 21. století byla zrenovována do původního stavu. V současnosti je využívána pro komerční a objednané jízdy.
 Úpravy, rekonstrukce a modernizace v Česku a na Slovensku
 Vzhledem k dlouhé době života prodělaly tramvaje v provozu množství úprav. Někdy šlo jen o zkušební úpravy, které byly vráceny zpět, jako byla změna převodového poměru, některé se naopak shodovaly s provedením právě vyráběných vozů. Například v Praze byly původní převíjecí čelní orientace nahrazeny čtvercovými měněnými zvenčí, po přechodu na provoz bez průvodčího byly odstraněny pokladny, doplněno pomocné ovládání ze zadní plošiny umožňující couvání bez pomocníka, byly doplněny svislé přidržovací tyče u levé řady sedadel, kabiny řidiče byly upraveny na zcela uzavřené, z vnějšího povrchu byly odstraněny krycí lišty, boční blikače přemístěny níže a mnoho dalších.
 Od 70. let lze vysledovat různé úspěšné i neúspěšné pokusy o modernizaci či rekonstrukci vozů T3, zaměřené především na úsporu trakční energie. Té bylo dosahovano použitím polovodičové výzbroje, což bylo zpočátku nákladné (proto byla na odvozeném kloubovém typu Tatra K2 v Brně realizována levnější úprava zrychlovačové elektrické výzbroje s přechodem ze sériového na sérioparalelní zapojení motorů při rozjezdu, ale byla vrácena zpět).
 Po pokusech pražského a brněnského dopravního podniku modernizovat vozy T3 na typ Tatra T3R, se výrobce ČKD Tatra) rozhodl v polovině 90. let opětovně zařadit model T3 do výroby (poslední tramvaje T3 opustily brány továrny v roce 1989), tentokrát však právě v tomto zmodernizované provedení T3R (o něco později také typ Tatra T3RF).
 V 90. letech modernizoval své vozy T3 i liberecký dopravní podnik. Kromě tzv. velkých rekonstrukcí na typy T3G nebo 02T (viz níže), proběhly u některých tramvají pouze tzv. malé modernizace, které byly označeny jako Tatra T3m. Jejich hlavním účelem byla úprava interiéru pro cestující (nové sedačky, protiskluzová podlaha, nové osvětlení, atd.)
 Tatra T3M – tyristorová výzbroj TV1
 Tatra T3G – výzbroj TV8 s GTO tyristory – též jako novostavba
 Tatra T3R – výzbroj TV8 s GTO tyristory, nový design, typ též vyráběn jako nové vozidlo
 Tatra T3M.3 (též Tatra T3T), Tatra T3M.4 – výzbroj TV14 s IGBT tranzistory
 Škoda 01T (též Tatra T3M.0) – výzbroj Škoda s IGBT tranzistory
 Škoda 02T (též Tatra T3M.04) – výzbroj Škoda s IGBT tranzistory
 Tatra T3R.E – střídavá výzbroj TV Europulse
 Tatra T3R.P (též Tatra T3P) – výzbroj TV Progress
 Tatra K3R-NT – výzbroj TV Progress, kloubová tramvaj je vytvořena spojením dvou vozů T3, mezi něž je vložen nový střední nízkopodlažní článek
 Tatra T3S – výzbroj TV14 s IGBT tranzistory, nový design
 Tatra T3Mod – střídavá výzbroj EVPÚ Nová Dubnica
 Tatra T3AS – střídavá výzbroj EVPÚ Nová Dubnica, nový design
 Novostavby
 Tatra T3M.2-DVC – tyristorová výzbroj TV1
 Tatra T6A5.3 – výzbroj TV14 s IGBT tranzistory, vozová skříň T6A5, pouze jeden exemplář (Praha)
 Tatra T3R.EV – asynchronní výzbroj TV Europulse, možnost nového designu
 VarioLF – asynchronní výzbroj TV Europulse, střední část vozu je nízkopodlažní, nový design
 Tatra T3R.PV – výzbroj TV Progress, možnost nového designu
 Tatra T3R.PLF – výzbroj TV Progress, střední část vozu je nízkopodlažní
 Tatra T3R.SLF – u prototypu výzbroj Ganz-Skoda, sériové vozy výzbroj Škoda, střední část vozu je nízkopodlažní
 V 70. letech 20. století byly v některých českých provozech (např. Most–Litvínov, Praha) modernizovány vozy T1 osazením nové vozové skříně typu T3 na podvozky původního vozu T1.
 K různým rekonstrukcím dochází i v mimo Českou a Slovenskou republiku. Např. pro Ukrajinu a Rusko byl vytvořen typ Tatra KT3 (výzbroj TV Progress, nový design) – kloubová tramvaj, která je vytvořena spojením dvou vozů T3, mezi něž je vložen nový střední nízkopodlažní článek.
 T3 Coupé
 V roce 2017 zveřejnil Dopravní podnik hl. m. Prahy záměr uvést do provozu výletní tramvaj pro společenské účely. Motivací byla mimo jiné i popularita mazací tramvaje. Původně se uvažovalo o vozu bez střechy, to ale z legislativních důvodů nebylo možné. Nový návrh má tedy střechu a odnímatelná okna v zadní části vozu, což umožňuje letní i zimní provoz. Design ateliéru Anny Marešové zachovává dobové prvky šedesátých let. Obsahuje i střešní okna, inspirovaná autobusy Škoda 706 RTO LUX, nebo barový pult v podobě pultu pro průvodčího z tramvají Tatra T1. Vůz má v přední části bar s laminátovými sedačkami, v zadní části potom „taneční parket“ a bílé koženkové lavice podél oken. Vstup je pouze jedněmi předními dveřmi, odtud název T3 Coupé.
 Tramvaj T3 Coupé vznikla z vozu T3R.P ev. č. 8497, s využitím přední části vozu T3M ev. č. 8038.
 Dopravní podnik předpokládá, že vůz bude sloužit především na objednávku. Je ale možné, že bude zřízena i pravidelná linka v pátek večer. Začátek prací na vozu byl stanoven na leden 2018, tramvaj byla uvedena do provozu v říjnu téhož roku.
 Dodávky tramvají
 V letech 1960 až 1997 bylo vyrobeno celkem 13 945 vozů Tatra T3 a 131 náhradních vozových skříní.
 Jde o přehled dodaných nových vozů přímo z výroby. Tabulka nijak nezohledňuje prodeje již ojetých vozidel do dalších provozů, takže počet měst, kde je nebo byl v provozu typ T3, je vyšší. Tabulka nezahrnuje typy Tatra T3R a Tatra T3RF, ani vozy postavené po roce 2000 s použitím vozových skříní VarCB3 a VarCB3LF (typy T3R.EV, T3R.PLF, VarioLF, apod.), které jsou většinou oficiálně vykazovány jako rekonstrukce vozidel T3. V tabulce jsou uvedeny současné názvy měst a států.
 V roce 1960 bylo do plánu dodávek ve III. pětiletce zařazeno 22 kusů tramvají T3 pro Dopravní podnik města Ústí nad Labem. Předpoklad dodání byl v letech 1964 a 1965, vzhledem k nově naplánovanému zlikvidování tamního tramvajového provozu ale nebyla dodávka uskutečněna.
 Poznámka: Údaj „náhr. skříň“ v kolonce „Typ“ znamená dodanou náhradní vozovou skříň (karoserii) často s náhradními podvozky. Ač byly tyto vozy vykazovány jako náhradní díly, fakticky se jednalo o zcela nové tramvaje, které nahradily některé z vozů zničených při nehodě či požáru. V Československu byly těmito „rekonstrukcemi“ nahrazovány i tramvaje starších typů T1 a T2, od kterých nové vozy převzaly i evidenční čísla.
 Čísla vozů
 Most – Litvínov (T3SU): 204, 205, 210, 211, 214, 222–225, 227–234, 236, 238, 246, 247, 249, 250, 259, 261, 266
 Most – Litvínov (T3SUCS): 235, 237, 240–245, 248, 251–254, 257, 260, 264, 269, 271, 274–284, 300–313
 Most – Litvínov (náhr. skříně): 201–203, 206–209, 212, 213, 215–221, 226, 239, 255, 256, 258, 262, 263, 265, 267, 268, 270, 280
 Praha (náhr. skříně): 6009, 6012–6025, 6092, 6138, 6163, 6164, 6289, 6457, 6736, 6779, 6795, 6798, 8009, 8015, 8051, 8053, 8063, 8067, 8068, 8072, 8074, 8076, 8077, 8079, 8080, 8082, 8083, 8087–8089
 Bratislava (náhr. skříně): 202–204, 207, 209–211, 213, 215, 218, 221–224, 228, 229
 Košice (náhr. skříně): 229, 229, 238, 239, 261, 266–268, 298, 301, 302
 Historické vozy
 Galerie
 Odkazy
 Poznámky
 Reference
 Literatura
 Související články
 Mazací tramvaj 5572
 T3 Coupé
 Externí odkazy
 Díl „Tramvaje“ pořadu Retro, ceskatelevize.cz
 T3 Coupé – připravovaný koncept tramvajového vozu pro Prahu
 T3
 Kolejová vozidla vyráběná od roku 1960
 Kolejová vozidla vyráběná do roku 1997


text:
22.9.2010
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 248/66
 ES IR MAROKO ASOCIACIJOS TARYBOS SPRENDIMAS Nr. 1/2010
 2010 m. rugpjūčio 23 d.
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiama Europos ir Viduržemio jūros regiono šalių susitarimo, steigiančio Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių ir Maroko Karalystės asociaciją, 4 protokolo dėl sąvokos „produktų kilmė“ apibrėžimo ir administracinio bendradarbiavimo metodų 15 straipsnio 7 dalis
 (2010/567/ES)
 ASOCIACIJOS TARYBA,
 atsižvelgdama į Europos ir Viduržemio jūros regiono šalių susitarimą, steigiantį Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių ir Maroko Karalystės asociaciją, ypač į jo 4 protokolo 39 straipsnį,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 Europos ir Viduržemio jūros regiono šalių susitarimo, steigiančio Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių ir Maroko Karalystės asociaciją (1) (toliau – Susitarimas), 4 protokolo (2) 15 straipsnio 7 dalyje leidžiama tam tikromis sąlygomis grąžinti muitus ar lygiaverčio poveikio mokėjimus arba atleisti nuo jų iki 2009 m. gruodžio 31 d.
 (2)
 Siekdamos užtikrinti aiškumą, ilgalaikį ekonomikos nuspėjamumą ir teisinį tikrumą ekonominės veiklos vykdytojams, Susitarimo šalys susitarė pratęsti Susitarimo 4 protokolo 15 straipsnio 7 dalyje numatytą taikymo laikotarpį trejiems metams nuo 2010 m. sausio 1 d.
 (3)
 Be to, šiuo metu Maroke taikomos muitų normos turėtų būti pakoreguotos, siekiant jas suderinti su dabartinėmis Europos Sąjungoje taikomomis muitų normomis.
 (4)
 Todėl Susitarimo 4 protokolas turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeistas.
 (5)
 Kadangi Susitarimo 4 protokolo 15 straipsnio 7 dalis nebetaikoma nuo 2009 m. gruodžio 31 d., šis sprendimas turėtų būti taikomas nuo 2010 m. sausio 1 d.,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 Europos ir Viduržemio jūros regiono šalių susitarimo, steigiančio Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių ir Maroko Karalystės asociaciją, 4 protokolo dėl sąvokos „produktų kilmė“ apibrėžimo ir administracinio bendradarbiavimo metodų 15 straipsnio 7 dalis pakeičiama taip:
 „7. Nepaisant 1 dalies nuostatų, Marokas gali taikyti muitų ar lygiaverčio poveikio mokėjimų grąžinimą arba atleidimą nuo jų, koks yra taikomas kilmės statuso neturinčioms medžiagoms, naudojamoms kilmės statusą turinčių produktų gamyboje, išskyrus produktus, nurodytus Suderintos sistemos 1–24 skirsniuose, laikydamasis tokių nuostatų:
 a)
 už produktus, nurodytus Suderintos sistemos 25–49 ir 64–97 skirsniuose, paliekama 4 % muito norma arba mažesnė norma, taikoma Maroke;
 b)
 už produktus, nurodytus Suderintos sistemos 50–63 skirsniuose, paliekama 8 % muito norma arba mažesnė norma, taikoma Maroke.
 Ši dalis taikoma iki 2012 m. gruodžio 31 d. ir vėliau bendru susitarimu gali būti persvarstyta.“
 2 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja jo priėmimo dieną.
 Jis taikomas nuo 2010 m. sausio 1 d.
 Priimta Briuselyje 2010 m. rugpjūčio 23 d.
 ES ir Maroko asociacijos tarybos vardu
 Pirmininkė
 C. ASHTON
 (1) OL L 70, 2000 3 18, p. 2.
 (2) OL L 336, 2005 12 21, p. 3.


text:
 8.10.2015
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 263/36
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG 247/2014 HATÁROZATA
 (2014. november 13.)
 az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás egyes, a négy alapszabadságon kívül eső területeken folytatott együttműködésről szóló 31. jegyzőkönyvének módosításáról [2015/1806]
 AZ EGT VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: az EGT-megállapodás) és különösen annak 86. és 98. cikkére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Norvégia már részt vett a 683/2008/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletből (1) eredő tevékenységekben és azokhoz pénzügyileg hozzájárult, az említett rendeletnek az EGT-megállapodás 31. jegyzőkönyvébe történő felvétele révén.
 (2)
 Indokolt kiterjeszteni az EGT-megállapodás szerződő felei közötti együttműködést az európai műholdas navigációs rendszerek létrehozásáról és üzemeltetéséről, valamint a 876/2002/EK tanácsi rendelet és a 683/2008/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről szóló, 2013. december 11-i 1285/2013/EU európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletre (2).
 (3)
 Helyénvaló, hogy az EFTA-államok 2014. január 1-jétől kezdődően részt vegyenek az 1285/2013/EU rendeletből eredő tevékenységekben, függetlenül attól, hogy ez a határozat mikor kerül elfogadásra, illetve függetlenül attól, hogy az e határozatra vonatkozó alkotmányos követelmények teljesítéséről – ha van ilyen – 2014. július 10-ét követően érkezett-e értesítés.
 (4)
 Az EFTA-államokban letelepedett jogalanyoknak jogosultnak kell lenniük az e határozat hatálybalépése előtt kezdődő tevékenységekben való részvételre. Az olyan tevékenységekkel kapcsolatban felmerült költségek, amelyeknek végrehajtása 2014. január 1-jét követően kezdődik, ugyanazon feltételek mellett minősülhetnek elszámolhatónak, mint amelyek az uniós tagállamokban letelepedett jogalanyoknál felmerült költségekre alkalmazandók, feltéve, hogy e határozat az érintett fellépés vége előtt hatályba lép.
 (5)
 Az Európai Unió és tagállamai, valamint a Norvég Királyság közötti, a műholdas navigációról szóló együttműködési megállapodás (3), amelyet 2010. szeptember 22-én írtak alá, 2011. május 1-jétől ideiglenesen alkalmazandó.
 (6)
 Ezért módosítani kell az EGT-megállapodás 31. jegyzőkönyvét annak érdekében, hogy e kibővített együttműködésre 2014. január 1-jétől sor kerülhessen. Izland programban való részvételét azonban gazdasági okok miatt átmenetileg fel kell függeszteni,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A HATÁROZATOT:
 1. cikk
 Az EGT-megállapodás 31. jegyzőkönyve 1. cikkének (8a) bekezdése a következő szöveggel egészül ki:
 „(8aa)
 a)
 Az EFTA-államok 2014. január 1-jétől részt vesznek azokban a tevékenységekben, amelyek az alábbi uniós jogszabályokból eredhetnek:
 —
 32013 R 1285: az Európai Parlament és a Tanács 2013. december 11-i 1285/2013/EU rendelete az európai műholdas navigációs rendszerek létrehozásáról és üzemeltetéséről, valamint a 876/2002/EK tanácsi rendelet és a 683/2008/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről (HL L 347., 2013.12.20., 1. o.).
 b)
 Az EFTA-államok a megállapodás 82. cikke (1) bekezdésének a) pontjával és 32. jegyzőkönyvével összhangban hozzájárulnak az a) pontban említett tevékenységek finanszírozásához.
 c)
 Az EGNOS rendszer földrajzi lefedettségének a résztvevő EFTA-államok területére való kiterjesztésével járó költségeket az EFTA-államok viselik az a) pont alatt említett pénzügyi hozzájárulás részeként. Ez a kiterjesztés a technikai megvalósíthatóságtól függ és nem késleltetheti az EGNOS rendszer földrajzi lefedettségének az uniós tagállamok földrajzilag Európában található területére való kiterjesztését.
 d)
 Projekt szinten az EFTA-államok intézményeit, vállalkozásait, szervezeteit és állampolgárait megilletik a megállapodás 81. cikkének d) pontjában említett jogok.
 e)
 Az olyan tevékenységekkel kapcsolatban felmerült költségek, amelyeknek végrehajtása 2014. január 1-jét követően kezdődik, az érintett támogatási megállapodás vagy támogatási határozat keretében végrehajtott fellépés kezdő időpontjától elszámolhatónak minősülhetnek, feltéve, hogy az EGT Vegyes Bizottság 2014. november 13-i 247/2014 határozata a fellépés vége előtt hatályba lép.
 f)
 Az EFTA-államok teljes mértékben, szavazati jog nélkül részt vesznek az Unió azon bizottságainak munkájában, amelyek az a) pontban említett tevékenységek irányításában, kidolgozásában vagy végrehajtásában segítik az Európai Bizottságot.
 Az EFTA-államok részvételét az Európai Bizottságot segítő azon uniós bizottságokban és szakértői csoportokban, amelyek kifejezetten az a) pontban említett tevékenységek biztonsági aspektusaival foglalkoznak, az e bizottságok és szakértői csoportok eljárási szabályai szabályozzák.
 g)
 Ez a bekezdés Liechtensteinre nem alkalmazandó.
 h)
 Izland vonatkozásában e bekezdés alkalmazását fel kell függeszteni addig, amíg az EGT Vegyes Bizottság másként nem határoz.”
 2. cikk
 Ez a határozat azt a napot követő napon lép hatályba, hogy az EGT-megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdésében előírt utolsó bejelentést megtették (4).
 Ezt a határozatot 2014. január 1-jétől kell alkalmazni.
 3. cikk
 Ezt a határozatot az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében és EGT-kiegészítésében ki kell hirdetni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2014. november 13-án.
 az EGT Vegyes Bizottság részéről
 az elnök
 Kurt JÄGER
 (1) HL L 196., 2008.7.24., 1. o.
 (2) HL L 347., 2013.12.20., 1. o.
 (3) HL L 283., 2010.10.29., 12. o.
 (4) Alkotmányos követelmények fennállását nem jelezték.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
The demurrers to the bill of complaint in this case have the effect of admitting the following allegations of fact:
 1. That on September 17th, 1920, the plaintiff borrowed $2,000 from Frederick E. Getz and secured the payment of the loan by a mortgage of certain leasehold property in the City of Baltimore.
 2. That the plaintiff subsequently paid $503 to the mortgagee on account of the principal of the loan, and that the amount now due on the mortgage is $1,497 with interest thereon from July 17th, 1922.
 3. That the mortgagee died in the City of New York, after the payment in reduction of the principal of the mortgage debt, and his estate is being administered in that city by his widow as the executrix of his will.
 4. That on September 7th, 1922, two deeds of assignment of the mortgage were recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore City, one dated November 20th, 1920, from the mortgagee to his wife, and one dated August 5th, 1922, from the latter, as executrix and sole legatee under her husband's will, to Robert M. Johnston.
 5. That on September 14th, 1922, a non-resident attachment for $1,500 against the widow and executrix of the deceased mortgagee was laid in the hands of the plaintiff as garnishee, in order to bind the balance due by her on the mortgage.
 6. That foreclosure proceedings were proposed to be instituted by Robert M. Johnston, as assignee of the mortgage, unless payment were made of the balance of the debt which it secured.
 7. That there is a dispute as to the amount owing on the mortgage, the payment made by the plaintiff on the principal of the loan having been denied.
 A conclusion of law, stated in the bill, which the demurrer did not have the effect of admitting, was that both of the deeds of assignment referred to were ineffective because the *Page 546
 one from the original mortgagee to his wife was not recorded within six months after its date, and the one from the latter as executrix and legatee under her husband's will, probated in New York, was executed by her without any authority or title derived from ancillary administration in this State, where the mortgaged property is located.
 The bill alleged the plaintiff's inability to decide between the conflicting claims of the attachment creditor and the holder of the mortgage, and tendered payment into court of the balance determined to be due.
 The defendants named in the bill are Robert M. Johnson, the holder of the mortgage, Anna Florence Getz, widow of the deceased mortgagee, in her capacities as an individual and as executrix and legatee under his will, and Louisa Getz, the attachment creditor.
 The specific prayers of the bill were that the defendants be required to interplead, that the attachment suit and the foreclosure of the mortgage be restrained, and that upon payment of the amount found to be due on the mortgage, to the person determined to be entitled, a trustee be appointed to execute a release. A prayer for general relief was included in the bill.
 An answer consenting to a decree of interpleader was filed by the attachment creditor, while the two other defendants filed demurrers. The appeal is from a decree sustaining the demurrers, denying an application to amend the bill in certain particulars to be presently mentioned, and dismissing the bill without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to proceed in such other action as may be appropriate.
 It is conceded that if the bill of complaint should be regarded only as a formal bill of interpleader, it would be demurrable because it shows that the plaintiff is not an indifferent stakeholder of a definite fund to which the defendants make conflicting claims, but is involved in a dispute with one of the defendants as to the true amount of the fund. There are other grounds upon which the bill, as one of interpleader, *Page 547
 is said to be demurrable. But the contention of the plaintiff is that the bill is maintainable because of its purpose to have the dispute as to the mortgage debt adjudicated, to prevent foreclosure proceedings, and to exercise the right of redemption under a decree providing for payment to a trustee authorized to release the mortgage.
 There could be no serious question as to the plaintiff's right as mortgagor to maintain a bill for an injunction against a sale under the mortgage by one refusing to allow credit for a payment alleged to have been actually made on account of the mortgage debt. As a prerequisite to such relief, however, the plaintiff would have to pay into court, or to the mortgage creditor, the amount of the debt which is admitted. Talbott v. LaurelBuilding Assn., 140 Md. 565. The main theory of the bill is that the defendant who claims to be the present owner of the mortgage has no interest in it which can be safely recognized. The allegations of the bill prevent the adoption of that theory. It distinctly appears from the bill that the mortgage was assigned by the original mortgagee to his wife and by her to the defendant by whom it is now sought to be enforced. The only ground upon which those transfers are challenged is that the deed of assignment from the mortgagee to his wife was not recorded within six months from its date. But it is provided by section 19 of article 21 of the Code that any deed of or relating to land, "except deeds or conveyances by way of mortgages," may be recorded after the period of six months mentioned in a prior section, "and when so recorded shall have, as against the grantor, his heirs or executors, * * * the same validity and effect as if recorded within the time" prescribed. It is argued that the deed of assignment here in question is a deed by way of mortgage and as such is excepted from the provision just cited. With this view we are unable to agree. A deed by way of mortgage is one which has the effect of a mortgage upon the property conveyed. It imposes a lien upon the granted estate. No such purpose or effect can be *Page 548
 attributed to a mere assignment by a mortgagee of his interest in the mortgage debt and security. If the assignment in this case had been made by an endorsement on the mortgage in the simple form sanctioned by another provision of the Code (art. 21, sec. 34), it would not have been subject to any statutory requirement that it be recorded within a specified time. Whether an assignment of a mortgage is made by that method, or by a separate deed, the rights of the assignee would be subject to the Code provision (article 66, section 25), upon which the appellant also relies, that the title to any promissory note or other evidence of debt secured by mortgage shall be conclusively presumed to be in the person holding the record title under such a conveyance. But the purpose of that enactment, as explained in Dickey v.Pocomoke City Bank, 89 Md. 296, was to avoid complications which do not arise in the present case. The debt secured by this mortgage is sought to be collected by the person whose ownership of the mortgage appears of record. The assignments under which he holds title were recorded before this suit was instituted, and no doubt is suggested as to their having been executed for valid consideration. As between the mortgagor and the holder of the record title to the mortgage, the assignments under which the latter claims are clearly effective.
 It was not necessary for the mortgagor to resort to a court of equity for protection because of the institution of the attachment suit. The assignee of the mortgage, or the garnishee in his behalf, has ample opportunity to assert his rights in that proceeding. The means of protection available to the garnishee in such a situation are described in Fetterhoff v. Sheridan,94 Md. 445. In that case it was decided that a judgment debtor in whose hands an attachment had been laid to enforce a claim against the original judgment creditor who had transferred the judgment to another person, by an assignment alleged to be fradulent, was not entitled to maintain a suit in equity to require the conflicting claimants to interplead. *Page 549
 The attachment is based on a claim against the original mortgagee and is designed to affect an interest of which he had been divested by an assignment duly recorded before the writ was issued. Assuming that the plaintiff in the attachment suit became a creditor of the mortgagee before his deed of assignment was recorded and without notice of its existence, it is clear that the deed, while unrecorded, was effective from its date as a contract for a conveyance against which the attachment claim cannot prevail. Cramer v. Roderick, 128 Md. 422; Valentine
 v. Seiss, 79 Md. 187; Dyson v. Simmons, 48 Md. 207; Code, art. 21, sec. 21.
 There is consequently no ground upon which the pending suit in equity could be maintained except as between the plaintiff and the present holder of the mortgage to have the dispute as to the true amount of the mortgage claim decided. After the court below had indicated that the demurrer to the bill of complaint would be sustained, the plaintiff asked leave to amend the bill by alleging that proceedings for a sale under the mortgage had actually been instituted, by filing as exhibits with the bill a transcript of the record of such proceedings and copies of canceled checks showing the disputed payments on the mortgage, and by adding a prayer for a declaratory decree under article 16, section 27, of the Code. The proposed amendments relating to the amount and foreclosure of the mortgage would be appropriate to a purpose to which the suit is partly directed and for which we think it may be maintained. The addition to the bill of a prayer for a declaratory decree would be inappropriate.
 Because of the misjoinder of other defendants with the present mortgagee, for interpleader purposes, the demurrer to the bill was properly sustained. But it was not necessary that the bill as a whole should be dismissed. General Equity Rule No. 31 provides: "It shall not be necessary to dismiss the entire bill or petition in any suit, because simply of the misjoinder of parties or the subject matter of the suit; but the court may dismiss the bill or petition, as to such of the *Page 550
 parties, plaintiff or defendant, as may be improperly joined, and may dismiss the bill or petition, as to such of the subject matter as may be improperly joined or included therein, so as to relieve the bill or petition of the objection of being multifarious." The application of this rule would obviate a dismissal of the bill as to the defendant mortgagee and as to the subject of the dispute in regard to the amount of the debt for which he is entitled to enforce the mortgage lien. In order that the plaintiff may have an opportunity to prosecute the suit to that extent, the decree will be reversed in part and the case remanded for further proceedings.
 Decree affirmed in part and reversed in part and causeremanded, the costs to abide the final result. *Page 551


text:
Pipers River est une rivière qui traverse le nord de la Tasmanie. Elle prend sa source au Mont Arthur, près de Lilydale. La rivière traverse Hollybank Forest, une attraction touristique, avant de rejoindre les abords de Lilydale. Elle atteint ensuite Karoola, Lower Turners Marsh et ensuite Pipers River, la ville. Son embouchure se situe au niveau des villes de Weymouth et Bellingham, se déversant dans Noland Bay, Bass Strait. Elle reçoit l'eau de ses affluents : Pipers Brook à Bellingham, Back Creek à Weymouth et Rocky Creek près de Lilydale. Son courant n'est pas très fort excepté dans les environs de Weymouth.
 La société Gunns Limited a proposé la construction d'un moulin pour la fabrication de pâte à papier qui demanderait beaucoup d'eau. Il a été suggéré de construire un barrage au travers de Pipers River. Le débit de la rivière serait alors réduit d'un tiers. La proposition a reçu une forte opposition.
 Liens externes
 Resort in Pipers River
 Notes et références
 Cours d'eau en Tasmanie


type: other

text: b" UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n ~lAN 2. 3 2004\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\n\nTO: Jack Martin\n Chief Financial Officer\n\n\nFROM: Helen Lew Adn- w\n Assistant Inspector General for Audit\n\n\nSUBJECT: \t FEDERAL INTRAGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY AND BALANCES\n AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES REPORT\n (ED-OIG/A17E0004)\n\nThe enclosed report presents the results of the U.S. Department of Education's Federal\nIntragovemmental Activity and Balances agreed-upon procedures engagement. The purpose of\nthe engagement was to perform certain procedures to compare and identify differences between\nthe Department's reconciliation of intragovemmental transactions with its trading partners and\nthe Department's audited financial statements for fiscal year 2003. The Office of Inspector\nGeneral (OIG) contracted with Ernst & Young, LLP, Certified Public Accountants, to perform\nthe engagement. The OIG monitored the progress and completion of the work to ensure\ncompliance with Government Auditing Standards and standards established by the American\nInstitute of Certified Public Accountants.\n\nThe auditors have discussed the findings with you or appropriate members of your staff during the\nengagement. This report is intended solely to assist the Department of the Treasury, Financial\nManagement Service (FMS), the General Accounting Office (GAO), and the Office of\nManagement and Budget COMB), in evaluating Department management's assertions about its\nFederal Intragovemmental Activity and Balances. As such, no further action on your part is\nnecessary.\n\nIn accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (Public Law 90-23), reports issued by the\nOffice of Inspector General are available, if requested, to members of the press and general\npublic to the extent information contained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.\nCopies of this report have been provided to the persons shown on the distribution list.\n\n\n\n 400 MARYLAND AVE., s.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-1510 \n\n\n Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation. \n\n\x0cJack Martin ED-OIGI A 17E0004\nPage 2\n\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation given us and Ernst & Young, LLP, during the engagement.\nShould you have any questions concerning the report, please contact me at 205-9604 or Todd\nGivens at 205-7945.\n\n\nAttachment\n\nDistribution List:\n\nMark Carney -OCFO\nTerry Bowie - OCFO\nBill Fleming - OCFO\n\x0cAGREED UPON PROCEDURES\nINTRAGOVERNMENTAL TRANSACTIONS\nU.S. Department of Education\nYear Ended September 30, 2003\n\x0c!@# Q Ernst & Young LLP Q Phone:(202) 327-6000\n 1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Fax:(202) 327-6200\n Washington, D.C. 20036 www.ey.com\n\n\n\n\n Independent Accountant\xe2\x80\x99s Report \n\n On Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures \n\n\n\nTo the Inspector General\nU.S. Department of Education\n\nWe have performed the procedures enumerated in the attachment, which were agreed to by the\nU.S. Department of the Treasury\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Management Service (FMS), the U.S. General\nAccounting Office (GAO), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These procedures\nwere performed solely to assist them in evaluating the U.S. Department of Education (the\nDepartment) management's assertion that it reconciled Federal intragovernmental activity and\nbalances for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, and compared the intragovernmental\nactivity and balances per the financial records supporting the audited department consolidated\nfinancial statements for fiscal year 2003, as to amounts and USSGL accounts with the final\namounts and USSGL accounts submitted to FMS (FACTS I and/or FACTS NOTES). This\nagreed-upon procedures engagement was performed in accordance with attestation standards\nestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these\nprocedures is solely the responsibility of FMS, GAO and OMB. Consequently, we make no\nrepresentation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described in the attachment either for\nthe purpose for which this report was requested or for any other purpose. The procedures\nperformed and the related findings are enumerated in the attachment.\n\nWe were not engaged to and did not perform an examination, the objective of which would be an\nexpression of an opinion on management\xe2\x80\x99s assertion. Accordingly, we do not express such an\nopinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our\nattention that would have been reported to you.\n\nThis report is intended solely for the information and use of those parties in this report and is not\nintended to be and should not be used by any one other than these specified parties.\n\n\n\n\nJanuary 23, 2004 \n\nWashington, D.C. \n\n\n\n\n\n Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.\n\x0c AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES AND E&Y FINDINGS\n\nProcedure 1\n\nReview the electronic file provided by the agency CFO of the responses to the intragovernmental\nreciprocal account categories of the CFO representations for fiduciary and non-fiduciary\ntransactions as described in the Treasury Financial Manual (TFM), Section 4060.70. For each\n\xe2\x80\x9cYes\xe2\x80\x9d response, perform the following steps:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Compare the amounts in such reconciliations to supporting documentation. Indicate if no\n differences were found. Explain in detail any differences.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Trace the adjustments, if any, identified in the reconciliation process that require\n recognition on the books of the reporting entity (rather than on the books of the trading\n partner) to documentation supporting the recording of such amounts in the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\n financial records. Indicate if no differences were found. Explain in detail any\n differences.\n\nFindings:\n\nThe following exceptions were noted:\n\n 1. \t The Department did not send confirmations to all of its non-fiduciary trading partners.\n\n 2. \tThe Department did not receive responses to most confirmations requests for non-\n fiduciary intragovernmental transactions.\n\n 3. \tThe Department was unable to perform reconciliations for non-fiduciary transactions\n since most trading partners confirm non-fiduciary intragovernmental transactions at a\n summary level. According to the Department, reconciliations can only be performed for\n these transactions when balances are confirmed on an award level basis.\n\n 4. \tThe Department was unable to identify trading partners for the following account\n balances:\n\n\n Account Balance\n 2110 $(4,178) \n\n 2400 $7,067 \n\n 5990 $308 \n\n 6100 $(145,726,453) \n\n\n 5. \t For USSGL Account 2520(F), we were informed by the Department that $2,046,058 in\n capitalized interest was not included in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s general ledger, but was included\n in the amount reported by the Federal Financing Bank.\n\x0c 6. \t For USSGL Account 6310(F), a total of $1,588,138 was not included in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\n general ledger; however, it was included in the amount reported by the Federal Financing\n Bank. We were informed by the Department that this difference is composed of:\n\n Capitalized Interest $1,428,146 \n\n Missing SF 1081 167,095 \n\n Interest Expense Adjustment 706,659 \n\n Reversal of Accrual (713,762) \n\n\n\n\nProcedure 2\n\nReview the electronic file provided by the agency CFO of the responses to the CFO\nRepresentations for reconciliation of intragovernmental activity and balances. For each \xe2\x80\x9cYes\xe2\x80\x9d\nresponse, perform the following step:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 \t Compare the amounts, excluding intradepartmental activity and balances, in the audited\n agency consolidated financial statements to such amounts in the agency final FACTS I\n and/or FACTS I NOTES reports. Indicate if no differences were found. Explain in detail\n any differences.\n\nFindings:\n\nThe following exceptions were noted:\n\n 7. \t Intragovernmental balances from FACTS I could not be directly tied to the face of the\n audited consolidated financial statements primarily due to 1) sector changes made for\n financial statement preparation purposes that are not reflected in the FACTS file and 2)\n trading partner code issues.\n\n 8. \t The FACTS I trial balance reported a total of $100,268,720,168 for Intragovernmental\n Liabilities. However, the amount reported on the audited consolidated financial\n statements was $100,267,200,000, which is a difference of $1,520,168.\n\n 9. \tThe FACTS I trial balance reported a total of $6,891,117,406 for Intragovernmental\n Costs. However, the amount reported on the audited consolidated financial statements\n was $6,828,113,000, which is a difference of $63,004,406.\n\x0cProcedure 3\n\nReview the \xe2\x80\x9cStatus of Disposition of Identified Differences\xe2\x80\x9d form on intragovernmental activity\nreported in FACTS I (provided by CFO). Comment indicating your agreement, or disagreement,\nwith the data provided by the CFO.\n\nFinding:\n\nWe noted that the Department adequately reported the status of identified differences based upon\nthe balances reported on the \xe2\x80\x9cAgency by Reciprocal Category Detail\xe2\x80\x9d and in accordance with the\nthreshold set by FMS of $400 million.\n\x0c"


text:
 28.8.2010
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 234/4
 Hotărârea Curții (Camera a treia) din 1 iulie 2010 (cerere de pronunțare a unei hotărâri preliminare formulată de Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Susanne Gassmayr/Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Forschung
 (Cauza C-194/07) (1)
 (Politică socială - Directiva 92/85/CEE - Introducerea de măsuri pentru promovarea îmbunătățirii securității și a sănătății la locul de muncă în cazul lucrătoarelor gravide, care au născut de curând sau care alăptează - Articolul 5 alineatul (3) și articolul 11 punctele 1-3 - Efect direct - Lucrătoare gravidă căreia i s a acordat o dispensă în perioada sarcinii - Lucrătoare aflată în concediu de maternitate - Dreptul la plata unei indemnizații pentru asigurarea serviciului de permanență la locul de muncă)
 2010/C 234/06
 Limba de procedură: germana
 Instanța de trimitere
 Verwaltungsgerichtshof
 Părțile din acțiunea principală
 Reclamantă: Susanne Gassmayr
 Pârât: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Forschung
 Obiectul
 Cerere de pronunțare a unei hotărâri preliminare — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretarea articolului 11 punctele 1, 2 și 3 din Directiva 92/85/CEE a Consiliului din 19 octombrie 1992 privind introducerea de măsuri pentru promovarea îmbunătățirii securității și a sănătății la locul de muncă în cazul lucrătoarelor gravide, care au născut de curând sau care alăptează (JO L 348, p. 1, Ediție specială, 05/vol. 3, p. 3) — Efect direct — Dreptul unei lucrătoare, în timpul perioadei de interdicție de a desfășura munca a lucrătoarelor gravide și/sau în timpul concediului de maternitate, la plata unei prime variabile pentru asigurarea serviciului permanent în afara programului normal de muncă („Journaldienstzulage”)
 Dispozitivul
 1.
 Articolul 11 punctele 1-3 din Directiva 92/85/CEE a Consiliului din 19 octombrie 1992 privind introducerea de măsuri pentru promovarea îmbunătățirii securității și a sănătății la locul de muncă în cazul lucrătoarelor gravide, care au născut de curând sau care alăptează [A zecea directivă specială în sensul articolului 16 alineatul (1) din Directiva 89/391/CEE] are efect direct și creează, în beneficiul particularilor, drepturi pe care aceștia le pot invoca împotriva unui stat membru care nu a transpus directiva respectivă în dreptul național sau care a transpus o în mod incorect, drepturi pe care instanțele naționale sunt obligate să le protejeze.
 2.
 Articolul 11 punctul 1 din Directiva 92/85 trebuie interpretat în sensul că nu se opune unei reglementări naționale care prevede că o lucrătoare gravidă căreia i s a acordat temporar o dispensă din cauza sarcinii sale are dreptul la o remunerație echivalentă cu salariul mediu pe care l a primit în cursul unei perioade de referință anterioare datei de început a sarcinii, cu excluderea indemnizației pentru asigurarea serviciului de permanență la locul de muncă.
 3.
 Articolul 11 punctele 2 și 3 din Directiva 92/85 trebuie interpretat în sensul că nu se opune unei reglementări naționale care prevede că o lucrătoare aflată în concediu de maternitate are dreptul la o remunerație echivalentă cu salariul mediu pe care l a primit în cursul unei perioade de referință anterioare datei de început a concediului respectiv, cu excluderea indemnizației pentru asigurarea serviciului de permanență la locul de muncă.
 (1) JO C 197, 2.8.2008.


text:
 Svarīgs juridisks paziņojums
 |
 22004A0430(03)
 Oficiālais Vēstnesis L 150 , 30/04/2004 Lpp. 0046 - 0086
 Nolīgumsstarp Eiropas Kopienu un Amerikas Savienotajām Valstīm par kuģu aprīkojuma atbilstības sertifikātu savstarpējo atzīšanuPREAMBULAEIROPAS KOPIENA un AMERIKAS SAVIENOTĀS VALSTIS, turpmāk tekstā — "Puses",ŅEMOT VĒRĀ tradicionālās draudzības saites, kas pastāv starp Amerikas Savienotajām Valstīm (ASV) un Eiropas Kopienu (EK);VĒLOTIES atvieglot divpusējo tirdzniecību ar kuģu aprīkojumu un paaugstināt katras Puses reglamentējošās darbības efektivitāti;APZINOTIES iespējas, ko regulatoriem dod to darbības nevajadzīgas dublēšanās novēršana;ŅEMOT VĒRĀ Pušu kopīgās saistības pret Starptautiskās jūrniecības organizācijas (IMO) darbu;UZSKATOT, ka Pušu mērķis ir uzlabot drošību jūrā un novērst jūras piesārņošanu;APZINOTIES, no vienas puses, ka savstarpējās atzīšanas nolīgumi var būt pozitīvs ieguldījums standartu starptautiskās saskaņošanas veicināšanā;ATCEROTIES, no otras puses, ka līdzvērtības noteikšanai jānodrošina Pušu regulatīvo mērķu izpildes pilnīga ievērošana un ka tā nedrīkst pazemināt Pušu attiecīgos drošības un aizsardzības līmeņus;APZINOTIES, ka atbilstības sertifikātu savstarpējā atzīšana, pamatojoties uz EK un ASV kuģu aprīkojuma noteikumu līdzvērtību ir nozīmīgs līdzeklis tirgus pieejamības uzlabošanai starp Pusēm;APZINOTIES, ka nolīgumi, ar ko paredz savstarpējo atzīšanu, īpaši nozīmīgi ir mazajiem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem ASV un EK;APZINOTIES, ka savstarpējai atzīšanai ir vajadzīga pastāvīga otras Puses atbilstības novērtēšanas uzticamība;IEVĒROJOT, ka Līgums par tehniskajām barjerām tirdzniecībā, kas pievienots Līgumam par Pasaules tirdzniecības organizācijas (PTO) izveidošanu, mudina PTO dalībvalstis sākt sarunas par nolīgumu slēgšanu par atbilstības novērtēšanas procedūru rezultātu savstarpēju atzīšanu un pozitīvi izskatīt citu dalībvalstu tehnisko noteikumu līdzvērtības pieņemamību ar nosacījumu, ka minētie noteikumi pietiekami atbilst attiecīgo dalībvalstu noteikumu mērķiem,IR VIENOJUŠĀS PAR TURPMĀKO.1. NODAĻADEFINĪCIJAS UN MĒRĶIS1. pantsDefinīcijas1. Šajā nolīgumā piemērojami šādi termini un definīcijas:a) "pārvaldes iestāde" ir valdības iestāde vai struktūra, kas pilnvarota izdot noteikumus, kuri attiecas uz jautājumiem, kas saistīti ar drošību jūrā un jūras piesārņošanu, un kam ir tiesības kontrolēt kuģu aprīkojuma lietošanu vai tirdzniecību ar to kādas Puses jurisdikcijā, un kas var veikt izpildes pasākumu, lai nodrošinātu to, ka Puses jurisdikcijā realizētie ražojumi atbilst tiesiskajām prasībām, kuras tiem piemērojamas. Pušu attiecīgās pārvaldes iestādes ir identificētas III pielikumā;b) "atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūra" ir juridiska persona, kas ir vai nav pārvaldes iestāde, vai cita valsts vai privāta struktūra, kas ir pilnvarota izdot atbilstības sertifikātus saskaņā ar kādas Puses normatīvajiem aktiem. Šajā nolīgumā attiecīgās Pušu atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras ir norādītas 6. pantā;c) "tehniskie noteikumi" ietver obligātās prasības ražojumam, testēšanas un darbības standartus, kā arī atbilstības novērtēšanas procedūras, kas izklāstītas Pušu normatīvajos un administratīvajos noteikumos, kuri attiecas uz kuģu aprīkojumu, un kādās pamatnostādnēs par to piemērošanu;d) "atbilstības sertifikāts" ir dokuments vai dokumenti, ko kādas Puses atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūra izdod, lai apliecinātu, ka ražojums atbilst šīs Puses attiecīgajām normatīvajām un administratīvajām prasībām. ASV tas ir tipa apstiprinājuma sertifikāts, ko izdod Amerikas Savienoto Valstu krasta apsardze. EK tie ir sertifikāti, apstiprinājumi un deklarācijas, kas paredzētas Direktīvā 96/98/EK;e) "tehnisko noteikumu līdzvērtība" nozīmē to, ka Pušu tehniskie noteikumi, kas attiecas uz noteiktu ražojumu, ir pietiekami salīdzināmi, lai nodrošinātu katras Puses attiecīgo noteikumu izpildi. Tehnisko noteikumu līdzvērtība nenozīmē, ka attiecīgajiem tehniskajiem noteikumiem jābūt vienādiem;f) "starptautiskie dokumenti" ir attiecīgās starptautiskās konvencijas, rezolūcijas, kodeksi un Starptautiskās jūrniecības organizācijas (IMO) apkārtraksti, kā arī attiecīgie testēšanas standarti.2. Pārējiem šajā nolīgumā lietotajiem terminiem attiecībā uz atbilstības novērtēšanu ir nozīme, kas minēta citur šajā nolīgumā vai definīcijās, kuras ietvertas Starptautiskās standartizācijas organizācijas (ISO) un Starptautiskās elektrotehniskās komisijas (IEC) 2. rokasgrāmatā (1996. gada izdevums). Ja ir pretrunas starp ISO/IEC 2. rokasgrāmatu un šā nolīguma definīcijām, tad šajā nolīgumā ietvertās definīcijas ir noteicošās.2. pantsNolīguma mērķis1. Ar šo nolīgumu nosaka nosacījumus, saskaņā ar ko importētājas Puses pārvaldes iestāde akceptē atbilstības sertifikātus, kurus izdevušas eksportētājas Puses atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras saskaņā ar eksportētājas Puses tehniskajiem noteikumiem, turpmāk tekstā — "savstarpējā atzīšana".2. Šajā nolīgumā izklāstīts arī satvars reglamentējošai sadarbībai ar mērķi uzturēt un pilnīgot to EK un ASV normatīvo aktu prasību savstarpējo atzīšanu, kas attiecas uz kuģu aprīkojumu; veicināt reglamentējošo prasību uzlabošanu un attīstību, lai uzlabotu drošību jūrā un jūras piesārņojuma profilaksi, kā arī nodrošinātu šā nolīguma konsekventu piemērošanu. Šajā sadarbībā pilnībā ievēro Pušu reglamentējošo autonomiju, to attīstības politiku un noteikumus, kā arī to kopīgās saistības attiecīgo starptautisko dokumentu izstrādē.3. Šo nolīgumu paredzēts pilnīgot līdztekus Pušu programmu un politikas attīstībai. Puses šo nolīgumu periodiski pārskata, lai novērtētu sasniegto un noteiktu iespējamos šā nolīguma uzlabojumus, ņemot vērā ASV un EK politikas attīstību. Īpašu uzmanību tiek veltīta arī starptautisko dokumentu izstrādei.2. NODAĻASAVSTARPĒJĀ ATZĪŠANA3. pantsPamatsaistības1. Attiecībā uz visiem ražojumiem, kas iekļauti II pielikumā, Amerikas Savienotās Valstis bez turpmākas atbilstības novērtēšanas atbilstības sertifikātus, kurus saskaņā ar EK normatīvajiem un administratīvajiem noteikumiem izdevušas EK atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras, akceptē kā atbilstīgus saviem normatīvajiem un administratīvajiem noteikumiem, kuri minēti I pielikumā.2. Attiecībā uz visiem ražojumiem, kas iekļauti II pielikumā, Eiropas Kopiena bez turpmākas atbilstības novērtēšanas atbilstības sertifikātus, kurus saskaņā ar ASV normatīvajiem un administratīvajiem noteikumiem izdevusi ASV atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūra, akceptē kā atbilstīgus saviem normatīvajiem un administratīvajiem noteikumiem, kuri minēti I pielikumā.3. Tehniskie noteikumi, kas ASV un EK šā nolīguma ietvaros piemērojami katram šādam ražojumam, norādīti II pielikumā.4. pantsTehnisko noteikumu līdzvērtība1. Savstarpējās atzīšanas saistības, kas minētas 3. pantā, pamatojas uz to, ka Puses noteic, ka II pielikumā iekļautie tehniskie noteikumi, kuri piemērojami katram ražojumam, ir līdzvērtīgi.2. Tehnisko noteikumu līdzvērtības noteikšana, ko veic Puses, pamatojas uz to, kā tās savos normatīvajos un administratīvajos noteikumos realizē attiecīgos starptautiskos dokumentus, izņemot gadījumus, kad kāda Puse uzskata, ka dokuments būtu neefektīvs vai nepiemērots tās regulatīvo mērķu sasniegšanai. Pēdējā gadījumā vienojas par savstarpēji pieņemamu līdzvērtības noteikšanas pamatu.5. pantsMarķēšanaPuses var paturēt spēkā savas prasības, kas attiecas uz ražojumu marķēšanu, numerāciju un identifikāciju. Attiecībā uz ražojumiem, kas iekļauti II pielikumā, EK atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūrām ir tiesības izdot tādu marķējumu un numerāciju, kāda prasīta ASV normatīvajos un administratīvajos aktos un kādu tām piešķīrusi ASV krasta apsardze. ASV atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūrai ir identifikācijas numurs, kas paredzēts Direktīvā 96/98/EK un ko tai piešķir Eiropas Kopienu Komisija, un tas lietojams blakus minētajā direktīvā prasītajam marķējumam.6. pantsAtbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras1. Lai atbilstības sertifikātus izdotu saskaņā ar šā nolīguma noteikumiem, jāpiemēro šādi nosacījumi:a) ASV atzīst pilnvarotās iestādes, ko EK dalībvalstis saskaņā ar Direktīvu 96/98/EK izraudzījušās par atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūrām;b) EK un tās dalībvalstis atzīst Amerikas Savienoto Valstu krasta apsardzi un laboratorijas, ko tās saskaņā ar CFR 46. sadaļas 159. daļas 010. pantu akceptējusi par atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru.2. Abas Puses atzīst, ka otras Puses atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras ir pilnvarotas izpildīt šādas procedūras attiecībā uz normatīvajiem un administratīvajiem noteikumiem, kas minēti I pielikumā:a) testēšanu un pārbaudes ziņojumu sniegšanu;b) kvalitātes nodrošināšanas funkciju izpildi vai sistēmas sertifikāciju.3. Pušu pārvaldes iestādes atbild par šādām procedūrām, bet var visas šīs funkcijas vai dažas no tām nodot atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūrām:a) aprīkojuma projekta un pārbaudes rezultātu izskatīšanu atbilstīgi identificētajiem standartiem;b) atbilstības sertifikātu izdošanu.4. Līdz šā nolīguma spēkā stāšanās brīdim Puses apmainās ar saviem atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru sarakstiem. Puses nekavējoties informē viena otru par jebkurām izmaiņām savā atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru sarakstā. Puses uztur savus atjauninātos atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru sarakstus globālajā tīmeklī.5. Katra Puse prasa, lai tās atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras reģistrē, un saglabā informāciju par savu apakšlīgumu slēdzēju kompetences un atbilstības izpēti, kā arī uztur visu apakšlīgumu reģistru. Pēc otras Puses pieprasījuma šie dati tai ir pieejami.6. Katra Puse prasa, lai tās atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras pēc III pielikumā iekļautas otras Puses pārvaldes iestādes pieprasījuma pārvaldes iestādēm dara pieejamus atbilstības sertifikātu kopijas un attiecīgo tehnisko dokumentāciju, ko tās izdevušas.3. NODAĻAAPVIENOTĀ KOMITEJA7. pantsApvienotā komiteja1. Ar šo Puses izveido apvienoto komiteju, kurā ir abu Pušu pārstāvji. Apvienotā komiteja atbild par šā nolīguma efektīvu darbību.2. Katrai Pusei apvienotajā komitejā ir viena balss. Apvienotā komiteja lēmumus pieņem vienprātīgi. Apvienotā komiteja nosaka savu reglamentu.3. Apvienotā komiteja var izskatīt visus jautājumus, kas saistīti ar šā nolīguma efektīvu darbību. Apvienotā komiteja ir pilnvarota pieņemt lēmumus šajā nolīgumā paredzētajos gadījumos. Puses veic pasākumus, kas vajadzīgi šādu apvienotās komitejas lēmumu īstenošanai. Apvienotā komiteja jo īpaši atbild par:a) to ražojumu saraksta izstrādi un uzturēšanu, kas iekļauti II pielikumā, un attiecīgo normatīvo un administratīvo noteikumu izstrādi un atjaunināšanu;b) to problēmu apspriešanu un risināšanu, kas var rasties, īstenojot šo nolīgumu, ieskaitot bažas, ka Pušu tehniskie noteikumi, kuri piemērojami noteiktam II pielikumā iekļautam ražojumam, vairs nav līdzvērtīgi;c) tehnisku, atbilstības novērtēšanas un tehnoloģijas jautājumu risināšanu, lai nodrošinātu šā nolīguma konsekventu piemērošanu, īpaši saistībā ar attiecīgajiem starptautiskajiem dokumentiem;d) pielikumu grozīšanu;e) ievirzes nodrošināšanu un, ja vajadzīgs, pamatnostādņu izstrādi, lai atvieglotu šā nolīguma veiksmīgu izpildi un piemērošanu;f) darba plāna izveidi un uzturēšanu Pušu tehnisko prasību pielīdzināšanai un saskaņošanai.4. Apvienotā komiteja var izveidot kopējas darba grupas, kas sastāv no attiecīgu pārvaldes iestāžu pārstāvjiem un attiecīgiem ekspertiem, kurus uzskata par vajadzīgiem, lai risinātu specifiskus jautājumus, kas attiecas uz šā nolīguma darbību, un lai konsultētu apvienoto komiteju.4. NODAĻAREGLAMENTĒJOŠA SADARBĪBA8. pantsPārvaldes iestāžu saglabāšanaŠajā nolīgumā nekas nav interpretējams tā, lai ierobežotu kādas Puses kompetenci ar saviem normatīvajiem un administratīvajiem pasākumiem noteikt tāda līmeņa aizsardzību, kādu tā uzskata par piemērotu, lai uzlabotu drošību jūrā un jūras piesārņojuma profilaksi, vai citādi rīkoties sakarā ar bīstamību šā nolīguma ietvaros.9. pantsInformācijas apmaiņa un kontaktpunkti1. Pušu pārvaldes iestādes, kas iekļautas III pielikumā, nosaka piemērotus informācijas apmaiņas līdzekļus visām reglamentēšanas problēmām, kuras attiecas uz ražojumiem, uz ko attiecas šis nolīgums.2. Katra Puse izraugās vismaz vienu kontaktpunktu, kas var būt III pielikumā iekļautās pārvaldes iestādes, lai atbildētu uz visiem pamatotajiem otras Puses un citu ieinteresēto personu, piemēram, ražotāju, patērētāju, arodbiedrību, pieprasījumiem, kuri attiecas uz procedūrām, noteikumiem un citiem jautājumiem, kas saistīti ar šo nolīgumu. Puses apmainās ar kontaktpunktu sarakstiem un dara tos publiski pieejamus.3. Attiecībā uz informācijas apmaiņu un paziņojumiem saskaņā ar šo nolīgumu Pusei ir tiesības sazināties savā oficiālajā valodā vai savās oficiālajās valodās. Ja Puse uzskata, ka informācija, ko tā saņem, jātulko tās oficiālajā valodā vai oficiālajās valodās, šī Puse uzņemas vajadzīgo tulkošanu un sedz tās izmaksas.4. Katra Puse piekrīt publiskot globālajā tīmeklī to savu ražojumu sarakstu, kuriem tā izdevusi atbilstības sertifikātu saskaņā ar saviem attiecīgajiem normatīvajiem un administratīvajiem noteikumiem, un regulāri to atjaunināt.10. pantsRegulatīvās izmaiņas1. Ja kāda Puse ievieš jaunus tehniskos noteikumus, kas attiecas uz šo nolīgumu, tā to dara, pamatojoties uz esošajiem starptautiskajiem dokumentiem, izņemot gadījumu, kad Puse uzskata, ka dokuments būtu neefektīvs vai nepiemērots līdzeklis tās regulatīvo mērķu sasniegšanai.2. Katra Puse paziņo otrai Pusei par tehnisko noteikumu izmaiņām, kas saistītas ar šā nolīguma priekšmetu, vismaz 90 dienas pirms to stāšanās spēkā. Ja drošības, veselības vai vides aizsardzības apsvērumu dēļ vajadzīga steidzamāka rīcība, tad Puse pēc iespējams ātrāk par to paziņo otrai Pusei.3. Puses un to pārvaldes iestādes savu attiecīgo normatīvo aktu ietvaros informē viena otru un savstarpēji apspriežas par:a) jaunu tehnisko noteikumu vai to grozījumu priekšlikumi, kas izklāstīti to attiecīgajos normatīvajos un administratīvajos noteikumos, kuri minēti I un II pielikumā uzskaitītajos noteikumos vai attiecas uz tiem;b) grozīto vai jauno starptautisko dokumentu laicīgu transponēšana to attiecīgajos normatīvajos un administratīvajos noteikumos;c) esošo un derīgo atbilstības sertifikātu atjaunošanu, ja atjaunojums prasīts grozītajos vai jaunajos normatīvajos un/vai administratīvajos noteikumos.Puses viena otrai dod iespēju dot atsauksmes par šādiem ierosinājumiem.4. Ja normatīvajos un administratīvajos noteikumos ir izmaiņas, kas minētas I un II pielikumā, tad apvienotā komiteja apsver, vai ir saglabāta tehnisko noteikumu līdzvērtība attiecībā uz ražojumiem, kuri iekļauti II pielikumā.Ja apvienotā komiteja vienojas, ka līdzvērtība ir saglabāta, tad ražojumu atstāj II pielikumā.Ja apvienotā komiteja vienojas, ka līdzvērtību nevar saglabāt, tad norādes uz ražojumiem un attiecīgajiem tehniskajiem noteikumiem, kuru līdzvērtību nevar saglabāt, izņem no II pielikuma. Apvienotā komiteja ar lēmumu atjaunina II pielikumu, lai atspoguļotu izmaiņas. Pārtraucot savstarpējo atzīšanu, saistības, kas attiecībā uz noteiktu ražojumu minētas šā nolīguma 3. pantā, Pusēm vairs nav saistošas. Tomēr importētāja Puse turpina atzīt iepriekš izdotos atbilstības sertifikātus, kas attiecas uz ražojumiem, kuri laisti tās tirgū līdz savstarpējās atzīšanas pārtraukšanai, ja Puses pārvaldes iestāde nenolemj citādi, pamatojoties uz veselības, drošības vai vides apsvērumiem vai nespēju izpildīt citas prasības šā nolīguma ietvaros.Ja Puses apvienotajā komitejā nevar vienoties vai ir saglabāta to tehnisko noteikumu līdzvērtība attiecībā uz ražojumu, kas iekļauts II pielikumā, tad savstarpējo atzīšanu attiecībā uz minēto ražojumu pārtrauc saskaņā ar 15. panta noteikumiem.5. Puses publisko II pielikuma jaunāko versiju globālajā tīmeklī.11. pantsReglamentējoša sadarbība1. Puses vienojas sadarboties IMO un citās tādās attiecīgās starptautiskajās organizācijās kā Starptautiskajā standartizācijas organizācijā (ISO), Starptautiskajā elektrotehnikas komisijā (IEC) un Starptautiskajā elektrosakaru savienībā (ITU), lai izstrādātu un uzlabotu starptautiskos noteikumus drošības uzlabošanai jūrā un jūras piesārņojuma profilaksei.2. Puses apsver, kādu tehnisko darbu, datus un informācijas apmaiņu, zinātnisko un tehnoloģisko sadarbību vai citus sadarbības pasākumus var savstarpēji ievērot, lai uzlabotu to savu tehnisko noteikumu kvalitāti un līmeni, kas piemērojami kuģu aprīkojumam, un efektīvi izlietotu līdzekļus likumdošanas attīstībai.3. Attiecībā uz ražojumiem, kas nav iekļauti II pielikumā, šim nolīgumam stājoties spēkā, vai attiecībā uz kuriem ir pārtraukta tehnisko noteikumu līdzvērtība Puses pārbauda savus tehniskos noteikumus, lai iespēju robežās noteiktu savstarpējo atzīšanu. Puses izvirza darba programmu un grafiku savu tehnisko noteikumu pielīdzināšanai, ieskaitot attiecīgas starptautiskās standartizācijas ierosināšanu. Puses pēc iespējas cenšas pielīdzināt savus tehniskos noteikumus, pamatojoties uz esošajiem starptautiskajiem dokumentiem un pildot savus tiesību aktus, lai uzlabotu drošību jūrā un jūras piesārņojuma profilaksi.4. Ja Puses ir noteikušas, ka attiecībā uz ražojumu un attiecīgajiem normatīvajiem un administratīvajiem noteikumiem līdzvērtība ir iespējama, tad apvienotā komiteja pieņem lēmumu par attiecīgu II pielikuma grozīšanu.12. pantsSadarbība atbilstības novērtēšanā1. Puses un to iestādes, kas atbild par atbilstības novērtēšanas jautājumiem, pēc vajadzības apspriežas, lai atbilstības novērtēšanas procedūrās un atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūrās nodrošinātu konfidencialitātes saglabāšanu. Apspriedes var notikt, piemēram, salīdzinot atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru tehniskās kompetences un spējas pārbaudes un uzraudzības metodes, kā arī ar abu Pušu piekrišanu, kopīgi piedaloties revīzijās/inspekcijās, kas attiecas uz atbilstības novērtēšanas pasākumiem vai citu atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru novērtēšanu.2. Puses veicina savu atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru piedalīšanos koordinēšanas un sadarbības pasākumos, ko Puses organizē kopīgi vai atsevišķi.5. NODAĻAUZRAUDZĪBAS UN DROŠĪBAS PASĀKUMI13. pantsAtbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru uzraudzība1. Puses nodrošina savu atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru spēju pareizi novērtēt ražojumu un procesu atbilstību un šīs spējas uzturēšanu saskaņā ar piemērojamiem normatīvajiem un administratīvajiem noteikumiem. Tālab Puses pēc vajadzības pastāvīgi uzrauga savas atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras un/vai atzītās laboratorijas vai nodrošina to uzraudzību, regulāri veicot revīziju vai vērtējot.2. Ja Pusei ir objektīvi iemesli apstrīdēt otras Puses atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras tehnisko kompetenci, tad tā par to informē otru Pusi. Šādu apstrīdēšanu realizē, ja tai ir objektīvs un motivēts pamatojums. Otra Puse laikus sniedz informāciju, lai atspēkotu apstrīdējumu vai labotu trūkumus, kas dod pamatu apstrīdēšanai. Ja vajadzīgs, jautājumu apspriež apvienotajā komitejā. Ja par atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras kompetenci nevar vienoties, tad apstrīdētāja Puse var atteikties apstrīdētajai atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūrai piešķirt savu marķējumu un/vai numerāciju un atteikties atzīt apstrīdētās atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras izdotos atbilstības sertifikātus.14. pantsTirgus uzraudzība1. Šajā nolīgumā nekas nav interpretējams tā, ka ierobežo pārvaldes iestādes tiesības veikt visus piemērotos un tūlītējos pasākumus, ja tā atzīst, ka ražojums var:a) negatīvi ietekmēt apkalpes, pasažieru vai attiecīgi citu personu veselību un/vai drošību vai nelabvēlīgi ietekmēt jūras vidi, lai gan ir pareizi uzstādīts, uzturēts un tiek lietots paredzētajam nolūkam;b) neatbilst normatīvajiem vai administratīvajiem noteikumiem šā nolīguma ietvaros; vaic) citādi neatbilst kādai prasībai, kas ietverta šajā nolīgumā.Šādi pasākumi var ietvert ražojumu izņemšanu no tirgus, aizliegumu tos laist tirgū, to brīvas aprites ierobežošanu, ierosinājumu izņemt ražojumu no aprites un šādu problēmu atkārtošanās novēršanu, arī nosakot importa aizliegumu. Ja pārvaldes iestāde pieņem šādu lēmumu, tad tā 15 dienu laikā pēc šāda lēmuma pieņemšanas informē otru Pusi, pamatojot šādu rīcību.2. Nekas šajā nolīgumā Pusēm netraucē izņemt no tirgus ražojumus, kuri faktiski neatbilst Puses tehniskajiem noteikumiem.3. Puses vienojas, ka pēc iespējas ātrāk veic robežkontroli un to ražojumu pārbaudes, kas ir sertificēti vai marķēti kā atbilstoši I pielikumā norādītajām importētājas Puses prasībām. Puses vienojas, ka attiecībā uz pārbaudēm, kas saistītas ar iekšējiem pārvadājumiem to attiecīgajās teritorijās, tās šīs pārbaudes veic veidā, kas nav mazāk labvēlīgs par pārbaužu veidu, ko piemēro līdzīgām vietējām precēm.15. pantsSavstarpējās atzīšanas pārtraukšana1. Ja kāda Puse uzskata, ka tehniskie noteikumi attiecībā uz vienu vai vairākiem II pielikumā iekļautajiem ražojumiem nav vai nevar būt līdzvērtīgi, tad tā par to informē otru Pusi un sniedz objektīvu pamatojumu. Jebkuru līdzvērtības apstrīdējumu apspriež apvienotajā komitejā. Ja apvienotajā komitejā 60 dienu laikā pēc nodošanas izskatīšanai nepanāk lēmumu, tad savstarpējās atzīšanas saistības attiecībā uz šādiem ražojumiem pārtrauc viena no Pusēm vai abas Puses. Pārtraukšana ir spēkā līdz brīdim, kad apvienotā komiteja panāk vienošanos.2. Apvienotā komiteja ar lēmumu atjaunina II pielikumu, lai atspoguļotu savstarpējās atzīšanas pārtraukšanu attiecībā uz noteiktiem ražojumiem. Puses vienojas par sadarbību saskaņā ar 11. panta noteikumiem, lai pēc iespējas atjaunotu līdzvērtību.3. Pārtraucot II pielikumā minēto tehnisko noteikumu savstarpējo atzīšanu, Pusēm vairs nav saistošas tās saistības, kas attiecībā uz noteiktu ražojumu minētas šā nolīguma 3. pantā. Tomēr importētāja Puse turpina atzīt iepriekš izdotos atbilstības sertifikātus, kas attiecas uz ražojumiem, kuri laisti tās tirgū līdz savstarpējās atzīšanas pārtraukšanai, ja Puses pārvaldes iestāde nenolemj citādi, pamatojoties uz veselības, drošības vai vides apsvērumiem vai nespēju izpildīt citas prasības šā nolīguma ietvaros.16. pantsBrīdināšanas sistēmaPuses izveido abpusēju brīdināšanas sistēmu starp savām pārvaldes iestādēm, lai viena otru informētu par ražojumiem, kam konstatēta neatbilstība piemērojamiem tehniskajiem noteikumiem vai kas var būtiski apdraudēt veselību, drošību vai vidi.6. NODAĻAPAPILDU NOTEIKUMI17. pantsKonfidencialitāte1. Katra Puse, ciktāl tas vajadzīgs atbilstoši tās tiesību aktiem, vienojas ievērot tās informācijas konfidencialitāti, ar kuru apmainās saskaņā ar šo nolīgumu. Neviena no Pusēm jo īpaši neizpauž sabiedrībai un arī neļauj atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūrai izpaust sabiedrībai informāciju, ar kuru veikta apmaiņa saskaņā ar šo līgumu un kura ir uzņēmējdarbības noslēpumi, konfidenciāla komerciāla vai finansiāla informācija vai arī informācija, kas saistīta ar pastāvīgu izmeklēšanu.2. Puse vai atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūra, apmainoties ar informāciju ar otru Pusi vai ar otras Puses atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūru, var noteikt informācijas daļas, kuras nevēlas izpaust.3. Puses veic visus drošības pasākumus, kas pamatoti vajadzīgi, lai aizsargātu informāciju, ar kuru veikta apmaiņa saskaņā ar šo nolīgumu, no tās neatļautas izpaušanas.18. pantsMaksaKatra Puse cenšas nodrošināt to, ka maksa, ko nosaka par šajā nolīgumā minētajiem pakalpojumiem, ir samērīga ar sniegtajiem pakalpojumiem. Katra Puse nodrošina to, ka attiecībā uz atbilstības novērtēšanas procedūrām saskaņā ar šo nolīgumu tā neiekasē nekādu maksu par atbilstības novērtēšanas pakalpojumiem, ko sniedz otra Puse.19. pantsPiemērošanas teritorija1. Šo nolīgumu piemēro, no vienas puses, teritorijās, kurās piemēro Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līgumu, un saskaņā ar minētajā Līgumā paredzētajiem nosacījumiem un, no otras puses, Amerikas Savienoto Valstu teritorijā.2. Neskarot 1. punktu, šis nolīgums attiecas uz kuģiem, kam ir tiesības kuģot ar kādas Puses vai kādas Puses dalībvalsts karogu starptautiskos reisos.20. pantsNolīgumi ar citām valstīm1. Izņemot gadījumus, kad ir rakstiska vienošanās starp Pusēm, saistības, kas ietvertas savstarpējās atzīšanas nolīgumos, kurus kāda no Pusēm noslēdz ar pusi, kas nav šā nolīguma parakstītāja (trešā puse), nav spēkā attiecībā uz otru Pusi, ja ir pieņemti to atbilstības novērtēšanas procedūru rezultāti, kuras veiktas trešās puses teritorijā.2. Lai atvieglotu tirdzniecību ar kuģu aprīkojumu ar citām valstīm, EK un ASV apņemas izskatīt iespēju noslēgt daudzpusēju nolīgumu ar citām ieinteresētām valstīm par šā nolīguma priekšmetu.7. NODAĻANOBEIGUMA NOTEIKUMI21. pantsStāšanās spēkā, grozījumi un izbeigšana1. Šis nolīgums stājas spēkā otrā mēneša pirmajā dienā pēc dienas, kurā Puses ir apmainījušās ar vēstulēm, apstiprinot, ka to atbilstošās procedūras attiecībā uz šā nolīguma stāšanos spēkā ir pabeigtas.2. Šo nolīgumu var grozīt, kā noteikts 7. pantā, vai Pusēm vienojoties.3. Jebkura Puse var izbeigt šo nolīgumu, par to rakstiski paziņojot otrai Pusei vismaz sešus mēnešus iepriekš.4. Pēc nolīguma izbeigšanas Puse turpina akceptēt tos atbilstības sertifikātus, ko saskaņā ar šo nolīgumu līdz izbeigšanai izdevušas atbilstības novērtēšanas struktūras, ja Puses pārvaldes iestāde, pamatojoties uz veselības, drošības un vides apsvērumiem vai nespēju izpildīt citas prasības šā nolīguma ietvaros, neizlemj citādi.22. pantsNobeiguma noteikumi1. Šis nolīgums neietekmē ar kādu citu starptautisku nolīgumu noteiktās Pušu tiesības un pienākumus.2. Puses regulāri pārskata šā nolīguma darbību, pirmo reizi ne vēlāk kā divus gadus pēc tā stāšanās spēkā.3. Šis nolīgums ir sastādīts divos oriģināleksemplāros angļu, dāņu, franču, grieķu, holandiešu, itāliešu, portugāļu, somu, spāņu, vācu un zviedru valodā, un visi teksti ir vienlīdz autentiski. Ja interpretējot rodas pretrunas, tad noteicošais ir teksts angļu valodā..Por la Comunidad EuropeaFor Det Europæiske FællesskabFür die Europäische GemeinschaftΓια την Ευρωπαϊκή ΚοινότηταFor the European CommunityPour la Communauté européennePer la Comunità europeaVoor de Europese GemeenschapPela Comunidade EuropeiaEuroopan yhteisön puolestaPå Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar+++++ TIFF +++++Por los Estados Unidos de AméricaFor Amerikas Forenede StaterFür die Vereinigten Staaten von AmerikaΓια τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες της ΑμερικήςFor the United States of AmericaPour les États-Unis d'AmériquePer gli Stati Uniti d'AmericaVoor de Verenigde Staten van AmerikaPelos Estados Unidos da AméricaAmerikan yhdysvaltojen puolestaPå Amerikas förenta staters vägnar+++++ TIFF +++++--------------------------------------------------I PIELIKUMSNORMATĪVIE UN ADMINISTRATĪVIE NOTEIKUMI- EK normatīvie un administratīvie noteikumi:Padomes 1996. gada 20. decembra Direktīva 96/98/EK par kuģu aprīkojumu, ar grozījumiem.Puses atzīst, ka "Norādījumi par direktīvu īstenošanu, kas pamatojas uz jauno pieeju un vispārējo pieeju" ir derīgas pamatnostādnes, jo īpaši to atbilstības novērtēšanas procedūru īstenošanai, uz kurām attiecas šī direktīva.- ASV normatīvie un administratīvie noteikumi:USC 46. sadaļas 3306. daļaCFR 46. sadaļas 159.-165. daļa--------------------------------------------------II PIELIKUMSRažojumi, uz ko attiecas savstarpējā atzīšanaGlābšanas līdzekļiRažojuma identifikācija | Starptautiskie dokumenti, kas piemērojami izgatavošanas, darbības un testēšanas prasībām [1] | EK tehniskie noteikumi, vienības numurs, kas norādīts grozītās Direktīvas 96/98/EK A 1. pielikumā | ASV tehniskie noteikumi |Glābšanas riņķu automātiskās dūmu signālraķetes (pirotehnika) Piezīme.Derīguma termiņš nedrīkst pārsniegt 48 mēnešus pēc ražošanas mēneša. | LSA kodeksa 1.2. un 2.1.3. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 4.1.-4.5. un 4.8. punkts un 2. daļas 4. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 3.3. iedaļa. | A 1/1.3. | Pamatnostādnes "SOLAS" pirotehnisko ierīču apstiprināšanai, 1998. gada oktobris |Izpletņa signālraķetes (pirotehnika) Piezīme.Derīguma termiņš nedrīkst pārsniegt 48 mēnešus pēc ražošanas mēneša. | LSA kodeksa 1.2. un 3.1. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 4.1.-4.6. punkts un 2. daļas 4. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 3.1. iedaļa. | A 1/1.8. | Pamatnostādnes "SOLAS" pirotehnisko ierīču apstiprināšanai, 1998. gada oktobris |Rokas signālraķetes (pirotehnika) Piezīme.Derīguma termiņš nedrīkst pārsniegt 48 mēnešus pēc ražošanas mēneša. | LSA kodeksa 1.2. un 3.2. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 4.1.-4.5. un 4.7. punkts un 2. daļas 4. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 3.2. iedaļa. | A 1/1.9. | Pamatnostādnes "SOLAS" pirotehnisko ierīču apstiprināšanai, 1998. gada oktobris |Peldošās dūmu signālraķetes (pirotehnika) Piezīme.Derīguma termiņš nedrīkst pārsniegt 48 mēnešus pēc ražošanas mēneša. | LSA kodeksa 1.2. un 3.3. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 4.1.-4.5. un 4,8. punkts un 2. daļas 4. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 3.3. iedaļa. | A 1/1.10. | Pamatnostādnes "SOLAS" pirotehnisko ierīču apstiprināšanai, 1998. gada oktobris |Līnmetēji (pirotehnika) Piezīme.Derīguma termiņš nedrīkst pārsniegt 48 mēnešus pēc ražošanas mēneša. | LSA kodeksa 1.2. un 7.1. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 9. iedaļa un 2. daļas 4. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 7.1. iedaļa. | A 1/1.11. | Pamatnostādnes "SOLAS" pirotehnisko ierīču apstiprināšanai, 1998. gada oktobris |Stingrie glābšanas plosti Piezīme.Nolīgums neattiecas uz avārijas komplektu. | LSA kodeksa 1.2., 4.1. un 4.3. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 5.1.-5.16. un 5.20. punkts; IMO MSC Circ. 811; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 4.2. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 1006 vai cits attiecīgs korpusa vai liesmas slāpējoša pārseguma standarts. | A 1/1.13. | Stingrais glābšanas plosts – Krasta apsardzes (G-MSE-4) pārbaudes punktu saraksta pārskats, 1998. gada 27. jūlijs |Stingrie glābšanas plosti ar automātisku sagatavošanu lietošanai Piezīme.Nolīgums neattiecas uz avārijas komplektu. | LSA kodeksa 1.2., 4.1. un 4.3. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 5.1.-5.16. un 5.18.-5.21. punkts; IMO MSC Circ. 809; IMO MSC Circ. 811; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 4.2. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 1006 vai cits attiecīgs korpusa vai liesmas slāpējoša pārseguma standarts. | A 1/1.14. | Stingrais glābšanas plosts – Krasta apsardzes (G-MSE-4) pārbaudes punktu saraksta pārskats, 1998. gada 27. jūlijs |Abpusēji peldošie stingrie glābšanas plosti Piezīme.Nolīgums neattiecas uz avārijas komplektu. | LSA kodeksa 1.2., 4.1. un 4.3. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 5.1.-5.16., 5.18. un 5.21. punkts; IMO MSC Circ. 809; IMO MSC Circ. 811; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 4.2. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 1006 vai cits attiecīgs korpusa vai liesmas slāpējoša pārseguma standarts. | A 1/1.15. | Stingrais glābšanas plosts – Krasta apsardzes (G-MSE-4) pārbaudes punktu saraksta pārskats, 1998. gada 27. jūlijs |Brīvpeldes sistēmas glābšanas plostiem (hidrostatiskās palaišanas bloki) | LSA kodeksa 1.2. un 4.1.6.3. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 11. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 4.3.1. iedaļa. | A 1/1.16. | CFR 46. sadaļas 160.062. daļa |Palaišanas mehānisms: a)glābšanas laivām un glābējkuģiem, unb)glābšanas plostiem. Iedarbina ar kritienu vai kritieniem. | LSA kodeksa 1.2. un 6.15. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 8.2. iedaļa un 2. daļas 6.2.1.-6.2.4. punkts. | A 1/1.26. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Tikai ar laivceltni palaižamu glābšanas plostu automātiskās palaišanas āķis |Jūras evakuācijas sistēmas | LSA kodeksa 1.2. un 6.2. iedaļa; Ieteikuma par testēšanu 1. daļas 12. iedaļa; IMO MSC Circ. 980, 6.2. iedaļa. | A 1/1.27. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Ugunsdrošības līdzekļiRažojuma identifikācija | Starptautiskie dokumenti, kas piemērojami izgatavošanas, darbības un testēšanas prasībām | EK tehniskie noteikumi, vienības numurs, kas norādīts grozītās Direktīvas 96/98/EK A 1. pielikumā | ASV tehniskie noteikumi |Pirmējie klāja segumi | FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 2. daļa; IMO Rezolūcija A 687(17); MSC/Circ. 916; MSC/Circ. 1004. | A 1/3.1. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |"A" un "B" klases ugunsdrošie pārsegumi, to skaitā starpsienas (bez logiem) Klāji Ugunsdrošas durvis (ar logiem, kas nav lielāki par 645 cm2) Griesti un apšuvumi | SOLAS II-2/3.2; II-2/3.4; FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 3. daļa un 2. pielikums IMO Rezolūcija A 754 (18) MSC/Circ. 916; MSC/Circ. 1004; MSC/Circ. 1005. | A 1/3.11. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Nedegoši materiāli | SOLAS II-2/3.33; FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 1. daļa un 2. pielikums. | A 1/3.1 3. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Ugunsdrošas durvis Tikai ugunsdrošas durvis bez logiem vai ar logiem, kuru kopējais laukums nepārsniedz 645 cm2 vienā durvju loksnē. Apstiprinājums attiecas tikai uz maksimālo testēto durvju izmēru. Durvju rāmim jābūt testētam attiecībā uz ugunsdrošību. | SOLAS II-2/9.4.1.1.2., II-2/9.4.1.2.1. un II-2/9.4.2; FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 3. daļa. IMO Rezolūcija A 754 (18); MSC/Circ. 916; MSC/Circ. 1004. | A 1/3.1 6. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Ugunsdrošu durvju kontroles sistēmas | SOLAS II-.2/9.4.1.1.4.; 1994 HSC kodeksa 7.9.3.3. punkts; 2000 HSC kodeksa 7.9.3.3. punkts; FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 4. daļa. | A 1/3.17. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Virsmas materiāli un grīdas segumi ar zemiem liesmas izplatības raksturlielumiem Tikai iedarbībai pakļautas griestu, sienu un grīdu virsmas. Neattiecas uz caurulēm, cauruļu pārsegiem vai vadiem. | SOLAS II-2/3.29; 1994 HSC kodeksa 7.4.3.4.1. un 7.4.3.6. punkts; 2000 HSC kodeksa 7.4.3.4.1. un 7.4.3.6. punkts; FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 2. daļa IMO Rezolūcija A 653 (16); ISO 1716 (1973); MSC/Circ. 916, MSC/Circ. 1004 un MSC/Circ. 1008. | A 1/3.18. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Drapērijas, aizkari un citi piekārti tekstilmateriāli un plēves | SOLAS II-2/3.40.3.; FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 7. daļa. | A 1/3.19. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Polsterētas mēbeles | FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 8. daļa; IMO Rezolūcija A 652 (16). | A 1/3.20. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Gultas piederumi | FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 9. daļa; IMO Rezolūcija A 688 (17). | A 1/3.21. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Ugunsdrošības aizbīdnis | SOLAS II-2/9.4.1.1.8. un II-2/9.7.3.1.2.; FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 3. daļa; IMO Rezolūcija A 754 (18); MSC/Circ. 916. | A 1/3.22. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Elektrisko kabeļu, cauruļu, maģistrālo ķēžu, šahtu u.c. objektu izvade cauri "A" klases pārsegumiem | SOLAS II-2/9.3.1.; FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 3. daļa; IMO Rezolūcija A 754 (18); MSC/Circ. 916 un MSC/Circ. 1004. | A 1/3.26. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Cauruļu, izņemot tērauda vai vara, izvade cauri "B" klases pārsegumiem | SOLAS II-2/9.3.2.1.; FTP kodeksa 1. pielikuma 3. daļa; IMO Rezolūcija A 754 (18); MSC/Circ. 916 un MSC/Circ. 1004. | A 1/3.27. | (Tikai starptautiskie dokumenti) |Navigācijas aprīkojumsRažojuma identifikācija | Starptautiskie dokumenti, kas piemērojami izgatavošanas, darbības un testēšanas prasībām | EK tehniskie noteikumi, vienības numurs, kas norādīts grozītās Direktīvas 96/98/EK A 1. pielikumā | ASV tehniskie noteikumi |Magnētiskais kompass | SOLAS V/19.2.1.1.; IMO Rezolūcija A 382 (X); IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); ISO 449 (1997), ISO 694 (2000), ISO 1069 (1973), ISO 2269 (1992), IEC 60945 (1996). | A 1/4.1. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.101. |Pārraidošā magnētiskā kursa noteicēja ierīce (TMHD) | IMO Rezolūcijas MSC 86 (70) 2. pielikums; IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); ISO 11606 (2000), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.2. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.102. |Žirokompass | IMO Rezolūcija A 424 (XI); IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); ISO 8728 (1997), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.3. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.103. |Eholote | IMO Rezolūcija A 224 (VII), kas grozīta ar IMO Rezolūcijas MSC74 (69) 4. pielikumu, IMO Rezolūciju A 694 (17); ISO 9875 (2000), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.6. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.107. |Ātruma un attāluma mērīšanas iekārtas (SOME) | 1994 HSC kodeksa 13.3.2. punkts; 2000 HSC kodeksa 13.3.2. punkts; IMO Rezolūcija A 824 (19), kas grozīta ar IMO Rezolūciju MSC 96 (72); IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17). IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61023 (1999), IEC 61162 | A 1/4.7. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.105. |Apgriezienu skaita indikators | IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IMO Rezolūcija A 526 (13); IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.9. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.106. |LORAN-C iekārta | IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IMO Rezolūcija A 818 (19); IEC 61075 (1991), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.1 1. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.135. |Chakya iekārta | IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IMO Rezolūcija A 818 (19); IEC 61075 (1991), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.12. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.136. |GPS iekārta | IMO Rezolūcija A 819 (19), IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61108-1 (1994), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.14. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.130. |GLONASS iekārta | IMO Rezolūcija MSC 53(66); IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (7); IEC 61108-2 (1998), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.15. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.131. |Kursa kontroles sistēma HCS | SOLAS V/24.1.; IMO Rezolūcija A 342 (IX), kas grozīta ar IMO Rezolūcijas MSC 64 (67) 3. pielikumu; IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); ISO 11674 (2000), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162 | A 1/4.16. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.110. |Automātiskā radiolokācijas iekārta (ARPA) (Radara iekārtai, ko lieto kopā ar ARPA, jābūt atsevišķi ES sertifikātam un ASV sertifikātam.) | IMO Rezolūcija A 823 (19); IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IEC 60872-1 (1998), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.34. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.120. |Automātiskā sekošanas iekārta (ATA); (Radara iekārtai, ko lieto kopā ar ATA, jābūt atsevišķi ES sertifikātam un ASV sertifikātam.) | IMO Rezolūcijas MSC 64 (67) 4. pielikuma 1. papildinājums; IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IEC 60872-2 (1999), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.35. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.111. |Elektroniskā lokācijas iekārta (EPA) (Radara iekārtai, ko lieto kopā ar EPA, jābūt atsevišķi ES sertifikātam un ASV sertifikātam.) | IMO Rezolūcijas MSC 64 (67) 4. pielikuma 2. papildinājums; IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IEC 60872-3 (2000), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.36. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.121. |Integrēta tiltiņa sistēma | IMO Rezolūcijas MSC.64 (67) 1. pielikums; IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IEC 61209 (1999), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.28. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.140. |Brauciena datu ieraksta ierīce (VDR) | IMO Rezolūcija A 861(20); IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IEC 61996 (2000), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.29. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.150. |Žirokompass ātrgaitas kuģiem | IMO Rezolūcija A 821 (19); IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); ISO 16328 (2001), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.31. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.203. |Universāla automātiskās identifikācijas sistēma (AIS) | IMO Rezolūcijas MSC.74 (69) 3. pielikums; IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); ITUR.M. 1371-1(10/00). IEC 61993-2 (2002), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162 | A 1/4.32. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.155. PIEZĪME. Radioraidītājam turklāt jāsaņem ASV Federālās sakaru komisijas atļauja. |Kursa kontroles sistēma | IMO Rezolūcijas MSC.74 (69) 2. pielikums; IMO Rezolūcija A 694 (17); IEC 62065 (2002), IEC 60945 (1996), IEC 61162. | A 1/4.33. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.112. |Radiolokācijas atstarotājs | IMO Rezolūcija A 384 (X); IEC 60945 (1996), ISO 8729 (1997). | A 1/4.39. | Navigācijas un kuģu inspekcijas apkārtraksta NVIC 8-01 4. pielikums, 2/165.160. |[1] ISA kodekss attiecas uz Starptautisko glābšanas līdzekļu kodeksu, kas pieņemts 1996. gada 4. jūnijā (IMO Rezolūcija MSC48(66)).Ieteikums par testēšanu attiecas uz IMO ieteikumu par glābšanas līdzekļu testēšanu, kas pieņemts 1991. gada 6. novembrī (IMO Rezolūcija A 689(17)) un grozīts 1998. gada 11. decembrī (IMO Rezolūcija MSC.81(70)).--------------------------------------------------III PIELIKUMSPārvaldes iestādes– Eiropas KopienaBeļģija | Ministère des communications et de l'infrastructure Administration des affaires maritimes et de la navigation Rued'Arlon 104 B – 1040 Bruxelles |Ministerie voor Verkeer en Infrastructuur Bestuur voor Maritieme Zaken en Scheepvaart Aarlenstraat 104 B – 1040 Brussel |Dānija | Søfartsstyrelsen Vermundsgade 38 C DK – 2100 København Ø |Vācija | Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen (BMVBW) Invalidenstraße 44 D – 10115 Berlin |Grieķija | ΥΠΟΥΡΓΕΙΟ ΕΜΠΟΡΙΚΗΣ ΝΑΥΤΙΛΙΑΣ Γρ.Λαμπράκη 150 GR – 185 18 Πειραιάς |(Ministry of Merchant Marine1 50,Gr. Lampraki str. 185 18 Piraeus) |Spānija | Ministerio de Fomento Dirección General de la Marina Mercante. C/ Ruíz de Alarcón 1 ES-28071 Madrid |Francija | Ministère de ľéquipement, du transport et du logement Direction des affaires maritimes et des gens de mers 3, place de Fontenoy F-75700 Paris |Īrija | Maritime Safety Division Department of the Marine and Natural Resources Leeson Lane Dublin 2 |Itālija | Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti Unita di Gestione del trasporto maritimo Via delľarte, 16 IT – 00144 – Roma |Luksemburga | Commissariat aux affaires maritimes 26 place de la Gare L-1616 Luxembourg |Nīderlande | Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat Directoraat-Generaal Goederenvervoer (DGG) Directie Transportveiligheid Nieuwe Uitleg 1, Postbus 20904 NL-2500 EX Den Haag |Austrija | Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie Oberste Schiffahrtsbehörde Abteilung II/20 Radetzkystrasse 2 A-1030 Wien |Portugāle | Ministério das Obras Públicas, Transportes e Habitação Palácio Penafiel rua S. Mamede ao Caldas 21 P–1149-050 Lisboa |Somija | Liikenne- ja viestintäministeriö / kommunikationsministeriet PO Box 235 FIN-00131 Helsinki |Zviedrija | Sjöfartsverket S-601 78 Norrköping |Apvienotā Karaliste | Maritime and Coastguard Agency Spring Place 105 Commercial Road Southampton SOI 5 1EG |Eiropas Kopienu Komisija | Directorate General for Energy and Transport Maritime Safety Unit 200, rue de la Loi B-1049 Brussels |– Amerikas Savienotās ValstisUnited States Coast GuardOffice of Design and Engineering Standards (G-MSE)2100 Second Street S.W.Washington DC 20593--------------------------------------------------


text:
Cartucce HP Photosmart 325 Xi originali compatibili rigenerate - Cartucce.it
 Hewlett Packard Photosmart 325 Xi
 Cartucce per HP Photosmart 325 Xi originali, compatibili, rigenerate
 Cartucce originali, compatibili e rigenerate per HP Photosmart 325 Xi
 Cartucce HP originali e compatibili per stampante HP Photosmart 325 Xi inkjet.
 Inchiostri per Hewlett Packard Photosmart 325 Xi
 Accessori per Hewlett Packard Photosmart 325 Xi
 Carta Speciale per Hewlett Packard Photosmart 325 Xi
 Acquisto di cartucce compatibili e originali per HP Photosmart 325 Xi
 Acquista le tue cartucce per HP Photosmart 325 Xi su Cartucce.it, l'acquisto è semplice e veloce. Aggiungi i tuoi prodotti al carrello e paga comodamente con PayPal, Carta di credito, Bonifico Bancario oppure in contrassegno. La spedizione avviene entro 12 ore dalla chiusura dell'ordine e la spedizione è veloce in tutta italia.