type: other

text:
RAPPORT dwar il-kwittanza għall-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016
 Proċedura : 2017/2160(DEC)
 Ċiklu relatat mad-dokument : A8-0085/2018
 736k 63k
 PE 613.470v01-00 A8-0085/2018
 dwar il-kwittanza għall-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016
 – wara li kkunsidra l-kontijiet annwali finali taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016,
 – wara li kkunsidra r-rapport tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri dwar il-kontijiet annwali taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016, flimkien mar-risposta taċ-Ċentru(1),
 – wara li kkunsidra d-dikjarazzjoni ta' assigurazzjoni(2) dwar l-affidabilità tal-kontijiet u l-legalità u r-regolarità tat-tranżazzjonijiet ta' bażi, ipprovduta mill-Qorti tal-Awdituri għas-sena finanzjarja 2016, skont l-Artikolu 287 tat-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea,
 – wara li kkunsidra r-rakkomandazzjoni tal-Kunsill tal-20 ta' Frar 2018 dwar il-kwittanza li għandha tingħata liċ-Ċentru fir-rigward tal-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit għas-sena finanzjarja 2016 (05941/2018 – C8-0070/2017),
 – wara li kkunsidra r-rapport tal-Kumitat għall-Kontroll tal-Baġit u l-opinjoni tal-Kumitat għall-Ambjent, is-Saħħa Pubblika u s-Sikurezza tal-Ikel (A8-0085/2018),
 1. Jagħti l-kwittanza lid-Direttriċi taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għall-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru għas-sena finanzjarja 2016;
 3. Jagħti istruzzjonijiet lill-President tiegħu biex jgħaddi din id-deċiżjoni, kif ukoll ir-riżoluzzjoni li hija parti integrali minnha, lid-Direttriċi taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kummissjoni u lill-Qorti tal-Awdituri, u biex jiżgura li jiġu ppubblikati f'Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea (serje L).
 dwar l-għeluq tal-kontijiet taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016
 – wara li kkunsidra r-rapport tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri dwar il-kontijiet annwali taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016, flimkien mar-risposta taċ-Ċentru(6),
 – wara li kkunsidra d-dikjarazzjoni ta' assigurazzjoni(7) dwar l-affidabilità tal-kontijiet u l-legalità u r-regolarità tat-tranżazzjonijiet ta' bażi, ipprovduta mill-Qorti tal-Awdituri għas-sena finanzjarja 2016, skont l-Artikolu 287 tat-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea,
 – wara li kkunsidra r-rakkomandazzjoni tal-Kunsill tal-20 ta' Frar 2018 dwar il-kwittanza li għandha tingħata liċ-Ċentru fir-rigward tal-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit għas-sena finanzjarja 2016 (05941/2018 – C8-0070/2018),
 – wara li kkunsidra r-Regolament (KE) Nru 851/2004 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tal-21 ta' April 2004 li jistabbilixxi ċentru Ewropew għall-prevenzjoni u l-kontroll tal-mard(9), u b'mod partikolari l-Artikolu 23 tiegħu,
 1. Japprova l-għeluq tal-kontijiet taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016;
 2. Jagħti istruzzjonijiet lill-President tiegħu biex jgħaddi din id-deċiżjoni lid-Direttriċi taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard, lill-Kunsill, lill-Kummissjoni u lill-Qorti tal-Awdituri, u biex jiżgura li jiġu ppubblikati f'Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea (serje L).
 li tinkludi l-kummenti li jagħmlu parti integrali mid-deċiżjoni dwar il-kwittanza għall-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016
 – wara li kkunsidra d-deċiżjoni tiegħu dwar il-kwittanza għall-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016,
 B. billi, skont ir-rapport tad-dħul u l-infiq tiegħu(11), il-baġit finali taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard (''iċ-Ċentru'') għas-sena finanzjarja 2016 kien ta' EUR 58 247 650, li jirrappreżenta tnaqqis żgħir ta' 0,35 % meta mqabbel mal-2015; billi 97,46 % tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru jinsilet mill-baġit tal-Unjoni;
 C. billi l-Qorti tal-Awdituri ("il-Qorti"), fir-rapport tagħha dwar il-kontijiet annwali taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard għas-sena finanzjarja 2016 ("ir-rapport tal-Qorti"), stqarret li kisbet assigurazzjonijiet raġonevoli li l-kontijiet annwali taċ-Ċentru huma affidabbli u li t-tranżazzjonijiet ta' bażi huma legali u regolari;
 1. Jirrikonoxxi miċ-Ċentru li, wara l-kummenti tal-Qorti dwar diversi dgħufijiet misjuba rigward it-trasparenza tal-proċeduri ta' akkwist taċ-Ċentru, iċ-Ċentru bidel il-format u l-proċess li juża biex jasal għad-deċiżjoni ta' finanzjament għall-akkwisti tiegħu; jistieden liċ-Ċentru jirrapporta lill-awtorità ta' kwittanza dwar l-implimentazzjoni ta' din il-proċedura;
 2. Jinnota li, skont ir-rapport tal-Qorti, f'Mejju 2015, id-Direttur taċ-Ċentru ad interim ġie appuntat b'deċiżjoni tal-bord tal-amministrazzjoni; jirrileva li mill-31 ta' Diċembru 2016, din il-kariga qabżet il-perjodu massimu ta' sena, li huwa stipulat fir-Regolamenti tal-Persunal, bi tmien xhur; barra minn hekk, jiddispjaċih li dan irriżulta wkoll fi 15-il arranġament ad interim addizzjonali għal persunal ieħor; jinnota li, skont it-tweġiba taċ-Ċentru, huwa jqis li l-ħatra saret skont ir-Regolamenti tal-Persunal kif ukoll skont ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 851/2004, peress li r-reklutaġġ inizjali għall-pożizzjoni ta' direttur ma rnexxiex u, għal finijiet ta' kontinwità operattiva, l-arranġament viġenti ġie estiż lil hinn mil-limitu ta' tnax-il xahar; jenfasizza li matul din l-estensjoni, fuq talba tal-bord tal-amministrazzjoni, il-membru tal-persunal ikkonċernat aċċetta li jċedi l-kumpens finanzjarju previst fir-Regolamenti tal-Persunal waqt li jkun qed jokkupa temporanjament kariga bi grad ogħla;
 3. Jinnota li l-isforzi ta' monitoraġġ baġitarju matul is-sena finanzjarja 2016 irriżultaw f'rata ta' implimentazzjoni tal-baġit ta' 98,02 %, li tfisser żieda ta' 3,97 % meta mqabbla mal-2015; jieħu nota li r-rata ta' eżekuzzjoni tal-approprjazzjonijiet ta' pagament kienet ta' 79,26 %, li tirrappreżenta żieda ta' 2,99 % meta mqabbla mas-sena preċedenti;
 4. Ifakkar li, bħala aġenzija tal-Unjoni, id-denominazzjoni tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru hija f'euro; madankollu, peress li s-sede tiegħu tinsab barra miż-żona tal-Euro (fl-Iżvezja), ħafna mill-ispejjeż tiegħu jsiru bil-krona Żvediża (SEK); barra minn hekk, iċ-Ċentru huwa espost għal flutwazzjonijiet fir-rata tal-kambju peress li, mhux biss il-kontijiet bankarji tiegħu huma fil-krona Żvediża, iżda huwa jwettaq ukoll ċerti tranżazzjonijiet f'muniti barranin oħra;
 5. Jinnota li, skont ir-rapport tal-Qorti, bħal fis-snin preċedenti, l-approprjazzjonijiet impenjati riportati taħt it-Titolu III (infiq operattiv) kienu għoljin fil-livell ta' 41 % (EUR 7 900 000); jirrikonoxxi li r-riporti huma prinċipalment relatati ma' proġetti pluriennali fl-oqsma tal-konsulenza xjentifika (EUR 2 400 000), is-sorveljanza (EUR 1 300 000), it-taħriġ fis-saħħa pubblika (EUR 1 400 000) u l-IT għas-saħħa pubblika (EUR 2 100 000); jinnota li l-Qorti fir-rapport tagħha tissuġġerixxi li ċ-Ċentru jikkunsidra l-introduzzjoni ta' approprjazzjonijiet baġitarji differenzjati sabiex jirriflettu aħjar in-natura pluriennali tal-operazzjonijiet u d-dewmien inevitabbli bejn l-iffirmar tal-kuntratti, il-kunsinni u l-ħlasijiet; jinnota li, skont it-tweġiba taċ-Ċentru, se janalizza s-sitwazzjoni f'kollaborazzjoni mal-Qorti;
 6. Jirrimarka li r-riporti ħafna drabi huma parzjalment jew għalkollox ġustifikati min-natura pluriennali tal-programmi operattivi tal-aġenziji, li mhux neċessarjament jindikaw dgħufijiet fl-ippjanar u fl-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit u li ma jmorrux dejjem kontra l-prinċipju baġitarju tal-annwalità; jirrikonoxxi l-fatt li r-riporti f'ħafna każijiet jiġu ppjanati bil-quddiem u kkomunikati lill-Qorti;
 7. Jinnota li l-bord tal-amministrazzjoni għamel intervisti għall-ħatra tad-direttur taċ-Ċentru għall-perjodu 2016-2021 u, wara l-votazzjoni li ma rnexxitx (ħadd mill-kandidati ma rċieva maġġoranza ta' 2/3 tal-voti), għamel rieżami tal-avviż ta' pożizzjoni vakanti u ddeċieda li jiftaħ mill-ġdid is-sejħa għall-pożizzjoni ta' direttur; jieħu nota li l-ex Aġent Direttur ġie elett bħala d-Direttur il-ġdid fit-22 ta' Marzu 2017;
 8. Jirrikonoxxi miċ-Ċentru li l-għadd totali ta' persunal statutorju stabbilizza ruħu għal 260 fl-2016; jinnota barra minn hekk li l-għadd totali ta' persunal temporanju ingaġġat fiċ-Ċentru kien ta' 162 (mill-186 post awtorizzat taħt il-Baġit tal-Unjoni), l-għadd totali ta' aġenti kuntrattwali kien ta' 95 u l-għadd ta' esperti nazzjonali ssekondati kien ta' 3 sa tmiem l-2016; jieħu nota tal-fatt li r-rata tar-rotazzjoni għall-persunal temporanju u għall-aġenti kuntrattwali kienet ta' 7 % fl-2016;
 9. Jinnota bi tħassib li, fir-rigward tal-għadd totali tal-postijiet tax-xogħol okkupati fil-31 ta' Diċembru 2016, il-proporzjon tal-bilanċ bejn is-sessi kien ta' 62 % nisa għal 38 % rġiel; jinnota, barra minn hekk, il-proporzjon tal-bilanċ bejn is-sessi ta' 60 % u 40 % fil-Bord tal-Amministrazzjoni;
 10. Jinnota li l-parti l-kbira tal-impjiegi taċ-Ċentru (74,4 %) huma relatati mal-implimentazzjoni ta' attivitajiet marbuta mal-ħidma operattiva taċ-Ċentru, 17,5 % tal-impjiegi jappartjenu għall-"appoġġ u l-koordinazzjoni amministrattivi", filwaqt li 8,1 % tal-impjiegi huma ddefiniti bħala newtrali;
 11. Jinnota b'sodisfazzjon li ċ-Ċentru rriorganizza u integra aktar l-akkwist, il-finanzi, il-missjoni u l-laqgħat u introduċa l-e-Administration (ibbażata fuq is-sett ta' servizzi tal-applikazzjoni e-PRIOR tal-Kummissjoni) li kien pass ewlieni lejn Ċentru aktar effiċjenti;
 12. Jenfasizza li l-bilanċ bejn ix-xogħol u l-ħajja privata għandu jkun parti mill-politika tal-persunal taċ-Ċentru; jinnota li l-baġit li ntefaq għall-attivitajiet ta' benesseri jammonta għal madwar EUR 810 għal kull membru tal-persunal, inklużi attivitajiet ta' skrinjar mediku, li jikkorrispondu għal 1,5 jum ta' attivitajiet ta' benesseri għal kull membru tal-persunal fl-2016; josserva li l-għadd medju ta' jiem ta' liv ta' mard huwa ta' 1,10 għal kull membru tal-persunal, li huwa estremament baxx;
 13. Japprezza l-fatt li ċ-Ċentru adotta regoli ta' implimentazzjoni dwar il-politika għall-protezzjoni tad-dinjità tal-persuna u l-prevenzjoni tal-fastidju; jappoġġa s-sessjoni ta' taħriġ organizzata biex tiżdied is-sensibilizzazzjoni tal-persunal u jissuġġerixxi l-organizzazzjoni perjodika ta' sessjonijiet ta' taħriġ u informazzjoni dwar il-kwistjoni;
 14. Jinnota b'sodisfazzjon il-fatt li fl-2016 iċ-Ċentru ma rċieva l-ebda lment, ma ttieħdet l-ebda azzjoni legali kontrih u ma ġewx irrapportati każijiet marbuta mal-ingaġġ jew mat-tkeċċija ta' membri tal-persunal;
 Il-prevenzjoni u l-ġestjoni tal-kunflitti ta' interess, it-trasparenza u d-demokrazija
 15. Jirrikonoxxi miċ-Ċentru li, peress li jiddependi minn ħafna esperti interni u esterni li flimkien isawru l-pożizzjoni xjentifika taċ-Ċentru, politika ta' indipendenza ġiet finalizzata u approvata mill-bord tal-amministrazzjoni f'Ġunju 2016 sabiex tiġi żgurata t-trasparenza u jiġu identifikati l-kunflitti ta' interess; jinnota li l-implimentazzjoni ta' din il-politika hija sorveljata minn uffiċjal għall-konformità;
 16. Jieħu nota tal-fatt li l-membri kollha tal-persunal huma rikjesti jissottomettu dikjarazzjoni tal-interessi qabel ma jassumu l-kariga tagħhom; jinnota barra minn hekk li l-membri kollha tal-persunal involuti fi proċedura ta' akkwist partikolari jridu jiffirmaw dikjarazzjoni ta' nuqqas ta' kunflitt ta' interess għal dik il-proċedura partikolari;
 17. Jinnota li ġiet introdotta sistema elettronika għas-sottomissjoni tad-dikjarazzjonijiet ta' interess sabiex jitnaqqas l-għadd ta' żbalji fid-dokumenti sottomessi; jirrikonoxxi miċ-Ċentru li din is-sistema tiffaċilita l-implimentazzjoni tal-politika ta' indipendenza u żżid ir-rata ta' konformità;
 18. Josserva li, apparti l-proċedura interna dwar il-laqgħat mal-industrija farmaċewtika, qed tiġi żviluppata proċedura interna dwar il-konklużjoni tal-memoranda ta' ftehim u l-ftehimiet ta' kollaborazzjoni ma' partijiet terzi; jistieden liċ-Ċentru jirrapporta lill-awtorità ta' kwittanza dwar il-progress li sar f'dak il-proċess;
 19. Jilqa' l-fatt li l-Aġenzija adottat proċedura interna dwar l-iżvelar ta' informazzjoni protetta li tiddeskrivi r-rwoli tal-atturi u l-proċessi li għandhom jiġu segwiti;
 20. Jilqa' t-tliet kisbiet ewlenin identifikati mill-Aġenzija fl-2016, prinċipalment:
 – li ppubblikat studju dwar il-piż tal-infezzjonijiet li jittieħdu mill-isptar (HAI) fl-Ewropa;
 – li appoġġat ir-rispons globali għat-tifqigħa tal-virus taż-Żika billi pprovdiet valutazzjonijiet ta' riskju regolari u ngħaqdet mal-Organizzazzjoni Dinjija tas-Saħħa u ċ-Ċentri tal-Istati Uniti għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-mard fir-rigward tal-pariri tal-ivvjaġġar dwar il-virus taż-Żika;
 – li pparteċipat fl-ewwel missjoni tal-Korp Mediku Ewropew, li ġie stabbilit riċentement, fl-Angola biex jiġu vvalutati l-implikazzjonijiet tat-tifqigħa tad-deni isfar għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni;
 21. Jinnota b'sodisfazzjon li ċ-Ċentru jikkoopera mal-Aġenzija Ewropea dwar is-Sigurtà fl-Ikel u mal-Aġenzija Ewropea għall-Mediċini pereżempju dwar kwistjonijiet li jirrigwardaw ir-reżistenza antimikrobika u l-vaċċini;
 22. Jinnota li, skont ir-rapport ta' segwitu, iċ-Ċentru attwalment qiegħed jagħmel rieżami tal-indikaturi tad-dokument uniku tal-programmazzjoni tiegħu; jinnota barra minn hekk li s-sett il-ġdid ta' indikaturi ġie ffinalizzat u ppjanat li jiġi ppreżentat għall-approvazzjoni lill-bord tal-amministrazzjoni f'Novembru 2017; jieħu nota li skont iċ-Ċentru, l-evalwazzjonijiet huma għodda aktar effettiva mill-indikaturi biex ikejlu l-impatt;
 23. Jinnota li mill-2006 'l hawn iċ-Ċentru għandu fis-seħħ Standards ta' Kontroll Intern (ICS); jirrikonoxxi miċ-Ċentru li l-ICS kollha tiegħu ġew implimentati;
 24. Jinnota li, skont iċ-Ċentru, għandu fis-seħħ proċedura biex jiżgura li l-każijiet fejn jiġu evitati l-kontrolli jew ikun hemm devjazzjonijiet mill-proċessi u l-proċeduri stabbiliti jiġu ddokumentati f'rapporti dwar l-eċċezzjonijiet; jinnota li fl-2016 ġew irreġistrati 40 eċċezzjoni ta' dan it-tip, li jirrappreżentaw żieda ta' 12-il eċċezzjoni meta mqabbla mas-sena preċedenti; jinnota li ġie żviluppat pjan ta' azzjoni biex jitnaqqas l-għadd tagħhom;
 25. Jinnota b'sodisfazzjon li ċ-Ċentru adotta strateġija kontra l-frodi li ssegwi l-linji gwida maħruġa mill-Uffiċċju Ewropew Kontra l-Frodi;
 26. Jinnota li, skont ir-rapport tal-Qorti, fir-rapport tal-awditjar tiegħu datat Ottubru 2016, is-Servizz ta' Awditjar Intern (IAS) tal-Kummissjoni enfasizza l-fatt li, filwaqt li jirrikonoxxi l-isforzi kontinwi taċ-Ċentru biex dan isaħħaħ il-kontrolli interni tal-akkwist tiegħu, għad hemm dgħufijiet sinifikanti fil-proċess tal-akkwist; jinnota li l-IAS ikkonkluda li l-ippjanar u l-monitoraġġ tal-akkwisti huma dgħajfa, u li l-akkwisti mhux dejjem ikunu koperti mill-Programm ta' Ħidma Annwali tiegħu jew mid-deċiżjoni ta' finanzjament; jieħu nota li qed issir ukoll referenza għar-Rapport tal-Qorti dwar il-kontijiet annwali taċ-Ċentru għas-sena finanzjarja 2015 u d-dgħufijiet irrappurtati li jaffettwaw it-trasparenza tal-proċeduri ta' akkwist; josserva li ċ-Ċentru u l-IAS qablu dwar pjan biex tittieħed azzjoni korrettiva;
 27. Jieħu nota li, f'Mejju 2016, l-IAS wettaq awditu fuq il-proċess ta' akkwist fiċ-Ċentru; barra minn hekk huwa mħasseb dwar il-fatt li r-rapport finali nħareġ f'Ottubru 2016 u li kien jinkludi tliet osservazzjonijiet "importanti ħafna" u żewġ osservazzjonijiet "importanti"; jirrikonoxxi li ċ-Ċentru ħejja pjan ta' azzjoni li kellu jiġi implimentat matul l-2017; jistieden liċ-Ċentru jirrapporta lill-awtorità ta' kwittanza dwar l-implimentazzjoni ta' dan il-pjan ta' azzjoni;
 28. Jinnota li fir-rebbiegħa tal-2016 iċ-Ċentru bagħat proposta għall-proġett ta' bini ġdid lill-Parlament u lill-Kunsill li ġie ppreżentat lill-Kumitat għall-Baġits tal-Parlament Ewropew u lill-Kumitat għall-Baġits tal-Kunsill u rċieva opinjoni favorevoli miż-żewġ istituzzjonijiet; jieħu nota li fis-26 ta' Lulju 2016 iċ-Ċentru ffirma ftehim ta' lease ġdid u għalhekk se jimxi għal bini ġdid matul l-ewwel nofs tal-2018;
 29. Jinnota li ċ-Ċentru għandu l-missjoni li jidentifika, jivvaluta u jikkomunika t-theddid attwali u emerġenti għas-saħħa tal-bniedem li jirriżulta mill-mard infettiv; jenfasizza li fl-2016, iċ-Ċentru wieġeb għal 41 rikjesta formali li waslulu mingħand il-Kummissjoni Ewropea, li 19 minnhom tressqu minn Membri tal-Parlament Ewropew; jinnota li ċ-Ċentru ppubblika total ta' 158 rapport (170 fl-2015), inklużi 38 Valutazzjoni tar-Riskju Rapidi biex jappoġġa lill-Istati Membri u lill-Kummissjoni u 69 rapport ta' sorveljanza;
 30. Jilqa' l-appoġġ taċ-Ċentru pprovdut matul it-tifqigħa għall-għarrieda tal-virus taż-Żika, filwaqt li jinnota li hemm lezzjonijiet x'wieħed jitgħallem mir-reazzjoni għat-tifqigħa, kif imsemmi fil-konklużjonijiet ta' sessjoni ta' ħidma rilevanti tal-UNESCO(12), kif ukoll l-appoġġ ipprovdut matul it-tifqigħa fuq skala kbira tas-Salmonella f'bosta pajjiżi; jinnota li ċ-Ċentru tejjeb is-sistema tiegħu ta' sorveljanza tal-mard, b'mod partikolari billi espanda l-Atlas għas-Sorveljanza ta' Mard Infettiv online, u ppromwova l-aċċess għal informazzjoni aġġornata dwar kwistjonijiet ta' saħħa pubblika Ewropea, permezz ta' għodod differenti;
 31. Jifraħ liċ-Ċentru talli rċieva l-Premju Ewropew għas-Saħħa 2016 għall-Jum Ewropew ta' Sensibilizzazzjoni dwar l-Antibijotiċi, li għandu l-għan li jipprovdi pjattaforma sabiex tappoġġa kampanji nazzjonali dwar l-użu prudenti tal-antibijotiċi, u kien rikonoxxut bħala proġett notevoli għall-promozzjoni tas-saħħa fl-Ewropa;
 32. Jinnota li għadd ta' attivitajiet inklużi fil-programm ta' ħidma taċ-Ċentru għall-2016 ma ġewx implimentati minħabba restrizzjonijiet ta' riżorsi;
 33. Ifakkar li d-Deċiżjoni Nru 1082/2013/UE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill(13) tipprovdi l-qafas biex jiġi indirizzat, ikkoordinat u mmaniġġjat it-theddid serju transkonfinali fuq is-saħħa f'kooperazzjoni mal-Istati Membri, l-Organizzazzjoni Dinjija tas-Saħħa, iċ-Ċentru u sħab internazzjonali oħra, u tistabbilixxi s-Sistema ta' Twissija Bikrija u ta' Reazzjoni (EWRS); jirrikonoxxi l-fatt li l-esperti taċ-Ċentru u l-EWRS, liema Ċentru jopera f'isem il-Kummissjoni Ewropea, huma riżorsi importanti għar-reazzjoni għal theddid transkonfinali fuq is-saħħa fil-livell tal-Unjoni; jilqa' l-passi ulterjuri li ttieħdu miċ-Ċentru fl-2016 għall-implementazzjoni ta' dik id-Deċiżjoni;
 34. Jirreferi, fir-rigward tal-kummenti l-oħrajn li jakkumpanjaw id-deċiżjoni tiegħu dwar il-kwittanza, li huma ta' natura orizzontali, għar-riżoluzzjoni tiegħu ta'... 2018(14) dwar il-prestazzjoni, il-ġestjoni finanzjarja u l-kontroll tal-aġenziji.
 1. Jinnota li l-baġit finali taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard ("iċ-Ċentru") għas-sena finanzjarja 2016 kien ta' EUR 58 247 650, b'mod li baqa' bejn wieħed u ieħor fl-istess livell bħal fl-2015; jinnota li 97,4 % tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru ġej mill-baġit tal-Unjoni;
 2. Jinnota li ċ-Ċentru għandu l-missjoni li jidentifika, jevalwa u jikkomunika t-theddid attwali u emerġenti għas-saħħa tal-bniedem li jirriżulta mill-mard infettiv; jenfasizza li fl-2016, iċ-Ċentru wieġeb għal 41 talba formali mingħand il-Kummissjoni Ewropea, li 19 minnhom tressqu minn Membri tal-Parlament Ewropew; jinnota li ċ-Ċentru ppubblika total ta' 158 rapport (170 fl-2015), inklużi 38 Valutazzjoni tar-Riskju Rapidi biex jappoġġa lill-Istati Membri u lill-Kummissjoni u 69 rapport ta' sorveljanza;
 3. Jilqa' l-appoġġ taċ-Ċentru pprovdut matul t-tifqigħa għall-għarrieda tal-virus taż-Żika, filwaqt li jinnota li hemm lezzjonijiet x'wieħed jitgħallem mir-reazzjoni għat-tifqigħa, kif imsemmi fil-konklużjonijiet ta' sessjoni ta' ħidma rilevanti tal-UNESCO(15), kif ukoll l-appoġġ ipprovdut matul it-tifqigħa fuq skala kbira tas-Salmonella f'bosta pajjiżi; jinnota li ċ-Ċentru tejjeb is-sistema tiegħu ta' sorveljanza tal-mard, b'mod partikolari billi espanda l-Atlas għas-Sorveljanza ta' Mard Infettiv online, u ppromwova l-aċċess għal informazzjoni aġġornata dwar kwistjonijiet ta' saħħa pubblika, permezz ta' għodod differenti;
 4. Jifraħ liċ-Ċentru talli rċieva l-Premju Ewropew għas-Saħħa 2016 għall-Jum Ewropew ta' Sensibilizzazzjoni dwar l-Antibijotiċi, li għandu l-għan li jipprovdi pjattaforma sabiex tappoġġa kampanji nazzjonali dwar l-użu prudenti tal-antibijotiċi, u kien rikonoxxut bħala proġett notevoli għall-promozzjoni tas-saħħa fl-Ewropa;
 5. Jenfasizza li fl-2016, il-politika l-ġdida dwar l-indipendenza taċ-Ċentru ġiet finalizzata u approvata mill-Bord tal-Amministrazzjoni;
 6. Jinnota li għadd ta' attivitajiet inklużi fil-programm ta' ħidma taċ-Ċentru għall-2016 ma ġewx implimentati minħabba restrizzjonijiet ta' riżorsi;
 7. Ifakkar li d-Deċiżjoni Nru 1082/2013/UE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill(16) tipprovdi l-qafas biex jiġi indirizzat, ikkoordinat u mmaniġġjat it-theddid serju transkonfinali fuq is-saħħa f'kooperazzjoni mal-Istati Membri, l-Organizzazzjoni Dinjija tas-Saħħa, iċ-Ċentru u sħab internazzjonali oħra, u tistabbilixxi s-Sistema ta' Twissija Bikrija u ta' Reazzjoni (EWRS); jirrikonoxxi l-fatt li l-esperti taċ-Ċentru u l-EWRS, li ċ-Ċentru jopera f'isem il-Kummissjoni Ewropea, huma riżorsi importanti għar-reazzjoni għal theddid transkonfinali fuq is-saħħa fil-livell tal-Unjoni; jilqa' l-passi ulterjuri li ttieħdu miċ-Ċentru fl-2016 għall-implementazzjoni ta' dik id-Deċiżjoni;
 8. Ifakkar li, bħala aġenzija tal-Unjoni, id-denominazzjoni tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru hija f'euro; madankollu, peress li s-sede tiegħu tinsab barra miż-żona tal-Euro (fl-Iżvezja), ħafna mill-ispejjeż tiegħu jsiru bil-krona Żvediża (SEK); barra minn hekk, iċ-Ċentru huwa espost għal flutwazzjonijiet fir-rata tal-kambju peress li, mhux talli l-kontijiet bankarji tiegħu huma fi krona Żvediża, iżda jwettaq ukoll ċerti tranżazzjonijiet f'muniti barranin oħra;
 9. Jilqa' l-fatt li l-maġġoranza tal-impjiegi (74,4 %) taċ-Ċentru huma marbutin ma' xogħol operattiv;
 10. Jieħu nota tal-pjanijiet ta' azzjoni mħejjija miċ-Ċentru sabiex jitjiebu l-proċeduri ta' akkwist u l-użu ta' għotjiet, wara l-awditi mis-Servizzi tal-Awditjar Intern tal-Kummissjoni Ewropea u l-Qorti Ewropea tal-Awdituri (il-"Qorti") rispettivament;
 11. Jilqa' l-fatt li l-Qorti ħabbret li t-tranżazzjonijiet li fuqhom huma bbażati l-kontijiet annwali taċ-Ċentru għas-sena finanzjarja 2016 kienu legali u regolari fl-aspetti materjali kollha;
 12. Jirrakkomanda, abbażi tal-fatti disponibbli, li tingħata l-kwittanza lid-Direttur taċ-Ċentru Ewropew għall-Prevenzjoni u l-Kontroll tal-Mard fir-rigward tal-implimentazzjoni tal-baġit taċ-Ċentru għas-sena finanzjarja 2016.
 ĠU C 417, 6.12.2017, p. 92.
 ĠU C 84, 17.03.2017, p. 45.
 Id-Deċiżjoni Nru 1082/2013/UE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tat-22 ta' Ottubru 2013 dwar theddid transkonfinali serju għas-saħħa u li tħassar id-Deċiżjoni Nru 2119/98/KE (ĠU L 293, 5.11.2013, p. 1).


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
C 94/20 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle ComunitaÁ europee 28.3.98
 SENTENZA DEL TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO SENTENZA DEL TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO
 29 gennaio 1998 29 gennaio 1998
 nella causa T-97/95, Sinochem National Chemicals Import nella causa T-62/96, Willy de Corte contro Commissione
 & Export Corporation contro Consiglio dell'Unione euro- delle ComunitaÁ europee (1)
 pea (1) (Dipendenti Ð InvaliditaÁ permanente parziale Ð Infortu-
 nio Ð Nesso di causalitaÁ)
 [Antidumping Ð Aldeide furanica Ð Elementi che giustifi-
 cano l'apertura di un'inchiesta Ð Principio di proporzio- (98/C 94/52)
 nalitaÁ Ð Danno Ð Rigetto di un impegno Ð Regola-
 mento (CEE) n. 2428/88]
 (98/C 94/51) (Lingua processuale: il francese)
 Nella causa T-62/96, Willy de Corte, dipendente della
 (Lingua processuale: l'inglese) Commissione delle ComunitaÁ europee, residente in Halle
 (Belgio), con l'avv. Lucas Vogel, del foro di Bruxelles, con
 domicilio eletto in Lussemburgo, presso lo studio dell'avv.
 Christian Kremer, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt, contro Com-
 Nella causa T-97/95, Sinochem National Chemicals missione delle ComunitaÁ europee (agente: signor Julian
 Import & Export Corporation, con sede in Pechino, con Currall), avente ad oggetto un ricorso diretto all'annulla-
 l'avv. Jean-FrancËois Bellis, del foro di Bruxelles, con domi- mento della decisione 16 giugno 1995, con la quale la
 cilio eletto in Lussemburgo presso lo studio legale Loesch Commissione ha rifiutato di prendere a carico, ai sensi
 et Wolter, 11, rue Goethe, contro Consiglio dell'Unione delle disposizioni regolamentari relative alla copertura dei
 europea (agenti: nella fase iniziale signori Yves Cretien e rischi d'infortunio, le conseguenze di un infarto di cui il
 Antonio Tanca, poi signori Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe e ricorrente eÁ stato vittima, noncheÂ, per quanto necessario,
 Georg M. Berrisch), sostenuto da Commissione delle della decisione 25 gennaio 1996, recante rigetto espresso
 ComunitaÁ europee (agente: signor Nicholas Khan) e Furfu- del reclamo del ricorrente, il Tribunale (Seconda Sezione),
 ral EspanÄol SA, con l'avv. JoseÂ Rivas de AndreÂs, del foro composto dai signori: A. Kalogeropoulos, presidente, C.W.
 di Madrid, con domicilio eletto in Lussemburgo presso Bellamy e J. Pirrung, giudici; cancelliere: A. Mair, ammini-
 l'avv. ArseÁne Kronshagen, 2, rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde, avente stratore, ha pronunciato, il 29 gennaio 1998, una sentenza
 ad oggetto il ricorso diretto all'annullamento del regola- il cui dispositivo eÁ del seguente tenore:
 mento (CE) del Consiglio 16 gennaio 1995, n. 95, che isti-
 tuisce un dazio antidumping definitivo sulle importazioni
 di aldeide furanica originaria della Repubblica popolare 1) Il ricorso eÁ respinto.
 cinese (GU L 15, pag. 11), il Tribunale (Quinta Sezione
 ampliata), composto dai signori R. García-Valdecasas,
 presidente, dalla signora V. Tiili e dai signori J. Azizi,
 2) Ciascuna delle parti sopporteraÁ le proprie spese.
 R.M. Moura Ramos e M. Jaeger, giudici; cancelliere:
 signor A. Mair, amministratore, ha pronunciato, il 29 gen-
 naio 1998, una sentenza il cui dispositivo eÁ del seguente (1) GU C 197 del 6.7.1996.
 tenore:
 1) Il ricorso eÁ respinto. SENTENZA DEL TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO
 22 gennaio 1998
 nella causa T-98/96, Mario Costacurta contro Commis-
 2) La ricorrente sopporteraÁ le proprie spese noncheÂ quelle sione delle ComunitaÁ europee (1)
 sostenute dal Consiglio e dall'interveniente Furfural
 EspanÄol. (Dipendenti Ð Decisione di assegnazione ad una nuova
 sede di servizio Ð Art. 7 dello Statuto Ð Allegato X dello
 Statuto)
 (98/C 94/53)
 3) La Commissione sopporteraÁ le proprie spese.
 (1) GU C 159 del 24.6.1995. (Lingua processuale: il francese)
 Nella causa T-98/96, Mario Costacurta, dipendente della
 Commissione delle ComunitaÁ europee, residente in Kin-


type: wikipedia

text:
Grzegorz Rasiak (ur. 12 stycznia 1979 w Szczecinie) – polski piłkarz, który występował na pozycji napastnika. Reprezentant Polski. Uczestnik Mistrzostw Świata 2006.
 Kariera piłkarska
 Polskie kluby
 Grzegorz Rasiak karierę piłkarską zaczynał w Olimpii Poznań. Kolejnymi jego klubami były SKS 13 Poznań i MSP Szamotuły. W sezonie 1996/97 zaczął grać w Warcie Poznań, gdzie spędził ponad dwa lata. Następną drużyną Rasiaka był GKS Bełchatów. W sezonie 2000/01 grał w Odrze Wodzisław, po roku przeszedł do klubu, z którym odnosił największe sukcesy – do Dyskobolii Grodzisk Wlkp. Przez trzy sezony grania w Grodzisku zagrał 66 spotkań, w których strzelił łącznie 34 gole. Tworzył z Andrzejem Niedzielanem parę bramkostrzelnych napastników.
 Derby County
 W 2004 roku pozyskał go włoski klub AC Siena. Okazało się, że Rasiak nie mógł grać, bowiem przekroczony został już limit obcokrajowców w kadrze zespołu. Ostatecznie trafił do angielskiego klubu ligi Championship (odpowiednik 1. ligi) – Derby County. W pierwszym sezonie w Anglii strzelił 16 bramek w 35 meczach.
 Tottenham Hotspur
 31 sierpnia 2005 roku (w ostatnim dniu tzw. „okienka transferowego”) został zawodnikiem Tottenhamu Hotspur FC, klubu Premier League. Nie znalazł uznania u ówczesnego trenera Martina Jola i rozegrał zaledwie osiem niepełnych spotkań.
 Southampton FC
 W lutym 2006 został wypożyczony do drugoligowego Southampton F.C., gdzie miał okazję grać z innymi Polakami: Bartoszem Białkowskim i Markiem Saganowskim. 2 maja 2006 definitywnie podpisał 2-letni kontrakt z Southampton i przeszedł do tego klubu za 2 mln funtów.
 Bolton Wanderers
 W sezonie 2007/2008 Rasiak był wypożyczony do grającego w Premier League Bolton Wanderers. Zadebiutował w przegranym 1:3 meczu przeciwko Liverpoolowi. Rozegrał zaledwie siedem spotkań, w których nie strzelił bramki.
 Watford FC
 W sezonie 2008/2009 został ponownie wypożyczony z Southampton tym razem do zespołu 2 ligi angielskiej Championship, Watford F.C., w którym mimo kontuzji rozegrał kolejny udany sezon. Jedna z bramek zdobyta przez piłkarza, strzelona w marcu drużynie Charlton Athletic na 2:2, została uznana Bramką Sezonu 2008/2009 drużyny Watford.
 Reading FC
 Na sezon 2009–2010 Grzegorz Rasiak powrócił z wypożyczenia do Southampton, który to klub spadł z Ligi Championship do League One. Rozegrał 4 niepełne spotkania w których nie strzelił bramki. Pod koniec sierpnia 2009 r. podpisał dwuletni kontrakt z zespołem Reading F.C. występującym w Lidze Championship.
 AEL Limassol
 28 sierpnia 2010 podpisał dwuletni kontrakt z cypryjską drużyną AEL Limassol. W kwietniu 2011 rozwiązał kontrakt z klubem.
 Jagiellonia Białystok
 Po siedmiu latach występów na zagranicznych boiskach Rasiak 27 września 2011 podpisał kontrakt z grającą w polskiej ekstraklasie Jagiellonią Białystok obowiązujący do 30 czerwca 2013. Zadebiutował w niej 3 grudnia 2011 w meczu z Podbeskidziem Bielsko-Biała, przegranym przez Jagiellonię 0:2. 11 grudnia 2011 w drugim meczu w barwach Jagiellonii Rasiak strzelił swoją pierwszą bramkę dla nowego klubu, a jednocześnie zwycięską w wygranym przez białostoczan 1:0 wyjazdowym meczu z Lechią na PGE Arena Gdańsk. Był to zarazem jego pierwszy od 7 lat gol w polskiej ekstraklasie.
 Lechia Gdańsk
 Od końca września 2011 roku Rasiak grał w Jagiellonii Białystok z dniem 18 czerwca 2012 rozwiązał umowę z białostockim klubem za porozumieniem stron. W czerwcu 2012 roku związał się z Lechią Gdańsk, w której w sezonie 2012/13 rozegrał 13 spotkań ligowych w ekstraklasie i strzelił 4 gole. 6 czerwca 2013 roku Lechia Gdańsk poinformowała, że wygasający z końcem miesiąca kontrakt z napastnikiem nie został przedłużony.
 Warta Poznań
 18 lipca 2013 podpisał dwuletni kontrakt z Wartą Poznań i tym samym po 15 latach powrócił do tego klubu. 3 maja 2014 roku Rasiak zerwał więzadła w stawie skokowym w meczu z UKP Zielona Góra, co spowodowało, że do końca sezonu nie wybiegł na boisko. Jak się okazało, był to jego ostatni mecz w karierze.
 Reprezentacja Polski
 W reprezentacji Polski Rasiak zadebiutował 10 lutego 2002 roku podczas meczu towarzyskiego z Wyspami Owczymi. Wtedy selekcjonerem reprezentacji był Jerzy Engel. Równo rok i cztery dni piłkarz musiał czekać na drugi mecz. Paweł Janas powołał go wtedy, gdyż świetną dyspozycję pokazywał w meczach Dyskobolii. Od tamtej pory był jednym z podstawowych zawodników kadry.
 W 2005 roku został najlepszym piłkarzem Turnieju im. W. Łobanowskiego oraz królem strzelców tego turnieju (zdobył 3 bramki: 1 w półfinale z Serbią i Czarnogórą i 2 w finale z Izraelem).
 Ostatni raz Grzegorz Rasiak został powołany do kadry 21 listopada 2007 r. przez selekcjonera Leo Beenhakkera, gdzie wystąpił w Belgradzie w meczu eliminacyjnym do Mistrzostw Europy 2008 w Austrii i Szwajcarii. Serbia zremisowała z Polską 2:2. Rasiak rozegrał pierwsze 45 minut.
 Rozegrał w kadrze 37 meczów, strzelił 8 bramek.
 Bramki w kadrze
 - Macedonia 3:0 (jedna) na 2:0 (w Splicie, Chorwacja) - 2003-02-14 - mecz towarzyski
 - 4:3 (jedna) na 2:0 (w Płocku) - 2003-11-16 - mecz towarzyski
 - 3:1 (jedna) na 1:1 (w Ta'Qali, Malta) - 2003-12-14 - mecz towarzyski
 - 3:2 (jedna) na 2:1 (w Kijowie, Ukraina) - 2005-08-15 - Turniej im. W. Łobanowskiego - Półfinał
 - 3:2 (dwie) na 2:2 i 3:2 (w Kijowie, Ukraina) - 2005-08-17 - Turniej im. W. Łobanowskiego - Finał
 - 4:0 (dwie) na 2:0 i 4:0 (we Wronkach) - 2006-05-14 - mecz towarzyski
 Życie prywatne
 Po zawodowej karierze piłkarskiej w 2018 r. zaczął grę w krakowskiej amatorskiej lidze FLS (Futbolowa Liga Szóstek). Jest ambasadorem młodzieżowych turniejów piłkarskich takich jak Api Cup w 2018 w Zakopanem. Zawodowo zajmuje się pośrednictwem w transferach piłkarzy, prowadzi agencję menadżerską. Współpracował m.in. przy transferze Pawła Jaroszyńskiego z Cracovii do Chievo Verona. Ma dwójkę dzieci: córkę i syna, który również rozpoczął karierę piłkarską.
 Przypisy
 Linki zewnętrzne
 Profil zawodnika w portalu pzpn.pl
 na stronie klubu Watford F.C.
 Ludzie urodzeni w Szczecinie
 Urodzeni w 1979
 Reprezentanci Polski w piłce nożnej
 Uczestnicy Mistrzostw Świata w Piłce Nożnej 2006
 Piłkarze Olimpii Poznań
 Piłkarze Warty Poznań
 Piłkarze GKS Bełchatów
 Piłkarze Odry Wodzisław Śląski
 Piłkarze Dyskobolii Grodzisk Wielkopolski
 Piłkarze Derby County F.C.
 Piłkarze Tottenhamu Hotspur
 Piłkarze Southampton F.C.
 Piłkarze Bolton Wanderers F.C.
 Piłkarze Watfordu F.C.
 Piłkarze Reading F.C.
 Piłkarze AEL Limassol
 Piłkarze Jagiellonii Białystok
 Piłkarze Lechii Gdańsk


type: contracts

text:
 30.7.2015
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 L 202/52
 ROZHODNUTÍ SMÍŠENÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 č. 198/2014
 ze dne 25. září 2014,
 kterým se mění příloha XXI (Statistika) Dohody o EHP [2015/1266]
 SMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 s ohledem na Dohodu o Evropském hospodářském prostoru (dále jen „Dohoda o EHP“), a zejména na článek 98 této dohody,
 vzhledem k těmto důvodům:
 (1)
 Prováděcí nařízení Komise (EU) č. 205/2014 ze dne 4. března 2014, kterým se stanoví jednotné podmínky pro provádění nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) č. 1260/2013 o evropské demografické statistice, pokud jde o členění údajů, lhůty a revize údajů (1), by mělo být začleněno do Dohody o EHP.
 (2)
 Příloha XXI Dohody o EHP by proto měla být odpovídajícím způsobem změněna,
 PŘIJAL TOTO ROZHODNUTÍ:
 Článek 1
 Za bod 18z4 (nařízení Komise (EU) č. 141/2013) přílohy XXI Dohody o EHP se vkládá nový bod, který zní:
 „18z5.
 32014 R 0205: prováděcí nařízení Komise (EU) č. 205/2014 ze dne 4. března 2014, kterým se stanoví jednotné podmínky pro provádění nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) č. 1260/2013 o evropské demografické statistice, pokud jde o členění údajů, lhůty a revize údajů (Úř. věst. L 65, 5.3.2014, s. 10).“
 Článek 2
 Znění prováděcího nařízení (EU) č. 205/2014 v islandském a norském jazyce, která mají být zveřejněna v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie, jsou platná.
 Článek 3
 Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dnem 26. září 2014 za předpokladu, že jsou učiněna veškerá oznámení podle čl. 103 odst. 1 Dohody o EHP (2).
 Článek 4
 Toto rozhodnutí bude zveřejněno v oddíle EHP a v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie.
 V Bruselu dne 25. září 2014.
 Za Smíšený výbor EHP
 předseda
 Kurt JÄGER
 (1) Úř. věst. L 65, 5.3.2014, s. 10.
 (2) Nebyly oznámeny žádné ústavní požadavky.


text:
VERSIONE ITALIANA BANDO DI CONCORSO DON T MISS YOUR CHANCE IL RETTORE - PDF
 Download "VERSIONE ITALIANA BANDO DI CONCORSO DON T MISS YOUR CHANCE IL RETTORE"
 1 VERSIONE ITALIANA Decreto BANDO DI CONCORSO DON T MISS YOUR CHANCE IL RETTORE VISTO VISTO il Piano strategico elaborato dal Nucleo di Valutazione Strategica (P.S.) ed in particolare le azioni D.3.1 e D.6.1, Attrarre i migliori ; il D.M. del n. 50 di Programmazione delle Università per il triennio (P.T.) ed in particolare il punto c); VISTA la delibera adottata dal Consiglio di Amministrazione in data con la quale è stata approvato il bilancio di previsione per l esercizio finanziario 2011; CONSIDERATO pertanto che sono disponibili i fondi per un totale di n. 10 borse di studio di durata biennale DECRETA ART. 1 E indetto il concorso denominato Don t miss your chance per titoli, per l attribuzione di n. 10 borse di studio di durata biennale di 5.000,00 (al lordo degli oneri a carico dell Ente e del beneficiario ) per ciascun anno, per studenti comunitari (esclusi i cittadini italiani) ed extracomunitari con visto per motivi di studio, in possesso del diploma di laurea o titolo equipollente conseguito presso una Università straniera con il massimo dei voti. Tali studenti devono essere immatricolati nell anno accademico 2011/2012 ad un corso di laurea magistrale presso questa Università. I vincitori saranno esonerati dal pagamento della 2a rata delle tasse universitarie, o se borsisti Laziodisu, dell intero importo ai sensi dell art. 14 del Manifesto degli Studi dell a.a. 2010/11. ART. 2 Per la partecipazione al concorso il candidato deve possedere, pena l esclusione, i seguenti requisiti: Pagina 1 di 10
 2 1. diploma di laurea o titolo equipollente conseguito presso una Università straniera con il massimo dei voti che consenta l immatricolazione alla laurea magistrale; 2. essere cittadino comunitario (esclusi i cittadini italiani) o extracomunitario con visto per motivi di studio; 3. età non superiore ai 26 anni alla data di pubblicazione del bando; è esclusa qualsiasi elevazione dei limiti di età prevista, sia pure ad altri fini, dalla normativa vigente; 4. copia del modulo di pagamento della 1a rata per l a.a. 2011/12 di immatricolazione ad una laurea magistrale presso l Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza. Tutti i requisiti sopra elencati debbono essere posseduti alla data di scadenza del termine utile per la presentazione della domanda di ammissione al concorso. Alla domanda di ammissione al concorso il candidato dovrà allegare, pena l esclusione: copia del diploma di laurea tradotto, legalizzato e con dichiarazione di valore rilasciata dalla rappresentanza italiana competente, secondo il modello L previsto dalla circolare del MIUR prot del , allegato al presente bando di concorso (nella dichiarazione di valore dovrà essere chiaramente indicato il voto di laurea e/o il giudizio e il voto di laurea e/o il giudizio massimo previsto nel Paese di origine del candidato); visto di studio. ART. 3 La domanda di ammissione al concorso, che dovrà essere redatta secondo il modello A allegato, corredata della scansione dei documenti richiesti dal bando, dovrà pervenire inderogabilmente, pena l esclusione dal concorso, entro il 22 dicembre 2011 per via telematica all indirizzo mail: Nel modello A, il candidato dovrà dichiarare, ai sensi e per gli effetti del D.P.R. n. 445 del 28 dicembre 2000, sotto la propria responsabilità: a) cognome e nome; b) data e luogo di nascita, indirizzo in Italia eletto agli effetti del concorso (specificando il codice di avviamento postale e il numero telefonico) recapito di posta elettronica; c) laurea posseduta, il voto e la data di conseguimento e il giudizio minimo e massimo previsto nel Paese dove è stato conseguito il titolo del candidato; d) di impegnarsi a comunicare tempestivamente ogni eventuale cambiamento del proprio domicilio indicato nella domanda di ammissione. Il candidato dovrà allegare: copia del diploma di laurea tradotto, legalizzato e con dichiarazione di valore (con indicato il voto di laurea e/o il giudizio e il voto di laurea e/o il giudizio massimo Pagina 2 di 10
 3 previsto dal Paese di origine), rilasciata dalla rappresentanza italiana competente, secondo il modello L previsto dalla circolare del MIUR prot del allegato al presente bando di concorso; copia del modulo di pagamento di immatricolazione per l a.a. 2011/12 ad una laurea magistrale presso l Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza fotocopia di un documento di riconoscimento in corso di validità contenente i dati relativi al cognome e nome, luogo e data di nascita, cittadinanza; visto di studio. L'Amministrazione non assume alcuna responsabilità in caso di dispersione di comunicazioni dipendente da inesatta indicazione del domicilio da parte del candidato o da mancata oppure tardiva comunicazione del cambiamento dello stesso, né per eventuali disguidi postali o telegrafici non imputabili all'amministrazione stessa. Tutti i candidati sono ammessi con riserva, sino all'accertamento del possesso dei requisiti prescritti e può esserne disposta l'esclusione, in qualsiasi momento, con provvedimento motivato. L Amministrazione procederà ad idonei controlli circa la veridicità delle dichiarazioni sostitutive. Qualora da tale controllo emerga la non veridicità del contenuto delle dichiarazioni, il dichiarante decadrà dai benefici eventualmente conseguenti al provvedimento emanato sulla base della dichiarazione non veritiera, dovrà restituire le eventuali somme percepite, fermo restando quanto previsto dall articolo 76 del D.P.R. n. 445/2000 e degli artt. 483, 485 e 486 del Codice Penale. ART. 4 La Commissione giudicatrice verrà nominata con decreto rettorale. La Commissione procederà a formulare una graduatoria di candidati secondo i seguenti criteri: 1. voto di laurea; 2. tempo del conseguimento della laurea rispetto alla durata legale del corso (verrà privilegiato lo studente che ha impiegato un tempo inferiore a laurearsi). A parità di punteggio sarà vincitore lo studente più giovane d età. Il giudizio espresso dalla Commissione è insindacabile. In caso di rinuncia o decadenza degli aventi diritto subentra il candidato successivo, secondo l'ordine di graduatoria. Il concorso verrà espletato entro 40 giorni dalla data di scadenza del bando e la graduatoria verrà resa pubblica: mediante affissione presso il Settore I - Affari Generali, Borse di Studio e Progetti della IV Ripartizione Studenti, sito al 2 piano scala C del Palazzo delle Segreterie; pubblicazione sul sito internet Pagina 3 di 10
 4 ART. 5 La borsa di studio di durata biennale verrà erogata in due rate con la seguente modalità: la I annualità, dopo la pubblicazione della graduatoria e la effettiva ammissione al corso prescelto da parte del Consiglio di Facoltà o del Consiglio del corso di Laurea di appartenenza e la relativa immatricolazione, se non ancora avvenuta al momento della presentazione della domanda; la II annualità a condizione che lo studente consegua tutti i crediti previsti dal proprio piano di studi, relativamente al primo anno di corso entro l anno accademico 2011/12 e si iscriva entro la scadenza prevista dal Manifesto degli Studi vigente, al secondo anno di corso. Il provvedimento di assegnazione della borsa di studio sarà emanato successivamente all accertamento del possesso dei requisiti richiesti. ART. 6 Con riferimento alle disposizioni di cui Decreto Legislativo 30 giugno 2003, n. 196 Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali, concernente la tutela delle persone e di altri soggetti rispetto al trattamento dei dati personali e, in particolare, alle disposizioni di cui all art. 13, i dati personali forniti dai candidati saranno raccolti presso l Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza per le finalità di gestione del concorso e saranno trattati anche in forma automatizzata. Il trattamento degli stessi, proseguirà anche successivamente all avvenuta immatricolazione per le finalità inerenti alla gestione della carriera universitaria. Il conferimento di tali dati è obbligatorio ai fini della valutazione dei requisiti di partecipazione, pena l esclusione dal concorso. Le informazioni fornite potranno essere comunicate unicamente alle amministrazioni pubbliche direttamente interessate alla posizione universitaria dei candidati o allo svolgimento del concorso. Pagina 4 di 10
 5 ENGLISH VERSION ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMPETITION DON T MISS YOUR CHANCE THE RECTOR HAVING CONSIDERED The strategic plan developed by the Team for Strategic Assessment (Nucleo Valutazione Strategica) (P.S.) and in particular the actions D.3.1 and D.6.1, Attracting the best ones ; HAVING CONSIDERED The Ministerial Decree of University Programming n. 50 dated for the three-year period (P.T.) and in particular the point c); HAVING CONSIDERED the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors on the used in order to approve the budget for the fiscal year 2011; HAVING CONSIDERED that are available funds for n. 10 biennial scholarships DECREES THAT ART. 1 It is announced a competition named Don t miss your chance by qualifications, to assign 10 biennial scholarships of 5.000,00 (after-tax to be charged to the company and to the beneficiary) each one, for EU (excluded Italians) and extra EU students with VISA for study reason, in possession of a degree certificate or an equivalent education qualification obtained at a foreign University with full marks and who get enrolled in a magister degree course at this University for the academic year 2011/12. The winners will be exempted from payment of the 2nd instalment of the university fees, or if scholarship-holders Laziodisu, from the entire amount as provided by the art. 14, of the Programme of Studies for the academic year 2010/11. ART. 2 To participate in the competition the candidate, under penalty of exclusion, must have the following qualifications: 1. a degree certificate or an equivalent education qualification issued by a foreign University with full marks, which allows the enrolment to a magister degree; 2. being a EU (excluded Italians) or extra EU student with VISA for study reasons; Pagina 5 di 10
 6 3. being not older than 26 years old at the date of publication of the announcement of competition; any raising of the age limit provided by the regulations in force, even if for different purposes, is not contemplated; 4. a copy of the paying-in form of the 1st instalment for the academic year 2011/12 for the enrolment to a magister degree at Sapienza University of Rome. To be admitted to the competition all the above listed qualifications must be in possession of the student within the application deadline. The candidate, under penalty of exclusion, shall attach to the application: a copy of the degree certificate translated, legalised and with the certificate of equivalence of qualification issued by the competent Italian representation, according to the model L provided by the circular of MIUR (Ministry of Education, University and Research) protocol 1291 dated , attached to this announcement of competition; approval for study reason. ART. 3 The application for the admission to the competition shall be written according to the model A attached, accompanied by the scanning of the documents required by the announcement and must absolutely be received, under penalty of exclusion from the competition, by December 22nd 2011 to the e- mail address: In the A module, the candidate must declare, according to and for the legal purposes of the Republic President Decree n. 445 dated December 28th 2000, under his own responsibility: a) name and surname; b) date, place of birth, address in Italy (specifying the zip code and, if possible, the telephone number) chosen for the purposes of the competition and address; c) the degree obtained, the date of issue, the mark and the maximum mark in his/her country; e) he/she must promptly communicate any possible change of domicile with respect to the one indicated in the admission application. The candidate shall attach: a copy of the degree certificate translated, legalised and with the certificate of equivalence of qualification issued by the competent Italian representation, according to the model L provided by the circular of MIUR (Ministry of Education, University and Research) protocol 1291 dated , attached to this announcement of competition; a copy of the paying in module for the academic year 2011/12 for the enrolment to a magister degree at Sapienza University of Rome. Pagina 6 di 10
 7 a photocopy of a valid identification document containing data such as surname, name, place and date of birth, citizenship; VISA for study reasons. The Administration is not responsible in case of lost communication due to incorrect indication of the domicile by the applicant or missing or late communication of any modification of these data or due to a possible postal or telegraphic error not imputable to the same Administration. All the candidates are admitted with reservation until the verification of the qualifications required and they can, at any time, be excluded with justified provision. The Administration will carry out the proper verifications concerning the truthfulness of the self-declarations. Should emerge from the verification the non truthfulness of the declarations, the declarant will loose the benefits consequent to the provision issued according to the truthful declaration, will have to give back the perceived sums, without prejudice for what provided by the article 76 of the Presidential Decree n. 445/2000 and by the articles 483, 485 and 486 of the Criminal Code. ART. 4 The judging Commission will be appointed by Rectoral Decree. The Commission will draw up a list of candidates according to the following criteria: 1. degree mark ; 2. time for the achievement of the degree with respect to the degree course duration; the student who obtained the degree in the shortest time will be privileged. In case of same mark the winner will be the youngest student. The judgment expressed by the Commission is unquestionable. In case of withdrainal of the students having the right, another candidate will succeed him/her, according to the list order. The competition will take place within 40 days from the announcement deadline and the lists will be published by means of billposting at the I Sector - General Affairs, Scholarships and Projects of the IV Student Division, located at the 2nd floor stair C of the Palazzo delle Segreterie and published on web site. ART. 5 The scholarship will be allocated in two payment installments as follows: The first installment after the publication of the lists and the real admission to the course pre-selected by the Faculty Council of the relevant degree course, if not carried out at the moment of the application. Pagina 7 di 10
 8 The second installment after the achievment of the credits stated in his/her first year study project and registration to the second year of course. The scholarship assignment provision will be issued after the verification of the qualifications required. ART. 6 With reference to the provisions of the Legislative Decree dated June 30th 2003, n. 196 Code regarding the protection of personal data, concerning the safeguard of the persons and other subjects dealing with the treatment of the personal data and, in particular, the provisions of the art. 13, the personal data provided by the candidates will be collected and computer processed at Sapienza University of Rome in order to manage the competition. The data processing will continue also after the enrolment in order to manage the university career. The data transmission is compulsory in order to evaluate the requirements to participate, under penalty of exclusion. The information provided can be communicated exclusively to the public administrations directly involved in the candidate s career or in the competition s process. Roma, 14/06/2011 F.to IL RETTORE Pagina 8 di 10
 9 MODELLO A AL MAGNIFICO RETTORE UNIVERSITA' DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA" Ripartizione IV - Settore I Affari Generali, Borse di Studio e Progetti P.le Aldo Moro, R O M A DICHIARA ai sensi e per gli effetti del D.P.R. 445 del 28 dicembre 2000 N a m e Surname Gender Place of Birth Country of Birth Date of Birth Nationality Correspondence address in Italy City Address Zip Code Phone number Mobile number address Fax Academic degree, date, vote and the previewed maximum vote in the origin country CHIEDE di partecipare al concorso denominato Don t miss your chance per l'attribuzione di n. 10 borse di studio biennali di 5.000,00 (comprensa Irap) per ciascun anno, per studenti comunitari (esclusi i cittadini italiani) ed extracomunitari con visto per motivi di studio, in possesso del diploma di laurea o titolo equipollente conseguito presso una Università straniera con il massimo dei voti che si immatricolano nell anno accademico 2011/2012 ad un corso di laurea magistrale Allegati: copia del diploma di laurea tradotto, legalizzato e con dichiarazione di valore, rilasciata dalla rappresentanza italiana competente, secondo il modello L previsto dalla circolare del MIUR prot del allegato al presente bando di concorso (nella dichiarazione di valore dovrà essere chiaramente indicato il voto e/o il giudizio di laurea e il voto e/o il giudizio di laurea massimo previsto nel Paese di origine del candidato); copia del modulo di pagamento di immatricolazione per l a.a. 2011/12 ad una laurea magistrale presso l Università degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza ; fotocopia di un documento di riconoscimento in corso di validità contenente i dati relativi al cognome, nome, luogo e data di nascita, cittadinanza; visto di studio. Data FIRMA AVVERTENZE: Il dichiarante è penalmente responsabile in caso di dichiarazione mendace (art. 76 D.P.R. 28 dicembre 2000, n. 445). Il dichiarante decade dai benefici eventualmente conseguiti con il provvedimento emanato sulla base di dichiarazione rivelatasi non veritiera (art. 75, D.P.R. 28 dicembre 2000, n. 445) Pagina 9 di 10
 10 MODEL A TO THE RECTOR OF SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME IV Division - Sector I General Affairs, Scholarships and Projects P.le Aldo Moro, R O M E According to and for the legal purposes provided by the Presidential Decree 445 dated December 28th 2000, The Applicant DECLARES N a m e Surname Gender Place of Birth Country of Birth Date of Birth Nationality Correspondence address in Italy City Address Zip Code Phone number Mobile number address Fax Academic degree, date, vote and the previewed maximum vote in the origin country ASKS To participate in the competition named Don t miss your chance for the assignment of 10 biennial scholarships of 5.000,00 (including of Irap) each one, for EU (excluded Italians) and extra EU students with VISA for study reasons, in possession of a degree certificate or an equivalent education qualification issued by a foreign University with full marks and who get enrolled in a magister degree course at this University for the academic year 2011/12.. Attached files: a copy of the degree certificate translated, legalised and with the certificate of equivalence of qualification issued by the competent Italian representation, according to the model L provided by the circular of MIUR (Ministry of Education, University and Research) protocol 1291 del , attached to this announcement of competition; a copy of the paying in module for the academic year 2011/12 for the enrolment to a specialist degree or magister degree at Sapienza University of Rome. a photocopy of a valid identification document containing data such as surname, name, place and date of birth, citizenship; VISA for study reasons. Pagina 10 di 10
 D.R. n. 2058/2017 del 04/08/2017
 VERSIONE ITALIANA D.R. n. 2058/2017 del 04/08/2017 BANDO DI CONCORSO DON T MISS YOUR CHANCE IL RETTORE VISTO lo Statuto dell università di Roma La Sapienza, emanato con D.R. n. 3689 del 29.10.2012; VISTO


jurisdiction: US

text:
 284 Md. 232 (1979)
 395 A.2d 1182
 STATE OF MARYLAND
 v.
 ROBERT RAY JONES
 [No. 7, September Term, 1978.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided January 4, 1979.
 *233 The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE,[*] ELDRIDGE, ORTH and COLE, JJ.
 Alexander L. Cummings, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Francis Bill Burch, Attorney General, and Clarence W. Sharp, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief, for appellant.
 Michael R. Malloy, Assistant Public Defender, with whom was Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on the brief, for appellee.
 COLE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 Robert Ray Jones was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree, robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon, two charges of attempted robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon and two charges of use of a handgun in a crime of violence. He was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment plus forty years consecutive thereto. He had seasonably made a motion for severance of the charges against him which the trial judge denied. The Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court, 38 Md. App. 432, 381 A.2d 317 (1978) and upon petition by the State we granted certiorari.
 The sole question presented to us for review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Jones' motion for severance.
 We summarize pertinent parts of the evidence necessary *234 to our resolution of the issue. Danny Miller[1] testified that he, Jones, and James Johnson met at Miller's house on December 26, 1975 where they agreed "to do a stick-up" to make some money to buy drugs. Jones had a gun. They drove in a car operated by Johnson to Butler, Maryland but found no stores suitable for a successful robbery. Johnson then mentioned a savings and loan association on Roland Avenue in Baltimore City. The three drove to that location and Jones went into the building while the other two remained in the car. About three minutes later Jones returned to the vehicle. He mentioned something about a glass partition and said that the bank employee had fallen to the floor and activated the alarm.
 Johnson then drove to Hampden because Jones wanted to rob a pharmacy on 37th Street and Falls Road. At that location, Johnson parked in a nearby alley and Jones left the vehicle. About three minutes later Jones ran back to the vehicle, jumped in the rear seat and said, "Let's go." Jones had $30.00 which he had taken from a man's wallet.
 The three men then drove to Ruby's Liquors where Johnson parked in the rear of the store. Jones again left the vehicle and returned in about five minutes saying he had to shoot the man because the man tried to shoot him. Jones had over three hundred dollars which were divided among them after returning to Miller's home.
 Diana Hevesy, branch manager of Heritage Savings and Loan Association, testified that on December 26, 1975 at or about 4:00 P.M., she and Linda Trueblood were sitting at Hevesy's desk in a small office which was enclosed by bullet proof glass. A man entered, pulled a gun and ordered her to open the office door. She was frightened, and dropped to the floor. She told Trueblood to hit the alarm. The man fled. She testified that Jones resembled the man. However, Trueblood positively identified Jones as the man in question and in addition selected his photograph the next day from among six to eight photographs.
 *235 Catherine Baker, employed at Hampden Pharmacy testified that on December 26, 1975 at or about 5:00 P.M. she was behind the cash register when a man entered and after purchasing a pack of gum, pulled out a gun and said, "You know what this is." She positively identified Jones as the gunman. The pharmacist, Mr. Glassband, approached, and on command of Jones opened the register. The gunman took money from the register, a wallet from Mr. Glassband and left the store. Glassband also positively identified Jones as the gunman.
 Mildred Sentz, employed by Manuel Caulker, owner of Ruby's Liquors located at 30th Street and Greenmount Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland, testified that on December 26, 1975 at or about 6:30 P.M., a man entered the store to purchase some cigarettes. As she was about to hand him the cigarettes from behind a bullet proof glass window, the man pointed a gun and asked for money. She got behind a desk and Caulker, who was nearby, jumped up and moved towards the window. Sentz heard the sound of the owner attempting to fire a gun. She then heard a loud noise and saw Caulker fall, bleeding from the chest and head. She did not see the gunman leave. Within minutes a policeman entered and Sentz informed him of what had happened. She positively identified Jones as the gunman.
 Officer Michael Baptist of the Baltimore City Police Department testified that on December 26, 1975 at or about 6:30 P.M. he arrived at Ruby's Liquors to purchase some package goods. When he was approximately fifteen feet from the front door he saw a white male whom he positively identified as Jones emerge from the store and proceed in a northerly direction. The officer did not accost Jones because he had no reason to do so at that time. Upon entering the store, the officer saw a body in a puddle of blood behind the counter. Sentz told him what had happened.
 Officer William Nash of the Lynchburg, Virginia Police Department, having been notified that Jones was wanted and was scheduled to arrive on a bus in Lynchburg on December 28, 1975, arrested Jones and from his person recovered *236 Glassband's wallet. Jones did not testify or offer any evidence.
 The State presents a two fold argument. First, it contends that Jones did not establish that the evidence as to each individual offense would not be mutually admissible at separate trials. On the contrary, the State asserts that the evidence as to each individual offense would be mutually admissible at separate trials to show a common scheme or plan. According to the State, the evidence establishes a similar if not identical pattern of criminal conduct within the same general geographical area which occurred on the same day within a period of two and one-half hours, which, together with the testimony of the accomplice Danny Miller, reveals a single and inseparable plan, bringing the evidence within our explanation in Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 386 A.2d 757 (1978) of the rule stated in McKnight v. State, 280 Md. 604, 375 A.2d 551 (1977) that "evidence of other crimes can be introduced under the common scheme exception only when the relationship between the time, place, circumstances or parties involved in the crimes is such that the uncharged crime or crimes `support the inference that there exists a single inseparable plan....'"
 The State next argues that Jones was not prejudiced by the denial of his motion for a severance. The State cites our description in McKnight of the three types of prejudice to a defendant which may be caused by an improper joinder of charges:
 First, he may become embarrassed, or confounded in presenting separate defenses.... Secondly, the jury may cumulate the evidence of the various crimes charged and find guilt when, if the offenses were considered separately, it would not do so. At the very least, the joinder of multiple charges may produce a latent hostility, which by itself may cause prejudice to the defendant's case. Thirdly, the jury may use the evidence of one of the crimes charged, or a connected group of them, to infer a criminal disposition on the part of the defendant from *237 which he may also be found guilty of the other crimes charged. [280 Md. at 609.]
 The State insists that since Jones presented no defenses to any of the charges against him, he suffered no disadvantage in presenting separate defenses. The State also argues that the jury could easily compartmentalize evidence of the separate charges because the crimes occurred at separate points in time and at separate locations.
 Jones' argument on appeal is also two-pronged. First, he asserts that the Court of Special Appeals was correct in ruling that the common scheme or plan exception is inapplicable to the instant case. Jones insists that a "plan" to go out and rob someone to obtain money was an undertaking neither specific nor complex enough to justify application of the exception. Furthermore, Jones argues that even if the testimony of Miller showed a common scheme or plan, the evidence of each of the three robberies was not relevant as evidence of the common scheme or plan because the robberies took place at different locations and had different victims; there was no evidence that they were planned ahead of time; and there was evidence that each succeeding robbery attempt was decided upon and undertaken only after the preceding one had been completed. The fact that the robberies occurred within a fairly short time period is insignificant, according to Jones.
 Secondly, Jones contends that the State showed no need for the mutual admission of evidence of the three armed robbery incidents sufficient to outweigh the prejudice to Jones by their admission. Jones argues that the State had no need whatsoever to have evidence of the three robbery incidents mutually admitted because Miller's testimony showed the existence of a "plan" to commit robberies. With regard to possible prejudice, Jones states that the jury may indeed have considered the cumulated evidence of each robbery in deciding whether Jones' participation in the other robberies had been proven. In addition, Jones argues that he may have been prejudiced by the hostility aroused by the other crime evidence which indicated that his character was that of a hardened professional criminal. For these reasons, Jones *238 urges us to affirm the Court of Special Appeals' holding that the trial court improperly denied a severance in this case.
 As a general rule, it is error to admit evidence of other offenses independent of the particular crime charged. Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 350 A.2d 680 (1976); Harrison v. State, 276 Md. 122, 345 A.2d 830 (1975); MacEwen v. State, 194 Md. 492, 500, 71 A.2d 464 (1950); Young v. State, 152 Md. 89, 91, 136 A. 46 (1927); Weinstein v. State, 146 Md. 80, 88, 125 A. 889 (1924); 1 H. Underhill, Criminal Evidence, § 205 (5th Ed. 1956). The reason for the rule is obvious; such evidence may merely show bad character, improperly prejudice the jury, or unfairly surprise the accused in his defense at trial. See generally, C. McCormick, Evidence, § 190 (2d Ed. 1972).
 To avoid these pitfalls during the course of trial, we have charged the trial judge with the responsibility of exercising his discretion as to whether a severance should be granted by balancing the need to avoid prejudice to the defendant against the need to promote economy and efficiency in the administration of justice. We set forth the standard to be followed in Maryland Rule 745 c:
 If it appears that any party will be prejudiced by the joinder for trial of counts, charging documents or defendants, the court may, upon its own motion or the motion of any party, order separate trials of counts, charging documents or defendants, or grant any other relief justice requires.
 Further, we recognized certain exceptions to this general exclusionary rule in order to allow evidence of other criminal acts to be introduced for a purpose other than to show the criminal character of the accused:
 [E]vidence of other crimes may be admitted when it tends to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake, (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of a crime on trial. [Ross v. State, 276 Md. at 669-70].
 *239 We discussed these exceptions in four recent decisions. In Ross v. State, supra, Ross was tried on various drug-related charges where an informer testified about past sales of narcotics in which Ross allegedly participated. The State maintained that the disputed testimony was admissible as an exception to the general exclusionary rule to show intent. This Court held that the informer's testimony was inadmissible. Judge Levine stated for the Court:
 The disputed testimony here need hardly be subjected to rigid scrutiny to demonstrate its inadmissibility. Proof that the accused had previously sold narcotics perhaps as long as 15 years before the crime charged in the indictment hardly tends to establish a disposition or propensity to commit the offense alleged, let alone an intent to do so. The effect of the ruling by the trial judge was to present to the jury evidence of ... [Ross'] . .. bad character before he had taken the stand to testify. [276 Md. at 671-72].
 In McKnight v. State, supra, the appellant had been tried on four distinct criminal charges in one proceeding, ranging from armed robbery to the use of a handgun in the commission of a felony. McKnight was accused of participating in a series of four robberies committed during a one-month period in 1974 within the same neighborhood of Baltimore City. On each occasion, the victim was a lone male; in three of the four robberies, the victim's trouser pockets were ripped. McKnight sought review of the trial court's denial of his motion for a severance. Once again Judge Levine spoke for this Court, enunciating a test for the granting of severances under Rule 745 c: "We think that a defendant charged with similar but unrelated offenses is entitled to a severance where he establishes that the evidence as to each individual offense would not be mutually admissible at separate trials." Id. at 612. Judge Levine explained the reasoning behind the rule as follows: "[W]here offenses are joined for trial because they are of similar character, but the evidence would not be mutually admissible, the prejudicial *240 effect is apt to outweigh the probative value of such evidence." Id. at 610. We concluded that McKnight should have been granted a severance because evidence of the four crimes charged would not have been mutually admissible against him had he been prosecuted in separate trials. The extent to which the four crimes bore a general factual resemblance to each other did not bring them within the "handiwork" or "signature" exception to the general exclusionary rule:
 We do not think that the four crimes charged here were, under the evidence, "so nearly identical in method as to earmark them as the handiwork of the accused"; nor were they "so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature." ... The evidence established that all four victims were solitary males, that they and appellant lived in the same neighborhood ... and that in three of the four instances the victim's trousers were ripped. Although to this extent the four crimes bore a general resemblance to each other, they were hardly impressed with appellant's signature. Unfortunately, yokings or robberies, particularly of older victims walking alone in secluded areas, are not uncommon in the urban milieu. Such similarities as existed here "fit into an obvious tactical pattern which would suggest itself to almost anyone disposed to commit a depredation of this sort." [280 Md. at 613-14 (citations omitted)].
 One year later Melvin A. Cross petitioned this Court to review the admission of evidence tending to associate him with another burglary committed the same day as the burglary for which he was tried and convicted. Cross v. State, 282 Md. 468, 386 A.2d 757 (1978). While Cross was being tried for the burglary of a Howard County home between 4:00 and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday, February 15, 1976, the State was also allowed to present the testimony of a Catonsville man whose home was burglarized at approximately 6:30 P.M. the same day. A light blue car had been parked near each residence *241 during each burglary, and Cross' 1967 blue Chevrolet had been linked to the Howard County burglary. The State argued that evidence of the Catonsville burglary was admissible to show either a common scheme or plan or Cross' identity.
 Judge Digges, writing for the Court, first ruled that the evidence that a blue car was seen in front of two residences where break-ins occurred was "clearly inadequate to show any kind of systematic scheme or plan sufficient to allow admission of the evidence of the other crime." Id. at 476. In explaining the nature of the common scheme or plan exception, we said:
 As a general rule, in order to gain the admission of evidence of other criminal acts under the common scheme or plan exception it is necessary that the crimes, including the crime charged, so relate to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other. Westcoat v. State, 231 Md. 364, 368, 190 A.2d 544, 546 (1963); Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1, 3, 26 A.2d 770, 772 (1942); see Young v. State, 152 Md. 89, 91-92, 136 A. 46, 47 (1927). Moreover, there must be "not merely a similarity in the results, but such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as caused by a general plan of which they are the individual manifestations." ... The concurrence of common features under this exception, however, must be more than simply a manner of operation, which is possessed to some extent by most criminal recidivists. A method of operation is not, by itself, a common scheme, but merely a repetitive pattern. ... Thus, evidence of other crimes can be introduced under the common scheme exception only when the relationship between the time, place, circumstances or parties involved in the crimes is such that the uncharged crime or crimes "support the inference that there exists a single inseparable plan encompassing both the charged and uncharged crimes, typically, but not exclusively, embracing uncharged crimes committed in order to effect the *242 primary crime for which the accused has been indicted." [282 Md. at 475-76 (emphasis supplied)].
 We also considered and rejected the State's argument that the evidence was nevertheless admissible as tending to establish Cross' identity. Before evidence of another crime may be admitted, we said that the accused's involvement in the uncharged crime must be established by "clear and convincing evidence." Id. at 478. We concluded that the Catonsville homeowner's description of a blue Chevrolet parked in his driveway, his recollection of its license plate number, and a Michelob beer bottle found in tire tracks on his front yard was not clear and convicing: "[I]n fact, it was so deficient that it would not even suffice to create a jury issue were Cross being tried for any crime associated with the ... [second] ... incident." Id. at 479. Moreover, admission of the second homeowner's testimony was highly prejudicial and could not be said to constitute harmless error. Id. at 480.
 Our most recent decision involving the exceptions to the "other crimes" rule was Lebedun v. State, 283 Md. 257, 390 A.2d 64 (1978). Lebedun sought to overturn his conviction for two separate robberies and related handgun violations, associated with armed robberies of two Montgomery County drugstores: the first on January 28, 1976; the second, three days later at a pharmacy about a mile away from the first. Lebedun challenged, inter alia, the trial court's denial of his motion for severance because the evidence produced to prove his guilt of the two separate offenses (similarities in race, height, weight, clothing, words spoken, and items stolen) would not have been mutually admissible at separate trials for the same offenses under the "signature" exception to the "other crimes" rule. Writing for the Court, Judge Smith agreed that the denial of Lebedun's motion for a severance constituted an abuse of discretion:
 There is nothing particularly unusual or distinctive about red ski caps. They are seen frequently. Nor is there anything distinctive about the fact that two white males of medium build five feet ten to six feet in height conduct a robbery in the afternoon. The fact that specific drugs and money *243 were taken, that they were put into "a cloth sack" or a "white laundry type bag" and the victims were told to "play it cool" or advised to "be cool" comes much closer to a pattern of conduct. If, for instance, the robberies had been committed within minutes of each other, that which is set forth here might be sufficiently unusual and distinctive to be like a signature. [283 Md. at 281].
 When we examine the State's theory in the case sub judice to determine if evidence of each of the individual offenses committed on December 26, 1975 would be mutually admissible at separate trials to show a common scheme or plan, Cross v. State, supra, is the controlling precedent. In order to gain admission under this exception it is necessary that the crimes "so relate to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other." In other words, to establish the existence of a common scheme or plan, it is necessary to prove that the various acts constituting the offenses naturally relate to one another by time, location, circumstances and parties so as to give rise to the conclusion that they are several stages of a continuing transaction.
 The State argues that the record establishes a pattern of criminal conduct within a period of two and one-half hours by the same parties in the same geographical area and that this evidence suffices to show a plan under the exception. We note first of all, that mere proximity in time and location within which several offenses may be committed does not necessarily make one offense intertwine with the others. Immediateness and site are not determinative. See State v. Buxton, 324 Mo. 728, 22 S.W.2d 635 (1929); State v. Beam, 184 N.C. 730, 115 S.E. 176 (1922); Mayes v. State, 118 Tex. Crim. 612, 42 S.W.2d 65 (1931). Nor does the fact that the offenses were committed by the same persons qualify them to be admitted under the exception. See Atnip v. State, 564 P.2d 660 (Okla. Crim. 1977):
 In the instant case there is nothing to indicate that any of these crimes were connected in any manner other than that some of the burglaries were committed on the same day. Furthermore, the mere *244 fact that the evidence shows that the crimes were all burglaries allegedly committed by the same three persons is not sufficient to fall within this exception. Mere similarity of the alleged offenses does not, of itself, indicate common scheme or plan. Therefore, since it is apparent that the crimes were separate and unrelated, the trial court erred by admitting the evidence of prior offenses. [564 P.2d at 663].
 We repeat; there must be a causal relation or logical or natural connection among the various acts or they must form part of a continuing transaction to fall within the exception.
 Reviewing the evidence in this case, it is clear to us that the fact that Jones may have robbed one of the three businesses does not establish or even tend to prove anything about the robberies at the other locations. There was no evidence which showed that in advance of the robberies Jones, Johnson and Miller had agreed that they would commit more than one robbery or that they would keep robbing until they obtained enought money to buy drugs. On the contrary, the record shows that each of the establishments robbed was selected at random or on impulse and that only after one robbery was attempted was a decision made to rob another place.
 We cannot say that the robberies in question here are so related that they are inseparable and would be mutually admissible at separate trials. Accordingly, we hold that the evidence was inadequate to show a common scheme or plan. Applying the test for proper severance of offenses set forth in McKnight, supra, and explicated in Cross, supra, the trial judge's denial of the motion for severance constituted an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the cumulative effect of the eyewitness identification and other evidence as to each robbery was so overwhelmingly prejudicial that Jones is entitled to a new trial.
 Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
 Costs to be paid by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
 NOTES
 [*] Reporter's Note: Levine, J., participated in the hearing of the case and in the conference in regard to its decision but died prior to the adoption of the opinion by the Court.
 [1] Danny Miller testified against Jones in return for the State's agreement not to prosecute him for the homicide.