type: wikipedia

text:
W, w, dobbelt-v er det 23. bogstav i det danske alfabet og det latinske alfabet.
 Andre betydninger
 Tegnet W har mange betydninger.
 Betegnelse for måleenheden watt, se effekt
 Kemisk tegn for wolfram (engelsk: tungsten)
 W-boson
 VIN-kode for modelår 1998
 Historie
 Ligaturen "uu" eller "vv" brugtes i oldhøjtysk og i den tidligste oldengelske skrifttradition, for at udtrykke den germanske labiovelær approksimant som i moderne engelsk udtale af "water". På denne tid udtaltes lyden i ordet "vand" på denne måde i alle germanske sprog, ikke kun i engelsk.
 Latin og de romanske sprog havde allerede mistet denne lyd og havde erstattet den med en labiodental hæmmelyd "v", som i moderne dansk. Det var den lyd, bogstavet "v" stod for. Derfor foretrak de vestgermanske skrivere helst at indføre et nyt tegn for den særegne germanske lyd, mens de skandinaviske alligevel blev tilfredsstillet af det latinske "v".
 I det angelsaksiske runealfabet havde man brugt runen ᚹ "wynn" for at betegne denne lyd, og angelsakserne indførte runen som bogstavet Ƿ i det latinske alfabet som en erstatning af "uu". Runen blev imidlertid erstattet med "uu" igen efter den Normanniske erobring af England. Senere blev "uu"/"vv" til ét bogstav, nemlig "w". Der var nemlig ingen forskel mellem bogstaverne "u" og "v" i tidlig latinsk skift. Dette er også grunden til, at bogstavet kaldes "dobbelt-v" på dansk, men "dobbelt-u" på engelsk.
 På grund af senere lydændringer er udtalen af bogstavet "w" i tysk (og ligeså af "v" i dansk "vand") blevet stort set identisk med udtalen af bogstavet "v" i de romanske sprog. Den oprindelige udtale er bevaret i engelsk og i jyske dialekter.
 W i dansk i dag
 Bogstavet W er forholdsvis nyt i dansk, og bruges udelukkende i fremmedord og navne. W blev før 1980 i dansk regnet som variant af V og alfabetiseredes sammen med dette bogstav. (Denne alfabetisering var også gældende indtil 2006 på svensk).
 Referencer
 Eksterne henvisninger
 Latinske bogstaver


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Viktigt rättsligt meddelande
 |
 52006PC0557
 Förslag till Europaparlamentets och Rådets beslut om upphävande av rådets direktiv 68/89/EEG om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om sortering av rundvirke /* KOM/2006/0557 slutlig - COD 2006/0178 */
 [pic] | EUROPEISKA GEMENSKAPERNAS KOMMISSION |Bryssel den 29.9.2006KOM(2006) 557 slutlig2006/0178 (COD)Förslag tillEUROPAPARLAMENTETS OCH RÅDETS BESLUTom upphävande av rådets direktiv 68/89/EEG om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om sortering av rundvirke(framlagt av kommissionen)MOTIVERING1. BAKGRUNDDen 16 mars 2005 antog kommissionen ett meddelande ”Lagstifta bättre för tillväxt och arbetstillfällen i Europeiska unionen” (KOM(2005) 97) där vikten av att förenkla medlemsstaternas och gemenskapens lagstiftning behandlades. Att lagstiftningen förbättras är av avgörande betydelse för att de europeiska företagens konkurrenskraft skall förbättras och Lissabonmålen uppnås. Om kvaliteten på lagstiftningen blir bättre och onödiga kostnader och hinder som hämmar anpassning och innovation därigenom undanröjs, kan de rätta incitamenten och ramvillkoren på marknaden etableras och företagen utvecklas, så att den välfärd som våra ekonomier behöver kan skapas.I kommissionens meddelande om genomförande av gemenskapens Lissabonprogram: en strategi för förenkling av lagstiftningen (KOM(2005) 535), anges följande: ”Att revidera gemenskapens regelverk måste bli en permanent och systematisk process, som gör det lättare för lagstiftaren att revidera lagstiftning och samtidigt ta hänsyn till den privata och den offentliga sektorns alla rättmätiga intressen.” I meddelandet skisseras också ett rullande program som ingår i den nya strategin för förenkling. I detta program anges vilka delar av lagstiftningen som kommissionen har för avsikt att se över, analysera och förenkla. I detta program ingår rådets direktiv 68/89/EEG av den 23 januari 1968 om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om sortering av rundvirke.Efter att ha granskat genomförandet och tillämpningen av direktivet föreslår kommissionen att det skall upphävas.2. RESULTAT AV SAMRÅD MED BERÖRDA PARTER OCH BEDÖMNING2.1. SamrådUtgångspunkten för bedömningen av huruvida rådets direktiv 69/89/EEG om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om sortering av rundvirke behövs som en del av gemenskapens regelverk var att medlemsstaterna, skogssektorn och de skogsbruksbaserade industrierna under en rad år framfört att direktivet oftast inte tillämpades vid deras handel med timmer. De berörda parterna menade att de metoder som användes för att mäta rundvirke inte stämde överens med dem som anges i direktivet. Dessutom finns det inga rapporter om att handeln med trä hindras på grund av att marknadsaktörerna inte kunnat enas om hur rundvirke skall mätas eller sorteras.Som ett led i kommissionens förberedande arbete i enlighet med principerna för en bättre lagstiftning hördes de berörda parterna via kommissionens ständiga kommitté för skogsbruk och kommissionens rådgivande kommitté för gemenskapspolitik i fråga om skogsbruk och skogsbruksbaserade industrier.Vidare skickades en enkät ut till medlemsstaterna och branschorganisationerna för att undersöka om direktivet tillämpades och vad de ansåg om att direktivet eventuellt skulle upphävas. Enkäten inleddes i juli 2005 och svaren inkom under hösten samma år.2.2. EnkätresultatNitton medlemsstater och elva nationella branschorganisationer svarade på enkäten.Resultatet visade att enligt en majoritet av medlemsstaterna (2/3) och branschorganisationerna (4/5) som svarade på enkäten tillämpas inte direktivet vid handeln med timmer. Medlemsstaterna och branschen nämnde följande som huvudskäl för detta:- De metoder för mätning och sortering som föreskrivs i direktivet skiljer sig från de metoder som företagen i branschen använder.- Den sortering efter volym och kvalitet som föreskrivs i direktivet är inte tillräckligt detaljerad och den är för abstrakt.- Den sortering som föreskrivs i direktivet beaktar inte de användningsområden som avses för trä och är inte anpassad till marknadens behov.- Europeiska standarder för kvalitet och mätning betraktas som ett bättre alternativ.Endast två medlemsstater var inte införstådda med förslaget om att upphäva direktivet. Av de organisationer som företrädde skogsägare och de skogsbruksbaserade industrierna var alla utom en organisation för förslaget. Medlemmarna i denna organisation använder dock inte de mätmetoder som anges i direktivet, men organisationen anser inte att det är ”nödvändigt” att upphäva det.Av enkätresultaten framgår det klart att direktivet inte tillämpas generellt.Mer information om svaren på enkäten finns på Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/forest_based/index_en.html2.3. BedömningDirektiv 68/89/EEG om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om sortering av rundvirke antogs för att utveckla den inre marknaden för försörjning av träråvara till de skogsbruksbaserade industrierna. Tillämpningen har dock varit begränsad, eftersom den inte är obligatorisk och i allmänhet har aktörerna på timmermarknaden enats om och använt sig av andra metoder för mätning och sortering. Den inre marknaden för träråvara och handeln med tredjeländer har expanderat, till synes utan några hinder på grund av olika mät- eller sorteringsmetoder. Andra metoder används och handeln med rundvirke skulle inte påverkas negativt om direktivet upphävs. Europeiska standarder för mätning och sortering av trä har dessutom fastställts och kan användas vid transaktioner på trämarknaden, och dessa betraktas som en bättre lösning.Direktiv 68/89/EEG behövs inte för handeln på den inre marknaden eller handeln med tredjeländer, och inga handelshinder på grund av de mät- eller sorteringsmetoder som används har konstaterats i branschen. Det har därför beslutats att direktivet inte skall ersättas med annan lagstiftning och inte heller ändras.Det är nödvändigt att upphäva direktivet för att förenkla lagstiftningen och således upphäva ett överflödigt instrument med mycket begränsad tillämpning som inte är nödvändigt för den inre marknaden.3. RÄTTSLIGA ASPEKTER3.1. Subsidiaritets- och proportionalitetsprincipenAv resultaten av samrådet och bedömningen framgår det att målen med direktiv 68/89/EEG i tillräckligt hög grad kan uppnås utan gemenskapslagstiftning.3.2. Val av regleringsform: rättsaktens formNär en rättsakt upphävs gäller i allmänhet principen om ”parallella former”, dvs. att upphävandet av direktiv 68/89/EEG skulle ske genom ett direktiv om upphävande. Omständigheterna i detta fall är dock speciella:- Direktivet infördes för nästan fyrtio år sedan.- De mät- och sorteringssystem som infördes genom direktivet är föråldrade och det har också fastställts att branschen inte använder sig av dessa system.- Bestämmelserna om sortering och mätning i direktivet är inte obligatoriska.Ett beslut som riktar sig till medlemsstaterna och som är direkt tillämpligt betraktas därför som lämplig form av rättsakt. Fördelen med ett beslut är att det understryker att medlemsstaterna måste beakta sin inhemska position så att reglerna på nationell nivå och gemenskapsnivå stämmer överens efter det att direktiv 68/89/EEG har upphävts.3.3. BudgetkonsekvenserFörslaget påverkar inte budgeten.4. SAMMANFATTNINGFörslaget att upphäva direktiv 68/89/EEG om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om sortering av rundvirke ligger i linje med de synpunkter som framförts vid samråden med medlemsstaterna, skogsägarna och branschen.Det är emellertid viktigt att motsvarande nationella genomförandebestämmelser upphävs när direktivet har upphävts, så att den önskade effekten uppnås i praktiken. Märkningen ”EEG-sorterat” kan inte längre användas.Det måste dessutom säkerställas att fördelarna med att direktivet upphävs inte motverkas av nya nationella regler eller nya tekniska hinder. Det är därför viktigt att se till att eventuella nationella regler om sortering av rundvirke stämmer överens med principerna i artikel 28 i fördraget och inte utgör några handelshinder. Nationella regler om mätning efter volym eller vikt eller om sortering efter träslag och allmän beteckning eller efter volym eller kvalitet får således inte innebära hinder för den fria rörligheten för rundvirke på den inre marknaden. Eventuella förslag till nationella åtgärder som kan betraktas som tekniska föreskrifter enligt direktiv 98/34/EG skall dessutom anmälas till kommissionen.2006/0178 (COD)Förslag tillEUROPAPARLAMENTETS OCH RÅDETS BESLUTom upphävande av rådets direktiv 68/89/EEG om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om sortering av rundvirkeEUROPAPARLAMENTET OCH EUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR ANTAGIT DETTA BESLUTmed beaktande av fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, särskilt artikel 95,med beaktande av kommissionens förslag[1],med beaktande av Europeiska ekonomiska och sociala kommitténs yttrande[2],med beaktande av Regionkommitténs yttrande[3],i enlighet med förfarandet i artikel 251 i fördraget[4], ochav följande skäl:(1) I gemenskapens politik för en bättre lagstiftning understryks vikten av att förenkla den nationella lagstiftningen och gemenskapslagstiftningen för att företagens konkurrenskraft skall förbättras och Lissabonmålen uppnås.(2) Metoderna för mätning och sortering enligt rådets direktiv 68/89/EEG av den 23 januari 1968 om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om sortering av rundvirke[5] skiljer sig från de metoder för mätning och sortering som för närvarande överlag används vid transaktioner mellan företag inom skogssektorn och de skogsbruksbaserade industrierna och de anses inte vara anpassade till marknadens behov.(3) Metoderna för mätning och sortering enligt direktiv 68/89/EEG är inte längre nödvändiga för den inre marknadens funktion.(4) Direktiv 68/89/EEG bör därför upphävas.(5) När direktiv 68/89/EEG har upphävts innebär detta att märkningen ”EEG-sorterat” efter den 31 december 2008 inte längre kan användas vid försäljning och att motsvarande nationella genomförandebestämmelser därmed måste upphävas senast den 31 december 2008.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1Direktiv 68/89/EEG skall upphöra att gälla från och med den 31 december 2008.Artikel 2Detta beslut riktar sig till medlemsstaterna.Artikel 3Detta beslut träder i kraft den tjugonde dagen efter det att det har offentliggjorts i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning .Utfärdat i Bryssel den [...]På Europaparlamentets vägnar På rådets vägnarOrdförande Ordförande [1] EUT C [...], [...], s. [...].[2] EUT C [...], [...], s. [...].[3] EUT C [...], [...], s. [...].[4] EUT C [...], [...], s. [...].[5] EGT L 32, 6.2.1968, s. 12-15.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 285 Md. 631 (1979)
 403 A.2d 1261
 ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
 v.
 KENNETH ANDREW BAILEY
 [Misc. Docket (Subtitle BV) No. 21, September Term, 1978.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided July 26, 1979.
 The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, ORTH, COLE and DAVIDSON, JJ.
 James A. Frost, Assistant Bar Counsel, for Commission.
 Clarence W. Sharp for Kenneth Andrew Bailey.
 SMITH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 Kenneth Andrew Bailey, a member of the Bar of this State, is charged by the Attorney Grievance Commission with violating Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A) (1) and (4); 6-101 (A) (1), (2), and (3); 7-101 (A) (2) and (3); 7-102 (A) (5), and 9-102 (A) (1) and (2) and (B) (3).[1] We shall remand for further proceedings.
 *633 The petition was filed by Bar Counsel acting on behalf of the Commission. Pursuant to Maryland Rule BV9 the matter *634 was sent to the Circuit Court for St. Mary's County for hearing. The Honorable Perry G. Bowen was designated to conduct this proceeding. He submitted a lengthy and well reasoned report and opinion to us after he had conducted a full hearing. He concluded that Bailey had violated DR 1-102 (A) (1) and (4); 6-101 (A) (1), (2), and (3); 7-101 (A) (2), and (5), and 9-102 (A) and (B). He also concluded that there was no violation of DR 7-101 (A) (3). In the view we take of this case it will not be necessary at this time for us to set forth the bases for those conclusions nor to relate the facts involved in full. We shall first dispose of certain procedural contentions.
 1. Bailey's motion to dismiss
 Bailey has filed a motion to dismiss. He claims he was denied due process of law in two regards. He first takes issue with the fact that only two members were present at the hearing before the inquiry panel for which provision is made in Rule BV6. He points out, correctly, that Rule BV6 d 2 says that the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee shall determine the number of regular members of that committee which shall "constitute a quorum for panel proceedings ..., but in no event may a quorum consist of less than three members." He has stipulated that he waived this quorum.[2] It is the position of Bailey that since "[t]here is no provision for a waiver of the mandatory composition of the panel included in the Maryland Rules," the petition must be dismissed. We do not see it that way.
 *635 This Court has held in a variety of situations that mandatory provisions may be waived. Three examples will suffice. Possibly as well known as any provision of trial procedure is that a jury's verdict must be unanimous. Nevertheless, in State v. McKay, 280 Md. 558, 572, 375 A.2d 228 (1977), we held that an accused might waive a unanimous jury verdict. Equally well known is that in this State a jury must be composed of 12 persons. In Improvement Co. v. Gas etc. Co., 156 Md. 581, 144 A. 710 (1929), our predecessors were faced with an objection to a proceeding that had continued with 11 jurors by consent of counsel for both parties after one juror had been disabled by sickness on the second day of trial.[3] Chief Judge Bond there said for the Court:
 We believe it to be the settled view in this state, and certainly it is a view long followed in practice, that civil cases, if not criminal cases, too, may be tried by consent of the parties with a number of jurors less than twelve. And irrespective of the weight of authority elsewhere, which seems to be in accord with this view, we see no sufficient reason for holding that a trial must be before a jury of twelve throughout a trial, despite all imaginable accidents, and despite the wishes and convenience of the parties concerned. [Id. at 586.]
 Also well understood by all Maryland lawyers is that a grand jury must be comprised of 23 people. In State v. Vincent, 91 Md. 718, 47 A. 1036 (1900), the Court was faced with an appeal *636 where there had been a demurrer to an indictment on the ground, among others, that the grand jury returning the indictment "was composed of only twenty-two grand jurors, when the law prescribes twenty-three as the requisite number." (Emphasis in original.) The Court affirmed the judgment entered by the trial judge who had sustained a demurrer to the indictment and quashed it on the ground that the provision of law fixing 23 as the proper number was mandatory, not directory. In the process of the opinion, however, Judge Pearce said for the Court:
 Upon that question there is much diversity of opinion in the adjudged cases, which may be conveniently divided into three classes. 1st. Those which hold that a Court has no authority to try a person upon an indictment found by a grand jury composed of fewer members than the minimum number required by statute, and that objection upon this ground may be raised at any time, and in any manner, and cannot be waived by any act, or failure to act, on the part of the defendant; 2nd. Those which hold that the objection is waived by failure to take advantage of the defect before pleading to the merits; and 3rd. Those which hold that statutes fixing the number to compose a grand jury, are directory merely, and do not alter the common law rule by which any number between 13 and 23 constitute a competent jury.
 It is settled in this State that an objection of this character does not go to the jurisdiction, but is waived by pleading to the merits, and can not avail on motion in arrest of judgment. Green v. State, 59 Md. [123,] 126 [(1882)]. [Id. at 727-28.]
 If one may waive matters so fundamental as these, then it certainly follows that it is permissible for an attorney to waive the quorum required in the Maryland Rules for an inquiry panel. Since Bailey concedes that he waived the quorum, his objection is without merit.
 *637 Bailey next attempts to have the proceeding dismissed because of a change in the rules we made on September 22, 1978. Prior to that time Rule BV9 b provided that we should "designate the judges to hear the charges" and Rule BV9 d referred to our order "designating the court and panel of judges to hear the charges." Rule BV11 a 1 stated that if these judges found "that the attorney [was] guilty of misconduct, [they] m[ight] recommend ... any of [certain] types of discipline [to] be imposed...." The current Rule BV9 b says we "shall designate the judge or judges to hear the charges...." BV9 d likewise refers to "judge or judges to hear the charges." Rule BV11 a no longer provides for recommendations but for "[a] written statement of the findings of facts and conclusions of law...." Bailey asserts that because the hearing before the inquiry panel in his case was held on December 29, 1977, where he "made several critical decisions which were irreversible in nature," citing as examples his "decision to proceed [there] without representation, the decision to testify on his own behalf, the decision not to subpoena witnesses on his own behalf, and other critical decisions which were substantive and/or procedural in nature," he has been denied due process of law. Again, we do not agree. As we made plain in Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. McBurney, 282 Md. 116, 383 A.2d 58 (1978), formal charges of misconduct do not exist against an attorney until a complaint is docketed in this Court. We observed, id. at 124 n. 1, "The proceedings before the Inquiry Panel are merely a part of the preliminary investigation, just as under the prior procedure the preliminary investigation or hearing was before a committee of a bar association, usually its grievance committee." We analogized the proceedings before the inquiry panel and the Review Board to those before a grand jury. Also, id. at 123, we referred to Bar Ass'n v. Marshall, 269 Md. 510, 515-16, 307 A.2d 677 (1973), where we drew a parallel between the proceedings before a three-judge panel (under the former rule) and a hearing before a master in chancery who hears testimony and then makes his recommendation to the chancellor. In the case at bar the complaint was not docketed in this Court until after the *638 change in the rule. We have nothing in this case akin to that in Attorney Griev. Comm'n v. Klauber, 284 Md. 306, 308, 396 A.2d 253 (1979), where we were requested to suspend and declined to suspend an attorney. Our reason there was that had we suspended him we would have been applying a rule retroactively to a conviction which took place prior to the effective date of the rule. We found there "no indication that it was our intent in adopting the revised Rule BV16 that it be applied to convictions taking place prior to its effective date."
 Bailey filed no such petition, but we point out that had he so desired he could have filed a petition with us under Rule BV10 c which provides that were he to show us "good cause" we would "designate two additional judges to consider the charges."
 As Judge Bowen so aptly observed:
 Nothing of a substantive nature has changed in the Disciplinary Rules. What has changed is the procedure by which those rules are enforced, and all Judicial Proceedings follow the current Rules of Procedure, and changes in the Rules of Procedure do not affect the right of litigants to proceed with their action.
 The matter here is entirely procedural. We find no denial of due process.
 2. The facts
 For purposes of the case here we briefly summarize the facts. Friends of Bailey approached him relative to representing them in a transaction where they were purchasing real estate in St. Mary's County. It was necessary that settlement be conducted before June 20, 1976, because one of the sellers was leaving for duty at sea. One of the buyers was an employee of a corporation which maintained a profit sharing plan and trust. That trust agreed to loan $45,000 to the purchasers. It gave precise directions to Bailey relative to the closing which included procuring title *639 insurance. The buyer-husband was hospitalized for open-heart surgery. A power of attorney to the wife was prepared by Bailey and executed by the husband. At settlement on June 19 there was on the settlement table the $45,000 check from the mortgagee and $16,107.66 constituting the balance due from the buyers in accordance with the settlement sheet. This included the purchase price in full, other sums due the seller such as on the adjustment of taxes, attorney's fees, title insurance, transfer taxes, and the cost of recording. The sellers duly executed the deed. The buyer-wife purported to execute the deed of trust. In fact, she executed it on behalf of her husband but failed to execute it on her own behalf, which apparently was not realized until many months later.
 June 19 was a Saturday. When Bailey took the checks to his bank he found there was not an officer present of sufficiently high rank for the certification of his checks. Thus, he did the next best thing and obtained two cashier's checks. One was in the amount of $42,141.87 which constituted payment in full for the mortgage of the sellers on the property in question. A second check in the amount of $17,780.64 was made payable to the sellers, which Judge Bowen said was "the net proceeds to them as Sellers." This left a difference in the amount of $1,185.15, which Judge Bowen stated "has never satisfactorily been accounted for by the Respondent." The pertinent portion of his opinion then goes on to state, referring to exhibits and pages of the transcript:
 According to the Respondent's settlement sheet ... this sum could have included in addition to his fee, amounts collected by him for the payment of State stamps, transfer tax, recording fees and the premium for the mortgagee title insurance policy. The Respondent testified under oath ... that he did not take cash from the bank and that the money was deposited in the bank. He believes that he may have kept the amount to which he was entitled as attorney's fees and deposited the remainder. The records of the bank disclose that no deposit was *640 made to any account in the name of the Respondent, the Respondent's then partner in the practice of law, Charles A. Norris, or any combination account in their names on that date, and no deposit identifiable as being all or a part of these funds by the Respondent was made from the date of settlement to the end of February, 1977. Regardless of what the Respondent may say, it is a fact that no part of this sum of $1,185.15 was deposited in the bank accounts at First National Bank of St. Mary's on June 19, 1976. This is demonstrated by testimony of the officer of the bank responsible for its bookkeeping that the copies of the bank's records pertaining to Charles A. Norris, the Respondent, or any combination of them, do not show such a deposit. Reproductions of the ledger cards representing those accounts were introduced as Petitioner's Exhibits.... It is the Respondent's responsibility to demonstrate that he correctly handled these funds. He has been unable to do so, notwithstanding the fact that he has had ample opportunity and the full cooperation of the bank.
 On the following Monday Bailey did not record the deed and deed of trust. He did send off the cashier's check to the sellers' mortgagee. By the time the release came back he had received a call from the husband-buyer indicating that he was alive and well and desired to examine the loan papers. Unfortunately, this examination did not take place until after July 1. Because the settlement took place in June and it was originally anticipated that recordation would be made in June, no collection was made at the settlement table for state and county taxes which would become due on July 1. Under Maryland Code (1974) § 3-104, Real Property Article, and its predecessor statutes, recordation could not be accomplished without payment of the taxes which became due on July 1. The buyer did not then advance the necessary funds. On July 19 the lender advised Bailey that it was waiting for the closing papers and inquired when it could expect the deed of trust note and title insurance papers. Bailey did not reply. He *641 fiddled and fooled. He was not an approved attorney for a title insurance company. His partner was.
 Ultimately the lender hired another attorney to look into the matter. When that attorney caused a check of the land records to be made on April 27, 1977, it was found that the deed, deed of trust, and release of mortgage had not been recorded. In response to a call from this attorney Bailey recorded the instruments on April 28. Although he has maintained throughout that this difference of $1,185.15 was deposited in some bank account somewhere, he said he paid the recording costs in cash from his own funds. The lender's attorney found that the buyer-wife had not signed the deed of trust individually as a co-maker nor had she signed the deed of trust note individually as a co-maker. He further observed that "the Notary Section of the Deed of Trust was defective in that it stated that Margaret Smith and Steven Smith had appeared before her individually and acknowledged the instrument to be their respective acts," when, of course, the husband had not been present. A confirmatory deed of trust was then prepared by him and executed by the buyers.
 3. Bailey's exceptions
 Bailey takes a number of exceptions to Judge Bowen's findings of fact. We dismiss them with the observation that even if Judge Bowen erred, and we do not believe he did, each of these exceptions relates to facts relative to occurrences in the fall of 1976 and the winter of 1976-77. They are only peripherally relevant to the central issue which concerns Bailey's conduct in the summer of 1976.
 DR 9-102 relative to preservation of the identity of funds and property of a client states, "(A) All funds of clients paid to a lawyer ..., other than advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable bank accounts...." Bailey contends "that the term `cost and expenses' includes the recording costs of the documents and as such the same did not fall within the requirement to be placed in a separate escrow account." We disagree. Ethical *642 Consideration 9-5, pertinent to Canon 9 to which DR 9-102 (A) applies, states:
 EC 9-5 Separation of the funds of a client from those of his lawyer not only serves to protect the client but also avoids even the appearance of impropriety, and therefore commingling of such funds should be avoided.
 We think it quite plain that the funds for recordation of these instruments were the property of the parties to the settlement (the sellers as to the recording costs for release of their mortgage and the buyers for the costs of recordation of their instruments and the taxes thereon) and thus that Bailey was obliged under the rule to deposit these sums in an escrow account if he were not going to immediately pay them over for their intended purpose.
 4. Bar Counsel's exceptions
 Bar Counsel has filed two exceptions to the trial judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law:
 1. The trial judge erred by not affirmatively finding as a fact that the Respondent, having received One Thousand Eighty-Five Dollars and Forty-Five Cents ($1,085.45)[[4]] in cash on June 19, 1976 from the First National Bank of St. Mary's, used all or part of those funds for purposes unrelated to the real estate transaction on which he had conducted a settlement on June 19, 1976.
 2. The trial judge erred by not concluding as a matter of law that, by misappropriating or misusing real estate settlement funds, the Respondent violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) (4) ("A lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation").
 Obviously, the second exception is dependent upon the first. *643 We point out that although Judge Bowen found that Bailey "violated Disciplinary Rule 1-102 (A) (4)," the basis of this finding was:
 [t]hat [Bailey] made a false statement to a client and misrepresented to that client that a fact existed when it did not exist under circumstances where it was incumbent upon him before he made the statement to be particularly certain of its accuracy. The basis for this conclusion is his statement in [his letter of January 4, 1977, to the profit sharing plan and trust] with respect to the Deed of Trust having been recorded as of January 4, 1977.
 Bar Counsel subpoenaed the records of the bank in which Bailey and his then partner had accounts. Bailey rattled off a list of a number of accounts he said they maintained at the bank in question. Unfortunately, Bailey's testimony did not coincide with that of the bank officials who testified. They had been requested to produce all accounts of those two individuals and their firm from June 1976 to April 1977. The bank officials said they in fact did produce all of the requested records. As Judge Bowen pointed out in his opinion, none of the bank's records reflect a deposit in an account of Bailey, his partner, or the firm of $1,185.15 in the period in question. They likewise do not reflect a deposit in that period in an amount which would be the remaining balance had Bailey deducted his fees in cash and then deposited only the amount reserved for recording costs, transfer taxes, and title insurance premium.
 Judge Bowen heard and saw the witnesses. He was this Court's master or examiner. Rule 886 specifies that when an action has been tried by the lower court without a jury we "will review the case upon both the law and the evidence, but the judgment of the lower court will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous and due regard will be given to the opportunity of the lower court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." We have held that the latter part of this rule is not applicable where the testimony was heard before a court examiner, the reason being that the trial judge *644 did not then have the opportunity to observe the witnesses and thus to weigh their credibility. Bartell v. Bartell, 278 Md. 12, 23, 357 A.2d 343 (1976), Chalkley v. Chalkley, 236 Md. 329, 333, 203 A.2d 877 (1964), and Sewell v. Sewell, 218 Md. 63, 71, 145 A.2d 422 (1958). Since Judge Bowen is in a better position to weigh the credibility of the witnesses than are we, we desire that he, who heard and observed them, make a finding as to whether this sum of $1,185.15 or any part thereof was used for a purpose unrelated to the real estate transaction in question. We likewise desire an affirmative finding as to where that portion of this sum allocated to recording costs and transfer taxes was between the date of settlement and the time when the recording costs and transfer taxes ultimately were paid. We also request a determination as to whether Bailey paid the sum in cash or by check. If by check, evidence should be adduced reflecting the identity of the account and the source of the funds. A finding should be made accordingly. We note that under Rule BV10 d the hearing of charges is governed by the same rules of law, evidence and procedure as are applicable to the trial of civil proceedings in equity and factual findings must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. This means, of course, that the burden of proof is on the Attorney Grievance Commission as the petitioning party. The parties will be permitted to adduce such additional evidence as is relevant to these narrow issues on the remand.
 It is so ordered.
 NOTES
 [1] We set forth the various Disciplinary Rules to which reference has been made:
 DR 1-102 Misconduct.
 (A) A lawyer shall not:
 (1) Violate a Disciplinary Rule.
 (2) ...
 (3) ...
 (4) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
 DR 6-101 Failing to Act Competently.
 (A) A lawyer shall not:
 (1) Handle a legal matter which he knows or should know that he is not competent to handle, without associating with him a lawyer who is competent to handle it.
 (2) Handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances.
 (3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.
 DR 7-101 Representing a Client Zealously.
 (A) A lawyer shall not intentionally:
 (1) ...
 (2) Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but he may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110, DR 5-102, and DR 5-105.
 (3) Prejudice or damage his client during the course of the professional relationship, except as required under DR 7-102 (B).
 DR 7-102 Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.
 (A) In his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:
 (1) ...
 (2) ...
 (3) ...
 (4) ...
 (5) Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.
 DR 9-102 Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of a Client.
 (A) All funds of clients paid to a lawyer or law firm, other than advances for costs and expenses, shall be deposited in one or more identifiable bank accounts maintained in the state in which the law office is situated and no funds belonging to the lawyer or law firm shall be deposited therein except as follows:
 (1) Funds reasonably sufficient to pay bank charges may be deposited therein.
 (2) Funds belonging in part to a client and in part presently or potentially to the lawyer or law firm must be deposited therein, but the portion belonging to the lawyer or law firm may be withdrawn when due unless the right of the lawyer or law firm to receive it is disputed by the client, in which event the disputed portion shall not be withdrawn until the dispute is finally resolved.
 (B) A lawyer shall:
 (1) ...
 (2) ...
 (3) Maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to his client regarding them.
 [2] The stipulation says in pertinent part:
 It is hereby stipulated by the undersigned that at the hearing on the above matter held on December 19, 1977, I was informed by Robert E. Wigginton that only two members of the three members named to the panel would be able to hear the matter. Illness prevented the third member from attending. At that time, being fully aware that only two members were present, I waived any right to a three member panel, and consented that the hearing take place before the remaining two panel members.
 The transcript of the hearing before the inquiry panel is not a part of the records of this Court. Bar Counsel in his answer to Bailey's motion to dismiss says that the transcript reflects:
 MR. WIGGINTON: Now, further for the record, Mr. Bailey, as you know, Mr. Baradel, who was selected with us, called in last night and said he was ill and could not attend. Now, that leaves two members of the Panel present. Now, we  if you would have any objection to the two of us sitting, why, we'd like to give you the opportunity to express your objection.
 MR. BAILEY: Considering the amount of time that it's taken from everybody  no, I have no objections. I'll go with the two-man Panel.
 We understand Bailey stipulates to the accuracy of this transcript.
 [3] Maryland Rule 544, applicable to civil trials, now provides that the parties may stipulate that the jury shall consist of any number less than 12, or that a verdict or finding of a stated majority of the jurors shall be taken as the verdict or finding of the jury. Rule 751, applicable to criminal trials, now provides that although a jury consists of 12 persons at any time before a verdict the parties may stipulate in writing or on the record in open court that the jury may consist of any number less than 12.
 [4] According to our mathematics and according to the testimony, this figure should be $1,185.15.


text:
 28.6.2019
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 175/14
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2019/1099 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 27 юни 2019 година
 за изменение на Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013 на Съвета за налагане на окончателно антидъмпингово мито и окончателно събиране на временното мито, наложено върху вноса на керамични съдове и прибори за сервиране или за кухня с произход от Китайската народна република
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕС) 2016/1036 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 8 юни 2016 г. за защита срещу дъмпингов внос от страни, които не са членки на Европейския съюз (1),
 като взе предвид Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013 на Съвета от 13 май 2013 г. за налагане на окончателно антидъмпингово мито и окончателно събиране на временното мито, наложено върху вноса на керамични съдове и прибори за сервиране или за кухня с произход от Китайската народна република (2), и по-специално член 3 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 А. ПРЕДИШНА ПРОЦЕДУРА
 (1)
 На 13 май 2013 г. с Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013 Съветът наложи окончателно антидъмпингово мито върху вноса в Съюза на керамични съдове и прибори за сервиране или за кухня („съдове и прибори“) с произход от Китайската народна република (КНР).
 (2)
 Предвид големия брой китайски производители износители Комисията подбра извадка, която да бъде разследвана в съответствие с член 17 от Регламент (ЕС) 2016/1036.
 (3)
 Съветът наложи индивидуални мита върху вноса на съдове и прибори, вариращи от 13,1 % до 23,4 %, на дружествата, включени в извадката, и среднопретеглено мито в размер на 17,9 % на останалите оказали съдействие дружества, които не са включени в извадката. Освен това бе наложена митническа ставка в размер на 36,1 % върху вноса на съдове и прибори, извършван от всички други китайски дружества.
 (4)
 Списъкът на оказалите съдействие производители износители в приложение I към Регламент (ЕС) No 412/2013 беше изменен с Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 803/2014 на Комисията (3) и с Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) 2017/2207 на Комисията (4).
 (5)
 Съгласно член 3 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013 член 1, параграф 2 от посочения регламент може да бъде изменян, като на новия производител износител се определи митническата ставка, приложима за оказалите съдействие дружества, които не са включени в извадката, т.е. среднопретеглената митническа ставка от 17,9 %, когато новият производител износител на съдове и прибори в КНР представи на Комисията достатъчно доказателства.
 Б. ЗАЯВЛЕНИЕ ЗА СТАТУТ НА НОВ ПРОИЗВОДИТЕЛ ИЗНОСИТЕЛ
 (6)
 През май 2018 г. дружеството Fujian Dehua Sanfeng Ceramics Co. Ltd („заявителят“) подаде искане за получаване на статут като нов производител износител („статут на нов производител износител“ или СНПИ), като заявява, че отговаря и на трите критерия, посочени в член 3 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013.
 (7)
 В подкрепа на твърдението си заявителят представи отговори на въпросника на Комисията. След анализ на отговорите на въпросника Комисията поиска допълнителна информация и доказателства, които бяха предоставени от заявителя.
 В. АНАЛИЗ НА ИСКАНЕТО
 (8)
 Що се отнася до условието, посочено в член 3, буква а) от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013, а именно, че заявителят не е осъществявал износ на разглеждания продукт за Съюза по време на разследвания период, заявителят представи своите месечни дневници за продажбите от 2011 до 2017 г. От дневниците е видно, че той е започнал търговската реализация на разглеждания продукт едва след разследвания период — през март 2012 г. Тези доказателства бяха потвърдени от международните дневници за продажбите, които показват, че заявителят е започнал да изнася разглеждания продукт през март 2012 г. за САЩ и през юли 2012 г. за Съюза (Франция).
 (9)
 При проверката на фактури и допълнителна търговска документация не бяха разкрити доказателства разглежданият продукт да е бил изнасян за Съюза преди посочените дати и/или по време на разследвания период. Поради това в контекста на наличната информация и наличните документи Комисията стигна до заключението, че заявителят отговаря на критерия по член 3, буква а) от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013.
 (10)
 Що се отнася до условието, посочено в член 3, буква б) от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013, Комисията установи, че до 2013 г. собственикът на заявителя е притежавал дялове в две други дружества. Документацията относно установяването и дейността на тези две свързани дружества, включително техните отчети, дневници на продажбите и покупките, бяха изискани и разгледани. Документацията относно установяването и дейността на тези две свързани дружества, включително продажбите и покупките на разглеждания продукт, бяха изискани и разгледани. Въз основа на предоставената документация не бяха идентифицирани други търговски или оперативни връзки с износители или производители от КНР, които са обект на антидъмпинговите мерки. Напротив — през 2017 г. едно от свързаните дружества всъщност е получило статут като нов производител износител (5). Поради това Комисията заключи, че заявителят отговаря на условията, посочени в член 3, буква б) от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013.
 (11)
 По отношение на условието, определено в член 3, буква в) от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013, въз основа на представените документални доказателства Комисията установи, че заявителят действително е изнасял разглеждания продукт за Съюза след края на разследвания период. Заявителят представи търговски договори, сключени с клиент в Германия, и друга продажна документация за сделка през октомври 2017 г. Поради това Комисията заключи, че заявителят отговаря на условията, посочени в член 3, буква в) от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013.
 (12)
 Промишлеността на Съюза не представи доказателства/информация, сочещи, че някой от трите критерия не е изпълнен от заявителя.
 Г. ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ
 (13)
 Комисията стигна до заключението, че заявителят отговаря на трите критерия, за да бъде считан за нов производител износител. Поради това тя реши, че на заявителя следва да се предостави статут като нов производител износител и че името му следва да бъде добавено към списъка на оказалите съдействие дружества, невключени в извадката, съдържащ се в приложение I към Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013.
 Д. РАЗГЛАСЯВАНЕ
 (14)
 Заявителят и промишлеността на Съюза бяха уведомени за съществените факти и съображения, въз основа на които беше счетено за подходящо ставката на антидъмпинговото мито, приложима за невключените в извадката оказали съдействие китайски производители износители, да се предостави на Fujian Dehua Sanfeng Ceramics Co. Ltd.
 (15)
 На страните беше дадена възможност да представят коментари. Коментари не бяха получени.
 (16)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на комитета, създаден съгласно член 15, параграф 1 от основния регламент,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 В приложение I към Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013 към списъка на оказалите съдействие китайски производители износители, които не са включени в извадката, се добавя следното дружество:
 Дружество
 Допълнителен код по ТАРИК
 Fujian Dehua Sanfeng Ceramics Co. Ltd
 C485
 Член 2
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила в деня след деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 27 юни 2019 година.
 За Комисията
 Председател
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) ОВ L 176, 30.6.2016 г., стр. 21.
 (2) ОВ L 131, 15.5.2013 г., стр. 1.
 (3) Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 803/2014 на Комисията от 24 юли 2014 г. за изменение на Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013 на Съвета за налагане на окончателно антидъмпингово мито и окончателно събиране на временното мито, наложено върху вноса на керамични съдове и прибори за сервиране или за кухня с произход от Китайската народна република (ОВ L 219, 25.7.2014 г., стр. 33).
 (4) Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) 2017/2207 на Комисията от 29 ноември 2017 г. за изменение на Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 412/2013 на Съвета за налагане на окончателно антидъмпингово мито и окончателно събиране на временното мито, наложено върху вноса на керамични съдове и прибори за сервиране или за кухня с произход от Китайската народна република (ОВ L 314, 30.11.2017 г., стр. 31).
 (5) ОВ L 314, 30.11.2017 г., стр. 31.


text:
Subaykhān (arabiska: سبيخان) är en ort i Syrien. Den ligger i provinsen Dayr az-Zawr, i den östra delen av landet, kilometer öster om huvudstaden Damaskus. Subaykhān ligger meter över havet och antalet invånare är .
 Terrängen runt Subaykhān är platt. Den högsta punkten i närheten är meter över havet, kilometer sydväst om Subaykhān. Det finns inga andra samhällen i närheten.
 Trakten runt Subaykhān består till största delen av jordbruksmark. Runt Subaykhān är det ganska glesbefolkat, med invånare per kvadratkilometer. I trakten råder ett hett ökenklimat. Årsmedeltemperaturen i trakten är °C. Den varmaste månaden är juni, då medeltemperaturen är °C, och den kallaste är januari, med °C. Genomsnittlig årsnederbörd är millimeter. Den regnigaste månaden är januari, med i genomsnitt mm nederbörd, och den torraste är juli, med mm nederbörd.
 Kommentarer
 Källor
 Orter i Dayr az-Zawr (provins)


text:
 EUROPOS KOMISIJA
 Briuselis, 2017 07 28
 COM(2017) 385 final
 2017/0163(COD)
 Pasiūlymas
 EUROPOS PARLAMENTO IR TARYBOS REGLAMENTAS
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1295/2013, kuriuo sukuriama programa „Kūrybiška Europa“ (2014–2020 m.)
 AIŠKINAMASIS MEMORANDUMAS
 1.PASIŪLYMO APLINKYBĖS
 Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras įsteigtas 1976 m. Europos Parlamentui priėmus rezoliuciją
 1
 ir jis Europos Sąjungos vardu koncertavo pastaruosius 40 metų. Orkestro garbės vadovas yra Europos Parlamento Pirmininkas, o jo garbės globėjai yra valstybių narių vadovai arba jų vyriausybių vadovai, kuriems pirmininkauja Europos Komisijos Pirmininkas.
 Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestrą sudaro jauni atlikėjai iš visų Sąjungos valstybių narių, atrinkti pagal griežtus kokybės kriterijus. Į šį pasaulinio lygio Europos orkestrą, kuris peržengia kultūrines ribas, suburti labai talentingi jauni Europos muzikantai.
 Nuo pat savo veiklos pradžios Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras atliko unikalų vaidmenį, per kultūrą skatindamas kultūrų dialogą, tarpusavio pagarbą ir supratimą. Jis koncertavo didžiuosiuose Europos ir pasaulio miestuose bei festivaliuose, įvairiomis oficialiomis ir neoficialiomis progomis skirtingai publikai pateikdamas tradicines ir naujoviškas formas bei techniką. Dėl savo veiklos orkestras veikė kaip Sąjungos kultūros ambasadorius, atskleisdamas Europos kultūrų ir jos jaunų talentų turtingumą bei įvairovę.
 Tai ypač talentingų jaunų atlikėjų, dirbančių drauge ir siekiančių orkestrinės muzikos atlikimo aukštumų, grupė; Europos kontekste Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras, pristatantis Europos muziką ir talentus įvairiai publikai ES ir už jos ribų, yra unikalus.
 Šiuo metu, kai ES susiduria su daugybe sunkumų ir turi rasti glaudesnį sąlytį su savo piliečiais, Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestrui tenka dar svarbesnis vaidmuo – perteikti pagrindines Europos vertybes, per klasikinę muziką nutiesti žmones jungiančius tiltus ir užmegzti ryšį su jaunąja Europos karta, suburiant iš įvairiausios aplinkos kilusius jaunus klasikinės muzikos atlikėjus koncertuose ir kuravimo iniciatyvose.
 ES finansavimas turi lemiamą svarbą Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestro kaip organizacijos, kuri skatina Europos vertybes, įvairovę ir jaunus talentus, išlikimui. Be paramos jis negalės vykdyti šios daug galimybių teikiančios veiklos, o jauni muzikantai neteks unikalios galimybės koncertuoti tarptautinėje scenoje, kurti savo karjeros ir toliau tobulinti savo talentą, vadovaujant žinomiems dirigentams. 3 000 buvusių orkestro atlikėjų, kurie visi buvo pakviesti po griežtos kasmet visose valstybėse narėse vykdomos perklausų procedūros, galiausiai sukūrė tinklą, kurį sudaro žinomi dirigentai, solistai, mokytojai ir instrumentalistai, dirbantys su garsiausiais orkestrais visame pasaulyje.
 Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras buvo remiamas pagal programą „Kūrybiška Europa“ ir įvairius prieš ją taikytus finansavimo planus. 2016 m. pagal Reglamentą (ES, Euratomas) Nr. 966/2012
 2
 Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras gavo dotaciją veiklai kaip organizacija, siekianti bendrų Sąjungos interesų arba turinti tikslą, kuris sudaro ES kultūros politikos dalį ir kuriuo remiamas jos įgyvendinimas. 2017 m. jis bus finansuojamas tokiu pačiu būdu.
 Siekdama užtikrinti Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestro veiklos tvarumą ir atsižvelgdama į jo ypatingą statusą, strateginius tikslus ir veiklą, Komisija siūlo pripažinti jį „pagrindiniame teisės akte nurodyta įstaiga“ pagal Komisijos deleguotojo reglamento (ES) Nr. 1268/2012 190 straipsnio 1 dalies d punktą
 3
 ir atitinkamai iš dalies pakeisti Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1295/2013 13 straipsnio 1 dalį
 4
 .
 2. TEISINIS PAGRINDAS, SUBSIDIARUMO IR PROPORCINGUMO PRINCIPAI
 •Teisinis pagrindas
 Šiuo pasiūlymu iš dalies keičiamos Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1295/2013 nuostatos dėl programos „Kūrybiška Europa“ paprogramės, todėl jis grindžiamas Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo (SESV) 167 straipsnio 5 dalies pirma įtrauka.
 •Subsidiarumo principas
 Pagal SESV 167 straipsnį Sąjunga imasi veiksmų paremti ir papildyti valstybių narių veiklą. Kadangi Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestro tikslai ir veikla yra ne vienos ar kelių valstybių narių interesas ir jis naudingas ne tik joms, be to, šis orkestras sukurtas Europos Parlamentui priėmus rezoliuciją, egzistuoja akivaizdus papildomumas, kad jį būtų galima pripažinti pagrindiniame teisės akte nurodyta įstaiga pagal Komisijos deleguotojo reglamento (ES) Nr. 1268/2012 190 straipsnio 1 dalies d punktą. Šio orkestro veikla kuria didelę Europos pridėtinę vertę.
 •Proporcingumas
 Siūlomas pakeitimas yra tik toks, kokio būtinai reikia problemai išspręsti, ir juo nesiekiama daugiau, nei reikia norint pasiekti tikslus. Tai riboto pobūdžio pakeitimas – Reglamento Nr. 1295/2013 13 straipsnio 1 dalyje tiesiog įtraukiama nuoroda į Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestrą.
 3.EX POST VERTINIMO, KONSULTACIJŲ SU SUINTERESUOTOSIOMIS ŠALIMIS IR POVEIKIO VERTINIMO REZULTATAI
 2016 m. pavasarį, vykdant viešą kampaniją („SaveEUYO“), skirtą Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestrui, kuris susidūrė su finansiniais sunkumais, keliančiais grėsmę jo egzistavimui, paremti, nemažai kultūros ir muzikos srities suinteresuotųjų šalių pasisakymuose spaudoje ir bendraudamos su Komisija viešai išreiškė savo palaikymą. Valstybės narės (ypač 2016 m. gegužės mėn. įvykusioje Kultūros ministrų taryboje) ir Europos Parlamento nariai pritarė tam, kad reikėtų rasti orkestro finansavimo problemos sprendimą.
 Dėl siūlomo pakeitimo, kuris per se neturi didelio ekonominio, aplinkosauginio ir socialinio poveikio, ribotos taikymo srities nebūtina atlikti poveikio vertinimą ar vykdyti tolesnes konsultacijas.
 4.POVEIKIS BIUDŽETUI
 Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras bus finansuojamas iš jau esamo programai „Kūrybiška Europa“ skirto finansinio paketo; tam papildomų išteklių iš ES biudžeto nereikės. Pridedamoje finansinėje teisės akto pasiūlymo pažymoje nurodytas poveikis biudžetui ir reikalingi žmogiškieji bei administraciniai ištekliai ir įrodoma, kad šios iniciatyvos poveikis biudžetui yra neutralus.
 5.KITI ELEMENTAI
 Savo pasiūlyme Komisija siūlo:
 ·pateikti teisiškai pagrįstą ir skaidrų sprendimą Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestro tvariam finansavimui užtikrinti, atsižvelgiant į šio orkestro ypatumus ir pripažįstant jį „pagrindiniame teisės akte nurodyta įstaiga“ pagal Komisijos deleguotojo reglamento (ES) Nr. 1268/2012 190 straipsnio 1 dalies d punktą;
 ·atitinkamai į Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1295/2013 13 straipsnio 1 dalį įtraukti naują f punktą.
 2017/0163 (COD)
 Pasiūlymas
 EUROPOS PARLAMENTO IR TARYBOS REGLAMENTAS
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1295/2013, kuriuo sukuriama programa „Kūrybiška Europa“ (2014–2020 m.)
 EUROPOS PARLAMENTAS IR EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS TARYBA,
 atsižvelgdami į Sutartį dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo, ypač į jos 167 straipsnio 5 dalies pirmą įtrauką,
 atsižvelgdami į Europos Komisijos pasiūlymą,
 teisėkūros procedūra priimamo akto projektą perdavus nacionaliniams parlamentams,
 atsižvelgdami į Europos ekonomikos ir socialinių reikalų komiteto nuomonę
 5
 ,
 atsižvelgdami į Regionų komiteto nuomonę
 6
 ,
 laikydamiesi įprastos teisėkūros procedūros,
 kadangi:
 (1)Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos Reglamentu (ES) Nr. 1295/2013
 7
 sukurta kultūros ir kūrybos sektorių rėmimo programa „Kūrybiška Europa“ (2014–2020 m.);
 (2)Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestrą sudaro jauni atlikėjai, atrinkti vadovaujantis aukštais kokybės kriterijais, po griežtos kasmet visose valstybėse narėse vykdomos perklausų procedūros;
 (3)jis į pasaulinio lygio Europos orkestrą, kuris peržengia kultūrines ribas, suburia labai talentingus jaunus Europos muzikantus. Nuo pat jo sukūrimo šis orkestras atliko unikalų vaidmenį, per kultūrą skatindamas kultūrų dialogą, tarpusavio pagarbą ir supratimą. Tad jis veikė kaip Sąjungos kultūros ambasadorius, atskleisdamas Europos kultūrų ir jos jaunų talentų turtingumą bei įvairovę. Jis taip pat prisidėjo prie Europos kūrinių sklaidos ir jaunų talentingų Europos atlikėjų judumo už nacionalinių ir Europos ribų; taip jauniems muzikantams iš įvairių valstybių narių buvo suteikta galimybė kurti savo karjeras ir tobulinti savo įgūdžius vadovaujant žinomiems dirigentams;
 (4)Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestro veikla atitinka programos „Kūrybiška Europa“ tikslus bei konkrečius kultūros paprogramės tikslus;
 (5)Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras įsteigtas 1976 m. Europos Parlamentui priėmus rezoliuciją
 8
 ir tuo yra unikalus orkestras Europoje. Dėl jo ypatingo statuso, strateginių tikslų ir veiklos Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras gali būti laikomas „pagrindiniame teisės akte nurodyta įstaiga“ pagal Komisijos deleguotojo reglamento (ES) Nr. 1268/2012
 9
 190 straipsnio 1 dalies d punktą; Todėl dotacijos gali būti suteiktos neskelbiant kvietimo teikti pasiūlymus;
 (6)dėl šios priežasties Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestrą reikėtų įtraukti į priemonių, remiamų iš kultūros paprogramės lėšų, sąrašą;
 (7)todėl Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1295/2013 turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeistas,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ REGLAMENTĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1295/2013 13 straipsnio 1 dalis papildoma tokiu f punktu:
 „f)
 Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras.“
 2 straipsnis
 Šis reglamentas įsigalioja dvidešimtą dieną po jo paskelbimo Europos Sąjungos oficialiajame leidinyje.
 Jis taikomas nuo 2018 m. sausio 1 d.
 Šis reglamentas privalomas visas ir tiesiogiai taikomas visose valstybėse narėse.
 Priimta Briuselyje
 Europos Parlamento vardu
 Tarybos vardu
 Pirmininkas
 Pirmininkas
 FINANSINĖ TEISĖS AKTO PASIŪLYMO PAŽYMA
 1.PASIŪLYMO (INICIATYVOS) STRUKTŪRA
 1.1.Pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) pavadinimas
 1.2.Atitinkama (-os) politikos sritis (-ys) VGV / VGB sistemoje
 1.3.Pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) pobūdis
 1.4.Tikslas (-ai)
 1.5.Pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) pagrindas
 1.6.Trukmė ir finansinis poveikis
 1.7.Numatytas (-i) valdymo būdas (-ai)
 2.VALDYMO PRIEMONĖS
 2.1.Stebėsenos ir atskaitomybės taisyklės
 2.2.Valdymo ir kontrolės sistema
 2.3.Sukčiavimo ir pažeidimų prevencijos priemonės
 3.NUMATOMAS PASIŪLYMO (INICIATYVOS) FINANSINIS POVEIKIS
 3.1.Atitinkama (-os) daugiametės finansinės programos išlaidų kategorija (-os) ir biudžeto išlaidų eilutė (-ės)
 3.2.Numatomas poveikis išlaidoms
 3.2.1.Numatomo poveikio išlaidoms santrauka
 3.2.2.Numatomas poveikis veiklos asignavimams
 3.2.3.Numatomas poveikis administracinio pobūdžio asignavimams
 3.2.4.Suderinamumas su dabartine daugiamete finansine programa
 3.2.5.Trečiųjų šalių įnašai
 3.3.Numatomas poveikis įplaukoms
 FINANSINĖ TEISĖS AKTO PASIŪLYMO PAŽYMA
 1.PASIŪLYMO (INICIATYVOS) STRUKTŪRA
 1.1.Pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) pavadinimas
 Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1295/2013, kuriuo sukuriama programa „Kūrybiška Europa“, dalinis pakeitimas
 1.2.Atitinkama (-os) politikos sritis (-ys) VGV / VGB sistemoje
 10
 ŠVIETIMAS IR KULTŪRA. PROGRAMA „KŪRYBIŠKA EUROPA“
 1.3.Pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) pobūdis
 ◻ Pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) susijęs (-usi) su nauja priemone
 ◻ Pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) susijęs (-usi) su nauja priemone, kuri bus priimta įgyvendinus bandomąjį projektą ir (arba) atlikus parengiamuosius veiksmus
 11
 X Pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) susijęs (-usi) su esamos priemonės galiojimo pratęsimu
 ◻ Pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) susijęs (-usi) su priemone, perorientuota į naują priemonę
 1.4.Tikslas (-ai)
 1.4.1.Komisijos daugiametis (-čiai) strateginis (-iai) tikslas (-ai), kurio (-ių) siekiama šiuo pasiūlymu (šia iniciatyva)
 Programa padės siekti strategijos „Europa 2020“ (COM (2010) 2020, 2010 3 3) tikslų:
 a)
 puoselėjant ir saugant Europos kultūrų ir kalbų įvairovę ir
 b)
 didinant kultūros ir kūrybos sektorių konkurencingumą, kad būtų remiamas pažangus, tvarus ir integracinis augimas.
 1.4.2.Konkretus (-ūs) tikslas (-ai) ir atitinkama VGV / VGB veikla
 Konkretūs tikslai:
 a)
 didinti Europos kultūros ir kūrybos sektorių pajėgumus vykdyti veiklą tarpvalstybiniu ir tarptautiniu mastu;
 b)
 skatinti tarpvalstybinę kultūros kūrinių bei kūrybinių darbų sklaidą ir veiklos vykdytojų judumą bei siekti platesnės auditorijos Europoje ir už jos ribų;
 c)
 didinti finansinius kultūros ir kūrybos sektorių pajėgumus ir
 d)
 remti tarpvalstybinį politinį bendradarbiavimą, kad būtų skatinamas politikos plėtojimas, inovacijos, auditorijos formavimas ir nauji verslo modeliai.
 Atitinkama VGV / VGB veikla
 15 04 – programa „Kūrybiška Europa“
 1.4.3.Numatomas (-i) rezultatas (-ai) ir poveikis
 Nurodyti poveikį, kurį pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) turėtų turėti tiksliniams gavėjams (tikslinėms grupėms)
 Teisiškai pagrįstas ir skaidrus sprendimas Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestro tvariam finansavimui užtikrinti, atsižvelgiant į šio orkestro ypatumus ir pripažįstant jį „pagrindiniame teisės akte nurodyta įstaiga“ pagal Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1268/2012 190 straipsnio d punktą ir atitinkamai iš dalies pakeičiant Reglamento (ES) Nr. 1295/2013 13 straipsnio 1 dalį.
 1.4.4.Rezultatų ir poveikio rodikliai
 Nurodyti pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) įgyvendinimo stebėjimo rodiklius.
 Kadangi šiuo daliniu pakeitimu išplečiama esama programa „Kūrybiška Europa“, jam taikomi programos finansinės pažymos (COM(2011) 785 final) 1.4.4 punkte išdėstyti argumentai.
 1.5.Pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) pagrindas
 1.5.1.Trumpalaikiai arba ilgalaikiai poreikiai
 Užtikrinti tvarią paramą Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestrui.
 1.5.2.Papildoma ES dalyvavimo nauda
 –
 jauni atlikėjai iš visų Sąjungos valstybių narių, atrinkti vadovaujantis aukštais kokybės kriterijais, dirba kartu pasaulinio lygio Europos orkestre, kuris peržengia kultūrines ribas;
 –
 per kultūrą skatinamas kultūrų dialogas, tarpusavio pagarba ir supratimas ir
 –
 įvairiai publikai ES ir už jos ribų atskleidžiamas Europos kultūrų ir jos jaunų talentų turtingumas bei įvairovė.
 1.5.3.Panašios patirties išvados
 Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras buvo remiamas pagal programą „Kūrybiška Europa“ ir įvairius prieš ją taikytus finansavimo planus. Jo aukštas lygis plačiai pripažintas. Vis dėlto tvarios paramos stygius trukdė plėtoti tolesnę jo veiklą. Be tokios paramos ES lygmeniu jis nebegalėtų tęsti savo veiklos. Sąjunga netektų svarbaus kultūros ambasadoriaus, o jauni muzikantai netektų unikalios galimybės koncertuoti tarptautinėje scenoje, kurti savo karjeros ir toliau tobulinti savo talentų, vadovaujant žinomiems dirigentams.
 1.5.4.Suderinamumas ir galima sąveika su kitomis atitinkamomis priemonėmis
 Persidengimo su veikla, remiama pagal kitas Sąjungos programas, nėra.
 1.6.
 1.6.Trukmė ir finansinis poveikis
 X Pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) trukmė ribota
 –X
 Pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) galioja nuo 2018 m. sausio 1 d. iki 2020 m. gruodžio 31 d.
 –◻ Pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) trukmė neribota
 –įgyvendinimo pradinis laikotarpis – nuo MMMM iki MMMM,
 –vėliau – visavertis taikymas.
 1.7.Numatytas (-i) valdymo būdas (-ai)
 12
 X Tiesioginis valdymas, vykdomas Komisijos:
 –◻ padalinių, įskaitant Sąjungos delegacijų darbuotojus;
 –◻
 vykdomųjų įstaigų.
 ◻ Pasidalijamasis valdymas kartu su valstybėmis narėmis
 ◻ Netiesioginis valdymas, biudžeto įgyvendinimo užduotis perduodant:
 –◻ trečiosioms šalims arba jų paskirtoms įstaigoms;
 –◻ tarptautinėms organizacijoms ir jų agentūroms (nurodyti);
 –◻EIB ir Europos investicijų fondui;
 –◻ įstaigoms, nurodytoms Finansinio reglamento 208 ir 209 straipsniuose;
 –◻ viešosios teisės įstaigoms;
 –◻ įstaigoms, kurių veiklą reglamentuoja privatinė teisė, veikiančioms viešųjų paslaugų srityje, jeigu jos pateikia pakankamų finansinių garantijų;
 –◻ įstaigoms, kurių veiklą reglamentuoja valstybės narės privatinė teisė, kurioms pavesta įgyvendinti viešojo ir privačiojo sektorių partnerystę ir kurios pateikia pakankamų finansinių garantijų;
 –◻ asmenims, kuriems pavestas konkrečių BUSP veiksmų vykdymas pagal ES sutarties V antraštinę dalį, ir kurie nurodyti atitinkamame pagrindiniame teisės akte.
 –Jei nurodomas daugiau kaip vienas valdymo būdas, išsamią informaciją pateikti šio punkto pastabų skiltyje.
 Pastabos
 [...]
 [...]
 2.VALDYMO PRIEMONĖS
 2.1.Stebėsenos ir atskaitomybės taisyklės
 Nurodyti dažnumą ir sąlygas.
 Komisija atsakinga už projektų, finansuojamų pagal programą „Kūrybiška Europa“ (įskaitant Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestrą), reguliarios stebėsenos ir išorės vertinimo užtikrinimą.
 2.2.Valdymo ir kontrolės sistema
 2.2.1.Nustatyta rizika
 Kadangi šiuo daliniu pakeitimu išplečiama esama programa „Kūrybiška Europa“, jam taikomi programos finansinės pažymos (COM(2011) 785 final) 2.2.1 punkte išdėstyti argumentai.
 2.2.2.Informacija apie įdiegtą vidaus kontrolės sistemą
 Kadangi šiuo daliniu pakeitimu išplečiama esama programa „Kūrybiška Europa“, jam taikomi programos finansinės pažymos (COM(2011) 785 final) 2.2.2 punkte išdėstyti argumentai.
 2.2.3.Kontrolės sąnaudų ir naudos apskaičiavimas ir numatomo klaidų rizikos lygio vertinimas
 [pm]
 [pm]
 2.3.Sukčiavimo ir pažeidimų prevencijos priemonės
 Nurodyti dabartines arba numatytas prevencijos ir apsaugos priemones.
 Komisija užtikrins, kad, įgyvendinant pagal šį reglamentą finansuojamus veiksmus, Sąjungos finansiniai interesai bus apsaugoti taikant sukčiavimo, korupcijos ir bet kokios kitos neteisėtos veiklos prevencijos priemones, vykdant veiksmingus patikrinimus ir išieškant neteisingai išmokėtas sumas, o nustačius pažeidimus – taikant veiksmingas, proporcingas ir atgrasančias sankcijas. Pagal šį reglamentą Komisija įgaliojama atlikti in situ patikrinimus, vadovaujantis Tarybos reglamentu (Euratomas, EB) Nr. 2185/96. Prireikus Europos kovos su sukčiavimu tarnyba (OLAF) atliks tyrimus pagal Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 1073/1999.
 3.NUMATOMAS PASIŪLYMO (INICIATYVOS) FINANSINIS POVEIKIS
 3.1.Atitinkama (-os) daugiametės finansinės programos išlaidų kategorija (-os) ir biudžeto išlaidų eilutė (-ės)
 ·Dabartinės biudžeto eilutės
 Daugiametės finansinės programos kategorijos ir biudžeto eilutės nurodytos eilės tvarka.
 Daugiametės finansinės programos išlaidų kategorija
 Biudžeto eilutė
 Išlaidų
 rūšis
 Įnašas
 3 išlaidų kategorija. Saugumas ir pilietybė
 DA / NDA
 13
 ELPA
 14
 šalių
 šalių kandidačių
 15
 trečiųjų valstybių
 pagal Finansinio reglamento 21 straipsnio 2 dalies b punktą
 3
 15 04 02 – Paprogramė „Kultūra“ – Tarpvalstybinių veiksmų rėmimas ir tarptautinės sklaidos bei mobilumo skatinimas
 DA
 NE
 NE
 NE
 NE
 16
 3.2.Numatomas poveikis išlaidoms
 Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestras bus finansuojamas iš jau esamo programos „Kūrybiška Europa“ paprogramės „Kultūra“ skirto paketo; tam papildomų išteklių iš ES biudžeto nereikės.
 3.2.1.Numatomo poveikio išlaidoms santrauka
 mln. EUR (tūkstantųjų tikslumu)
 Daugiametės finansinės programos
 išlaidų kategorija
 Numeris
 [3] Saugumas ir pilietybė
 EAC GD
 Metai
 N
 17
 Metai
 N+1
 Metai
 N+2
 Metai
 N+3
 Atsižvelgiant į poveikio trukmę, įterpti reikiamą metų skaičių (žr. 1.6 punktą)
 IŠ VISO
 •Veiklos asignavimai
 1.
 2.
 15 04 02 – „Kūrybiška Europa“ – Paprogramė „Kultūra“
 Įsipareigojimai
 (1a)
 0,600
 0,600
 0,600
 1,800
 Mokėjimai
 (2a)
 0,480
 0,600
 0,600
 0,120
 1,800
 Administracinio pobūdžio asignavimai, finansuojami iš konkrečių programų rinkinio lėšų
 18
 Biudžeto eilutės numeris
 3
 IŠ VISO asignavimų
 EAC GD*
 Įsipareigojimai
 =1+1a +3
 0,600
 0,600
 0,600
 1,800
 Mokėjimai
 =2+2a
 +3
 0,480
 0,600
 0,600
 0,120
 1,800
 • IŠ VISO veiklos asignavimų
 Įsipareigojimai
 4
 0,600
 0,600
 0,600
 1,800
 Mokėjimai
 5
 0,480
 0,600
 0,600
 0,120
 1,800
 • IŠ VISO administracinio
 pobūdžio asignavimų, finansuojamų
 iš konkrečių programų rinkinio lėšų
 6
 IŠ VISO asignavimų
 pagal daugiametės finansinės programos
 <3> IŠLAIDŲ KATEGORIJĄ
 Įsipareigojimai
 =4+ 6
 0,600
 0,600
 0,600
 1,800
 Mokėjimai
 =5+ 6
 0,480
 0,600
 0,600
 0,120
 1,800
 Jei pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) daro poveikį kelioms išlaidų kategorijoms:
 • IŠ VISO veiklos asignavimų
 Įsipareigojimai
 4
 Mokėjimai
 5
 • IŠ VISO administracinio
 pobūdžio asignavimų, finansuojamų
 iš konkrečių programų rinkinio lėšų
 6
 IŠ VISO asignavimų
 pagal daugiametės finansinės programos
 1–4 IŠLAIDŲ KATEGORIJAS
 (Orientacinė suma)
 Įsipareigojimai
 =4+ 6
 0,600
 0,600
 0,600
 1,800
 Mokėjimai
 =5+ 6
 0,480
 0,600
 0,600
 0,120
 1,800
 Daugiametės finansinės programos
 išlaidų kategorija
 5
 Administracinės išlaidos
 mln. EUR (tūkstantųjų tikslumu)
 Metai
 N
 Metai
 N+1
 Metai
 N+2
 Metai
 N+3
 Atsižvelgiant į poveikio trukmę, įterpti reikiamą metų skaičių (žr. 1.6 punktą)
 IŠ VISO
 EAC GD
 •Žmogiškieji ištekliai
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 •Kitos administracinės išlaidos
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 IŠ VISO EAC DG
 Asignavimai
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 IŠ VISO asignavimų
 daugiametės finansinės programos
 5 IŠLAIDŲ KATEGORIJAI
 (Iš viso įsipareigojimų = Iš viso mokėjimų)
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 mln. EUR (tūkstantųjų tikslumu)
 Metai
 N
 19
 Metai
 N+1
 Metai
 N+2
 Metai
 N+3
 Atsižvelgiant į poveikio trukmę, įterpti reikiamą metų skaičių (žr. 1.6 punktą)
 IŠ VISO
 IŠ VISO asignavimų
 pagal daugiametės finansinės programos
 1–5* IŠLAIDŲ KATEGORIJAS
 Įsipareigojimai
 0,600
 0,600
 0,600
 1,800
 Mokėjimai
 0,480
 0,600
 0,600
 0,120
 1,800
 *5 išlaidų kategorija – administracinės išlaidos, įskaitant žmogiškųjų išteklių išlaidas, bus padengtos perskirstant lėšas EAC GD.
 3.2.2.Numatomas poveikis veiklos asignavimams
 –◻
 Pasiūlymui (iniciatyvai) įgyvendinti veiklos asignavimai nenaudojami
 –X
 Pasiūlymui (iniciatyvai) įgyvendinti veiklos asignavimai naudojami taip:
 Įsipareigojimų asignavimai mln. EUR (tūkstantųjų tikslumu)
 Nurodyti tikslus ir rezultatus
 ⇩
 Metai
 N
 Metai
 N+1
 Metai
 N+2
 Metai
 N+3
 Atsižvelgiant į poveikio trukmę, įterpti reikiamą metų skaičių (žr. 1.6 punktą)
 IŠ VISO
 REZULTATAI
 Rūšis
 20
 Vidutinės sąnaudos
 Skaičius
 Sąnaudos
 Skaičius
 Sąnaudos
 Skaičius
 Sąnaudos
 Skaičius
 Sąnaudos
 Skaičius
 Sąnaudos
 Skaičius
 Sąnaudos
 Skaičius
 Sąnaudos
 Bendras skaičius
 Iš viso sąnaudų
 KONKRETŪS TIKSLAI a–d
 21
 – Rezultatas
 Dotacija veiklai
 0,6
 1
 0,600
 1
 0,600
 1
 0,600
 1,800
 IŠ VISO SĄNAUDŲ
 1
 0,600
 1
 0,600
 1
 0,600
 1,800
 Rezultatai
 Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestrui skiriama dotacija veiklai
 Išlaidų struktūra
 Remiantis ankstesne patirtimi, susijusia su Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestro finansavimu ES lygmeniu, visų pirma dar taikant programą „Kūrybiška Europa“, tinkama dotacija šios organizacijos veiklai būtų 600 000 EUR.
 3.2.3.Numatomas poveikis administracinio pobūdžio asignavimams
 3.2.3.1.Santrauka
 –◻
 Pasiūlymui (iniciatyvai) įgyvendinti administracinio pobūdžio asignavimų nenaudojama
 –X
 Pasiūlymui (iniciatyvai) įgyvendinti administracinio pobūdžio asignavimai naudojami taip:
 mln. EUR (tūkstantųjų tikslumu)
 Metai
 N
 22
 Metai
 N+1
 Metai
 N+2
 Metai
 N+3
 Atsižvelgiant į poveikio trukmę, įterpti reikiamą metų skaičių (žr. 1.6 punktą)
 IŠ VISO
 pagal daugiametės finansinės programos
 5 IŠLAIDŲ KATEGORIJĄ
 Žmogiškieji ištekliai
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 Kitos administracinės išlaidos
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 Daugiametės finansinės programos
 5 IŠLAIDŲ KATEGORIJOS tarpinė suma
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 Neįtraukta į daugiametės finansinės programos
 23
 5 IŠLAIDŲ KATEGORIJĄ
 Žmogiškieji ištekliai
 Kitos administracinio
 pobūdžio išlaidos
 Tarpinė suma,
 neįtraukta į daugiametės finansinės programos5 IŠLAIDŲ KATEGORIJĄ
 IŠ VISO
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 p. m.
 Žmogiškųjų išteklių ir kitų administracinio pobūdžio išlaidų asignavimų poreikiai bus tenkinami iš GD asignavimų, jau paskirtų priemonei valdyti ir (arba) perskirstytų generaliniame direktorate, ir prireikus finansuojami iš papildomų lėšų, kurios atsakingam GD gali būti skiriamos pagal metinę asignavimų skyrimo procedūrą ir atsižvelgiant į biudžeto apribojimus.
 3.2.3.2.Numatomi žmogiškųjų išteklių poreikiai
 –◻
 Pasiūlymui (iniciatyvai) įgyvendinti žmogiškųjų išteklių nenaudojama.
 –X
 Pasiūlymui (iniciatyvai) įgyvendinti žmogiškieji ištekliai naudojami taip:
 Sąmatą surašyti etatų vienetais
 N metai
 N+1 metai
 N+2 metai
 N+3 metai
 Atsižvelgiant į poveikio trukmę, įterpti reikiamą metų skaičių (žr. 1.6 punktą)
 • Etatų plano pareigybės (pareigūnai ir laikinieji darbuotojai)
 XX 01 01 01 (Komisijos būstinė ir atstovybės)
 0,5
 0,5
 0,5
 0,5
 XX 01 01 02 (Delegacijos)
 XX 01 05 01 (Netiesioginiai moksliniai tyrimai)
 10 01 05 01 (Tiesioginiai moksliniai tyrimai)
 •Išorės darbuotojai (etatų vienetais) EV)
 24
 XX 01 02 01 (CA, SNE, INT finansuojami iš bendrojo biudžeto)
 XX 01 02 02 (CA, LA, SNE, INT ir JED delegacijose)
 XX 01 04 yy
 25
 – būstinėje
 – delegacijose
 XX 01 05 02 (CA, SNE, INT – netiesioginiai moksliniai tyrimai)
 10 01 05 02 (CA, SNE, INT – tiesioginiai moksliniai tyrimai)
 Kitos biudžeto eilutės (nurodyti)
 IŠ VISO
 0,5
 0,5
 0,5
 0,5
 XX yra atitinkama politikos sritis arba biudžeto antraštinė dalis.
 Žmogiškųjų išteklių poreikiai bus tenkinami panaudojant GD darbuotojus, jau paskirtus priemonei valdyti ir (arba) perskirstytus generaliniame direktorate, ir prireikus finansuojami iš papildomų lėšų, kurios atsakingam GD gali būti skiriamos pagal metinę asignavimų skyrimo procedūrą ir atsižvelgiant į biudžeto apribojimus.
 Vykdytinų užduočių aprašymas:
 Pareigūnai ir laikinieji darbuotojai
 Programos „Kūrybiška Europa“ įgyvendinimo pratęsimas
 Išorės darbuotojai
 3.2.4.Suderinamumas su dabartine daugiamete finansine programa
 –X
 Pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) atitinka dabartinę daugiametę finansinę programą.
 –◻
 Atsižvelgiant į pasiūlymą (iniciatyvą), reikės pakeisti daugiametės finansinės programos atitinkamos išlaidų kategorijos programavimą.
 Paaiškinti, kaip reikia pakeisti programavimą, ir nurodyti atitinkamas biudžeto eilutes bei sumas.
 –◻
 Įgyvendinant pasiūlymą (iniciatyvą) būtina taikyti lankstumo priemonę arba patikslinti daugiametę finansinę programą.
 Paaiškinti, ką reikia atlikti, ir nurodyti atitinkamas išlaidų kategorijas, biudžeto eilutes ir sumas.
 3.2.5.Trečiųjų šalių įnašai
 –X Pasiūlyme (iniciatyvoje) nenumatyta bendro su trečiosiomis šalimis finansavimo.
 –Pasiūlyme (iniciatyvoje) numatytas bendras finansavimas apskaičiuojamas taip:
 Asignavimai mln. EUR (tūkstantųjų tikslumu)
 Metai
 N
 Metai
 N+1
 Metai
 N+2
 Metai
 N+3
 Atsižvelgiant į poveikio trukmę, įterpti reikiamą metų skaičių (žr. 1.6 punktą)
 Iš viso
 Nurodyti bendrą finansavimą teikiančią įstaigą
 IŠ VISO bendrai finansuojamų asignavimų
 3.3.Numatomas poveikis įplaukoms
 –X
 Pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) neturi finansinio poveikio įplaukoms.
 –◻
 Pasiūlymas (iniciatyva) turi finansinį poveikį:
 –◻
 nuosaviems ištekliams
 –◻
 įvairioms įplaukoms
 mln. EUR (tūkstantųjų tikslumu)
 Biudžeto įplaukų eilutė:
 Einamųjų finansinių metų asignavimai
 Pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) poveikis
 26
 Metai
 N
 Metai
 N+1
 Metai
 N+2
 Metai
 N+3
 Atsižvelgiant į poveikio trukmę, įterpti reikiamą metų skaičių (žr. 1.6 punktą)
 ... straipsnis
 Įvairių asignuotųjų įplaukų atveju nurodyti biudžeto išlaidų eilutę (-es), kuriai (-ioms) daromas poveikis.
 Nurodyti poveikio įplaukoms apskaičiavimo metodą.
 (1)
 Rezoliucija dėl p. Kellett-Bowman pateikto pasiūlymo dėl rezoliucijos dėl Europos bendrijos jaunimo orkestro sukūrimo (OL C 79, 1976 4 5, p. 8).
 (2)
 Žr. 2012 m. spalio 25 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (ES, Euratomas) Nr. 966/2012 dėl Sąjungos bendrajam biudžetui taikomų finansinių taisyklių ir kuriuo panaikinamas Tarybos reglamentas (EB, Euratomas) Nr. 1605/2002 121 straipsnio 1 dalies b punktą (OL L 298, 2012 10 26, p. 1).
 (3)
 2012 m. spalio 29 d. Komisijos deleguotasis reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1268/2012 dėl Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (ES, Euratomas) Nr. 966/2012 dėl Sąjungos bendrajam biudžetui taikomų finansinių taisyklių taikymo taisyklių (OL L 362, 2012 12 31, p. 1).
 (4)
 Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1295/2013, kuriuo sukuriama programa „Kūrybiška Europa“ (2014–2020 m.) ir panaikinami sprendimai Nr. 1718/2006/EB, Nr. 1855/2006/EB ir Nr. 1041/2009/EB (OL L 347, 2013 12 20, p. 221).
 (5)
 OL C, , p. .
 (6)
 OL C, , p. .
 (7)
 Reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1295/2013, kuriuo sukuriama programa „Kūrybiška Europa“ (2014–2020 m.) ir panaikinami sprendimai Nr. 1718/2006/EB, Nr. 1855/2006/EB ir Nr. 1041/2009/EB (OL L 347/221, 2013 12 20, p. 221).
 (8)
 Rezoliucija dėl p. Kellett-Bowman pateikto pasiūlymo dėl rezoliucijos dėl Europos bendrijos jaunimo orkestro sukūrimo (OL C 79, 1976 4 5, p. 8).
 (9)
 Komisijos deleguotasis reglamentas (ES) Nr. 1268/2012 dėl Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamento (ES, Euratomas) Nr. 966/2012 dėl Sąjungos bendrajam biudžetui taikomų finansinių taisyklių taikymo taisyklių (OL L 362, 2012 12 31, p. 1).
 (10)
 VGV – veikla grindžiamas valdymas; VGB – veikla grindžiamas biudžeto sudarymas.
 (11)
 Kaip nurodyta Finansinio reglamento 54 straipsnio 2 dalies a arba b punkte.
 (12)
 Informacija apie valdymo būdus ir nuorodos į Finansinį reglamentą pateikiamos adresu
 http://www.cc.cec/budg/man/budgmanag/budgmanag_en.html
 (13)
 DA – diferencijuotieji asignavimai; NDA – nediferencijuotieji asignavimai.
 (14)
 Europos laisvosios prekybos asociacija.
 (15)
 Šalių kandidačių ir, kai taikoma, Vakarų Balkanų potencialių šalių kandidačių.
 (16)
 15 04 02 biudžeto eilutė yra Vidurio ir Rytų Europos šalių ir ELPA biudžeto eilutė. Su Europos Sąjungos jaunimo orkestru susijusiam konkrečiam veiksmui nereikia susitarimo su šiomis trečiosiomis šalimis.
 (17)
 N metai yra pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) įgyvendinimo pradžios metai.
 (18)
 Techninė ir (arba) administracinė pagalba bei išlaidos ES programų ir (arba) veiksmų įgyvendinimui remti (buvusios BA eilutės), netiesioginiai moksliniai tyrimai, tiesioginiai moksliniai tyrimai.
 (19)
 N metai yra pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) įgyvendinimo pradžios metai.
 (20)
 Rezultatai – tai būsimi produktai ir paslaugos (pvz., finansuota studentų mainų, nutiesta kelių kilometrų ir kt.).
 (21)
 Kaip apibūdinta 1.4.2 dalyje. „Konkretūs tikslai
 (22)
 N metai yra pasiūlymo (iniciatyvos) įgyvendinimo pradžios metai.
 (23)
 Techninė ir (arba) administracinė pagalba bei išlaidos ES programų ir (arba) veiksmų įgyvendinimui remti (buvusios BA eilutės), netiesioginiai moksliniai tyrimai, tiesioginiai moksliniai tyrimai.
 (24)
 CA – sutartininkas; LA – vietinis darbuotojas; SNE – deleguotasis nacionalinis ekspertas; INT – per agentūrą įdarbintas darbuotojas; JED – jaunesnysis delegacijos ekspertas.
 (25)
 Neviršijant viršutinės ribos, nustatytos išorės darbuotojams, finansuojamiems iš veiklos asignavimų (buvusių BA eilučių).
 (26)
 Tradiciniai nuosavi ištekliai (muitai, cukraus mokesčiai) turi būti nurodomi grynosiomis sumomis, t. y. iš bendros sumos atskaičius 25 % surinkimo sąnaudų.