jurisdiction: US

text:
The Hart-Miller Islands Company, a body corporate, one of the appellees, executed unto the appellant, the *Page 201
 White Eagle Polish American Building Loan Association of Baltimore City, three mortgages; the first executed on August 26th, 1926, to secure a loan of $37,000, the second, executed on August 16th, 1927, to secure a loan of $8,000, and the third, executed on March 24th, 1930, to secure a loan of $30,000. These mortgages were recorded on August 26th, 1926, August 19th, 1927, and April 1st, 1930, respectively.
 The Hart Miller Islands Company defaulted in its compliance with the terms and covenants contained in the mortgages, and, on December 16th, 1930, mortgage foreclosure proceedings were instituted upon the three mortgages for the sale of the lands embraced therein. At that time, as disclosed by the statement filed by the mortgagee, there was due upon the mortgages the sum of $62,442.18. The property was sold in the proceedings so instituted by Frank E. Poffel, the attorney named in the mortgages, at and for the sum of $40,500. The appellant, the building and loan association, being the highest bidder therefor, became the purchaser of the property. The sale was reported to the court and, after exceptions had been filed thereto by the Canton Lumber Company, one of the appellees, and evidence heard thereon, the sale was finally ratified and confirmed.
 Before distribution of the money was made, the Canton Lumber Company filed its petition, in which it alleged that it, on September 25th, 1930, had filed its mechanics' lien claim for $6,911.62, against a building located on the land conveyed by the mortgages and which was sold under the foreclosure proceedings. The petition alleged that the third mortgage, executed on March 24th, 1930, for $30,000, was to secure future advances to be made from time to time by the building and loan association to the mortgagor, in payment of construction work, aggregating approximately $30,000. It further alleged "that said third mortgage was not a `participating' mortgage made by the building association to one of its members, and for that reason requiring the repayment of an uncertain *Page 202
 sum of money at an uncertain time, but was made to secure a building on construction loan of definite amount, to wit: thirty thousand dollars, the same to be repaid with interest at the expiration of a definite period." It was then alleged that such third mortgage was invalid so far as it affected the petitioner's claim, in that it was in conflict with, or in violation of, the provisions of section 2 of article 66 of the Code of Public General Laws of Maryland, inasmuch as it did not "state the amount or amounts of the future loans or advances which it was intended to secure" and alleged that, because of such violation of the statute, the mortgage "should be set aside" and that in the distribution of the proceeds of sale the mechanics' lien should be preferred over the claim of the building and loan association under its third mortgage.
 An answer was filed to the petition by the appellant, the mortgagee, and evidence was taken, upon which the court passed its order or decree, dated the 28th day of February, 1934, to the effect "that the mechanics' lien claim * * * be and it is hereby preferred to the claim of the third mortgage * * * and in the distribution of the surplus" the mechanics' lien claim of the Canton Lumber Company shall be preferred over the claim of the building and loan association under its third mortgage. It was from this order or decree that this appeal was taken.
 The appellant is a building and loan association, incorporated for the purposes, as stated in its charter, "of providing for its members a safe and secure investment for their earnings, for loaning such members upon such security as may be provided for by the by-laws, funds to enable them to purchase homes, for the buying, selling, mortgaging, leasing or otherwise dealing in real or leasehold property in the State of Maryland, and for all those purposes which are usual and proper to be exercised of building and homestead associations under the Public General Laws of the State of Maryland, and that the said corporation is formed upon the articles, conditions and provisions herein expressed and subject in all particulars *Page 203
 to the limitations relating to corporations which are contained in the General Laws of this State."
 In the third mortgage, the one in question in this case, is found this statement, "whereas, the said mortgagor being member of the said body corporate has received therefrom an advance of thirty thousand ($30,000.00) dollars, on three hundred shares of stock, the due execution of this mortgage having been a condition precedent to the granting of said advance." Then follows the granting clause, which is followed by a provision authorizing the sale of the property in case of default in any of the covenants therein contained. Among the covenants is the following: "The said mortgagor for itself covenants with the said mortgagee, its successors and assigns to pay and perform as follows; that it to pay weekly to the said mortgagee, its successors, or assigns, the sum of seventy-five dollars as dues until the said sum of thirty thousand dollars shall be repaid; and also to pay weekly, at the time and place specified by the mortgagee, the sum of thirty-six dollars as interest until the sum of one hundred dollars shall be repaid in weekly dues, when the said weekly payments of interest shall be reduced twelve cents; and so on, and as often as one hundred dollars shall be so repaid in dues, the weekly payments shall be so reduced twelve cents; to pay all fines and penalties that may be imposed upon it by said mortgagee in accordance with its charter, constitution or by-laws, which by-laws are hereby made a part hereof: to pay all taxes and water rent, and other public dues and charges for which the property hereby mortgaged is now or may become liable, when payable."
 Although the mortgage contains the aforegoing acknowledgment by the mortgagor of the receipt of the $30,000, at the time of the execution of the mortgage, the whole of this amount was not then actually paid. Only the sum of $2,520.25 was then paid to the mortgagor, but, in accordance with an agreement made by and between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, contemporaneous with the execution and delivery of the mortgage, it was agreed *Page 204
 that the balance of the $30,000 should be retained by the mortgagee and credited to the mortgagor upon the books of the building and loan association, to be used from time to time in payment of the construction work upon the mortgaged property, when and as the work was done and approved by the mortgagor, and the building and loan association authorized by it to pay the same. This is shown not only by the agreement contained in the record, but by a letter found therein from the mortgagor to the mortgagee, in which it is said: "With reference to the loan of $30,000, made to us by you, and secured by mortgage on our real estate at Swan Point, Hart and Miller Islands, it is understood that you are to retain the proceeds of this loan and disburse the same as the work" therein mentioned "progresses. As bills are rendered after the necessary work has been performed to certain degrees, we will O.K. the same if the work has been done by the contractors to our satisfaction and authorize you to pay same. After the work has been completed and all bills paid you may either apply the surplus remaining on your mortgage or pay over same to us for the company's use."
 Under this agreement the mortgagor, through those with whom it had contracted, proceeded with the work, mentioned in the aforesaid letter, which was to be paid for out of the $30,000 borrowed. The building and loan association made the following disbursements:
 Mar. 24, 1930 $ 2,520.25
 Apr. 5 3,000.00
 Apr. 14 2,500.00
 Apr. 23 4,000.00
 Apr. 24 600.00
 Apr. 28 1,000.00
 Apr. 29 500.00
 May 6 2,200.00
 May 12 2,879.75
 May 19 1,000.00
 May 20 1,100.00
 *Page 205
 May 23 500.00
 May 26 750.00
 May 27 2,200.00
 June 2 2,700.00
 June 3 300.00
 June 9 2,250.00
 ___________
 $30,000.00
 During the period in which the work was being done and the payments made therefor, the appellee, the Canton Lumber Company, sold and delivered unto the Hart Miller Islands Company, mortgagor, lumber totaling the sum of $8,480.02, less credits of April 29th, 1930, $68.40, for materials returned and payment of July 2d 1930, of $500, July 30th, 1930, $1,000, leaving a balance of $6,911.62.
 On September 25th, 1930, the Canton Lumber Company filed its mechanics' lien, which was recorded among the lien records of Baltimore County, for the sum of $6,911.62.
 It will be observed from the aforegoing statement that the mortgage was executed on the 24th day of March, 1930, and that on or before the 29th day of April, 1930, the day upon which the first sale and delivery of lumber was made by the Canton Lumber Company to the mortgagor, there had been paid by the building and loan association, out of the funds retained by it, including the cash payment of $2,520.25, made on the date of the execution of the mortgage, the sum of $14,120.25. Thereafter, the building and loan association, by payments made by it in accordance with the aforegoing agreement, disbursed the entire balance of the $30,000. On September 25th, 1930, the Canton Lumber Company filed its mechanics' lien.
 The evidence discloses that the Canton Lumber Company, before making sale and delivery of its Lumber to the mortgagor, obtained from either Dunn or Bradstreet reports of the financial condition of the Hart Miller *Page 206
 Islands Company, which showed "a large equity in their holdings in Hart-Miller Islands, or with the Hart Miller Islands Company." These reports likewise showed the existence of the three mortgages upon said land, executed to the building and loan association, aggregating the sum of $75,000. The general manager of the Canton Lumber Company was asked: "At the time of receiving this Dunn and Bradstreet report which you testified about that it showed mortgages, did you make any investigation as to these mortgages, the amounts, and whether or not they were recorded? No, I did not; my recollection is that the total assets that that report showed, the mortgages were of such a small amount that we never even considered them a factor in the case. If my recollection serves me correct, the Hart Miller Islands on that report showed a net worth of close to $200,000."
 It will be seen that the Canton Lumber Company had both actual and constructive notice of the existence of the mortgages to the building and loan association, at and before the beginning of the sales and deliveries of the lumber by them to the Hart Miller Islands Company.
 The facts stated, consisting of the agreement in relation to the retention by the mortgagee of the money loaned by it to the mortgagor, the credit given to the latter for the amount so retained, and the disbursement of that money, in the manner stated, as well as the facts given in relation to the mechanics' lien, stating the times when the sales and deliveries were made, the knowledge by the Canton Lumber Company of the existence of the mortgages, and the fact that credit was given for the lumber sold and delivered to the Hart Miller Islands Company upon the financial reports received by it, without regard to the mortgages, which were not regarded by it as a factor at all in the decision of the question whether or not credit should be given, are here mentioned to show the absolute freedom of fraud and wrongdoing on the part of the building and loan association in connection with its negotiations and dealings here involved, as well as to show that the Canton Lumber Company was in no wise *Page 207
 wrongfully injured by the acts of the building and loan association of which it complained.
 These facts so shown are, we think, essential in distinguishing the cases relied on by the Canton Lumber Company from the case before us.
 This case is controlled and governed by the decision of this court in New Balto. Loan Savings Assn. v. Tracey,142 Md. 211, 120 A. 441, in which the opinion was written by Chief Judge Boyd. In that case Tracey, the appellant, arranged with the Manhattan Land Corporation to purchase from it three lots of ground, upon each of which he was to erect a house to cost $6,500. Tracey, it seems, did not have the money either to pay for the lots or to erect the buildings thereon. To raise the sum of $19,500, he and his wife, on November 22d 1919, executed unto the loan and savings association three mortgages, each for the sum of $6,500, on each of the three lots; and to provide for the payment of the purchase money, $3,500, he, on the same day, gave to the Manhattan Land Corporation a second mortgage for that amount, that corporation having on that day conveyed the lots to Tracey and his wife. On the 13th day of July, 1920, the mortgagor having defaulted in the covenants and conditions contained in the three mortgages to the loan and savings association, separate proceedings were instituted for the sale of the mortgaged premises, and sales were made by John H. Richardson, who was appointed trustee. As stated by Judge Boyd. "The evidence in this case shows that when the mortgages were given Tracey was credited by the appellant with the full amount of them, which he deposited with the mortgagee, and it was agreed between Tracey and John H. Richardson, representing the association, as was found by this court in [Manhattan Land Corp. v. New Baltimore Loan SavingsAssn.] 138 Md. [529, 114 A. 469] * * * that as the work on the houses progressed, certain amounts were to be paid on the approval of Mr. Richardson. They were admittedly so paid to Mr. Richter, the builder, up to the sum of $3,900 on each house. In the meantime Richter was at work completing the houses *Page 208
 in accordance with the contract between him and Tracey. * * * `The work was to be done under the direction of Dewitz and Webb, architects and engineers, and the owner, and their decision as to the true construction and meaning of the drawings and specifications should be final.' On May 18th, 1920, Messrs. Dewitz and Webb addressed a communication to Mr. Richardson, stating that Christian F. Richter had completed the three cottages * * * in accordance with the terms of his contract." He also addressed a like communication to Mr. Tracey. "Mr. Richter took the certificate to Mr. Richardson, and he told him he would not give him the money without Tracey being there." After some controversy, arrangements were made by which Mr. Richardson gave to Mr. Tracey three checks, each for the sum of $2,600, representing the balance of the money remaining in the hands of the association. These Tracey indorsed to Richter and Richter indorsed them back to the association under the new agreement.
 The facts and circumstances of that case are very similar to the facts of this case. In that case, as in this case, the money was left with the association to the credit of the mortgagor, to be expended in improvements upon the mortgaged premises, which were to be paid for from time to time upon the approval of the work by the mortgagor and Richardson; in this case upon the approval of the mortgagor and Poffel, who occupied about the same relations to the parties in this case, as Richardson did in that case. Thereafter, the controversy referred to occurred and, after further negotiations, it was agreed that the association should give to Tracey three checks, each for the amount of $2,600, making a total of $7,800, the unpaid amount of the consideration of the three mortgages. Tracey indorsed these checks to Richter, and Richter indorsed them back to the association under their agreement. Until the controversy in that case occurred, all the facts as to the retention of the money by the mortgagee and the disbursement of it were like those in this case. The only difference in the two cases occurred thereafter, *Page 209
 when the association gave checks to the mortgagor, which were at once turned back to the association by indorsement. The fact that this was done, which applied only to a part of the consideration of the mortgages, could have had no material effect in the decision of that case. In this case, the whole consideration of the mortgages, less the cash payment of $2,520.25, was left with the mortgagee to the credit of the mortgagor, to be disbursed and treated in the manner stated, while in the Tracey case, the major part of the money loaned to the mortgagor was likewise retained by the mortgagee to the credit of the mortgagor. It was only a part of the consideration for which checks were given, which, by indorsement, as we have said, went back to the association. The mere giving of the checks and their simultaneous indorsement back to the mortgagee, placing the fund in the same condition as it was before, could not and should not have the effect of distinguishing these cases.
 The evidence in this case, we think, fully establishes the fact that, at the time of the execution of the mortgage, credit was given to the mortgagor by the mortgagee for the full amount of the consideration of the mortgage. This is shown by the letter of the mortgagor to the mortgagee and the subsequent dealings of the parties. In the letter, the mortgagor tells the mortgagee, "With reference to the loan of thirty thousand dollars made to us by you and secured by mortgage on our real estate * * * it is understood that you are to retain the proceeds of this loan and disburse the same as the work * * * progresses. As bills are rendered after the necessary work has been performed, we will O.K. the same if the work has been done by the contractors to our satisfaction and authorize you to pay same." The letter then proceeds: "After the work has been completed and all bills paid you may either apply the surplus remaining on your mortgage or pay over same to us for the company's use." The concluding part of the letter clearly shows that the money was retained or held by the mortgagee, as the money of the mortgagor, upon the conditions named in the agreement *Page 210
 between them. The mortgagee was told that, after the work was completed, he might either apply the surplus remaining on the mortgage, or pay it over to the mortgagor. What was meant by surplus? It was what was left of a specified stated sum, which sum was no other than the $30,000 that had been retained and held by the mortgagee under the aforesaid agreement. The only sum or amount named in the mortgage is $30,000. Nowhere in the mortgage is there any mention of any future advance, nor do we think the evidence indicates that there were in the minds of the parties any future advances to be made.
 The case of Balto. High Grade Brick Co. v. Amos, 95 Md. 571,52 A. 582, 53 A. 148, and Groh v. Cohen, 158 Md. 638,149 A. 459, 461, and other cases, have been cited by the appellee in support of its contention. It will be seen, however, upon examination of those cases, that the facts in them differ materially from the facts of the case before us. In Groh v.Cohen, supra, Judge Urner distinguished that case from the NewBalto. Loan Savings Assn. v. Tracey, supra, and WesternNational Bank v. Jenkins, 131 Md. 239, 101 A. 667, by stating: "The amounts of the mortgage loans were paid to the mortgagors, but contemporaneous provisions were made for the future application of the funds, for the mortgagees' protection, in the improvement of the mortgaged property." This case, too, may be distinguished from Groh v. Cohen, supra, for the same reasons.
 It was said by Chief Judge Boyd in New Balto. Loan SavingsAssn. v. Tracey, supra: "In Western Nat. Bank v. Jenkins,supra, the case of the Balto. High Grade Brick Co. v. Amos was said to be `wholly and entirely different from the facts appearing in this record,' as it undoubtedly was. It would be difficult sometimes to arrange for buildings to be erected, if something of the kind done in that case and in this could not be done." It may further be said that building and loan associations, when properly conducted, are helpful to many persons in enabling them to acquire homes of their own, which they otherwise *Page 211
 would not be able to do. It is only when such associations exceed their chartered powers and do things not contemplated or authorized by their charters, that they should be condemned.
 In our opinion, section 2 of article 66 of the Code has no application to this case.
 There is found in the record a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case. It is alleged in the motion that Saturday, April 28th, 1934, the following day being Sunday, was the last day upon which the order for an appeal could have been filed. The clerk's office in Baltimore County on Saturdays closes at about noon. On that day the appellant's attorney telephoned to Mr. Jenifer, the equity clerk, and requested him to accept a paper for filing. Mr. Jenifer suggested that he call Mr. Creaghan, the law clerk. Mr. Creaghan was then called, and he met the attorney at the courthouse, in the evening of that day, and accepted from him the order for appeal. It was by Mr. Creaghan stamped filed as of April 28th, and laid on Mr. Jenifer's desk. He did not enter it on the docket. Mr. Jenifer found the order on his desk on the following Monday morning, April 30th, 1934, and entered it on his docket as of that day. His attention was afterwards called to the fact that the paper had been marked as filed April 28th, and he then changed the docket entry to read April 28th. The attention of the trial court was called to this fact, and it was requested to order that the docket entry be corrected to show that the appeal was entered on April 30th, 1934. The court refused this request and ordered that the petition be dismissed.
 We discover in these facts nothing to justify the dismissal of this appeal. The written order for an appeal was handed or delivered to one of the deputy clerks at the office of the clerk on April 28th, 1934, within the time in which the appeal could be taken, and it was by him marked filed as of that date, by stamping the same upon the back of the order. He, not being the regular equity clerk, did not enter it upon the docket. On Monday following, Mr. Jenifer, the equity clerk, entered it upon his *Page 212
 docket as filed on April 30th, and not of the 28th, the day upon which the order was left and filed at the office. Upon his attention being called to the fact that it was filed on the 28th, he corrected the entry on his docket, so as to make it conform to the date upon which it was actually filed, April 28th. Had it remained on the docket as filed on the 30th, the entry would have been inconsistent with the notation upon the back of the written order, and with the actual facts, and he very properly corrected this entry, so as to make it conform to the real facts. Cahillv. Baltimore, 93 Md. page 233, 48 A. 705; Maryland, D. V.R.Co. v. Johnson, 129 Md. 412, 99 A. 600.
 The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore overruled.
 It follows from what we have said that the decree appealed from will be reversed.
 Decree reversed, with costs, and bill dismissed.


type: wikipedia

text:
Frank Wedekind (Hannover, 24. srpnja 1864. – München, 9. ožujka 1918.) bio je njemački književnik.
 Počeo je kao novinar i glumac, pišući pjesme i pantomime. Njegova prva drama "Proljetno buđenje" ujedno je i njegov najpopularniji komad. Većinu i najvažniji dio njegova stvaralaštva čine drame u kojima glavno mjesto zauzima svijet nagona i strasti. Obara se na malograđanski moral i društvene ustanove i konvencije koje sputavaju čovjekovu iskonsku strast i ljubav. Wedekind ima veliko značenje za razvitak ekspresionizma u njemačkoj dramaturgiji, a izvršio je velik utjecaj i na mnoge pisce u srednjoj Europi.
 Wedekind, Frank


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 18.12.2010
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 346/2
 Prestación de juramento de un nuevo miembro del Tribunal General
 2010/C 346/02
 El Sr. Andrei Popescu, nombrado Juez del Tribunal General de la Unión Europea por decisión de los representantes de los Gobiernos de los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea de 18 de noviembre de 2010, (1) para el período comprendido entre el 26 de noviembre de 2010 y el 31 de agosto de 2016, ha prestado juramento ante el Tribunal de Justicia el 26 de noviembre de 2010.
 (1) DO L 306, de 23.11.2010, p. 76.


text:
C 331/34 EL Επι ́σημη Εφημερι ́δα των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των 24.11.2001
 Κατα ́ τη δια ́ρκεια ελε ́γχου στο προσφευ ́γον σχετικα ́ με τις Λο ́γοι ακυρω ́ σεως και κυ ́ρια επιχειρη ́ματα
 χορηγηθει ́σες επιδοτη ́σεις, η μονα ́δα εσωτερικου ́ λογιστικου ́ ελε ́γ-
 χου του Εurοstat διαπι ́στωσε ο ́τι υπη ́ρχαν επιδοτη ́σεις που ει ́χαν Προς στη ́ριξη της προσφυγη ́ς του ο προσφευ ́γων επικαλει ́ται
 καταβληθει ́ αλλα ́ δεν ει ́χαν χρησιμοποιηθει ́, καθω ́ ς και μη επιλε ́ξι- παρα ́βαση των ο ́ρων της προκηρυ ́ξεως, πλα ́νη εκτιμη ́σεως και
 μες δαπα ́νες. Στη συνε ́χεια, η Επιτροπη ́ ζη ́τησε να της επιστραφει ́ παραβι ́αση της αρχη ́ς της δικαιολογημε ́νης εμπιστοσυ ́νης.
 το σχετικο ́ ποσο ́. Επιπλε ́ον, ο προσφευ ́γων προβα ́λλει παραβι ́αση της αρχη ́ς της ́σης
 ι
 μεταχειρι ́σεως μεταξυ ́ των υποψηφι ́ων εντο ́ς του οργα ́νου και των
 Το προσφευ ́γον ισχυρι ́ζεται ο ́τι με τον διενεργηθε ́ντα απο ́ την υποψηφι ́ων εκτο ́ς αυτου ́, στον βαθμο ́ που οι πρω ́τοι ωφελη ́θηκαν
 Επιτροπη ́ ́ελεγχο δεν εκτιμη ́θηκαν ορθω ́ς ορισμε ́να γεγονο ́τα και απ' το ο ́τι τους γνω ́ριζε η αρμο ́δια για τους διορισμου ́ς αρχη ́.
 στοιχει ́α ου ́τε εφαρμο ́στηκαν οι αρχε ́ς που ισχυ ́ουν στον τομε ́α των
 εσωτερικω ́ν λογιστικω ́ν ελε ́γχων της Επιτροπη ́ς. Εξα ́λλου, το
 προσφευ ́γον διατει ́νεται ο ́τι ο ́ελεγχος ει ́ναι μονομερη ́ς και διενερ-
 γει ́ται απο ́ υπηρεσι ́α εξαρτω ́μενη απο ́ τα συμβαλλο ́μενα με ́ρη.
 Τε ́λος, το προσφευ ́γον υποστηρι ́ζει ο ́τι κατα ́ τη δια ́ρκεια του
 σχετικου ́ ελε ́γχου, δεν ελη ́φθησαν υπο ́ψη ο ́λα τα ́εγγραφα που ∆ιαγραφη ́ της υποθε ́σεως Τ-53/01 (1)
 ει ́χαν τεθει ́ στη δια ́θεση του διενεργου ́ντος τον ́ελεγχο.
 (2001/C 331/57)
 (Γλω
 ́ σσα διαδικασι ́ας: η ιταλικη ́)
 Προσφυγη ́ του Jean-Louis Cougnon κατα ́ του ∆ικαστηρι ́ου
 των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ ν Κοινοτη ́των που ασκη ́θηκε στις Με δια ́ταξη της 11ης Σεπτεμβρι ́ου 2001, ο προ ́εδρος του πε ́μπτου
 2 Οκτωβρι ́ου 2001 πενταμελου ́ς τμη ́ματας του Πρωτοδικει ́ου των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινο-
 τη ́των αποφα ́σισε τη διαγραφη ́ της υποθε ́σεως Τ-53/01, Pοste
 (Υπο ́θεση T-240/01) Italiane S.p.A. κατα ́ της Επιτροπη ́ς των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των.
 (2001/C 331/56) (1) ΕΕ C 134 της 5.5.2001.
 (Γλω ́ σσα διαδικασι ́ας: η γαλλικη ́)
 Ο Jean-Louis Cougnon, κα ́τοικος Capellen (Λουξεμβου ́ργο),
 εκπροσωπου ́μενος απο ́ τη Joëlle Choucroun, δικηγο ́ρο, με το ́πο ∆ιαγραφη ́ της υποθε ́σεως Τ-98/01 (1)
 επιδο ́σεων στο Λουξεμβου ́ργο, α ́σκησε ενω ́πιον του Πρωτοδικει ́ου
 των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των στις 2 Οκτωβρι ́ου 2001 προσφυγη ́ (2001/C 331/58)
 κατα ́ του ∆ικαστηρι ́ου των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των.
 (Γλω ́ σσα διαδικασι ́ας: η γαλλικη ́)
 Ο προσφευ ́γων ζητει ́ απο ́ το Πρωτοδικει ́ο:
 — να ακυρω ́σει τη διαδικασι ́α πληρω ́σεως της θε ́σεως του Με δια ́ταξη της 30η ́ς Ιουλι ́ου 2001, ο προ ́εδρος του πε ́μπτου
 ∆ιευθυντη ́ Προσωπικου ́ και Οικονομικω ́ν — σταδιοδρο- τμη ́ματος του Πρωτοδικει ́ου των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των αποφα ́-
 μι ́α Α2 — στην οποι ́α αναφερο ́ταν η ανακοι ́νωση κενη ́ς σισε τη διαγραφη ́ της υποθε ́σεως Τ-98/01, Φι ́λιππος Πιε ́ρρος κατα ́
 θε ́σεως CJ 78/00 που κοινοποιη ́θηκε στις 17 Οκτωβρι ́ου Επιτροπη ́ς των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των.
 2000·
 — να καταδικα ́σει το καθου ́ στα δικαστικα ́ ́εξοδα. (1) ΕΕ C 186 της 30.6.01


text:
 24.2.2007
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 42/40
 Kanne 22.12.2006 — SO.GE.L.M.A. v. EAR
 (Asia T-411/06)
 (2007/C 42/71)
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: italia
 Asianosaiset
 Kantaja: SO.GE.L.M.A. (Scandicci, Italia) (edustajat: asianajajat E. Cappelli, P. De Caterini, A. Bandini ja A. Gironi)
 Vastaaja: Euroopan jälleenrakennusvirasto (EAR)
 Vaatimukset
 —
 Euroopan jälleenrakennusviraston (EAR) päätösten kumoaminen; näillä päätöksillä peruttiin tarjouskilpailu, joka koski julkisia rakennusurakoita otsikolla ”vapaan laivaliikenteen palauttaminen (räjähtämättömien ammusten poistaminen sisävesiliikenteen reiteiltä, Serbian tasavalta, Serbia ja Montenegro)” (julkaisunumero Europe Aid/120694/D/W/YU, hanke nro 05SER01 04 01), ja uuden tarjouskilpailun järjestämistä; nämä päätökset annettiin tiedoksi 9.10.2006 päivätyllä EAR:n kirjeellä (rekisterinro D(06)DG/MIL/EP2715) ja 14.12.2006 päivätyllä EAR:n kirjeellä (rekisterinro DG/mie/3313); kaikkien muiden edeltävien, rinnakkaisten tai liitännäisten toimenpiteiden kumoaminen, mukaan lukien päätös kantajan poissulkemisesta, ja joka tapauksessa Euroopan jälleenrakennusviraston velvoittaminen maksamaan kantajalle vahingonkorvausta kanteessa ilmoitetuin tavoin
 —
 vastaajan velvoittaminen korvaamaan oikeudenkäyntikulut.
 Oikeudelliset perusteet ja pääasialliset perustelut
 Nyt esillä olevassa asiassa kyseessä olevan tarjouskilpailumenettelyn kohteena oli julkinen rakennusurakka, joka sisälsi NATOn vuonna 1999 suorittamista ilmapommituksista peräisin olevien räjähtämättömien ammusten paikallistamisen ja poistamisen Danube- ja Sava -jokien avaamiseksi uudelleen sisävesiliikenteelle.
 Sen jälkeen, kun kantajan tarjous oli katsottu edullisimmaksi, se sai ensimmäisen selvityspyynnön, johon se vastasi asetetussa ajassa. Erityisesti se toimitti täsmällisiä perusteluja vedenalaisen etsintäryhmän päällikön ominaisuudessa esiintyvän henkilön läsnäololle; tämä henkilö oli erittäin pätevä, mutta hänen ammattikokemuksensa alitti kilpailuilmoituksessa vaaditun kokemuksen.
 Sen jälkeen, kun kantaja oli ollut yhteydessä Euroopan jälleenrakennusvirastoa kyseessä olevassa tarjouskilpailussa neuvovaan yhtiöön, minkä perusteella oli syytä toivoa positiivista jatkoa menettelylle, kantajalle ilmoitettiin myöhemmin hankintamenettelyn peruuttamisesta teknisesti asianmukaisten tarjousten puuttumisen ja uuden tarjouskilpailuaikeen vuoksi.
 Kantaja vetoaa vaatimustensa tueksi julkisia rakennusurakoita sekä julkisia tavara- ja palveluhankintoja koskevien sopimusten tekomenettelyjen yhteensovittamisesta 31.3.2004 annetun Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivin 2004/18/EY (1) 41 artiklan rikkomiseen, ja yleisemmin niihin periaatteisiin, joihin julkisia hankintamenettelyjä koskevat yhteisön säännöt perustuvat, siltä osin kuin kyseessä olevan menettelyn peruuttaminen johtui harkitsemattomasta valinnasta, joka oli suoritettu arvioimatta huolellisesti suojeltavana olevaa yleistä etua. Toiseksi kantaja vetoaa myös perusteluvelvollisuuden laiminlyöntiin.
 (1) EYVL L 134, 30.4.2004, s. 114.


text:
Yö on se aika vuorokaudesta, jona havaintopaikka planeetan pinnalla on kääntynyt poispäin Auringosta niin, ettei Auringosta tuleva valo osu siihen. Kuu tuo yleensä hiukan luonnonvaloa yöhön.
 Joka hetki hiukan alle puolella Maapallon pinnasta on yö. Ilmakehä taittaa valoa niin, että osa siitä osuu maahan silloinkin, kun aurinko on jonkin verran horisontin alapuolella; tällöin on aamu- tai iltahämärä.
 Entisaikoina ihmiset ovat nukkuneet öisin, koska pimeässä on vaikea työskennellä, eikä tehokasta keinovaloa ollut vielä keksitty. Nykyisin sisätilat, kaupungit ja monet tiet voidaan pitää valoisina öisinkin.
 Vuorokausi vaihtuu nykyisen käytännön mukaan keskiyöllä.
 Ominaisuuksia
 Yö on normaalisti pimeämpi ja viileämpi kuin päivä, sillä yön aikana valoa ja lämpöä antava Aurinko on poissa näkyvistä maapallon toisella puolella. Yöllä maanpinnalta myös säteilee lämpöä avaruuteen, ja ilma on sitä viileämpi, mitä vähemmän on pilvisyyttä heijastamassa lämpöä takaisin Maahan.
 Yöllä kosteutta tiivistyy esineisiin, sillä lämpö säteilee esineistä avaruuteen ja kosteus tiivistyy esineiden pinnalle.
 Yön merkitys ihmiselle
 Taikauskon aika
 Ennen tulenteon taidon keksimistä noin puoli miljoonaa vuotta sitten ihminen joutui viettämään yönsä lähes täydessä pimeydessä. Vielä kynttilöiden ja öljylamppujen keksimisen jälkeenkin sisätiloissa oli öisin hämärää. Sen vuoksi yö oli entisaikojen ihmisille pelottavaa aikaa, ja mielikuvitus täytti sen monenlaisilla pelottavilla hirviöillä ja muilla pahoilla olennoilla.
 Syklisen aikakäsityksen hallitsemassa maailmassa ihmiset uskoivat jokaisen aikakauden päättyvän siihen, kun pimeyden voimat valtasivat maailman ja seurasi kaaos. Kristinuskossa yön katsottiin olevan Saatanan valtakuntaa.
 Antiikin kreikkalaiset uskoivat yön pahoihin henkiin, ja heille yö henkilöityi pelottavaan yön jumalattareen Nyksiin. Kreikkalaiset jumalat juhlivat öisin Dionysoksen johdolla, usein hekumallisissa ja väkivaltaisissa orgioissa. Myös roomalaisilta tunnetaan yön kauhuja kuvaavia tekstejä.
 Ihmiset tulkitsivat pitkään yötaivaan ilmiöitä kuten revontulia, komeettoja, kuunpimennyksiä ja meteoreja usein ilmaisuiksi Jumalan vihasta tai hyväntahtoisuudesta. Tuhon enteinä pidettiin etenkin komeettoja. Yöilmaa pidettiin epäterveellisenä, minkä vuoksi ikkunat usein suljettiin yön ajaksi.
 Kummitusten uskottiin näyttäytyvän etupäässä öisin, vaikka syytä siihen ei ymmärrettykään. Selityksiksi tarjottiin esimerkiksi niiden yhteyttä helvettiin ja paholaiseen, tai Auringon kuumuuden vahingollista vaikutusta. Kun usko kummituksiin alkoi vähetä 1700-luvulta alkaen, alettiin ajatella että ihminen kuvitteli näkevänsä kummituksia öisin, koska yön pimeys ohjasi hänen ajatuksensa erilaisiin synkkiin asioihin. Yö on kansanuskomuksissa myös noitien ja noitasapattien aikaa.
 Hyväntahtoisia yön hahmoja ovat esimerkiksi nukkumiseen liitetyt Nukkumatti ja kotitontut. Lastensaduissa lelut saattavat yöllä herätä henkiin.
 Kulttuurissa
 Yö on usein rinnastettu naiseuteen sen arvaamattomuuden vuoksi. Keskiajalta lähtien yötä onkin taiteessa usein kuvattu allegoristisesti naishahmoisena.
 Eurooppalaiset kuvataiteilijat alkoivat renessanssista alkaen kuvata yötä aiempaa enemmän. Niin Caravaggio kun Rembrandtkin suosivat maalauksissaan tummia sävyjä ja pimeyttä. Yöaikaan sijoittuivat myös monet 1500- ja 1600-luvulla tuotetut uskonnolliset maalaukset. Shakespearen näytelmissä 1600-luvun taitteessa on yökohtauksia erään arvion mukaan kaikkiaan noin 16 prosenttia ja esimerkiksi Othellossa yli puolet.
 Ihmisten käsitys yötaivaasta muuttui tarkemmaksi ja totuudenmukaisemmaksi 1600-luvun alussa kun kaukoputki keksittiin, ja vanhat pelot esimerkiksi komeettojen merkityksestä hälvenivät. Uusien maailmojen näin avauduttua myös taiteilijat ja runoilijat alkoivat ylistää yön kauneutta ja suuruutta. Etenkin kuunvalon kauneudesta tuli romantiikan maalaustaiteessa yleinen aihe. Klassisen musiikin alueelta eräs tunnetuimpia yön kuvauksia on Mozartin Taikahuilu.
 Yön valaistuminen
 Euroopan kaupungit alkoivat saada katuvalaistukset 1660-luvulta alkaen. Sen jälkeen yö ei enää rajoittanut ihmisten elämää entiseen tapaan. Ihmisten vuorokausirytmi myös muuttui myöhäisemmäksi, kun ilta- ja yöelämästä alkoi tulla suosittua. Yö väistyi entistä syrjemmälle, kun kaasuvalot alkoivat syttyä Euroopan kaduilla 1800-luvulla. Sähkövalot otettiin käyttöön 1800-luvun lopulla, ja etenkin New Yorkista tuli pian yöaikaankin hyvin kirkkaasti valaistu. 1920-luvulla etenkin New Yorkin, Pariisin ja Berliinin yöelämä oli jo erittäin vilkasta.
 Öisiä aktiviteetteja
 Noituuteen yhdistettäviä, nykyisinkin vietettäviä öisiä juhlia ovat esimerkiksi Valpurinyö sekä pyhäinpäivän yö eli halloween. Pohjolassa juhlitaan juhannusyötä ja aivan pohjoisessa yötöntä yötä.
 Yötyöläisiä ovat esimerkiksi postinkantaja, leipuri, rekkakuski, yökerhomuusikko, tehtaan yövuorolainen, yövartija, roskalaatikkojen tyhjentäjä, tähtieteilijä ja yöperhosten keräilijä.
 Moni kuuluisa kirjailija kirjoitti pääasiassa öisin, kuten Franz Kafka, Marcel Proust, George Sand, Friedrich Schiller, Samuel Johnson, Gustave Flaubert, Thomas Wolfe ja Bob Dylan. Kuvataiteilijoista öisin työskenteli esimerkiksi Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec.
 Yön pimeydestä ovat saaneet turvaa esimerkiksi monet poliittiset kapinalliset ja uskonnollisten vainojen uhrit kuten varhaiskristityt Rooman valtakunnassa.
 Vain aikuisille tarkoitetut televisio-ohjelmat tulevat yöllä, koska silloin oletetaan lasten nukkuvan.
 Luonto yöllä
 Jotkin eläimet liikkuvat pääasiassa öisin. Yöeläimillä on usein hyvä hämäränäkö ja hajuaisti. Suomessa tavattavia öisin liikkuvia eläimiä ovat esimerkiksi lepakko, yöperhoset, pöllö, susi, siili, monet etanat ja muut nilviäiset sekä rupikonna.
 Monet kukat sulkevat terälehtensä yöksi, sillä pölyttäjiä ei yön pimeydessä ole näkemässä kukkien kirkkaita värejä kuten päivällä. Samalla kasvit suojaavat siitepölyä tuottavat osansa sateelta, tiivistyvältä kosteudelta ja vahingollisilta hyönteisiltä. Terälehtien sulkeutuminen ei riipu valon määrän vaihtelusta vaan kasvien rytmistä. Jotkin kukat pysyvät öisinkin auki, sillä niitä pölyttävät pimeässä aktiiviset hyönteiset.
 Yön määritelmä liikenteessä
 Trafin julkaisemissa lentosäännöissä yöllä tarkoitetaan aikaa iltahämärän (porvarillinen hämärä) päättymisestä aamuhämärän alkuun. Iltahämärä alkaa auringonlaskusta ja päättyy kun auringon keskipiste on 6 astetta horisontin alapuolella. Aamuhämärä alkaa jälleen aamulla kun keskipiste on 6 astetta horisontin alapuolella.
 Lähteet
 Viitteet
 Aiheesta muualla
 Kirjallisuutta
 Vuorokaudenajat
 Seulonnan keskeiset artikkelit


text:
A CloudSat egy amerikai-kanadai műhold, amely az A-Train program keretében a földi felhőket tanulmányozza. A küldetést a NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder programjának keretében választották ki 1999-ben. A Ball Aerospace and Technologies Corporation tervezte és építette meg. Az indításra 2006. április 28-án került sor Delta II hordozórakétával a CALIPSO műholddal együtt. Az elsődleges küldetés a tervek szerint 22 hónapig tart.
 A műhold fő műszere a Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR), amely 94 GHz frekvenciájú rádióhullámok visszaverődését használva vizsgálja a felhőzet magassági profilját. A műszert a NASA a Kanadai Űrügynökséggel közösen fejlesztette ki.
 További információk
 Magyar oldalak
 Kettős műholdindítás a klímakutatás jegyében (2005. szeptember 3.)
 A CloudSat első képei (2006. június 9.)
 Külföldi oldalak
 Cloudsat home
 A CloudSat és az A-Train
 CloudSat and CALIPSO Launch Rescheduled to April 22 (2006. április 22.)
 CloudSat and CALIPSO Launched Successfully Today
 Spacecraft seek climate clarity
 A-Train


text:
Hymne Monégasque este imnul național al principatului Monaco.
 Versuri
 Riternelu:
 Despoei tugiù sciü d'u nostru paise
 Se ride au ventu, u meme pavayùn
 Despoei tugiù a curù russa e gianca
 E stà l'emblema, d'a nostra libertà
 Grandi e i piciui, l'an sempre respetà
 Oila cü ne toca !
 Olia cü ne garda !
 Fo che cadün sace ben aiço d'aiçi :
 (Riturnelu)
 Amu avü sempre r'a meme tradiçiùn
 Amu avü sempre r'a meme religiùn
 Amu avüu per u nostru unù
 I meme Prìncipi tugiù
 E düsciün nun pura ne fa scangia
 Tantu ch'au celu, u suriyu lüjerà ;
 Diu n'agiüterà
 E mai düsciün nun pura ne
 fa scangia
 düsciün.
 Nun sëmu pa gaire,
 Ma defendëmu tüti a nostra tradiçiun ;
 Nun sëmu pa forti,
 Ma se Diu voe n'agiütera !
 Oila cü ne toca !
 Olia cü ne garda !
 Fo che cadün sace ben ailo d'aili :
 (Riturnelu)
 Imnuri naționale


text:
Esso on yhdysvaltalaisen ExxonMobil-öljy-yhtiön Yhdysvaltojen ulkopuolella käyttämä toiminimi. Aiemmin nimeä käytettiin polttonesteiden myynnissä myös Suomessa. Nimi Esso juontaa juurensa alkuperäisestä yhdysvaltalaisesta Standard Oil -yhtiöstä (SO = Esso). Suomen maanlaajuisella asemaverkostolla oli noin 15 prosentin markkinaosuus liikennepolttonesteissä. Lisäksi yhtiön toimialoihin kuuluivat muun muassa lämmitysöljy-, nestekaasu-, voiteluaine- ja ilmailupolttoainemyynti. Suomessa toimii edelleen Naantalin voiteluainetehdas, joka valmistaa Esso-tuotteita ja vie niitä myös ulkomaille.
 Suomen Esso
 Suomen Esso perustettiin vuonna 1920 nimellä Nobel-Standard Osakeyhtiö Suomessa - Aktiebolaget Nobel-Standard i Finland. Sen perustajina olivat vuonna 1911 toimintansa aloittanut Nobelin Öljyntuonti Oy ja Suomen Petroleumi & Bensiinikomppania Standard, joka oli yhdysvaltalaisen Standard Oilin tytäryhtiö. Ensimmäisen huoltoasemansa se avasi Helsingissä Hietalahden torilla vuonna 1921, ja 1930-luvun loppuun mennessä niitä oli 39.
 Huoltoasemien ylläpidosta vastasi tytäryhtiö Bensiini Oy. Nobel-Standardin bensiinin myynti ylitti petrolin myynnin ensimmäisen kerran vuonna 1928. Vähittäismyynnin lisäksi Nobel-Standard harjoitti maahantuontia, ja sillä oli 16 merivarastoa eri puolilla rannikkoa, lisäksi sisämaassa oli lähes 30 varastoa. Yhtiöllä oli myös omia tankkilaivoja. Vuonna 1938 yrityksen nimi muutettiin muotoon Oy Nobel-Standard Ab.
 Vuonna 1952 Nobel-Standard vaihtoi nimensä Suomen Essoksi. Vuonna 1954 yhdysvaltalainen emoyhtiö Standard Oil Company osti Nobelin suvun osakkeet, ja Suomen Essosta tuli täysin amerikkalaisomisteinen yhtiö. Tunnetuksi tulleen "Tiikeriä tankkiin" -mainoslauseen tueksi Suomen Esso lahjoitti vuonna 1964 kaksi oikeaa tiikeriä juuri perustetulle Tampereen eläintarhalle, joka toimi nykyisen Tampere-talon paikalla entisellä teurastamolla vuoteen 1972 saakka.
 Esso perusti 1960-luvulla motelliketjun Ruotsiin. Tämä eurooppalaiseksi ajateltu ketju ei kuitenkaan ehtinyt Suomeen Esson luovuttua majoitusbisneksestä, mutta Esso-motelleista sai alkunsa Scandic-hotelliketju. Vuonna 1968 Suomen Esso meni mukaan Keski-Suomen maakuntaliiton käynnistämään Rantaloma Oy:hyn, joka puolestaan perusti Rantasipi-hotelliketjun. 1970-luvun puoliväliin mennessä puolet Esso-asemista oli siirtynyt itsepalveluun.
 Joulukuussa 2006 Suomen Esson osakekanta siirtyi SOK:n omistukseen, minkä jälkeen SOK myi osan Esson toiminnoista edelleen St1:lle. Lopputuloksena noin 140 Esso-asemasta tuli St1-asemia ja 44 Esso-asemaa muutettiin S-ryhmän ABC-ketjun asemiksi. Osa yrittäjävetoisista asemista on siirtynyt myös muihin ketjuihin. Suomen viimeinen Esso, Laukaan Esso, siirtyi St1:n huoltoasemaksi heinäkuun alussa 2010.
 Esso käytti markkinoinnissaan 1990- ja 2000-luvuilla muun muassa sloganeita ”Esso, se ainoa oikea” ja ”Tiikeriä tankkiin!”
 Lähteet
 Aiheesta muualla
 Esso-televisiomainos vuodelta 1969
 Huoltoasemat
 Suomessa toimineet huoltoasemaketjut
 Seulonnan keskeiset artikkelit


text:
C 156/14 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 29.6.2002
 4) La Comisión cargará con el 20 % de sus propias costas, SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA
 incluidas las correspondientes al procedimiento de medidas
 provisionales.
 de 20 de marzo de 2002
 (1) DO C 86 de 27.3.1999.
 en el asunto T-16/99: Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) contra
 Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas (1)
 («Competencia — Prácticas colusorias — Tubos de calefac-
 SENTENCIA DEL TRIBUNAL DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA ción urbana — Artı́culo 85 del Tratado CE (actualmente
 artı́culo 81 CE) — Boicot — Acceso al expediente —
 Multa — Directrices para el cálculo de las multas —
 de 20 de marzo de 2002 Irretroactividad — Confianza legı́tima»)
 en el asunto T-15/99: Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH contra
 Comisión de las Comunidades Europeas (1) (2002/C 156/26)
 («Competencia — Prácticas colusorias — Tubos de calefac-
 ción urbana — Artı́culo 85 del Tratado CE (actualmente
 artı́culo 81 CE) — Boicot — Multa — Directrices para el (Lengua de procedimiento: alemán)
 cálculo de las multas — Irretroactividad — Confianza
 legı́tima»)
 (2002/C 156/25)
 (Lengua de procedimiento: alemán) En el asunto T-16/99, Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH, con
 domicilio social en Fulda (Alemania), representada por los
 Sres. H.-J. Hellmann y T. Nägele, abogados, que designa
 domicilio en Luxemburgo, contra Comisión de las Comunida-
 des Europeas (agentes: Sres. W. Mölls y E. Gippini Fournier),
 En el asunto T-15/99, Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH, con domici- que tiene por objeto, con carácter principal, la anulación de la
 lio social en Wunstorf (Alemania), representada por los Sres. Decisión 1999/60/CE de la Comisión, de 21 de octubre de
 T. Jestaedt, H-C. Salger y M. Sura, abogados, que designa 1998, relativa a un procedimiento con arreglo al artı́culo 85
 domicilio en Luxemburgo, contra Comisión de las Comunida- del Tratado CE (IV/35.691/E-4: Cartel en el mercado de los
 des Europeas (agentes: Sres. W. Mölls y E. Gippini Fournier), tubos preaislados) (DO 1999, L 24, p. 1), o, con carácter
 que tiene por objeto, con carácter principal, la anulación de la subsidiario, la reducción de la multa impuesta en dicha
 Decisión 1999/60/CE de la Comisión, de 21 de octubre de Decisión a la demandante, el Tribunal de Primera Instancia
 1998, relativa a un procedimiento con arreglo al artı́culo 85 (Sala Cuarta), integrado por el Sr. P. Mengozzi, Presidente, y la
 del Tratado CE (IV/35.691/E-4: Cartel en el mercado de los Sra. V. Tiili y el Sr. R.M. Moura Ramos, Jueces; Secretaria:
 tubos preaislados) (DO 1999, L 24, p. 1), y, con carácter Sra. B. Pastor, administradora principal, ha dictado el 20 de
 subsidiario, la reducción de la multa impuesta en dicha marzo de 2002 una sentencia cuyo fallo es el siguiente:
 Decisión a la demandante, el Tribunal de Primera Instancia
 (Sala Cuarta), integrado por el Sr. P. Mengozzi, Presidente, y la
 Sra. V. Tiili y el Sr. R.M. Moura Ramos, Jueces; Secretario:
 Sr. G. Herzig, administrador, ha dictado el 20 de marzo de 1) Desestimar el recurso.
 2002 una sentencia cuyo fallo es el siguiente:
 1) Desestimar el recurso. 2) Condenar en costas a la demandante.
 2) Condenar en costas a la demandante.
 (1) DO C 86 de 27.3.1999.
 (1) DO C 86 de 27.3.1999.


type: contracts

text:
 31.10.2013
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 291/27
 DECIZIA NR. 70/2013 A COMITETULUI MIXT AL SEE
 din 3 mai 2013
 de modificare a anexei II (Reglementări tehnice, standarde, încercări și certificare) la Acordul privind SEE
 COMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,
 având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European („Acordul privind SEE”), în special articolul 98,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Regulamentul (UE) nr. 494/2011 al Comisiei din 20 mai 2011 de modificare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1907/2006 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind înregistrarea, evaluarea, autorizarea și restricționarea substanțelor chimice (REACH) în ceea ce privește anexa XVII (Cadmiu) (1), astfel cum a fost rectificat în JO L 136, 24.5.2011, p. 105, trebuie încorporat în Acordul privind SEE.
 (2)
 Prin urmare, anexa II la Acordul privind SEE ar trebui modificată în consecință,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTA DECIZIE:
 Articolul 1
 În anexa II la Acordul privind SEE, la capitolul XV punctul 12zc [Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1907/2006 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului] se adaugă următoarea liniuță:
 „—
 32011 R 0494: Regulamentul (UE) nr. 494/2011 al Comisiei din 20 mai 2011 (JO L 134, 21.5.2011, p. 2), astfel cum a fost rectificat în JO L 136, 24.5.2011, p. 105.”
 Articolul 2
 Textele Regulamentului (UE) 494/2011, astfel cum a fost rectificat în JO L 136, 24.5.2011, p. 105, în limbile islandeză și norvegiană, care urmează să fie publicate în suplimentul SEE la Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.
 Articolul 3
 Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 4 mai 2013, cu condiția să se fi efectuat toate notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din Acordul privind SEE (2).
 Articolul 4
 Prezenta decizie se publică în secțiunea SEE și în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Adoptată la Bruxelles, 3 mai 2013.
 Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEE
 Președintele
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) JO L 134, 21.5.2011, p. 2.
 (2) Nu au fost semnalate obligații constituționale.