jurisdiction: US

text:
This is a suit by the appellee against the appellant to recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of her horse running away and throwing her out of her carriage and damaging the latter, caused by the alleged negligence of the appellant in operating an automobile on the public streets of Cambridge. There are ten counts in the declaration — five of which are for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, and the other five for damages to her carriage.
 Each count was demurred to and the demurrers overruled, and there was also a motion to strike out each of the first eight counts, which was refused. But as the Court below granted prayers instructing the jury that there was no legally sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to recover on the first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth counts, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon the demurrers, or the motion in reference to them, as it is not perceived how the defendant could have been injured, even if there was error as to any of those rulings. The case having been submitted on the third and fourth counts alone, we will confine ourselves to the consideration of them, and to the rulings on the evidence and prayers complained of by the appellant. As the fourth count is precisely like the third, except the latter complains of the injury to the plaintiff, while the former seeks to recover for damages to the carriage, it will only be necessary to discuss the third. *Page 425
 1. It alleges that the defendant was the owner of an automobile and while it, under his management and control, was being operated and run by him on the streets of Cambridge, the horse of the plaintiff, which was being driven by her on said streets, became frightened and alarmed at and by the said automobile; that such alarm was indicated at the time by the conduct of the horse, and was, or by the exercise of reasonable care and caution might have been, seen and noticed by the defendant; that notwithstanding the fright and alarm so indicated "the defendant negligently and improperly failed to, and did not, go to the side of the road and stop and remain stationary until the horse of the plaintiff had passed to a safe distance, making in the meantime as little noise as possible, in violation of the statutes of the State of Maryland," that in consequence of said negligence and improper conduct of the defendant the horse of the plaintiff, being so driven by her, became further frightened by said automobile and became unmanageable and ran away, without fault or negligence on her part; and she was thrown out of said carriage and severely bruised and otherwise greatly and permanently injured.
 It will be observed that this count relies on the alleged violation of the statute for the right to recover, but it will be well to recall some of the well established rights and duties of persons using public highways. One of the primary duties which any one using them owes others is to exercise reasonable care, and to bear in mind that he does not have the exclusive right of user, whether he be a mere pedestrian, or riding or driving a horse, or using some modern vehicle, such as an automobile. As was said by COOLEY, C.J., in Macomber v. Nichols, 34 Mich. 217, "When the highway is not restricted in its dedication to some particular mode of use, it is open to all suitable methods; and it cannot be assumed that these will be the same from age to age, or that new means of making the way useful must be excluded merely because their introduction may tend to the inconvenience or even to the injury of those who continue to use the road after the same manner as formerly. A highway established for the general benefit *Page 426
 of passage and traffic must admit of new methods of use whenever it is found that the general benefit requires them." While that rule is applicable to the use of automobiles on public highways, there are other principles which must be borne in mind — that is to say, ordinary care and caution must be used, and "the quantum of care required is to be estimated by the exigencies of the particular situation; that is, by the place, presence or absence of other vehicles and travelers; whether the horse driven is wild or gentle; whether the conveyance and power used are common or new to the road; the known tendency of any feature to frighten animals, etc." Indiana Spring Co. v. Brown, 74 N.E. 615; s.c., 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 238; Huddy on Automobiles, 49. Or as was said in Shinkle v. McCullough, 116 Ky. 960; s.c., 77 S.W. 196, "While automobiles are a lawful means of conveyance, and have equal rights upon the public roads with horses and carriages, their use should be accompanied with that degree of prudence in management, and consideration for the rights of others, which is consistent with their safety." Other cases are to the same effect, but while the well established rule on the subject is that the owner of an automobile has the right to use public highways as stated above, yet inasmuch as such use may be productive of injury to others, unless carefully run and managed, the Legislature has the undoubted right to regulate the speed and provide other reasonable regulations as to its use, the violation of which may subject the owner to damages for injuries thereby received. We will, therefore, next consider the statute laws of this State, applicable to the counts in the declaration which were held to be sufficient by the lower Court.
 2. The statute in force at the time of the accident provided that at the indication of a horse becoming alarmed the person in charge of a motor vehicle "shall go as far as practicable to the side of the road and remain stationary until the said horse or horses or other animals have passed a safe distance, in the meantime making as little noise as possible with the steam."
 Sec. 135 of Art. 56 of Code of 1904. This and other sections *Page 427
 on "Motor Vehicles" were amended by the Act of 1906, ch. 449, but as the accident was in June, 1905, we will refer to those found in the Code. The expression "as far as practicable" was ommitted from the third count, and the appellant contends that for that reason it was demurrable; but it alleges that he did not go to the side of the road — that is to say, did not go at all. If those words had been omitted from the statute, it would have been a sufficient compliance, if a party had gone as far aspracticable, for the law does not require impossibilities. If, for example, there was a row of carriages standing on the side of a road and the driver of an automobile went as far to the side as was practicable on account of the carriages, or if the grade of the road was such that he could not go further to the side, it would be an altogether unreasonable construction to place on the statute, to hold that because the law required him to go "to the side of the road" he had not complied with the statute although he had gone as far as practicable. And so with the words "with the steam" which were also omitted from the third and fourth counts. Manifestly those words were not intended to limit the provision to what are ordinarily called steam automobiles. Sec. 140 of Art. 56 shows that such construction was not intended. It said, "Whenever the term `motor vehicle' is used in this sub-title it shall be construed to include automobiles, locomobiles and all other vehicles propelled otherwise than by muscular power, except the cars of electric and steam railways and other motor vehicles running upon rails or tracks," and sec. 135 spoke of a person in charge of a "motor vehicle," and of horses "alarmed by said motor vehicle." But if this count was conceded to be defective by reason of the omission of the words "with the steam," the overruling of the demurrer was a harmless error, as the Court subsequently instructed the jury that there was no legally sufficient evidence that the automobile was making "any unusual and unnecessary noise." So without discussing other objections urged, we think the demurrer was properly overruled.
 3. We will next consider the rulings on the prayers. The *Page 428
 first prayer of the plaintiff, which was granted, is certainly very broad, when it is remembered that the jury was instructed that the plaintiff could not recover on any of the counts in the declaration, except the third and fourth. By it the jury was instructed that their verdict should be for the plaintiff if they found that the plaintiff was injured by being thrown from a carriage to which the horse being driven by her on High street was attached; that the horse "was frightened and caused to run away by the automobile of the defendant while operated by him upon said street, and that said injury might have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence on the part of the defendant," unless they found "that the injury complained of resulted from want of such care and prudence on the part of the plaintiff directly contributing to the accident." It is true that that prayer does not refer to the pleadings, but defendant's "D" prayer did specifically refer to the third and fourth counts, some prayers referred to the other counts and defendant's "H" prayer referred to the pleadings generally. In Balto. Bldg.Asso. v. Grant, 41 Md. 569, it was said, "But the prayer makes no reference to the pleadings, nor are they referred to ineither of the prayers offered by the defendant. In such case it has been well settled ever since the case of Leopard v. TheCanal Co., 1 Gill, 222, no question upon the pleadings can arise in the appellate Court." See also Giles v. Fauntleroy,13 Md. 136. The Court's attention to each and every count was thus specifically drawn by the prayers of the defendant, and hence it was not proper to authorize a verdict for the plaintiff which was not based on the grounds relied on in the counts in the nar. held to be valid. There is nothing in the first prayer to instruct the jury as to what care was required of the defendant, to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The mere fact that the plaintiff's horse was frightened and that the automobile caused it to run away would not have made the defendant liable, and the additional fact the injury might have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care and prudence on his part could not authorize her to recover on a declaration which relied entirely on the failure to comply with the statute. The *Page 429
 prayer does not base the right of the plaintiff's recovery upon any of the grounds relied on in the nar. The jury may have believed that the injury might have been avoided if the defendant had turned down William street, and that the failure to do so showed a want of ordinary care and prudence on his part, or it may have thought he ought to have gotten out of his automobile and have taken hold of the horse, or may have held him responsible for some other reason not relied on in these counts of the nar. "It is a principle of universal application in actions at law, that it is not upon the evidence alone, but upon the pleadings, and the evidence applicable to the pleadings, that a plaintiff can recover in any case." Balto. Elevator Co. v.Neal, 65 Md. 457.
 The defendant filed a special exception to this prayer because it assumes negligence on the part of the defendant, and also excepted to it generally. We do not find that it does assume negligence, but for the reasons above stated we think there was error in granting it. The appellee relied on the first prayer in case of Balto. City Pass. Ry. v. McDonnell, 43 Md. 537, but that was an altogether different case and there was no such objection to that prayer as we have referred to above.
 4. We do not see any objection to the plaintiff's second prayer, excepting by reason of the fact that it makes the first a part of it, which we have said was defective. It instructed the jury that if it found the facts therein stated "then there was a want of ordinary care on the part of the defendant, as mentionedin the plaintiff's first prayer." Inasmuch as the first ought to have been rejected the second must fall with it. If the first had confined its reference to the want of ordinary care to what was stated in the second, much of the objection to the first, stated above, might have been removed, but it does not limit it to the facts stated in the second, and the jury may have thought it was at liberty to find that some other fact or facts showed want of ordinary care. The appellant criticised the second prayer on several grounds, but none of them are tenable. He contended there was a conflict between it and the defendant's "B" prayer, but we do not so understand *Page 430
 it. The latter instructed the jury that there was no legally sufficient evidence that the automobile "was making any unusual and unnecessary noise as it approached and passed the horse and carriage," while the second only referred to what would have been the duty of the appellant, in reference to the noise, if he had gone to the side of the road and then stopped. We are also of the opinion that it was not necessary to further qualify that prayer by more specifically submitting to the jury to find whether there was time, after he discovered, or might by the exercise of reasonable diligence on his part have discovered, that the horse was frightened, to go to the side of the street, etc. There was not only ample evidence tending to show that he did have time, but he undertook to prove that he did go to the side of the street so far as to alarm his wife, who was afraid that he would upset the automobile. As it only undertook to tell the jury what would amount to ordinary care, a discussion as to whether the accident was the result of the defendant's failure to comply with the statute is not relevant in the consideration of the second prayer.
 5. Although the sixth was intended to submit to the jury a proposition of law that is correct in the main, some verbal changes could be made in it which would relieve it of possible danger of misleading the jury. It says the defendant "did not run to the side of the road." That might be understood as requiring more haste than the circumstances permitted, as the defendant testified that "as soon as he observed Miss Dixon he put his machine down as slow as he could, cut off the power, but let the motor run, and put on the brakes to keep her from running." It would be better to follow the language of the statute, but the possibility of the jury being misled by that and other expressions which the appellant has criticised is so remote that we would not feel justified in reversing the case for them if there was no other reason for doing so.
 6. We see no objection to the ninth prayer and will not discuss the special exceptions taken to it. The tenth was specially excepted to on the ground that it authorized the jury *Page 431
 in estimating the damages to consider how far the injury "is calculated to disable the plaintiff from engaging in those industrial pursuits and employments for which, in the absence of such injury, she would be qualified." As there was no evidence from which the jury could properly determine what "industrial pursuits and employments" she was capable of engaging in before the injury, it would merely lead to speculation and ought not to have been included in the prayer for damages.
 7. The defendant's "D" prayer was properly rejected. It asked the Court to instruct the jury that there was no legally sufficient evidence to entitle the plaintiff to recover on the third and fourth counts of the declaration. There was in our opinion sufficient evidence tending to prove that the defendant did not go to the side of the road and remain stationary until the horse of the plaintiff had passed to a safe distance, after the defendant was aware the horse had become alarmed at the automobile, and that that violation of the statute may have caused the injuries complained of. The defendant's "H" and "J" prayers were also properly rejected. They sought to have the case taken from the jury on the ground of contributory negligence of the plaintiff. There was no such act or conduct on her part as would have justified the Court in declaring as a matter of law that she was guilty of contributory negligence, and it was for the jury to determine. The defendant's second and third prayers, which were granted, submitted the question to the jury as favorably as he could ask, The defendant's "I" prayer asked the Court to instruct the jury that there was no legally sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant. That was properly rejected and what we have said above will relieve us of further discussion of it.
 8. The defendant's first prayer stated a principle of law which has been announced by different Courts, namely, "that the owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highways or streets of a city, and, like them, he must exercise reasonable care and caution for *Page 432
 the safety of others." That language seems to have been taken from the instruction given by the Superior Court of Delaware inHannigan v. Wright, 63 A. 234, but it was only a part of the charge, whereby the jury was instructed as to the rights of the parties, in accordance with the practice of that Court, and was not, as here, the mere statement of an abstract proposition of law. It might under the circumstances of this case have misled the jury, for while the owner of an automobile has the right to use the highways as owners of other vehicles have, the statute requires certain things to be done by him in case a horse becomes frightened. He must not only exercise reasonable care and caution for the safety of others, but he must do what the statute requires, when the conditions therein referred to arise. It would, therefore, be a dangerous practice to grant a prayer like this under such circumstances as exist in this case, as the jury might construe it to mean that as he has the right to use the highways for his automobile as the owners of other vehicles have, the owner of an automobile is under no obligation to go to the side of the road and remain stationary until the horse has passed. The other prayers which were granted were sufficient to inform the jury that the defendant did have the right to use the highways for his automobile — thereby giving him the benefit of that law, without the danger of misleading the jury.
 9. As the question of speed was taken from the consideration of the jury, it would be useless to discuss the defendant's sixth and seventh prayers. The eighth is so manifestly bad that it ought not to require any extended discussion. It in effect said that even if the plaintiff established by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant after seeing that the horse was frightened, had violated the statute by not going io the side of the road and remaining stationary until the horse had passed, it was not sufficient to render the defendant liable, "for the horsemight have frightened at the automobile and the said injury and damage caused even if the defendant had guided his automobile, as far as practicable, to the side of the road and stopped his automobile, and waited a sufficient time for *Page 433
 the horse to pass to a safe distance, or the plaintiff mighthave directly contributed to the said injury and damage by her own negligence." Upon what principle a prayer so framed could be granted we confess our inability to understand. The Court left to the jury to find, by the plaintiff's second prayer, whether the accident could have been avoided by the defendant's going to the side of the road, etc., but this prayer does not do that. It presents a very different proposition from that submitted in the defendant's ninth prayer in Balto. Pas. Ry. v. McDonnell,supra, which instructed the jury that the fact that the car was running at a greater speed than allowed by the ordinance was not sufficient to render the defendant liable, unless they further found that the accident "could not have occurred" if the car had not been going at such speed, and unless they further found there was no contributory negligence. That prayer was granted by the lower Court and was not passed on by this Court, beyond a mere reference to it, in connection with the plaintiff's second prayer. It was going rather far to use the expression "could not have occurred," and this Court in speaking of the violation of the ordinance said "the defendant was certainly guilty of negligence by so running its car, if the jury believed from the evidence that the accident could have been avoided if the car had not been running at greater speed than six miles an hour." But this prayer simply suggests arguments against the plaintiff's theory and does not submit questions of fact to the jury.
 10. There are six bills of exception, presenting rulings on the admissibility of evidence. The first was to the overruling of the objection of the defendant to a question asked Dr. H.O. Reik, who saw the plaintiff shortly after the accident. After giving his experience, stating his examination of Miss Dixon, etc., he was asked the question, "What was your prognosis from that, what did you regard her condition and her opportunities for recovery?" to which he replied, "The prognosis was very grave, as regards life even; also that when patients do recover there is always a strong probability that there will be some defect." That evidence was followed up *Page 434
 by showing that Dr. Reik had examined the plaintiff three or four times, and by calling upon him to give the result of those examinations. We cannot see therefore how the appellant could have been injured by the question and answer, and on the other hand it was evidence which might have been very material to the plaintiff's case. When a competent physician sees a patient shortly after receiving such injuries as the plaintiff sustained, he would almost necessarily reach some conclusion as to the probable results of the accident, which might be very important in a subsequent examination of the patient. He could more readily detect any attempts at feigning by reason of his former investigations and conclusions. As Dr. Reik testified he was compelled to rely to some extent in the subsequent examinations on her answers, and therefore if her condition on those occasions corresponded with his prognosis just after the accident, he could doubtless speak with more certainty about her condition at the time of the trial. The question was properly allowed.
 11. As the evidence in reference to noises became immaterial when the court granted the prayers on that subject above referred to, it is not necessary to discuss the second bill of exceptions, although we are of the opinion that there was no error in permitting the witness to testify that the defendant's automobile made more noise than any he had ever heard. The third and fifth exceptions may be considered together. William J. Edger, who had been in the livery business for nine years, had known the horse of the plaintiff four or five years, had an opportunity of observing it and noticed it frequently, was asked by the defendant, "Please state whether or not, in your opinion, that horse was fit for a lady to drive," and William H. Baker, who had been in the livery business for twenty years, knew the horse for four or five years and had charge of it, was asked, "Will you please state whether from your knowledge of this mare, she was safe for a woman to drive?" Both of those questions were objected to and ruled inadmissible by the lower Court. We are of the opinion that there was no error in those rulings. *Page 435
 If we treat those witnesses as experts on the subject of horses, what was said in Stumore v. Shaw, 68 Md. 19, will apply. JUDGE MILLER, in delivering the opinion in that case, said: "There is a general concurrence of authority and decisions in support of the proposition that expert testimony is not admissible upon a question which the Court or jury can themselves decide upon the facts; or stated in other words, if the relation of facts and their probable results can be determined without special skill or study, the facts themselves must be given in evidence, and the conclusions or inference must be drawn by the jury." As the manifest object of this evidence was to show contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, it would probably have resulted in having a large array of witnesses on each side to testify on the question, if such evidence had been allowed — many of whom would be influenced by their own peculiar notions of what a woman is capable of doing. The witnesses, whether experts or not, could give their knowledge of the horse and its traits, but the jury could judge as well as they could whether it was safe for the plaintiff to drive this particular horse, without having the opinion of witnesses on the subject.
 12. We think there was error in sustaining the objection to the question in the fourth bill of exceptions. The defendant, proposing to show by a witness that he had heard the father of the plaintiff tell her, prior to the accident, of the dangerous character of the horse and warn her against driving it, asked him this question: "State if while you were at Mr. Hooper's stable and were attending to this horse, you heard Dr. Dixon say to his daughter, Miss Nannie, anything about the horse's traits and character, if so, tell us what he said." The witness had previously testified that he was working at Mr. Hooper's stables at the time of the accident, had known the mare since she was two years old and it was a part of his duty to attend to her. He had also testified that he had always thought she was fractious and never thought she was fit for a woman to drive — that apparently not having been objected to when that witness was examined. The question was relevant as *Page 436
 reflecting upon contributory negligence, and we do not see any objection to its admissibility in the manner proposed. If the defendant could show what the record states he proposed to show by that witness, it was admissible and the question asked might have elicited such an answer. The weight of the testimony would have been for the jury, but it should have been admitted for their consideration.
 The ruling presented by the sixth exception was correct. There was no evidence that the horse was not properly geared and it would have been mere speculation on the part of the witness if he had answered it. For that and other reasons which might be given, the objection was properly sustained.
 For errors in granting the plaintiff's first and tenth prayers and in rejecting the testimony mentioned in the fourth bill of exceptions, the judgment will be reversed.
 Judgment reversed and new trial awarded, the appellee to paythe costs, above and below.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 15.12.2014
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 C 448/13
 A Centrale Raad van Beroep (Hollandia) által 2014. október 14-én benyújtott előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelem – Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank kontra F. Wieland és H. Rothwangl
 (C-465/14. sz. ügy)
 (2014/C 448/17)
 Az eljárás nyelve: holland
 A kérdést előterjesztő bíróság
 Centrale Raad van Beroep
 Az alapeljárás felei
 Felperes: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank
 Alperesek: F. Wieland, H. Rothwangl
 Az előzetes döntéshozatalra előterjesztett kérdések
 1)
 Úgy kell-e értelmezni az 1408/71 (1) rendelet 3. cikkét, valamint 94. cikkének (1) és (2) bekezdését, hogy attól az egykori tengerésztől, aki egy tagállami kikötőben honos tengeri hajó legénységéhez tartozott, nem rendelkezett szárazföldi lakóhellyel és valamely tagállam állampolgárságával, azon állam Unióhoz (illetve az Unió egyik jogelődjéhez) történő csatlakozását követően, amelynek állampolgárságával e tengerész rendelkezik, vagy az 1408/71 rendelet említett állam tekintetében történő hatálybalépését követően nem tagadható meg az öregségi nyugdíj (részbeni) nyújtása kizárólag azért, mert az említett egykori tengerész a(z igényelt) biztosítás idején nem rendelkezett a(z elsőként említett) tagállam állampolgárságával?
 2)
 Úgy kell-e értelmezni az EUMSZ 18. és az EUMSZ 45. cikket, hogy azokkal ellentétes az olyan tagállami szabályozás, amely szerint az a tengerész, aki egy e tagállambeli kikötőben honos tengeri hajó legénységéhez tartozott, nem rendelkezett szárazföldi lakóhellyel és valamely tagállam állampolgárságával, ki volt zárva az öregségi nyugdíjbiztosításból, miközben ugyanezen szabályozás szerint biztosítottnak minősül az a tengerész, aki azon tagállam állampolgára, amelyben a tengeri hajó honi kikötője található, és egyébként ugyanezen helyzetben van, ha az állam, amelynek állampolgárságával az elsőként említett tengerész rendelkezik, időközben – a nyugdíj megállapításának időpontjában – csatlakozott az Unióhoz (illetve annak egyik jogelődjéhez), vagy az 1408/71 rendelet időközben hatályba lépett ezen állam tekintetében?
 3)
 Ugyanazt a választ kell-e adni az első és a második kérdésre az olyan (egykori) tengerész esetében, aki tevékenységeinek időszakában olyan állam állampolgárságával rendelkezett, amely egy későbbi időpontban csatlakozott az Unióhoz (illetve annak egyik jogelődjéhez), aki azonban e csatlakozás vagy az 1408/71 rendeletnek az említett állam tekintetében történő hatálybalépése időpontjában és az öregségi nyugdíjra való jogosultságára való hivatkozás időpontjában a tagállamok egyikének sem állampolgára, de akire ez utóbbi rendelet a 859/2003 rendelet (2) 1. cikke alapján mégis alkalmazandó?
 (1) A szociális biztonsági rendszereknek a Közösségen belül mozgó munkavállalókra, önálló vállalkozókra és családtagjaikra történő alkalmazásáról szóló 1971. június 14-i 1408/71/EGK tanácsi rendelet (HL L 149., 2. o.; magyar nyelvű különkiadás 5. fejezet, 1. kötet, 35. o.)
 (2) Az 1408/71/EGK és az 574/72/EGK rendelet rendelkezéseinek valamely harmadik ország e rendelkezések által pusztán állampolgárságuk okán nem érintett állampolgáraira való kiterjesztéséről szóló 2003. május 14-i 859/2003/EK tanácsi rendelet (HL L 124., 1. o.; magyar nyelvű különkiadás 5. fejezet 4. kötet 317. o.)


type: legislation

text:
 14.4.2021
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 127/29
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) 2021/601
 z 13. apríla 2021
 o koordinovanom viacročnom kontrolnom programe Únie na roky 2022, 2023 a 2024 s cieľom zabezpečiť dodržiavanie maximálnych hladín rezíduí pesticídov a posúdiť vystavenie spotrebiteľov rezíduám pesticídov v potravinách rastlinného a živočíšneho pôvodu a na nich
 (Text s významom pre EHP)
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 396/2005 z 23. februára 2005 o maximálnych hladinách rezíduí pesticídov v alebo na potravinách a krmivách rastlinného a živočíšneho pôvodu a o zmene a doplnení smernice Rady 91/414/EHS (1), a najmä na jeho článok 29 ods. 2,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Nariadením Komisie (ES) č. 1213/2008 (2) bol zriadený prvý koordinovaný viacročný kontrolný program Spoločenstva na roky 2009, 2010 a 2011. Tento program pokračoval v rámci na seba nadväzujúcich nariadení Komisie. Posledným z nich bolo vykonávacie nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) 2020/585 (3).
 (2)
 Hlavné zložky stravy v Únii tvorí tridsať až štyridsať potravín. Keďže v priebehu troch rokov dochádza k výrazným zmenám vo využití pesticídov, mali by sa pesticídy v uvedených potravinách monitorovať v sérii trojročných cyklov tak, aby bolo možné posúdiť vystavenie spotrebiteľov a uplatňovanie právnych predpisov Únie.
 (3)
 Európsky úrad pre bezpečnosť potravín (ďalej len „úrad“) predložil vedeckú správu o posúdení návrhu programu monitorovania pesticídov. Dospel k záveru, že prekročenie maximálnej hladiny rezíduí (MRL) o viac než 1 % možno odhadnúť s tolerovanou chybovosťou 0,75 %, ak sa vyberie 683 jednotiek vzorky pre minimálne 32 rôznych potravín (4). Odber týchto vzoriek by mal byť medzi členskými štátmi rozdelený úmerne podľa počtu obyvateľov, pričom by malo byť minimálne 12 vzoriek na jeden produkt a na jeden rok.
 (4)
 Zohľadnili sa analytické výsledky z predchádzajúcich programov Únie pre úradné kontroly, aby sa zabezpečilo, že škála pesticídov, na ktoré sa kontrolný program vzťahuje, zodpovedá skutočne používaným pesticídom.
 (5)
 Usmernenie týkajúce sa postupov analytickej kontroly kvality a validácie pri analýze rezíduí pesticídov v potravinách a krmivách („Analytical quality control and validation procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed“) je uverejnené na webovom sídle Komisie (5).
 (6)
 Ak sú do definície rezídua pesticídu zahrnuté iné účinné látky, metabolity a/alebo produkty rozpadu alebo reakcie, takéto zlúčeniny by sa mali vykazovať zvlášť, pokiaľ sa merajú individuálne (6).
 (7)
 Členské štáty, Komisia a úrad sa dohodli na vykonávacích opatreniach týkajúcich sa predkladania informácií členskými štátmi, ako je štandardný opis vzorky verzia 2 (SSD2) a usmernenie o podávaní správ o monitorovaní chemických látok, na predkladanie výsledkov analýzy rezíduí pesticídov.
 (8)
 Pri postupoch odberu vzoriek by sa mala uplatňovať smernica Komisie 2002/63/ES (7), ktorá obsahuje metódy a postupy odberu vzoriek odporúčané Komisiou Codex Alimentarius.
 (9)
 Je potrebné posúdiť, či sa dodržiavajú maximálne hladiny rezíduí pre potraviny určené pre dojčatá a malé deti stanovené v článku 10 smernice Komisie 2006/141/ES (8), článku 7 smernice Komisie 2006/125/ES (9) a článku 4 delegovaného nariadenia Komisie (EÚ) 2016/127 (10), pričom sa zohľadňujú iba definície rezíduí stanovené v nariadení (ES) č. 396/2005.
 (10)
 V prípade metód na preukázanie jediného rezídua si môžu členské štáty splniť svoje povinnosti týkajúce sa analýzy tak, že požiadajú o pomoc úradné laboratóriá, ktoré už majú k dispozícii požadované validované metódy.
 (11)
 Členské štáty by mali každý rok do 31. augusta predložiť informácie za predchádzajúci kalendárny rok.
 (12)
 Aby v súvislosti s časovým presahom jedného viacročného programu do ďalšieho nedochádzalo k nejasnostiam, vykonávacie nariadenie (EÚ) 2020/585 by sa v záujme právnej istoty malo zrušiť. Malo by sa však naďalej uplatňovať na vzorky testované v roku 2021.
 (13)
 Opatrenia stanovené v tomto nariadení sú v súlade so stanoviskom Stáleho výboru pre rastliny, zvieratá, potraviny a krmivá,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Členské štáty (*1)* počas rokov 2022, 2023 a 2024 odoberú a podrobia analýze vzorky pre kombinácie pesticíd – produkt podľa prílohy I.
 Počet vzoriek z každého produktu vrátane potravín pre dojčatá a malé deti a produktov pochádzajúcich z ekologického poľnohospodárstva je stanovený v prílohe II.
 Článok 2
 1. Šarža produktov, z ktorej sa odoberú vzorky, sa vyberá náhodne.
 Postup odberu vzoriek vrátane počtu jednotiek musí byť v súlade so smernicou 2002/63/ES.
 2. Všetky vzorky vrátane vzoriek potravín určených pre dojčatá a malé deti a produktov pochádzajúcich z ekologického poľnohospodárstva sa musia analyzovať na pesticídy uvedené v prílohe I v súlade s definíciami rezíduí stanovenými v nariadení (ES) č. 396/2005.
 3. V prípade potravín určených pre dojčatá a malé deti sa hodnotia vzorky produktov určených na priamu spotrebu alebo rekonštituovaných podľa pokynov výrobcov, pričom sa zoberú do úvahy MRL stanovené v smerniciach 2006/125/ES a 2006/141/ES a v delegovanom nariadení (EÚ) 2016/127. Ak takéto potraviny môžu byť konzumované aj v stave, v akom sa predávajú, aj rekonštituované, výsledky sa vykazujú pre nerekonštituovaný produkt v stave, v akom sa predáva.
 Článok 3
 Členské štáty predložia výsledky analýzy vzoriek testovaných v rokoch 2022, 2023 a 2024 vždy do 31. augusta rokov 2023, 2024 a 2025 (v uvedenom poradí). Uvedené výsledky sa predložia v elektronickom formáte na vykazovanie stanovenom úradom EFSA.
 Ak definícia rezídua pesticídu zahŕňa viac ako jednu zlúčeninu (účinnú látku a/alebo metabolit alebo produkt rozpadu alebo reakcie), členské štáty vykážu výsledky analýzy v súlade s úplnou definíciou rezídua. Okrem toho sa výsledky všetkých analytov uvedených v definícii rezídua predložia oddelene, pokiaľ sú merané individuálne.
 Článok 4
 Vykonávacie nariadenie (EÚ) 2020/585 sa zrušuje.
 Naďalej sa však uplatňuje do 1. septembra 2022 na vzorky testované v roku 2021.
 Článok 5
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť 1. januára 2022.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 13. apríla 2021
 Za Komisiu
 predsedníčka
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 70, 16.3.2005, s. 1.
 (2) Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 1213/2008 z 5. decembra 2008 týkajúce sa koordinovaného viacročného kontrolného programu Spoločenstva na roky 2009, 2010 a 2011 s cieľom zabezpečiť dodržiavanie maximálnych hladín rezíduí pesticídov v a na potravinách rastlinného a živočíšneho pôvodu a posúdiť vystavenie spotrebiteľov týmto rezíduám (Ú. v. EÚ L 328, 6.12.2008, s. 9).
 (3) Vykonávacie nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) 2020/585 z 27. apríla 2020 o koordinovanom viacročnom kontrolnom programe Únie na roky 2021, 2022 a 2023 s cieľom zabezpečiť dodržiavanie maximálnych hladín rezíduí pesticídov a posúdiť vystavenie spotrebiteľov rezíduám pesticídov v potravinách rastlinného a živočíšneho pôvodu a na nich (Ú. v. EÚ L 135, 29.4.2020, s. 1).
 (4) Európsky úrad pre bezpečnosť potravín; program monitorovania pesticídov: posúdenie návrhu. Vestník EFSA (EFSA Journal) (2015) 13(2):4005.
 (5) Dokument č. SANTE/12682/2019.
 https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_mrl_guidelines_wrkdoc_2019-12682.pdf v poslednom znení.
 (6) SANCO/12574/2014, Working Document on the summing up of LOQs in case of complex residue definitions (Pracovný dokument o zhrnutí kvantifikačných limitov v prípade zložitých definícií rezíduí).
 (7) Smernica Komisie 2002/63/ES z 11. júla 2002, ktorou sa ustanovujú metódy odberu vzoriek Spoločenstva pre úradnú kontrolu rezíduí pesticídov v a na výrobkoch rastlinného pôvodu a živočíšneho pôvodu a ktorá ruší smernicu č. 79/700/EHS (Ú. v. ES L 187, 16.7.2002, s. 30).
 (8) Smernica Komisie 2006/141/ES z 22. decembra 2006 o počiatočnej dojčenskej výžive a následnej dojčenskej výžive a o zmene a doplnení smernice 1999/21/ES (Ú. v. EÚ L 401, 30.12.2006, s. 1).
 (9) Smernica Komisie 2006/125/ES z 5. decembra 2006 o potravinách spracovaných na báze obilnín a detskej potrave určených pre dojčatá a malé deti (Ú. v. EÚ L 339, 6.12.2006, s. 16).
 (10) Delegované nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) 2016/127 z 25. septembra 2015, ktorým sa dopĺňa nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 609/2013, pokiaľ ide o osobitné požiadavky na zloženie a informácie platné pre počiatočnú dojčenskú výživu a následnú dojčenskú výživu a pokiaľ ide o požiadavky na informácie týkajúce sa výživy dojčiat a malých detí (Ú. v. EÚ L 25, 2.2.2016, s. 1).
 (*1) V súlade s článkom 5 ods. 4 a oddielom 24 prílohy 2 k Protokolu o Írsku/Severnom Írsku, ktorý je neoddeliteľnou súčasťou Dohody o vystúpení Spojeného kráľovstva Veľkej Británie a Severného Írska z Európskej únie a z Európskeho spoločenstva pre atómovú energiu, sa toto nariadenie uplatňuje na Spojené kráľovstvo, pokiaľ ide o Severné Írsko, a v Spojenom kráľovstve, pokiaľ ide o Severné Írsko, a odkazy na členské štáty sa považujú za odkazy zahŕňajúce Spojené kráľovstvo, pokiaľ ide o Severné Írsko, počas uplatňovania uvedeného protokolu.
 PRÍLOHA I
 Časť A: Produkty rastlinného pôvodu (1)
 z ktorých sa odoberajú vzorky v rokoch 2022, 2023 a 2024
 2022
 2023
 2024
 c)
 a)
 b)
 jablká (2)
 pomaranče (2)
 stolové hrozno (2)
 jahody (2)
 hrušky (2)
 banány (2)
 broskyne vrátane nektáriniek a podobných hybridov (2)
 kivi (2)
 grapefruity (2)
 Víno (červené alebo biele) vyrobené z hrozna (ak nie sú k dispozícii špecifické faktory spracovania pre víno, členské štáty vykazujú použité faktory spracovania vína).
 karfiol (2)
 baklažán (2)
 hlávkový šalát (2)
 cibuľa (2)
 brokolica (2)
 hlávková kapusta (2)
 mrkva (2)
 melóny (2)
 rajčiaky (2)
 zemiaky (2)
 pestované huby (2)
 špenát (2)
 fazuľa (sušená) (2)
 sladká paprika (2)
 zrná ovsa (3)
 (4)
 zrná raže (4)
 zrná pšenice (4)
 zrná jačmeňa (4)
 (5)
 hnedá ryža (lúpaná ryža) definovaná ako ryža po odstránení pliev z nelúpanej ryže (6)
 panenský olivový olej (ak nie je k dispozícii špecifický faktor spracovania oleja, členské štáty vykazujú použité faktory spracovania).
 Časť B: Produkty živočíšneho pôvodu (7)
 z ktorých sa odoberajú vzorky v rokoch 2022, 2023 a 2024
 2022
 2023
 2024
 e)
 f)
 d)
 kravské mlieko (8)
 hydinový tuk (9)
 (10)
 hovädzí tuk (9)
 (10)
 bravčový tuk (9)
 (10)
 hovädzia pečeň (9)
 slepačie vajcia (9)
 (11)
 Časť C: Kombinácie pesticíd – produkt, ktoré sa monitorujú v/na produktoch rastlinného pôvodu
 2022
 2023
 2024
 Poznámky
 2,4-D
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na hlávkovom šaláte, špenáte a rajčiakoch; v roku 2023 v a na pomarančoch, karfiole, hnedej ryži a sušenej fazuli; v roku 2024 v a na grapefruitoch, stolovom hrozne, baklažáne a brokolici;
 2-fenylfenol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 abamektín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 aklonifén
 a)
 V roku 2023 sa analyzuje len v a na mrkve.
 acefát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 acetamiprid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 akrinatrín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 aldikarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 aldrín a dieldrín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 ametoktradín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 azínfos-metyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 azoxystrobín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 bifentrin
 c)
 a)
 b)
 bifenyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 bitertanol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 boskalid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 bromidový ión
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na hlávkovom šaláte a rajčiakoch; v roku 2023 v a na hnedej ryži; v roku 2024 v a na sladkej paprike.
 bromopropylát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 bupirimát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 buprofezín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 kaptán
 c)
 a)
 b)
 karbaryl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 karbendazím a benomyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 karbofurán
 c)
 a)
 b)
 chlorantraniliprol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 chlórfenapyr
 c)
 a)
 b)
 chlórmekvát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na rajčiakoch, ovse a jačmeni; v roku 2023 v a na mrkve, hruškách, raži a hnedej ryži; v roku 2024 v a na baklažáne, stolovom hrozne, pestovaných hubách a pšenici.
 chlórtalonil
 c)
 a)
 b)
 chlórprofam
 c)
 a)
 b)
 chlórpyrifos
 c)
 a)
 b)
 chlórpyrifos-metyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 klofentezín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 klotianidín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 cyantraniliprol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 kyazofamid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 cyflufenamid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 cyflutrín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 cymoxanil
 c)
 a)
 b)
 cypermetrín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 cyprokonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 cyprodinil
 c)
 a)
 b)
 cyromazín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na hlávkovom šaláte a rajčiakoch; v roku 2023 v a na zemiakoch, cibuli a mrkve; v roku 2024 v a na baklažáne, sladkej paprike, melónoch a pestovaných hubách.
 deltametrín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 diazinón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 dichlórvos
 c)
 a)
 b)
 dikloran
 c)
 a)
 b)
 dikofol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 dietofénkarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 difenokonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 diflubenzurón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 dimetoát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 dimetomorf
 c)
 a)
 b)
 dinikonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 difenylamín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 ditianón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na jablkách a broskyniach; v roku 2023 v a na hruškách a hnedej ryži; v roku 2024 v a na stolovom hrozne.
 ditiokarbamáty
 c)
 a)
 b)
 Analyzujú sa vo všetkých uvedených komoditách a na nich s výnimkou brokolice, karfiolu, hlávkovej kapusty, olivového oleja, vína a cibule.
 dodín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 emamektín benzoát B1a vyjadrený ako emamektín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 endosulfán
 c)
 a)
 b)
 epoxikonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 etefón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na jablkách, broskyniach, rajčiakoch a víne; v roku 2023 v a na pomarančoch a hruškách; v roku 2024 v a na sladkej paprike, pšenici a stolovom hrozne.
 etión
 c)
 a)
 b)
 etirimol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 etofenprox
 c)
 a)
 b)
 etoxazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 famoxadón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenamidón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenamifos
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenarimol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenazachín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenbukonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenbutacín-oxid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na jablkách, jahodách, broskyniach, rajčiakoch a víne; v roku 2023 v a na pomarančoch a hruškách; v roku 2024 v a na baklažáne, grapefruitoch, sladkej paprike a stolovom hrozne.
 fénhexamid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenitrotión
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenoxykarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenpropatrín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenpropidín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenpropimorf
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenpyrazamín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenpyroximát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fentión
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fenvalerát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fipronil
 c)
 a)
 b)
 flonikamid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fluazifop-P
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na jahodách, hlávkovej kapuste, hlávkovom šaláte, špenáte a rajčiakoch; v roku 2023 v a na karfiole, sušenej fazuli, zemiakoch a mrkve; v roku 2024 v a na baklažáne, brokolici, sladkej paprike a pšenici.
 flubendiamid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fludioxonyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 flufenoxurón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fluopikolid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fluopyram
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fluchinkonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 flusilazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 flutriafol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fluxapyroxad
 c)
 a)
 b)
 folpet
 c)
 a)
 b)
 formetanát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 alumínium-fosetyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fostiazát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 glyfozát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 glufosinát amónny
 c)
 a)
 b)
 haloxyfop vrátane haloxyfopu-P
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje iba v a na jahodách a hlávkovej kapuste; v roku 2023 v a na sušenej fazuli; v roku 2024 v a na brokolici, grapefruitoch, sladkej paprike a pšenici.
 hexakonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 hexytiazox
 c)
 a)
 b)
 imazalil
 c)
 a)
 b)
 imidakloprid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 indoxakarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 iprodión
 c)
 a)
 b)
 iprovalikarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 izokarbofos
 c)
 a)
 b)
 izoprotiolan
 a)
 V rokoch 2022 a 2024 sa látka neanalyzuje v žiadnom produkte ani na ňom. V roku 2023 sa analyzuje len v a na hnedej ryži.
 krezoxím-metyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 lambda-cyhalotrín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 linurón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 lufenurón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 malatión
 c)
 a)
 b)
 mandipropamid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 mepanipyrím
 c)
 a)
 b)
 mepikvát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na jačmeni a ovse; v roku 2023 v a na hruškách, raži a hnedej ryži; v roku 2024 v a na pestovaných hubách a pšenici.
 metaflumizón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 metalaxyl a metalaxyl-M
 c)
 a)
 b)
 metamidofos
 c)
 a)
 b)
 metidatión
 c)
 a)
 b)
 metiokarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 metomyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 metoxyfenozid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 metrafenón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 monokrotofos
 c)
 a)
 b)
 myklobutanil
 c)
 a)
 b)
 ometoát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 oxadixyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 oxamyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 oxydemetón-metyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 paklobutrazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 paratión-metyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 penkonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 pencykurón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 pendimetalín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 permetrín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 fosmet
 c)
 a)
 b)
 pirimikarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 pirimifos-metyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 prochloraz
 c)
 a)
 b)
 procymidón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 profenofos
 c)
 a)
 b)
 propamokarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na jahodách, hlávkovej kapuste, špenáte, hlávkovom šaláte, rajčiakoch a jačmeni; v roku 2023 v a na mrkve, karfiole, cibuli a zemiakoch; v roku 2024 v a na stolovom hrozne, melónoch, baklažáne, brokolici, sladkej paprike a pšenici.
 propargit
 c)
 a)
 b)
 propikonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 propyzamid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 prochinazid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 prosulfokarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 protiokonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na hlávkovej kapuste, hlávkovom šaláte, rajčiakoch, ovse a jačmeni; v roku 2023 v a na mrkve, cibuli, raži a hnedej ryži; v roku 2024 v a na sladkej paprike a pšenici.
 pymetrozín
 c)
 b)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na hlávkovej kapuste, hlávkovom šaláte, jahodách, špenáte a rajčiakoch. v roku 2024 v a na baklažánoch, melónoch a sladkej paprike. V roku 2023 sa látka neanalyzuje v žiadnom produkte ani na ňom.
 pyraklostrobín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 pyridabén
 c)
 a)
 b)
 pyridalyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 pyrimetanil
 c)
 a)
 b)
 pyriproxyfén
 c)
 a)
 b)
 chinoxyfén
 c)
 a)
 b)
 spinosad
 c)
 a)
 b)
 spinetoram
 c)
 a)
 b)
 spirodiklofén
 c)
 a)
 b)
 spiromezifén
 c)
 a)
 b)
 spiroxamín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 spirotetramat
 c)
 a)
 b)
 sulfoxaflor
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tau-fluvalinát
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tebukonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tebufenozid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tebufénpyrad
 c)
 a)
 b)
 teflubenzurón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 teflutrín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 terbutylazín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tetrakonazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tetradifón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tiabendazol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tiakloprid
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tiametoxám
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tiofanát-metyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tolklofos-metyl
 c)
 a)
 b)
 triadimefón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 triadimenol
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tiodikarb
 c)
 a)
 b)
 triazofos
 c)
 a)
 b)
 tricyklazol
 a)
 V roku 2023 sa analyzuje len v a na hnedej ryži.
 trifloxystrobín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 triflumurón
 c)
 a)
 b)
 vinklozolín
 c)
 a)
 b)
 Časť D: Kombinácie pesticíd – produkt, ktoré sa monitorujú v/na produktoch živočíšneho pôvodu
 2022
 2023
 2024
 Poznámky
 aldrín a dieldrín
 e)
 f)
 d)
 bifentrin
 e)
 f)
 d)
 chlordán
 e)
 f)
 d)
 chlórpyrifos
 e)
 f)
 d)
 chlórpyrifos-metyl
 e)
 f)
 d)
 cypermetrín
 e)
 f)
 d)
 DDT
 e)
 f)
 d)
 deltametrín
 e)
 f)
 d)
 diazinón
 e)
 f)
 d)
 endosulfán
 e)
 f)
 d)
 famoxadón
 e)
 f)
 d)
 fenvalerát
 e)
 f)
 d)
 fipronil
 e)
 f)
 d)
 glyfozát
 e)
 f)
 d)
 glufosinát amónny
 e)
 f)
 d)
 heptachlór
 e)
 f)
 d)
 hexachlórbenzén
 e)
 f)
 d)
 hexachlórcyklohexán (HCH, alfa-izomér)
 e)
 f)
 d)
 hexachlórcyklohexán (HCH, beta-izomér)
 e)
 f)
 d)
 indoxakarb
 e)
 V roku 2022 sa analyzuje len v a na mlieku.
 lindán
 e)
 f)
 d)
 metoxychlór
 e)
 f)
 d)
 paratión
 e)
 f)
 d)
 pendimetalín
 e)
 f)
 d)
 permetrín
 e)
 f)
 d)
 pirimifos-metyl
 e)
 f)
 d)
 (1) V prípade surových komodít, ktoré sa majú analyzovať, sa tie časti produktov, na ktoré sa uplatňujú MRL, analyzujú pri hlavnom produkte skupiny alebo podskupiny uvedenej v časti A prílohy I k nariadeniu (EÚ) 2018/62, pokiaľ nie je uvedené inak.
 (2) Analyzujú sa nespracované produkty. Ak sa odoberajú vzorky z produktov v zmrazenom stave, vykáže sa faktor spracovania, ak sa uplatňuje.
 (3) Ak nie je k dispozícii dostatočný počet vzoriek zŕn ovsa, časť požadovaného počtu vzoriek zŕn ovsa, ktorá sa nemohla odobrať, sa môže pridať k počtu vzoriek zŕn jačmeňa, čím sa zníži počet vzoriek zŕn ovsa a úmerne zvýši počet vzoriek zŕn jačmeňa.
 (4) Ak nie je k dispozícii dostatočný počet vzoriek zŕn raže, pšenice, ovsa alebo jačmeňa, môže sa analyzovať celozrnná ražná, pšeničná, ovsená alebo jačmenná múka a vykáže sa faktor spracovania.
 (5) Ak nie je k dispozícii dostatočný počet vzoriek zŕn jačmeňa, časť požadovaného počtu vzoriek zŕn jačmeňa, ktorá sa nemohla odobrať, sa môže pridať k počtu vzoriek zŕn ovsa, čím sa zníži počet vzoriek zŕn jačmeňa a úmerne zvýši počet vzoriek zŕn ovsa.
 (6) V prípade potreby sa môžu analyzovať aj zrná leštenej ryže. Úradu sa oznámi, či sa analyzovala leštená alebo lúpaná ryža. Ak sa analyzovala leštená ryža, vykáže sa faktor spracovania.
 (7) V prípade surových komodít, ktoré sa majú analyzovať, sa tie časti produktov, na ktoré sa uplatňujú MRL, analyzujú pri hlavnom produkte skupiny alebo podskupiny uvedenej v časti A prílohy I k nariadeniu (EÚ) 2018/62, pokiaľ nie je uvedené inak.
 (8) Analyzuje sa čerstvé (nespracované) mlieko vrátane zmrazeného, pasterizovaného, tepelne ošetreného, sterilizovaného alebo filtrovaného mlieka.
 (9) Analyzujú sa nespracované produkty. Ak sa odoberajú vzorky z produktov v zmrazenom stave, vykáže sa faktor spracovania, ak sa uplatňuje.
 (10) Z mäsa sa môžu vzorky odoberať aj podľa tabuľky 3 prílohy k smernici 2002/63/ES.
 (11) Analyzujú sa celé vajcia bez škrupiny.
 PRÍLOHA II
 Počet vzoriek podľa článku 1
 1.
 Počet vzoriek, ktoré sa majú za každú komoditu odobrať a podrobiť analýze na pesticídy uvedené v prílohe I, je uvedený v bode 5.
 2.
 Okrem vzoriek požadovaných podľa bodu 5 musí každý členský štát v roku 2022 odobrať desať iných vzoriek potravín určených pre dojčatá a malé deti, než sú potraviny na počiatočnú výživu dojčiat, potraviny na následnú výživu dojčiat a spracované potraviny na báze obilnín určené pre dojčatá, a podrobiť ich analýze.
 Okrem vzoriek požadovaných podľa bodu 5 musí každý členský štát v roku 2023 odobrať päť vzoriek potravín na počiatočnú výživu dojčiat a päť vzoriek potravín na následnú výživu dojčiat a podrobiť ich analýze.
 Okrem vzoriek požadovaných podľa bodu 5 musí každý členský štát v roku 2024 odobrať desať vzoriek spracovaných potravín na báze obilnín určených pre dojčatá a podrobiť ich analýze.
 3.
 V súlade s bodom 5 sa vzorky komodít pochádzajúcich z ekologického poľnohospodárstva, ak sú k dispozícii, odoberú úmerne k podielu týchto komodít na trhu v každom členskom štáte, pričom sa odoberie minimálne jedna vzorka.
 4.
 Členské štáty, ktoré používajú metódy na stanovenie viacerých rezíduí, môžu používať kvalitatívne skríningové metódy maximálne na 15 % vzoriek, ktoré majú byť odobrané a podrobené analýze podľa bodu 5. Ak sa použijú kvalitatívne skríningové metódy, musí sa zvyšný počet vzoriek analyzovať pomocou kvantitatívnych metód na stanovenie viacerých rezíduí.
 Ak sú výsledky kvalitatívneho skríningu pozitívne, členské štáty použijú na kvantifikáciu zistení obvyklú cieľovú metódu.
 5.
 Minimálny počet vzoriek na rok a komoditu:
 BE
 15
 LT
 12
 BG
 15
 LU
 12
 CZ
 15
 HU
 15
 DK
 12
 MT
 12
 DE
 106
 NL
 20
 EE
 12
 AT
 15
 IE
 12
 PL
 51
 EL
 15
 PT
 15
 ES
 55
 RO
 22
 FR
 78
 SI
 12
 HR
 12
 SK
 12
 IT
 75
 FI
 12
 CY
 12
 SE
 15
 LV
 12
 UK, pokiaľ ide o Severné Írsko (1)
 12
 CELKOVÝ POČET VZORIEK: 683
 (1) V súlade s Dohodou o vystúpení Spojeného kráľovstva Veľkej Británie a Severného Írska z Európskej únie a z Európskeho spoločenstva pre atómovú energiu, a najmä s článkom 5 ods. 4 Protokolu o Írsku/Severnom Írsku v spojení s prílohou 2 k uvedenému protokolu, sa toto nariadenie uplatňuje na Spojené kráľovstvo, pokiaľ ide o Severné Írsko, a v Spojenom kráľovstve, pokiaľ ide o Severné Írsko.


type: wikipedia

text:
Clemens Alois Graf von Waldburg-Zeil-Hohenems (* 13. August 1753; † 10. März 1817 in Kempten) war der Gründer der Linie Waldburg-Zeil-Hohenems.
 Leben
 Er war verheiratet mit Maria Walburga Josepha Cajetana (* 22. Oktober 1762; † 25. Mai 1828), Tochter von Franz Xaver, Graf von Harrach-Rohrau, österreichischer Feldmarschall, und Maria Rebecca Gräfin von Hohenems.
 Am 6. November 1759 starb der letzte männliche Angehörige des alten hohenemsischen Hauses, Franz Wilhelm III., regierender Reichsgraf von Hohenems. Seine 1742 geborene, mit Graf Franz Xaver von Harrach und Rohrau († 15. Februar 1781) verheiratete Tochter, Gräfin Maria Rebekka, ergriff am 17. November 1759 von dem Reichshof Lustenau Besitz, während die Grafschaft und das Reichslehen Hohenems rechtmäßig auf Österreich übergingen.
 Am 6. Dezember 1766 wurde auch Lustenau von Österreich in Besitz genommen. Nach vorerst aufgegebenen Prozessbemühungen gegen Österreich durch Maria Rebekka nahm am 9. September 1784 Graf Clemens von Waldburg-Zeil-Lustenau-Hohenems den Rechtsstreit wieder auf, nachdem er im Jahre 1779 die einzige Tochter Maria Rebekkas, Gräfin Maria Walpurga von Harrach-Hohenems-Rohrau, geheiratet hatte.
 Nach zwanzigjährigem Rechtsstreit erkannte Österreich am 24. Jänner 1786 die Souveränrechte der Gräfin Maria Rebekka über den Reichshof Lustenau an. Diese Rechte wurden am 22. März 1790 durch einen Staatsvertrag zwischen Österreich und der Gräfin bestätigt und ratifiziert. Somit blieb Maria Rebekka regierende Reichsgräfin von Lustenau. Demnach blieb Lustenau offiziell unabhängig, sollte aber in enger Verbindung zu Österreich bleiben.
 Nach dem Reichsdeputationshauptschluss vom 28. Februar 1803 verloren die Fürstentümer der Familien Waldburg-Zeil und Waldburg-Wolfegg ihre Selbständigkeit und gingen überwiegend in Württemberg auf. Die Grafschaft Lustenau wurde 1806 Bayern einverleibt.
 Bayern entzog durch Verordnung allen mediatisierten Fürsten und Grafen unter dem Titel der Landeshoheit alle Bezüge aus direkten und indirekten Steuern ohne Entschädigung und wies sie der Staatskasse zu. Dadurch flossen der bayerischen Staatskasse aus den Nutzungen von Lustenau Steuereinnahmen von jährlich 356 Gulden und 17 Kreuzern zu.
 Durch einen am 21. Mai 1813 in Kempten/Bayern beziehungsweise am 23. Juni 1813 in Kunewald in Böhmen geschlossenen Vertrag übertrug Gräfin Maria Walburga rückwirkend zum 1. Jänner 1813 alle im Land Vorarlberg gelegenen Besitzungen, darunter auch Lustenau, an ihren Mann, Graf Clemens zu Waldburg-Zeil.
 Graf Clemens, neuer Herr von Lustenau, bildete dort ein Ortsgericht. Bayern bestätigte durch Reskript vom 24. Dezember 1813 das Patrimonialgericht Lustenau des Grafen.
 Am 3. Juni 1814 musste Bayern gemäß der Pariser Konvention als ehemaliger Verbündeter Frankreichs Salzburg, das Innviertel, Tirol und Vorarlberg – wie es durch den Friedensvertrag von Preßburg erlangt worden war – mit Ausnahme des Landgerichts Weiler wieder an Österreich zurückgeben.
 Graf Clemens forderte am 14. Februar 1816 von Österreich die Rückerstattung von Lustenau, was die vollständige staatliche Selbständigkeit Lustenaus bedeutet hätte. Er berief sich auf den Staatsvertrag von 1790 und forderte die Wiederherstellung der 1806 entzogenen Hoheitsrechte und die Wiedergutmachung des seither von Bayern und in der Folge von Österreich begangenen Unrechts. Weiters forderte er eine Erstattung seiner entstandenen finanziellen Schäden.
 Graf Clemens, der am 10. März 1817 zu Kempten starb, nachdem zuvor schon zwei Söhne und zwei Töchter im Kindesalter verstorben waren, hatte in seinem Testament seinen Neffen, den Grafen Maximilian zu seinem Universalerben eingesetzt. Dieser war nun Herr allen Hohenemser und Lustenauer Allodialbesitzes geworden. Maximilian verzichtete 1830 dann auch de jure auf Lustenau.
 Literatur
 Wolfgang Scheffknecht: Die Edlen von Embs zur Hohenems. Lustenau 1982.
 Priscilla Waldburg-Zeil: Der Palast von Hohenems Licht und Schatten. Aus der Familiengeschichte Waldburg-Zeil-Hohenems und Schönborn-Wiesentheid. Selbstverlag, Hohenems 2004, ISBN 963-86305-9-0.
 Clemens
 Graf (Deutschland)
 Person (Kempten (Allgäu))
 Geboren 1753
 Gestorben 1817
 Mann


text:
Patruļkuģis ir neliels karakuģis, kas tiek izmantots krasta apsardzes mērķiem. Tas var būt valsts kara flotes, krasta apsardzes vai pat policijas spēku sastāvā. Tos izmanto robežapsardzības mērķiem, lai cīnītos pret nelegālajiem imigrantiem, kontrabandu, u.c. Tāpat tos mēdz izmantot glābšanas operācijās.
 Patruļkuģi parasti ir aptuveni 30 metru gari un to bruņojumā parasti ir viens lielgabals, kas var tikt papildināts ar vairākiem ložmetējiem. Parasti tos darbina dīzeļmotors, lai gan ir arī patruļkuģi, kurus darbina gāzes turbīnas.
 Latvijas Jūras spēku Patruļkuģu eskadras sastāvā ir četri patruļkuģi.
 Kuģu tipi


text:
 19.9.2016
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 C 343/22
 Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing ingediend door het Amstgericht Düsseldorf (Duitsland) op 13 mei 2016 — flightright GmbH/Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA
 (Zaak C-274/16)
 (2016/C 343/33)
 Procestaal: Duits
 Verwijzende rechter
 Amstgericht Düsseldorf
 Partijen in het hoofdgeding
 Verzoekende partij: flightright GmbH
 Verwerende partijen: Air Nostrum, Líneas Aéreas del Mediterráneo SA
 Prejudiciële vraag
 Dient bij personenvervoer op een uit twee vluchten bestaande vliegverbinding zonder noemenswaardig oponthoud in de overstapluchthaven, de plaats van aankomst van het tweede deeltraject te worden beschouwd als plaats van uitvoering in de zin van artikel 7, punt 1, onder a), van verordening (EU) nr. 1215/2012 (1), wanneer de vordering is gericht tegen de luchtvaartmaatschappij die het eerste deeltraject heeft uitgevoerd tijdens hetwelk de onregelmatigheid zich heeft voorgedaan, en het vervoer over het tweede deeltraject door een andere luchtvaartmaatschappij is uitgevoerd?
 (1) Verordening (EU) nr. 1215/2012 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 12 december 2012 betreffende de rechterlijke bevoegdheid, de erkenning en de tenuitvoerlegging van beslissingen in burgerlijke en handelszaken (PB 2012, L 351, blz. 1).


text:
Ouija eli Ouija-lauta on spiritismissä käytetty väline, jolla spiritistien mukaan voidaan saada viestejä kuolleilta. Sana tulee ranskan ja saksan kielen kyllä-sanoista.
 Ouija-lautaa on käytetty erityisesti spiritismi-istunnoissa, jossa sillä pyritään viestintään tuonpuoleisen kanssa. Lautaan on yleensä kirjoitettu symboleita, aakkoset ja numerot nollasta yhdeksään. Väitetyt voimat saavat vastaanottajan sormen liikuttamaan laudalla olevaa osoitinta (planchette) ja muodostamaan sanoja tai jopa lauseita.
 Skeptikkojen mukaan laudan toiminta perustuu siihen, että ihmiset liikuttavat osoitinta tietämättään. Ilmiötä kutsutaan ideomotoriseksi liikkeeksi: kun ihminen keskittyy ajatukseen liikkeen suorittamisesta, hän päätyy tiedostamattaan tekemään samanlaisia vähäisiä liikkeitä. Ideomotoriikan tiedostaminen ei vaikuta ilmiöön. Jotkut ihmiset ovat kuitenkin sille herkempiä kuin toiset, ja alttius näyttää kytkeytyvän hypnoottiseen alttiuteen.
 Kirjoja
 The Ouija Board: A Doorway to the Occult, Edmund C, Gruss, P & R Publishing (1994)
 Ouija: The Most Dangerous Game, Stoker Hunt, Perennial Currents (1992)
 Lähteet
 Aiheesta muualla
 Spiritualismi
 Seulonnan keskeiset artikkelit


text:
 EVROPSKÁ KOMISE
 V Bruselu dne 13.12.2021
 COM(2021) 783 final
 2021/0412(NLE)
 Návrh
 ROZHODNUTÍ RADY
 o postoji, který má být zaujat jménem Evropské unie v rámci smíšeného výboru zřízeného na základě Evropsko-středomořské prozatímní dohody o přidružení týkající se obchodu a spolupráce mezi Evropským společenstvím na jedné straně a Organizací pro osvobození Palestiny (OOP) ve prospěch palestinské samosprávy (PS) na Západním břehu Jordánu a v Pásmu Gazy na straně druhé, pokud jde o prodloužení akčního plánu EU-PS
 DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVA
 1.Předmět návrhu
 Tento návrh se týká rozhodnutí, kterým se stanoví postoj Unie v rámci smíšeného výboru zřízeného na základě Evropsko-středomořské prozatímní dohody o přidružení týkající se obchodu a spolupráce mezi Evropským společenstvím na jedné straně a Organizací pro osvobození Palestiny (OOP) ve prospěch palestinské správy (PS) na Západním břehu Jordánu a v Pásmu Gazy na straně druhé (dále jen „prozatímní dohoda o přidružení“) v souvislosti s plánovaným přijetím doporučení týkajícího se prodloužení akčního plánu EU-PS.
 2.Souvislosti návrhu
 2.1.Prozatímní dohoda o přidružení
 Prozatímní dohoda o přidružení týkající se obchodu a spolupráce mezi EU a Organizací pro osvobození Palestiny jménem palestinské samosprávy (dále jen „dohoda“) z roku 1997 tvoří právní základ dvoustranných vztahů mezi Evropskou unií a palestinskou samosprávou. Tato dohoda stanoví bezcelní přístup pro palestinské průmyslové zboží na trhy EU a postupné odstranění cel z vývozu EU do Palestiny
 1* během pěti let. V souladu s článkem 1 má dohoda za cíl:
 –vytvořit vhodný rámec pro komplexní dialog umožňující rozvoj úzkých vztahů mezi stranami,
 –vytvořit podmínky pro postupnou liberalizaci obchodu,
 –podporovat rozvoj vyvážených hospodářských a sociálních vztahů mezi stranami prostřednictvím dialogu a spolupráce,
 –přispět k sociálnímu a hospodářskému rozvoji Západního břehu Jordánu a Pásma Gazy.
 –podporovat regionální spolupráci za účelem konsolidace mírového soužití a hospodářské a sociální stability,
 –podporovat spolupráci v dalších oblastech, které jsou ve vzájemném zájmu.
 Dohoda vstoupila v platnost dne 1. července 1997.
 2.2.Smíšený výbor
 Smíšený výbor je zřízen v článku 63 prozatímní dohody o přidružení. Smíšený výbor pravomoc přijímat rozhodnutí v případech uvedených v této dohodě a rovněž v ostatních případech nutných pro dosažení cílů stanovených touto dohodou. Přijatá rozhodnutí jsou pro strany závazná. Úřad předsedy smíšeného výboru vykonává střídavě zástupce EU a palestinské samosprávy v souladu s podmínkami stanovenými v jednacím řádu a schází z podnětu předsedy jednou za rok a tehdy, když to vyžadují okolnosti.
 2.3.Zamýšlený akt smíšeného výboru
 Smíšený výbor má přijmout doporučení o prodloužení akčního plánu EU-PS („zamýšlený akt“). V souladu s článkem 10 jednacího řádu smíšeného výboru bude doporučení přijato písemným postupem.
 Smyslem zamýšleného aktu je na tři roky prodloužit platnost akčního plánu EU–PS, aby se zajistilo pokračování spolupráce obou stran. Zamýšlený akt se stane pro strany závazným v souladu s článkem 63 prozatímní dohody o přidružení, který stanoví, že smíšený výbor může přijímat rozhodnutí a vydávat vhodná doporučení
 3.Postoj, který má být zaujat jménem Unie
 Postoj, který má Evropská unie zaujmout ve smíšeném výboru zřízeném prozatímní dohodou o přidružení k přijetí doporučení o prodloužení akčního plánu EU-PS na tři roky, vychází ze znění doporučení v příloze tohoto rozhodnutí.
 Obě strany opakovaně potvrdily bohatost a životnost vztahů mezi Evropskou unií a PS a své plné odhodlání v rozvoji těchto vztahů v oblastech společného zájmu pokračovat.
 Prodloužení akčního plánu je proto v zájmu stran dohody.
 4.Právní základ
 4.1.Procesněprávní základ
 4.1.1.Zásady
 Ustanovení čl. 218 odst. 9 Smlouvy o fungování Evropské unie (Smlouva o fungování EU) zavádí rozhodnutí, jimiž se stanoví „postoje, které mají být jménem Unie zaujaty v orgánu zřízeném dohodou, má-li tento orgán přijímat akty s právními účinky, s výjimkou aktů, které doplňují nebo pozměňují institucionální rámec dohody“.
 Pojem „akty s právními účinky“ zahrnuje akty, které mají právní účinky na základě pravidel mezinárodního práva, jimiž se dotyčný orgán řídí. Tento pojem zahrnuje rovněž nástroje, jež podle mezinárodního práva nemají závazný účinek, ale „mohou rozhodujícím způsobem ovlivnit obsah právní úpravy přijaté zákonodárcem Unie“
 2
 .
 4.1.2.Použití na stávající případ
 Smíšený výbor je orgán zřízený prozatímní dohodou o přidružení.
 Akt, který má smíšený výbor přijmout, představuje akt s právními účinky.
 Zamýšlený akt má právní účinky, neboť prodlouží stávající akční plán EU-PS na tři roky.
 Zamýšlený akt nedoplňuje ani nepozměňuje institucionální rámec dohody.
 Procesněprávním základem navrhovaného rozhodnutí je tudíž čl. 218 odst. 9 Smlouvy o fungování EU.
 4.2.Hmotněprávní základ
 4.2.1.Zásady
 Hmotněprávní základ rozhodnutí podle čl. 218 odst. 9 Smlouvy o fungování EU závisí v první řadě na cíli a obsahu zamýšleného aktu, v souvislosti s nímž se postoj jménem Unie zaujímá. Sleduje-li zamýšlený akt dvojí účel nebo má-li dvě složky a lze-li jeden z těchto účelů nebo jednu z těchto složek identifikovat jako hlavní, zatímco druhý účel či druhá složka je pouze vedlejší, musí být rozhodnutí přijaté podle čl. 218 odst. 9 Smlouvy o fungování EU založeno na jediném hmotněprávním základu, a sice na tom, který si žádá hlavní nebo převažující účel či složka.
 4.2.2.Použití na stávající případ
 Hlavní cíl a obsah zamýšleného aktu souvisí se spoluprací s třetí zemí v rámci prozatímní dohody o přidružení, přijaté na základě článků 207 a 209 Smlouvy o fungování EU, a evropské politiky sousedství.
 Hmotněprávním základem navrhovaného rozhodnutí jsou tudíž články 207 a 209 Smlouvy o fungování EU.
 4.3.Závěr
 Právním základem navrhovaného rozhodnutí Rady by měly být články 207 a 209 Smlouvy o fungování EU ve spojení s čl. 218 odst. 9 Smlouvy o fungování EU.
 5.Zveřejnění zamýšleného aktu
 Vzhledem k tomu, že akt smíšeného výboru změní dobu trvání akčního plánu EU-PS, je vhodné zveřejnit jej po jeho přijetí v souladu s jednacím řádem Smíšeného výboru EU-PS v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie.
 2021/0412 (NLE)
 Návrh
 ROZHODNUTÍ RADY
 o postoji, který má být zaujat jménem Evropské unie v rámci smíšeného výboru zřízeného na základě Evropsko-středomořské prozatímní dohody o přidružení týkající se obchodu a spolupráce mezi Evropským společenstvím na jedné straně a Organizací pro osvobození Palestiny (OOP) ve prospěch palestinské samosprávy (PS) na Západním břehu Jordánu a v Pásmu Gazy na straně druhé, pokud jde o prodloužení akčního plánu EU-PS
 RADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,
 s ohledem na Smlouvu o fungování Evropské unie, a zejména na články 207 a 209 ve spojení s čl. 218 odst. 9 této smlouvy,
 s ohledem na návrh Evropské komise,
 vzhledem k těmto důvodům:
 (1)Evropsko-středomořská prozatímní dohoda o přidružení týkající se obchodu a spolupráce mezi Evropským společenstvím na jedné straně a Organizací pro osvobození Palestiny (OOP) ve prospěch palestinské samosprávy na Západním břehu Jordánu a v Pásmu Gazy na straně druhé byla uzavřena Unií rozhodnutím Rady ze dne 24. února 1997 a vstoupila v platnost dnem 1. července 1997.
 (2)Strany dohody souhlasí, že stávající akční plán nadále odráží výsadní partnerství EU-PS a podporuje provádění Evropsko-středomořské prozatímní dohody o přidružení.
 (3)V souladu s článkem 63 dohody může smíšený výbor přijímat rozhodnutí a vydávat vhodná doporučení.
 (4)Smíšený výbor má písemným postupem přijmout doporučení o prodloužení akčního plánu EU-PS o tři roky.
 (5)Je vhodné stanovit postoj, který má být zaujat jménem Unie ve smíšeném výboru, neboť doporučení bude mít právní účinky.
 (6)Prodloužení akčního plánu na tři roky poskytne stranám plnou příležitost pokročit v jejich spolupráci v nadcházejících letech, včetně případného jednání o prioritách partnerství,
 PŘIJALA TOTO ROZHODNUTÍ:
 Článek 1
 Postoj Unie v rámci smíšeného výboru zřízeného na základě Evropsko-středomořské prozatímní dohody o přidružení týkající se obchodu a spolupráce mezi Evropským společenstvím na jedné straně a Organizací pro osvobození Palestiny (OOP) ve prospěch palestinské správy (PS) na Západním břehu Jordánu a v Pásmu Gazy na straně druhé vychází ve věci prodloužení akčního plánu evropské politiky sousedství EU-PS z návrhu rozhodnutí smíšeného výboru přiloženého k tomuto rozhodnutí.
 Článek 2
 Toto rozhodnutí je určeno Komisi a vysokému představiteli.
 V Bruselu dne
 Za Radu
 předseda/předsedkyně
 (1)
 * Toto označení se nesmí vykládat jako uznání Státu Palestina a nejsou jím dotčeny individuální postoje členských států k této otázce.
 (2)
 Rozsudek Soudního dvora ze dne 7. října 2014, Německo v. Rada, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, body 61 až 64.
 ---documentbreak---
 EVROPSKÁ KOMISE
 V Bruselu dne 13.12.2021
 COM(2021) 783 final
 PŘÍLOHA
 návrhu ROZHODNUTÍ RADY
 o postoji, který má být zaujat jménem Evropské unie v rámci smíšeného výboru zřízeného na základě Evropsko-středomořské prozatímní dohody o přidružení týkající se obchodu a spolupráce mezi Evropským společenstvím na jedné straně a Organizací pro osvobození Palestiny (OOP) ve prospěch palestinské samosprávy (PS) na Západním břehu Jordánu a v Pásmu Gazy na straně druhé, pokud jde o prodloužení akčního plánu EU–PS
 PŘÍLOHA
 DOPORUČENÍ SMÍŠENÉHO VÝBORU EU-OOP č. xxx, kterým se schvaluje prodloužení akčního plánu EU–PS [XXX 2021]
 SMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EU-OOP,
 s ohledem na Evropsko-středomořskou prozatímní dohodu o přidružení týkající se obchodu a spolupráce mezi Evropským společenstvím na jedné straně a Organizací pro osvobození Palestiny (OOP) ve prospěch palestinské samosprávy na Západním břehu Jordánu a v Pásmu Gazy na straně druhé („prozatímní dohoda o přidružení“),
 vzhledem k těmto důvodům:
 (1)Evropsko-středomořská prozatímní dohoda o přidružení týkající se obchodu a spolupráce mezi Evropským společenstvím na jedné straně a Organizací pro osvobození Palestiny (OOP) ve prospěch palestinské samosprávy na Západním břehu Jordánu a v Pásmu Gazy na straně druhé (dále jen „prozatímní dohoda o přidružení“) byla podepsána dne 24. února 1997 a vstoupila v platnost dne 1. července 1997.
 (2)V souladu s článkem 63 prozatímní dohody o přidružení může Smíšený výbor přijímat rozhodnutí a vydávat vhodná doporučení.
 (3)Článek 10 jednacího řádu smíšeného výboru stanoví možnost přijímat rozhodnutí písemným postupem mezi zasedáními, jestliže se tak obě smluvní strany dohodnou.
 (4)Prodloužení akčního plánu EU–PS na tři roky poskytne stranám příležitost pokročit v jejich spolupráci v nadcházejících letech, včetně případného jednání o prioritách partnerství,
 DOPORUČUJE:
 Článek 1
 Smíšený výbor doporučuje písemným postupem, aby byl akční plán EU–PS prodloužen na dobu tří let ode dne přijetí prodloužení.
 Článek 2
 Toto doporučení vstupuje v platnost dnem přijetí.
 V xx, [xxxxx 2021].
 Za smíšený výbor EU-OOP
 předseda/předsedkyně
 ***


text:
 17.5.2018
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 122/14
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2018/724 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 16 май 2018 година
 относно някои мерки в областта на търговската политика по отношение на определени продукти с произход от Съединените американски щати
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕС) No 654/2014 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 15 май 2014 г. относно упражняването на правата на Съюза за прилагане и осигуряване на съблюдаването на международните търговски правила (1), и по-специално член 4, параграф 1 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 На 8 март 2018 г. Съединените американски щати („Съединените щати“) приеха защитни мерки под формата на увеличени мита върху вноса на определени стоманени и алуминиеви продукти с действие от 23 март 2018 г. и с неограничена продължителност. На 22 март датата на влизане в сила на увеличението на митата по отношение на Европейския съюз беше отложена за 1 май 2018 г.
 (2)
 Независимо от това, че Съединените щати определят тези мерки като мерки за сигурност, те по същество са защитни мерки. Те се състоят от коригиращо действие, което нарушава баланса между отстъпките и задълженията, произтичащи от Споразумението за Световната търговска организация (СТО), и ограничава вноса с цел защита на националното производство срещу чуждестранната конкуренция, за да се гарантират неговите търговски успехи. Изключенията от Общото споразумение за митата и търговията от 1994 г. („ГАТТ 1994“), свързани със сигурността, не се прилагат към такива защитни мерки, нито ги оправдават, и не влияят върху правото на възстановяване на баланса съгласно съответните разпоредби на Споразумението за СТО.
 (3)
 В Споразумението на СТО за защитни мерки се предвижда правото на всяка страна членка износител, засегната от защитна мярка, да преустанови прилагането на еквивалентни по същество отстъпки или други задължения за търговията, извършвана от страна — членка на СТО, прилагаща защитната мярка, при условие че не бъде постигнато приемливо решение чрез консултации и че Съветът по търговията със стоки на СТО даде съгласието си.
 (4)
 Консултациите между Съединените щати и Европейския съюз, както е предвидено в членове 8 и 12.3 на Споразумението за СТО за защитни мерки, не доведоха до каквото и да било удовлетворително решение (2).
 (5)
 Преустановяването от страна на Съюза на еквивалентни по същество отстъпки или други задължения следва да влезе в сила след изтичането на срок от 30 дни от нотифицирането на Съвета по търговията със стоки, освен ако той изкаже неодобрение. Споразумението за СТО позволява правото на преустановяване да се упражнява а) незабавно, при условие че защитната мярка не е предприета в резултат на абсолютно нарастване на вноса, или не съответства на съответните разпоредби на Споразумението за СТО, или б) след изтичането на период от три години, считано от прилагането на защитната мярка.
 (6)
 Комисията упражнява правото си да преустанови прилагането на еквивалентни по същество отстъпки или други задължения с цел възстановяване на баланса по отношение на отстъпки или други задължения в търговските отношения с трети държави въз основа на член 4, параграф 1 от Регламент (ЕС) No 654/2014. Съответните действия са под формата на мерки на търговската политика, които могат да се състоят от, inter alia, преустановяване на действието на тарифни отстъпки и налагане на нови или увеличени мита.
 (7)
 В планирането и избора на подходящите мерки на търговската политика Комисията прилага обективни критерии в съответствие с член 4, параграф 2, буква в) и член 4, параграф 3 от Регламент (ЕС) No 654/2014, включващи според случая пропорционалността на мерките, потенциала им да компенсират секторите на промишлеността на Съюза, засегнати от защитните мерки, както и целта за свеждане до минимум на отрицателните икономически последици за Съюза, в т.ч. във връзка с важни суровини.
 (8)
 В съответствие с член 9 от Регламент (ЕС) No 654/2014 Комисията предостави възможност на заинтересованите страни да изразят своите становища и да представят информация за икономическите интереси на Съюза в това отношение (3).
 (9)
 Защитните мерки на Съединените щати могат да окажат значително отрицателно икономическо въздействие върху засегнатите сектори на промишлеността на Съюза. Те значително ще ограничат износа на разглежданите стоманени и алуминиеви продукти за Съединените щати. Засегнатият внос от Съюза на съответните стоманени и алуминиеви продукти в Съединените щати е на стойност най-малко 6,41 млрд. евро през 2017 г. (от които 5,30 млрд. евро за общия внос на стоманени продукти и 1,11 млрд. евро за общия внос на алуминиеви продукти).
 (10)
 Поради това преустановяването на търговските отстъпки за определени продукти до ниво, което отразява и не надвишава сумата, която би се получила в резултат на прилагането на митата на Съединените щати към вноса на стоманени и алуминиеви продукти от Съюза в Съединените щати, е подходящо преустановяване на прилагането на еквивалентите по същество търговски отстъпки в съответствие със Споразумението на СТО за защитни мерки.
 (11)
 Впоследствие, с отделен акт за изпълнение, Комисията може да реши да приложи преустановяването на прилагането на търговските отстъпки, ако е необходимо и доколкото е необходимо, чрез прилагането на допълнителни мита върху определени внасяни в Съюза продукти с произход от Съединените щати. Комисията следва да вземе решение относно обхвата на прилагане в съответствие с изискванията за сроковете, описани в съображение 5, в зависимост от това дали Съединените щати изключва определени продукти или дружества от защитните мерки.
 (12)
 В съответствие с изискванията за сроковете, описани в съображение 5, следва да се прилагат допълнителни мита, ако е необходимо или доколкото е необходимо, на два етапа. През първия етап адвалорни мита с максимална ставка в размер на 25 % върху вноса на продуктите, изброени в приложение I, могат да се прилагат незабавно и до момента, когато Съединените щати престанат да прилагат своите защитни мерки по отношение на продуктите от Съюза.
 (13)
 Общата сума на адвалорните мита през първия етап отразява увеличението на митата на Съединените щати в размер на 25 % върху вноса на „плоски продукти от въглеродна и легирана стомана“ и „дълги продукти от въглеродна и легирана стомана“ (4) от Съюза в Съединените щати (2,83 млрд. евро за общата стойност на вноса от Съюза в Съединените щати през 2017 г.). Това са стоманени продукти, за които не са били предприети защитни мерки от Съединените щати в резултат на абсолютното нарастване на вноса.
 (14)
 На втория етап могат да бъдат приложени и други допълнителни адвалорни мита с максимална ставка от 10 %, 25 %, 35 % и 50 % за вноса на продуктите, изброени в приложение II, считано от 23 март 2021 г., или след приемането от Органа за уреждане на спорове на СТО или след нотифицирането на същия орган на решението, че защитните мерки на Съединените щати са в противоречие със съответните разпоредби на Споразумението за СТО, ако тази дата е по-ранна, до момента, когато защитните мерки на Съединените щати спрат да се прилагат.
 (15)
 Общата сума на адвалорните мита на втория етап отразява увеличаването на митата от страна на Съединените щати с 10 % върху вноса на алуминиеви продукти (5) и с 25 % върху вноса на „тръби и тръбопроводи от въглеродна и легирана стомана“, „полупродукти от въглеродна и легирана стомана“ и „продукти от неръждаема стомана“ (6) от Съюза в Съединените щати (3,58 млрд. евро обща стойност на вноса от Съюза в Съединените щати през 2017 г., от които 2,47 млрд. евро внос на стоманени продукти и 1,11 млрд. евро внос на алуминиеви продукти). Това са продуктите, за които изглежда е имало абсолютно увеличение на вноса.
 (16)
 Мерките на търговската политика и разглежданите продукти са подбрани в съответствие с критериите по член 4, параграф 2, буква в) и параграф 3 от Регламент (ЕС) No 654/2014.
 (17)
 Като не надвишават стойността на вноса от Съюза, засегнат от защитните мерки на Съединените щати, както е описано в съображения 9 и 10, мерките на търговската политика са пропорционални на въздействието на защитните мерки на Съединените щати и не са прекомерни. Следва да се отбележи също, че само малка част от съответната обща стойност ще бъде първоначално засегната, както е описано в съображения 12 и 13.
 (18)
 Мерките на търговската политика следва да осигурят известна компенсация за стоманодобивната и алуминиевата промишленост, засегната от защитните мерки на Съединените щати.
 (19)
 Мерките на търговската политика следва да се прилагат за вноса на продукти с произход от Съединените щати, от които Съюзът не е зависим в значителна степен за своите доставки. Мерките на търговската политика могат да се прилагат също и за секторите на стоманодобива и добива на алуминий. С този подход се избягва във възможно най-голяма степен отрицателното въздействие върху различните участници на пазара на Съюза, в това число и потребителите.
 (20)
 Продукти, за които преди датата на влизане в сила на настоящия регламент е издаден лиценз за внос с освобождаване от митото или с редуциране на митото, следва да не подлежат на тези допълнителни мита.
 (21)
 Продуктите, за които вносителите могат да докажат, че са били изнесени от Съединените щати за Съюза преди датата, от която се прилага допълнителните мита, следва да не подлежат на допълнителни мита.
 (22)
 Настоящият регламент се прилага, без да се засяга въпросът за съгласуваността на защитните мерки на Съединените щати със съответните разпоредби на Споразумението за СТО.
 (23)
 С оглед на приложимите срокове в рамките на СТО и предварителния характер на настоящия акт, е уместно той да влезе в сила в деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 (24)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Комитета по въпросите, свързани с пречките пред търговията, учреден съгласно Регламент (ЕС) 2015/1843 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета (7),
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Комисията незабавно и във всеки случай не по-късно от 18 май 2018 г. следва да даде писмено предизвестие на Съвета по търговията със стоки на СТО, че при липсата на неодобрение от негова страна Съюзът преустановява, считано от 20 юни 2018 г., прилагането към търговията със Съединените щати на отстъпките за вносните мита по ГАТТ 1994 по отношение на продуктите, изброени в приложение I и приложение II, така че да се даде възможност за прилагането на допълнителни мита върху вноса на тези продукти с произход от Съединените щати.
 Член 2
 Прилагането на допълнителни мита върху тези продукти чрез последващ акт за изпълнение на Комисията се извършва в рамките на следните параметри и се вземат предвид всички последващи изключвания на определени продукти или дружества от защитните мерки от страна на Съединените щати:
 а)
 На първия етап може да се прилага допълнително адвалорно мито в максимален размер на 25 % по отношение на вноса на продуктите, изброени в приложение I, считано от 20 юни 2018 г.
 б)
 На втория етап може да се прилага и друго допълнително адвалорно мито в максимален размер от 10 %, 25 %, 35 % или 50 % по отношение на вноса на продуктите, изброени в приложение II:
 —
 считано от 23 март 2021 г.; или
 —
 от петия ден след датата на приемането от Органа за уреждане на спорове на СТО или от петия ден след датата на нотифицирането на същия орган на решение, че защитните мерки на Съединените щати са в противоречие със съответните разпоредби на Споразумението за СТО, ако тази дата е по-ранна. Във втория случай Комисията публикува в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз известие, в което се посочва датата, на която това решение е прието или нотифицирано.
 Член 3
 Преустановяването, предвидено в член 1, може да бъде приложено, ако и доколкото Съединените щати прилагат или прилагат повторно своите защитни мерки по начин, който да се отрази върху продукти от Съюза. Комисията публикува в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз известие, в което се посочва датата, на която Съединените щати са престанали да прилагат защитните мерки.
 Член 4
 1. Продуктите, изброени в приложенията, за които преди датата на влизане в сила на настоящия регламент е издаден лиценз за внос с освобождаване от митото или с редуциране на митото, не подлежат на допълнително мито.
 2. Посочените в приложенията продукти, за които вносителите могат да докажат, че са били изнесени от Съединените щати за Съюза преди датата, от която се прилага допълнително мито по отношение на този продукт, не подлежат на допълнително мито.
 Член 5
 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 16 май 2018 година.
 За Комисията
 Председател
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) ОВ L 189, 27.6.2014 г., стр. 50.
 (2) Съюзът отправи искане за консултации на 16 април 2018 г. Споразумение не беше постигнато, а срокът от 30 дни за консултации, посочен в член 8 от Споразумението за СТО за защитни мерки, изтече.
 (3) http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=253
 (4) Продукти, посочени в доклад на Министерството на търговията на САЩ от 11 януари 2018 г. (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/the_effect_of_imports_of_steel_on_the_national_security_-_with_redactions_-_20180111.pdf).
 (5) Продукти, посочени в доклад на Министерството на търговията на САЩ от 17 януари 2018 г. (https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/the_effect_of_imports_of_aluminum_on_the_national_security_-_with_redactions_-_20180117.pdf)
 (6) Вж. бележка под линия 4.
 (7) Регламент (ЕС) 2015/1843 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 6 октомври 2015 г. за установяване на процедури на Съюза в областта на общата търговска политика с оглед гарантиране упражняването от Съюза на правата, които са му предоставени съгласно правилата за международна търговия, по-специално тези, които са установени под егидата на Световната търговска организация (кодифициран текст) (ОВ L 272, 16.10.2015 г., стр. 1).
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ I
 Продукти, които могат да бъдат облагани с допълнителни мита, считано от 20 юни 2018 г.
 КН 2018 (1)
 Допълнителнo митo
 0710 40 00
 25 %
 0711 90 30
 25 %
 0713 33 90
 25 %
 1005 90 00
 25 %
 1006 30 21
 25 %
 1006 30 23
 25 %
 1006 30 25
 25 %
 1006 30 27
 25 %
 1006 30 42
 25 %
 1006 30 44
 25 %
 1006 30 46
 25 %
 1006 30 48
 25 %
 1006 30 61
 25 %
 1006 30 63
 25 %
 1006 30 65
 25 %
 1006 30 67
 25 %
 1006 30 92
 25 %
 1006 30 94
 25 %
 1006 30 96
 25 %
 1006 30 98
 25 %
 1006 40 00
 25 %
 1904 10 30
 25 %
 1904 90 10
 25 %
 2001 90 30
 25 %
 2004 90 10
 25 %
 2005 80 00
 25 %
 2008 11 10
 25 %
 2009 12 00
 25 %
 2009 19 11
 25 %
 2009 19 19
 25 %
 2009 19 91
 25 %
 2009 19 98
 25 %
 2009 81 11
 25 %
 2009 81 19
 25 %
 2009 81 31
 25 %
 2009 81 59
 25 %
 2009 81 95
 25 %
 2009 81 99
 25 %
 2208 30 11
 25 %
 2208 30 19
 25 %
 2208 30 82
 25 %
 2208 30 88
 25 %
 2402 10 00
 25 %
 2402 20 10
 25 %
 2402 20 90
 25 %
 2402 90 00
 25 %
 2403 11 00
 25 %
 2403 19 10
 25 %
 2403 19 90
 25 %
 2403 91 00
 25 %
 2403 99 10
 25 %
 2403 99 90
 25 %
 3304 20 00
 25 %
 3304 30 00
 25 %
 3304 91 00
 25 %
 6109 10 00
 25 %
 6109 90 20
 25 %
 6109 90 90
 25 %
 6203 42 31
 25 %
 6203 42 90
 25 %
 6203 43 11
 25 %
 6204 62 31
 25 %
 6204 62 90
 25 %
 6302 31 00
 25 %
 6403 59 95
 25 %
 7210 12 20
 25 %
 7210 12 80
 25 %
 7219 12 10
 25 %
 7219 12 90
 25 %
 7219 13 10
 25 %
 7219 13 90
 25 %
 7219 32 10
 25 %
 7219 32 90
 25 %
 7219 33 10
 25 %
 7219 33 90
 25 %
 7219 34 10
 25 %
 7219 34 90
 25 %
 7219 35 90
 25 %
 7222 20 11
 25 %
 7222 20 21
 25 %
 7222 20 29
 25 %
 7222 20 31
 25 %
 7222 20 81
 25 %
 7222 20 89
 25 %
 7222 40 10
 25 %
 7222 40 50
 25 %
 7222 40 90
 25 %
 7223 00 11
 25 %
 7223 00 19
 25 %
 7223 00 91
 25 %
 7226 92 00
 25 %
 7228 30 20
 25 %
 7228 30 41
 25 %
 7228 30 49
 25 %
 7228 30 61
 25 %
 7228 30 69
 25 %
 7228 30 70
 25 %
 7228 30 89
 25 %
 7228 50 20
 25 %
 7228 50 40
 25 %
 7228 50 69
 25 %
 7228 50 80
 25 %
 7229 90 20
 25 %
 7229 90 50
 25 %
 7229 90 90
 25 %
 7301 20 00
 25 %
 7304 31 20
 25 %
 7304 31 80
 25 %
 7304 41 00
 25 %
 7306 30 11
 25 %
 7306 30 19
 25 %
 7306 30 41
 25 %
 7306 30 49
 25 %
 7306 30 72
 25 %
 7306 30 77
 25 %
 7306 30 80
 25 %
 7306 40 20
 25 %
 7306 40 80
 25 %
 7307 11 10
 25 %
 7307 11 90
 25 %
 7307 19 10
 25 %
 7307 19 90
 25 %
 7308 30 00
 25 %
 7308 40 00
 25 %
 7308 90 51
 25 %
 7308 90 59
 25 %
 7308 90 98
 25 %
 7309 00 10
 25 %
 7309 00 51
 25 %
 7309 00 59
 25 %
 7310 29 10
 25 %
 7310 29 90
 25 %
 7311 00 13
 25 %
 7311 00 19
 25 %
 7311 00 99
 25 %
 7314 14 00
 25 %
 7314 19 00
 25 %
 7314 49 00
 25 %
 7315 11 10
 25 %
 7315 11 90
 25 %
 7315 12 00
 25 %
 7315 19 00
 25 %
 7315 89 00
 25 %
 7315 90 00
 25 %
 7318 14 10
 25 %
 7318 14 91
 25 %
 7318 14 99
 25 %
 7318 16 40
 25 %
 7318 16 60
 25 %
 7318 16 92
 25 %
 7318 16 99
 25 %
 7321 11 10
 25 %
 7321 11 90
 25 %
 7322 90 00
 25 %
 7323 93 00
 25 %
 7323 99 00
 25 %
 7324 10 00
 25 %
 7325 10 00
 25 %
 7325 99 10
 25 %
 7325 99 90
 25 %
 7326 90 30
 25 %
 7326 90 40
 25 %
 7326 90 50
 25 %
 7326 90 60
 25 %
 7326 90 92
 25 %
 7326 90 96
 25 %
 7606 11 10
 25 %
 7606 11 91
 25 %
 7606 12 20
 25 %
 7606 12 92
 25 %
 7606 12 93
 25 %
 8711 40 00
 25 %
 8711 50 00
 25 %
 8903 91 10
 25 %
 8903 91 90
 25 %
 8903 92 10
 25 %
 8903 92 91
 25 %
 8903 92 99
 25 %
 8903 99 10
 25 %
 8903 99 91
 25 %
 8903 99 99
 25 %
 9504 40 00
 25 %
 (1) Кодовете по номенклатурата са взети от Комбинираната номенклатура, както е определена в член 1, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕИО) No 2658/87 на Съвета от 23 юли 1987 г. относно тарифната и статистическа номенклатура и Общата митническа тарифа (ОВ L 256, 7.9.1987 г., стр. 1) и установена в приложение I към него, които са в сила към датата на публикуване на настоящия регламент и mutatis mutandis, както са изменени с последващо законодателство, което включва неотдавна приетия Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) 2017/1925 на Комисията от 12 октомври 2017 г. за изменение на приложение I към Регламент (ЕИО) No 2658/87 на Съвета относно тарифната и статистическа номенклатура и Общата митническа тарифа (ОВ L 282, 31.10.2017 г., стр. 1).
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ II
 Продукти, които могат да бъдат облагани и с други допълнителни мита от 23 март 2021 г. или при установяване на несъответствие на мерките на САЩ с правилата на СТО
 КН 2018 (1)
 Допълнителнo митo
 2008 93 11
 25 %
 2008 93 19
 25 %
 2008 93 29
 25 %
 2008 93 91
 25 %
 2008 93 93
 25 %
 2008 93 99
 25 %
 2208 30 11
 25 %
 2208 30 19
 25 %
 2208 30 82
 25 %
 2208 30 88
 25 %
 3301 12 10
 10 %
 3301 13 10
 10 %
 3301 90 10
 10 %
 3301 90 30
 10 %
 3301 90 90
 10 %
 3302 90 10
 10 %
 3302 90 90
 10 %
 3304 10 00
 10 %
 3305 30 00
 10 %
 4818 20 10
 25 %
 4818 20 91
 35 %
 4818 20 99
 25 %
 4818 30 00
 25 %
 4818 50 00
 35 %
 4818 90 10
 25 %
 4818 90 90
 35 %
 5606 00 91
 10 %
 5606 00 99
 10 %
 5907 00 00
 10 %
 5911 10 00
 10 %
 5911 20 00
 10 %
 5911 31 11
 10 %
 5911 31 19
 10 %
 5911 31 90
 10 %
 5911 32 11
 10 %
 5911 32 19
 10 %
 5911 32 90
 10 %
 6203 42 11
 50 %
 6203 42 33
 50 %
 6203 42 35
 50 %
 6203 42 51
 50 %
 6203 42 59
 50 %
 6203 43 19
 50 %
 6203 43 31
 50 %
 6203 43 39
 50 %
 6203 43 90
 50 %
 6204 62 11
 50 %
 6204 62 33
 50 %
 6204 62 39
 50 %
 6204 62 51
 50 %
 6204 62 59
 50 %
 6205 30 00
 50 %
 6301 30 10
 50 %
 6301 30 90
 50 %
 6402 19 00
 25 %
 6402 99 10
 50 %
 6402 99 31
 25 %
 6402 99 39
 25 %
 6402 99 50
 25 %
 6402 99 91
 25 %
 6402 99 93
 25 %
 6402 99 96
 25 %
 6402 99 98
 25 %
 6403 59 05
 25 %
 6403 59 11
 25 %
 6403 59 31
 25 %
 6403 59 35
 25 %
 6403 59 39
 25 %
 6403 59 50
 25 %
 6403 59 91
 25 %
 6403 59 99
 25 %
 6601 10 00
 50 %
 6911 10 00
 50 %
 6911 90 00
 50 %
 6912 00 21
 50 %
 6912 00 23
 50 %
 6912 00 25
 50 %
 6912 00 29
 50 %
 6912 00 81
 50 %
 6912 00 83
 50 %
 6912 00 85
 50 %
 6912 00 89
 50 %
 6913 10 00
 50 %
 6913 90 10
 50 %
 6913 90 93
 50 %
 6913 90 98
 50 %
 6914 10 00
 50 %
 6914 90 00
 50 %
 7005 21 25
 25 %
 7005 21 30
 25 %
 7005 21 80
 25 %
 7007 19 10
 10 %
 7007 19 20
 10 %
 7007 19 80
 10 %
 7007 21 20
 10 %
 7007 21 80
 10 %
 7007 29 00
 10 %
 7009 10 00
 25 %
 7009 91 00
 10 %
 7013 28 10
 10 %
 7013 28 90
 10 %
 7102 31 00
 10 %
 7113 11 00
 25 %
 7113 19 00
 25 %
 7113 20 00
 25 %
 7228 50 61
 25 %
 7326 90 98
 10 %
 7604 29 90
 25 %
 7606 11 93
 25 %
 7606 11 99
 25 %
 8422 11 00
 50 %
 8450 11 11
 50 %
 8450 11 19
 50 %
 8450 11 90
 50 %
 8450 12 00
 50 %
 8450 19 00
 50 %
 8506 10 11
 10 %
 8506 10 18
 10 %
 8506 10 91
 10 %
 8506 10 98
 10 %
 8506 90 00
 10 %
 8543 70 01
 50 %
 8543 70 02
 50 %
 8543 70 03
 50 %
 8543 70 04
 50 %
 8543 70 05
 50 %
 8543 70 06
 50 %
 8543 70 07
 50 %
 8543 70 08
 50 %
 8543 70 09
 50 %
 8543 70 10
 50 %
 8543 70 30
 50 %
 8543 70 50
 50 %
 8543 70 60
 50 %
 8543 70 90
 25 %
 8704 21 10
 10 %
 8704 21 31
 10 %
 8704 21 39
 10 %
 8704 21 91
 10 %
 8704 21 99
 10 %
 8711 40 00
 25 %
 8711 50 00
 25 %
 8901 90 10
 50 %
 8901 90 90
 50 %
 8902 00 10
 50 %
 8902 00 90
 50 %
 8903 10 10
 10 %
 8903 10 90
 10 %
 8903 92 91
 25 %
 8903 92 99
 25 %
 9401 61 00
 50 %
 9401 69 00
 50 %
 9401 71 00
 50 %
 9401 79 00
 50 %
 9401 80 00
 50 %
 9404 90 10
 25 %
 9404 90 90
 25 %
 9405 99 00
 25 %
 (1) Кодовете по номенклатурата са взети от Комбинираната номенклатура, както е определена в член 1, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕИО) No 2658/87 на Съвета от 23 юли 1987 г. относно тарифната и статистическа номенклатура и Общата митническа тарифа (ОВ L 256, 7.9.1987 г., стр. 1) и установена в приложение I към него, които са в сила към датата на публикуване на настоящия регламент и mutatis mutandis, както са изменени с последващо законодателство, което включва неотдавна приетия Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) 2017/1925 на Комисията от 12 октомври 2017 г. за изменение на приложение I към Регламент (ЕИО) No 2658/87 на Съвета относно тарифната и статистическа номенклатура и Общата митническа тарифа (ОВ L 282, 31.10.2017 г., стр. 1).


type: contracts

text:
 11/Sv. 68
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 73
 22000D1123(23)
 L 296/77
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 ODLUKA ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EGP-a
 br. 98/1999
 od 16. srpnja 1999.
 o izmjeni Priloga XX. (Okoliš) Sporazumu o EGP-u
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EGP-a,
 uzimajući u obzir Sporazum o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru, kako je prilagođen Protokolom o prilagodbi Sporazuma o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru, dalje u tekstu „Sporazum”, a posebno njegov članak 98.,
 budući da:
 (1)
 Prilog XX. Sporazumu izmijenjen je Odlukom br. 88/1999 Zajedničkog odbora EGP-a od 25. lipnja 1999. (1).
 (2)
 Odluku Komisije 1999/10/EZ od 18. prosinca 1998. o utvrđivanju ekoloških mjerila za dodjelu znaka zaštite okoliša Zajednice bojama i lakovima (2) treba unijeti u Sporazum,
 ODLUČIO JE:
 Članak 1.
 Tekst točke 2.eh (Odluka Komisije 96/13/EZ) u Prilogu XX. Sporazumu zamjenjuje se sljedećim:
 „399 D 0010: Odluka Komisije 1999/10/EZ od 18. prosinca 1998. o utvrđivanju ekoloških mjerila za dodjelu znaka zaštite okoliša Zajednice bojama i lakovima (SL L 5, 9.1.1999., str. 77.).”
 Članak 2.
 Tekstovi Direktive 1999/10/EZ na islandskom i norveškom jeziku, koji su priloženi odnosnim jezičnim inačicama ove Odluke, vjerodostojni su.
 Članak 3.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu 17. srpnja 1999., pod uvjetom da su sve obavijesti iz članka 103. stavka 1. Sporazuma podnesene Zajedničkom odboru EGP-a.
 Članak 4.
 Ova se Odluka objavljuje u odjeljku o EGP-u i Dodatku o EGP-u Službenom listu Europskih zajednica.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu 16. srpnja 1999.
 Za Zajednički odbor EGP-a
 Predsjednik
 NJ.P.V. Prinz Nikolaus von LIECHTENSTEIN
 (1) SL L 296, 23.11.2000., str. 49.
 (2) SL L 5, 9.1.1999., str. 77.


text:
Eseksa () ir ceremoniālā grāfiste Anglijas dienvidaustrumu daļā, netālu no Londonas. Grāfiste ietilpst Anglijas Austrumu reģionā. Grāfiste robežojas ar Safolku un ar Kembridžšīru ziemeļos, ar Hārtfordšīru rietumos, ar Kentu dienvidos un ar Londonas pilsētu dienvidrietumos.
 Grāfistes kopējā platība ir 3 670 km2, pēc 2014. gada datiem grāfistē dzīvo 1 729 200 iedzīvotāji. Pēc platības tā ir vienpadsmitā lielākā Lielbritānijas grāfiste, bet pēc iedzīvotāju skaita tā ir septītā lielākā Lielbritānijas grāfiste. Eseksas administratīvais centrs ir Čelmsforda, bet lielākā pilsēta ir Kolčestera.
 Ārējās saites
 Anglijas nemetropoles grāfistes
 Anglijas ceremoniālās grāfistes
 Anglijas vēsturiskās grāfistes