jurisdiction: US

text:
The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore brought suit against the appellants as executors of Elkan Bamberger, deceased, to recover city taxes for the year 1910 upon the estate of the decedent. The estate consisted of furniture and household effects and of "bonds, certificates of indebtedness and evidences of debt." On the first day of October, 1909, the furniture was valued and assessed, for the purpose of taxation for the year 1910, at the sum of $600, and the bonds, etc., were at such time and for said purpose assessed at the sum of $258,756. After such valuation and assessment and after the passage of an ordinance on the 23rd day of December, 1909, making the annual levy of taxes, but before the taxes became due and payable on January 1, 1910, the appellants, under an order of the Orphans' Court of Baltimore City passed on the 29th day of December, 1909, distributed the estate of their decedent without paying therefrom the aforesaid taxes for the year 1910.
 It was to recover these taxes that the suit in this case was brought, and the only question presented by this appeal is, whether the appellants as such executors are liable for the payment of said taxes.
 It is not because of any beneficial ownership in the estate of their decedent that administrators and executors are chargeable with the payment of taxes thereon, but it is a statutory liability imposed upon them as custodians and holders, in their representative capacity, of a qualified title in the estate, pending its settlement, and consequently we must look to the statute to find their liability as well as the extent of such liability. *Page 433
 Section 70 of Article 81 of the Code of 1912 provides that "Administrators shall pay all taxes due from their decedent as preferred debts, and to the exclusion of all others, except the necessary funeral expenses; and on failure, their bonds shall be put in suit for the use of the State, and recovery had for the whole amount of taxes due, and interest from the time they were payable"; and section 11 of said Article provides that "The several registers of wills in this State shall annually, on or before the first day of March, return to the county commissioners or appeal tax court, a summary account of all property that shall appear by the records of the several orphans' courts to be in the hands of such executor, administrator or guardian as such; and all such property, if not before assessed, shall then be assessed; and every executor, administrator or guardian shall be liable to pay the taxes levied thereon and shall be allowed therefor by the orphans' courts in their accounts."
 In our opinion, the above provisions of the Code, when construed together, confine the liability of administrators and executors to the payment of those taxes due from the decedent at the time of his death and to such other taxes as may thereafter become due while the estate is in the course of settlement and before it is distributed, including, of course, the taxes upon assessable property that was not at the time of decedent's death assessed, but which was thereafter, under said section 11, assessed and brought within the operation of levies previously made.
 The correctness of this conclusion is shown by the decisions of this Court in Wheeler v. Addison, 54 Md. 41, and State v.Safe Deposit Trust Co., 86 Md. 581. In the first of these cases the Court was construing section 63 of Chapter 483 of the Acts of 1874, which is now section 68 of Article 81 of the Code, with the sole amendment that from the proceeds of the sale only the taxes upon the property sold shall be paid. This Court in that case said: "The sale was made September 14, 1877, and the taxes were not then *Page 434
 due and in arrear for the year 1877. Section 63 of the Acts of 1874, Chapter 483, reads thus: `Whenever a sale of either real or personal property shall be made by any ministerial officer, under judicial process or otherwise, all sums due and in arrears for taxes from the party whose property is to be sold, shall be first paid and satisfied, and the officer or person selling shall pay the same to the collector of the county or city, if any, or to the treasurer if there be no collector. And the 66th section of the same Article declares that taxes shall be considered in arrears on the first day of January next succeeding the date of their levy, and shall bear interest from that date at the rate of six per cent. per annum.' According to the express language of the statute, taxes are not to be regarded in arrears until the first day of January after the levy made. These taxes are expressly named as being for 1877. They were therefore not in arrears until the first of January, 1878, and by the terms of the law the trustee was not bound to pay them."
 In the case of State v. Safe Deposit Trust Company,supra, the main question there presented was when did the State taxes assessed upon the stock of the corporation become due. The determination of that question was necessary in order to determine whether the trustee, who had sold some of the stock of the corporation on the 23rd day of May, 1895, was chargeable with the taxes for that year. This Court held in that case that the taxes were not due and in arrears, under section 84 of Article 81 of the Code of 1888, as modified by the Acts of 1890, Chapter 244, until the first day of November, and consequently such taxes were not due and in arrears when the property was sold on May 23rd of that year.
 The Court having decided when the taxes became due and in arrears, it then became necessary, in order to determine whether such taxes were properly chargeable against the trustee, for the Court to construe section 64A of Chapter 407 of the Acts of 1896, now section 69 of Article 81 of the Code of 1912, which provides that "Whenever a sale of *Page 435
 either real or personal property of a corporation, on which State taxes are due and payable, shall be made by any sheriff, constable, trustee, or other ministerial officer, under judicial process or otherwise, all sums due and in arrears for State taxes from the corporation whose property is sold, shall be first paid and satisfied after the necessary expenses incident to the sale." And the Court there said: "As the sale of the property (the stock of the corporation) took place on the 23rd day of May, 1895, there were no taxes for that year due and payable at the time of this sale properly chargeable against the trustee, the appellee in this case. The statute provides only for the payment of such taxes as may be due and in arrears at the time of the sale of the property."
 This Court again construed section 68 of Article 81 in theCasualty Ins. Co.'s case, 82 Md. 565, in which it said: "These taxes were consequently due when the company's assets passed into the hands of the receiver, and being then due, the Act of 1892, Chapter 518 (now section 68 of Article 81 of the Code of 1912), directs that they shall be paid and satisfied by the officer or person selling under judicial process the property, real or personal, upon which such taxes are payable."
 But it is contended by the appellees that the liability of administrators and executors in respect to the payment of taxes upon the estate of their decedent has been extended and enlarged by certain provisions of the city charter found in sections 36, 40, 168 and 171 (Acts 1898, Ch. 123).
 Section 36 creates the Board of Estimates and provides that such board shall annually, between the first day of October and the first day of November, cause to be prepared a draft of an ordinance to be submitted to the City Council providing appropriations sufficient to meet all expenditures of the city government for the ensuing year, which ordinance when passed is designated therein as the ordinance of estimates. *Page 436
 Section 40 provides:
 "The Board of Estimates shall, on the first day of October, or as soon thereafter as practicable, in the year 1898, and in each succeeding year, procure from the proper municipal departments and shall send with said ordinance of estimates to both branches of the City Council a report showing the taxable basis for the next ensuing fiscal year and the amount which can reasonably be expected to be realized by taxation for said year. The report shall show the difference between the anticipated expenditures and receipts of the city and shall state a rate for the levy of taxes sufficient to raise the amount required to meet the said difference." The section then provides for the passage of an "ordinance making the annual levy of taxes, which ordinance shall be passed by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore in the month of November in each year, and as soon as practicable after the passage of the ordinance of estimates, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore shall fix a rate of taxation not less than the rate stated in the aforesaid report. * * * The taxes levied under said ordinance * * * shall be the taxes to be collected for the fiscal year next ensuing after said month of November and may be paid to the city collector on or after the first day of January next ensuing said levy. The taxes included in said levy on * * * all forms of personal property shall be in arrears on the first day of May next ensuing the date of their levy," and shall bear interest from such time.
 Section 168 is a re-enactment of said section 11 of Article 81 of the Code of 1912, with the single amendment that the return therein mentioned to be made by the register of wills is to be made on or before the first day of October instead of on or before the first day of March, as provided in said section 11 of the Code.
 Section 171 of the charter provides:
 "In the year 1898, and in all succeeding years thereafter, the valuation of the property subject to taxation *Page 437
 in the City of Baltimore, as it shall appear upon the assessment books of said court on the first day of October in each and every year, shall be final and conclusive and constitute the basis upon which the taxes for the next ensuing fiscal year shall be assessed and levied; provided, the aforegoing provisions shall not apply to property in the city liable to taxation and which may have escaped or which may have been omitted in the regular course of valuation, but such property shall be valued and assessed and the owners thereof charged with all back and current taxes justly due thereon whenever the same may be discovered and placed upon the assessment books."
 It is upon the provision found in section 171, "that the valuation of property subject to taxation in the City of Baltimore as it shall appear upon the assessment books of said Court on the first day of October in each and every year, shall be final and conclusive and constitute the basis upon which the taxes for the next ensuing year shall be assessed and levied," considered in connection with the aforesaid sections 36, 40 and 168 of the Charter, that the appellees chiefly rely in their contention that upon and after the aforesaid valuation and assessment of the decedent's estate the appellants, as his executors, became liable for the payment of the taxes thereon for the ensuing year, even though the estate was distributed by them, under the order of the Orphans' Court, before said taxes became due.
 This provision of the present charter appears, in practically the same language, in the City Codes of 1879, 1892 and 1893, the only difference being, as shown by the preceding codes, that the assessment and valuation was to be made upon the first Monday of March and not upon the first day of October, as provided by the present charter.
 In the case of Hopkins v. Van Wyck, 80 Md. 7, which was decided November 14, 1894, this provision of the charter was before the Court. In that case property which was in *Page 438
 existence and assessable on the first Monday of March, 1892, escaped valuation and assessment and was not at such time entered upon the assessment books. It was thereafter, on May 12, pursuant to section 9, now section 11 of Article 81, placed upon the assessment books of that year. The executors, however, resisted the payment of the taxes upon the ground that their testatrix had not been charged with this property on the assessment books on the first Monday of March, 1892. The same contention was there made that is made here, that such assessment and valuation wasconclusive and that no property not included within such assessment and valuation could be made to come within the operation of the levy of that year, and this view was adopted by the lower Court, but upon appeal to this Court JUDGE McSHERRY, speaking for the Court, said: "In the system thus devised to put into effective operation the fundamental law, it is obvious that, to avoid confusion and uncertainty, some definite period had to be adopted as the point of time, in each year, when thevaluation or appraisement fixed upon the property actually assessed and charged upon the books to each individual, would no longer be open to question, but would be conclusively ascertained and made binding upon both the city and the taxpayer alike. Accordingly, the Mayor and City Council, by section 5 of Article 50 of the City Code of 1892, provided that `the valuation of property as it shall appear by the assessors' books upon the first Monday of March, shall be final and conclusive and constitute the basis upon which the taxes for the ensuing year shall be assessed and levied.' But it was never designed by this provision to exempt from taxation for a current year the individual who, by adroitness or otherwise, succeeded in eluding the vigilance of the assessors, or who, by inadvertence, was not rated with all his assessable property on the first Monday of March of that particular year. Its only object is to fix for a current year a final and conclusive valuation upon such property of each taxpayer as is, on the first Monday in March, actually entered upon the assessment books; and *Page 439
 not to exempt property that is not, but ought rightfully to be there. It has relation to ascertain values and not to anexclusive basis."
 The aforesaid sections 68 and 69 of Article 81, in addition to the one here involved (section 70), would seem to make it impossible to regard the valuation and assessment made on October 1st of any year as absolutely conclusive and final as to the property and amount of property subject to taxation for the ensuing year. Under these sections of the Code the amount of property so valued and assessed was liable to be diminished by the sale of any part of it. And, said section 171 of the charter, containing the provision that such valuation and assessment "shall be final and conclusive and constitute the basis upon which the taxes for the next ensuing fiscal year shall be assessed and levied," especially provides that such "provision shall not apply to property in the City liable to taxation and which may have escaped or which may have been omitted in the regular course of valuation, but such property shall be valued and assessed and the owner thereof charged with all back and current taxes justly due thereon whenever the same may be discovered and placed upon the assessment books." By this provision of the section the amount of property embraced within the annual valuation and assessment was liable to be increased by the addition of after discovered property. And therefore it will be seen by the existing laws that the property and amount of property embraced within the general valuation and assessment cannot be regarded as final and conclusive as the exact basis of taxation.
 It is not contended by the appellees that by the aforesaid sections of the City Charter, the taxes are made to become due and payable earlier than the first day of January in the year succeeding the assessment and valuation. But the contention is made by them that to effectuate the objects and purposes of sections 36 and 40 of the City Charter, relating to the annual budget, the above quoted language of section 171 should be given a broader and more comprehensive *Page 440
 meaning than was given to it in the case of Hopkins v. VanWyck, supra. The claim is made that to comply with the provisions of said sections it is essential that the Board of Estimates should know, at the time of making its estimate as to the needs and resources of the city and before the levy is made, the property and amount of property subject to taxation for the ensuing year, and it is for such reason, as we understand the contention of the appellee, that the claim is made that administrators and executors are to be held liable for the payment of taxes upon property of their decedent, valued and assessed on or before the first of October in any year, for the ensuing year, although the estate may be fully closed and the property distributed before the taxes for such ensuing year become due and payable.
 In complying with the provisions of the Charter it is, of course, well to know so far as it is practicable to ascertain, at the time the levy is made and the rate fixed and established, what property is subject to taxation for the ensuing year and the value of such property; and this was true under the Charter of the City at the time the case of Hopkins v. Van Wyck was decided. It may be that under the present Charter this information is still more important in order that its provisions may be more readily and satisfactorily complied with, but for such reasons we do not feel called upon to modify the recognized meaning heretofore given to this language of the charter, or to modify the usual and ordinary meaning to be given to the language of the statute imposing liability upon administrators and executors for the payment of the taxes of their decedent, in the absence of any legislative enactment thereon.
 The liability of administrators and executors for the payment of taxes upon property of their decedent, does not, we think, extend to the payment of taxes becoming due after the settlement and distribution of the estate, although the annual valuation and assessment upon such property, as well as the levy thereon, may have been made prior to such settlement and distribution of the estate, as in this case. *Page 441
 The appellees in their brief quote largely from the case ofUnion Trust Company v. State, 116 Md. 368, and rely largely upon this as well as the case of Baltimore City v. ChesterS.S. Co., 103 Md. 400.
 In the first of these cases the Court was construing section 150 of Article 81 of the Code of 1904, now section 153 of the Code of 1912. That section provides that the president or other officer of any corporation located and doing business in this State, shall, by the 15th of March in each year, report to the State Tax Commissioner a true and correct statement of the number of shares of the capital stock of such corporation and the par value of each share, with such information in regard to the value of the same as may be required by the Commissioner, and may be in the possession of such officer as of the first day of January in each year. The Commissioner is then required to value and assess said shares of stock as of the first of January next preceding. The section then provides that it "shall be the duty of the said president, cashier or other chief officer, on or before the first day of January next succeeding, to pay to the treasurer of the State, the State tax on said shares of the capital stock of such bank or banking association or other incorporated institution of which he is president, cashier or other chief officer as aforesaid."
 In that case the treasurer of the company, on January 11th, filed with the State Tax Commissioner the report required to be made by the aforesaid section of the Code, and on January 22nd of the same year the Tax Commissioner placed a valuation upon said stock and a levy was made thereon. On February 25th, 1907, the Union Trust Company reduced its outstanding stock from twenty thousand to ten thousand shares and paid off, liquidated and retired ten thousand shares, and on the 16th of April, 1906, notified the Tax Commissioner of such reduction in its capital stock. The corporation resisted the payment of the taxes upon the entire twenty thousand shares of its stock, claiming that it *Page 442
 should pay taxes for such year only upon the remaining ten thousand shares.
 We, in that case, on construing the aforesaid section of the Code, held the corporation liable for the payment of taxes upon the entire twenty thousand shares of its stock.
 We are, however, unable to discover any similarity between that case and the case now before us. The liability of the corporation was dependent upon the statute, as the liability of the executors and administrators is dependent upon statute. The provisions of the statute creating the liability in respect to the corporation in that case differs altogether from the provisions of the statute creating the liability in respect to the executors in this case.
 The officer of the company in that case was required to send to the Tax Commissioner his report showing the number of shares and the value of such shares on the preceding first day of January, which he did; and the Commissioner, upon the receipt of such report, was required to value and assess such stock, which he did; and the levy being made, the corporation was specifically required "on or before the first day of January next succeeding to pay to the treasurer of the State the State tax upon such shares of the capital stock." The liability of the corporation was in no sense dependent upon the question as to whether the taxes were due, but it was directed, in language which admits of no uncertainty, to pay the taxes levied upon the stock so returned by it as of the first day of the preceding January on or before the succeeding first day of January. The Court there said: "The Trust Company knew on February 25th that it had made a return to the State Tax Commissioner of twenty thousand shares of stock; it further knew that this stock was subject to taxation, and that the company was the agent of the State for collecting that tax; it was, therefore, its plain duty when it paid off the stockholders and retired ten thousand shares, to have retained from each one a sufficient amount to have paid the tax, and it cannot now set up its own voluntary act of the payment out of the money, as a *Page 443
 ground to defeat a suit upon the part of the State, brought in accordance with the statute and based upon the sworn return of the corporation."
 The same section of the Code was before this Court in the case of Baltimore City v. Chester S.S. Co., supra, and we find nothing in the opinion in that case inconsistent with the conclusion we have here reached.
 In this case a plea was filed setting up the defense that the executors were not liable for the payment of the aforesaid taxes for the year 1910, in as much as the estate was finally settled and the property distributed before such taxes became due and payable, and that the Appeal Tax Court was duly notified in writing that the estate had been fully administered and the assets distributed, and that the defendants denied all liability for the payment of such taxes. To this plea a demurrer was interposed, which was sustained by the Court below, whereupon the case was submitted to the Court for trial on the issues joined on the remaining pleas, first, that they never promised as alleged, and, second, that they were never indebted as alleged, and a verdict was rendered by the Court in favor of the plaintiff, upon which a judgment was rendered.
 From what we have said, we think the Court was wrong in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant's plea. We must, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court below, and in as much as it was admitted at the trial, which admission is found in the record, that the distribution of the securities and property shown in the final account of the executors was in fact made to the parties therein named on or before the date of said account, to wit: December 29, 1909, and before the said taxes for the ensuing year became due and payable, it will serve no useful purpose to award a new trial in this case. Therefore, the case will be reversed without new trial.
 Judgment reversed, without new trial, with costs to theappellant. *Page 444


type: wikipedia

text:
Campolattaro község (comune) Olaszország Campania régiójában, Benevento megyében.
 Fekvése
 A megye részén fekszik, 60 km-re északkeletre Nápolytól, 15 km-re északra a megyeszékhelytől. Határai: Casalduni, Circello, Fragneto l’Abate, Fragneto Monforte, Morcone és Pontelandolfo.
 Története
 A település őse egy ókori szamnisz település volt, amelyet a 9. században a szaracénok pusztítottak el. A 12. században alapították újra. A következő századokban nemesi birtok volt. A 19. században nyerte el önállóságát, amikor a Nápolyi Királyságban felszámolták a feudalizmust.
 Népessége
 A népesség számának alakulása:
 Főbb látnivalói
 Castello (a település középkori vára)
 Maria Santissima del Canale-templom
 San Sebastiano-templom
 Santissimo Salvatore-templom
 Jegyzetek
 Források
 Comuni-Italiani
 Italy World Club
 További információk
 Benevento megye települései


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21993D0519(01)
 Décision n° 1/93 du Comité de coopération douanière ACP- CEE du 16 avril 1993 portant dérogation à la définition de la notion de «produits originaires» pour tenir compte de la situation particulière du Lesotho en ce qui concerne sa production de certains vêtements
 Journal officiel n° L 123 du 19/05/1993 p. 0032 - 0033
 DÉCISION NO 1/93 DU COMITÉ DE COOPÉRATION DOUANIÈRE ACP-CEE du 16 avril 1993 portant dérogation à la définition de la notion de « produits originaires » pour tenir compte de la situation particulière du Lesotho en ce qui concerne sa production de certains vêtements (93/319/CEE)LE COMITÉ DE COOPÉRATION DOUANIÈRE ACP-CEE, vu la quatrième convention ACP-CEE signée à Lomé le 15 décembre 1989, et notamment l'article 31 paragraphe 9 de son protocole n° 1, considérant que l'article 31 du protocole n° 1 de la convention relatif à la définition de la notion de « produits originaires » et aux méthodes de coopération administrative prévoit l'octroi, par le comité de coopération douanière, de dérogations audit protocole, notamment pour faciliter le développement d'industries existantes ou l'implantation d'industries nouvelles; considérant que la décision n° 1/91 du comité de coopération douanière ACP-CEE (1) a accordé une dérogation à la définition figurant au protocole n° 1 pour ce qui est de certains vêtements; considérant que les États d'Amérique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique (ACP) ont présenté une demande du gouvernement du Lesotho visant à obtenir une prorogation de ladite décision jusqu'au 1er mars 1996; considérant qu'une extension de la dérogation a été demandée pour certains vêtements en bonneterie; considérant que la dérogation demandée est justifiée en vertu des dispositions concernées du protocole n° 1 et qu'elle ne peut pas causer de préjudice grave à une industrie établie de la Communauté, sous réserve que certaines conditions relatives aux quantités, à la surveillance, ou à la durée soient respectées, DÉCIDE: Article premier Par dérogation aux dispositions particulières de l'annexe II du protocole n° 1, les produits énumérés à l'annexe de la présente décision fabriqués au Lesotho sont considérés comme originaires des États ACP aux conditions énoncées ci-après. Article 2 La dérogation prévue à l'article 1er porte sur les produits exportés du Lesotho vers la Communauté entre le 1er mars et le 28 février 1996, pour les quantités annuelles figurant en annexe. Article 3 Les autorités compétentes du Lesotho prennent les dispositions nécessaires pour assurer le contrôle quantitatif des exportations des produits visés à l'article 1er. À cette fin, tous les certificats qu'elles émettent dans le cadre de la présente dérogation font référence à la présente décision. Les autorités compétentes du Lesotho transmettent à la Commission, tous les trimestres, le relevé des quantités pour lesquelles des certificats de circulation EUR.1 auront été émis sur la base de la présente décision en indiquant les numéros des certificats délivrés. Article 4 Les États ACP, la Communauté et les États membres sont tenus pour ce qui les concerne de prendre les mesures nécessaires à l'exécution de la présente décision. Article 5 La présente décision entre en vigueur le 16 avril 1993. Fait à Bruxelles, le 16 avril 1993. Pour le comité de coopération douanière ACP-CEE Les présidents Francis K. MUTHAURA P. WILMOTT ANNEXE >TABLE>


text:
Αριθ . L 50/8 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων 28 . 2 . 86
 ΣΥΜΦΩΝΙΑ
 υπό μορφή ανταλλαγής επιστολών μεταξύ της Ευρωπαϊκής Οικονομικής Κοινότητας και της
 Τουρκίας περί καθορισμού, για την περίοδο από 1ης Νοεμβρίου 1985 μέχρι 28 Φεβρουαρίου 1986, του
 πρόσθετου ποσού που πρέπει να αφαιρεθεί από την εισφορά που εφαρμόζεται κατά την εισαγωγή στην
 Κοινότητα μη επεξεργασμένου ελαιολάδου καταγωγής Τουρκίας
 Επιστολή αριθ. 1
 Κύριε ,
 Το παράρτημα IV της αποφάσεως αριθ . 1 /77 του συμβουλίου συνδέσεως ΕΟΚ-Τουρκίας της
 17ης Μαΐου 1977 περί των νέων παραχωρήσεων κατά την εισαγωγή των τουρκικών γεωργικών
 προϊόντων στην Κοινότητα προβλέπει ότι, για το μη επεξεργασμένο ελαιόλαδο που υπάγεται στη
 διάκριση 15.07 Α I του κοινού δασμολογίου, το ποσό που πρέπει να αφαιρεθεί από το ποσό της
 εισφοράς, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 2 της αποφάσεως, δύναται να αυξηθεί κατά ένα πρόσθετο ποσό με
 τους ίδιους όρους και κατά τον ίδιο τρόπο που προβλέπονται για την εφαρμογή του εν λόγω άρθρου,
 για να ληφθούν υπόψη ορισμένοι παράγοντες, και σε συνάρτηση με τις συνθήκες της αγοράς του
 ελαιολάδου .
 Για την περίοδο από 1ης Νοεμβρίου 1985 μέχρι 28 Φεβρουαρίου 1986, έχω την τιμή να σας
 ανακοινώσω , με βάση τα κριτήρια που προβλέπονται στο προαναφερθέν παράρτημα , ότι η
 Κοινότητα θα λάβει τα αναγκαία μέτρα ώστε το πρόσθετο ποσό να είναι 10,88 ΕCU ανά 100 χιλιό
 γραμμα .
 Θα σας ήμουν υπόχρεως αν θέλατε να μου γνωστοποιήσετε τη λήψη της παρούσας επιστολής και να
 μου επιβεβαιώσετε τη σύμφωνη γνώμη της κυβερνήσεώς σας επί του περιεχομένου της.
 Παρακαλώ δεχθείτε, Κύριε, τη διαβεβαίωση της μεγίστης μου εκτιμήσεως.
 Εξ ονόματος
 του Συμβουλίου των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων
 Επιστολή αριθ. 2
 Κύριε ,
 Έχω την τιμή να σας γνωρίσω τη λήψη της σημερινής σας επιστολής, η οποία αναφέρει τα
 ακόλουθα :
 «Το παράρτημα IV της αποφάσεως αριθ . 1 /77 του Συμβουλίου συνδέσεως ΕΟΚ-Τουρκίας της
 17ης Μαΐου 1977 περί των νέων παραχωρήσεων κατά την εισαγωγή των τουρκικών γεωργικών
 προϊόντων στην Κοινότητα , προβλέπει ότι, για το μη επεξεργασμένο ελαιόλαδο που υπάγεται
 στη διάκριση 15.07 Α I του κοινού δασμολογίου, το ποσό που πρέπει να αφαιρεθεί από το ποσό
 της εισφοράς, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 2 της αποφάσεως, δύναται να αυξηθεί κατά ένα πρόσθετο
 ποσό με τους ίδιους όρους και κατά τον ίδιο τρόπο που προβλέπονται για την εφαρμογή του εν
 λόγω άρθρου, για να ληφθούν υπόψη ορισμένοι παράγοντες, και σε συνάρτηση με τις συνθήκες
 της αγοράς του ελαιολάδου .
 Για την περίοδο από 1ης Νοεμβρίου 1985 μέχρι 28 Φεβρουαρίου 1986, έχω την τιμή να σας
 ανακοινώσω , με βάση τα κριτήρια που προβλέπονται στο προαναφερθέν παράρτημα , ότι η
 Κοινότητα θα λάβει τα αναγκαία μέτρα ώστε το πρόσθετο ποσό να είναι 10,88 ΕCU ανά
 100 χιλιόγραμμα .
 Θα σας ήμουν υπόχρεως αν θέλατε να μου γνωστοποιήσετε τη λήψη της παρούσας επιστολής
 και να μου επιβεβαιώσετε τη σύμφωνη γνώμη της κυβερνήσεώς σας επί του περιεχομένου
 της .»
 Σας επιβεβαιώνω τη σύμφωνη γνώμη της κυβερνήσεώς μου επί των ανωτέρω .
 Παρακαλώ δεχθείτε, Κύριε, τη διαβεβαίωση της μεγίστης μου εκτιμήσεως.
 Για την κυβέρνηση
 της Δημοκρατίας της Τουρκίας


text:
 15.12.2016
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 L 341/6
 DÉCISION DU COMITÉ MIXTE DE L'EEE
 No 132/2015
 du 11 juin 2015
 modifiant l'annexe I (Questions vétérinaires et phytosanitaires) de l'accord EEE [2016/2167]
 LE COMITÉ MIXTE DE L'EEE,
 vu l'accord sur l'Espace économique européen (ci-après l'«accord EEE»), et notamment son article 98,
 considérant ce qui suit:
 (1)
 La directive 92/47/CEE du Conseil (1), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 31 décembre 1997; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette directive.
 (2)
 La directive 92/120/CEE du Conseil (2), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 31 décembre 1995; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette directive.
 (3)
 La décision 85/446/CEE de la Commission (3) a été abrogée par la décision 96/345/CE de la Commission (4), qui figurait précédemment dans l'accord EEE, il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à la décision 85/446/CEE.
 (4)
 La décision 90/515/CEE de la Commission (5) a été abrogée par la décision 2002/657/CE de la Commission (6); ces deux actes étant intégrés dans l'accord EEE, il y a lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à la décision 90/515/CEE.
 (5)
 La décision 93/257/CEE de la Commission (7) a été abrogée par la décision 2002/657/CE; ces deux actes étant intégrés dans l'accord EEE, il y a lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à la décision 93/257/CEE.
 (6)
 La décision 94/306/CE de la Commission (8) a été abrogée par la décision 2002/878/CE de la Commission (9); ces deux actes étant intégrés dans l'accord EEE, il y a lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à la décision 94/306/CE.
 (7)
 La décision 94/695/CE de la Commission (10), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 31 décembre 1997; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (8)
 La décision 95/59/CE de la Commission (11), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 28 février 1997; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (9)
 La décision 95/62/CE de la Commission (12), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 28 février 1997; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (10)
 La décision 95/70/CE de la Commission (13), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 28 février 1997; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (11)
 La décision 95/71/CE de la Commission (14), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 28 février 1997; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (12)
 La décision 95/210/CE de la Commission (15), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 14 juin 1998; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (13)
 La décision 96/93/CE de la Commission (16), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 31 décembre 1996; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (14)
 La décision 96/94/CE de la Commission (17), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 31 décembre 1996; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (15)
 La décision 96/95/CE de la Commission (18), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 31 décembre 1996; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (16)
 La décision 96/283/CE de la Commission (19), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 14 avril 1999; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (17)
 La décision 96/360/CE de la Commission (20), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, est devenue obsolète et doit dès lors être supprimée de l'accord.
 (18)
 La décision 97/38/CE de la Commission (21) a été abrogée par le règlement (CE) no 1664/2006 de la Commission (22); ces deux actes étant intégrés dans l'accord EEE, il y a lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à la décision 97/38/CE.
 (19)
 La décision 2000/504/CE de la Commission (23), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 1er mai 2002; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (20)
 La décision 2001/182/CE de la Commission (24), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 4 avril 2002; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (21)
 La décision 2004/440/CE de la Commission (25), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a été abrogée par la décision 2005/198/CE de la Commission (26); il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à la décision 2004/440/CE.
 (22)
 La décision 2004/835/CE de la Commission (27), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 31 décembre 2006; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (23)
 La décision 2005/65/CE de la Commission (28), qui est intégrée dans l'accord EEE, a expiré le 28 février 2006; il y a donc lieu de supprimer de l'accord la référence à cette décision.
 (24)
 La présente décision concerne la législation relative aux questions vétérinaires. Cette législation ne s'applique pas au Liechtenstein aussi longtemps que l'application de l'accord entre la Communauté européenne et la Confédération suisse relatif aux échanges de produits agricoles est étendue au Liechtenstein, comme cela est précisé dans les adaptations sectorielles de l'annexe I de l'accord EEE. La présente décision ne s'applique donc pas au Liechtenstein.
 (25)
 Il convient dès lors de modifier l'annexe I de l'accord EEE en conséquence,
 A ADOPTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DÉCISION:
 Article premier
 Le chapitre I de l'annexe I de l'accord EEE est modifié comme suit:
 1)
 Le texte du point 23 (décision 94/306/CE de la Commission), du point 41 (décision 96/93/CE de la Commission), du point 42 (décision 96/94/CE de la Commission), du point 43 (décision 96/95/CE de la Commission), du point 56 (décision 2000/504/CE de la Commission) et du point 81 (décision 2005/65/CE de la Commission) de la partie 4.2 est supprimé.
 2)
 Le texte du point 29 (décision 95/59/CE de la Commission), du point 30 (décision 95/62/CE de la Commission), du point 32 (décision 95/70/CE de la Commission), du point 33 (décision 95/71/CE de la Commission), du point 37 (décision 95/210/CE de la Commission), du point 40 (décision 96/283/CE de la Commission) et du point 57 (décision 2004/835/CE de la Commission) figurant sous l'intitulé «ACTES DONT LES ÉTATS DE L'AELE ET L'AUTORITÉ DE SURVEILLANCE AELE TIENNENT DÛMENT COMPTE» est supprimé.
 3)
 Le texte du point 5 (directive 92/120/CEE du Conseil) et du point 12 (directive 92/47/CEE du Conseil) de la partie 6.1 est supprimé.
 4)
 Le texte du point 3 (décision 85/446/CEE de la Commission), du point 8 (décision 90/515/CEE de la Commission), du point 15 (décision 93/257/CEE de la Commission), du point 20 (décision 94/306/CE de la Commission), du point 24 (décision 94/695/CE de la Commission), du point 33 (décision 96/360/CE de la Commission), du point 35 (décision 97/38/CE de la Commission), du point 41 (décision 2001/182/CE de la Commission) et du point 50 (décision 2004/440/CE de la Commission) de la partie 6.2 est supprimé.
 Article 2
 La présente décision entre en vigueur le 12 juin 2015, pour autant que toutes les notifications prévues à l'article 103, paragraphe 1, de l'accord EEE aient été faites (*1).
 Article 3
 La présente décision est publiée dans la partie EEE et dans le supplément EEE du Journal officiel de l'Union européenne.
 Fait à Bruxelles, le 11 juin 2015.
 Par le Comité mixte de l'EEE
 Le président
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) JO L 268 du 14.9.1992, p. 33.
 (2) JO L 62 du 15.3.1993, p. 86.
 (3) JO L 260 du 2.10.1985, p. 19.
 (4) JO L 133 du 4.6.1996, p. 29.
 (5) JO L 286 du 18.10.1990, p. 33.
 (6) JO L 221 du 17.8.2002, p. 8.
 (7) JO L 118 du 14.5.1993, p. 75.
 (8) JO L 133 du 28.5.1994, p. 51.
 (9) JO L 305 du 7.11.2002, p. 57.
 (10) JO L 282 du 29.10.1994, p. 1.
 (11) JO L 55 du 11.3.1995, p. 42.
 (12) JO L 55 du 11.3.1995, p. 45.
 (13) JO L 59 du 17.3.1995, p. 32.
 (14) JO L 59 du 17.3.1995, p. 33.
 (15) JO L 132 du 16.6.1995, p. 19.
 (16) JO L 21 du 27.1.1996, p. 72.
 (17) JO L 21 du 27.1.1996, p. 73.
 (18) JO L 21 du 27.1.1996, p. 74.
 (19) JO L 107 du 30.4.1996, p. 16.
 (20) JO L 138 du 11.6.1996, p. 25.
 (21) JO L 307 du 12.11.1997, p. 33.
 (22) JO L 320 du 18.11.2006, p. 13.
 (23) JO L 201 du 9.8.2000, p. 6.
 (24) JO L 77 du 16.3.2001, p. 22.
 (25) JO L 154 du 30.4.2004, p. 97.
 (26) JO L 65 du 11.3.2005, p. 33.
 (27) JO L 360 du 7.12.2004, p. 28.
 (28) JO L 27 du 29.1.2005, p. 52.
 (*1) Pas d'obligations constitutionnelles signalées.


type: legislation

text:
 Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 52006PC0449(01)
 Pasiūlymas Tarybos sprendimas dėl Europos bendrijos ir Urugvajaus susitarimo sudarymo pasikeičiant laiškais /* KOM/2006/0449 galutinis - ACC 2006/0153 */
 [pic] | EUROPOS BENDRIJŲ KOMISIJA |Briuselis, 9.8.2006KOM(2006) 449 galutinis2006/0153 (ACC)2006/0154 (ACC)PasiūlymasTARYBOS SPRENDIMASdėl Europos bendrijos ir Urugvajaus susitarimo sudarymo pasikeičiant laiškais.PasiūlymasTARYBOS REGLAMENTASdėl susitarimo, EB sudaryto po derybų pagal 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalį, įgyvendinimo, papildantis Reglamento (EEB) Nr. 2658/87 dėl tarifų ir statistinės nomenklatūros bei dėl Bendrojo muitų tarifo I priedą(pateikti Komisijos)AIŠKINAMASIS MEMORANDUMAS1. Plečiant muitų sąjungą, GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalies nuostatose reikalaujama, kad EB pradėtų derybas su trečiosiomis šalimis, turinčiomis derybų teisę bet kurioje stojančioje šalyje, siekiant susitarti dėl kompensacinio sureguliavimo, jei patvirtinus EB išorės muitų tarifų režimą padidės muitų tarifai aukščiau to lygio, kuriam muitų sąjungai priklausanti šalis įsipareigojo PPO, „atsižvelgdama į muitų sumažinimus tai pačiai prekių grupei, kuriuos, kuriant muitų sąjungą, atliko kitos šios sąjungos šalys.“2. 2004 m. kovo 22 d. Taryba įgaliojo Komisiją pradėti derybas pagal 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalį (KOM pasiūlymas 6792/04 PPO 34).3. Komisija vedė derybas konsultuodamasi su komitetu, įsteigtu pagal Sutarties 133 straipsnį, ir vadovaudamasi Tarybos patvirtintomis derybų gairėmis.4. Komisija derėjosi su derybų teisę turinčiomis PPO narėmis dėl konkrečių nuolaidų panaikinimo, susijusio su Čekijos Respublikos, Estijos Respublikos, Kipro Respublikos, Latvijos Respublikos, Lenkijos Respublikos, Lietuvos Respublikos, Maltos Respublikos, Slovakijos Respublikos, Slovėnijos Respublikos ir Vengrijos Respublikos įsipareigojimų sąrašų panaikinimu, stojant į Europos bendriją.5. Derybos baigėsi susitarimu pasikeičiant laiškais su Urugvajumi.6. Šiuo pasiūlymu susitarimas teikiamas Tarybai patvirtinti.2006/0153 (ACC)PasiūlymasTARYBOS SPRENDIMASdėl Europos bendrijos ir Urugvajaus susitarimo sudarymo pasikeičiant laiškais.EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS TARYBA,atsižvelgdama į Europos bendrijos steigimo sutartį, ypač į jos 133 straipsnį, kartu su 300 straipsnio 2 dalies pirmosios pastraipos pirmuoju sakiniu,atsižvelgdama į Komisijos pasiūlymą,kadangi:(1) 2004 m. kovo 22 d. Taryba įgaliojo Komisiją pradėti derybas su tam tikromis PPO narėmis pagal 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalį į Europos bendriją stojant Čekijos Respublikai, Estijos Respublikai, Kipro Respublikai, Latvijos Respublikai, Lenkijos Respublikai, Lietuvos Respublikai, Maltos Respublikai, Slovakijos Respublikai, Slovėnijos Respublikai ir Vengrijos Respublikai.(2) Komisija vedė derybas konsultuodamasi su komitetu, įsteigtu pagal Sutarties 133 straipsnį ir vadovaudamasi Tarybos patvirtintomis derybų gairėmis.(3) Komisija baigė derybas dėl Europos bendrijos ir Urugvajaus susitarimo sudarymo pasikeičiant laiškais. Šis susitarimas turi būti patvirtintas.NUSPRENDĖ:1 straipsnisEuropos bendrijos ir Urugvajaus susitarimas pasikeičiant laiškais dėl konkrečių nuolaidų panaikinimo, susijusio su Čekijos Respublikos, Estijos Respublikos, Kipro Respublikos, Latvijos Respublikos, Lenkijos Respublikos, Lietuvos Respublikos, Maltos Respublikos, Slovakijos Respublikos, Slovėnijos Respublikos ir Vengrijos Respublikos įsipareigojimų sąrašų panaikinimu, stojant į Europos bendriją; yra patvirtinamas Bendrijos vardu.Šio susitarimo tekstas pridedamas prie šio sprendimo.2 straipsnisTarybos pirmininkas įgaliojamas skirti asmenį(-is), įgaliotą(-us) pasirašyti 1 straipsnyje nurodytą susitarimą, sudarytą pasikeičiant laiškais, siekiant įpareigoti Bendriją.Priimta Briuselyje,Tarybos varduPirmininkasSUSITARIMASEuropos bendrijos ir Urugvajaus susitarimas pasikeičiant laiškaisdėl nuolaidų pakeitimo Čekijos Respublikos, Estijos Respublikos, Kipro Respublikos, Latvijos Respublikos, Lenkijos Respublikos, Lietuvos Respublikos, Maltos Respublikos, Slovakijos Respublikos, Slovėnijos Respublikos ir Vengrijos Respublikos įsipareigojimų sąraše, joms stojant į Europos bendriją.Europos Bendrijų laiškasŽeneva,Gerb. pone,Prasidėjus Europos Bendrijų (EB) ir Urugvajaus deryboms pagal 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalį ir XXVIII straipsnį dėl nuolaidų pakeitimo Čekijos Respublikos, Estijos Respublikos, Kipro Respublikos, Latvijos Respublikos, Lenkijos Respublikos, Lietuvos Respublikos, Maltos Respublikos, Slovakijos Respublikos, Slovėnijos Respublikos ir Vengrijos Respublikos įsipareigojimų sąrašuose joms stojant į EB, EB ir Urugvajus, siekdami baigti derybas, pradėtas 2004 m. sausio 19 d. EB pateikus pranešimą pagal XXIV straipsnio 6 dalį (GATT), susitarė dėl toliau išdėstytų klausimų:EB į 25 EB valstybių narių muitų teritorijai skirtą CLX įsipareigojimų sąrašą įtraukia ankstesniame sąraše esančias nuolaidas.EB keičia Urugvajui suteiktos 4000 tonų EB tarifinės kvotos apibrėžimą į „Aukštos kokybės galvijiena, šviežia, atšaldyta arba sušaldyta“.Šis susitarimas įsigalioja jo pasirašymo dieną, šalims jį patvirtinus pagal savo procedūras.Europos bendrijos varduSUSITARIMASEuropos bendrijos ir Urugvajaus susitarimas pasikeičiant laiškaisdėl nuolaidų pakeitimo Čekijos Respublikos, Estijos Respublikos, Kipro Respublikos, Latvijos Respublikos, Lenkijos Respublikos, Lietuvos Respublikos, Maltos Respublikos, Slovakijos Respublikos, Slovėnijos Respublikos ir Vengrijos Respublikos įsipareigojimų sąraše, joms stojant į Europos bendriją.Urugvajaus laiškas[vieta],Gerb. pone,Daroma nuoroda į Jūsų laišką, kuriame sakoma:„Prasidėjus Europos Bendrijų (EB) ir Urugvajaus deryboms pagal 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalį ir XXVIII straipsnį dėl nuolaidų pakeitimo Čekijos Respublikos, Estijos Respublikos, Kipro Respublikos, Latvijos Respublikos, Lenkijos Respublikos, Lietuvos Respublikos, Maltos Respublikos, Slovakijos Respublikos, Slovėnijos Respublikos ir Vengrijos Respublikos įsipareigojimų sąrašuose, joms stojant į EB, EB ir Urugvajus, siekdami baigti derybas, pradėtas 2004 m. sausio 19 d. EB pateikus pranešimą pagal XXIV straipsnio 6 dalį (GATT), susitarė dėl toliau išdėstytų klausimų:EB į 25 EB valstybių narių muitų teritorijai skirtą CLX įsipareigojimų sąrašą įtraukia ankstesniame sąraše esančias nuolaidas.EB keičia Urugvajui suteiktos 4000 tonų EB tarifinės kvotos apibrėžimą į „Aukštos kokybės galvijiena, šviežia, atšaldyta arba sušaldyta“.Šis susitarimas įsigalioja jo pasirašymo dieną, šalims jį patvirtinus pagal savo procedūras.“Turiu garbės pranešti apie mano Vyriausybės pritarimą.Urugvajaus varduFINANSINĖ PAŽYMA |DATA: xxxxxx |1. | BIUDŽETO POZICIJA: 10 skyrius: Žemės ūkio muitai | ASIGNAVIMAI: 0 mln. EUR |2. | PAVADINIMAS: Tarybos sprendimo dėl Europos bendrijos ir Urugvajaus susitarimo, susijusio su 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalyje nurodytu kompensaciniu sureguliavimu, sudarymo pasikeičiant laiškais pasiūlymas |3. | TEISINIS PAGRINDAS: Sutarties 133 straipsnis |4. | TIKSLAI: Laikytis 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalies, atsižvelgiant į Muitų sąjungos plėtrą nuo 2004 m. gegužės 1 d. |5. | FINANSINIS POVEIKIS | 12 MĖNESIŲ LAIKOTARPIS (mln. EUR) | EINAMIEJI FINANSINIAI METAI [n] (mln. EUR) | KITI FINANSINIAI METAI [n+1] (mln. EUR) |5.0 | IŠLAIDOS - IŠ EB BIUDŽETO(GRĄŽINAMOSIOS IŠMOKOS IR (ARBA) INTERVENCIJOS) - NACIONALINIŲ VALDŽIOS INSTITUCIJŲ - KITOS |5.1 | PAJAMOS - EB NUOSAVIEJI IŠTEKLIAI(RINKLIAVOS IR (ARBA) MUITAI) - NACIONALINĖS | 0 mln. EUR |[n+2] | [n+3] | [n+4] | [n+5] |5.0.1 | NUMATOMOS IŠLAIDOS |5.1.1 | NUMATOMOS PAJAMOS |5.2 | SKAIČIAVIMO METODAS: |6.0 | AR GALIMA PROJEKTĄ FINANSUOTI IŠ ASIGNAVIMŲ, ĮTRAUKTŲ Į ATITINKAMĄ EINAMOJO BIUDŽETO SKYRIŲ? | Netaikoma |6.1 | AR GALIMA PROJEKTĄ FINANSUOTI PERVEDANT IŠ VIENO EINAMOJO BIUDŽETO SKYRIAUS Į KITĄ? | Netaikoma |6.2 | AR BUS REIKALINGAS PAPILDOMAS BIUDŽETAS? | NE |6.3 | AR ASIGNAVIMUS REIKĖS ĮTRAUKTI Į BŪSIMUS BIUDŽETUS? | NE |PASTABOS: |AIŠKINAMASIS MEMORANDUMAS1. Daroma nuoroda į Tarybos sprendimą XXXX dėl susitarimo su Urugvajumi sudarymo po derybų pagal 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalį.2. Šiuo Tarybos reglamento pasiūlymu įgyvendinamas Bendrijos pasirašytas susitarimas.2006/0154 (ACC)PasiūlymasTARYBOS REGLAMENTASdėl susitarimo, EB sudaryto po derybų pagal 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalį, įgyvendinimo, papildantis Reglamento (EEB) Nr. 2658/87 dėl tarifų ir statistinės nomenklatūros bei dėl Bendrojo muitų tarifo I priedąEUROPOS SĄJUNGOS TARYBA,atsižvelgdama į Europos bendrijos steigimo sutartį, ypač į jos 133 straipsnį,atsižvelgdama į Komisijos pasiūlymą[1],kadangi:(1) Tarybos reglamentu (EEB) Nr. 2658/87(1) priimta prekių nomenklatūra (toliau − Kombinuotoji nomenklatūra) ir buvo nustatytos Bendrojo muitų tarifo konvencinių muitų normos.(2) Sprendimu XX/XXX/EB dėl Europos bendrijos ir Urugvajaus susitarimo sudarymo pasikeičiant laiškais, Taryba Bendrijos vardu patvirtino pirmiau minėtą susitarimą siekdama baigti derybas, pradėtas laikantis 1994 m. GATT susitarimo XXIV straipsnio 6 dalies.PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ REGLAMENTĄ:1 straipsnisReglamento (EEB) Nr. 2658/87 I priedas iš dalies keičiamas taip:7 priedo III skirsnio trečia dalis (PPO kvotos, kurias turi atidaryti kompetentingos Bendrijos institucijos) iš dalies keičiama taip:a) Pakeisti 4000 tonų tarifinės kvotos apibrėžimą „Aukštos kokybės mėsa be kaulų, švieža, atšaldyta arba sušaldyta: „Ypatingos arba geros kokybės galvijienos gabalai, gauti iš galvijų, augintų tik ganyklose, kurių gyvoji masė ne didesnė kaip 460 kilogramų, vadinama „specialiai supakuota galvijiena“. Šie gabalai gali būti pažymėti raidėmis "sc" (special cuts – specialieji gabalai)“ į „Aukštos kokybės galvijiena be kaulų, šviežia, atšaldyta arba sušaldyta”.b) Po „kitos sąlygos“ įterpti: „Tiekiančioji šalis – Urugvajus“.2 straipsnisŠis reglamentas įsigalioja kitą dieną po jo paskelbimo Europos Sąjungos oficialiajame leidinyje .Šis reglamentas yra privalomas visas ir tiesiogiai taikomas visose valstybėse narėse.Priimta Briuselyje, [...]Tarybos varduPirmininkas [1] OL C [...], [...], p. [...].


type: other

text:
Välkommen till Digital Edge Subsea
 Digital Edge Subsea är världsledande inom digital videoinspelning (DVR) och inspektionssystem för offshore.
 Digital Edge Subsea utvecklar och producerar DVR-produkter för användning inom utvinning av olja och gas offshore, inklusive dykning, fjärrstyrda undervattenrobotar (ROV) och topside-arbeten.
 Vår EdgeDVR används världen över av de flesta ledande ROV- och dykningsentrepenörer.
 Det finns i nuläget sex modeller av EdgeDVR där de mest avancerade modellerna av EdgeDVR-HD kan spela in flera videokanaler med både högupplösning (HD) och standardupplösning (SD) samtidigt.
 EdgeDVR är en väsentlig del av varje ROV-system och kan integreras i både workclass- och eyeball-system, är lätt att använda och har många användbara funktioner. Just nu är över 190 enheter i fält, med en väletablerad bevisad historia av pålitlighet.
 Varför använda EdgeDVR?
 EdgeDVR föddes ur frustrationen över att använda dåvarande videoinspelningssystem för offshore. Grundarna hade många års erfarenhet av att köra workclass och eyeball-ROVs och att göra både plattforms- och ledningsinspektioner. EdgeDVR har skapats för slutanvändaren, med erfarenheten hos människor som kan industrin. Den är utformad för att vara lätt att använda och underlätta för operatören. Samtidigt skapar EdgeDVR ett utförligt resultat där i stort sett ingen tidskrävande efterbehandling behöver göras innan leverans till kund.
 Eftersom vi själva varit där och kämpat med en kollaps mitt i natten, vet vi hur irriterande det är att ha opålitlig utrustning. Det är därför vi har utformat EdgeDVR för att vara så pålitlig som möjlig, från topp till tå. Vi använder överkvalificerad hårdvara så att den alltid har jämn drift och vi har byggt upp ett anseende om att vara pålitliga.
 Se till att du använder utrustning som ger ett högkvalitativt resultat med minsta möjliga insats av användaren. EdgeDVR producerar video som kan delas och visas på alla Windowsdatorer utan extra codecs eller mjukvara och integrerar sömlöst händelse- och undersökningsdata. Varje projekt inkluderar gratis programvara där kunden enkelt kan navigera i både video och data. Den är otroligt enkel att använda och de flesta kan hantera den efter bara några timmars utbildning. Vare sig du är en kund eller en operatör, om du arbetar med ROVs eller gör dykarbeten (t ex plattforms- FPSO- eller ledningsinspektioner, konstruktion eller borrningssupportarbeten), använd EdgeDVR - det kommer göra livet lättare.
 Plattformsinspection
 FPSO-inspektion
 Vindkraftspark- \ Vindkraftverksinspektion & -konstruktion
 Borrningssupport
 ROV-arbeten (Eyeball och Workclass)
 Topside-inspektioner
 Videoövervakning av nukleärinstallation och händelseregistrering vid kritiska arbeten
 Under dyket kan användaren registrera händelser i EdgeDVR antingen genom att klicka på en händelseknapp, eller genom att skriva in dem manuellt. Händelseknapparna kan lätt redigeras/ändras av användaren. Inställningarna för händelseknapparna kan lagras och laddas när som helst under inspektionen.
 Automatisk logg
 Under normala arbeten med ROV eller dyk när användaren loggar händelser, startar/stoppar video, tar foton, etc., loggas dessa händelser i EdgeDVR-loggen. Dessa konverteras sedan till Excel vid slutet av varje dyk eller när det passar.
 EdgeDVR producerar automatiskt en dyk-, foto-, video- och avvikelselogg.
 Digital Edge Subsea producerar system för videoinspelning och inspektion specifikt för undervattensindustrin. Vår ledande produkt är EdgeDVR-HD, som kan spela in 1 kanal HD och upp till 3 kanaler SD samtidigt. Från början spelade EdgeDVR-HD in med H.264 videokodeken, men det visade sig att detta alltför ofta gjorde att slutkunder inte kunde spela upp videon om de inte laddade ned ett kodekpaket. Eftersom kunden ofta är ett stort oljeföretag med hög säkerhet i sitt IT-system, kan användarna ofta inte installera kodekpaketen och därför inte spela upp videon. Av denna anledning började EdgeDVR-HD använda VC-1 kodeken med behållaren Windows Media Video (WMV). Detta innebär att video som spelats in med EdgeDVR-HD kan spelas på alla Windowsdatorer utan att någon installation behöver göras, i nuläget över 91% av skrivbordsdatorer världen över. Kunder kan nu spela sin video utan extra programvara och klipp kan skickas genom hela företaget med samma tillit till att de kan spelas som när VHS och DVD användes.
 Full HD-kapacitet i huvudvideo, videoklipp och svart låda
 När en kund bestämmer sig för att använda HD är det viktigt att operatören kan leverera hela resultatet i HD. Vissa inspelningssystem spelar in huvudvideon i SD och bara klippen i HD. Detta innebär att arbetet måste utföras perfekt live (och ingen människa är perfekt!). Om exemplevis en avvikelse missas finns bara SD-video av den att visa för kunden, vilket är ett kontraktsbrott. EdgeDVR-HD spelar in huvudvideo, videoklipp och svarta lådan i full HD, därför kan eventuella foton eller klipp som missats tas efteråt från videon och fortfarande vara högupplösta.
 Inbyggt HD-videoöverlägg
 EdgeDVR-HD har ett inbyggt flerkanalsöverlägg för både HD och SD.
 Det finns ett oberoende överlägg och rubrik för varje videokanal.
 Övelägget är lätt att använda, med dra-och-släpp-fält och möjligheten att spara och öppna överläggsinställningar.
 Alla RS-232 data (Rubrik, Djup, GPS etc) kan visas endast på överlägg och kan registreras i dyk-, foto-, video-, och avvikelseloggar.
 Att använda inbyggda överlägg betyder att det finns färre komponenter, vilket reducerar både kostnader och felpotential vilket i sin tur eventuellt kan reducera nedtid.
 Kombinerad HD- och SD-kapacitet
 Det är ovanligt att ROVs bara har en HD-kamera installerad, ofta finns även en svart-vit SD-kamera för dåliga ljusförhållanden. SD-kameran har fördelen att den har en vidare vinkel som kan ge en bättre översikt. Det är bra att ha alternativet att kunna spela in antingen en eller båda kameror samtidigt. EdgeDVR-HD kan visa och spela in (huvudvideo, videoklipp och svart låda) 1 HD och upp till 3 SD-kameror samtidigt. Du kan också välja att visa och spela in 3 videor med mitten i HD och de två andra i SD vid exempelvis en ledningsinspektion. Naturligtvis kan EdgeDVR konfigureras så att 3 SD-videokanaler används om så önskas.
 Kompatibel med tredje part
 EdgeDVR är kompatibel med både Coabis (från version 10.9) och WIGM NEXUS. Det har integrerats med en mängd ROV- och dyksystem, några av de vi känner till är:
 Kundprogramvara
 EdgeDVR skapar ett resultat som kan levereras direkt till kund. Med den gratis programvaran kan slutkunden enkelt se sina data utan tidskrävande efterbehandling.
 Kundprogramvaran har playback av flera kanaler för både video och foton.
 Kunden kan klicka på händelser i dykloggen och videon spelas då upp vid händelsen.
 Loggarna kan filtreras för att visa endast foton, videor, klipp eller avvikelser.
 Om du är intresserad av EdgeDVR, räcker det inte att läsa broschyren eller manualen för att få en fullständig bild av hur lätt det är att använda och kraften hos alla dess funktioner. Kontakta oss så kan vi ge dig en online-demonstration så att du till fullo kan se systemets fördelar. Digital Edge Subsea kan också utan kostnad sända demonstrationssystem som du kan utvärdera. Om du är intresserad av att testa ett demosystem, kontakta gärna sales.
 Nya produkter & Extras för 2014.
 Wendy Snow | 2014-04-04 12:11:29
 Under 2014 kommer vi att lansera EdgeLite (Lite versionen av EdgeDVR) och EdgeBB (dedikerad BlackBox Recorder).
 Bara ett par extra för EdgeDVR som finns nu:-
 Nätverket Viewer.
 Upp till 8 Streaming video-kanaler
 EdgeDVR kan nätverket strömma alla tillgängliga video kanaler
 Tillgänglig i maj 2014.
 2 bay Sata till USB-docka.
 6 x 3TB hårddiskar.
 Avsedd för användning med EdgeDVR.
 4 bay Sata till USB-docka
 6 x 3TB hårddiskar
 Designad för användning med EdgeDVR och EdgeEdit.
 Ny produkt för April 2014 - EdgeTouch
 Wendy Snow | 2014-04-04 11:56:07
 Enkel, pekskärm kontroll för EdgeDVR
 EdgeTouch funktioner:-
 Video kontroller:
 Starta/stoppa Video/Video klipp.
 Ta foto.
 Ändra videoläget HD/SD.
 Växla kameror.
 Snabbtangent/loggpost.
 Pekskärm snabbtangenter.
 Workpack kontroll.
 Öppna/stäng komponenter
 Tillgänglig i April 2014.
 Kontakt - john@digitaledgesubsea.com
 ©2017 Digital Edge Subsea. Alla rättigheter reserverade | Sitemap.


text:
 30.1.2020
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 L 26/74
 ROZHODNUTÍ SMÍŠENÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 č. 75/2018
 ze dne 23. března 2018,
 kterým se mění příloha XX (Životní prostředí) Dohody o EHP [2020/92]
 SMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 s ohledem na Dohodu o Evropském hospodářském prostoru (dále jen „Dohoda o EHP“), a zejména na článek 98 této dohody,
 vzhledem k těmto důvodům:
 (1)
 Směrnice Komise (EU) 2017/2096 ze dne 15. listopadu 2017, kterou se mění příloha II směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2000/53/ES o vozidlech s ukončenou životností (1), by měla být začleněna do Dohody o EHP.
 (2)
 Příloha XX Dohody o EHP by proto měla být odpovídajícím způsobem změněna,
 PŘIJAL TOTO ROZHODNUTÍ:
 Článek 1
 V bodě 32e (směrnice Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2000/53/ES) přílohy XX Dohody o EHP se doplňuje nová odrážka, která zní:
 „—
 32017 L 2096: směrnice Komise (EU) 2017/2096 ze dne 15. listopadu 2017 (Úř. věst. L 299, 16.11.2017, s. 24).“
 Článek 2
 Znění směrnice (EU) 2017/2096 v islandském a norském jazyce, která mají být zveřejněna v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie, jsou platná.
 Článek 3
 Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dnem 24. března 2018 za předpokladu, že jsou učiněna veškerá oznámení podle čl. 103 odst. 1 Dohody o EHP (*1).
 Článek 4
 Toto rozhodnutí bude zveřejněno v oddíle EHP a v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie.
 V Bruselu dne 23. března 2018.
 Za Smíšený výbor EHP
 předseda
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) Úř. věst. L 299, 16.11.2017, s. 24.
 (*1) Nebyly oznámeny žádné ústavní požadavky.


text:
 30.5.2013
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 144/3
 РЕШЕНИЕ НА СЪВМЕСТНИЯ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП
 No 2/2013
 от 1 февруари 2013 година
 за изменение на приложение I (Ветеринарни и фитосанитарни въпроси) към Споразумението за ЕИП
 СЪВМЕСТНИЯТ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП,
 като взе предвид Споразумението за Европейското икономическо пространство („Споразумението за ЕИП“), и по-специално член 98 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 Решение за изпълнение 2012/489/ЕС на Комисията от 24 август 2012 г. за изменение на Решение 2007/453/ЕО относно статуса по отношение на СЕГ на Белгия, Австрия, Бразилия, Колумбия, Хърватия и Никарагуа (1) следва да бъде включено в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (2)
 Настоящото решение се отнася до законодателството относно ветеринарните въпроси. Законодателството по ветеринарни въпроси не се прилага по отношение на Лихтенщайн, докато прилагането на Споразумението между Европейската общност и Конфедерация Швейцария относно търговията със селскостопански продукти включва Лихтенщайн, както е посочено в секторните адаптации на приложение I към Споразумението за ЕИП. Следователно настоящото решение не се прилага по отношение на Лихтенщайн.
 (3)
 Във връзка с гореизложеното приложение I към Споразумението за ЕИП следва съответно да бъде изменено,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩОТО РЕШЕНИЕ:
 Член 1
 В точка 49 (Решение 2007/453/ЕО на Комисията) от част 7.2 на глава I от приложение I към Споразумението за ЕИП се добавя следното тире:
 „—
 32012 D 0489: Решение за изпълнение 2012/489/ЕС на Комисията от 24 август 2012 г. (ОВ L 231, 28.8.2012 г., стр. 13).“
 Член 2
 Текстовете на Решение за изпълнение 2012/489/ЕС на исландски и норвежки език, които ще бъдат публикувани в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз, са автентични.
 Член 3
 Настоящото решение влиза в сила на 2 февруари 2013 г., при условие че са внесени всички нотификации, предвидени в член 103, параграф 1 от Споразумението за ЕИП (2).
 Член 4
 Настоящото решение се публикува в раздела за ЕИП и в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 1 февруари 2013 година.
 За Съвместния комитет на ЕИП
 Председател
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ОВ L 231, 28.8.2012 г., стр. 13.
 (2) Без отбелязани конституционни изисквания.


text:
 Događaji
 Bizant vratio vlast nad utvrdom utvrdom Prosek kod Demir-Kapije
 Prvo spominjanje naselja Komarne na mjestu današnjeg Novigrada Podravskog.
 Prvo spominjanje Gorjana, prema teoriji Ivana Kukuljevića Sakcinskog.
 Prvo spominjanje Gore kod Petrinje.
 Bugarski car Boris I. osnovao samostan u Varni, sjedište prepisivačke Preslavske škole.
 Prvi spomen rodonačelnika splitske patricijske obitelji Tartaglia (Jakovlić).
 Prvi spomen posjeda Sveti Petar Orehovec, današnjeg naselja.
 Podesta Brescie Rambertino Buvalelli sklopio je mir i ušao u savez s gradovima komunama Cremonom, Bergamom i Mantovom.
 18. kolovoza – Nijemci utemeljili latvijski glavni grad Rigu.
 Rođenja
 Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (umro 1274.) iz Tusa, astronom, biolog, kemičar, matematičar, filozof, fizičar, liječnik i teolog.
 Smrti
 Vanjske poveznice


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21979A1126(01)
 Protocolo de adesão das Filipinas ao Acordo Geral sobre pautas aduaneiras e Comércio
 Jornal Oficial no L 071 de 17/03/1980 p. 0177 - 0178 Edição especial finlandesa: Capítulo 11 Fascículo 9 p. 0179 Edição especial sueca: Capítulo 11 Fascículo 9 p. 0179 Edição especial grega: Capítulo 11 Fascículo 16 p. 0004 Edição especial espanhola: Capítulo 11 Fascículo 12 p. 0212 Edição especial portuguesa: Capítulo 11 Fascículo 12 p. 0212
 PROTOCOLO DE ADESÃO DAS FILIPINAS AO ACORDO GERAL SOBRE PAUTAS ADUANEIRAS E COMÉRCIO OS GOVERNOS QUE SÃO PARTES CONTRATANTES NO ACORDO GERAL SOBRE PAUTAS ADUANEIRAS E COMÉRCIO (a seguir denominadas respectivamente «Partes Contratantes» e «Acordo Geral»), A COMUNIDADE ECONÓMICA EUROPEIA E O GOVERNO DA REPÚBLICA DAS FILIPINAS (a seguir denominado «as Filipinas»), TENDO EM CONTA os resultados das negociações realizadas tendo em vista a adesão das Filipinas ao Acordo Geral, ACORDARAM, por intermédio dos seus representantes, nas disposições seguintes: PRIMEIRA PARTE Disposições gerais 1. A partir da data de entrada em vigor do presente Protocolo, nos termos do ponto 7, as Filipinas serão parte contratante no Acordo Geral, na acepção do artigo XXXII do referido Acordo, e aplicarão às Partes Contratantes, a título provisório e sem prejuízo das disposições do presente Protocolo: a) As partes I, III e IV do Acordo Geral; b) A parte II do Acordo Geral na medida compatível com a sua legislação existente à data do presente Protocolo. As obrigações referidas no no 1 do artigo 1o, com referência ao artigo III, e as referidas no no 2, alínea b), do artigo II, com referência ao artigo VI do Acordo Geral serão consideradas, para efeitos da aplicação do presente ponto, como incluídas na parte II do Acordo Geral. 2. a) As disposições do Acordo Geral que as Filipinas devem aplicar às Partes Contratantes pelas Filipinas serão, salvo disposição em contrário do presente Protocolo, as que constam do texto anexo à Acta Final da Segunda Sessão da Comissão Preparatória da Conferência das Nacões Unidas sobre o Comércio e o Emprego, tal como rectificadas, adaptadas ou de outro modo alteradas por instrumentos em vigor à data em que as Filipinas se tornarem parte contratante. b) Sempre que o no 6 do artigo V, o no 4, alínea d) do artigo VII e o no 3, alínea c), do artigo X do Acordo Geral se referirem à data do referido Acordo, a data aplicável no que diz respeito às Filipinas será a data do presente Protocolo. 3. As Filipinas tencionam harmonizar com as disposições do artigo III do Acordo Geral o imposto sobre as vendas e o imposto específico aplicáveis aos produtos indicados no Documento L/4724/Add 1 e cujas taxas, nos termos dos artigos pertinentes dos capítulos IV e V do Código dos Impostos das Filipinas em vigor à data do presente Protocolo, variam consoante os produtos sejam fabricados no país ou importados e esforçar-se-ão por fazê-lo logo que possível, tendo em consideração as necessidades do seu desenvolvimento, das suas finanças e do seu comércio. Se, em 31 de Dezembro de 1984, os impostos acima referidos se encontrarem ainda em vigor, e aplicados com taxas diferentes aos produtos importados, a questão será examinada pelas Partes Contratantes. SEGUNDA PARTE Lista 4. A lista que consta do Anexo será a lista das Filipinas anexada ao Acordo Geral, aquando da entrada em vigor do presente Protocolo. 5. a) Sempre que o no 1 do artigo II do Acordo Geral se refere à data do Acordo, a data a aplicar em relação a cada produto objecto de uma concessão que consta da lista anexa ao presente Protocolo é a data do presente Protocolo. b) Quando o no 6, alínea a), do artigo II, do Acordo Geral se refere à data do Acordo, a data a aplicar em relação à lista anexa ao presente Protocolo é a data do presente Protocolo. TERCEIRA PARTE Disposições finais 6. O presente Protocolo será depositado junto do Director-Geral das Partes Contratantes. Está aberto à assinatura das Filipinas até ... de 1979. Encontrar-se-á igualmente aberto à assinatura das Partes Contratantes e da Comunidade Económica Europeia. 7. O presente Protocolo entrará em vigor no trigésimo dia seguinte à data da sua assinatura pelas Filipinas. 8. Tendo-se tornado parte contratante no Acordo Geral, nos termos do ponto 1 do presente Protocolo, as Filipinas podem aderir ao referido Acordo com as cláusulas aplicáveis do presente Protocolo, mediante o depósito de um instrumento de adesão junto do Director-Geral. A adesão produzirá efeitos na data de entrada em vigor do Acordo Geral nos termos do disposto no artigo XXVI, ou no trigésimo dia seguinte ao depósito do instrumento de adesão se esta data for posterior. A adesão ao Acordo nos termos do disposto no presente ponto equivale, para efeitos da aplicação do no 2 do artigo XXXII do referido Acordo, à aceitação do Acordo nos termos do no 4 do seu artigo XXVI. 9. As Filipinas podem, antes da sua adesão ao Acordo Geral nos termos do disposto no ponto 8, denunciar a aplicação provisória do referido Acordo. Tal denúncia produzirá efeitos no sexagésimo dia seguinte à data em que o Director-Geral tenha recebido a sua notificação por escrito. 10. O Director-Geral transmitirá, imediatamente a cada Parte Contratante, à Comunidade Económica Europeia, às Filipinas e a todos os governos que tenham aderido, a título provisório, ao Acordo, uma cópia autenticada do presente Protocolo e uma notificação das assinaturas do referido Protocolo, nos termos do ponto 6. 11. O presente Protocolo será registado nos termos do disposto no artigo 102o da Carta das Nações Unidas. Feito em Genebra, em ... de mil novecentos e setenta e nove, num único exemplar, em línguas francesa e inglesa, fazendo igualmente fé os dois textos, salvo disposição em contrário em relação à lista constante do Anexo. ANEXO LISTA LXXV - FILIPINAS (Esta lista pode ser consultada no Secretariado do GATT em Genebra.)


text:
 Důležité právní upozornění
 |
 22000D1123(23)
 Úřední věstník L 296 , 23/11/2000 S. 0077 - 0077
 Rozhodnutí Smíšeného výboru EHPč. 98/1999ze dne 16. července 1999,kterým se mění příloha XX (Životní prostředí) Dohody o EHPSMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EHP,s ohledem na Dohodu o Evropském hospodářském prostoru ve znění Protokolu o úpravě Dohody o Evropském hospodářském prostoru (dále jen "Dohoda"), a zejména s ohledem na článek 98 této dohody,vzhledem k těmto důvodům:(1) Příloha XX Dohody byla změněna rozhodnutím Smíšeného výboru EHP č. 88/1999 ze dne 25. června 1999 [1].(2) Rozhodnutí Komise 1999/10/ES ze dne 18. prosince 1998, kterým se stanovují ekologická kritéria pro udělování ekoznačky Společenství barvám a lakům [2], by mělo být začleněno do Dohody,ROZHODL TAKTO:Článek 1V příloze XX Dohody se bod 2eh (rozhodnutí Komise 96/13/ES) nahrazuje tímto:"399 D 0010: Rozhodnutí Komise 1999/10/ES ze dne 18. prosince 1998, kterým se stanovují ekologická kritéria pro udělování ekoznačky Společenství barvám a lakům (Úř. věst. L 5, 9.1.1999, s. 77)."Článek 2Znění rozhodnutí 1999/10/ES v islandském a norském jazyce, která tvoří přílohu odpovídajících jazykových verzí tohoto rozhodnutí, jsou platná.Článek 3Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dnem 17. července 1999 za předpokladu, že Smíšenému výboru EHP jsou učiněna veškerá oznámení podle čl. 103 odst. 1 Dohody.Článek 4Toto rozhodnutí bude zveřejněno v oddíle EHP a v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropských společenství.V Bruselu dne 16. července 1999.Za Smíšený výbor EHPpředsedaN. v. Liechtenstein[1] Úř. věst. L 296, 23.11.2000, s. 49.[2] Úř. věst. L 5, 9.1.1999, s. 77.--------------------------------------------------