text:
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,22.4.2022
 COM(2022) 176 final
 2022/0116(NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh sa Choiste CCE arna bhunú faoin gComhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile, a mhéid a bhaineann leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí a ghlacadh
 MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁIN
 1.Ábhar an togra
 Baineann an togra seo leis an gcinneadh lena leagtar síos an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais sa Choiste CCE arna bhunú faoin gComhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile, i ndáil le glacadh na Rialacha Nós Imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí agus an Chóid Iompair.
 2.Comhthéacs an togra
 2.1.An Comhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile
 Tá sé d’aidhm ag an gComhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an Comhphobal Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile (‘an Comhaontú’) an méid seo a leanas a dhéanamh:
 (a)Deis a thabhairt do Ghána leas a bhaint as an rochtain mhéadaithe ar an margadh arna deonú ag an Aontas faoi chuimsiú creata caibidlíochta CCE agus ar an gcaoi sin suaitheadh trádála idir Gána agus an tAontas a sheachaint ó tháinig deireadh le córas trádála idirthréimhseach Chomhaontú Cotonou an 31 Nollaig 2007, fad agus nach bhfuil CCE iomlán tugtha i gcrích go fóill;
 (b)Na forais a leagan síos chun CCE a chaibidliú a rannchuideoidh le laghdú na bochtaineachta, a chuirfidh an comhtháthú réigiúnach, an comhar eacnamaíoch agus an dea-rialachas chun cinn san Afraic Thiar agus a mhéadóidh cumas na hAfraice Thiar i réimsí an bheartais trádála agus na saincheisteanna a bhaineann le trádáil;
 (c)Comhtháthú comhchuí Ghána sa gheilleagar domhanda de réir a chéile a chur chun cinn i gcomhréir lena roghanna polaitiúla agus tosaíochtaí forbartha;
 (d)Na naisc atá ann cheana idir na Páirtithe a neartú ar bhonn na dlúthpháirtíochta agus an leasa fhrithpháirtigh;
 (e)Comhaontú a chruthú a luífidh le hAirteagal XXIV de CGTT 1994.
 Tá an Comhaontú á chur i bhfeidhm go sealadach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile, ón 15 Nollaig 2016.
 2.2.An Coiste CCE
 Le hAirteagal 73 den Chomhaontú bunaítear an Coiste CCE agus foráiltear go bhfuil sé freagrach as na réimsí ar fad a chumhdaítear leis an gComhaontú a riar agus as na cúraimí ar fad a luaitear sa Chomhaontú a dhéanamh. Foráiltear sa Comhaontú freisin go gcinnfidh an Coiste a chuid rialacha eagrúcháin agus feidhmiúcháin féin. Tá a rialacha nós imeachta glactha ag an gCoiste dá réir sin
 1
 .
 Faoi Theideal V (Seachaint agus Réiteach Díospóidí), foráiltear le hAirteagal 59 (Rialacha nós imeachta) go mbeidh na nósanna imeachta um réiteach díospóidí faoi Chaibidil 3 den Teideal seo faoi rialú na Rialacha Nós Imeachta a ghlacfaidh an Coiste CCE laistigh de thrí mhí tar éis a bhunaithe. De bhun Airteagal 64(2), foráiltear go gcuirfear Cód Iompair i gceangal leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta. Is iomchuí gur cheart an Cód Iompair d’eadránaithe a bheith infheidhme maidir le hidirghabhálaithe freisin.
 2.3.An gníomh atá beartaithe ag an gCoiste CCE
 Le linn an dara leath de 2022, tá cinneadh maidir leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí le glacadh ag an gCoiste CCE (‘an gníomh atá beartaithe’). Is é is cuspóir don ghníomh atá beartaithe na Rialacha Nós Imeachta lena rialófar Réiteach Díospóidí agus an Cód Iompair a bhaineann leo a bhunú.
 3.An seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais
 Leis an togra seo le haghaidh Cinneadh ón gComhairle, leagtar síos an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais sa Choiste CCE arna bhunú leis an gComhaontú, maidir leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí agus maidir leis an gCód Iompair a bhaineann leo. Is iomchuí gur cheart an Cód Iompair d’eadránaithe a bheith infheidhme maidir le hidirghabhálaithe freisin.
 Phléigh na Páirtithe sa Chomhaontú na Rialacha Nós Imeachta agus an Cód Iompair atá beartaithe agus d’aontaigh siad gur cheart don Choiste CCE na Rialacha Nós Imeachta agus an Cód Iompair sin a ghlacadh le linn an dara leath de 2022, faoi réir nósanna imeachta cinnteoireachta an Aontais.
 Substaint na Rialacha Nós Imeachta atá beartaithe agus an Chóid Iompair a bhaineann leo, is cosúil í le substaint na Rialacha Nós Imeachta agus an Chóid Iompair a bhaineann le comhaontuithe trádála eile de chuid an Aontais.
 Tá na Rialacha Nós Imeachta bunriachtanach chun creat institiúideach an Chomhaontaithe a chomhlánú agus, dá bhrí sin, chun cur chun feidhme rianúil an Chomhaontaithe a áirithiú.
 4.Bunús dlí
 4.1.Bunús dlí don nós imeachta
 4.1.1.Prionsabail
 Déantar foráil le hAirteagal 218(9) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh (CFAE) maidir le cinntí lena mbunaítear ‘na seasaimh a ghlacfar thar ceann an Aontais i gcomhlacht arna chur ar bun le comhaontú nuair a iarrtar ar an gcomhlacht sin gníomhartha a ghlacadh a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo, seachas gníomhartha lena bhforlíonfar nó lena leasófar creat institiúideach an chomhaontaithe.’
 Áirítear leis an gcoincheap ‘gníomhartha a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo’ gníomhartha a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leo de bhua rialacha an dlí idirnáisiúnta lena rialaítear an comhlacht atá i gceist. Áirítear leis freisin ionstraimí nach bhfuil éifeacht cheangailteach leo faoin dlí idirnáisiúnta, ach ‘a d’fhéadfadh tionchar cinntitheach a imirt ar ábhar na reachtaíochta a ghlacfaidh reachtóir an Aontais Eorpaigh’
 2
 .
 4.1.2.Feidhm maidir leis an gcás seo
 Is comhlacht é an Coiste CCE a bunaíodh le comhaontú, eadhon an CCE eatramhach idir an tAontas Eorpach agus Gána.
 Is é atá sa ghníomh a iarrtar ar an gCoiste CCE a ghlacadh, gníomh a bhfuil éifeachtaí dlíthiúla leis, ós rud é go leagann sé síos rialacha dlíthiúla ceangailteacha lena rialófar Réiteach Díospóidí idir na Páirtithe.
 Leis an ngníomh atá beartaithe, ní fhorlíontar creat institiúideach an Chomhaontaithe ná ní leasaítear é.
 Dá bhrí sin, is é Airteagal 218(9) CFAE an bunús dlí don nós imeachta maidir leis an gcinneadh atá beartaithe.
 4.2.Bunús dlí substainteach
 4.2.1.Prionsabail
 Braitheann an bunús dlí substainteach le haghaidh cinneadh faoi Airteagal 218(9) CFAE go príomha ar chuspóir agus ábhar an ghnímh atá beartaithe ar ina leith a nglactar seasamh thar ceann an Aontais. Má tá dhá aidhm ag an ngníomh atá beartaithe nó má tá dhá chomhpháirt ann agus más féidir ceann de na haidhmeanna nó de na comhpháirteanna sin a shainaithint mar phríomhaidhm nó mar phríomh‐chomhpháirt agus an ceann eile mar aidhm nó comhpháirt theagmhasach, ní mór an cinneadh faoi Airteagal 218(9) CFAE a bhunú ar bhunús dlí substainteach aonair, is é sin an bunús dlí a éilítear de réir na príomhaidhme nó na príomh‐chomhpháirte.
 4.2.2.Feidhm maidir leis an gcás seo
 De bhun Airteagal 46 den Chomhaontú, an sásra um Sheachaint agus Réiteach Díospóidí a leagtar amach leis an gComhaontú i dTeideal V, níl feidhm aige maidir le Teideal II den Chomhaontú (‘an Comhpháirtíocht um Fhorbairt’). Fágann sin go bhfuil feidhm ag an sásra um Sheachaint agus Réiteach Díospóidí de Theideal V maidir le díospóidí a bhaineann le cúrsaí trádála, ar díospóidí iad a thagann faoin gComhbheartas Tráchtála ó thaobh dhearcadh an Aontais de. Dá bhrí sin, na Rialacha Nós Imeachta agus an Cód Iompair a bhaineann leo atá le glacadh ag an gCoiste CCE de bhun Airteagail 59 agus 64(2) de Theideal V den Chomhaontú, beidh feidhm acu maidir le díospóidí a bhaineann le cúrsaí trádála.
 I bhfianaise a bhfuil thuas, is léir go mbaineann ábhar an ghnímh beartaithe leis an gcomhbheartas tráchtála.
 Dá bhrí sin, is é an chéad fhomhír d’Airteagal 207(4) CFAE an bunús dlí substainteach leis an gcinneadh atá beartaithe.
 4.3.Conclúid
 Ba cheart an chéad fhomhír d’Airteagal 207(4) CFAE, i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) CFAE, a bheith mar bhunús dlí leis an gcinneadh atá beartaithe.
 5.Foilsiú an ghnímh atá beartaithe
 Ós rud é go dtabharfaidh gníomh an Choiste CCE isteach rialacha nós imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí faoin gComhaontú, is iomchuí é a fhoilsiú in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh tar éis a ghlactha.
 2022/0116 (NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh sa Choiste CCE arna bhunú faoin gComhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile, a mhéid a bhaineann leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí a ghlacadh
 TÁ COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,
 Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe an chéad fhomhír d’Airteagal 207(4) de, i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(9) de,
 Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,
 De bharr an mhéid seo a leanas:
 (1)Shínigh an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit an Comhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche (‘CCE’) eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an Comhphobal Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile, an 28 Iúil 2016
 3
 (‘an Comhaontú’). Tá an Comhaontú á chur i bhfeidhm go sealadach idir an tAontas agus a Bhallstáit, de pháirt, agus Gána, den pháirt eile, ón 15 Nollaig 2016
 4
 .
 (2)De bhun Airteagal 73(3) den Chomhaontú, tá an Coiste CCE freagrach as na réimsí ar fad a chumhdaítear leis an gComhaontú a riar agus as na cúraimí ar fad a luaitear sa Chomhaontú a dhéanamh.
 (3)De bhun Airteagal 59, beidh nósanna imeachta um réiteach díospóidí faoi rialú na Rialacha Nós Imeachta, rud a ghlacfaidh an Coiste CCE laistigh de thrí mhí tar éis a bhunaithe.
 (4)De bhun Airteagal 64(2), tá Cód Iompair i gceangal leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta. Is é atá i gceist le feidhm an Chóid Iompair, prionsabail threoracha, cearta agus oibleagáidí a leagan amach nach mór d’eadránaithe a chomhlíonadh. Is iomchuí go mbeidh an Cód Iompair d’eadránaithe infheidhme maidir le hidirghabhálaithe freisin, mutatis mutandis.
 (5)Tá cinneadh maidir leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí le glacadh ag an gCoiste CCE sa chéad leath de 2022.
 (6)Is iomchuí an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais sa Choiste CCE a leagan síos, ós rud é go mbunófar, leis an gCinneadh ón gCoiste CCE atá beartaithe, rialacha atá ceangailteach ó thaobh an dlí de lena rialófar Réiteach Díospóidí,
 TAR ÉIS AN CINNEADH SEO A GHLACADH:
 Airteagal 1
 Is ar an Iarscríbhinn a ghabhann leis an gCinneadh seo a bhunófar an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais.
 Airteagal 2
 Is chuig an gCoimisiún a dhírítear an Cinneadh seo.
 Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,
 Thar ceann na Comhairle
 An tUachtarán
 (1)
 Cinneadh Uimh. 1/2021 ón gCoiste CCE arna bhunú leis an gComhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an Comhphobal Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile, an 29 Iúil 2021 maidir le Rialacha Nós Imeachta an Choiste CCE a ghlacadh (IO L 459, 22.12.2021, lch. 3).
 (2)
 Breithiúnas ón gCúirt Bhreithiúnais an 7 Deireadh Fómhair 2014, an Ghearmáin v an Chomhairle, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, míreanna 61 go 64.
 (3)
 An Comhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an Comhphobal Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile, (IO L 287, 21.10.2016, lch. 3).
 (4)
 Cinneadh (AE) 2016/1850 ón gComhairle an 21 Samhain 2008 maidir leis an gComhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an Comhphobal Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit den pháirt eile, a shíniú agus a chur i bhfeidhm go sealadach.
 ---documentbreak---
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,22.4.2022
 COM(2022) 176 final
 IARSCRÍBHINN
 a ghabhann leis an
 Togra le haghaidh Cinneadh ón gComhairle
 maidir leis an seasamh atá le glacadh thar ceann an Aontais Eorpaigh sa Choiste CCE arna bhunú faoin gComhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt, agus an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile, a mhéid a bhaineann leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí a ghlacadh
 CEANGALTÁN
 CINNEADH Uimh. .../2022 ÓN gCOISTE CCE
 arna bhunú leis an gComhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt amháin, agus an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile, i ndáil le glacadh na Rialacha Nós Imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí
 AN COISTE CCE,
 Ag féachaint don Chomhaontú Comhpháirtíochta Eacnamaíche eatramhach idir Gána, de pháirt amháin, agus an tAontas Eorpach agus a Bhallstáit, den pháirt eile
 1
 (dá ngairtear ‘an Comhaontú’ anseo feasta), arna shíniú sa Bhruiséil an 28 Iúil 2016, agus go háirithe Airteagal 59 de,
 De bhrí go bhforáiltear sa Chomhaontú go mbeidh nósanna imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí á rialú ag na Rialacha Nós Imeachta, rialacha a ghlacfaidh an Coiste CCE. Beidh an Cód Iompair i gceangal leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta sin.
 TAR ÉIS AN CINNEADH SEO A GHLACADH:
 Airteagal 1
 Glactar na Rialacha Nós Imeachta um Réiteach Díospóidí mar a leagtar amach san Iarscríbhinn.
 Airteagal 2
 Tiocfaidh an Cinneadh seo i bhfeidhm ar dháta a ghlactha.
 Arna dhéanamh in,
 IARSCRÍBHINN
 RIALACHA NÓS IMEACHTA UM RÉITEACH DÍOSPÓIDÍ
 a. sainmhínithe
 1.I gCaibidil 3 (Nósanna imeachta um réiteach díospóidí) den Chomhaontú agus faoi na Rialacha Nós Imeachta sin, tá feidhm ag na sainmhínithe seo a leanas:
 (a)ciallaíonn ‘foireann riaracháin’, i leith painéalaí, daoine aonair faoi stiúradh agus rialú painéalaí, seachas cúntóirí;
 (b)ciallaíonn ‘comhairleoir’ duine atá fostaithe ag Páirtí chun comhairle a chur ar an bPáirtí sin nó chun cúnamh a thabhairt don Pháirtí sin i dtaca leis na himeachtaí painéil;
 (c)ciallaíonn ‘cúntóir’ duine aonair, faoi théarmaí ceapacháin agus faoi stiúradh agus rialú painéalaí, a dhéanann taighde nó a thugann cúnamh don phainéalaí sin;
 (d)ciallaíonn ‘an Páirtí is déantóir gearáin’ aon Pháirtí a iarrann painéal a bhunú faoi Airteagal 49 (An nós imeachta eadrána a thionscnamh) den Chomhaontú;
 (e)ciallaíonn ‘lá’ lá féilire;
 (f)ciallaíonn ‘painéal’ painéal a bhunaítear faoi Airteagal 50 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) den Chomhaontú;
 (g)ciallaíonn ‘painéalaí’ nó ‘eadránaí’ comhalta de phainéal;
 (h)ciallaíonn ‘an Páirtí a ndearnadh gearán ina aghaidh’ an Páirtí a líomhnaítear ina leith go bhfuil na forálacha cumhdaithe á sárú aige;
 (i)ciallaíonn ‘ionadaí Páirtí’ fostaí nó aon duine aonair arna cheapadh ag roinn rialtais, gníomhaireacht nó aon eintiteas poiblí eile de chuid Páirtí a dhéanann ionadaíocht don Pháirtí chun críoch díospóide faoin gComhaontú.
 b. fógraí a thabhairt
 2.Maidir le haon iarraidh, fógra, aighneacht i scríbhinn nó doiciméad eile:
 (a)de chuid an phainéil, cuirfear chuig an dá Pháirtí é an tráth céanna;
 (b)de chuid Páirtí agus a mbeidh an painéal ina sheolaí aige, déanfar é a chóipeáil chuig an bPáirtí eile an tráth céanna; agus
 (c)de chuid Páirtí a mbeidh an Páirtí eile ina sheolaí aige, déanfar é a chóipeáil chuig an bpainéal an tráth céanna, de réir mar is iomchuí.
 3.Déanfar aon fhógra dá dtagraítear i Riail 2 a sheoladh trí ríomhphost nó, i gcás inarb iomchuí, trí aon mhodh teileachumarsáide eile lena ndéantar taifead gur seoladh an fógra sin. Mura gcruthófar a mhalairt, measfar gur seachadadh an fógra sin ar an dáta seolta.
 4.Díreofar gach fógra chuig Ard‐Stiúrthóireacht Trádála an Choimisiúin Eorpaigh agus chuig an bPríomh‐Stiúrthóir, Aire um Thrádáil agus Tionsclaíocht Ghána, faoi seach.
 5.Mionearráidí de chineál cléireachais in iarraidh, i bhfógra, in aighneacht i scríbhinn nó i ndoiciméad eile a bhaineann le himeachtaí an phainéil, féadfar iad a cheartú trí dhoiciméad nua a sheachadadh ina léireofar go soiléir na hathruithe.
 6.Más rud é gur lá nach lá oibre ag institiúidí an Aontais Eorpaigh nó ag rialtas Ghána é an lá deireanach chun doiciméad a sheachadadh, tiocfaidh deireadh le tréimhse ama chun an doiciméad a sheachadadh ar an gcéad lá oibre ina dhiaidh sin.
 c. liostaí painéalaithe a cheapadh
 7.Más rud é, de bhun Airteagal 50.3 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) den Chomhaontú, go roghnófar painéalaí trí chrannchur, déanfaidh comhchathaoirleach an Choiste CCE ón bPáirtí is déantóir gearáin dáta, am agus ionad an chrannchuir a chur in iúl go pras do chomhchathaoirleach an Pháirtí a ndearnadh gearán ina aghaidh. Iarrfar ar chomhchathaoirleach Choiste CCE ón bPáirtí is déantóir gearáin, nó ar a thoscaire, an crannchur a reáchtáil agus déanfaidh sé amhlaidh mar a bheartaítear i mír 3 agus i mír 4 d’Airteagal 50 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) den Chomhaontú. Féadfaidh comhchathaoirleach an Choiste CCE ón bPáirtí is déantóir gearáin an roghnú painéalaí sin trí chrannchur a tharmligean.
 8.Déanfaidh comhchathaoirleach an Choiste CCE ón bPáirtí is déantóir gearáin an painéalaí nó an cathaoirleach a roghnú trí chrannchur, laistigh de chúig lá tar éis don tréimhse ama dá dtagraítear i mír 2 d’Airteagal 50 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) a dhul in éag, sna cásanna seo a leanas maidir le haon cheann de na foliostaí dá dtagraítear i mír 1 d’Airteagal 64 (Liosta eadránaithe):
 (a)nár bunaíodh an foliosta i dtaca le liosta na ndaoine aonair a mhol Páirtí amháin nó an dá Pháirtí go foirmiúil chun an foliosta áirithe sin a bhunú; nó
 (b)nach ann níos mó do chúigear ar a laghad ar an bhfoliosta, i dtaca leis na ndaoine aonair a bheidh fós ar an bhfoliosta áirithe sin.
 Féadfaidh comhchathaoirleach an Choiste CCE ón bPáirtí is déantóir gearáin an roghnú painéalaí sin trí chrannchur a tharmligean.
 9.Maidir le gach duine aonair a roghnófar chun feidhmiú mar phainéalaí, is é comhchathaoirleach an Choiste CCE ón bPáirtí is déantóir gearáin a thabharfaidh dóibh fógra i scríbhinn faoina cheapacháin. Dearbhóidh gach duine don dá Pháirtí go bhfuil sé ar fáil laistigh de chúig lá ón dáta a cuireadh in iúl dó gur ceapadh é. Chun dáta bunaithe an phainéil faoi mhír 5 d’Airteagal 50 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) den Chomhaontú a chinneadh, measfar gurb é an dáta a roghnófar na painéalaithe an dáta ar a mbeidh fógra tugtha ag an duine deireanach de na triúr painéalaithe a roghnaíodh gur ghlac sé leis an gceapachán.
 d. téarmaí tagartha
 10.Mura gcomhaontóidh na Páirtithe a mhalairt laistigh de chúig lá tar éis dháta bunaithe an phainéil, is é an méid seo a leanas a bheidh sna téarmaí tagartha:
 ‘scrúdú a dhéanamh, i bhfianaise fhorálacha ábhartha an Chomhaontaithe seo arna lua ag na Páirtithe, ar an ábhar dá dtagraítear san iarraidh go mbunófaí painéal, cinntí a dhéanamh maidir le comhréireacht an bhirt atá i gceist le forálacha an Chomhaontaithe dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 46 (Raon Feidhme) agus tuarascáil a thabhairt i gcomhréir le hAirteagail 51 (Tuarascáil eatramhach an phainéil) agus 52 (Rialú ón bpainéal eadrána).’
 11.Má chomhaontaíonn na Páirtithe ar théarmaí tagartha eile, tabharfaidh siad fógra don phainéal i dtaobh na dtéarmaí tagartha comhaontaithe agus déanfaidh siad é sin laistigh den tréimhse ama a leagtar amach i Riail 10.
 e. feidhmeanna an phainéil
 12.Déanfaidh an painéal an méid seo a leanas:
 (a)déanfaidh sé measúnú oibiachtúil ar an ábhar os a chomhair, lena n‐áirítear measúnú oibiachtúil ar fhíorais an cháis agus ar infheidhmeacht agus ar chomhréireacht na bhforálacha cumhdaithe;
 (b)ina chuid cinntí agus tuarascálacha, leagfaidh sé amach na cinntí fíorais, infheidhmeacht na bhforálacha cumhdaithe agus an réasúnaíocht bhunúsach is bonn le haon chinneadh agus aon chonclúid a dhéanfaidh sé; agus
 (c)ba cheart dó dul i gcomhairle go rialta leis na Páirtithe agus deiseanna leordhóthanacha a chur ar fáil chun réiteach comhaontaithe ar bhonn frithpháirteach a fhorbairt.
 13.Cuirfidh an painéal san áireamh freisin léirithe ábhartha i dtuarascálacha ó Phainéil EDT agus ón mBuanchomhlacht Achomhairc arna nglacadh ag Comhlacht EDT um Réiteach Díospóidí.
 f. cruinniú eagrúcháin
 14.Mura mbeidh a mhalairt comhaontaithe ag na Páirtithe, tiocfaidh na páirtithe agus an painéal le chéile laistigh de sheacht lá ó bunaíodh an painéal chun na ceisteanna a mheasann na páirtithe nó an painéal a bheith iomchuí a shocrú, ceisteanna lena n‐áirítear:
 (a)an luach saothair agus na speansais a íocfar leis na painéalaithe, mura mbeadh sé sin comhaontaithe níos luaithe. Beidh an luach saothair i gcomhréir le caighdeáin EDT;
 (b)an luach saothair a íocfar le cúntóirí, mura mbeadh sé sin comhaontaithe níos luaithe. Ní mó ná 50 % de luach saothair painéalaí a bheidh sa mhéid iomlán luach saothair a íocfar le cúntóir nó cúntóirí an phainéalaí sin;
 (c)tráthchlár na n‐imeachtaí; agus
 (d)nósanna imeachta ad hoc chun faisnéis rúnda a chosaint.
 15.Féadfaidh painéalaithe agus ionadaithe na bPáirtithe a bheith rannpháirteach sa chruinniú sin ar an bhfón nó i bhfíschomhdháil.
 g. aighneachtaí i scríbhinn
 16.Cuirfidh an Páirtí is déantóir gearáin a aighneacht i scríbhinn isteach tráth nach déanaí ná 20 lá tar éis dháta bunaithe an phainéil. Cuirfidh an Páirtí a ndearnadh gearán ina aghaidh a aighneacht i scríbhinn isteach tráth nach déanaí ná 20 lá tar éis dháta seachadta aighneachta i scríbhinn an Pháirtí is déantóir gearáin.
 h. oibriú an phainéil
 17.Is é cathaoirleach an phainéil a bheidh i gceannas ar na cruinnithe ar fad. Féadfaidh an painéal an t‐údarás chun cinntí riaracháin agus nós imeachta a dhéanamh a tharmligean chuig an gcathaoirleach.
 18.Mura bhforáiltear a mhalairt i gCaibidil 3 (Nósanna imeachta um réiteach díospóidí) den Chomhaontú nó sna Rialacha Nós Imeachta sin, féadfaidh an painéal a chuid gníomhaíochtaí a sheoladh trí aon mhodh, lena n‐áirítear an teileafón, tarchuir facs nó naisc ríomhaireachta.
 19.Ní fhéadfaidh a bheith rannpháirteach i bpléití an phainéil ach painéalaithe, ach féadfaidh an painéal cead a thabhairt dá gcúntóirí a bheith i láthair ag na pléití.
 20.Leanfaidh dréachtú aon chinneadh nó tuarascáil de bheith faoi fhreagracht eisiach an phainéil agus ní dhéanfar é a tharmligean.
 21.I gcás ina dtiocfaidh ceist nós imeachta aníos nach gcumhdaítear le Caibidil 3 (Nósanna imeachta um réiteach díospóidí) den Chomhaontú, féadfaidh an painéal, tar éis dul i gcomhairle leis na Páirtithe, nós imeachta iomchuí a ghlacadh atá ag teacht leis na forálacha sin.
 22.Má mheasann an painéal gur gá aon cheann de na tréimhsí ama a mhodhnú le haghaidh na n‐imeachtaí seachas na tréimhsí ama a leagtar amach i gCaibidil 3 (Nósanna imeachta um réiteach díospóidí) den Chomhaontú, sin nó gur gá aon choigeartú nós imeachta nó riaracháin eile a dhéanamh, rachaidh sé i gcomhairle i dtús leis na Páirtithe agus cuirfidh sé ar an eolas iad ina dhiaidh sin faoi na cúiseanna leis an athrú nó leis an gcoigeartú sin agus faoin tréimhse ama nó faoin gcoigeartú is gá.
 i. ionadú
 23.I gcás ina measann Páirtí nach gcomhlíonann painéalaí ceanglais an Chóid Iompair do Phainéalaithe agus d’Idirghabhálaithe (Iarscríbhinn I a ghabhann leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta seo) agus ar an gcúis sin gur cheart é a ionadú, tabharfaidh an Páirtí sin fógra don Pháirtí eile laistigh de 15 lá tar éis an ama a fuair sé fianaise leordhóthanach maidir leis an líomhain nár chomhlíon an painéalaí ceanglais an Chóid Iompair sin.
 24.Rachaidh na Páirtithe i gcomhairle le chéile laistigh de 15 lá óna bhfaightear an fógra dá dtagraítear i Riail 23. Cuirfidh siad an painéalaí ar an eolas maidir leis an mainneachtain atá curtha ina leith agus féadfaidh siad a iarraidh ar an bpainéalaí bearta a dhéanamh chun an mhainneachtain sin a leigheas. Féadfaidh siad freisin, má thagann siad ar chomhaontú faoi sin, an painéalaí a chur as oifig agus painéalaí nua a roghnú i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 50 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) den Chomhaontú.
 25.Mura n‐éiríonn leis na Páirtithe teacht ar chomhaontú gur gá an painéalaí a ionadú, más rud é nach é cathaoirleach an phainéil atá i gceist, féadfaidh ceachtar den dá Pháirtí a iarraidh go gcuirfear an cheist sin faoi bhráid chathaoirleach an phainéil agus ní fhéadfar achomharc a iarraidh ar chinneadh an chathaoirligh.
 I gcás ina gcinnfidh an cathaoirleach nach gcomhlíonann an painéalaí ceanglais an Chóid Iompair do Phainéalaithe agus d’Idirghabhálaithe, roghnófar an painéalaí nua i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 50 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) den Chomhaontú.
 26.Mura n‐éiríonn leis na Páirtithe teacht ar chomhaontú gur gá an cathaoirleach a ionadú, féadfaidh ceachtar den dá Pháirtí a iarraidh go gcuirfear an cheist sin faoi bhráid duine de na comhaltaí eile ó fholiosta na gcathaoirleach arna bhunú faoi Airteagal 64 (Liosta na n‐eadránaithe) den Chomhaontú. Is é Comhchathaoirleach an Choiste CCE ón bPáirtí is iarrthóir, nó toscaire an chathaoirligh, a tharraingeoidh ainm an duine trí chrannchur. Is cinneadh críochnaitheach a bheidh i gcinneadh an duine roghnaithe maidir leis an ngá atá leis an cathaoirleach a ionadú.
 I gcás ina gcinnfidh an cathaoirleach nach gcomhlíonann an painéalaí ceanglais an Chóid Iompair do Phainéalaithe agus d’Idirghabhálaithe, roghnófar an painéalaí nua i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 50 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) den Chomhaontú.
 27.An síneadh ama is gá chun an painéalaí nua a cheapadh, cuirfear an síneadh sin leis an tréimhse ama chun an rialú nó an cinneadh a sheachadadh.
 j. fionraí agus foirceannadh
 28.Arna iarraidh sin ag an dá Pháirtí, cuirfidh an painéal a chuid oibre ar fionraí tráth ar bith ar feadh tréimhse arna comhaontú ag na Páirtithe, tréimhse nach mó ná 12 mhí as a chéile. Fillfidh an painéal ar a chuid oibre roimh dheireadh na tréimhse fionraí ar iarraidh i scríbhinn ón dá Pháirtí, nó ag deireadh na tréimhse fionraí ar iarraidh i scríbhinn ó cheachtar den dá Pháirtí. Déanfaidh an Páirtí is iarratasóir fógra a sheachadadh chuig an bPáirtí eile dá réir sin. Mura n‐iarrfaidh Páirtí go bhfillfidh an painéal ar a chuid oibre tráth éaga na tréimhse fionraí, rachaidh údarás an phainéil i léig agus cuirfear deireadh leis an nós imeachta um réiteach díospóidí. I gcás ina gcuirfear obair an phainéil ar fionraí, cuirfear síneadh leis na tréimhsí ama ábhartha faoin Roinn seo go ceann tréimhse ama a bheidh cothrom leis an tréimhse ama ar cuireadh obair an phainéil ar fionraí lena linn.
 k. éisteachtaí
 29.Ar bhonn na féilire a leagfar amach i gcomhréir le Riail 14 agus tar éis do chathaoirleach an phainéil dul i gcomhairle leis na Páirtithe agus leis na painéalaithe eile, tabharfaidh sé fógra do na Páirtithe faoi dháta, am agus láthair na héisteachta. Cuirfidh an Páirtí a bhfuil an éisteacht ar siúl ar a chríoch an fhaisnéis sin ar fáil go poiblí, ach amháin má tá an éisteacht dúnta don phobal.
 30.Mura mbeidh a mhalairt de chomhaontú déanta ag na páirtithe, is sa Bhruiséil a bheidh an éisteacht más é Gána é an páirtí is déantóir gearáin, agus in Accra más é an tAontas Eorpach é an páirtí is déantóir gearáin. Seasfaidh an Páirtí a ndearnadh gearán ina aghaidh na costais a eascróidh ó riarachán lóistíochta na héisteachta.
 31.Féadfaidh an painéal éisteachtaí breise a thionóladh má thagann na Páirtithe ar chomhaontú faoi sin.
 32.Beidh na painéalaithe uile i láthair le linn na héisteachta ina hiomláine.
 33.Mura gcomhaontóidh na Páirtithe a mhalairt, féadfaidh na daoine seo a leanas freastal ar an éisteacht, bíodh an éisteacht ar oscailt don phobal nó ná bíodh:
 (a)ionadaithe de chuid Páirtí;
 (b)comhairleoirí;
 (c)cúntóirí agus foireann riaracháin;
 (d)ateangairí, aistritheoirí agus tuairisceoirí cúirte an phainéil; agus
 (e)saineolaithe, arna gcinneadh ag an bpainéal de bhun Airteagal 60 (Faisnéis agus comhairle theicniúil) den Chomhaontú.
 34.Tráth nach déanaí ná 5 lá roimh dháta éisteachta, seolfaidh gach Páirtí chuig an bpainéal agus chuig an bPáirtí eile liosta d’ainmneacha na ndaoine a dhéanfaidh argóint nó cur i láthair ó bhéal ag an éisteacht thar ceann an Pháirtí sin agus ainmneacha na n‐ionadaithe agus na gcomhairleoirí eile a bheidh ag freastal ar an éisteacht.
 35.Is mar seo a leanas a dhéanfaidh an painéal an éisteacht, agus áiritheoidh sé gurb ionann an t‐am a thabharfar don Pháirtí is déantóir gearáin agus don Pháirtí a ndearnadh gearán ina aghaidh ó thaobh argóinte agus frisnéise araon:
 An argóint
 (a)argóint an Pháirtí is déantóir gearáin;
 (b)argóint an Pháirtí a ndearnadh gearán ina aghaidh.
 An Argóint Frisnéise
 (a)freagra an Pháirtí is déantóir gearáin;
 (b)frithfhreagra an Pháirtí a ndearnadh gearán ina aghaidh.
 36.Féadfaidh an painéal ceisteanna a dhíriú ar cheachtar den dá Pháirtí tráth ar bith le linn na héisteachta.
 37.Déanfaidh an painéal socrú ionas go ndéanfar tras‐scríbhinn na héisteachta a ullmhú agus a sheachadadh chuig na Páirtithe a luaithe is féidir tar éis na héisteachta. Féadfaidh na Páirtithe barúil a thabhairt faoin tras‐scríbhinn agus féadfaidh an painéal na barúlacha sin a bhreithniú.
 38.Féadfaidh gach Páirtí aighneacht bhreise i scríbhinn a thabhairt maidir le haon ábhar a thagann chun cinn le linn na héisteachta laistigh de 10 lá tar éis dháta na héisteachta.
 l. Ceisteanna i scríbhinn
 39.Féadfaidh an painéal ceisteanna i scríbhinn a chur faoi bhráid Páirtí amháin nó an dá Pháirtí tráth ar bith le linn na n‐imeachtaí. Déanfar aon cheist a chuirfear faoi bhráid Páirtí amháin a chóipeáil chuig an bPáirtí eile.
 40.Cuirfidh gach páirtí cóip dá fhreagraí ar fáil don Pháirtí eile ar na ceisteanna a chuir an painéal faoina bhráid. Beidh deis ag an bPáirtí eile barúlacha i scríbhinn a chur ar fáil maidir le freagraí an Pháirtí laistigh de chúig lá tar éis an chóip sin a sheachadadh.
 41.Ar iarraidh ó Pháirtí, nó ar a thionscnamh féin, féadfaidh an painéal faisnéis ábhartha a mheasann sé a bheith riachtanach agus iomchuí a lorg ó na Páirtithe. Freagróidh na Páirtithe go pras agus go hiomlán aon iarraidh ón bpainéal ar fhaisnéis den sórt sin.
 m. rúndacht
 42.Is mar fhaisnéis rúnda a chaithfidh gach Páirtí agus an painéal le haon fhaisnéis a chuirfidh an Páirtí eile faoi bhráid an phainéil agus a bheidh ainmnithe mar fhaisnéis rúnda ag an bPáirtí eile. Nuair a dhéanfaidh Páirtí aighneacht i scríbhinn ina bhfuil faisnéis rúnda a chur faoi bhráid an phainéil, déanfaidh sé, laistigh de 15 lá, aighneacht eile a chur isteach gan an fhaisnéis rúnda inti agus nochtfar an aighneacht sin don phobal.
 43.Ní chuirfidh na Rialacha Nós Imeachta sin aon bhac ar Pháirtí a bharúlacha féin a nochtadh don phobal ar choinníoll nach nochtfaidh sé, agus tagairt á déanamh aige d’fhaisnéis a fuair sé ón bPáirtí sin, aon fhaisnéis a fuair sé ón bPáirtí eile ar ainmnigh an Páirtí sin gur faisnéis rúnda í.
 44.Is go príobháideach a thionólfaidh an painéal codanna áirithe den seisiún má bhíonn faisnéis rúnda in aighneachtaí agus in argóintí an pháirtí. .Más i seisiún dúnta a thionólfar éisteachtaí an phainéil, coinneoidh na Páirtithe rúndacht na n‐éisteachtaí sin.
 n. teagmhálacha ex parte
 45.Ní thiocfaidh an painéal le chéile nó ní dhéanfaidh sé cumarsáid le haon Pháirtí gan an Páirtí eile a bheith i láthair.
 46.Ní phléifidh painéalaí aon ghné d’ábhar na n‐imeachtaí le Páirtí amháin ná leis an dá Pháirtí gan na painéalaithe eile a bheith i láthair.
 o. aighneachtaí amicus curiae
 47.Mura gcomhaontóidh na Páirtithe a mhalairt laistigh de 5 lá ó dháta bunaithe an phainéil, féadfaidh an painéal aighneachtaí i scríbhinn gan iarraidh a fháil ó dhaoine nádúrtha de chuid Páirtí, nó ó dhaoine dlítheanacha atá bunaithe i gcríoch Páirtí atá neamhspleách ar rialtais na bPáirtithe, ar choinníoll go gcomhlíonfar an méid a leanas:
 (a)go bhfaighidh an painéal na haighneachtaí laistigh de 10 lá ó dháta bunaithe an phainéil;
 (b)go bhfuil na haighneachtaí gonta agus nach mbeidh siad níos faide ná 15 leathanach in aon chás, lena n‐áirítear aon iarscríbhinn, agus iad clóscríofa ar spás dúbailte;
 (c)go bhfuil na haighneachtaí ábhartha go díreach maidir le saincheist fhíorasach nó saincheist dhlíthiúil atá á breithniú ag an bpainéal;
 (d)go bhfuil tuairisc sna haighneachtaí ar an duine a dhéanfaidh an aighneacht, lena n‐áirítear, i gcás duine nádúrtha, a náisiúntacht agus, i gcás duine dhlítheanaigh, áit a bhunaithe, cineál a ghníomhaíochtaí, a stádas dlíthiúil, a chuspóirí ginearálta agus a fhoinse maoinithe;
 (e)go sonrófar sna haighneachtaí cad é an cineál leasa atá ag an duine sna himeachtaí painéil; agus
 (f)go ndéanfar iad a dhréachtú sna teangacha a roghnóidh na Páirtithe i gcomhréir le rialacha 54 agus 55 de na Rialacha Nós Imeachta.
 48.Tabharfar fógra faoi na haighneachtaí chuig na Páirtithe ionas gur féidir leo a mbarúlacha a thabhairt fúthu. Féadfaidh na páirtithe a mbarúlacha a thabhairt don phainéal laistigh de 10 lá ó sheachadadh na teachtaireachta.
 49.Liostóidh an painéal ina thuarascáil na haighneachtaí go léir a fuair sé de bhun riail 47. Ní bheidh sé d’oibleagáid ar an bpainéal aghaidh a thabhairt ina thuarascáil ar na hargóintí a rinneadh sna haighneachtaí sin, mar sin féin, má dhéanann sé amhlaidh, cuirfidh sé san áireamh freisin aon bharúil a thabharfaidh na Páirtithe de bhun riail 48.
 p. cásanna práinneacha
 50.I gcásanna práinne dá dtagraítear i mír 2 d’Airteagal 52 (Rialú ón bpainéal eadrána) den Chomhaontú sin, déanfaidh an painéal, tar éis dó dul i gcomhairle leis na Páirtithe, de réir mar is iomchuí, na tréimhsí ama dá dtagraítear sna Rialacha Nós Imeachta seo a choigeartú, seachas na tréimhsí ama dá dtagraítear i Riail 10 (Na Téarmaí Tagartha). Tabharfaidh an painéal fógra faoi na coigeartuithe sin do na Páirtithe.
 51.Má iarrann Páirtí sin, cinnfidh an painéal, tráth nach déanaí ná 10 lá tar éis dháta a bhunaithe, cé acu an mbaineann nó nach mbaineann an cás le cúrsaí práinne.
 q. costais
 52.Seasfaidh gach Páirtí a speansas féin a dhíorthóidh ó rannpháirtíocht sa nós imeachta painéil.
 53.Gan dochar do riail 30, comhroinnfidh na Páirtithe i gcomhpháirt agus go cothrom na speansais a dhíorthóidh ó chúrsaí eagraíochtúla, lena n‐áirítear luach saothair agus speansais na bpainéalaithe agus a gcúntóirí.
 r. aistriúchán agus ateangaireacht
 54.Le linn na gcomhairliúchán dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 47 den Chomhaontú nó le linn na headrána dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 48 den Chomhaontú, agus tráth nach déanaí ná an cruinniú dá dtagraítear i riail 14 de na Rialacha Nós Imeachta seo, déanfaidh na Páirtithe a ndícheall teacht ar chomhaontú faoin teanga oibre choiteann le haghaidh na n‐imeachtaí os comhair an phainéil.
 55.Mura n‐éiríonn leis na Páirtithe teacht ar chomhaontú faoi theanga oibre choiteann, cuirfidh gach Páirtí a aighneachtaí i scríbhinn isteach ina rogha teanga.. Ag an am céanna cuirfidh gach Páirtí aistriúchán ar fáil sa teanga a roghnóidh an Pháirtí eile, mura scríobhtar a aighneachtaí i gceann de theangacha oibre EDT. An Páirtí a ndearnadh gearán ina aghaidh, socróidh sé ateangaireacht a dhéanamh ar aighneachtaí ó bhéal go na teangacha a roghnaigh na Páirtithe.
 56.Eiseofar tuarascálacha agus cinntí an phainéil sa teanga nó sna teangacha a roghnaigh na Páirtithe. Murar tháinig na Páirtithe ar chomhaontú faoi theanga oibre choiteann, eiseofar tuarascáil eatramhach agus chríochnaitheach i gceann de theangacha oibre EDT.
 57.Féadfaidh aon Pháirtí barúlacha a thabhairt maidir le cruinneas an aistriúcháin ar aon leagan aistrithe de dhoiciméad a tarraingíodh suas i gcomhréir leis na Rialacha Nós Imeachta seo.
 58.Seasfaidh gach Páirtí costais an aistriúcháin ar a chuid aighneachtaí i scríbhinn. Aon chostas a thabhaítear as an aistriúchán ar rialú, íocfaidh na Páirtithe as go comhionann.
 s. nósanna imeachta eile
 59.Déanfar na tréimhsí ama a leagtar síos sna Rialacha Nós Imeachta seo a choigeartú i gcomhréir leis na tréimhsí ama speisialta dá bhforáiltear maidir le glacadh tuarascála nó cinnidh ag an bpainéal sna himeachtaí dá bhforáiltear in Airteagal 54 (An tréimhse ama réasúnta maidir le comhlíonadh), Airteagal 55 (Athbhreithniú ar aon bheart a ghlacfar chun an rialú ón bpainéal eadrána a chomhlíonadh), Airteagal 56 (Leigheasanna sealadacha i gcás neamhchomhlíontachta) agus Airteagal 57 (Athbhreithniú ar aon bheart a dhéantar chun é a chomhlíonadh tar éis leigheasanna sealadacha a ghlacadh) den Chomhaontú.
 IARSCRÍBHINN
 CÓD IOMPAIR
 I.
 Sainmhínithe
 1.Sa Chód Iompair seo:
 (a)ciallaíonn ‘foireann riaracháin’, i leith painéalaí, daoine aonair faoi stiúradh agus rialú painéalaí, seachas cúntóirí;
 (b)ciallaíonn ‘cúntóir’ duine aonair a dhéanann, faoi théarmaí ceapacháin painéalaí, taighde don phainéalaí sin nó a thugann cúnamh don phainéalaí sin;
 (c)ciallaíonn ‘iarrthóir’ duine aonair a bhfuil a ainm ar an liosta painéalaithe dá dtagraítear in Airteagal 64 (Liostaí na n‐eadránaithe) den Chomhaontú nó atá faoi bhreithniú lena roghnú mar phainéalaí faoi Airteagal 50 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) den Chomhaontú;
 (d)ciallaíonn ‘idirghabhálaí’ duine a roghnaíodh mar idirghabhálaí i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 48 (Idirghabháil) den Chomhaontú;
 (e)ciallaíonn ‘painéalaí’ nó ‘idirghabhálaí’ comhalta de phainéal.
 II.
 Prionsabail Rialaithe
 2.Chun sláine agus neamhchlaontacht an tsásra um réiteach díospóidí a chaomhnú, déanfaidh gach iarrthóir agus gach painéalaí an méid a leanas:
 (a)gheobhaidh sé eolas ar an gCód Iompair seo;
 (b)beidh sé neamhspleách neodrach;
 (c)seachnóidh sé gach coinbhleacht leasa, idir dhíreach agus neamhdhíreach;
 (d)mí‐iompar agus dealramh mí‐iompair nó claontachta a sheachaint;
 (e)cloífidh sé le hardchaighdeáin iompair; agus
 (f)ní bheidh sé faoi thionchar an leasa phearsanta, brúnna seachtracha, cúiseanna polaitíochta, agóidí poiblí, dílseacht do Pháirtí ná eagla a cháinte.
 3.Ní rachaidh aon phainéalaí faoi aon oibleagáid ná ní ghlacfaidh sé go díreach ná go hindíreach le haon sochar a chuirfeadh isteach ar aon bhealach ar chomhlíonadh cuí a dhualgais, nó a mbainfeadh an chosúlacht leis go gcuirfeadh sé isteach ar chomhlíonadh na ndualgas sin.
 4.Ní úsáidfidh aon phainéalaí a stádas mar chomhalta den phainéal chun aon leas pearsanta nó príobháideach a chur chun cinn. Seachnóidh gach painéalaí aon ghníomhaíocht a spreagfadh an bharúil go bhfuil cumas speisialta ag daoine eile tionchar a imirt air.
 5.Áiritheoidh gach painéalaí nach mbeidh tionchar ar a iompar ná a bhreithiúnas ag caidreamh ná dualgais atá nó a bhí aige, de chineál airgeadais, tráchtála, gairmiúil, pearsanta ná sóisialta.
 6.Seachnóidh gach painéalaí aon chaidreamh a dhéanamh, nó aon leas airgeadais a fháil ar dhócha go ndéanfadh sé dochar dá neamhchlaontacht, nó a d’fhéadfadh cur le dealramh réasúnach go mbeadh iompar míchuí nó claonadh i gceist.
 III.
 Oibleagáidí maidir le nochtadh
 7.Sula nglacfaidh sé lena cheapachán mar phainéalaí faoi Airteagal 50 (An painéal eadrána a bhunú) den Chomhaontú, nochtfaidh iarrthóir a n‐iarrfar air a bheith ina phainéalaí aon leas, aon ghaol nó aon ní ar dóigh dó difear a dhéanamh dá neamhspleáchas nó dá neamhchlaontacht nó a d’fhéadfadh cur le dealramh réasúnach go mbeadh iompar míchuí nó claonadh sna himeachtaí. Chun na críche sin, déanfaidh an t‐iarrthóir gach iarracht réasúnta teacht ar an eolas faoi aon leas, aon chaidreamh agus aon ghnó den chineál sin, lena n‐áirítear leasanna airgeadais, gairme, fostaíochta nó teaghlaigh.
 8.Is oibleagáid bhuan í an oibleagáid faoi mhír 7 maidir le nochtadh lena gceanglaítear ar gach painéalaí aon leas, caidreamh nó gnó den chineál sin a d’fhéadfadh teacht chun cinn aon tráth le linn na n‐imeachtaí a nochtadh.
 9.Cuirfidh iarrthóir nó painéalaí in iúl don Choiste CCE lena mbreithniú aon ábhar a bhaineann le sáruithe iarbhír nó féideartha ar an gCód Iompair sin a luaithe a thagann sé ar an eolas faoi.
 IV.
 Dualgais na bpainéalaithe
 10.Tar éis dó glacadh lena cheapachán, beidh painéalaí in ann tosú ar a dhualgais agus cuirfidh sé i gcrích iad go cuimsitheach agus go héifeachtach ó le linn na n‐imeachtaí, agus é ag léiriú cothromais agus dúthrachta.
 11.Is iad na ceisteanna a tarraingíodh anuas le linn na n‐imeachtaí agus ar gá iad chun cinneadh a dhéanamh, agus na ceisteanna sin amháin, a scrúdóidh an painéalaí, agus ní tharmligfidh sé an dualgas sin chuig aon duine eile.
 12.Déanfaidh painéalaí gach beart is iomchuí chun a áirithiú go bhfuil a chúntóirí agus a fhoireann riaracháin ar an eolas faoi na hoibleagáidí arna dtabhú ag eadránaithe faoi Chodanna II, III, IV agus VI den Chód Iompair seo agus go gcomhlíonfaidh siad na hoibleagáidí sin.
 V.
 Oibleagáidí na nIar-Phainéalaithe
 13.Seachnóidh gach iar-phainéalaí gníomhaíochtaí a d’fhéadfadh cur le dealramh go raibh sé claonta agus é ag comhlíonadh a ndualgas nó gur bhain sé buntáiste as cinneadh an phainéil.
 14.Comhlíonfaidh gach iar-phainéalaí na hoibleagáidí i gCuid VI den Chód Iompair seo.
 VI.
 Rúndacht
 15.Ní dhéanfaidh painéalaí, tráth ar bith, aon fhaisnéis a nochtadh nach faisnéis phoiblí í a bhaineann leis na himeachtaí nó a fuarthas le linn na n‐imeachtaí ar ceapadh é ina leith. . Ní dhéanfaidh painéalaí, in aon chás, an fhaisnéis sin a nochtadh ná a úsáid chun buntáiste pearsanta a fháil nó buntáiste a fháil do dhaoine eile ná chun dochar a dhéanamh do leas daoine eile.
 16.Ní dhéanfaidh painéalaí cinneadh de chuid an phainéil nó codanna de a nochtadh sula bhfoilseofar é i gcomhréir le Caibidil 3 (Nósanna imeachta um réiteach díospóidí) den Chomhaontú.
 17.Ní dhéanfaidh painéalaí, tráth ar bith, na pléití de chuid painéil, ná aon tuairim ó phainéalaí, a nochtadh ná ní dhéanfaidh sé aon ráiteas ar na himeachtaí ar ceapadh é ina leith ná ar na saincheisteanna atá faoi dhíospóid sna himeachtaí.
 VII.
 Caiteachas
 18.Déanfaidh gach painéalaí taifead ar an méid ama a caitheadh ar na himeachtaí, ar an gcaiteachas a rinne sé agus ar an méid ama a chaith a chúntóirí agus a fhoireann riaracháin; agus ar an gcaiteachas a rinne siad.
 VIII.
 Idirghabhálaithe
 19.Bainfidh an Cód Iompair seo le hidirghabhálaithe, mutatis mutandis.
 ****
 (1)
 IO L 287, 21.10.2016, lch. 3.


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22003D0018
 Besluit van het Gemengd Comité van de EER nr. 18/2003 van 31 januari 2003 tot wijziging van Protocol nr. 31 (Samenwerking op specifieke gebieden buiten de vier vrijheden) bij de EER-overeenkomst
 Publicatieblad Nr. L 094 van 10/04/2003 blz. 0078 - 0079
 Besluit van het Gemengd Comité van de EERnr. 18/2003van 31 januari 2003tot wijziging van Protocol nr. 31 (Samenwerking op specifieke gebieden buiten de vier vrijheden) bij de EER-overeenkomstHET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER,Gelet op de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte, aangepast bij het Protocol tot aanpassing van de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte, hierna "de overeenkomst" genoemd, inzonderheid op de artikelen 86 en 98,Overwegende hetgeen volgt:(1) Protocol nr. 31 bij de overeenkomst werd gewijzigd bij Besluit van het Gemengd Comité van de EER nr. 70/1999(1).(2) Het is wenselijk de samenwerking tussen de partijen bij de overeenkomst uit te breiden tot Besluit nr. 1145/2002/EG van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 10 juni 2002 inzake communautaire stimuleringsmaatregelen op het gebied van de werkgelegenheid(2).(3) Protocol nr. 31 bij de overeenkomst dient derhalve te worden gewijzigd, teneinde bedoelde uitgebreide samenwerking met ingang van 1 januari 2003 mogelijk te maken,BESLUIT:Artikel 1In Protocol nr. 31 bij de overeenkomst wordt de tekst van artikel 15 als volgt gewijzigd:1. De tekst van lid 5 wordt vervangen door:"De EVA-staten nemen deel aan de communautaire activiteiten bedoeld in lid 8, eerste streepje, met ingang van 1 januari 1999 en aan de activiteiten bedoeld in lid 8, tweede streepje, met ingang van 1 januari 2003.".2. In lid 8 wordt "het volgende besluit" vervangen door "de volgende besluiten".3. In lid 8 wordt het volgende streepje toegevoegd:"- 32002 D 1145: Besluit nr. 1145/2002/EG van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 10 juni 2002 inzake communautaire stimuleringsmaatregelen op het gebied van de werkgelegenheid (PB L 170 van 29.6.2002, blz. 1).".Artikel 2Dit besluit treedt in werking op 1 februari 2003, op voorwaarde dat alle in artikel 103, lid 1, van de overeenkomst bedoelde kennisgevingen aan het Gemengd Comité van de EER(3) hebben plaatsgevonden.Het is van toepassing met ingang van 1 januari 2003.Artikel 3Dit besluit wordt bekendgemaakt in het EER-gedeelte van en het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.Gedaan te Brussel, 31 januari 2003.Voor het Gemengd Comité van de EERDe voorzitterP. Westerlund(1) PB L 284 van 9.11.2000, blz. 57.(2) PB L 170 van 29.6.2002, blz. 1.(3) Geen grondwettelijke vereisten aangegeven.


type: wikipedia

text:
Plevna (în ) este un oraș în nordul Bulgariei, reședință a regiunii cu același nume.
 Localitatea este cunoscută mai ales pentru rolul important pe care l-a avut în războiul ruso-turc din 1877-78.
 Căderea Plevnei în 1877 după patru luni de asediu din partea trupelor rusești și românești i-a determinat pe turci să ceară un armistițiu.
 Demografie
 La recensământul din 2011, populația orașului Pleven era de locuitori. Din punct de vedere etnic, majoritatea locuitorilor (%) erau bulgari, cu o minoritate de turci (%). Pentru % din locuitori nu este cunoscută apartenența etnică.
 De asemenea în Plevna trăiește o comunitate de români.
 Geografia
 Plevna este localizată într-o regiune agricolă în inima câmpiei Dunării, înconjurată de dealuri calcaroase. Poziția centrală a orașului în nordul Bulgariei definește importanța sa ca un mare centru administrativ, economic, politic, cultural și de transport. Plevna este la distanță de de capitala Bulgariei, Sofia, de Litoralul bulgăresc și la sud de Dunăre.
 Clima
 Climatul Plevnei este temperat-continental. Iernile sunt reci, cu multă zăpadă, temperaturile de obicei scad sub . Primăverile sunt călduroase cu temperaturi ce ajung la . Veriile sunt foarte calde, iar temperaturile pot depăși . Temperatura medie anuală este de aproximativ
 Istoria
 Preistoria și antichitatea
 Cele mai vechi urme de așezări umane din zonă datează din Mileniul al V-lea î.Hr, în Neolitic.
 Numeroase descoperiri arheologice, printre care și comoara Nikolaevo găsită în Bulgaria, sunt dovezi ale culturii bogate a tracilor, care au locuit în zonă de mii de ani.
 La începutul noii ere, regiunea a devenit parte a provincii romane Moesia, și o fortificație numită Storgozia a apărut aproape de Plevna de astăzi, pe drumul de la Oescus (azi Ghighen) la Philippopolis (azi Plovdiv). Ulterior a evoluat într-o cetate . Unul dintre cele mai apreciate monumente arheologice din Bulgaria din această perioadă este bazilica timpurie creștină din secolul al IV-lea descoperită în apropierea orașului modern.
 Evul Mediu
 În perioada Evului Mediu, Plevna a fost o cetate bine dezvoltată a primului și a celui de-al doilea Imperiu Bulgar. Când slavii au populat zona, ei au dat așezării numele său contemporan, Plevna, fiind menționată pentru prima dată într-o cartă de către regele Ungariei, Ștefan al V-lea în 1270, în legătură cu o campanie militară în țările bulgare.
 Dominația otomană
 În timpul dominației otomane, Plevna a fost cunoscută ca Plevne în limba turcă, și-a păstrat aspectul și cultura bulgară. Multe biserici, școli și poduri au fost construite în timpul redeșteptării naționale a bulgarilor. În 1825, a fost deschisă prima școală seculară din oraș, urmată de prima școală de fete din Bulgaria în 1840, precum și prima școală de băieți un an mai târziu. Plevna a fost locul unde eroul național bulgar Vasil Levski a înființat în 1869 primul comitet revoluționar, parte a rețelei sale revoluționare naționale.
 Asediul Plevnei
 Orașul a fost o scena de luptă majoră în timpul războiului ruso-turc din 1877-187 pe care țarul Alexandru al II-lea al Rusiei a avut-o pentru eliberarea Bulgariei. Armata comună rusă și română a plătit scump pentru victorie, dar a deschis drumul spre înfrângerea Imperiului otoman în acest război, restabilirea Bulgariei ca stat și independența României față de Imperiul Otoman. Costul rușilor și al românilor a fost de 5 luni și 38000 de victime pentru a lua orașul după patru atacuri, ceea ce a fost una dintre bătăliile decisive ale războiului. Asediul este amintit ca o victorie punct de reper în Războiul de Independență al României, la 28 noiembrie 1877 Plevna a capitulat, iar Osman Pașa a predat orașul, garnizoana și sabia, colonelului român Mihail Cerchez .
 Atracții Turistice
 Până astăzi, Pleven și-a păstrat patrimoniul cultural și istoric. Sunt deosebit de interesante Muzeul Regional de Istorie, Panorama din Plevna, care prezintă bătăliile de cinci luni în timpul Războiului de Eliberare (1877 - 1878) și multe altele. Grădina orașului are numeroase monumente și fântâni.
 În Plevna există următoarele atracții turistice din sutele de obiective turistice naționale ale Uniunii turistice bulgare.
 Mausoleul-Capela "Sfântul Gheorghe Pobedonoseț";
 Panorama "Epopeea Plevnei - 1877";
 Muzeul Regional de Istorie
 Istorice
 Războiul ruso-turc (1877-1878) conectează aproape toate reperele istorice din oraș. Aproape 200 de monumente care amintesc de luptele care au avut loc în aceste locuri. În centrul orașului, în Piața Văzrajdane, există un mausoleu-mormânt al soldaților ruși și români uciși în timpul războiului. Un alt punct de reper este Panorama "Epopeea Plevnei - 1877", situată pe vârful unui deal. A fost creată în cinstea celei de-a 100-a aniversări a asediului de la Pleven, similară cu panorama Borodin de la Moscova. În apropiere se află reduta pe care generalul Mihail Skobelev a atacat-o de trei ori. În cinstea sa, parcul din jurul Panoramei se numește "Skobelev".
 În plus față de monumentele războiului ruso-turc, bazele fortăreței romane Storgozia se află pe teritoriul parcului Kailăka. A fost construită în antichitatea târzie - secolele IV-VI, pe o suprafață de 31 de decare. Conservate și restaurate sunt: sistemul de fortificație și o bazilică creștină timpurie., care avea dimensiuni între 45 și 22 m, cu trei nave, trilobice, cu o colonadă pe partea sudică.
 Parcuri
 Plevna este renumită pentru Parcul Kailăka, construit în partea de nord a cheilor pitorești ale râului Tucienița, și include vechiul sit arheologic Storgozia.
 Parcul Skobelev este situat pe câmpul de luptă, unde detașamentul generalului rus Mihail Skobelev se lupta pentru capturarea orașului Plevna. De atunci, zona a fost numită "Valea morții". În parc se află Panorama "Epopeea Plevnei - 1877". Există, de asemenea: osuarul, casa-muzeu "Stoian și Vladimir Zaimovi", tunuri autentice, zeci de movile și monumente frățești.
 Note
 Orașe din Bulgaria
 Plevna


type: caselaw

text:
5.12.2009
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 C 297/33
 Ricorso proposto il 16 ottobre 2009 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator/UAMI — Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)
 (Causa T-417/09)
 2009/C 297/50
 Lingua processuale: l'inglese
 Parti
 Ricorrente: Poslovni Sistem Mercator, d.d. (Lubiana, Slovenia) (rappresentanti: M. Curell Aguila e J. Güell Serra, lawyers)
 Convenuto: Ufficio per l'armonizzazione nel mercato interno (marchi, disegni e modelli).
 Controinteressata dinanzi alla commissione di ricorso: Mercator Multihull, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada)
 Conclusioni della ricorrente
 —
 Annullamento della decisione 16 luglio 2009, R 1031/2008-1 della prima commissione di ricorso dell’Ufficio per l’armonizzazione nel mercato interno (marchi, disegni e modelli)
 —
 Condanna del convenuto alle spese
 Motivi e principali argomenti
 Richiedente il marchio comunitario: la controinteressata dinanzi alla commissione di ricorso.
 Marchio comunitario di cui trattasi: il marchio denominativo «MERCATOR STUDIOS», per prodotti della classe 42
 Titolare del marchio o del segno su cui si fonda l’opposizione: la ricorrente
 Marchio o segno sui cui si fonda l’opposizione: marchio figurativo sloveno «Mercator» registrato per servizi delle classi 35, 36, 39, 41 e 42, e per servizi delle classi 1-6, 8-11, 13-34; marchio figurativo sloveno «Mercator Slovenska Košarica» registrato per beni e servizi delle classi 1-6, 8-11, 13-34, 39, 41, 43 e 44; marchio internazionale «Mercator», registrato per prodotti delle classi 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20-33, e per servizi delle classi 36, 41 e 42
 Decisione della divisione di opposizione: Rigetto dell’opposizione
 Decisione della commissione di ricorso: Rigetto del ricorso
 Motivi dedotti: Violazione degli artt. 8, n. 1, lett. b) e 8, n. 5, del regolamento del Consiglio n. 40/94 (divenuti artt. 8, n. 1, lett. b) e 8, n. 5, del regolamento del Consiglio n. 207/2009) in quanto la commissione di ricorso ha omesso di effettuare un’analisi globale degli elementi rilevanti e ha respinto l’opposizione sulla base del fatto che i servizi sono diversi, e ha erroneamente valutato il motivo di opposizione basato sulla disposizione da ultimo citata.


text:
 3.12.2011
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 C 355/5
 Domstolens dom (fjärde avdelningen) av den 13 oktober 2011 (begäran om förhandsavgörande från Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nederländerna)) — Prism Investments BV mot J. A. van der Meer, i egenskap av konkursförvaltare för Arilco Holland BV
 (Mål C-139/10) (1)
 (Civilrättsligt samarbete - Förordning (EG) nr 44/2001 - Exekvatur - Skäl för avslag - Verkställighet i ursprungsstaten av den dom som är föremål för ansökan om verkställighetsförklaring)
 2011/C 355/07
 Rättegångsspråk: nederländska
 Hänskjutande domstol
 Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nederländerna)
 Parter i målet vid den nationella domstolen
 Klagande: Prism Investments BV
 Motpart: J. A. van der Meer, i egenskap av konkursförvaltare för Arilco Holland BV
 Saken
 Begäran om förhandsavgörande — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Tolkning av artiklarna 34, 35, 43, 44 och 45 i rådets förordning (EG) nr 44/2001 av den 22 december 2000 om domstols behörighet och om erkännande och verkställighet av domar på privaträttens område (EGT L 12, 2001, s. 1) — Skäl för avslag — Uttömmande uppräkning — Verkställighet av en dom från en nationell domstol som är föremål för ansökan om verkställighetsförklaring
 Domslut
 Artikel 45 i rådets förordning (EG) nr 44/2001 av den 22 december 2000 om domstols behörighet och om erkännande och verkställighet av domar på privaträttens område ska tolkas så, att den utgör hinder för att den domstol vid vilken ansökan om ändring görs enligt artiklarna 43 eller 44 i förordningen avslår en ansökan om verkställighetsförklaring eller upphäver en verkställighetsförklaring på någon annan grund än de grunder som anges i artiklarna 34 och 35 i förordningen, såsom grunden att domen har efterkommits i ursprungsmedlemsstaten.
 (1) EUT C 134 av den 22.05.2010.


text:
Președintele Republicii Franceze () numit în mod colocvial Președintele Franței, este șeful de stat ales al Franței și deținătorul titlului de co-principe al Andorrei și Marele Maestru al Legiunii de Onoare (franceză:Légion d'honneur).
 Din cele cinci republici franceze, patru au avut un președinte ca șef al statului, făcând astfel din postul de președinte francez, cel mai vechi post de președinte din Europa care a existat de-a lungul istoriei într-o formă sau alta. În fiecare constituție franceză puterile președintelui, precum și funcțiile și îndatoririle sale și relația cu guvernul au fost diferite.
 Actualul președinte al Republicii Franceze este .
 Puterile prezidențiale
 Spre deosebire de cele mai multe dintre celelalte posturi de președinte al națiunilor europene, postul de președinte al Franței este unul foarte puternic din punct de vedere politic, în special în ceea ce privește politica externă. Cu toate că procesul legislativ este efectuat și supervizat de Primul ministru și de către parlament, președintele Franței are o influență semnificativă asupra acestuia, fie în mod formal, fie datorită puterilor constituționale. Președintele ocupă cea mai importantă funcție în stat și surclasează toți ceilalți politicieni.
 Probabil cea mai importantă putere a președintelui este aceea de a alege primul ministru. Totuși, deoarece doar Adunarea Națională are puterea de a demite guvernul primului ministru, președintele este forțat să numească un prim ministru ce are sprijinul majorității adunării.
 Când majoritatea Adunării Naționale este din spectrul politic opus președintelui situația se numește coabitare. În acest caz, puterile președintelui sunt diminuate, deoarece puterea de facto aparține primului ministru și a Adunării Naționale care îl sprijină. Totuși, convenția constituțională este ca președintele să se ocupe de politica externă, cu toate că trebuie să lucreze în acest domeniu cu Ministrul de Externe.
 Când majoritatea Adunării Naționale este de aceeași parte a spectrului politic cu președintele, acesta poate avea un rol mai activ și, în realitate, dirijează politica guvernului. Primul ministru este în cele mai multe situații prima victimă în cazul în care administrația devine nepopulară, președintele putând să în ceară demisia fără ca acesta să poată refuza.
 Alte puteri ale președintelui sunt:
 Promulgarea legilor
 în acest domeniu președintele are o putere limitată de veto, el putând propune doar o dată reîntoarcerea legii în parlament;
 Președintele poate de asemenea trimite legea spre verificare Consiliului Constituțional;
 Președintele are puterea de a dizolva Adunarea Națională;
 Președintele poate propune, în anumite condiții, aprobarea legilor prin referenum național;
 Președintele numește anumiți oficiali (cu acordul guvernului);
 Președintele numește anumiți membrii ai consiliului Constituțional;
 Președintele primește ambasadorii străini;
 Președintele poate pardona (dar nu poate amnistia) persoanele condamnate și poate ușura sau suprima sentințele criminale. Aceasta era de o importanță capitală în perioada în care Franța opera pedeapsa capitală, condamnații la moarte cerând în general comutarea sentinței la închisoare pe viață.
 Toate deciziile președintelui trebuie contrasemnate de primul ministru, cu excepția deciziei de dizolvare a Adunării Naționale.
 Există o tradițe de o așa numită "amnestie prezidențială" care are loc atunci când președintele și Adunarea Națională sunt alese din cadrul aceluiași partid politic. Aceasta este o lege ce autorizează președintele să desemneze anumiți indivizi, ce au comis anumite infracțiuni, cărora să le fie amnistiate pedepsele. Se consideră că astfel de legi permit reducerea suprapopulării închisorilor, dar totodată metoda este criticată deoarece se consideră că încurajează comiterea de infracțiuni rutiere înaintea perioadei alegerilor. Diferența dintre amnistie și pardon prezidențial este că prima elimină consecințele următoare ale sentinței, ca și cum infracțiunea nu a fost comisă, în timp ce a doua doar termină sentință, fără însă de a elimina eventualele consecințe.
 Alegerea
 În urma unui referendum din anul 2000, durata mandatului prezidențial s-a redus de la 7 la 5 ani, iar primele alegeri pentru un cincinat prezidențial au avut loc în anul 2002. Nu există un număr limită de termene, astfel că, fostul președinte Chirac, care a fost ales pentru un septenat în 1995 și pentru un cincinat în 2002, a putut candida din nou la alegerile din 2007.
 Pentru a fi admis ca un candidat oficial, candidații potențial trebuie să primească sprijinul prin semnătură de la cel puțin 500 oficiali aleși, în principal primari ai comunelor franceze. Numărul oficialilor aleși care pot semna este de aproximativ 45.000 din care aproximativ 36.000 sunt primari.
 Cheltuielile și finanțarea campaniilor și a partidelor politice sunt foarte puternic regulate, existând o limită superioară a cheltuielilor de 20 milioane Euro din care 50% sunt finanțări publice. Reclamele televizate sunt interzise, dar fiecare candidat are un interval de timp alocat la televiziunea publică. Finanțarea campaniilor și a partidelor este supervizată de o agenție independentă.
 Metoda de alegere este în două tururi de scrutin, președintele ales având nevoie obținerea majorității din numărul de voturi exprimate. În cazul în care din primul tur nici un candidat nu a obținut majoritatea, se organizează un al doilea tur de scrutin între primii doi candidați. După ce președintele este ales, acesta urmează o procedură solemnă de investitură.
 În caz de deces, demisie sau de imposibilitate a exersării funcției constatată de către Consiliul Constituțional, Președintele Senatului asigură interimatul, adică asigură funcțiile președintelui, dar nu ocupă postul de președinte, ceea ce înseamnă că acesta nu trebuie să părăsească postul de Președinte al Senatului. Noi alegeri pentru funcția supremă trebuie oganizate, nu mai repede de 20 de zile, dar nu mai târziu de 35 de zile. Datorită faptului că durata între cele două tururi de scrutin este de 15 zile, Președintele Senatului nu poate exersa funcția de Președinte al statului mai mult de 50 de zile, perioadă în care nu are dreptul să dizolve Adunarea Națională, să inițieze schimbări constituționale sau să ceară un referendum. Până în momentul de față, doar Alain Poher a trebuit să își asume această sarcină, cu ocazia demisiei lui Charles de Gaulle și a decesului lui Georges Pompidou.
 Președinți ai Republicii franceze
 A Doua Republică
 Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, 1848-1851
 A Treia Republică
 Adolphe Thiers, 1871-1873
 Patrice Edme, Comte de MacMahon, 1873-1879
 Jules Grévy, 1879-1887
 Marie François Sadi-Carnot, 1887-1894
 Jean Casimir-Périer, 1894-1895
 Félix Faure, 1895-1899
 Emile Loubet, 1899-1906
 Armand Fallières, 1906-1913
 Raymond Poincaré, 1913-1920
 Paul Deschanel, februarie 1920 - septembrie 1920
 Alexandre Millerand, 1920-1924
 Gaston Doumergue, 1924-1931
 Paul Doumer, 1931-1932
 Albert Lebrun, 1932-1940
 Regimul de la Vichy
 Henri Philippe Pétain („Șef de Stat“ și nu președinte)
 Guvernări provizorii
 Charles de Gaulle, 1944-1946
 Félix Gouin, Georges Bidault și Léon Blum, 1946-1947
 A Patra Republică
 Vincent Auriol, 1947-1954
 René Coty, 1954-1959
 A Cincea Republică
 Charles de Gaulle, 1959-1969
 Georges Pompidou, 1969-1974
 Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, 1974-1981
 François Mitterrand, 1981-1995
 Jacques Chirac, 1995-2007
 Nicolas Sarkozy, 2007-2012
 François Hollande, 2012-2017
 Emmanuel Macron, din 2017
 Vezi și
 Franța
 Premierii Franței
 Politica Franței
 Legături externe
 Situl de Internet al Președintelui Franței
 Politica Franței


text:
Nr. L 199 / 6 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 30 . 7 . 90
 BESLUIT Nr. 3 / 90 VAN HET GEMENGD COMITÉ EEG-IJSLAND
 van 18 juni 1990
 tot wijziging van Protocol nr. 3 betreffende de definitie van het begrip „produkten van
 oorsprong" en de methoden van administratieve samenwerking
 HET GEMENGD COMITÉ , 1 . a) inleidende aantekening 7.1 wordt vervangen door:
 „7.1 . Bij de textielprodukten die in de lijst zijn
 Gelet op de Overeenkomst tussen de Europese Economische aangeduid door een verwijzing naar deze
 Gemeenschap en de Republiek IJsland, ondertekend te inleidende aantekening mogen textielmate
 Brussel op 22 juli 1972,
 rialen, met uitzondering van voeringen en
 Gelet op Protocol nr. 3 betreffende de definitie van het begrip binnenwerk, die niet voldoen aan de regel die
 „produkten van oorsprong" en de methoden van administra met betrekking tot het geconfectioneerde
 tieve samenwerking, hierna genoemd „Protocol nr. 3", produkt in kolom 3 van de lijst is uiteengezet ,
 inzonderheid op artikel 28 , worden gebruikt op voorwaarde dat ze wor
 den ingedeeld onder een andere post dan die
 Overwegende dat in inleidende aantekening 7 van bijlage III van het produkt en dat hun waarde niet meer
 van Protocol nr. 3 een kwantitatieve tolerantie voor garni bedraagt dan 8 % van de prijs af fabriek van
 turen en toebehoren met betrekking tot de in de lijst voor het produkt.";
 bepaalde textielprodukten uiteengezette oorsprongsregel b) in de lijst worden in de voetnoten die verwijzen
 in gewicht wordt uitgedrukt; dat het uitdrukken van deze naar inleidende aantekening 7 de woorden „voor
 kwantitatieve tolerantie in waarde en het uitbreiden ervan tot de behandeling van garnituren en toebehoren van
 alle gebruikte textielmaterialen een administratieve en prak textielstoffen" geschrapt;
 tische vereenvoudiging zou betekenen voor exporteurs en
 douanediensten ; dat genoemde inleidende aantekening der 2. post ex 73.07 en de daarbij behorende tekst die zijn
 halve dient te worden gewijzigd; opgenomen in de bijlage van dit besluit worden in de lijst
 opgenomen .
 Overwegende dat uit de ervaring is gebleken dat de in
 Protocol nr. 3 vervatte oorsprongsregels voor produkten van
 Artikel 2
 post ex 73.07 dienen te worden aangepast aan de hand van
 de ontwikkeling van de fabricagetechnieken en de econo
 Dit besluit treedt in werking op 1 juli 1990 .
 mische omstandigheden waarin de internationale handel in
 deze produkten plaatsvindt,
 Gedaan te Brussel , 18 juni 1990 .
 BESLUIT :
 Voor het Gemengd Comité
 Artikel 1
 De Voorzitter
 Bijlage III van Protocol nr. 3 wordt als volgt gewijzigd: R. COHEN
 BIJLAGE
 Lijst van be- of verwerkingen die moeten worden uitgevoerd ten aanzien van niet van oorsprong zijnde materialen
 ten einde het vervaardigde produkt het karakter van produkt van oorsprong te verlenen
 Be- of verwerking van niet van oorsprong
 GS-post Omschrijving van het produkt zijnde materialen die het karakter van produkt
 van oorsprong verlenen
 (1 ) (2) (3 )
 ex 73.07 Hulpstukken (fittings ) voor buisleidingen Draaien , boren , uitboren , draadsnijden , af
 van roestvrij staal ( ISO nr. X5CrNiMo bramen en zandstralen van gesmede ruwe
 1712), bestaande uit verscheidene onder stukken waarbij de waarde van deze stukken
 delen niet meer bedraagt dan 35 % van de prijs af
 fabriek van het produkt


text:
 Události
 začala občanská válka v Katalánsku (1462–1472)
 Basilejská kompaktáta jsou neuznána papežem
 Jiří z Poděbrad a Kazimír IV. Jagellonský uzavřeli v Hlohově dohodu namířenou proti Turkům.
 Probíhající události
 1454–1466 – Třináctiletá válka
 1455–1487 – Války růží
 Narození
 Česko
 17. ledna – Petr IV. z Rožmberka, český šlechtic, hejtman království českého († 9. října 1523)
 Svět
 1. února – Johannes Trithemius, německý opat a humanista († 1516)
 27. června – Ludvík XII., francouzský král z dynastie Valois-Orleans († 1. ledna 1515)
 16. září – Pietro Pomponazzi, italský filosof († 18. května 1525)
 ? – Piero di Cosimo toskánský renesanční malíř († 1521)
 Úmrtí
 27. dubna – Vasilij II., středověký ruský panovník, velkokníže moskevský (* 10. března 1415)
 28. dubna – Oldřich II. z Rožmberka, český šlechtic a politik (* 13. ledna 1403)
 14. listopadu – Anna Habsburská, lucemburská vevodkyně a durynská lankraběnka (* 12. dubna 1432)
 ? – Taj Ťin, čínský malíř (* 1388)
 ? – Čchen Sün, politik čínské říše Ming (* 1385)
 ? – Wang Č’, čínský politik říše Ming (* 1379)
 Hlavy států
 České království – Jiří z Poděbrad
 Svatá říše římská – Fridrich III.
 Papež – Pius II.
 Anglické království – Eduard IV.
 Dánsko – Kristián I. Dánský
 Francouzské království – Ludvík XI.
 Polské království – Kazimír IV. Jagellonský
 Uherské království – Matyáš Korvín
 Litevské knížectví – Kazimír IV. Jagellonský
 Chorvatské království – Matyáš Korvín
 Norsko – Kristián I. Dánský
 Portugalsko – Alfons V. Portugalský
 Švédsko – Kristián I. Dánský
 Externí odkazy
 15. století


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22004A0814(01)
 International plant protection Convention - New revised text approved by Resolution 12/97 of the 29th Session of the FAO Conference in November 1997 - Declaration
 Official Journal L 267 , 14/08/2004 P. 0041 - 0053
 INTERNATIONAL PLANT PROTECTION CONVENTION
 New revised text approved by Resolution 12/97 of the 29th Session of the FAO Conference in November 1997PREAMBLEThe Contracting Parties,recognising the necessity for international cooperation in controlling pests of plants and plant products and in preventing their international spread, and especially their introduction into endangered areas,recognising that phytosanitary measures should be technically justified, transparent and should not be applied in such a way as to constitute either a means of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination or a disguised restriction, particularly on international trade,desiring to ensure close coordination of measures directed to these ends,desiring to provide a framework for the development and application of harmonised phytosanitary measures and the elaboration of international standards to that effect,taking into account internationally approved principles governing the protection of plant, human and animal health, and the environment, andnoting the agreements concluded as a result of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, including the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:Article IPurpose and responsibility1. With the purpose of securing common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control, the Contracting Parties undertake to adopt the legislative, technical and administrative measures specified in this Convention and in supplementary agreements pursuant to Article XVI.2. Each Contracting Party shall assume responsibility, without prejudice to obligations assumed under other international agreements, for the fulfilment within its territories of all requirements under this Convention.3. The division of responsibilities for the fulfilment of the requirements of this Convention between Member Organisations of FAO and their Member States that are Contracting Parties shall be in accordance with their respective competencies.4. Where appropriate, the provisions of this Convention may be deemed by Contracting Parties to extend, in addition to plants and plant products, to storage places, packaging, conveyances, containers, soil and any other organism, object or material capable of harbouring or spreading plant pests, particularly where international transportation is involved.Article IIUse of terms1. For the purpose of this Convention, the following terms shall have the meanings hereunder assigned to them:ŤArea of low pest prevalenceť - an area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest occurs at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication measures;
 ŤCommissionť - the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures established under Article XI;
 ŤEndangered areať - an area where ecological factors favour the establishment of a pest whose presence in the area will result in economically important loss;
 ŤEstablishmentť - perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry;
 ŤHarmonised phytosanitary measuresť - phytosanitary measures established by Contracting Parties based on international standards;
 ŤInternational standardsť - international standards established in accordance with Article X, paragraphs 1 and 2;
 ŤIntroductionť - the entry of a pest resulting in its establishment;
 ŤPestť - any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products;
 ŤPest risk analysisť - the process of evaluating biological or other scientific and economic evidence to determine whether a pest should be regulated and the strength of any phytosanitary measures to be taken against it;
 ŤPhytosanitary measureť - any legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose to prevent the introduction and/or spread of pests;
 ŤPlant productsť - unmanufactured material of plant origin (including grain) and those manufactured products that, by their nature or that of their processing, may create a risk for the introduction and spread of pests;
 ŤPlantsť - living plants and parts thereof, including seeds and germplasm;
 ŤQuarantine pestť - a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled;
 ŤRegional standardsť - standards established by a regional plant protection organisation for the guidance of the members of that organisation;
 ŤRegulated articleť - any plant, plant product, storage place, packaging, conveyance, container, soil and any other organism, object or material capable of harbouring or spreading pests, deemed to require phytosanitary measures, particularly where international transportation is involved;
 ŤRegulated non-quarantine pestť - a non-quarantine pest whose presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of those plants with an economically unacceptable impact and which is therefore regulated within the territory of the importing Contracting Party;
 ŤRegulated pestť - a quarantine pest or a regulated non-quarantine pest;
 ŤSecretaryť - Secretary of the Commission appointed pursuant to Article XII;
 ŤTechnically justifiedť - justified on the basis of conclusions reached by using an appropriate pest risk analysis or, where applicable, another comparable examination and evaluation of available scientific information.


text:
 21.3.2009
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 69/17
 Pritožba, ki jo je 18. novembra 2008 vložila Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA zoper sklep Sodišča prve stopnje (prvi senat) z dne 9. septembra 2008 v zadevi Fornaci Laterizi Danesi proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti, T-224/08
 (Zadeva C-498/08 P)
 (2009/C 69/31)
 Jezik postopka: italijanščina
 Stranki
 Pritožnica: Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA (zastopniki: M. Salvi, L. de Nora, M. Manganiello, P. Rivetta, odvetniki)
 Druga stranka v postopku: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti
 Predlogi pritožnice:
 Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA Sodišču predlaga, naj:
 —
 razveljavi sklep Sodišča prve stopnje (prvi senat) z dne 9. septembra 2008 v zadevi T-224/08, ki je bil po telefaksu vročen 12. septembra 2008, in če je potrebno, vrne zadevo Sodišču prve stopnje, da ponovno odloči o njeni utemeljenosti;
 —
 podredno, če zadeve ne vrne Sodišču prve stopnje, sprejme predloge pritožnice iz postopka na prvi stopnji;
 —
 Komisiji v vsakem primeru naloži, da pritožnici povrne stroške tega postopka;
 Pritožbeni razlogi in bistvene trditve
 Kršitev pravnih načel, napačna obrazložitev, napačna uporaba upoštevnih predpisov, opustitev preiskave (člen 230, peti odstavek, ES, 249 ES in 254 ES tudi v zvezi s členom 6 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin).


jurisdiction: US

text:
 210 Md. 325 (1956)
 123 A.2d 287
 KRAFT ET AL.
 v.
 ROCHAMBEAU HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
 [No. 198, October Term, 1955.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided June 15, 1956.
 The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
 Arold H. Ripperger and Abram C. Joseph for appellants.
 *327 J. Wallace Bryan and Justinius Gould for appellee.
 HENDERSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 By bill of complaint filed April 1, 1955, the appellants sought to require the appellee, a Maryland corporation, to redeem its entire issue of perferred stock held by the appellants. After a demurrer to the bill was overruled, the appellee filed an answer to which the appellants demurred. The case was submitted upon bill and answer and demurrer to the answer, and after argument the demurrer was overruled and the bill dismissed.
 The appellee was incorporated on May 20, 1952, primarily to acquire the Rochambeau Apartments, at Charles and Franklin Streets, Baltimore, from the Rochambeau Company, Inc. This apartment property had been operated by the seller, which by 1951 was in serious financial difficulties. The property was subject to three large mortgages, all in default, State and City taxes for 1950 and 1951 were unpaid, and there were substantial unsecured debts and claims. Negotiations eventuated in an agreement dated August 23, 1951, for a sale at a price of $400,000.00, to a corporation "to be formed," and a supplemental agreement of the same date whereby the seller and others agreed to subscribe to $50,000.00 of appellee's nonvoting, redeemable preferred stock, which was to "become due and payable" at the expiration of five years from the settlement date.
 The sale was consummated as of May 20, 1952. A $250,000.00 purchase money mortgage, repayable with interest in equal installments over fifteen years, was procured for appellee by the seller from American National Building and Loan Association, as provided in the agreement. Appellee contributed $91,200.00 obtained by sales of its common stock for cash at par. This money, after down payments of $96,500.00, was applied in the amount of $243,500.00 to the three defaulted mortgages, State and City taxes for 1950, 1951 and 1952, a lien of $78.56 held by the Collector of Internal Revenue, and other items, leaving a balance of $56,141.19 due the seller. Against this, the $50,000.00 preferred stock subscription *328 was credited, and the shares were issued by the direction of the seller and others to the appellant, Anna M. Kraft, 272, shares, William D. Lilly and wife, 170 shares, and Mrs. Marie Codd Cook (since deceased), 58 shares, in settlement of their respective claims against the seller as creditors. Presumably the balance of $6,141.19 was paid in cash. The seller was later dissolved. In practical effect the transaction was a complete refinancing of the property, with $91,200.00 of new money supplied by the common stockholders of the appellee.
 On taking over the property, appellee found that extensive repairs and replacements were necessary, including replacement of the elevator, at a cost of $15,000.00, which in August, 1952, was condemned by the Building Engineer of Baltimore as unsafe because of structural defects. Earnings from the property have never been more than enough to cover operating expenses, taxes, interest and current obligations, and appellee has been forced at times to borrow money to meet current expenses.
 The non-voting preferred stock, issued and outstanding in the amount of $50,000.00, contained the following provision quoted from the Articles of Incorporation: "The Corporation shall redeem 10% of the original preferred stock issue, at $100.00 per share for each share thereof, at any time during the first year of its corporate existence; and it shall further redeem an additional 10% of said original preferred stock issue at $100.00 per share at any time during the second year of its corporate existence; and it shall further redeem the balance of 80% of the original preferred stock issue during the third year of its corporate existence at $100.00 per share. The redemption price shall include all dividends thereon accrued."
 A dividend of 3% for the six months period ending November 20, 1952, was declared and paid in 1953. This was the only payment of dividends and none of the preferred stock has been redeemed. The appellants contend that there is an obvious default in the obligation to redeem, which a court of equity should enforce. The appellee contends, and the Chancellor agreed, that the redemption clause is invalid and unenforceable *329 under the circumstances of this case. It was alleged in the answer that at no time has the appellee "had cash or other available assets for redemption of any of its preferred stock without rendering it unable to meet its debts as they mature in the usual course of business."
 Code (1951), Art. 23, sec. 14 (a), as enacted by Acts of 1951, ch. 135, provides that "Every corporation of this State by its charter may provide: * * * (5) That one or more classes of stock, as specified, may be redeemed at the option of the corporation or of the holders of such stock and the terms and conditions of redemption. * * * (9) Other preferences, rights, restrictions and qualifications not inconsistent with law."
 Sec. 28 provides: "(a) Any corporation of this State may, from time to time, subject to the limitations contained in this section: (1) Redeem shares of its stock subject to redemption * * * in accordance with the applicable charter provisions; * * * (b) (3) (as amended by Acts of 1953, ch. 405, 1956 Supp., p. 148). Except in case of acquisitions pursuant to the preceding paragraphs (a) (3), (b) (1) and (b) (2) of this section, no corporation may acquire by purchase or redemption shares of its own stock except out of surplus. (c) No corporation of this State may redeem or acquire for value any shares of its own stock when it is insolvent or when the effect of such redemption or acquisition would be to render it insolvent. For the purposes of this section, a corporation shall be deemed to be insolvent if its debts exceed its assets taken at a fair valuation or if it is unable to meet its debts as they mature in the usual course of business." (italics supplied)
 Sec. 28 (e) and sec. 58 (a) (2) provide, in effect, that shareholders whose shares are acquired contrary to the above provision, and directors who authorize such illegal acquisition, shall be personally liable to the corporation or its receiver to the extent that the consideration so paid is in violation thereof.
 The provisions of sec. 28 (c) are clear and unambiguous. It has long been the law of Maryland that the amount of the capital stock of a domestic corporation cannot lawfully be *330 diminished in any other mode than that prescribed by the General Assembly, and that, in the absence of express authority, a Maryland corporation has no power to purchase its own shares. Md. Trust Co. v. Mechanics' Bank, 102 Md. 608; Burke v. Smith, 111 Md. 624; Peninsula Trust Co. v. Johnson, 128 Md. 535. In Heller v. Marine Bank, 89 Md. 602, relied on by the appellants, the Maryland law at that time provided that preferred stock should constitute a lien on the corporate property and be preferred over any subsequently created mortgage or other encumbrance. It was held that the preferred stockholders were not general creditors, but were entitled to a statutory lien on fixed assets. This law was subsequently changed by Acts 1908, ch. 240. The 1951 amendments, made as a result of a careful study by a Commission on Revision of the General Corporation Laws, had the effect of narrowing still further the status of a preferred stockholder, as against creditors. See Brune, Maryland Corporation Law & Practice (Rev. ed.), § 49 & § 74. The rule laid down in the present Maryland statute is generally supported by the authorities in other states. See Note 88 A.L.R. 1131, collecting the cases, and 11 Fletcher, Corporations, p. 762.
 The appellants do not seriously challenge the meaning or effect of the Maryland statute, but assert that they were in fact creditors. We find no merit in the contention. The charter of the corporation set up the preferred stock as a part of the authorized capital, with cumulative dividends at 6%, payable out of surplus or net profits. Moreover, the consideration for the issuance of the preferred stock was the payment of a part of the purchase price to the seller, which in turn assigned the stock, or designated that it be issued, to its creditors. The holders surrendered their claims as creditors of the seller in exchange for stock in the new enterprise. The fact that the charter called for redemption did not constitute the holders creditors. Heller v. Marine Bank, supra; Hazel Atlas Glass Co. v. Van Dyk & Reeves, 8 F.2d 716; Hurley v. Boston R. Holding Co., 54 N.E.2d 183 (Mass.); In re Culbertson's, 54 F.2d 753 (CCA 9th); Ellsworth v. Lyons, 181 F. 55 (CCA 6th). The obligation to redeem was at all times subject to the implied condition that it would not render the corporation *331 insolvent in the sense that it would be unable to meet its debts as they mature in the usual course of business.
 We need not review all of the authorities relied on by the appellants. In some, the decisions turned on questions of tax deduction, as in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Proctor Shop, 82 F.2d 792 (CCA 9th). In others, there was either no question raised, or there was no proof, that the proposed redemption would result in insolvency. Cf. Bowersock Mills & Power Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev., 172 F.2d 904 (CA 10th), Oklahoma Wheat Pool Elevator Corp. v. Bouquot, 68 P.2d 97 (Okla.), and Koeppler v. Crocker Chair Co., 228 N.W. 130 (Wis.). In the instant case the Chancellor reviewed the Auditor's reports filed as exhibits with the answer, and stated that even though the preferred stock might be redeemed without rendering the corporation insolvent in the sense that its assets would still exceed its liabilities, if the values shown could be realized, "the accountants' reports fully support the allegations of the answer that at no time since its incorporation, has the Company had cash or other available assets sufficient to redeem its preferred stock without rendering it unable to meet its debts as they mature in the usual course of business. This conclusion is not controverted by the complainants." The latest statement showed as of April 30, 1955, current assets of $3,391.85, as against current liabilities of $41,552.37. Total available cash on hand was only $1,420.83, being the excess of receipts over disbursements.
 We find no merit in the appellants' contention that the statements reflect book values rather than real values, allocate an excessive amount to depreciation, and show an attempt to denude the corporation of cash by unnecessary repairs and improvements. There is nothing on the face of the pleadings to support the argument, which also proceeds on the false assumption that asset value is the only statutory test of insolvency, which is clearly expressed in the alternative. The argument that the corporation should borrow money to redeem the preferred stock is likewise without merit, since it would have the effect of reducing the capital represented by stock, and the burden of increased debt would still further impair its ability *332 to meet maturing obligations. In any event, the short answer is that the facts are settled by the pleadings. Kraft v. Building Assn., 165 Md. 570, 571. We think the decision of the Chancellor was correct and that it should be affirmed.
 Decree affirmed, with costs.


text:
 Anunţ juridic important
 |
 22005D0123
 Jurnalul Oficial L 339 , 22/12/2005 p. 0032 - 0034
 Decizia nr. 123/2005 a Comitetului mixt al SEEdin 30 septembrie 2005de modificare a anexei XV (Ajutoare de stat) și a Protocolului 26 (privind puterile și funcțiile Autorității de supraveghere a AELS în domeniul ajutoarelor de stat) la Acordul SEECOMITETUL MIXT AL SEE,având în vedere Acordul privind Spațiul Economic European, astfel cum a fost modificat prin Protocolul de adaptare a Acordului privind Spațiul Economic European, denumit în continuare "acordul", în special articolul 98,întrucât:(1) Anexa XV la acord a fost modificată prin Decizia nr. 131/2004 a Comitetului mixt al SEE din 24 septembrie 2004 [1].(2) Protocolul 26 la acord a fost modificat prin Acordul privind participarea Republicii Cehe, a Republicii Estonia, a Republicii Cipru, a Republicii Ungare, a Republicii Letonia, a Republicii Lituania, a Republicii Malta, a Republicii Polone, a Republicii Slovenia și a Republicii Slovace la Spațiul Economic European, semnat la 14 octombrie 2003 la Luxemburg [2].(3) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 794/2004 al Comisiei din 21 aprilie 2004 privind punerea în aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 659/1999 al Consiliului de stabilire a normelor de aplicare a articolului 93 din Tratatul CE [3], astfel cum a fost corectat în JO L 25, 28.1.2005, p. 74 și în JO L 131, 25.5.2005, p. 45, se încorporează în acord.(4) Încorporarea în acord a Regulamentului 794/2004 conduce la caducitatea anumitor puncte care sunt încorporate în anexa XV la acord și care, în consecință, trebuie să fie eliminate din acord,DECIDE:Articolul 1Anexa XV la acord se modifică astfel cum se precizează la anexa I la prezenta decizie.Articolul 2Protocolul 26 la acord se modifică astfel cum se precizează la dispozițiile din anexa II la prezenta decizie.Articolul 3Textele Regulamentului (CE) nr. 794/2004, astfel cum a fost corectat în JO L 25, 28.1.2005, p. 74 și în JO L 131, 25.5.2005, p. 45, în limbile islandeză și norvegiană, care se publică în suplimentul SEE al Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene, sunt autentice.Articolul 4Prezenta decizie intră în vigoare la 1 octombrie 2005, cu condiția să se fi efectuat notificările prevăzute la articolul 103 alineatul (1) din acord către Comitetul mixt al SEE [****].Articolul 5Prezenta decizie se publică în secțiunea SEE și în suplimentul SEE ale Jurnalului Oficial al Uniunii Europene.Adoptată la Bruxelles, 30 septembrie 2005.Pentru Comitetul mixt al SEEPreședinteleA.S.S. Prințul Nikolaus von Liechtenstein[1] JO L 64, 10.3.2005, p. 67.[2] JO L 130, 29.4.2004, p. 3.[3] JO L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1.[****] Nu sunt indicate cerințe constituționale.--------------------------------------------------ANEXA IAnexa XV acord se modifică după cum urmează:Textul de la punctele 2 [C/252/80/p. 2: Notificarea ajutoarelor de stat adresată Comisiei în temeiul articolului 93 alineatul (3) din Tratatul CEE], 3 [Scrisoarea Comisiei adresată statelor membre SG(81) 12740 din 2 octombrie 1981], 4 [Scrisoarea Comisiei adresată statelor membre SG(89) D/5521 din 27 aprilie 1989], 5 [Scrisoarea Comisiei adresată statelor membre SG(87) D/5540 din 30 aprilie 1989], 6 [Scrisoarea Comisiei adresată statelor membre SG(90) D/28091 din 11 octombrie 1990], 7 [Scrisoarea Comisiei adresată statelor membre SG(91) D/4577 din 4 martie 1991], 8 (C/40/90/p. 2: Notificarea regimului de ajutoare de importanță redusă), 10 (C/318/83/p. 3: Comunicarea Comisiei privind ajutoarele acordate ilegal), 34 (C/3/85/p. 2: Comunicarea Comisiei cu privire la cumulul ajutoarelor în diferite scopuri) se elimină.--------------------------------------------------ANEXA IIProtocolul 26 la acord se modifică după cum urmează:1. La articolul 2, termenii "actul următor" se înlocuiesc cu "actele următoare".2. Regulamentul (CE) 659/1999 al Consiliului se numerotează, devenind punctul 1.3. După punctul 1 [Regulamentul (CEE) nr. 659/1999 al Consiliului] se inserează punctul următor:"2. 32004 R 0794: Regulamentul (CE) nr. 794/2004 al Comisiei din 21 aprilie 2004 privind punerea în aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 659/1999 al Consiliului de stabilire a normelor de aplicare a articolului 93 din Tratatul CE (JO L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1), astfel cum a fost corectat în JO L 25, 28.1.2005, p. 74 și în JO L 131, 25.5.2005, p. 45."--------------------------------------------------