type: caselaw

text:
 29.3.2016
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 111/3
 Αίτηση προδικαστικής αποφάσεως την οποία υπέβαλε το Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Γερμανία) στις 14 Δεκεμβρίου 2015 — Umweltverband WWF Österreich κατά Landeshauptmann von Tirol
 (Υπόθεση C-663/15)
 (2016/C 111/04)
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η Γερμανική
 Αιτούν δικαστήριο
 Verwaltungsgerichtshof
 Διάδικοι στην υπόθεση της κύριας δίκης
 Αναιρεσείουσα: Umweltverband WWF Österreich
 Αναιρεσίβλητος: Landeshauptmann von Tirol
 Παρεμβαίνουσα: Ötztaler Wasserkraft GmbH
 Προδικαστικά ερωτήματα
 1)
 Έχει το άρθρο 4 της οδηγίας 2000/60/ΕΚ (1) του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου, της 23ης Οκτωβρίου 2000, για τη θέσπιση πλαισίου κοινοτικής δράσεως στον τομέα της πολιτικής των υδάτων (στο εξής: οδηγία-πλαίσιο για τα ύδατα), ή καθαυτή η οδηγία την έννοια ότι απονέμει σε περιβαλλοντική οργάνωση δικαιώματα, στο πλαίσιο διαδικασίας η οποία δεν υπόκειται σε εκτίμηση περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων βάσει της οδηγίας 2011/92/ΕΕ του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου, της 13ης Δεκεμβρίου 2011, για την εκτίμηση των επιπτώσεων ορισμένων σχεδίων δημοσίων και ιδιωτικών έργων στο περιβάλλον (στο εξής: οδηγία για την εκτίμηση των περιβαλλοντικών επιπτώσεων), για τη διασφάλιση των οποίων η εν λόγω περιβαλλοντική οργάνωση διαθέτει πρόσβαση σε διοικητικές ή δικαστικές διαδικασίες δυνάμει του άρθρου 9, παράγραφος 3, της Συμβάσεως για την πρόσβαση σε πληροφορίες, τη συμμετοχή του κοινού στη λήψη αποφάσεων και την πρόσβαση στη δικαιοσύνη σε θέματα περιβάλλοντος, η οποία συνήφθη εξ ονόματος της Ευρωπαϊκής Κοινότητας με την απόφαση 2005/370/ΕΚ του Συμβουλίου, της 17ης Φεβρουαρίου 2015 (στο εξής: σύμβαση του Ώρχους);
 Σε περίπτωση καταφατικής απαντήσεως επί του πρώτου ερωτήματος:
 2)
 Επιβάλλεται, βάσει των διατάξεων της Συμβάσεως του Ώρχους, τα εν λόγω δικαιώματα να μπορούν να ασκούνται ήδη στο στάδιο της διαδικασίας ενώπιον της διοικητικής αρχής ή επαρκεί η δυνατότητα παροχής δικαστικής προστασίας κατά της αποφάσεως της διοικητικής αρχής;
 3)
 Είναι επιτρεπτό να υποχρεώνει το εθνικό δίκαιο περί διοικητικής διαδικασίας (άρθρο 42 του αυστριακού γενικού νόμου περί διοικητικής διαδικασίας) την περιβαλλοντική οργάνωση —όπως και τα λοιπά μέρη στη διαδικασία— να υποβάλει εμπροθέσμως τις αντιρρήσεις της ήδη κατά το στάδιο της διαδικασίας ενώπιον των διοικητικών αρχών, και όχι το πρώτον υπό μορφή προσφυγής στο διοικητικό δικαστήριο, διότι ειδάλλως χάνει την ιδιότητα του μέρους στη διαδικασία και τη δυνατότητα προσφυγής στο διοικητικό δικαστήριο;
 (1) Οδηγία 2000/60/ΕΚ του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και του Συμβουλίου της 23ης Οκτωβρίου 2000 για τη θέσπιση πλαισίου κοινοτικής δράσης στον τομέα της πολιτικής των υδάτων (EE L 327, σ. 1).


jurisdiction: EU

text:
 14.4.2012
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 C 109/11
 Postanowienie Sądu z dnia 14 lutego 2012 r. — Włochy przeciwko Komisji
 (Sprawa T-305/08) (1)
 (Skarga o stwierdzenie nieważności - Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 530/2008 - Odnowienie zasobów tuńczyka błękitnopłetwego - Ustalenie TAC na 2008 r. - Umorzenie postępowania)
 2012/C 109/23
 Język postępowania: włoski
 Strony
 Strona skarżąca: Republika Włoska (przedstawiciel: F. Arena, avvocato dello Stato)
 Strona pozwana: Komisja Europejska (przedstawiciele: K. Banks i D. Nardi, pełnomocnicy)
 Przedmiot
 Żądanie stwierdzenia nieważności rozporządzenia Komisji (WE) nr 530/2008 z dnia 12 czerwca 2008 r. ustanawiającego środki nadzwyczajne w odniesieniu do statków rybackich do połowów okrężnicą prowadzących połowy tuńczyka błękitnopłetwego w Oceanie Atlantyckim, na wschód od 45 ° długości geograficznej zachodniej, oraz w Morzu Śródziemnym (Dz.U. L 155, s. 9).
 Sentencja
 1)
 Postępowanie w sprawie skargi zostaje umorzone.
 2)
 Komisja Europejska ponosi koszty postępowania.
 (1) Dz.U. C 272 z 25.10.2008.


type: other

text:
Nunc est scribendum? | JINÉ PRÁVO
 15. 11. 2007 20:14:00
 Já tedy Guelf rozhodně nejsem, ale stanovisko dr. Balíka mi vadí míň než to, že si ÚS lže do kapsy. Dočetl jsem to před deseti minutami, tak jsem ještě plný dojmů.
 Po odchodech do důchodu a odůvodnění posledního nálezu I. B. je to třetí plenární perlička v krátkém časovém úseku. Nebo jsem jen všímavější?
 15. 11. 2007 20:23:00
 ja to teda ted ctu, a ziram...
 a musim rict, ze z neuveritelne formalistniho tvrzeni zakonodarneho sboru demokratickeho pravniho statu o tom, ze "„věřící, církve ani náboženské společnosti“ mezi menšiny Ústava stejně jako Listina nezařazuje", mi docela beha mraz po zadech...
 15. 11. 2007 21:47:00
 Mno, přečetl jsem si zatím jen dissent a problém je, že z něho nevím zvonce–konce. Asi už je to opravdu za, i když si dovolím ocitovat můj velice oblíbený juikát Boh. A 1596/22 (15040/22): "II. Sahajíc svým původem do XII. století, přijala univerzita podobu právní, která pro toto období dějin je typická. Je to svobodné sdružení, neboť myšlenka sdružení stala se v této době panujícím principem organisačním a zůstala jím potom asi po 300 let (Gierke, Rechtsgeschichte der deutschen Genossenschaft, str. 296 a násl. a 437 a násl.). Univerzita středověká byla svobodná a samostatná korporace učených a učících se, universitas doctorum et scholarium. Obě nejstarší, boloňská a pařížská, vznikly tím způsobem, že nějaký počet vynikajících učenců, kteří pojednávali o některých oborech vědních, podle methody tehdy nové a požadavkům doby přiměřené, shromažďovali kolem sebe trvale okruh žáků, a že během doby žáci a učitelé v jednom místě takto shromážděni semknuli se v korporaci (Hinschius, System katholischen Kirchenrechtes IV., str.640, a dále Gierke, 1. c. str. 437). Zajisté podléhaly univerzity v některých vztazzích vlivu a dozoru stolice papežské i moci zeměpanské, nicméně nestaly se korporacemi nebo ústavy do církevního organismu, nebo do státního organismu právně včlenněnými (Hinschius, 1. c. 655, srov. Tomek, Děje university Pražské, str. 32), nýbrž byly a zůstaly ve středověku napořád korporací, jež "vedle práva veřejně učiti má svou autonomii, své soudnictví i samosprávu, určujíc svobodně svou vlastní organisaci, volíc sobě svobodně své představené a své orgány, přijímajíc a vylučujíc svobodně své členy, korporací způsobilou k právům majetkovým i k právním jednáním práva občanského". (Gierke, 1. c. 438).
 Není důvodu pochybovati, že historické univerzity bývalého Rakouska, zejména pak historická univerzita našeho státu, univerzita Karlova, nelišily se podstatně od typu právě charakterisovaného. Vždyť v Zlaté bulle z roku 1348 Karel IV. výslovně uděluje svému založení Privilegia Immunitates et Libertates ommes, guibus, tam in Parisiensi, guam bononiensi, studiis Doktores et Scholares, uti et gaudere sunt soliti omnibus et singulis. Zakladatel postaral se , "aby učení ve všech fakultách mohlo býti zahájeno a aby opatření hmotné nebylo závadou", " ponechav jinak organisaci učení přirozenému vývoji", neboť dle jeho úmyslu měli "vnitřní zařízení universitě dáti teprve ti, kdo na ni přišli, kdo učenou korporaci při ní vytvořili" (Novotný, Univerzita Karlova v minulosti str. 9 a 10, Tomek, Děje university Pražské, str. 16). Univerzita Karlova vskutku také zřetelně svou povahu korporační projevovala, používajíc nejednou svého práva, statuty určovati svou organisaci a dávati si řád vyučovací , volíc pravidelně svého rektory a, později i děkana, vykonávajíc - rektorem a jeho radou - soud nad členy univerzity atd. (Tomek 1. c. str. 19, 24, 28 a j., Novotný 1. c. str. 10, 19, 23, 30, 32 a jiné). Ovšem také udílela od počátku grady akademické, byť v důsledku zvláštního postavení církve ve středověku na základě licence, udílené hodnostářem církevním, arcibiskupem Pražským (Hinschius, 1. c. 541 a násl., Tomek 1. c. 32, Novotný, 1. c. str. 28), udílejíc takto s hodností mistrovskou podobně jako středověké cechy i plné členství v univerzitní korporaci (Gierke, 1. c. 438). Korporační myšlenka pronikala zřízení univerzitní do té míry, že i fakulty jeví vlastnosti korporace v některých vztazích samostatné (Tomek, 1. c. str. 31 a násl.)." etc. etc.
 15. 11. 2007 22:45:00
 :D:D:D:D ... tak toto sa mi paci....hehehe : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhPXgyF7W-E
 Berte to ako metaforu...basen je oddovodnenie, auto je pravo:).
 16. 11. 2007 0:09:00
 Tak jsem to prave docetl (a zminka o formalismu prave v disentu S. Balika zpusobila, ze jsem tim padem vlastne pracoval na sve disertaci :) a je mi tak trochu smutno... Nevim, kdo odpovida za redakcni upravu, kazdopadne disent I. Janu (zvl. ve spojeni s disentem D. Lastovecke, ktery obsahle cituje oduvodneni Pl. US 6/02, k tomu jsem se jinak jeste dneska nedostal) na samotny zaver patri jako tresnicka na dortu. Je docela tristni, ze zakon, ktery projde PCR pres nesouhlas senatu 101 hlasy, projde pres US v pomeru 8:7, pricemz vsichni nesouhlasici zjevne povazovali za potrebne disentem se ke svemu nesouhlasu prihlasit, byt se i jenom, jako V. Formankova, pripojili k disentu jinemu.
 Co se tyce vlastniho tematu tohoto postu :) nemam pocit, ze by to bylo "za hranicema zanru". Ten disent povazuji spise za docela zdarili priklad (rezignovane) sarkasticke argumentace - kvality a nadhledu (uvodni casti) "vitezneho disentu" A. Kozinskeho z federalniho odvolaciho soudu USA pro 9. okruh to nedosahuje, ale presto si myslim, ze jde o disent kvalitni a na nekolika klicovych mistech mimoradne trefny (treba "Měl Michelangello pochybnost o tom, pro koho zdobí Sixtinskou kapli, resp. s kým by snad měl uzavírat – řečeno dosud nepozapomenutou terminologií – hospodářskou smlouvu o přípravě dodávek?" a snad uplne nejvystizneji: "Arménské kláštery, Matenadaran, arménské písemnictví.... Bylo oznamováno v zemi právě přítomným Mongolům, Peršanům, Rusům či Turkům, kdo je tu či onde varpadetem?"). Uznavam, ze argumentace (spise: uvaha) k temto pointam vedouci je pomerne nejasna, tedy presneji: je pro pravnika nezvykla, protoze je do znacne miry a-logicka. V oduvodneni nalezu by mi to asi vadilo taky, v disentu tomu plne rozumim.
 Ale jeste jednou opakuji: kdo chce kritiku systematickou a vyargumentovanou, at prolistuje na zaver (a cestou at se zastavi u citace nalezu Pl. US 6/02).
 Jo a docela mi udelalo radost, ze ty dva nalezy maji tak podobna cisla. Alespon se to bude dobre pamatovat :)
 16. 11. 2007 0:22:00
 Souhlasim s Ladou, ze to rozhodnuti mi vadi vic - jednak ve svem vysledku, jednak tim oduvodnenim. Bod XXV disentu I. Janu muzu jen potvrdit vlastni zkusenosti - primo na MV mi sdelili, ze vydelecna cinnost neni rozhodne vyloucena, jen nesmi byt cinnosti hlavni. Myslim, ze kdyby se nekdo zacal stourat do mnoha OS, tak by zjistil, ze v praxi to byva cinnost hlavni daleko casteji, nez si myslime.
 Jinak souhlasim s tim, ze dr. Balik je na hranici. Ale aspon jsou ty disenty pestre a uplne samoucelne to zatim taky neni.
 16. 11. 2007 10:59:00
 V okamžiku, kdy jsem uviděl v úvodu článku oxymorón "svěží právní text", věděl jsem, kdo je autorem:-). Uvedený disent je oravdu velice zvláštní, ale v zásadě mi nevadí, spíše naopak, protože:
 1)zvláště na ústavní úrovni řešené věci často přesahují rámec práva a nutí aplikovat znalosti historie, etiky, filozofie atd. Ten disent připomíná, že je soud zná a počítá s nimi (přiznám se, že jsem milovníkem historie).
 2) autor je soudce Ústavního soudu a jestliže usoudil, že rozhodnutí potřebuje právě takový disent, je to jeho právo a vzhledem k jeho postavení a zkušenostem na tom možná něco je.
 3) je dobré vědět, že Ústavní soud je složen z různorodých osobností, že tedy na přetřes přijdou otázky a pohledy, které by jiného ani nenapadly.
 16. 11. 2007 11:18:00
 Budu možná přehnaně příkrý, ale stejně jako u "Eurozatykače" si myslím, že tento disent je nepotřebný škvár, který do soudního rozhodnutí vůbec nepatří. Když jsem "eurozatykačový" disent dr. Balíka zkusmo dal přečíst svojí přítelkyni, tak mi na to odpověděla, že tímhle se mohou bavit opravdu jen právníci (adjektivum vynechám).
 Disent má v zásadě plnit úplně jiné funkce než exhibicionismus soudce. Takové disenty justici totiž škodí. Doporučuji si přečíst Posnera [THE FEDERAL COURTS: CHALLENGE AND REFORM,356-57 (1996)] nebo nový paper Todda Hendersona [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
 papers.cfm?abstract_id=1019074].
 Pokud někdo disenty používat neumí, tak ať to radši vůbec nedělá. To se mi zdá právě případ dr. Balíka (ačkoliv nelze ze 2 disentů paušalizovat). Nedávno zde nadhodil téma disentů Vojtěch Šimíček. Pro mě je disent dr. Balíka jasný důvod, proč disenty v ČR u jiných soudů ne (alespoň ne teď). Čeští soudci prostě tento institut (a chtělo by se mi dodat i instituty jiné) neumí používat.
 ad Peter Brezina: Byla by vcelku "legrace", kdyby poměr 8:7 byl ve prospěch zrušení novely, protože podle § 13 zákona o Ústavním soudu musí pro zrušení zákona hlasovat alespoň 9 soudců, takže by to novela ustála... (pokud vím, tak k takové situaci před ÚS nikdy nedošlo, ale rád se nechám poučit)
 p.s. Kozinski je skvělý. Ale když dva dělají totéž, není to vždy totéž...
 16. 11. 2007 20:58:00
 k jedné větě Davida K.: Kupodivu už k situaci, kdy pro zrušení části zákona hlasovalo pouze osm soudců ÚS, a tedy platilo stanovisko relevantní menšiny, jednou došlo. Bylo to před volbami 1996, šlo o volební kauce. Spisová značka je Pl.ÚS 3/96.
 16. 11. 2007 22:59:00
 Ad David Kosar a Tomas Nemecek: no jo, ale tady se k tomu pridava jeste dalsi vec, a to nekterymi disentujicimi tvrzene (a po mem soudu jasne prokazane) odchyleni se vetsiny od pravniho nazoru vysloveneho v nalezu ve veci sp. zn. Pl US 6/02. Takze z dikce §13 zakona o US se tak nejak podava, ze bylo potreba 9 hlasu na zruseni zakona, ale stejne tak 9 hlasu na zamitnuti navrhu s takovymto oduvodnenim. To je teprve orech! :) Nebo nekdo procesne nedotceneho teoretika pouci? Docela bych byl vdecny...
 jo, btw, pro ty co se jim to nechce cist: vetsina se s namitkou, ze vychazi z odchylneho pravniho nazoru, vyporadala slovy "Ústavní soud vychází ze závěru, že se neodchyluje od právních názorů, jež vyjádřil ve zmiňovaném nálezu", tedy tak, ze rekla, ze nikoli :)
 16. 11. 2007 23:31:00
 Ad Tomáš Němeček: Mockrát děkuji za upozornění.
 Bylo by skvělé, kdyby někdo byl ochoten projít všechny disenty soudců ÚS a snažit se vysledovat nějaké trendy - klesá jejich počet nebo stoupá, kdo nejčastěji disentuje, kdo naopak spíše hledá konsensus, hraje roli politické přesvědčení soudců (či stranická příslušnost), jaké jsou nejobvyklejší disentní bloky, kdo nakonec prosadil svůj disent do majority atd. Empirická práce je velká dřina, ale vyplácí se.
 Ad Peter Brezina: Když soud řekne, že to není judikatorní odklon, tak to judikatorní odklon není:)
 17. 11. 2007 0:12:00
 "Když soud řekne, že to není judikatorní odklon, tak to judikatorní odklon není."
 Three baseball umpires meet at a diner for a drink. One ump declares, "There's balls and there's strikes and I call 'em the way they are." Another responds, "There's balls and there's strikes and I call 'em the way I see 'em." The third says, "There's balls and there's strikes, and they ain't nothin' until I call 'em."
 17. 11. 2007 9:30:00
 To, co naznacuje David v poslednim komentu, v nasi literature zoufale chybi. Bylo by opravdu zajimave sledovat pocet disentu u jednotlivych soudcu a jejich vyvoj. Pamatuji se, ze prikladem kdy se disent stal majoritnim stanoviskem, jsou nektera stanoviska soudce Hollandera v 90. letech tykajicich se proporcionality (tusim jeho disent v kauze autorizovanych architektu ve vystavbe).
 Jinak orisek, ktery naznacuje Peter - tedy devet soudcu pro zmenu pravniho nazoru a devet soudcu pro zruseni, snad poprve nastal pri druhem rozhodnuti US o 13. platech soudcu, kdy to bylo osm na sedm ve prospech ustavnosti paragrafu zakona o odejmuti 13. platu soudcum. Tehdy nekteri disenteri argumentovali, ze zakon pada, i kdyz pro jeho protiustavnost se vyslovila mensina, protoze se nenasla kvalifikovana vetsina pro zmenu pravniho nazoru soudu. Jde o klasicky pripad normativniho konfliktu dvou norem teze pravni sily, jehoz reseni US nijak nevysvetlil, a kde proste asi vychazi z toho (mimochodem, co by asi bylo lex specialis?), ze hodnota setrvani u jednoho pravniho nazoru (kvalifikovana garance nazorove kontinuity soudu) ma mensi vyznam nez hodnota zachovani zakona.
 17. 11. 2007 9:45:00
 Ad Tomáš Sobek: The third umpire, who sees truth as entirely personal, is what we might call “postmodern.”:)
 Perfektním příkladem druhého empajra je konkurující stanovisko Pottera Stewarta ve věci Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), kde geniálně nadefinoval test obscenity: "I know it when I see it". Někteří škarohlídi vidí zárodky tohoto testu v jeho službě za 2.světové válce u námořnictva - kde jinde než v Casablance...
 17. 11. 2007 10:52:00
 Rozhodnutí ÚS v této věci mne nijak moc nepřekvapilo. Od tandemu Rychetský – Kůrka, kteří myslím, že společně zpracovávali jak text rozhodnutí, tak některé nerozhodnuté
 soudce ÚS, jsem nic jiného neočekávala.
 Šokovala mne však jedna část argumentace, kdy se ÚS opírá o vyjádření Poslanecké sněmovny (podepsaný dr. Zaorálek), které obsahuje meritorní tvrzení a argumentaci k věci samé.
 Doposud mlčky tolerovaná praxe – že se jednotliví předsedové či místopředsedové ze Sněmovny nebo Senátu pokoušejí dostat do vyjádření příslušné komory své vlastní politické a právní názory, byla nyní aprobována samotným ÚS.
 Institut vyjádření komor jako vedlejších účastníků jsem vždy vnímala jako procedurální záležitost – měli sdělit o čem hlasovali, jak to hlasování probíhalo, jak dopadlo a případně o čem se tam mluvilo – tedy vlastně to, co si každý může najít. Příslušní funkcionáři však vyjadřují svůj vlastní názor, tedy, jak ve věci hlasovali, proč a o jakou argumentaci se opírali. Domnívám se, že je to naprosto nepřípustné – příslušná komora o jejich stanovisku nehlasuje, je to tedy názor konkrétního zpracovatele, prezentovaný jako stanovisko parlamentu.
 A nyní tuto nepřípustnou praxi potvrdil ÚS. Na okraj – jediný politik, který dodržoval dle mého názoru správný postup byl dr. Pithart (a to i v politicky brizantních věcech – např. volební zákon).
 17. 11. 2007 12:00:00
 Vezměme, že požadavek kvalifikované většiny pro zrušení zákona má přednost před požadavkem kvalifikované většiny pro změnu právního názoru ÚS. Pak v jakém případě se použije kvalifikovaná většina právě z důvodu změny právního názoru ÚS?
 To je problém, který se táhne už Platónova Sokrata, který se ptá Euthyphróna: "Je zbožné milováno bohy, protože je to zbožné, nebo je to zbožné, protože je to milováno bohy?"
 Mimochodem, tady leží základ Hartovy teorie práva: Pramen práva je prostě to, co soudci jako pramen práva uznávají ve své rozhodovací praxi.
 17. 11. 2007 12:40:00
 Kladu si jenom otázku, přečte-li si tento "disent"(nevím, zda-li je to správné slovo pro literární tvorbu pana Dr. Balíka) člověk - neprávník, ať s vysokoškolským vzděláním, či bez něj,co si může myslet...
 Nějak mě stále trápí obsesivní myšlenka(asi jsem to někde víckrát četl, tak mi to utkvělo v paměti:)), že obsah toho, co produkují orgány aplikující právo, by měl být srozumitelný většině lidí. Nejsem si příliš jist, zda by se tento disent setkal s pochopením obyčejných lidí.
 Každopádně jde o pozoruhodný literární útvar.(Magna Litera?:))
 Podle mě tento text překročil míru exhibicionismu, která byla nutná pro vyjádření názoru v tomto disentu obsaženého.
 17. 11. 2007 21:20:00
 Davidu Kosařovi: "Pro mě je disent dr. Balíka jasný důvod, proč disenty v ČR u jiných soudů ne (alespoň ne teď). Čeští soudci prostě tento institut ...neumí používat."
 Myslíš to vážně? Kdy bude ten správný okamžik? Jak se pozná "že už "to" soudce umí"? A na které fakultě bude to "disidentské učiliště"? :-P
 Myslím, že transparentní ventilace toho, v jakém názorovém klimatu soud rozhodoval je nepotřebná a klady zde převažují nad zápory.
 Diskuse na tomto blogu a jinde je publikovanými disenty dynamizována a v určitém smyslu i strukturována.
 ad Zdeněk Nový: rozumím požadavku srozumítelnosti, ale máte pocit, že poté co většinové stanovisko "odbude" ouřední roli odůvodnění, nemůže disentující soudce publikovat text, který třeba na první čtení není úplně srozumitelný ve všech vrstvách?
 Osobně se mi líbí přímočaře stručný styl, který svého času skvěle reprezentoval ústavní soudce Kesslerova soudu dr. Pavel Varvařovský, ale zcela ve smyslu zásady "proti gustu žádný dišputát" si rád přečtu a popřemýšlím i nad názorem formulovaným "zauzleněji" a např. odkazující se (pomocí citací) na nadčasové souvislosti věci.
 Jistě, disent není věc na hraní, a soudce má ústavní odpovědnost k výkonu své funkce, ale komentovaný text podle mě bezúčelný není.
 (Navíc bych v hypotetické rovině bych soudci nebral právo napsat i text absurdní a upozornit tak např. na absurdnost názoru většiny).
 Ještě jednou Davidu Kosařovi:
 počet disentů jednotlivých soudců lze snadno zjistit zde
 Stačí (asi) 20 x vyplnit kolonku "soudce s odlišným stanoviskem"
 Takže s chutí do toho. :-)
 17. 11. 2007 22:13:00
 Naprosto souhlasím, že je forma a styl disentu plně v autonomii autora. Jen jsem chtěl ukázat jiný úhel pohledu.
 A musím přiznat, že mě Dr. Balík tímto textem oslovil. Je to rozhodně vyjímečný text.
 17. 11. 2007 22:37:00
 Tak jsem si ten disent jeste jednou precetl a nemohu si pomoci, musim setrvat na jeho chvale. Ne ze by byl bezchybny, a ne ze by mel byt vzorem pro vsechny kolem. To rozhodne ne. Ale je to disent se vsim vsudy: pohybuje se nejenom na opacnem argumentacnim polu nez oduvodneni vetsiny, ale predevsim na same hranici argumentace vubec. Je minimalisticky, vyzaduje tedy enormni spolupraci ctenare, zato nabizi intelektualni vyzvu a obohaceni, byt to je vposledku spise produktem vlastniho ctenarova snazeni. A celemu nalezu dodava dimenzi, ktera mu (az na strucne shrnuti vyjadreni CBK) zalostne chybi. Nebo si take myslite, ze problematiku cirkevnich pravnickych osob lze odbyt prostou hrou se slovy "evidence" a "registrace" bez odkazu na to, ze tady nektere funguji cca o tisic let dele nez stat, co je chce evidovat?
 18. 11. 2007 0:35:00
 Díky za připomenutí databáze NAULUS. Pořád nějak odkládám blížši seznámení - vypadá to ale na velmi propracovaný vyhledávací stroj. Zkusil jsem tam ale zadat cvičně pár judikátu, a nějaká to muška se našla. Např. nález Pl. 3/96 (Volební kauce) dopadl 8:7, a přesto se v NAULu objevují jen 4
 soudci s odlišným stanoviskem. Kde jsou tedy ti zbylí 3 disentéři? Tím samozřejmě nechci shazovat celý NAULUS, jenž může ÚS každý jen závidět, ale jen přispět k vychytání mušek. Pak už detailnímu zkoumání disentů opravdu nic nebude bránit.
 Zpět k disentu dr. Balíka:
 Jediná věta, která obsahuje nějakou argumentaci, je "Nenalezl jsem dost věcných argumentů pro odchylku od nosných důvodů nálezu Ústavního soudu, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 6/02." Zbytek jsou kudrlinky, které jsou úplně zbytečné.
 Jinak samozřejmě nehodlám zakládat ani určovat žádné "disidentské účiliště" (či spíš "disentské"?) ani určovat nikomu, jak má psát disenty. Akorát jsem vyjádřil svůj názor, že tohle je podle mě úplně prázdný a nicneříkající disent [o tom, proč disenty u jiných soudů zatím ne, viz diskuse k postu Vojty Šimíčka]. O tom, že by šlo o "transparentní ventilaci toho, v jakém názorovém klimatu soud rozhodoval", vážně pochybuji. Že by se tento disent stal v budoucnu majoritou či omezil působnost precedentu či vedl k "better law" či prezentoval nějaký test nebo právní doktrínu, ať každý posoudí sám. Na druhou stranu paradoxně dynamizuje diskusi na tomto blogu... a když potěší pár právníků s historizujícími sklony či s náklonností k církvi, tak proč ne.
 p.s. Proti disentům obecně nic nemám, spíše naopak. Ale i William Brennan, jeden z nejslavnějších (a nejčastějších) disentérů všch dob tvrdil: "it is a “duty” (and not “an egoistic act”) for each justice to dissent". Disent dr. Balíka je pro mě to druhé.
 18. 11. 2007 1:24:00
 Ad David Kosar: tys' to vlastne v tom svym komantari nakonec rekl. Ten disent "dynamizuje diskusi na tomto blogu" a pripadne "potěší pár právníků s historizujícími sklony či s náklonností k církvi". Je to disent radikalni, implicitne problematizuje samotny diskurs, v nemz se adjudikace odehrava (a ktery muzeme exemplifikovat v stanovisku plena vs. disentu I. Janu), a tedy i to, jestli je ukolem disentu snazit se, aby se "stal v budoucnu majoritou či omezil působnost precedentu či vedl k 'better law' či prezentoval nějaký test nebo právní doktrínu". Disent je alternativa, alternativa klidne radikalni, ale prave v tom je jeho sila a prospesnost: nuti nas prehodnocovat nebo alespon znovu promyslet samotny ramec uvazovani, argumentace, vyznamu, ktery nas jinak zcela samozrejme "normuje". Tak bych to alespon videl ja :)
 A samozrejme je docela vyznamne i to, ze se podobne kousky vyskytuji jenom zridka a tak vuci nim jeste nejsme otupeli.
 Posledni poznamka primo k Davidovu komentari: Tebou citovana veta je mozna jedinym naznakem argumentace na jakou jsme zvykli, rozhodne to ale neni jedina argumentace, s niz ten disent prichazi.
 18. 11. 2007 2:02:00
 Nechci už zbytečně prodlužovat naší diskusi. Shodneme se, že disenty jsou obecně prospěšné a plní řadu funkcí. Neshodneme se na tom, zda-li disent dr. Balíka je prospěšný a zda-li plní nějakou funkci (disentu). Abych uvedl poslední srovnání, disent soudce Kozinskiho sice začína fiktivním rozhovorem mezi obžalovaným a jeho právníkem, ale poté následuje 28 (ano 28!) stran špičkové ústavněprávní argumentace. Ta bohužel u dr. Balíka chybí, a proto je pro mě jeho disent jen prázdná exhibice.
 K tomu, že je takových disentů pomálu - počkej až bude takhle (tj. bez argumentace) exhibovat dalších 5 soudců... Good luck!
 18. 11. 2007 10:47:00
 Já bych rád ještě věc neuzavíral. Je mi to moc líto, ale v této věci s tebou hluboce nesouhlasím.
 Ad 8:7: nevím jestli je to tebou popisovaný případ, ale publikace odlišného názoru je právo, nikoli povinnost (§ 14 ZUS). Mnohá rozhodnutí jsou přijata menšími většinami, než jak by tomu odpovídalo číslo, které obdržíme po odečtení disentujících.
 Ad výrazové prostředky: no vidíš, ty bys použil slovo disentské, a jí bych použil disidentské. To je právě ta otázka stylu a vkusu. Příznačné, nejen pro naše internetové diskuse je, že se občas chytnou slovíčka, ale diskuse nad podstatou věci jde stranou. Takže znova řečnická otázka: kdy a jak se to soudci naučí? Je jiná metoda, než "průzkum bojem"? Příručka "Jak psát odlišná stanoviska snadno a rychle" zatím není napsána. Postoj "než takto, tak raději vůbec", ten mi nepřijde produktivní.
 Ad chyby: Více o tom ví Tomáš Langášek. Já o věci vím jen z velké dálky.
 Nálezy US nebyly 12 let systematičtěji zpracovávány z hlediska výstupu (tedy krom Sb. n. u.). Najednou je to hodně práce (například některý disent lze objevit jen při prolistování spisu). V systému který má obhospodařit téměř 30 000 rozhodnutí chyby jsou, a proto to ještě bude chvíli trvat, než se v interakci s uživateli odstraní. NALUS bude tak dobrý, jak dobré budou připomínky uživatelů. Analytické oddělení prosí, aby připomínky byly zasílány na adresu zde
 18. 11. 2007 11:33:00
 A nyní k tomu hlavnímu, co mě vadí.
 Velmi mě překvapilo, jak jsi se jako člověk, který ma zkušenost se zahraniční akademickou otevřeností, vehementně postavil za cenzurní stanovisko. Vycházelo (implicitně) z toho, že lepší by bylo, kdyby u církví byl zveřejněn jen většinový názor (tedy pokud soudce není schopen napsat disent tak, aby obstál ve srovnání s tím nejlepším z nejlepšího, co dnes plodí snad staletá kultura publikace odlišných stanovisek, kde zajisté docházelo k pokusům a omylům).
 To by ale diskuse zůstala jen na povrchu. (Nemluvě o tom, že by nebylo co analyzovat.) Přitom disenty se na síti objevily pravděpodobně až po intervenci. (Snad teď neprozrazuji státní tajemství a nebudu "krz to mít nějaké voplétačky";to víte, políž 17/11 je člověk tak nějak otevřenější). Původně tam byl jen většinový názor. Též tisková zpráva o nesouhlasu mlčí. Připouštím ale, že to jsou detaily, kterých si na dálku všimnout nelze.
 Názory jsou podmínkou produktivní diskuse. Příklad? Ve stejný den vyhlášený nález o diskriminaci dlouho přístupný nebyl a to ani disenty. Takže diskuse není.
 Nález už je konečně přístupný zde.
 (zaškrtněte např. nálezy přijaté po 1/10/07).
 18. 11. 2007 11:34:00
 ad David (a Kozinski :)
 no jo, ale v tom pripade A. Kozinski psal disent jako ten (prave) jeden, kdo byl proti. Zde je disent S. Balika jednim ze sesti, pricemz disent I. Janu pregnantni a podrobnou argumentaci obsahuje. Bylo by lepsi, kdyby se mensina srotila do siku a napsala ten disent jeden a spolecny? Mozna, ale pro US jako celek by to znamenalo otevrene rozstepeni, coz by asi neprospelo ani jeho fungovani, ani jeho duveryhodnosti a tudiz ucinnosti.
 a az bude takhle "exhibovat" pet soudcu (nedejbuh najednou),to uz bude uplne jina situace a docela problem :)
 18. 11. 2007 12:24:00
 Ač jsem nechtěl, tak pokračuju dál v diskusi, protože si myslím, že to má pořád smysl.
 Došlo asi k malému nepochopení. Označení mé osoby jako cenzora to je spíš oxymoron...:) Přiliš kladeš důraz na jednu moji předchozí větu ("Pokud někdo disenty používat neumí, tak ať to radši vůbec nedělá."), kterou jsem myslel jako METAFORU!!! Vůbec jsem neřekl, že by u "církevního nálezu" mělo být zveřejněno jen většinové stanovisko (to bych naopak považoval za nedemokratické; viz níže).
 Netvrdím, že existuje jiná metoda, než "průzkum bojem" - pouze, že bych prozatím nezaváděl disenty u JINÝCH soudů do té doby, než se praxe u ÚS dostatečně zavede a až o používání disentů proběhně dostatečná diskuse (a nechytej mě prosím hned za slovo, KDY to bude). Když si přečteš paper Hendersona, na který jsem odkazoval výše, tak uvidíš, že zavedení disentů slouží k posílení moci soudů! (i když sám přiznávám, že toto je velmi kontroverzní názor) Aby to bylo úplně jasné, jsem pro publikaci všech disentů a disentní stanoviska u ÚS bych nerušil.
 Ad 8:7: § 14 ZUS je mi samozřejmě znám - vždyť o něm psala E.W. cca 2 týdny zpátky v "Tajnostech soudních"! Právě tady je ale zakopán pes. Podle mě je praxe ÚS, kdy jsou zveřejňována JEN odlišná stanoviska, ale už ne jména VŠECH soudců, kteří hlasovali proti (byť nepřiložili odlišné stanovisko) nedemokratická. ÚS se tak stává "cloistered virtue". Jako občan mám právo vědět, jak který soudce hlasoval, abych mohl sledovat jeho názorovou konsistentnost apod. Pro právníka je to rovněž klíčové, protože podle toho bude formulovat svou litigační strategii (a cost-benefit analýzu především). Nepochybně uznáš, že je jednodušší plédovat pro judikatorní odklon, když byl poměr hlasů 8:7 než 11:4. Plně souhlasím s E.W., že "v demokratickém právním státu nemůže být nezávislost (ba přímo profesní existence) soudce ohrožována tím že bude znám jeho konkrétní názor na řešenou věc". Právě naopak, accountability a transparentnost soudního rozhodování přímo vyžaduje
 vědět, jak který soudce v dané kauze hlasoval. Zpět k výzkumu v oblasti disentů - mě jako researchera až tak nezajímá, kdo kdy PŘILOŽIL odlišné stanovisko, ale kdo jak HLASOVAL. Pouze tak bude tento výzkum smysluplný.
 NAULUS jsem nehodlal kritizovat a nevím jak to mám říct JASNĚJI!
 V tomto s Tebou zásadně nesouhlasím. Podle mého názoru by opravdy "bylo lepsi, kdyby se mensina srotila do siku a napsala ten disent jeden a spolecny" (prosím nepodsouvat, že by se mensina MUSELA srotit). A to právě proto, že by to znamenalo OTEVŘENÉ A TRANSPARENTNÍ rozstepeni" (které by pochopil i neprávník). Taková praxe by prospela fungovani ÚS, A ZEJMÉNA jeho duveryhodnosti. Máme ale asi odlišnou soudní filozofii...:)
 Omlouvám se za tak dlouhý post.
 18. 11. 2007 16:43:00
 Jo, asi mame odlisnou soudni filosofii :) ja treba za jedno z nejlepsich soudnich rozhodnuti, ktere (spise o kterych) jsem kdy cetl, povazuji pripav Nachmani v. Nachmani, reseny nadvakrat israelskym Najvyssim soudem (49 (1) PD 485, 50 (4) PD 661, ten clanek je Barak-Erez, D., Shapira, R., The Delusion of Symmetric Rights, 19 O. J. L. S. 297 (1999)). A v tom druhem rozhodnuti (plenarnim) podalo samostatna stanoviska VSECH 11 SOUDCU. Jiste, zadne nebylo ve stylu S. Balika v nasi kauze, ale cele to pekne ukazalo argumentacni pluralitu pravniho diskursu a rovnez bytostni slozitost zkoumane kauzy (mimochodem, take se tykala prava na zivot, takze by se hodila i k jinemu postu :)
 mimochodem, ten clanek (a cely casopis zrejme :) je dovela prusvih sehnat - neni v Heinu (tam OJLS konci 18 rocnikem), neni ve Westlaw (jenom abstrakt), zato je jako fulltext v LexisNexis Butterworths a jako scan pdf take myslim v ProQuestu. Kazdopadne mohu poslat :)
 18. 11. 2007 17:32:00
 To ale můžeme skončit taky takhle:
 "Kennedy, J., announced the judgment of the Court and
 delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to a portion of
 Part II-A-1. Rehnquist, C.J., and Stevens and Souter, JJ., joined the opinion in full, and Breyer, J., joined except
 insofar as Part II-A-1 relied on an anticompetitive rationale.
 Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed an
 opinion concurring in part. O’Connor, J., filed a dissenting
 opinion in which Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ.,
 (Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997))
 To neni zrovna přehledné, že? No ale po krátkém přemýšlení částečně přehodnocuji svůj názor a přistupuji na to, že ve výjimečných případech jako byl např. Nachmani v Nachmani (pokud se nemýlím, tak se to týkalo práv embrya, že?) má svoje opodstatnění i 11 rozdílných stanovisek. Jinými slovy, názorová pluralita má přednost před přehledností a předvídatelností. Pořád si ale stojím za tím, že každý disent musí něco skutečně "přinést".
 Navíc musí být z každého disentu jasné s čím nesouhlasí (tj. s celým odůvodněním většiny či jen s jeho částí apod.) - viz výše. Tento postup ale bohužel ÚS taky nedodržuje. Pak ty změti disentů vypadají jako stará anglická praxe (a dosud aplikovaná např. u House of Lords)předkládání stanovisek soudců "SERIATIM" (tj jeden po druhém), což vede ke značné nepřehlednosti.
 18. 11. 2007 18:17:00
 Ve slabé chvilce jsem smazal první příspěvek do diskuze, protože mi připadal hloupý a příliš osobně laděný (což mi docházelo už když jsem to psal: měla to být malá provokace). Jestli někomu mazání vlastních komentů připadá nefér, prosím o zprávu o tom. Asi bych si měl dát nějakou kvótu (jeden výmaz za měsíc), anebo dvakrát měřit.
 Souhlasím s tím, co sofistikovaněji napsal David Kosař. Balíkovy disenty jsou třeba i milá kuriozita v situaci, kdy podobným stylem píše jen on sám. Nepřipadá mi ovšem přitažlivý stav, kdy by se první disentující rozepisoval o Lacanově teorií semi-inkluzivních sociálních systémů, druhý o historii vývoje kultur předkolumbovské ameriky, třetí o kohabitačních strategiích mykologických formací a čtvrtý o spojitých zobrazeních fraktálních množin v riemannovském prostoru...
 Historie již nemá funkci společného "jazyka".
 18. 11. 2007 18:47:00
 ad Jenda: to by byl spis Luhmann, Lacan je francouzsky psychoanalytik :) ale pro pravo vyznamny je, az zjistim vic, napisu. zdroje mam ;)
 18. 11. 2007 19:55:00
 Konečně jsem se na JP dostal, abych se podíval na tvoji reakci. Nechci to už dál natahovat, pokusím se být stručný:
 NALUS kritiku potřebuje, tak jako každý jiný výtvor. Jen tak bude lepší.
 Snažím se vést diskusi vyhraněně, proto i ta "podpora cenzurního stanoviska" (btw. pokud někdo něco podporuje, nemusí tím sám být) :-)
 Já skutečně nepotřebuji být přesvědčován o zvyšování transparence soudního rozhodování, třeba i formou zveřejnění údajů o tom, kdo jak hlasoval. Je jedno jestli jde o ČNB nebo o ÚS, jak už jsem v minulosti řekl, podporuji obojí. Nevím kde jsem naznačil opak (argumentace ZUS byla možným vysvětlením rozdílů na něž jsi poukázal)
 Věc na které se neshodneme je míra prospěšnosti zveřejňování disentů "teď a tady". Zde podporuješ dočasnou uzavřenost. Já ne. Kvalita textu ke odpovědností každého soudce, který má i odpovědnost za důveryhodnostcelého soudního tělesa.
 Pokud by se disenty zavedly i u vrcholných soudů, mohlo by to mj. dodat dobré argumenty do nominačních debat (ať už na US nebo jinam).
 Na závěr se zeptám: podporoval bys povinné zveřejňování poměrů hlasů u rozhodnutí NS a NSS? Ať už u rozhodnutí senátních, nebo u rozhodnutí větších senátů?
 PS: bylo by fajn, kdybys na web dal nějakou stručnou verzi hlavnách myšlenek tvého výborného textu o testu proporcionality - byla by to i ochutnávka toho, co pak vyjde v jurisprudenci.
 21. 11. 2007 17:51:00
 Děkuji všem za velice zajímavé postřehy. Můj osobní názor, kterým bylo inspirovánon i úvodní zamyšlení, vycházel z přesvědčení, že výkon moci soudní, jejíž součástí je přirozeně i sepisování většinového či menšinového stanoviska, není samolibou exhibicí sečtělosti autora a jeho znalosti cizích jazyků, ale typem sdělení. Jestliže se snažím něco sdělit, měl bych se též snažit být srozumitelný pro maximálně velký okruh rozumně vzdělaných lidí. Tím přirozeně netvrdím, že soudní rozhodnutí má být psáno tak, aby se napříště kvalifikovalo do sobotní přílohy Blesku. Disent Dr. Balíka představuje ale myslím opačný extrém: drtivá většina slušně vzdělaných čtenářů myslím nemá ponětí, o čem to má být. V takovém případě se nedomnívám, že jde o chybu čtenářů.
 Toto jsou přirozeně všechno subjektivní kategorie: jak někdo v diskusi zmínil, je to otázka osobního vkusu. Ten můj již chvilku dává v odborném textu přednost solidní, byť místy těžké románské klenbě před barokními kudrlinkami, kde přes množství baculatých prdelek zlatých andělíčků už ani není vidět oltář.
 22. 11. 2007 15:51:00


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21980A0728(02)
 Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Republic of Romania on trade in industrial products
 Official Journal L 352 , 29/12/1980 P. 0005 Greek special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 23 P. 0017 Spanish special edition: Chapter 11 Volume 13 P. 0077 Portuguese special edition Chapter 11 Volume 13 P. 0077
 COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 3338/80 of 16 December 1980 on the conclusion of the Agreement on the establishment of the Joint Committee and the Agreement on trade in industrial products between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Republic of Romania THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 113 thereof, Having regard to the recommendation from the Commission, Whereas the Agreement on the establishment of the Joint Committee and the Agreement on trade in industrial products between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Republic of Romania should be approved, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Article 1 The Agreement on the establishment of the Joint Committee and the Agreement on trade in industrial products between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Republic of Romania are hereby approved on behalf of the Community. The texts of the Agreements are annexed to this Regulation. Article 2 The President of the Council shall give the notifications provided for in Article 5 of the Agreement on the establishment of the Joint Committee and in Article 13 of the Agreement on trade in industrial products (1). Article 3 The Community shall be represented on the Joint Committee established by the first Agreement referred to in Article 1 by the Commission, assisted by representatives of the Member States. Article 4 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 16 December 1980. For the Council The President Colette FLESCH (1) The date of entry into force of the Agreements will be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities by the General Secretariat of the Council. AGREEMENT between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Republic of Romania on the establishment of the Joint Committee THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES and THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, CONSIDERING the traditional trade relations between the Member States of the European Economic Community, hereinafter called "the Community", and the Socialist Republic of Romania, hereinafter called "Romania", CONSIDERING the powers assigned to the Community under the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, DESIRING to develop trade relations on the basis of equality and mutual satisfaction of the partners and of reciprocity permitting as a whole, an equitable distribution of advantages and obligations of comparable scale, with respect for bilateral and multilateral agreements, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the Parties "respective levels of economic development and Romania's membership of the "Group of 77 developing countries", REAFFIRMING the importance which the Parties attach to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ; whereas, in compliance with the provisions of that Agreement and the Protocol of Accession of Romania thereto, they grant each other most-favoured-nation treatment, WHEREAS there is an Agreement on trade in textile products between the Community and Romania; WHEREAS an Arrangement on Romanian exports of iron and steel products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community has been concluded between the Community and Romania; WHEREAS an Agreement on trade in other industrial products has been concluded between the Community and Romania, WHEREAS the establishment of a framework, taking the form of a Joint Committee, will make it possible to hold periodic exchanges of views on various aspects of the Parties' economic relations and to examine measures aimed at ensuring the harmonious development of those relations; RECOGNIZING the importance of the new direct link thus created by the establishment of a Joint Committee, which will provide a means of giving fresh impetus to economic and trade relations between the Community and Romania, HAVE DECIDED to conclude this Agreement: Article 1 1. A Joint Committee is hereby established, composed of representatives of the Community, on the one hand, and representatives of Romania, on the other. The tasks of the Joint Committee shall be: - to examine the various aspects of trade between the Parties, notably its overall pattern, rate of growth, structure and diversification, the trade balance and the various forms of trade and trade promotion; - to make recommendations on any trade problem of mutual concern; - to seek appropriate means of avoiding possible difficulties in the fields of trade and to encourage various forms of commercial cooperation in areas of mutual interest; - to consider measures likely to develop and diversify trade, notably by improving import opportunities in the Community and in Romania; - to exchange information on structural guidelines laid down for the economies of the two Parties which have an impact on trade and, by extension on the scope for developing complementarity between the respective economies and also on the proposed economic development programmes; - to see that the agreements and arrangements between the Parties function properly and to carry out the tasks assigned to it under those agreements or arrangements; - to give sympathetic consideration to possible ways of improving conditions for the development of direct contacts between firms established in the Community and those established in Romania; - to formulate and submit to the authorities of both Parties recommendations for solving any problems that arise, where appropriate by means of the conclusion of arrangements or agreements. 2. The Joint Committee shall meet at the highest possible level and shall adopt recommendations by mutual agreement between the Parties. Article 2 Should the Parties consider it necessary, the Joint Committee may meet on an ad hoc basis in order to deal with special problems and hold the consultations provided for under the agreements between the Parties. Article 3 The Joint Committee shall meet once a year in Brussels and Bucharest alternately. Special meetings may be convened by mutual agreement, at the request of either Contracting Party. The office of Chairman of the Joint Committee shall be held alternately by each of the Contracting Parties. Wherever possible, the agenda for meetings of the Joint Committee will be agreed beforehand. Article 4 This Agreement shall apply, on the one hand, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty and, on the other hand, to the territory of Romania. Article 5 This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the date on which the Contracting Parties notify each other that the legal procedures necessary for that purpose have been completed. The agreement shall be concluded for an unlimited period. Either Contracting Party may denounce the agreement at any time however, by giving six months' notice. This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement between the Contracting Parties to take account of new developments. Article 6 This Agreement is drawn up in duplicate in the Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and Romanian languages, each of these texts being equally authentic. Udfærdiget i Bukarest, den otteogtyvende juli nitten hundrede og firs. Geschehen zu Bukarest am achtundzwanzigsten Juli neunzehnhundertachtzig. Done at Bucharest on the twenty-eighth day of July in the year one thousand nine hundred and eighty. Fait à Bucarest, le vingt-huit juillet mil neuf cent quatre-vingt. Fatto a Bucarest, addì ventotto luglio millenovecentottanta. Gedaan te Boekarest, de achtentwintigste juli negentienhonderd tachtig. >PIC FILE= "T0016863"> For Rådet for De europæiske Fællesskaber, Für den Rat der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, For the Council of the European Communities, Pour le Conseil des Communautés européennes, Per il Consiglio delle Comunità europee, Voor de Raad van de Europese Gemeenschappen, >PIC FILE= "T0016864"> For Regeringen for Den socialistiske republik Rumænien, Für die Regierung der Sozialistischen Republik Rumänien, For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania, Pour le gouvernement de la république socialiste de Roumanie, Per il governo della Repubblica socialista di Romania, Voor de Regering van de Socialistische Republiek Roemenië, >PIC FILE= "T0016865"> AGREEMENT between the European Economic Community and the Socialist Republic of Romania on trade in industrial products THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES and THE GOVERNMENT OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA, RESOLVED to develop and diversify trade between the European Economic Community, hereinafter referred to as the Community, and the Socialist Republic of Romania, hereinafter referred to as Romania, CONSCIOUS of the importance of industrial products in the expansion of trade, DESIRING, therefore, to promote the harmonious development of trade in industrial products between the Community and Romania, having regard to their respective levels of economic development, REAFFIRMING the commitment of the Community and Romania to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, including the Protocol of Accession of Romania, HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: Article 1 1. Subject to paragraph 2, this Agreement shall apply to trade in products originating in the Community or in Romania falling within Chapters 25 to 99 of the Customs Cooperation Council Nomenclature. 2. However, this Agreement shall not apply: - to products covered by the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community; - for the duration of the Agreement between the Community and Romania on trade in textile products initialled on 16 December 1977 and any successor agreement thereto, to textile products covered by those agreements; - to the products listed in the Annex to this Agreement. 3. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, trade between the Contracting Parties shall be conducted in compliance with their respective regulations. Article 2 1. The Contracting Parties shall make every effort to promote and expand their trade in industrial products. 2. To that end, they confirm their resolve to implement this Agreement liberally, taking into account the provisions of GATT and the Protocol of Accession of Romania, and will make every effort to facilitate trade between themselves in compliance with their respective regulations and to help establish a balance in that trade at the highest possible level. 3. In this spirit the Joint Committee established by the Agreement between the Community and Romania will attach special importance to examining ways of encouraging the reciprocal and harmonious expansion of trade. Article 3 1. The Community will accord the highest possible degree of liberalization to imports of products originating in Romania. To this end it will make special efforts to ensure that, during the period of validity of this Agreement, substantial progress is made towards the gradual abolition of the restrictions referred to by Article 3 (a) of the Protocol of Accession of Romania to GATT. 2. Each year the Joint Committee will assess the progress made in applying paragraph 1 by reference to all relevant factors. 3. The Community undertakes not to introduce any new quantitative restrictions or measures having equivalent effect on imports of products covered by this Agreement and to apply to Romania any general measures it may take in the future to remove quantitative restrictions on imports in respect of the member countries of GATT. The Community will communicate to Romania the list of products which may be imported into the Community free of quantitative restrictions as from the entry into force of this Agreement. Article 4 1. The Community undertakes to suspend quantitative restrictions on imports into certain of its regions of products which are of priority importance to Romanian exports. 2. The list of the products referred to in paragraph 1 and the detailed arrangements for implementing that paragraph are given in the Protocol annexed to this Agreement. Article 5 1. For each calendar year, the Community shall open import quotas for products exported by Romania which are subject to quantitative restrictions. 2. The Community will notify Romania as speedily as possible of the quotas opened for 1981. 3. The two Parties will subsequently hold consultations each year in the Joint Committee to determine whether the quotas referred to in paragraph 2 should be increased for the following year. Article 6 1. Imports into the Community of products covered by this Agreement shall not be charged against the quotas referred to in Article 5 provided that they are declared as being intended for re-export from the Community, either in the unaltered state or after inward processing, under the administrative control arrangements established for this purpose in the Community. 2. Re-imports into the Community of products covered by this Agreement obtained as a result of the processing in Romania of goods temporarily exported by the Community shall not be charged against the quotas referred to in Article 5 provided that they are declared as such under nondiscriminatory control systems in force for this purpose in the Member States of the Community. Article 7 The Romanian authorities undertake to ensure that goods are delivered at market-related prices or on terms which do not cause or threaten serious injury to producers of like or directly competing products at a comparable marketing stage. Article 8 1. The Contracting Parties shall consult each other if any product is being imported in trade between the Community and Romania in such increased quantities or under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of like or directly competing products. 2. The Contracting Party requesting the consultations will supply the other Party with all the information required for a detailed examination of the situation. 3. The consultations requested pursuant to paragraph 1 will be held with due regard for the fundamental aims of the Agreement and the general principles of international law and will be completed not later than 30 days from the date of notification of the request by the Party concerned, unless the Parties agree otherwise. 4. If as a result of these consultations it is acknowledged that the situation described in paragraph 1 exists, the Parties will take appropriate measures, on a regional basis if necessary, to prevent or put an end to the injury, including measures relating to the selling prices of the products exported where the injury is caused by prices which are abnormally far below the normal level of competition. 5. If the consultations end without the Contracting Parties reaching agreement on the measures to be taken, the Contracting Party which requested the consultations will be free to apply to imports of the products in question such measures as it considers necessary to prevent or put an end to the injury caused by the exports from the other Contracting Party. In that event, the other Party will be entitled to waive its obligations towards the first Party in respect of substantially equivalent trade. 6. In exceptional cases, where any delay would cause damage which it would be difficult to repair, provisional measures to prevent or remedy the injury may be taken during the consultations or without prior consultation. In that event, if the consultations have not already begun, they will take place immediately after the measures in question have been taken. 7. The Contracting Parties agree to hold consultations to determine when the measures adopted pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 shall cease to apply. Article 9 1. Romania will expand and diversify its imports of products originating in the Community at least at the same rate as its purchases from the other contracting Parties to GATT. Romania will expand and diversify its imports of products originating in the Community at a rate not smaller than that of its purchases from the other Contracting Parties to GATT. 2. In order to make Community economic operators more aware of the opportunities for exporting to Romania, the latter will supply the Community as speedily as possible with all relevant information, notably on annual economic development programmes and general or sectoral import programmes or targets. 3. The Joint Committee will assess each year, in the light of all relevant factors, progress made on expanding and diversifying Romania's imports or products originating in the Community. The Joint Committee may recommend measures to promote further progress in this field. Article 10 The two Contracting Parties undertake to promote visits by persons, groups and delegations involved in trade between the two Parties and to encourage and facilitate as far as possible the organization of fairs and exhibitions by each Party on the territory of the other Contracting Party. Article 11 The Contracting Parties shall agree that payments for transactions shall be made, in accordance with their respective laws and regulations, in any convertible currency agreed by the two Parties concerned in the transaction. Article 12 This Agreement shall apply, on the one hand, to the territories in which the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community is applied and under the conditions laid down in that Treaty and, on the other hand, to the territory of Romania. Article 13 This Agreement shall enter into force on 1 January 1981, provided that the Contracting Parties have notified each other by that date that the legal procedures necessary to this end have been completed. The Agreement shall be concluded for a period of five years. The Agreement shall be automatically renewed year by year provided that neither Contracting Party gives the other Party written notice of denunciation of the Agreement six months before it expires. However, the two Contracting Parties may amend the Agreement by mutual consent in order to take account of new developments. The Annex, the Protocol and the exchanges of letters attached to this Agreement shall form an integral part thereof. Article 14 This Agreement is drawn up in duplicate in the Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and Romanian languages, each text being equally authentic. Udfærdiget i Bukarest, den otteogtyvende juli nitten hundrede og firs. Geschehen zu Bukarest am achtundzwanzigsten Juli neunzehnhundertachtzig. Done at Bucharest on the twenty-eighth day of July in the year one thousand nine hundred and eighty. Fait à Bucarest, le vingt-huit juillet mil neuf cent quatre-vingt. Fatto a Bucarest, addì ventotto luglio millenovecentottanta. Gedaan te Bockarest, de achtentwintigste juli negentienhonderd tachtig. >PIC FILE= "T0016866"> For Rådet for De europæiske Fællesskaber, Für den Rat der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, For the Council of the European Communities, Pour le Conseil des Communautés européennes, Per il Consiglio delle Comunità europee, Voor de Raad van de Europese Gemeenschappen, >PIC FILE= "T0016867"> For Regeringen for Den socialistiske republik Rumænien, Für die Regierung der Sozialistischen Republik Rumänien, For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania, Pour le gouvernement de la république socialiste de Roumanie, Per il governo della Repubblica socialista di Romania, Voor de Regering van de Socialistische Republiek Roemenië, >PIC FILE= "T0016868"> ANNEX Products falling within Chapters 25 to 99 of the Cooperation Council Nomenclature which are not covered by the Agreement >PIC FILE= "T0016869"> EXCHANGE OF LETTERS No 1 The Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community Sir, As was pointed out to you in the negotiations which led to the signing of the Agreement between the Community and Romania on trade in industrial products, products within the province of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community are or may be covered by separate arrangements. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. On behalf of the Council of the European Communities To the Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania The Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today, which reads as follows: "As was pointed out to you in the negotiations which led to the signing of the Agreement between the Community and Romania on trade in industrial products, products within the province of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community are or may be covered by separate arrangements. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter." I have the honour to confirm that I am in agreement with the terms of your letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania To the Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community EXCHANGE OF LETTERS No 2 The Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community Sir, 1. In the negotiations which led to the signing of the Agreement between the Community and Romania on trade in industrial products, the Romanian Delegation drew attention to Romania's special concern that the Community should undertake to abolish, for the duration of the Agreement, all the quantitative restrictions referred to in Article 3 of the Protocol of Accession of Romania to GATT. Although the Community Delegation confirmed that the Community's ultimate aim is in accordance with the Romanian objective referred to above, it mentioned the various reasons why it cannot at this stage undertake to meet Romania's request. 2. For the purposes of implementing Article 3 (1) of the Agreement, the Romanian Delegation has submitted a list, given in Annex I, of products which are of priority importance for Romanian exports and are subject to quantitative restrictions which Romania considers should be abolished or suspended for the duration of the Agreement. 3. The Community, referring in this connection to its position as stated in paragraph 1 and to the obligations deriving from the Protocol of Accession of Romania to GATT, and taking into account the abovementioned list, undertakes to abolish or suspend the quantitative restrictions on products listed in Annex II and to examine as a matter of priority in the Joint Committee the other products exported by Romania that are subject to specific quantitative restrictions, which should be abolished or suspended for the duration of the Agreement. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. On behalf of the Council of the European Communities To the Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania The Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania Sir, I am pleased to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today which reads as follows: " 1. In the negotiations which led to the signing of the Agreement between the Community and Romania on trade in industrial products, the Romanian Delegation drew attention to Romania's special concern that the Community should undertake to abolish, for the duration of the Agreement, all the quantitative restrictions referred to in Article 3 of the Protocol of Accession of Romania to GATT. Although the Community Delegation confirmed that the Community's ultimate aim is in accordance with the Romanian objective referred to above, it mentioned the various reasons why it cannot at this stage undertake to meet Romania's request. 2. For the purposes of implementing Article 3 (1) of the Agreement, the Romanian Delegation has submitted a list, given in Annex I, of products which are of priority importance for Romanian exports and are subject to quantitative restrictions which Romania considers should be abolished or suspended for the duration of the Agreement. 3. The Community, referring in this connection to its position as stated in paragraph 1 and to the obligations deriving from the Protocol of Accession of Romania to GATT, and taking into account the abovementioned list, undertakes to abolish or suspend the quantitative restrictions on products listed in Annex II and to examine as a matter of priority in the Joint Committee the other products exported by Romania that are subject to specific quantitative restrictions, which should be abolished or suspended for the duration of the Agreement. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter." I have the honour to confirm my agreement with the terms of your letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania To the Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community ANNEX I to Exchange of Letters No 2 >PIC FILE= "T0016870"> >PIC FILE= "T0016871"> ANNEX II to Exchange of Letters No 2 NB : The measures envisaged for the products appearing in lists (a), (b), (c) and (d) will be applied as and from 1 January 1981. (a) PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH QUANTITATIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS WILL BE ABOLISHED AT COMMUNITY LEVEL >PIC FILE= "T0016872"> >PIC FILE= "T0016873"> (b) PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH QUANTITATIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS WILL BE ABOLISHED AT REGIONAL LEVEL >PIC FILE= "T0016874"> >PIC FILE= "T0016875"> (c) PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH QUANTITATIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS WILL BE SUSPENDED AT REGIONAL LEVEL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTOCOL ANNEXED TO THE AGREEMENT >PIC FILE= "T0016876"> >PIC FILE= "T0016877"> (d) PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH QUANTITATIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS WILL BE SUSPENDED AT REGIONAL LEVEL >PIC FILE= "T0016878"> e) OTHER PRODUCTS >PIC FILE= "T0017088"> EXCHANGE OF LETTERS No 3 The Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community Sir, Since the beginning of 1980, a new import scheme aimed at subsequent liberalization ("Testausschreibung") has been introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany covering almost half of the industrial products still subject to quantitative restrictions (apart from textile and steel products). This scheme, whose application is currently limited to 1980, provides on an experimental and temporary basis for the issue of import licences above and beyond the limits set by the quotas. The "Testausschreibung" is intended to permit an assessment, in the course of future years, of the sectors in which quantitative restrictions on imports of industrial products might be removed. During the examination of the results of the "Testausschreibung", the particular importance which Romania attaches to the expansion of economic relations and Romania's contractual relations with the Community will be taken into consideration. In the event that, in particular instances, as a result of Romanian exports to the Federal Republic of Germany, market trends make it necessary to discontinue this practice, Romania will be informed to this effect immediately and prior consultation may take place if Romania so requests. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. On behalf of the Council of the European Communities To the Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania The Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today which reads as follows: "Since the beginning of 1980, a new import scheme aimed at subsequent liberalization ("Testausschreibung") has been introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany covering almost half of the industrial products still subject to quantitative restrictions (apart from textile and steel products). This scheme, whose application is currently limited to 1980, provides on an experimental and temporary basis for the issue of import licences above and beyond the limits set by the quotas. The "Testausschreibung" is intended to permit an assessment, in the course of future years, of the sectors in which quantitative restrictions on imports of industrial products might be removed. During the examination of the results of the "Testausschreibung", the particular importance which Romania attaches to the expansion of economic relations and Romania's contractual relations with the Community will be taken into consideration. In the event that, in particular instances, as a result of Romanian exports to the Federal Republic of Germany, market trends make it necessary to discontinue this practice, Romania will be informed to this effect immediately and prior consultation may take place if Romania so requests. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter." I have the honour to confirm that I am in agreement with the terms of your letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania To the Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community PROTOCOL on the application of Article 4 of the Agreement TITLE I Suspension of quantitative restrictions on imports into the Community and import control procedures Article 1 Quantitative restrictions on importation of products originating in Romania included in Annex I attached hereto are hereby suspended in the regions of the Community indicated in the said Annex on the conditions set out below. Article 2 1. Importation into the Community of the products referred to in Article 1 shall be subject to the presentation of an import authorization or document. 2. For each year of the lifetime of the Agreement the competent authorities in the Community shall within five working days of the presentation of an import application accompanied by the corresponding export licence issued by the Romanian authorities in accordance with Title II, automatically issue import authorizations or documents for such products up to the quantities specified for each product in Annex II. 3. Where the quantity in respect of which import authorizations or documents have been issued for a given product reaches the annual limit set for that product in Annex II or the unused portion of that limit is insufficient to cover the quantity specified in the export licence, the competent authorities in the Community shall suspend issue of import authorizations or documents for the excess amount. In this event the Community shall immediately inform Romania, which may request the holding of consultations on the matter. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 imports shall be set off against the limits set for the year in which shipment of the goods was actually effected in Romania, even if the export licence is issued after such shipment. Article 3 This Protocol shall not apply to: - imports of the products referred to in Article 1 where they are declared to be for re-export outside the Community in the same state or after processing under the administrative system of control set up for this purpose within the Community. However, the release for home use of the products referred to above, in the same state or after processing, is subject to the provisions of Article 2; - re-imports into the Community of the products referred to in Article 1 obtained by the processing in Romania of goods temporarily exported by the Community where they are declared as such re-imports under nondiscriminatory systems of administrative control in force for that purpose in the Member States of the Community. Article 4 The Joint Committee may examine any possible increase in the quantities specified in Annex II and the possibility of extending the import arrangements provided for in this Protocol to other products. Amendments to Annexes I and II which are recommended by the Joint Committee shall be notified in an exchange of letters between the parties. TITLE II Procedures for the issue of export licences by Romania Article 5 The competent authorities of Romania shall issue an export licence in respect of each consignment of products referred to in Annex I. Article 6 1. The export licence shall conform to a standard model, as shown in Annex III. 2. The Community and Romania shall render each other mutual assistance for the purpose of verifying the authenticity and correctness of export licences. Article 7 The competent authorities in the Community must be notified forthwith of the withdrawal or alteration of any export licence already issued. Article 8 A single original of each export licence shall be made out. This document may also comprise additional copies duly indicated as such. It shall be made out in English or French. If it is completed by hand, entries must be in ink and in printscript. The document shall measure 210 × 297 mm. The paper used must be white writing paper, sized, not containing mechanical pulp and weighing not less than 25 g/m2. Each part shall have a printed guilloche-pattern background making any falsification by mechanical or chemical means apparent to the eye. Each document shall bear a serial number, whether or not printed, by which it can be identified. Article 9 In the event of theft, loss or destruction of an export licence the exporter may apply to the competent authority which issued it for a duplicate to be made out on the basis of the export documents in his possession. The duplicate issued in this way must bear the endorsement "duplicate". The duplicate must bear the date of the original licence. Article 10 The competent authorities in Romania shall satisfy themselves that the goods exported correspond to the statements given in the export licence. Article 11 Romania shall send the Commission of the European Communities the names and addresses of the authorities competent to issue licences, together with specimens of the stamps used by these authorities. ANNEX Products falling within Chapters 25 to 99 of the Cooperation Council Nomenclature which are not covered by the Agreement >PIC FILE= "T0016869"> EXCHANGE OF LETTERS No 1 The Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community Sir, As was pointed out to you in the negotiations which led to the signing of the Agreement between the Community and Romania on trade in industrial products, products within the province of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community are or may be covered by separate arrangements. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. On behalf of the Council of the European Communities To the Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania The Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today, which reads as follows: "As was pointed out to you in the negotiations which led to the signing of the Agreement between the Community and Romania on trade in industrial products, products within the province of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community are or may be covered by separate arrangements. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter." I have the honour to confirm that I am in agreement with the terms of your letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania To the Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community EXCHANGE OF LETTERS No 2 The Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community Sir, 1. In the negotiations which led to the signing of the Agreement between the Community and Romania on trade in industrial products, the Romanian Delegation drew attention to Romania's special concern that the Community should undertake to abolish, for the duration of the Agreement, all the quantitative restrictions referred to in Article 3 of the Protocol of Accession of Romania to GATT. Although the Community Delegation confirmed that the Community's ultimate aim is in accordance with the Romanian objective referred to above, it mentioned the various reasons why it cannot at this stage undertake to meet Romania's request. 2. For the purposes of implementing Article 3 (1) of the Agreement, the Romanian Delegation has submitted a list, given in Annex I, of products which are of priority importance for Romanian exports and are subject to quantitative restrictions which Romania considers should be abolished or suspended for the duration of the Agreement. 3. The Community, referring in this connection to its position as stated in paragraph 1 and to the obligations deriving from the Protocol of Accession of Romania to GATT, and taking into account the abovementioned list, undertakes to abolish or suspend the quantitative restrictions on products listed in Annex II and to examine as a matter of priority in the Joint Committee the other products exported by Romania that are subject to specific quantitative restrictions, which should be abolished or suspended for the duration of the Agreement. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. On behalf of the Council of the European Communities To the Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania The Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania Sir, I am pleased to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today which reads as follows: " 1. In the negotiations which led to the signing of the Agreement between the Community and Romania on trade in industrial products, the Romanian Delegation drew attention to Romania's special concern that the Community should undertake to abolish, for the duration of the Agreement, all the quantitative restrictions referred to in Article 3 of the Protocol of Accession of Romania to GATT. Although the Community Delegation confirmed that the Community's ultimate aim is in accordance with the Romanian objective referred to above, it mentioned the various reasons why it cannot at this stage undertake to meet Romania's request. 2. For the purposes of implementing Article 3 (1) of the Agreement, the Romanian Delegation has submitted a list, given in Annex I, of products which are of priority importance for Romanian exports and are subject to quantitative restrictions which Romania considers should be abolished or suspended for the duration of the Agreement. 3. The Community, referring in this connection to its position as stated in paragraph 1 and to the obligations deriving from the Protocol of Accession of Romania to GATT, and taking into account the abovementioned list, undertakes to abolish or suspend the quantitative restrictions on products listed in Annex II and to examine as a matter of priority in the Joint Committee the other products exported by Romania that are subject to specific quantitative restrictions, which should be abolished or suspended for the duration of the Agreement. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter." I have the honour to confirm my agreement with the terms of your letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania To the Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community ANNEX I to Exchange of Letters No 2 >PIC FILE= "T0016870"> >PIC FILE= "T0016871"> ANNEX II to Exchange of Letters No 2 NB : The measures envisaged for the products appearing in lists (a), (b), (c) and (d) will be applied as and from 1 January 1981. (a) PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH QUANTITATIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS WILL BE ABOLISHED AT COMMUNITY LEVEL >PIC FILE= "T0016872"> >PIC FILE= "T0016873"> (b) PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH QUANTITATIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS WILL BE ABOLISHED AT REGIONAL LEVEL >PIC FILE= "T0016874"> >PIC FILE= "T0016875"> (c) PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH QUANTITATIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS WILL BE SUSPENDED AT REGIONAL LEVEL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROTOCOL ANNEXED TO THE AGREEMENT >PIC FILE= "T0016876"> >PIC FILE= "T0016877"> (d) PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH QUANTITATIVE IMPORT RESTRICTIONS WILL BE SUSPENDED AT REGIONAL LEVEL >PIC FILE= "T0016878"> e) OTHER PRODUCTS >PIC FILE= "T0017088"> EXCHANGE OF LETTERS No 3 The Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community Sir, Since the beginning of 1980, a new import scheme aimed at subsequent liberalization ("Testausschreibung") has been introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany covering almost half of the industrial products still subject to quantitative restrictions (apart from textile and steel products). This scheme, whose application is currently limited to 1980, provides on an experimental and temporary basis for the issue of import licences above and beyond the limits set by the quotas. The "Testausschreibung" is intended to permit an assessment, in the course of future years, of the sectors in which quantitative restrictions on imports of industrial products might be removed. During the examination of the results of the "Testausschreibung", the particular importance which Romania attaches to the expansion of economic relations and Romania's contractual relations with the Community will be taken into consideration. In the event that, in particular instances, as a result of Romanian exports to the Federal Republic of Germany, market trends make it necessary to discontinue this practice, Romania will be informed to this effect immediately and prior consultation may take place if Romania so requests. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. On behalf of the Council of the European Communities To the Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania The Head of the Delegation of the Socialist Republic of Romania Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of today which reads as follows: "Since the beginning of 1980, a new import scheme aimed at subsequent liberalization ("Testausschreibung") has been introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany covering almost half of the industrial products still subject to quantitative restrictions (apart from textile and steel products). This scheme, whose application is currently limited to 1980, provides on an experimental and temporary basis for the issue of import licences above and beyond the limits set by the quotas. The "Testausschreibung" is intended to permit an assessment, in the course of future years, of the sectors in which quantitative restrictions on imports of industrial products might be removed. During the examination of the results of the "Testausschreibung", the particular importance which Romania attaches to the expansion of economic relations and Romania's contractual relations with the Community will be taken into consideration. In the event that, in particular instances, as a result of Romanian exports to the Federal Republic of Germany, market trends make it necessary to discontinue this practice, Romania will be informed to this effect immediately and prior consultation may take place if Romania so requests. I would be grateful for confirmation of your agreement with the terms of this letter." I have the honour to confirm that I am in agreement with the terms of your letter. Please accept, Sir, the assurance of my highest consideration. For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania To the Head of the Delegation of the European Economic Community PROTOCOL on the application of Article 4 of the Agreement TITLE I Suspension of quantitative restrictions on imports into the Community and import control procedures Article 1 Quantitative restrictions on importation of products originating in Romania included in Annex I attached hereto are hereby suspended in the regions of the Community indicated in the said Annex on the conditions set out below. Article 2 1. Importation into the Community of the products referred to in Article 1 shall be subject to the presentation of an import authorization or document. 2. For each year of the lifetime of the Agreement the competent authorities in the Community shall within five working days of the presentation of an import application accompanied by the corresponding export licence issued by the Romanian authorities in accordance with Title II, automatically issue import authorizations or documents for such products up to the quantities specified for each product in Annex II. 3. Where the quantity in respect of which import authorizations or documents have been issued for a given product reaches the annual limit set for that product in Annex II or the unused portion of that limit is insufficient to cover the quantity specified in the export licence, the competent authorities in the Community shall suspend issue of import authorizations or documents for the excess amount. In this event the Community shall immediately inform Romania, which may request the holding of consultations on the matter. 4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3 imports shall be set off against the limits set for the year in which shipment of the goods was actually effected in Romania, even if the export licence is issued after such shipment. Article 3 This Protocol shall not apply to: - imports of the products referred to in Article 1 where they are declared to be for re-export outside the Community in the same state or after processing under the administrative system of control set up for this purpose within the Community. However, the release for home use of the products referred to above, in the same state or after processing, is subject to the provisions of Article 2; - re-imports into the Community of the products referred to in Article 1 obtained by the processing in Romania of goods temporarily exported by the Community where they are declared as such re-imports under nondiscriminatory systems of administrative control in force for that purpose in the Member States of the Community. Article 4 The Joint Committee may examine any possible increase in the quantities specified in Annex II and the possibility of extending the import arrangements provided for in this Protocol to other products. Amendments to Annexes I and II which are recommended by the Joint Committee shall be notified in an exchange of letters between the parties. TITLE II Procedures for the issue of export licences by Romania Article 5 The competent authorities of Romania shall issue an export licence in respect of each consignment of products referred to in Annex I. Article 6 1. The export licence shall conform to a standard model, as shown in Annex III. 2. The Community and Romania shall render each other mutual assistance for the purpose of verifying the authenticity and correctness of export licences. Article 7 The competent authorities in the Community must be notified forthwith of the withdrawal or alteration of any export licence already issued. Article 8 A single original of each export licence shall be made out. This document may also comprise additional copies duly indicated as such. It shall be made out in English or French. If it is completed by hand, entries must be in ink and in printscript. The document shall measure 210 × 297 mm. The paper used must be white writing paper, sized, not containing mechanical pulp and weighing not less than 25 g/m2. Each part shall have a printed guilloche-pattern background making any falsification by mechanical or chemical means apparent to the eye. Each document shall bear a serial number, whether or not printed, by which it can be identified. Article 9 In the event of theft, loss or destruction of an export licence the exporter may apply to the competent authority which issued it for a duplicate to be made out on the basis of the export documents in his possession. The duplicate issued in this way must bear the endorsement "duplicate". The duplicate must bear the date of the original licence. Article 10 The competent authorities in Romania shall satisfy themselves that the goods exported correspond to the statements given in the export licence. Article 11 Romania shall send the Commission of the European Communities the names and addresses of the authorities competent to issue licences, together with specimens of the stamps used by these authorities. ANNEX I Referred to in Article 1 of the Protocol >PIC FILE= "T0016879"> ANNEX II Referred to in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Protocol ROMANIAN EXPORT PROGRAMME >PIC FILE= "T0016880"> ANNEX III >PIC FILE= "T0016881">


text:
 26.10.2015
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 354/46
 Tužba podnesena 7. rujna 2015. – Mengozzi protiv OHIM-a – Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano (TOSCORO)
 (Predmet T-510/15)
 (2015/C 354/56)
 Jezik na kojem je tužba podnesena: engleski
 Stranke
 Tužitelj: Roberto Mengozzi (Monako, Monako) (zastupnik: T. Schuffenecker, odvjetnik)
 Tuženik: Ured za usklađivanje na unutarnjem tržištu (žigovi i dizajni) (OHIM)
 Druga stranka u postupku pred žalbenim vijećem: Consorzio per la Tutela dell’Olio Extravergine di Oliva Toscano IGP (Firenca, Italija)
 Podaci o postupku pred OHIM-om
 Nositelj spornog žiga: tužitelj
 Predmetni sporni žig: verbalni žig Zajednice „TOSCORO”/žig Zajednice br. 2 752 509
 Postupak pred OHIM-om: postupak proglašavanja žiga ništavim
 Pobijana odluka: odluka drugog žalbenog vijeća OHIM-a od 5. lipnja 2015. u predmetu R 322/2014-2
 Tužbeni zahtjev
 Tužitelj od Općeg suda zahtijeva da:
 —
 djelomično potvrdi pobijanu odluku i poništi dio odluke kojim je registracija žiga Zajednice za proizvode „jestiva ulja i masti; jestiva biljna ulja, osobito maslinova ulja” i „umaci od zelenih i crnih maslina” proglašena ništavom;
 —
 naloži tuženiku snošenje troškova postupka, uključujući one nastale tužitelju u postupku pred žalbenim vijećem;
 —
 naloži drugoj stranci u postupku pred žalbenim vijećem snošenje troškova postupka, uključujući one nastale tužitelju u postupku pred žalbenim vijećem, ako postane intervenijent u ovom postupku.
 Tužbeni razlozi
 —
 povreda članka 7. stavka 1. točke (k) Uredbe br. 207/2009 i članka 6. stavka 1. Uredbe (EU) br. 1151/2012;
 —
 povreda članka 13. stavka 1. točke (b) Uredbe br. 1151/2012;
 —
 povreda članka 15. Sporazuma TRIPS.