type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 18.9.2017
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 309/24
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Nemecko) 30. mája 2017 – Nisreen Sharqawi a i./Spolková republika Nemecko
 (Vec C-319/17)
 (2017/C 309/30)
 Jazyk konania: nemčina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Bundesverwaltungsgericht
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Žalobcovia: Nisreen Sharqawi, Yazan Fattayrji, v zastúpení: Nisreen Sharqawi, matka ako zákonná zástupkyňa, Hosam Fattayrji, v zastúpení: Nisreen Sharqawi, matka ako zákonná zástupkyňa
 Žalovaná: Spolková republika Nemecko
 Prejudiciálne otázky
 1.
 Bráni prechodné ustanovenie podľa článku 52 ods. 1 smernice 2013/32/EÚ (1) uplatneniu takej vnútroštátnej právnej úpravy, podľa ktorej pri výkone oprávnenia podľa článku 33 ods. 2 písm. a) smernice 2013/32/EÚ, ktoré je v porovnaní s predchádzajúcou právnou úpravou rozšírené, je žiadosť o medzinárodnú ochranu neprípustná, ak bola žiadateľovi udelená doplnková ochrana v inom členskom štáte, pokiaľ sa vnútroštátna právna úprava v dôsledku chýbajúceho vnútroštátneho prechodného ustanovenia uplatní aj na žiadosti podané pred 20. júlom 2015?
 Umožňuje prechodné ustanovenie v článku 52 ods. 1 smernice 2013/32/EÚ členským štátom spätné vykonanie rozšíreného oprávnenia podľa článku 33 ods. 2 písm. a) smernice 2013/32/EÚ s tým dôsledkom, že žiadosti o azyl, ktoré boli podané skôr, než sa rozšírené oprávnenie vykonalo na vnútroštátnej úrovni, o ktorých sa však v čase vykonania ešte právoplatne nerozhodlo, budú neprípustné?
 2.
 Zabezpečuje sa článkom 33 smernice 2013/32/EÚ členským štátom možnosť voľby, či žiadosť o azyl zamietnu na základe inak určenej medzinárodnej príslušnosti (dublinské nariadenia) alebo na základe ustanovenia článku 33 ods. 2 písm. a) smernice 2013/32/EÚ?
 3.
 Ak je odpoveď na druhú otázku kladná: bráni právo Únie členským štátom, vykonávajúc svoje oprávnenie podľa článku 33 ods. 2 písm. a) smernice 2013/32/EÚ, zamietnuť žiadosť o medzinárodnú ochranu ako neprípustnú z dôvodu udelenia doplnkovej ochrany v inom členskom štáte, ak
 a)
 sa žiadateľ domáha zvýšenia doplnkovej ochrany, ktorá mu bola v inom členskom štáte udelená (žiada priznanie postavenia utečenca), a azylové konanie v tomto inom členskom štáte bolo poznačené systémovými zlyhaniami a naďalej ich má; alebo
 b)
 konkrétna podoba tejto medzinárodnej ochrany, predovšetkým životné podmienky osoby, ktorej bola udelená doplnková ochrana, v tomto inom členskom štáte, ktorý žiadateľovi už udelil doplnkovú ochranu,
 —
 je v rozpore s článkom 4 Charty základných práv Európskej únie, prípadne s článkom 3 Európskeho dohovoru o ochrane ľudských práv a základných slobôd, alebo
 —
 nevyhovuje požiadavkám článku 20 a nasl. smernice 2011/95/EÚ bez toho, že by bola v rozpore s článkom 4 Charty základných práv Európskej únie, prípadne s článkom 3 Európskeho dohovoru o ochrane ľudských práv a základných slobôd?
 4.
 Ak je odpoveď na otázku 3b kladná: platí uvedené aj v prípade, že osobám s doplnkovou ochranou sa nezabezpečujú žiadne existenčné potreby, resp. sa im v porovnaní s inými členskými štátmi zabezpečujú len v značne obmedzenom rozsahu, ale nezaobchádza sa s nimi v tomto ohľade inak ako so štátnymi príslušníkmi tohto členského štátu?
 5.
 Ak je odpoveď na druhú otázku záporná:
 a)
 uplatní sa nariadenie Dublin III v konaní o udelení medzinárodnej ochrany, pokiaľ bola žiadosť o azyl podaná pred 1. januárom 2014, dožiadanie o prijatie späť však až po 1. januári 2014, pričom žiadateľ už skôr (vo februári 2013) získal v dožiadanom členskom štáte doplnkovú ochranu?
 b)
 Vyplýva z dublinských nariadení nepísané pravidlo o prechode príslušnosti na členský štát, ktorý žiada o prijatie žiadateľa späť, pokiaľ dožiadaný príslušný členský štát na základe dublinských nariadení odmietol žiadosť o prijatie späť podanú v lehote a namiesto toho odkázal na medzištátnu readmisnú dohodu?
 (1) Smernica Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 2013/32/EÚ z 26. júna 2013 o spoločných konaniach o poskytovaní a odnímaní medzinárodnej ochrany, Ú. v. EÚ L 180, 2013, s. 60.


type: legislation

text:
 31.7.2013
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 204/23
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) Nr. 735/2013 VAN DE RAAD
 van 30 juli 2013
 tot uitvoering van Verordening (EU) nr. 101/2011 betreffende restrictieve maatregelen tegen bepaalde personen en entiteiten in verband met de situatie in Tunesië
 DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EU) nr. 101/2011 van de Raad van 4 februari 2011 betreffende restrictieve maatregelen tegen bepaalde personen en entiteiten in verband met de situatie in Tunesië (1), en met name artikel 12, lid 1,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Op 4 februari 2011 heeft de Raad Verordening (EU) nr. 101/2011 vastgesteld.
 (2)
 De vermeldingen voor drie personen op de lijst van natuurlijke en rechtspersonen, entiteiten of lichamen in bijlage I bij Verordening (EU) nr. 101/2011 moeten worden vervangen en voor hun aanwijzing moeten nieuwe motiveringen worden verstrekt.
 (3)
 Bijlage I bij Verordening (EU) nr. 101/2011 moet dienovereenkomstig worden gewijzigd,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 Bijlage I bij Verordening (EU) nr. 101/2011 wordt gewijzigd zoals aangegeven in de bijlage bij deze verordening.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de dag van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 30 juli 2013.
 Voor de Raad
 De voorzitter
 L. LINKEVIČIUS
 (1) PB L 31 van 5.2.2011, blz. 1.
 BIJLAGE
 De vermeldingen voor de onderstaande personen op de lijst van natuurlijke en rechtspersonen, entiteiten of lichamen in bijlage I bij Verordening (EU) nr. 101/2011 worden vervangen door de volgende vermeldingen:
 Naam
 Informatie ter identificatie
 Motivering
 1.
 Mohamed Ben Moncef Ben Mohamed TRABELSI
 Tunesiër, geboren op 7 januari 1980 te Sabha-Libië, zoon van Yamina SOUIEI, bedrijfsleider, getrouwd met Inès LEJRI, woonachtig Résidence de l’Étoile du Nord — suite B — 7ème étage — appt. nr. 25 — Centre urbain du nord — Cité El Khadra — Tunis, houder van CNI nr. 04524472.
 Persoon naar wie door de Tunesische autoriteiten een gerechtelijk onderzoek is ingesteld wegens medeplichtigheid bij het machtsmisbruik door een openbaar ambtsdrager (de voormalige directeur van Société Tunisienne de Banque en de voormalige directeur van de Banque Nationale Agricole) om een ongerechtvaardigd voordeel voor een derde te verkrijgen en de overheid verlies toe te brengen.
 2.
 Fahd Mohamed Sakher Ben Moncef Ben Mohamed Hfaiez MATERI
 Tunesiër, geboren op 2 december 1981 te Tunis, zoon van Naïma BOUTIBA, getrouwd met Nesrine BEN ALI, houder van CNI nr. 04682068.
 Persoon naar wie door de Tunesische autoriteiten een gerechtelijk onderzoek is ingesteld wegens uitoefening van onrechtmatige invloed op een openbaar ambtsdrager (voormalig president Ben Ali) teneinde direct of indirect een voordeel voor een derde te verkrijgen, medeplichtigheid aan machtsmisbruik door een openbaar ambtsdrager (voormalig president Ben Ali) om een ongerechtvaardigd voordeel voor een derde te verkrijgen en de overheid verlies toe te brengen, en medeplichtigheid aan de verduistering van Tunesische overheidsgelden door een openbaar ambtsdrager (voormalig president Ben Ali).
 3.
 Mohamed Slim Ben Mohamed Hassen Ben Salah CHIBOUB
 Tunesiër, geboren op 13 januari 1959, zoon van Leïla CHAIBI, getrouwd met Dorsaf BEN ALI, president-directeur van een onderneming, woonachtig rue du Jardin — Sidi Bousaid — Tunis, houder van CNI nr. 00400688.
 Persoon naar wie door de Tunesische autoriteiten een gerechtelijk onderzoek is ingesteld wegens misbruik van invloed op een openbaar ambtsdrager (voormalig president Ben Ali) met het oog op het direct of indirect verkrijgen van voordelen ten behoeve van derden en medeplichtigheid aan machtsmisbruik door een openbaar ambtsdrager om een ongerechtvaardigd voordeel voor een derde te verkrijgen en de overheid verlies toe te brengen.


type: other

text:
Tik Tok Troll Part 33 Tik Tok Troll Tamil Sonamutha Pocha Tik Tok Video Tamil Dubsmash Troll
 Tik Tok Troll Part 33 Tik Tok Troll Tamil Sonamutha Pocha Tik Tok Video Tamil Dubsmash Troll....!
 watch TIK TOK TROLL PART 30 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | TIK TOK VIDEO TAMIL | DUBSMASH TROLL and Download TIK TOK TROLL PART 30 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | TIK TOK VIDEO TAMIL | DUBSMASH TROLL
 TIK TOK TROLL 12 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA |TIK TOK TAMIL | MUSICALLY TROLL
 watch TIK TOK TROLL 12 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA |TIK TOK TAMIL | MUSICALLY TROLL and Download TIK TOK TROLL 12 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA |TIK TOK TAMIL | MUSICALLY TROLL
 Mix - TIK TOK TROLL PART 33 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | TIK TOK VIDEO TAMIL | DUBSMASH TROLL
 watch Mix - TIK TOK TROLL PART 33 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | TIK TOK VIDEO TAMIL | DUBSMASH TROLL and Download Mix - TIK TOK TROLL PART 33 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | TIK TOK VIDEO TAMIL | DUBSMASH TROLL
 watch TIK TOK TROLL PART 26 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | DUBSMASH TROLL | MUSICALLY TROLL 26 and Download TIK TOK TROLL PART 26 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | DUBSMASH TROLL | MUSICALLY TROLL 26
 Tik Tok Troll Tamil - Tik Tok Atrocities Troll - Vadivelu - Part #2
 watch Tik Tok Troll Tamil - Tik Tok Atrocities Troll - Vadivelu - Part #2 and Download Tik Tok Troll Tamil - Tik Tok Atrocities Troll - Vadivelu - Part #2
 TIK TOK TROLL PART 18 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | MUSICALLY TROLL | DUBSMASH TROLL2020
 watch TIK TOK TROLL PART 18 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | MUSICALLY TROLL | DUBSMASH TROLL2020 and Download TIK TOK TROLL PART 18 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | MUSICALLY TROLL | DUBSMASH TROLL2020
 watch TIK TOK TROLL PART 23 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | MUSICALLY TROLL |DUBSMASH TROLL 2020 and Download TIK TOK TROLL PART 23 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | MUSICALLY TROLL |DUBSMASH TROLL 2020
 watch TIK TOK TROLL PART 27 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | DUBSMASH TROLL | MUSICALLY TROLL 27 and Download TIK TOK TROLL PART 27 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | DUBSMASH TROLL | MUSICALLY TROLL 27
 TIK TOK TROLL PART 16 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA 2.0 | #MUSICALLY #TIKTOKTROLL #TROLL
 watch TIK TOK TROLL PART 16 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA 2.0 | #MUSICALLY #TIKTOKTROLL #TROLL and Download TIK TOK TROLL PART 16 | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA 2.0 | #MUSICALLY #TIKTOKTROLL #TROLL
 TIK TOK TROLL PART | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | TIK TOK VIDEO TAMIL | DUBSMASH TROLL
 watch TIK TOK TROLL PART | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | TIK TOK VIDEO TAMIL | DUBSMASH TROLL and Download TIK TOK TROLL PART | TIK TOK TROLL TAMIL | SONAMUTHA POCHA | TIK TOK VIDEO TAMIL | DUBSMASH TROLL


jurisdiction: US

text:
 268 Md. 445 (1973)
 302 A.2d 4
 VON LUSCH
 v.
 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY ET AL.
 [No. 207, September Term, 1972.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided March 28, 1973.
 The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and BARNES, SINGLEY, DIGGES and LEVINE, JJ.
 James F. Vance for appellant.
 Franklin Goldstein and James E. Thompson, Jr., with whom was Vachel A. Downes, Jr., on the brief, for appellees.
 BARNES, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 This appeal involves the validity of a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of Queen Anne's County on June 22, 1971, adding to Article 17 new Sections 17.14, 17.141 and 17.142 in regard to airports, airfields and landing strips in Queen Anne's County. The Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County (Turner, J.), in a written opinion *447 filed July 28, 1972, declared the action of the County Commissioners of Queen Anne's County (County Commissioners) in adopting the amendment valid and denied the petition of appeal of Richard von Lusch, who perfected a timely appeal to us from Judge Turner's order.
 The Bay Bridge Airport, owned by Kent Island Limited Partnership, is located on the south side of United States Route 50/301 approximately one-half mile east of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge near Stevensville, Queen Anne's County. It was zoned R-4 in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance adopted by the County Commissioners in April 1964. Later, in September 1966, the property was rezoned to the M-1 (Industrial Park) zone. The permitted uses in this zone, by Article 15 of the Zoning Ordinance, were light manufacturing uses as well as the usual agricultural uses, but did not include an airport use. Article 15.30 permitted accessory buildings and uses "customarily incident to any permitted use." Section 15.502 provided as follows:
 "No use shall be permitted to be established or maintained which by reason of its nature or manner of operation is or may become hazardous, objectionable, or offensive, by reason of explosion, fire, odor, dust, smoke, cinders, gas, fumes, noise, vibration, radiation, refuse matter, or water-carried waste."
 Article 19.4 of the Zoning Ordinance in regard to violations provided that the County Commissioners, their attorney, the Zoning Administrator "or any adjacent or neighboring property owner who would be specifically damaged" by a violation in addition to other remedies provided by law "may institute injunction, mandamus, abatement, or any other appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, restrain, correct or abate" the unlawful act or use.
 In approximately 1962, the appellant von Lusch purchased his home and business property  "Old Schoolhowse Antiques"  immediately north across Route *448 50/301 from the Bay Bridge Airport. His testimony in the hearing before the County Commissioners in connection with the proposed text amendment indicated that the noise and dangers from the operation of the airport concerned him greatly and caused him to have heart attacks, loss of hearing, severe nervousness, tension and other substantial damages. Other persons in the neighborhood of the airport indicated that they too had been substantially disturbed and endangered by the operation of the airport.
 Mr. von Lusch in June of 1971 filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne's County, in Equity, to enjoin the alleged illegal commercial airport operations of the Bay Bridge Airport; Kent Island Limited Partnership, the owner of Bay Bridge Airport, intervened in this suit as a party defendant. Before this suit was tried on its merits, however, the County Commissioners proceeded with a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, the passage of which rendered the equity suit moot. Mr. von Lusch filed his order for appeal and his petition for appeal to the circuit court in regular course to challenge the validity of the text amendment.
 The text amendment was originally prepared by the Planning Commission of Queen Anne's County at the request of the County Commissioners on March 17, 1971, for a proposed amendment in regard to airports. The Planning Commission submitted its recommended amendments to the County Commissioners on May 18, 1971. The proposed amendments as prepared by the Planning Commission were as follows:
 "17.14  Airfields
 "In any district an airport, airfield, landing strip, seaplane base or any similarly designed area for the landing or taking off of aircraft, either as a principal use or accessary use, shall be a Conditional Use, and subject to approval of the Board of Appeals, provided that:
 "(a) The area shall be sufficient to meet the *449 Civil Aeronautics Administration requirements for the class of airport proposed.
 "(b) No application shall be considered, unless it is accompanied by a plan, drawn to scale, showing the proposed locations of the airport; boundary lines; dimensions; names of owners of abutting properties; proposed layout of runways, landing strips or areas, taxi strips, aprons, roads, parking areas, hangars, buildings and other structures and facilities; a sound-contour map; the location and height of all buildings, structures, trees and overhead wires falling within the airport approach zones and less than five hundred (500) feet distant from the boundary line of the airport; other pertinent data such as topography and grading plan, drainage, water and sewage, etc.
 "17.141
 "Every existing airport, airfield, landing strip, seaplane base or any similarly designed area for the landing and taking off of aircraft as of the date of enactment of this amendment shall be deemed a non-conforming use as of that date and shall not be extended or enlarged except by complying with the procedure of Section 17.14.
 "The enactment of Sections 17.14, 17.141 and this section shall supersede all other regulations regarding airfields, airports, landing strips and the like set forth in this Ordinance, whether as an accessory or principal use." (Emphasis supplied)
 The County Commissioners gave notice of a hearing by publishing the entire text of the amendments recommended by the Planning Commission, as above set forth, preceded by the following:
 "NOTICE OF HEARING
 "The County Commissioners of Queen Anne's *450 County hereby give notice that a public hearing will be held in its office in the Court House, Centreville, Maryland on Tuesday, June 15, 1971 at 1:30 o'clock P.M. upon the recommendation of the Queen Anne's County Planning Commission to amend the text of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Queen Anne's County, as follows:".
 This notice of hearing was published for three successive weeks prior to June 15, 1971, in both The Bay Times, a weekly newspaper published at Stevensville, and the Record-Observer, a weekly newspaper published in Centreville.
 The hearing on June 15 was quite well attended. Testimony was taken from 21 property owners and interested parties in addition to statements of counsel for the County Commissioners, for the Planning Commission and for Kent Island Limited Partnership, the owner of the Bay Bridge Airport.
 On June 22, 1971, the County Commissioners rendered a decision in the case. The decision, after reviewing the prior proceedings and testimony taken at the June 15 hearing, stated:
 "The County Commissioners find that the testimony of those opposed to airports and in particular the Bay Bridge Airport is not impressive.
 "The County Commissioners find as a fact that the question of airports was not given adequate consideration at the time of the adoption of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in 1964. It is further evident that there is some confusion in the use of the terms airport, landing strip, etc. in the present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The County Commissioners further find that the question of the location, size and other questions involving airports, landing strips, etc. is best left to the sound discretion *451 of the Board of Appeals for consideration on a case by case basis. The County Commissioners further find that the proposed amendment with certain modifications as hereinafter more fully set forth is compatible with the comprehensive Plan for Queen Anne's County.
 "For the reasons stated, it was moved by Mr. Ashley, seconded by Mr. Grollman, and unanimously resolved that the following amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Queen Anne's County be adopted.
 "BE IT ORDAINED, that Article 17 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended by adding new sections 17.14, 17.141 and 17.142 to read as follows:
 "17.14  Airports
 "In any district an airport, airfield, landing strip, seaplane base or any similarly designed area for the landing or taking off of aircraft, either as a principal use or accessory use, shall be a conditional use and subject to approval of the Board of Appeals, provided that:
 "a. The area shall be sufficient to meet the Maryland State Aviation Commission and applicable Federal requirements for the class of airport proposed.
 "b. No application for a commercial airport shall be considered, unless it is accompanied by a plan, drawn to scale, showing the proposed location of the airport, boundary lines, dimensions, names of owners of abutting properties, proposed layout of runways, landing strips or areas, taxi strips, aprons, roads, parking areas, hangars, buildings and other structures and facilities; the location and height of all buildings, structures, trees and overhead *452 wires falling within the airport approach zones and less than five hundred (500) feet distant from the boundary line of the airport. Other pertinent data such as topography and grading plan, drainage, water and sewage, etc. may be required if deemed necessary by the Board of Appeals.
 "c. No application for a private, non-commercial, airport shall be considered unless it is accompanied by a plan showing the proposed location of the airport, boundary lines, dimensions, names of owners of abutting properties, proposed layout of runways, landing strips or areas, taxi strips, aprons, roads, parking areas, hangars, buildings and other structures and facilities; the location and height of all buildings, structures, trees and overhead wires falling within the airport approach zones and less than two hundred (200) feet distant from the boundary line of the airport.
 "17.141
 "Every existing airport, airfield, landing strip, seaplane base or any similarly designed area for the landing and taking off of aircraft whether the same be private, commercial or non-commercial existing as of the date of enactment of this amendment shall be deemed a conditional use as of that date but the same shall not be extended or enlarged except by complying with the procedures set forth in Section 17.14. Provided further, however, that any existing commercial airport shall comply with that portion of Section 17.14 which requires a plan drawn to scale: said plan to be provided to both the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission within six (6) months of the date of enactment of this amendment.
 *453 "17.142
 "The enactment of Section 17.14, 17.141 and this Section shall supersede all other regulations regarding airports, airfields, landing strips, and the like set forth in this Ordinance whether as an accessory or principal use."
 (Emphasis supplied)
 It was also provided that the ordinance become effective as of its date, June 22, 1971.
 As we have indicated, the circuit court was of the opinion that the amendatory ordinance as finally adopted was valid and denied the appellant von Lusch's petition for appeal.
 The appellant raised below and before us five contentions that the ordinance, as adopted by the County Commissioners, was invalid because:
 1. Of the failure to give due public notice as required by Code (1970 Repl. Vol.) Art. 66B, § 4.04.
 2. Of the failure of the County Commissioners to refer the modified version back to the Planning Commission, as required by Section 21.23 of the Zoning Ordinance.
 3. It is ultra vires and void for failure to accord with the statutory zoning purposes.
 4. Of the failure of the County Commissioners to make requisite findings as required by Art. 66B, § 4.05 (a).
 5. The findings made by the County Commissioners do not support the action taken and are not based upon substantial evidence thus making its action arbitrary and capricious and resulting in a denial of due process of law.
 Inasmuch as we have concluded that the appellant is correct in regard to his first two contentions so that the order of the lower court of July 28, 1972, must be reversed for those two reasons, we do not reach and do not decide the remaining three points.
 *454 1.
 Article 66B, § 4.04 provides as follows:
 "The local legislative body shall provide for the manner in which such regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of such districts shall be determined, established, and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented, modified, or repealed. However, no such regulation, restriction, or boundary shall become effective until after at least one public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. At least fifteen (15) days' notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in an official paper or a paper of general circulation in said jurisdiction."
 We considered the requirements of a second notice and hearing when substantial changes are made in a Zoning Ordinance after the first notice and hearing in the recent case of Rasnake v. Board of County Commissioners of Cecil County, 268 Md. 295, 300 A.2d 651 (1973), decided well after Judge Turner's decision in the present case. In Rasnake, we held that where there has been a substantial difference between the proposed zoning text amendment as advertised and as ultimately proposed to be passed by the local legislative body, that body must readvertise the new and substantially different proposed ordinance and have a hearing in regard to it. The substantial difference in Rasnake was the requirement of a bond for the maintenance of mobile homes which was not included within the terms and advertised notice of hearing for the originally proposed text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Indeed, in the present case, we are of the opinion that the departure from the provisions of the originally proposed and advertised amendment is more striking and different than was the substantial departure in Rasnake. In short, we consider Rasnake to be controlling and dispositive on this point.
 *455 In the present case, the Planning Commission originally recommended and, the proposed amendment as advertised, provided that "[e]very existing airport, airfield, landing strip, seaplane base or any similarly designed area for the landing and taking off of aircraft" as of the date of enactment "shall be deemed a nonconforming use as of that date" (Emphasis supplied) and should not be extended or enlarged except by complying with the procedure of Section 17.14, i.e., as a "conditional use" (defined in Section 3.12 as a use which may be permitted by the granting of a special exception as defined in Art. 66B). The Board of Appeals is given the power to hear and decide conditional uses (or special exceptions) as authorized by § 4.07 of Art. 66B (formerly § 22) and the Board of Appeals may impose conditions or exceptions with respect to location, construction, maintenance and operation in addition to those expressly stipulated in the ordinance as the Board of Appeals may deem necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and public interest.
 As was pointed out in the testimony at the hearing on June 15, 1971, the proposed amendment to make all existing airports of every kind non-conforming uses was quite harsh in that:
 (a) Non-conforming uses by virtue of Section 5.0322 of the Zoning Ordinance must be phased out within two to five years unless necessary rezoning or a special exception is obtained. By the provisions of Section 15.401, however, an accessory use legally existing in the M-1 zone even though non-conforming would not be subject to the non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
 (b) A sound-contour map was required by the proposed amendment to accompany an application for a special exception to validate a non-conforming use and this would cost between $500 and $1,500.
 (c) The requirement that the site plan accompanying the special exception must show buildings, structures, trees and overhead wires within approach lanes and *456 within 500 feet of the airport boundaries would be quite expensive and such information within 200 feet would be adequate.
 (d) A topography map to accompany an application for a special exception would cost up to $2,000.
 (e) The proposed amendment would treat all commercial and private airports, airfields and landing strips alike regardless of scope or nature or magnitude of operations.
 (f) No consideration was given for waiving the phasing out requirement for non-conforming airports, airfields and landing strips in zones other than M-1 as had been done in that zone by Section 15.401.
 The text amendment as adopted by the County Commissioners provided for separate treatment for commercial airports and private, non-commercial airports but, more importantly, provided in Section 17.141 that every existing airport, airfield, landing strip, whether commercial or non-commercial as of the date of enactment of the ordinance, "shall be deemed a conditional use as of that date," thus purporting to grant a special exception to those existing uses without reference to the Board of Appeals and provided that this ordinance would supersede all other regulations for those uses. This action of conferring a special exception status on the uses thereby making them a permitted conforming use not subject to phasing out or other restrictions applicable to the originally proposed non-conforming use status is a most substantial change in both theory and practical application of the provisions of that ordinance to those uses. One might say that it was practically a 180 degree change of position. Such a substantial change in provisions must be the subject of another notice and hearing as we held in Rasnake.
 2.
 As we have already pointed out, Art. 66B, § 4.04 requires the local legislative body to provide for the manner in which amendments should be made. Pursuant to *457 this requirement, inter alia, the County Commissioners provided in Section 21.23 as follows:
 "21.23 No change in or departure from the proposed amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission shall be made unless the same be resubmitted to said Commission for its further recommendation. The Planning Commission shall file its further recommendation within thirty (30) days, unless additional time is granted, after which the County Commissioners shall make their decision."
 As we have already noted, Section 3.00 provides that the word "shall" is mandatory and not directory.
 It is apparent that the provisions of Section 21.23 are mandatory and must be complied with by the County Commissioners. There is sound reason for this mandatory requirement, i.e., that the County Commissioners should have the benefit of the expertise of the Planning Commission in the amendatory process. The appellees seek to overcome this requirement by suggesting that inasmuch as the counsel for the Planning Commission was present at the June 15 hearing and indicated that the proposed change was, in his opinion, in accord with the thinking of the Planning Commission, no useful purpose would be served by resubmission to the Planning Commission. The short answer to this contention is that the ordinance provides mandatorily for a return to the Planning Commission, itself, the deliberation of that Commission on the proposed change and a further report by that Commission to the County Commissioners. There is no provision that counsel for the Planning Commission can give that consideration and it is clear to us that he cannot commit the Planning Commission to the approval of a change with no re-referral and consideration by the Planning Commission. It is quite true that as and when the proposed change is referred back to the Planning Commission and a further report made to the County Commissioners by that Commission, *458 the County Commissioners are not bound by that Commission's recommendations. See Bujno v. Montgomery County Council, 243 Md. 110, 118, 220 A.2d 126, 130 (1966); Miller v. Abrahams, 239 Md. 263, 272, 211 A.2d 309, 314 (1965); and 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 4.32 (1968). This does not mean, however, that the County Commissioners may, in effect, accept the opinion of counsel for the Planning Commission for what he thinks the Planning Commission will conclude and recommend and ignore the mandatory provisions of Section 21.23 of the Zoning Ordinance.
 For these two reasons, we have concluded that the adoption of the text amendments by the County Commissioners on June 22, 1971, creating new Sections 17.14, 17.141 and 17.142 of the Zoning Ordinance was invalid and void. As we have indicated, we do not reach or decide the other questions raised by the appellant.
 In our opinion, the appellant has printed much unnecessary material in his record extract so that we have decided to require him to pay one-half of the costs of printing the record extract, the remaining costs to be paid equally by the County Commissioners and Kent Island Limited Partnership.
 Order of July 28, 1972, reversed, the appellant von Lusch to pay one-half the costs of printing the record extract; the Board of County Commissioners of Queen Anne's County, one of the appellees, to pay one-half of the costs and Kent Island Limited Partnership, the other appellee, to pay the remaining one-half of the costs.


type: wikipedia

text:
Glavni bojni tank (angleško Main Battle Tank; kratica MBT, rusko Основной боевой танк (ОБТ)) je vrsta tanka, ki je nastala po drugi svetovni vojni ter na podlagi izkušenj in dognanj, ki jih je prinesla ta vojna.
 Tako je bil razvit nov tank, ki je bil po stari razvrstitvi uvrščen med srednje glavne bojne tanke ter zastarele težke tanke. Novo vrsto tanka so dobili predvsem tako, da so na srednje glavne bojne tanke dodali večji oklep, močnejši motor in večji top, toda hkrati obdržali lastnosti srednjih glavnih bojnih tankov.
 V to skupino tako spadajo: ameriški M1 Abrams, nemški Leopard 1/2, francoski Leclerc, ruski T-90, britanski Challenger 2, ...
 Glej tudi
 razvrstitev tankov
 Zunanje povezave
 Vrste tankov


text:
Trigonometria (, kolmekulmainen, ja , métron, mitata), kolmiomitanto, on kolmioita ja kulmia käsittelevä matematiikan ala.
 Trigonometrian perustana on se tosiasia, että kaikki suorakulmaiset kolmiot, joissa on suoran kulman lisäksi toinen yhtä suuri kulma, ovat keskenään yhdenmuotoisia. Koska yhdenmuotoisten kolmioiden vastinsivujen suhteet ovat samat, suorakulmaisen kolmion sivujen suhteet määräytyvät vain kolmion (ei-suorasta) kulmasta. Nämä suhteet ovat siis pelkästään kulman funktioita.
 Suorakulmaisen kolmion , , kolmesta sivusta , ja voidaan muodostaa kuusi suhdetta. Nämä on tapana nimittää kulman funktioiksi seuraavasti:
 sin() on eli kulman vastakkaisen sivun pituus jaettuna hypotenuusan pituudella;
 cos() on eli viereisen sivun pituus hypotenuusan pituudella ja
 tan() on eli vastaisen sivun pituus jaettuna viereisen sivun pituudella
 Lisäksi on :n kotangentti, on :n sekantti ja on :n kosekantti.
 Näiden suhteiden eli trigonometristen funktioiden arvoja on aikojen kuluessa taulukoitu ja muita menetelmiä niiden tuottamiseksi kehitetty. Trigonometristen funktioiden, erityisesti sinin ja kosinin, arvojen tuntemus ja sinilauseen ja kosinilauseen käyttö tekevät mahdolliseksi kolmion tuntemattomien osien laskemisen, kun kolmiosta tunnetaan vähintään kaksi osaa, joista ainakin yksi on kolmion sivun pituus.
 Trigonometrialla on monia sovelluksia esimerkiksi tähtitieteessä, tilastotieteessä, kemiassa, arkkitehtuurissa, meteorologiassa ja kartografiassa.
 Trigonometrisista funktioista
 Pääartikkeli: Trigonometrinen funktio
 Klassiset määritelmät
 Suorakulmaisessa kolmiossa , , sivujen suhteisiin vaikuttaa vain terävän kulman () suuruus, ei kolmion koko. Kolmion pisintä sivua kutsutaan sen hypotenuusaksi, lyhempiä sivuja :n vastaiseksi ja :n viereiseksi kateetiksi. Näitä sivujen suhteita nimitetään kulman trigonometrisiksi funktioiksi.
 SINI sin α = a/c;
 KOSINI cos α = b/c
 TANGENTTI tan α = a/b
 KOTANGENTTI cot α = b/a
 SEKANTTI sec α = c/b
 KOSEKANTTI csc α = c/a
 Kateettien ja hypotenuusan pituuksien välillä olevaa yhteyttä kutsutaan nimellä Pythagoraan lause. Se on erikoistapaus kosinilauseesta.
 Yleensä käytetään vain kahta tai kolmea ensimmäistä funktiota, koska kotangentti, sekantti ja kosekantti saadaan tangentin, kosinin ja sinin (vastaavasti) käänteisarvoina ja tangentti on sinin ja kosinin osamäärä.
 Yleisempi määritelmä
 Piirretään suorakulmaiseen xy-koordinaatistoon yksikköympyrä eli ympyrä, jonka keskipiste on origossa ja säde on yksi, ja tarkastellaan ympyrän kehän tason ensimmäisessä neljänneksessä sijaitsevaa pistettä . Jos -akselin ja pisteen origoon yhdistävän janan välinen kulma on , niin sinin ja kosinin määritelmän perusteella ja . Tämä antaa aiheen laajentaa sinin ja kosinin määritelmät myös sellaisille kulmille , jotka eivät toteuta ehtoa . Määritelmä syntyy sijoittamalla kulma niin, että sen kärki on origo ja oikea kylki on positiivinen -akseli. Jos vasen kylki leikkaa yksikköympyrän pisteessä , asetetaan ja . Kun :n ajatellaan syntyvän kiertona positiivisesta -akselista vastapäivään eli positiiviseen kiertosuuntaan, kun on positiivinen, ja myötäpäivään eli negatiiviseen kiertosuuntaan, kun on negatiivinen, saadaan määritelmä koskemaan kaikkia kulmia (tai kiertoja).
 Muut trigonometriset funktiot ovat sinin ja kosinin suhteita tai käänteislukuja. Niiden yleiset määritelmät palautuvat siis sinin ja kosinin yleiseen määritelmään. Koska sini ja kosini saavat tietyillä kulmilla arvon 0, niin tangentti, kotangentti, sekantti ja kosekantti eivät ole määriteltyjä kaikilla kulmilla.
 Koska kulmia mitataan eri yksiköin, on trigonometristen funktioiden avulla laskettaessa otettava huomioon käytettävä mittayksikkö (asteet, piirut, radiaanit jne.). Silloin, kun trigonometrisia funktioita käytetään alkuperäisestä geometrisesta yhteydestään irrotettuina, oletetaan yleensä, että niiden argumentit ovat paljaita lukuja. Kulmiin palautettuna tämä tarkoittaa kulman yksikköä radiaani eli ns. absoluuttista kulman yksikköä.
 Sarjakehitelmät
 Sini- ja kosinifunktion arvot voidaan laskea niiden sarjakehitelmistä kaikilla reaaliluvuilla :
 ,
 .
 Näistä sarjoista voidaan johtaa myös muiden trigonometristen funktioiden sarjakehitelmiä, esimerkiksi
 ,
 ,
 ,
 .
 Näissä :t ovat ns. Bernoullin lukuja ja :t ns. Eulerin lukuja.
 Trigonometrisiin funktioihin liittyviä kaavoja
 Peruskaavoja
 Muunnoskaavoja
 Derivointi
 Trigonometristen funktioiden monikertaisten kulmien kaavat (esimerkiksi ) voidaan johtaa De Moivren kaavalla.
 Integrointi
 Pallotrigonometria
 Yleensä trigonometrialla tarkoitetaan vain tasopinnalle sijoitettuja kolmioita käsittelevää matematiikkaa. Pallotrigonometria käsittelee kolmioita, jotka muodostuvat pallon isoympyröiden kaarista. Pallokolmion kulmien ja sivujen suuruus ilmaistaan kulmamitoin. Pallotrigonometrialla on runsaasti sovelluksia tähtitieteessä.
 Katso myös
 Arkusfunktiot
 Geometria
 Hyperbolinen funktio
 Lähteet
 Aiheesta muualla
 Opetusvideoita aiheesta Opetus.tv-sivustolla
 Matematiikkalehti Solmu, Erkki Luoma-aho: Matematiikan historia aihealueittain, Trigonometria (pdf)
 Trigonometria
 Seulonnan keskeiset artikkelit


text:
L-Indian Premier League (IPL) huwa kampjonat tal-cricket tal-irġiel professjonali, ikkontestat minn għaxar timijiet ibbażati minn għaxar ibliet Indjani. Il-kampjonat twaqqfet mill- Bord tal-Kontroll għall-Cricket fl-Indja (BCCI) fl-2007.
 L-IPL huwa l-kampjonat tal-cricket li attenda l-aktar fid-dinja u fl-2014 ġie kklassifikat fis-sitt post bl-attendenza medja fost il-kampjonati sportivi kollha. Fl-2010, IPL sar l-ewwel avveniment sportiv fid-dinja li xxandar dirett fuq YouTube. Il-valur tad-ditta tal-IPL fl-2019 kien US$6.3 biljon. L-istaġun tal-IPL tal-2015 kkontribwixxa US$150 miljun għall-PGD tal-ekonomija Indjana.
 Kien hemm erbatax-il staġun tat-tournament IPL. Id-detenturi attwali tat-titlu tal-IPL huma ċ-Chennai Super Kings, li rebħu l-istaġun 2021.
 Referenzi
 Sport fl-Indja


text:
Cantinho da Déa: Setembro 2014
 Há pessoas, que destilam tanto veneno e de o fazerem, se regozijam.... Pobre delas, que não sabem que todo esse veneno, está sendo por elas mesmas absorvido e que um dia, mesmo achando que a sua vitória é plena, padecerão e responderão por todo o veneno destilado.... e, aprenderão, que a maior quantidade dele, permaneceu nelas e não nas pessoas a quem quiseram envenenar....... Normalmente, neste caminho, outros também serão envenenados, ludibriados.... mas verão no futuro, que somente foram usados para os fins espúrios do outro..... quem sabe, conseguirão remediar-se ao assumirem seus erros e pedirão perdão.... assim, o veneno o será afastado de si.......Felizes, daqueles que são perseguidos.................
 A Coordenadora da Coordenadoria de Gestão de Recursos Humanos, considerando a necessidade de estabelecer datas, prazos e diretrizes para as inscrições do processo de atribuição de classes e aulas, expede a presente Portaria:Artigo 1o - As classes e as aulas das escolas da rede estadual de ensino, obedecida à legislação pertinente, serão atribuídas para o ano letivo de 2015 a:I – docentes efetivos;II – docentes estáveis pela Constituição Federal de 1988;III – docentes celetistas;IV – docentes com vínculo assegurado em lei, a que se refere o § 2o do artigo 2o da Lei Complementar no1. 010/2007;V – docentes contratados, nos termos da Lei Complementar no1. 093/2009.VI – docentes remanescentes, aprovados no Concurso público de PEB-II/2013, na 1a e 2a opção.Artigo 2o - Os professores da rede estadual de ensino e os contratados em 2014, deverão efetuar inscrição para o processo de atribuição de classes e aulas de 2015 diretamente no site:http://drhunet.edunet.sp.gov.br/portalnet/, no período abaixo discriminado, procedendo, a seu critério, às seguintes indicações:Período de Inscrição e Solicitação de Acerto de 12/09/2014 a 10/10/2014.I – Docentes efetivos,a) confirmação e/ou solicitação de acerto na inscrição;b) indicação para Jornada de Trabalho Docente: manutenção, ampliação ou redução, exceto, para a Jornada Reduzida de Trabalho Docente, nos termos do artigo 4o da Lei Complementar 1.207/2013. A Redução de jornada ficará condicionada ao artigo 16, parágrafo 5o da Resolução SE 75/2013.c) inscrição para atribuição de classes ou aulas nos termos do artigo 22 da Lei Complementar 444/85;d) opção para atuação em classes, turmas ou aulas de Projetos da Pasta.II - Docentes - Categorias “P”, “N” e “F”,a) confirmação e/ou solicitação de acerto na inscrição;b) indicação da carga horária máxima pretendida;c) transferência de Diretoria de Ensino.III – DOCENTES CONTRATADOS em 2014, nos termos da LC no1093/2009, no período acima mencionado.a) confirmação e solicitação de acerto de inscrição e indicações no sitehttp://drhunet.edunet.sp.gov.br/portalnet/;b) carga horária máxima pretendida.Artigo 3o - Acertos de inscrição como: Dados Pessoais, Formação Curricular e Contagem de tempo, deverão ser solicitados à Unidade Escolar de classificação.Os docentes deverão apresentar-se na Unidade Escolar/Diretoria de Ensino os documentos comprobatórios para o acerto solicitado.Artigo 4o - As Diretorias de Ensino/Unidades Escolares deverão, até às 18 horas do dia 24/10/2014 deferir/indeferir a solicitação pendente de acerto.Artigo 5o - O docente que solicitou acerto até o dia 10/10/2014 deverá confirmar sua inscrição, após atendimento à solicitação, deferido ou indeferido, até 29/10/2014.Artigo 6o – Docentes remanescentes do Concurso Público PEB-II/2013 participarão do processo de atribuição de classes/aulas, observada a classificação obtida no concurso, na 1a e 2a opção, estando desobrigados de realizar a inscrição.Artigo 7o - Os docentes abrangidos pelo § 2o do artigo 2o da Lei Complementar no 1.010/2007 e os docentes efetivos poderão optar em se inscrever na modalidade Projetos da Pasta, em funcionalidade específica do sistema.Parágrafo único: Caberá à Comissão de Atribuição de Classes e Aulas da Diretoria de Ensino, a partir de 11/10/2014, nos termos das legislações que regulamentam os referidos Projetos:I – publicar o edital para inscrição em projetos;II - divulgar o período em que os docentes deverão apresentar, quando for o caso, a proposta de trabalho para projetos;IV – divulgar a classificação dos docentes selecionados.Artigo 8o - As demais fases e os cronogramas de classificação e de atribuição de classes e aulas para o ano letivo de 2015 serão estabelecidos em Portaria a ser publicada oportunamente.Artigo 9o - Esta Portaria entra em vigor na data de sua publicação.drhunet.edunet.sp.gov.brDRHUNET.EDUNET.SP.GOV.BRdrhunet.edunet.sp.gov.brdrhunet.edunet.sp.gov.br


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21992A0220(01)
 Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway on the adaptation of the Agreement concerning reciprocal trade in cheese
 Official Journal L 044 , 20/02/1992 P. 0039 - 0039
 AGREEMENT in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway on the adaptation of the Agreement concerning reciprocal trade in cheeseA. Letter from the Community Sir,I have the honour to refer to the consultations held between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway under paragraph 7 of the Agreement concerning reciprocal trade in cheese, signed on 22 March 1989.I hereby confirm that these consultations have led to the following results:1. For 1992, the quantities of cheese and the import duties laid down by the said Agreement are maintained without change;2. During the second half of 1992, consultations will be held, if necessary, to determine the quantities and import duties applicable for the following years.I should be obliged if you would confirm your Government's agreement concerning the content of this letter.Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.On behalf of the Council of the European Communities B. Letter from Norway Sir,I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today's date which reads as follows:'I have the honour to refer to the consultations held between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Norway under paragraph 7 of the Agreement concerning reciprocal trade in cheese, signed on 22 March 1989.I hereby confirm that these consultations have led to the following results:1. For 1992, the quantities of cheese and the import duties laid down by the said Agreement are maintained without change;2. During the second half of 1992, consultations will be held, if necessary, to determine the quantities and import duties applicable for the following years.I should be obliged if you would confirm your Government's agreement concerning the content of this letter.` I have the honour to confirm that my Government is in agreement with the contents of this letter.Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration.For the Government of the Kingdom of Norway


text:
 23.2.2006
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 53/60
 SKLEP SKUPNEGA ODBORA EGP
 št. 156/2005
 z dne 2. decembra 2005
 o spremembi Priloge XXI (Statistika) k Sporazumu EGP
 SKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE –
 ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, kakor je bil spremenjen s Protokolom o prilagoditvi Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru, v nadaljnjem besedilu „Sporazum“, in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Priloga XXI k Sporazumu je bila spremenjena s Sklepom Skupnega odbora EGP št. 128/2005 (1).
 (2)
 Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 430/2005 z dne 15. marca 2005 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 577/98 o organizaciji vzorčne raziskave delovne sile v Skupnosti o šifriranju, ki se od leta 2006 dalje uporablja za posredovanje podatkov, in uporabi podvzorca za zbiranje podatkov o strukturnih spremenljivkah (2) je treba vključiti v Sporazum.
 (3)
 Odločbo Komisije 2005/288/ES z dne 18. marca 2005 o spremembah Odločbe 97/80/ES o določbah za izvajanje Direktive Sveta 96/16/ES glede statističnih raziskav mleka in mlečnih proizvodov (3) je treba vključiti v Sporazum.
 (4)
 Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 448/2005 z dne 15. marca 2005 o spremembi Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 3880/91 o predložitvi statističnih podatkov o nominalnem ulovu držav članic, ki ribarijo v severovzhodnem Atlantiku (4), je treba vključiti v Sporazum –
 SKLENIL:
 Člen 1
 Priloga XXI k Sporazumu se spremeni:
 1.
 Za točko 18ah (Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 388/2005) se vstavi naslednja točka:
 „18ai.
 32005 R 0430: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 430/2005 z dne 15. marca 2005 o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 577/98 o organizaciji vzorčne raziskave delovne sile v Skupnosti o šifriranju, ki se od leta 2006 dalje uporablja za posredovanje podatkov, in uporabi podvzorca za zbiranje podatkov o strukturnih spremenljivkah (UL L 71, 17.3.2005, str. 36).“
 2.
 V točki 22 (Odločba Komisije 97/80/ES) se doda naslednja alinea:
 „—
 32005 D 0288: Odločba Komisije 2005/288/ES (UL L 88, 7.4.2005, str. 10).“
 3.
 V točki 25a (Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 3880/91) se doda naslednja alinea:
 „—
 32005 R 0448: Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 448/2005 (UL L 74, 19.3.2005, str. 5).“
 Člen 2
 Besedila uredb (ES) št. 430/2005 in (ES) št. 448/2005 ter Odločbe 2005/288/ES v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavijo v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, so verodostojna.
 Člen 3
 Ta sklep začne veljati 3. decembra 2005, če so bila Skupnemu odboru EGP predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma (5).
 Člen 4
 Ta sklep se objavi v oddelku EGP Uradnega lista Evropske unije in Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije.
 V Bruslju, 2. decembra 2005
 Za Skupni odbor EGP
 Predsednik
 Njegova presvetla visokost princ Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN
 (1) UL L 339, 22.12.2005, str. 53.
 (2) UL L 71, 17.3.2005, str. 36.
 (3) UL L 88, 7.4.2005, str. 10.
 (4) UL L 74, 19.3.2005, str. 5.
 (5) Navedena ni nobena ustavna zahteva.


text:
Sistemi Ġudizzjarji fl-Istati Membri - Greċja
 Din it-taqsima tagħtik deskrizzjoni ġenerali tas-sistema tal-qrati fil-Greċja.
 L-organizzazzjoni ġudizzjarja- is-sistemi ġudizzjarji
 L-amministrazzjoni tal-ġustizzja fil-Greċja hija waħda mit-tliet funzjonijiet tal-Istat. Skont il-prinċipju tas-separazzjoni tal-kompetenzi, il-ġustizzja hija indipendenti mill-kompetenzi leġiżlattivi u eżekuttivi.
 Tipi ta' qrati- deskrizzjoni qasira
 Il-qrati fil-Greċja huma maqsuma fil-kategorijiprinċipali li ġejjin:
 Qrati amministrattivi (Διοικητικά δικαστήρια)
 Qrati ċivili (Πολιτικά δικαστήρια)
 Qrati kriminali (Ποινικά δικαστήρια)
 Qrati marzjali (στρατοδικείο), qrati navali (ναυτοδικείο) u qrati tal-forza tal-ajru (αεροδικείο)s
 Qorti Suprema Speċjali (Ανώτατο Ειδικό Δικαστήριο)
 Qrati speċjali li jisimgħu kawżi dwar korruzzjoni
 Qrati speċjali li jisimgħu kawżi dwar ir-responsabbiltà tal-Ministri
 Qrati speċjali li jisimgħu kawżi dwar ir-rimunerazzjoni tal-uffiċjali ġudizzjarji
 Kull qorti hija amministrata minn uffiċċjali ġudizzjarji: president jew kunsill iffurmat minn tliet membri.
 Qrati ċivili:
 Qrati ċivili tad-distrett (ειρηνοδικεία), qrati tal-prim'istanza (πρωτοδικεία), qrati tal-appell (εφετεία), il-Qorti Suprema (Άρειος Πάγος)
 Qrati kriminali:
 Qrati kriminali tad-distrett (πταισματοδικεία), qrati tal-Maġistrati (πλημμελειοδικεία), qrati tal-appell, Qorti Suprema
 Qrati amministrattivi tal-prim'istanza, qrati amministrattivi tal-appell, Kunsill tal-Istat (Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας)
 Il-Ministeru tal-Ġustizzja huwa kompetenti u responsabbli għall-amministrazzjoni tal-qrati.
 Qorti amministrattiva ta' Ateni
 L-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur Pubbliku tal-Imħallfin tal-Qrati tad-Distrett
 Il-Ministeru Grieg tal-Ġustizzja, it-Trasparenza u d-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem
 Il-Qorti Suprema b'ġuriżdizzjoni ċivili u kriminali
 Sistemi Ġudizzjarji fl-Istati Membri - Spanja
 Sistemi Ġudizzjarji fl-Istati Membri - Franza
 F’din it-taqsima inti għandek issib ħarsa ġenerali tal-ġerarkija tal-qrati fi Franza.
 L-organizzazzjoni tal-qrati - qrati ta' ġudikatura ordinarja u qrati amministrattivi
 Il-qrati u t-tribunali, u l-ġerarkija tagħhom
 Il-qrati ta' ġudikatura ordinarja
 1. Tal-Prim'Istanza:
 Il-Qorti Reġjonali (Tribunal de grande instance)
 Il-Qorti Distrettwali (Tribunal d’instance)
 Qrati ċivili speċjalizzati: Tribunal għall-Impjiegi (Conseil des Prud’hommes), Qorti Kummerċjali (Tribunal de commerce), eċċ.
 Il-Qorti tal-Pulizija (Tribunal de police) (kontravenzjonijiet)
 Il-Qorti Korrettiva (Tribunal correctionnel) (delitti)
 Il-Qorti tal-Assiżi (Cour d’assises) (reati)
 2. Tat-Tieni Istanza: Il-Qorti tal-Appell (Cour d’Appel)
 3. Qorti tal-Kassazzjoni (Cour de cassation)
 Il-Qorti Amministrattiva (Tribunal administratif)
 Il-qrati amministrattivi speċjalizzati (il-qrati finanzjarji bħall-Qorti Reġjonali tal-Awdituri, il-qrati tal-protezzjoni soċjali, il-qrati dixxiplinarji professjonali)
 2. Tat-Tieni Istanza:
 Il-Qorti Amministrattiva tal-Appell (Cour administrative d’appel)
 Il-qrati amministrattivi tal-appell speċjalizzati (il-Qorti tal-Awdituri - Cour des comptes, il-Kumitat Ċentrali tal-Protezzjoni Soċjali - Commission centrale d’aide sociale eċċ.)
 3. Conseil d'Etat
 Għal aktar tagħrif ara l-websajt tal-Conseil d'Etat.
 Il-bażijiet tad-dejta ġuridiċi fi Franza huma koperti minn servizz pubbliku ta’ disseminazzjoni fuq l-internet. Għalhekk, il-websajt Légifrance tinkludi:
 is-sentenzi tal-Qorti tal-Kassazzjoni u tal-qrati tal-appell (il-bażijiet tad-dejta "CASS", "INCA" u "CAPP")
 is-sentenzi tal-Conseil d'Etat
 is-sentenzi tal-qrati amministrattivi tal-appell
 is-sentenzi ta' għadd ta' qrati amministrattivi (fuq il-bażi tad-dejta "JADE").
 L-aċċess għal dawn il-banek tad-dejta huwa bla ħlas?
 L-aċċess għal dawn il-banek tad-dejta huwa bla ħlas.
 L-organizzazzjoni tal-qrati – Franza
 L-aħħar aġġornament: 19/05/2017
 Sistemi Ġudizzjarji fl-Istati Membri - L-Ingilterra u Wales
 Ir-responsabbiltà għall-amministrazzjoni ta’ ħafna mill-qrati fl-Ingilterra u Wales hija tas-Servizz tal-Qrati u t-Tribunali tal-Maestà Tagħha ( HMCTS). L-HMCTS huwa aġenzija tal- Ministeru tal-Ġustizzja, id-dipartiment tal-gvern responsabbli mis-sistema tal-ġustizzja fl-Ingilterra u f’Wales.
 Tista’ ssib iktar informazzjoni dettaljata dwar il-qrati fl-Ingilterra u Wales fil-paġna li tiddeskrivi l-qrati ordinarji fl-Ingilterra u Wales u fis-sit elettroniku tas- Servizz tal-Qrati u t-Tribunali tal-Maestà Tagħha. L-informazzjoni dwar uħud mit-tribunali u mill-qrati speċjalizzati fl-Ingilterra u Wales tista’ ssibha fil-paġna li tiddeskrivi l-qrati speċjalizzati fl-Ingilterra u Wales.
 Sistemi Ġudizzjarji fl-Istati Membri - Skozja
 Fl-Iskozja, is- Servizz tal-Qrati Skoċċiżi huwa responsabbli għall-amministrazzjoni tal-qrati. Is-Servizz tal-Qrati Skoċċiżi (SCS) huwa entità inkorporata ppreseduta mil-Lord President, l-iktar imħallef anzjan fl-Iskozja.
 Aktar informazzjoni dettaljata dwar qrati fl-Iskozja tinsab fis-sit elettroniku tas- Servizz tal-Qrati Skoċċiżi.


text:
 113 HR 2304 IH: For the relief of Amer Numan Adi.
 U.S. House of Representatives
 2013-06-06
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 V
 113th CONGRESS
 1st Session
 H. R. 2304
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 June 6, 2013
 Mr. Ryan of Ohio
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
 Committee on the
 Judiciary
 A BILL
 For the relief of Amer Numan Adi.
 1.Permanent resident status for
 Amer Numan Adi
 (a)In
 generalNotwithstanding
 subsections (a) and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
 Amer Numan Adi shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for
 adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
 residence upon filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
 section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent
 resident.
 (b)Adjustment of
 statusIf Amer Numan Adi
 enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection
 (c), he shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if
 otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of
 the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this
 Act.
 (c)Deadline for
 application and payment of feesSubsections (a) and (b) shall
 apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the
 application for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees within 2
 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
 (d)Reduction of
 immigrant visa numberUpon
 the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Amer Numan Adi, the
 Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the
 current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that
 are made available to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section
 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total
 number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of
 the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
 (e)Denial of
 preferential immigration treatment for certain relativesThe natural parents, brothers, and sisters
 of Amer Numan Adi shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any
 right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.


text:
James Anthony Kushlan (* 11. Oktober 1947 in Cleveland, Ohio) ist ein US-amerikanischer Ornithologe, Ökologe, Pädagoge, Naturschützer und Autor.
 Leben
 Kushlan erwarb 1969 den Bachelor of Science mit der Auszeichnung cum laude an der University of Miami, wo er bis 1972 Maytag-Stipendiat und von 1972 bis 1974 Forschungsstipendiat war. 1972 graduierte er mit der Arbeit An ecological study of an alligator pond in the Big Cypress Swamp of southern Florida zum Master of Science und 1974 wurde er mit der Dissertation The ecology of the white ibis in southern Florida: a regional study unter der Leitung von Oscar T. Owre an der University of Miami zum Ph.D. in Biologie promoviert. Von 1972 bis 1973 war er Techniker für Hydrologie beim United States Geological Survey. Von 1973 bis 1975 war er biologischer Techniker beim Nationalpark-Service. Von 1975 bis 1984 war er leitender Forschungsbiologe im Everglades-Nationalpark. Von 1976 bis 1980 war er Lehrbeauftragter am Fachbereich Biologie der University of Miami. Von 1984 bis 1985 war er Außerordentlicher Professor an der Texas A&M University–Commerce. Zudem war er dort Mitglied und Präsident von Sigma Xi. Von 1985 bis 1988 war er Professor und Direktor des Water Resources Center an der Texas A&M University–Commerce. Von 1988 bis 1998 war er Professor für Biologie an der University of Mississippi, von 1988 bis 1995 Lehrstuhlinhaber. Im selben Zeitraum war er Mitglied der Association of Mississippi Colleges Biology Chairs und 1991 deren Vorsitzender.
 Von 1988 bis 1994 war er Vorsitzender und 1995 bis 2001 Direktor des Patuxent Wildlife Research Center des United States Biological Service und des United States Geological Survey. Von 2000 bis 2005 war er wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter an der Smithsonian Institution. Von 2001 bis 2002 war er leitender wissenschaftlicher Berater am United States Geological Survey.
 Von 1975 bis 1982 war er Mitglied im Florida Panther Recovery Team, von 1975 bis 1983 im American Crocodile Recovery Team und von 1979 bis 1983 im Cape Sable seaside sparrow Recovery Team. 1978 war er Gastwissenschaftler an der Charles Darwin Research Station der Charles Darwin Foundation auf den Galapagosinseln. Von 1973 bis 1983 war er wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter beim Institut für Tropenzoologie an der Universidad Central de Venezuela. 1980 war er Gastdozent am Nordischen Institut für Ökologie in Schweden. Von 1981 bis 1998 war er Mitglied der IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group. 1985 gründete er die IUCN Heron Specialist Group. 1986 war er Komiteemitglied bei der North American Prairie Conference. Von 1986 bis 1987 war er Mitglied im National Riparian Habitat Council. Von 1993 bis 1995 war er Vorsitzender der mathematisch-wissenschaftlichen Arbeitsgruppe am Mississippi Public Education Forum in Jackson.
 Von 1981 bis 1984 war er Redaktionsmitglied und von 1985 bis 1988 Chefredakteur der Zeitschrift Colononial Waterbirds der Colonial Waterbird Society, wo er von 1996 bis 1998 Präsident war. Von 1993 bis 1995 war er stellvertretender Chefredakteur der Zeitschrift Wetlands.
 Von 1994 bis 1997 war er Vorstandsmitglied, 1998 Vizepräsident sowie von 2004 bis 2006 Präsident der American Ornithologists’ Union. Von 1995 bis 2004 war er Vorstandsmitglied bei Wetlands International in den Niederlanden. Von 1996 bis 1998 war er Präsident der Waterbird Society. Von 2000 bis 2006 war er Vorstandsmitglied bei der American Bird Conservancy. Von 2006 bis 2010 war er Mitglied beim International Ornithological Committee.
 Kushlans Forschungsschwerpunkt ist die Ökologie der Feuchtgebiete, wobei er sich insbesondere Studien über die Anpassung von Wasservogel- und Fischpopulationen an schwankende Wasserbedingungen widmet. Er veröffentlichte über 250 Arbeiten über Ornithologie sowie über die Populations- und Gemeinschaftsökologie, insbesondere über den Einfluss von Umweltschwankungen, und war Co-Autor von mehreren Büchern.
 Ehrungen
 1996 verlieh ihm das Thiel College die Ehrendoktorwürde. 1999 folgte die John Cabot University in Rom. 2005 stiftete das Hawk Mountain Sanctuary den James A. Kushlan Award.
 Privates
 Kushlan war ab 1970 in erster Ehe mit Marilyn Gray Spalding verheiratet, von der er sich im November 1981 scheiden ließ. Im Dezember 1983 heiratete er Paula C. Frohring. Er hat eine Tochter und einen Sohn.
 Schriften
 (mit William F. Loftus): Fresh Water Fishes of Southern Florida, 1983.
 (mit James A. Hancock): The Herons Handbook, 1984.
 (mit James A. Hancock & M. Philip Kahl): Storks, Ibises and Spoonbills of the World, 1988.
 (mit Heinz Hafner): Heron Conservation, 2000.
 (mit Melanie J. Steinkamp, Katharine C. Parsons, Jack Capp, Martin Acosta Cruz, Malcolm Coulter, Ian Davidson, Loney Dickson, Naomi Edelson, Richard Elliot, R. Michael Erwin, Scott A. Hatch, Stephen Kress, Robert Milko, Steve Miller, Kyra L. Mills, Richard Paul, Roberto Phillips, Jorge E. Saliva, Bill Syderman, John Trapp, Jennifer Wheeler und Kenton D. Wohl): Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, 2002.
 (mit James A. Hancock): The Herons, 2005.
 Conserving Herons, 2008.
 (mit Kirsten Hines): Fairchild Tropical Gardens Bird Trail Guide, 2014.
 (mit Kirsten Hines): Key Biscayne, 2014.
 (mit Kirsten Hines): Birds of Fairchild, 2014.
 (mit Kirsten Hines): Attracting Birds to South Florida Gardens, 2014.
 (mit Kirsten Hines): Biscayne National Park, 2017.
 (mit Kirsten Hines): Dry Tortugas National Park, 2019.
 Seeking the American Tropics, South Florida’s Early Naturalists, 2020.
 Literatur
 James A. Kushlan. American Men & Women of Science: A Biographical Directory of Today’s Leaders in Physical, Biological, and Related Sciences, Gale, 2008. Gale In Context: Biography, abgerufen am 6. Juni 2022
 Weblinks
 Offizielle Website mit Curriculum Vitae
 Ornithologe
 Ökologe
 Naturschützer
 Sachbuchautor (Ornithologie)
 Hochschullehrer (Florida)
 Hochschullehrer (University of Mississippi)
 Hochschullehrer (Texas A&M University)
 US-Amerikaner
 Geboren 1947
 Mann
 Ehrendoktor der John Cabot University


text:
 5.2.2013
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 34/4
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 102/2013
 z dnia 4 lutego 2013 r.
 zmieniające rozporządzenie (UE) nr 206/2010 w odniesieniu do wpisu dotyczącego Stanów Zjednoczonych w wykazie krajów trzecich, ich terytoriów lub części, upoważnionych do wprowadzania do Unii Europejskiej żywych zwierząt kopytnych, świadectwa weterynaryjnego „POR-X” oraz protokołów badań w odniesieniu do pęcherzykowego zapalenia jamy ustnej
 (Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG)
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając dyrektywę Rady 2004/68/WE z dnia 26 kwietnia 2004 r. ustanawiającą warunki zdrowia zwierząt regulujące przywóz do oraz tranzyt przez terytorium Wspólnoty niektórych żywych zwierząt kopytnych, zmieniającą dyrektywy 90/426/EWG oraz 92/65/EWG i uchylającą dyrektywę 72/462/EWG (1), w szczególności jej art. 3 ust. 1 akapit pierwszy i drugi, art. 6 ust. 1 akapit pierwszy, art. 7 lit. e), art. 9 i art. 13 ust. 1 lit. e),
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W dyrektywie 2004/68/WE ustanowiono warunki zdrowia zwierząt regulujące przywóz do oraz tranzyt przez terytorium Unii niektórych żywych zwierząt kopytnych. Przewiduje ona możliwość ustanowienia przepisów szczegółowych, w tym wzorów świadectw weterynaryjnych dla przywozu z upoważnionych państw trzecich do Unii żywych zwierząt kopytnych należących do gatunków wymienionych w załączniku I do tej dyrektywy.
 (2)
 W rozporządzeniu Komisji (UE) nr 206/2010 z dnia 12 marca 2010 r. ustanawiającym wykazy krajów trzecich, ich terytoriów lub części, upoważnionych do wprowadzania do Unii Europejskiej niektórych zwierząt oraz świeżego mięsa, a także wymogi dotyczące świadectw weterynaryjnych (2), ustanowiono wymogi dotyczące między innymi świadectw weterynaryjnych w odniesieniu do wprowadzania do Unii niektórych przesyłek żywych zwierząt parzystokopytnych gatunków wymienionych w załączniku I do dyrektywy 2004/68/WE. W załączniku I do rozporządzenia (UE) nr 206/2010 ustanowiono wykaz państw trzecich, ich terytoriów lub części, upoważnionych do wprowadzania takich przesyłek do Unii. Ustanowiono w nim także wzory świadectw weterynaryjnych, które towarzyszą tym przesyłkom.
 (3)
 Obecnie do Unii mogą być przywożone zwierzęta kopytne wyłącznie z państw trzecich, lub w przypadku podziału na regiony z części państw trzecich, które przez okres co najmniej sześciu miesięcy przed datą wysłania zwierząt były wolne od pęcherzykowego zapalenia jamy ustnej.
 (4)
 Stany Zjednoczone złożyły wniosek o upoważnienie na przywóz do Unii żywych świń przeznaczonych do hodowli i produkcji.
 (5)
 Stany Zjednoczone zgłosiły występowanie pęcherzykowego zapalenia jamy ustnej. Choroba występowała jednak rzadko i była ograniczona do określonych obszarów. Ryzyko wprowadzenia do Unii pęcherzykowego zapalenia jamy ustnej poprzez przywóz żywych świń z tego państwa trzeciego jest nieznaczne, o ile stosuje się środki w zakresie bezpieczeństwa biologicznego opisane w rozdziale 8.15.6 Kodeksu zdrowia zwierząt lądowych Światowej Organizacji Zdrowia Zwierząt (OIE), obejmujące trzymanie świń w zamknięciu w okresie poprzedzającym wywóz w pomieszczeniach wolnych od choroby, ochronę przed wektorami w okresie kwarantanny przed wywozem oraz w czasie transportu do miejsca załadunku i badanie wszystkich zwierząt przeznaczonych do wywozu.
 (6)
 Należy zatem zmienić część pierwszą załącznika I do rozporządzenia (UE) nr 206/2010 i dodać Stany Zjednoczone do wykazu państw trzecich, ich terytoriów lub części, z których dozwolone jest wprowadzanie do Unii żywych zwierząt kopytnych, określając jednocześnie odpowiednie gwarancje w odniesieniu do badania pod kątem pęcherzykowego zapalenia jamy ustnej. W świadectwie weterynaryjnym dla żywych świń przeznaczonych do hodowli i produkcji, które towarzyszy zwierzętom w momencie wprowadzania do Unii należy potwierdzić zastosowanie tych gwarancji.
 (7)
 Należy zatem odpowiednio zmienić wzór świadectwa weterynaryjnego stosowanego w przywozie żywych świń domowych „POR-X” określonego w części 2 załącznika I do rozporządzenia (UE) nr 206/2010 i określić w nim wymogi dotyczące pobytu w okresie poprzedzającym wywóz i w okresie kwarantanny, a także dotyczące badań laboratoryjnych.
 (8)
 Artykuł 5 rozporządzenia (UE) No 206/2010 przewiduje ponadto, że w przypadkach gdy na mocy świadectw weterynaryjnych wymienionych w załączniku I do tego rozporządzenia przewidziane jest pobranie i zbadanie próbek, takie próbki pobierane i badane są zgodnie z protokołami standaryzacji materiałów i procedurami badania próbek, ustanowionymi w części 6 tego załącznika. Należy zatem zmienić część 6 załącznika I do rozporządzenia (UE) nr 206/2010 w celu dodania odpowiedniego protokołu i procedury badania pęcherzykowego zapalenia jamy ustnej. Badanie należy przeprowadzić i interpretować zgodnie z protokołami badań serologicznych pęcherzykowego zapalenia jamy ustnej zalecanych w handlu międzynarodowym w rozdziale 2.1.19 Podręcznika OIE testów diagnostycznych i szczepionek dla zwierząt lądowych.
 (9)
 Należy zatem odpowiednio zmienić rozporządzenie (UE) nr 206/2010.
 (10)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Stałego Komitetu ds. Łańcucha Żywnościowego i Zdrowia Zwierząt,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 W załączniku I do rozporządzenia (UE) nr 206/2010 wprowadza się zmiany zgodnie z załącznikiem do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 4 lutego 2013 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 José Manuel BARROSO
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 139 z 30.4.2004, s. 321.
 (2) Dz.U. L 73 z 20.3.2010, s. 1.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 W załączniku I do rozporządzenia (UE) nr 206/2010 wprowadza się następujące zmiany:
 1)
 w części 1 w odniesieniu do Stanów Zjednoczonych dodaje się pozycję w brzmieniu:
 „US – Stany Zjednoczone
 US-0
 Cały kraj
 POR-X
 D”
 2)
 w części 2 wprowadza się następujące zmiany:
 a)
 tekst dotyczący „POR-X” otrzymuje brzmienie:
 „»POR-X«
 :
 Wzór świadectwa weterynaryjnego dla trzody chlewnej (Sus scrofa) przeznaczonej do hodowli lub produkcji po przywozie, lub przeznaczonej do tranzytu przez terytorium Unii z jednego państwa trzeciego do innego państwa trzeciego.”;
 b)
 w wykazie SG (Dodatkowe gwarancje) dodaje się tekst w brzmieniu:
 „»D«
 :
 Gwarancje dotyczące testów na pęcherzykowe zapalenie jamy ustnej na zwierzętach z wydanym świadectwem zgodnym z wzorem świadectwa weterynaryjnego POR-X (pkt II.2.1.b))”;
 c)
 wzór świadectwa weterynaryjnego „POR-X” otrzymuje brzmienie:
 „Wzór POR-X
 3)
 w części 6 dodaje się tekst w brzmieniu:
 „Pęcherzykowate zapalenie jamy ustnej
 Test neutralizacji wirusa należy przeprowadzić zgodnie z protokołami badań pęcherzykowego zapalenia jamy ustnej określonymi w rozdziale 2.1.19 Podręcznika OIE testów diagnostycznych i szczepionek dla zwierząt lądowych.
 Surowice, które zapobiegają efektowi cytopatycznemu przy stężeniach 1 do 32 lub większych, uznaje się za zawierające przeciwciała pęcherzykowego zapalenia jamy ustnej.”


text:
 20.6.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 237/51
 Ordú na Cúirte Ginearálta an 30 Márta 2022 – Sunshine Smile v EUIPO (PlusDental+)
 (Cás T-265/21) (1)
 (Trádmharc de chuid an Aontais Eorpaigh - Cúlghairm an chinnidh atá faoi chonspóid - Imtharraingt ábhar na díospóide - Cás nach dtéann ar aghaidh chun breithiúnais)
 (2022/C 237/67)
 Teanga an cháis: an Ghearmáinis
 Páirtithe
 Iarratasóir: Sunshine Smile GmbH (Beirlín, an Ghearmáin) (ionadaithe: D. Weller agus V. Wolf, Dlíodóirí)
 Cosantóir: Oifig Maoine Intleachtúla an Aontais Eorpaigh (EUIPO) (ionadaithe: M. Eberl agus D. Hanf, i gcáil Gníomhairí)
 Ábhar
 Caingean arna tabhairt i gcoinne chinneadh an dara Bord Achomhairc EUIPO an 18 Márta 2021 (Cás R 1834/2020-2), maidir le hiarratas ar chlarú i leith comhartha fíortha PlusDental+ mar thrádmharc de chuid an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 An chuid oibríochtúil
 1)
 Ní gá a thuilleadh don chaingean dul ar aghaidh chun breithiúnais.
 2)
 Ordaítear d’Oifig Maoine Intleachtúla an Aontais Eorpaigh (EUIPO) na costais a íoc.
 (1) IO C 263 5.7.2021.


text:
 30.8.2008
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 223/38
 Žaloba podaná 15. júla 2008 – Komisia Európskych spoločenstiev/Švédske kráľovstvo
 (Vec C-322/08)
 (2008/C 223/63)
 Jazyk konania: švédčina
 Účastníci konania
 Žalobkyňa: Komisia Európskych spoločenstiev (v zastúpení: M. Condou-Durande a J. Enegren, splnomocnení zástupcovia)
 Žalovaný: Švédske kráľovstvo
 Návrhy žalobkyne
 —
 určiť, že Švédske kráľovstvo si tým, že v stanovenej lehote neprijalo všetky zákony, iné právne predpisy a správne opatrenia potrebné na dosiahnutie súladu so smernicou Rady 2004/83/ES z 29. apríla 2004 (1), alebo v každom prípade tým, že o nich neinformovalo Komisiu, nesplnilo povinnosti, ktoré mu vyplývajú z tejto smernice,
 —
 zaviazať Švédske kráľovstvo na náhradu trov konania.
 Žalobné dôvody a hlavné tvrdenia
 Lehota na prebratie smernice uplynula 10. októbra 2006.
 (1) Smernica Rady 2004/83/ES z 29. apríla 2004 o minimálnych ustanoveniach pre oprávnenie a postavenie štátnych príslušníkov tretej krajiny alebo osôb bez štátneho občianstva ako utečencov alebo osôb, ktoré inak potrebujú medzinárodnú ochranu, a obsah poskytovanej ochrany (Ú. v. EÚ L 304, s. 12; Mim. vyd. 19/007, s. 96).


text:
Schede valutative riferite a periodi diversi della carriera del militare – Michele De Luca
 Consiglio di Stato, sezione quarta, Sentenza 5 novembre 2018, n. 6248.
 L’autonomia delle schede valutative riferite a periodi diversi della carriera del militare non consente di far discendere automaticamente, dalla difformità dei giudizi espressi dalle autorità valutatrici succedutesi, l’inattendibilità dei giudizi aventi eventualmente connotazione peggiorativa.
 Sentenza 5 novembre 2018, n. 6248
 sul ricorso numero di registro generale 4238 del 2012, proposto dal signor Em. La Ca., rappresentato e difeso dall’avvocato An. Fi. Ta., con domicilio eletto presso il suo studio in Roma, viale (...);
 Ministero della Difesa, Comando Generale dell’Arma dei Carabinieri, in persona dei legali rappresentanti p.t., rappresentati e difesi per legge dall’Avvocatura generale dello Stato, domiciliati in Roma, via (...);
 della sentenza del T.a.r. per la Campania, Sezione staccata di Salerno, Sezione I, n. 2021 del 16 dicembre 2011.
 Relatore nell’udienza pubblica del giorno 26 giugno 2018 il Cons. Roberto Caponigro e uditi per le parti l’avvocato An. Fi. Ta. e l’Avvocato dello Stato Vi. Ce.;
 1. L’appellante, ispettore dell’Arma dei carabinieri in servizio presso il Comando provinciale di Salerno, espone che il Ministero della Difesa, a seguito del decreto n. 72 del 29 maggio 2009 di accoglimento di un ricorso gerarchico (ritenuto fondato per il periodo di formazione della scheda valutativa, ma non per quanto riguarda l’insussistenza del rapporto di armonia e consequenzialità tra le varie parti del documento), ha redatto una nuova scheda valutativa n. 58 per il periodo dall’8 settembre 2007 al 23 giugno 2008 in modo identico a quella annullata.
 Il T.a.r. per la Campania, Sezione staccata di Salerno, con sentenza 16 dicembre 2011, n. 2021, ha respinto il ricorso giurisdizionale proposto dal signor La Ca. per l’annullamento della scheda valutativa per Ruolo Marescialli (n. 58) redatta nei confronti del ricorrente per il periodo dall’8.9.2007 – al 23.6.2008, nelle parti in cui le qualità “impegno ed esemplarità “, “capacità di impiego dei dipendenti”, “capacità gestionale”, “motivazione al lavoro” e “predisposizione al comando” sono state giudicate “molto buone” e nella parte in cui è stata attribuita la qualifica finale “superiore alla media”, nonché del decreto n. 72 del 29.5.2009 del Ministero della Difesa – Direzione Generale per il Personale Militare, nella parte in cui è indicato che nella redazione della già annullata scheda valutativa n. 58 è stato rispettato il prescritto rapporto di armonia e consequenzialità tra le varie parti del documento.
 Di talché, l’interessato ha proposto il presente appello, articolando i seguenti motivi di impugnativa:
 Erroneità dell’impugnata sentenza, erronea e incongrua valutazione della situazione di fatto, illogicità e contraddittorietà . Eccesso di potere per genericità ed insufficienza della motivazione. Illegittimità per violazione dell’art. 3 della legge n. 241 del 1990.
 Dalla sentenza impugnata, non si evincerebbe nulla circa l’eccepita non rispondenza ai caratteri di “armonia” e “consequenzialità ” fra le varie parti dell’impugnata scheda valutativa.
 Le istruzioni sui documenti caratteristici delle Forze Armate prescriverebbero che “ogni autorità nell’attribuire la qualifica finale deve assicurarsi che vi sia il necessario rapporto di armonia e consequenzialità fra essa ed i giudizi espressi” e l’appellante avrebbe evidenziato che taluni giudizi riferiti a singole qualità sarebbero, pur nella loro positività, inconciliabili con quelli riferiti alle altre qualità ed ancor di più incongrui se raffrontati con il giudizio complessivo finale.
 In particolare, il giudizio “molto buono” riferito a “impegno ed esemplarità “, “motivazione al lavoro”, “capacità gestionale”, “capacità di impiego dei dipendenti” non potrebbe armonizzarsi con il giudizio di “ottimo” riferito a “capacità formativa”, “valore operativo o apporto professionale”, “affidabilità ” e “rendimento” ed al giudizio complessivo finale dove si dà atto di “un rendimento costantemente di elevato livello”.
 La scheda valutativa, di conseguenza, sarebbe disarmonica e non consequenziale tra le sue varie parti.
 Nel periodo oggetto di valutazione, l’appellante sarebbe emerso nettamente per qualità e rendimento eccezionali, tanto da essere considerato meritevole di poter direttamente collaborare con l’Autorità Giudiziaria; in sostanza, vi sarebbero stati tutti i presupposti per attribuire al Sottufficiale la qualifica di “eccellente” anziché quella di “superiore alla media”.
 Dalla sentenza non si rileverebbero le motivazioni per le quali per talune capacità, per loro natura non suscettibili di variazione in quanto attinenti alla peculiarità dell’essere, siano mutati i giudizi in modo tale da pervenire ad una variazione in pejus della qualifica finale.
 Lo stesso revisore della scheda valutativa, nel revisionare quella relativa all’anno successivo, avrebbe concordato con il nuovo compilatore l’assegnazione della qualifica di “eccellente”
 L’Avvocatura generale dello Stato si è costituita in giudizio per resistere all’appello.
 Il signor La Ca. ha prodotto altra memoria afferente, peraltro, a questioni relative ad una precedente scheda valutativa ed ad un contenzioso diverso sia pure soggettivamente connesso.
 All’udienza pubblica del 26 giugno 2018, la causa è stata trattenuta per la decisione.
 L’appellante, sostanzialmente, si duole dell’attribuzione, con la scheda valutativa contestata, della qualifica finale di “superiore alla media” anziché di “eccellente”.
 Il “bene della vita” cui aspira, infatti, è il conseguimento della qualifica apicale ed in tale aspirazione risiede il suo interesse all’azione.
 La qualifica di “superiore alla media” è attribuita al militare che emerga sulla media per la bontà delle qualità e per il livello e la continuità del rendimento, mentre la qualifica di “eccellente” è attribuita al militare che emerge nettamente per qualità e rendimento eccezionali, vale a dire al militare le cui qualità sono tanto spiccate ed il rendimento è di tale livello e continuità da farlo non soltanto emergere, ma sovrastare altri che parimenti emergono.
 2.1. Il Collegio, in primo luogo, ritiene che sia un assunto del tutto indimostrato la considerazione secondo cui, nel periodo oggetto di valutazione, l’appellante sarebbe emerso nettamente per qualità e rendimento eccezionali, tanto da essere considerato meritevole di poter direttamente collaborare con l’Autorità Giudiziaria. In sostanza, secondo la prospettazione dell’appellante, vi sarebbero stati tutti i presupposti per attribuire al Sottufficiale la qualifica apicale di “eccellente” anziché quella immediatamente successiva di “superiore alla media”.
 Il potere di valutazione attribuito agli organi competenti (compilatore e revisori) è connotato da ampia discrezionalità tecnica e, come tale, può essere sindacato in sede giurisdizionale di legittimità unicamente sotto il profilo della coerenza e logicità, sulla base di quanto emerge dalla documentazione caratteristica.
 Ne consegue che affermare sic et simpliciter la sussistenza di tutti i presupposti per attribuire all’interessato la qualifica apicale di “eccellente” costituisce un assunto privo di rilievo, né può assumere dirimente valore l’assegnazione ad un ufficio di collaborazione con l’Autorità Giudiziaria, che può essere giustificato da una pluralità di ragioni, dal quale non può derivare, come in una sorta di automatismo, l’attribuzione del giudizio di eccellenza.
 2.2. Il nucleo centrale delle censure proposte dal signor La Ca. riguarda la prospettata incongruità ed incoerenza di taluni giudizi riferiti alle singole qualità rispetto a quelli riferiti ad altre. In particolare, l’appellante ha rappresentato come il giudizio di “molto buone” riferito alle voci “impegno ed esemplarità “, “motivazione al lavoro”, “capacità gestionale “, “capacità di impiego dei dipendenti” e “predisposizione al comando” non potrebbero armonizzarsi con il giudizio di “ottimo” attribuito alle voci “capacità formativa”, “valore operativo o apporto professionale”, “affidabilità ” e “rendimento”.
 Il Collegio, in proposito, condivide le pertinenti argomentazioni formulate dal giudice di primo grado secondo cui “occorre evidenziare che la stessa autonoma previsione di voci valutative distinte, concernenti diversi profili della professionalità del militare valutato, legittima la formulazione, per ciascuna di esse, di giudizi non coincidenti”.
 In altri termini, è tautologico che, a fronte di una pluralità di distinte voci valutative, ognuna delle quali rappresentativa di un particolare profilo del servizio prestato nel periodo di riferimento dal militare, il valutatore possa formulare giudizi diversi e non identici sulle specifiche qualità .
 Diversamente opinando, infatti, non vi sarebbe alcuna necessità di procedere all’analitica attribuzione di una pluralità di giudizi sulle molteplici voci inerenti la professionalità del militare, essendo sufficiente, ove si reputasse che i singoli giudizi debbano essere tra loro identici, un unico e complessivo giudizio sulle stesse.
 Pertanto, non può individuarsi alcuna disarmonia tra il giudizio di “molto buone” attribuito a certe voci ed il giudizio di “ottime” attribuito ad altre voci, rientrando la possibile difformità di giudizi nella fisiologica attività valutativa.
 L’illegittimità, di contro, potrebbe derivare da un travisamento del fatto o da una manifesta illogicità del giudizio riferito alla singola voce che, nel caso di specie, non sono stati dimostrati non essendo stata comprovata la asserita inconciliabilità tra i singoli giudizi.
 Né la valutazione complessiva finale, in cui si dà atto di “un rendimento costantemente di elevato livello” può ritenersi disarmonica con i singoli giudizi riferiti alle diverse voci e, anzi, il giudizio conclusivo di “superiore alla media” sembra essere coerente con le analitiche valutazioni compiute.
 La presenza di giudizi non tutti al massimo livello, infatti, avrebbe determinato l’irragionevolezza di un giudizio conclusivo di “eccellente”, mentre appare molto più coerente e rispondente ai canoni di armonia e consequenzialità che ai singoli giudizi attribuiti ed alla attestazione di “un rendimento costantemente di elevato livello” (non di un rendimento eccezionale) sia stato fatto conseguire non il giudizio conclusivo apicale, ma quello immediatamente successivo di “superiore alla media”.
 In definitiva, da quanto considerato emerge che, a differenza di quanto prospettato, non è manifestamente illogica l’attribuzione di un giudizio conclusivo che, pur molto positivo, non raggiunge il livello di eccellenza, in quanto non è stato affatto provato che, nel periodo di riferimento, il militare sia emerso nettamente per qualità e rendimento eccezionali, vale a dire che abbia mostrato qualità tanto spiccate ed un rendimento di tale livello e continuità da farlo non soltanto emergere, ma sovrastare altri che parimenti emergono.
 2.2.3. Infine, deve ribadirsi quanto già considerato dal giudice di primo grado in ordine al fatto che l’autonomia delle schede valutative riferite a periodi diversi della carriera del militare non consente di far discendere automaticamente, dalla difformità dei giudizi espressi dalle autorità valutatrici succedutesi, l’inattendibilità dei giudizi aventi eventualmente connotazione peggiorativa.
 3. L’appello, in definitiva, è infondato e deve essere di conseguenza respinto.
 4. Le spese del giudizio seguono la soccombenza e, liquidate complessivamente in euro 2.000,00 (duemila/00), oltre accessori di legge, sono poste a carico dell’appellante ed a favore dell’amministrazione appellata.
 Condanna l’appellante al pagamento delle spese del giudizio, liquidate complessivamente in euro 2.000,00 (duemila/00), oltre accessori di legge, in favore dell’amministrazione appellata.
 ‹ PreviousOrdinanza di demolizione quale atto dovuto e vincolato
 Next ›Il presupposto dell’azione avverso silenzio rifiuto ex art. 31, c.p.a.


text:
 8.3.2016
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 61/5
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2016/325 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 7 март 2016 година
 за установяване на стандартни стойности при внос с цел определяне на входната цена на някои плодове и зеленчуци
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕC) No 1308/2013 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 17 декември 2013 г. за установяване на обща организация на селскостопанските пазари и за отмяна на регламенти (ЕИО) No 922/72, (ЕИО) No 234/79, (ЕО) No 1037/2001 и (ЕО) No 1234/2007 (1),
 като взе предвид Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 543/2011 на Комисията от 7 юни 2011 г. за определяне на подробни правила за прилагането на Регламент (ЕО) No 1234/2007 на Съвета по отношение на секторите на плодовете и зеленчуците и на преработените плодове и зеленчуци (2), и по-специално член 136, параграф 1 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 В изпълнение на резултатите от Уругвайския кръг на многостранните търговски преговори в Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 543/2011 са посочени критериите, по които Комисията определя стандартните стойности при внос от трети държави за продуктите и периодите, посочени в приложение XVI, част A от същия регламент.
 (2)
 Стандартната стойност при внос се изчислява за всеки работен ден съгласно член 136, параграф 1 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 543/2011, като се вземат под внимание променливите данни за всеки ден. В резултат на това настоящият регламент следва да влезе в сила в деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Стандартните стойности при внос, посочени в член 136 от Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 543/2011, са определени в приложението към настоящия регламент.
 Член 2
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила в 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 7 март 2016 година.
 За Комисията,
 от името на председателя,
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Генерален директор на генерална дирекция „Земеделие и развитие на селските райони“
 (1) ОВ L 347, 20.12.2013 г., стр. 671.
 (2) ОВ L 157, 15.6.2011 г., стр. 1.
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ
 Стандартни стойности при внос за определяне на входната цена на някои плодове и зеленчуци
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Код по КН
 Код на третa държавa (1)
 Стандартна стойност при внос
 0702 00 00
 EG
 371,5
 IL
 154,0
 MA
 98,5
 SN
 174,9
 TN
 112,1
 TR
 98,3
 ZZ
 168,2
 0707 00 05
 JO
 194,1
 MA
 84,5
 TR
 158,2
 ZZ
 145,6
 0709 93 10
 MA
 62,3
 TR
 162,8
 ZZ
 112,6
 0805 10 20
 EG
 44,3
 IL
 73,9
 MA
 54,5
 TN
 54,2
 TR
 65,1
 ZZ
 58,4
 0805 50 10
 MA
 118,8
 TN
 91,8
 TR
 89,3
 ZZ
 100,0
 0808 10 80
 CL
 93,0
 CN
 66,5
 US
 134,2
 ZZ
 97,9
 0808 30 90
 CL
 176,2
 CN
 112,4
 TR
 58,3
 ZA
 97,5
 ZZ
 111,1
 (1) Номенклатура на държавите, определена с Регламент (ЕC) No 1106/2012 на Комисията от 27 ноември 2012 година за прилагане на Регламент (ЕО) No 471/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно статистиката на Общността за външната търговия с трети страни по отношение на актуализиране на номенклатурата на държавите и териториите (ОВ L 328, 28.11.2012 г., стр. 7). Код „ZZ“ означава „с друг произход“.


text:
Intrusioon ehk plutoon on maakoores paiknev geoloogiline struktuur, mis võib olla nii vedelas (magma) kui ka tahkes olekus (tardkivim).
 Intrusiooniks nimetatakse nii aktiivset protsessi (magmakeha tungimist ülespoole) kui ka selle tardkivimiliseks struktuuriks kristalliseerunud tagajärge. Samas tähenduses võidakse kasutada terminit "intrusiiv".
 Lasumussuhete alusel eristatakse rööp- ja põikintrusioone. Rööpne on intrusioon, mis olles kontaktis kildaliste või kihiliste kivimitega on enam-vähem paralleelne kildalisus- või kihilisuspindadega. Põikintrusioonid aga lõikavad kildalisus- või kihilisuspindu. Intrusioonid on väiksemõõtmelised, kui nende mõõtmeid väljendatakse meetrites, suuremõõtmeliste intrusioonide mõõtmed ulatuvad aga kilomeetritesse. Sõltuvalt kujust, suurusest ning lasumussuhetest eristatakse järgmisi intrusioone: sill, lakoliit, lopoliit, fakoliit, daik, nekk, štokk, batoliit, diapiir, ringdaik, hargsoon jne.
 Intrusioon võib olla nii tardunud struktuur kui ka liikuv diapiirilaadne moodustis.
 Sageli peetakse sõnu "intrusioon" ja "plutoon" sünonüümideks, kuid kitsama definitsiooni kohaselt saab plutooniks nimetada vaid suuremõõtmelisi intrusioone. Plutoon on intrusioon, mille mõõtmed ulatuvad kilomeetritesse. Intrusioon võib aga olla ka palju väiksem.
 Vaata ka
 Abja plutoon
 Välislingid
 Mantleplumes.org
 Petroloogia
 Struktuurigeoloogia


text:
 5.3.2020
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 68/4
 SKLEP SKUPNEGA ODBORA EGP
 št. 275/2019
 z dne 13. decembra 2019
 o spremembi Priloge I (Veterinarske in fitosanitarne zadeve) k Sporazumu EGP [2020/294]
 SKUPNI ODBOR EGP JE –
 ob upoštevanju Sporazuma o Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sporazum EGP) in zlasti člena 98 Sporazuma EGP,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2019/1678 z dne 4. oktobra 2019 o spremembi Odločbe 2009/821/ES glede seznamov mejnih kontrolnih točk in veterinarskih enot v TRACES (1) je treba vključiti v Sporazum EGP.
 (2)
 Ta sklep se nanaša na zakonodajo v zvezi z veterinarskimi zadevami. Zakonodaja v zvezi z veterinarskimi zadevami se ne uporablja za Lihtenštajn, dokler se Sporazum med Evropsko skupnostjo in Švicarsko konfederacijo o trgovini s kmetijskimi proizvodi uporablja tudi za Lihtenštajn, kakor je določeno v sektorskih prilagoditvah Priloge I k Sporazumu EGP. Ta sklep se zato ne uporablja za Lihtenštajn.
 (3)
 Prilogo I k Sporazumu EGP bi bilo zato treba ustrezno spremeniti –
 SPREJEL NASLEDNJI SKLEP:
 Člen 1
 V točki 39 (Odločba Komisije 2009/821/ES) v delu 1.2 poglavja I Priloge I k Sporazumu EGP se doda naslednja alinea:
 „—
 32019 R 1678: Izvedbeni sklep Komisije (EU) 2019/1678 z dne 4. oktobra 2019 (UL L 257, 8.10.2019, str. 21).“
 Člen 2
 Besedilo Izvedbenega sklepa (EU) 2019/1678 v islandskem in norveškem jeziku, ki se objavi v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije, je verodostojno.
 Člen 3
 Ta sklep začne veljati 14. decembra 2019 pod pogojem, da so bila predložena vsa uradna obvestila v skladu s členom 103(1) Sporazuma EGP (*1).
 Člen 4
 Ta sklep se objavi v sklopu EGP Uradnega lista Evropske unije in v Dopolnilu EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije.
 V Bruslju, 13. decembra 2019
 Za Skupni odbor EGP
 Predsednik
 Gunnar PÁLSSON
 (1) UL L 257, 8.10.2019, str. 21.
 (*1) Navedena ni nobena ustavna zahteva.