jurisdiction: US

text:
 113 HR 1353 IH: STEM Education Opportunity Act
 U.S. House of Representatives
 2013-03-21
 text/xml
 EN
 Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.
 I
 113th CONGRESS
 1st Session
 H. R. 1353
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 March 21, 2013
 Mr. Hanna (for
 himself and Mr. Israel) introduced the
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
 A BILL
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
 deduction for higher education expenses in a program of study in science,
 technology, engineering, or mathematics.
 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
 STEM Education Opportunity
 Act.
 2.STEM qualified
 higher education expenses
 (a)In
 generalPart VII of
 subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
 inserting after section 222 the following new section:
 222A.STEM qualified
 higher education expenses
 (a)In
 generalIn the case of an
 individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction an amount equal to the STEM
 higher education expenses paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year.
 (b)STEM higher
 education expensesFor
 purposes of this section, the term STEM higher education expense
 means any expense of a type which is taken into account in determining the cost
 of attendance (as defined in section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll)) at an eligible educational institution with respect to the
 attendance of an individual—
 (1)at such
 institution for the academic period for which the deduction under this section
 is being determined,
 (2)majoring in a course of study at such
 institution leading to an associate degree or higher in—
 (A)science,
 technology, engineering, or mathematics (within the meaning of section
 131(g)(4) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1015(g)(4)), or
 (B)education with a
 focus on any area described in subparagraph (A), and
 (3)who at all times during such period is
 making satisfactory academic progress (as defined in section 668.34 of title
 34, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation) in the pursuit of
 such degree.
 (c)Definition and
 special rulesFor purposes of
 this section—
 (1)Eligible
 educational institutionThe term eligible educational
 institution has the meaning given the term institution of higher
 education in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
 1002).
 (2)Room and board
 included for students who are at least half-timeSubsection (a)
 shall not apply to any costs of an individual for room and board while
 attending an eligible educational institution, unless such individual is an
 eligible individual (as defined in section 25A(b)(3)).
 (3)Carryforward of
 unused deductionIf for any taxable year the deduction allowable
 under subsection (a) exceeds the taxpayer’s taxable income (determined without
 regard to this section), the amount of STEM higher education expenses of the
 taxpayer attributable to such excess shall be treated as STEM higher education
 expenses paid by the taxpayer in the succeeding taxable year.
 (4)Identification
 requirementNo deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) to
 a taxpayer with respect to STEM higher education expenses of an individual
 unless the taxpayer includes the name and taxpayer identification number of the
 individual on the return of tax for the taxable year.
 (5)Certain
 prepayments allowedIf STEM higher education expenses are paid by
 the taxpayer during a taxable year for an academic period which begins during
 the first 3 months following such taxable year, such academic period shall be
 treated for purposes of this section as beginning during such taxable
 year.
 (6)Coordination
 with other education incentives
 (A)Denial of
 deduction if other credit electedNo deduction shall be allowed under
 subsection (a) for any taxable year with respect to the STEM higher education
 expenses with respect to an individual if the taxpayer or any other person
 elects to have section 25A apply with respect to such individual for such
 year.
 (B)Coordination
 with exclusionsThe total amount of STEM higher education
 expenses shall be reduced by the amount of such expenses taken into account in
 determining any amount excluded under section 135, 529(c), or 530(d)(2). For
 purposes of the preceding sentence, the amount taken into account in
 determining the amount excluded under section 529(c)(1) shall not include that
 portion of the distribution which represents a return of any contributions to
 the plan.
 (7)Adjustment for
 certain scholarshipsRules similar to the rules of 25A(g)(2)
 shall apply for purposes of this section.
 (8)DependentsNo
 deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) to any individual with respect
 to whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for a
 taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which such individual’s taxable
 year begins.
 (9)Nonresident
 aliensIf the taxpayer is a nonresident alien individual for any
 portion of the taxable year, this section shall only apply if such individual
 is treated as a resident alien of the United States for purposes of this
 chapter by reason of an election under subsection (g) or (h) of section
 6013.
 (d)TerminationThis section shall not apply to taxable
 years beginning more than 10 years after the date of the enactment of the STEM
 Education Opportunity
 Act.
 .
 (b)Deduction
 allowed whether or not taxpayer itemizes other
 deductionsSubsection (a) of section 62 of such Code is amended
 by inserting after paragraph (21) the following new paragraph:
 (22)STEM qualified
 higher education expensesThe
 deduction allowed by section
 222A.
 .
 (c)Clerical
 amendmentThe table of
 sections for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
 inserting after the item relating to section 222 the following new item:
 Sec. 222A. STEM qualified higher education
 expenses.
 .
 (d)Effective
 dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to payments
 made in taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this
 Act.
 3.Credits for
 certain contributions benefitting science, technology, engineering, and
 mathematics education at the elementary and secondary school level
 (a)In
 generalSubpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to business related credits) is amended
 by adding at the end the following new section:
 45S.Contributions
 benefitting science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at the
 elementary and secondary school level
 (a)In
 generalFor purposes of
 section 38, the elementary and secondary school STEM contributions credit
 determined under this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the
 qualified STEM contributions made by the taxpayer during the taxable year to
 one or more elementary or secondary schools.
 (b)Maximum
 credit
 (1)Per
 taxpayerThe amount of
 qualified STEM contributions made to any school which may be taken into account
 under this section by the taxpayer for the taxable year shall not exceed the
 portion of the limitation under paragraph (2) which is allocated by such school
 to the taxpayer for such year.
 (2)Per
 schoolThe amount of qualified STEM contributions made to any
 school which may be allocated under this section by the school to all taxpayers
 for all taxable years shall not exceed $100,000.
 (c)Qualified STEM
 contributionsFor purposes of this section—
 (1)In
 generalThe term qualified STEM contributions
 means—
 (A)STEM property
 contributions,
 (B)STEM service
 contributions, and
 (C)STEM student and
 educator training contributions.
 (2)STEM property
 contributions
 (A)In
 generalThe term STEM property contribution means
 the amount which would (but for subsection (d)) be allowed as a deduction under
 section 170 for a charitable contribution of STEM property if—
 (i)the donee is an
 elementary or secondary school,
 (ii)substantially all of the use of the
 property by the donee is within the United States for STEM education in any of
 the grades K–12 for use during the school day or in after-school
 programs,
 (iii)the original use
 of the property begins with the donee,
 (iv)the property will
 fit productively into the donee’s education plan,
 (v)the property is
 not transferred by the donee in exchange for money, other property, or
 services, except for shipping, installation and transfer costs, and
 (vi)the donee’s use
 and disposition of the property will be in accordance with the provisions of
 clauses (ii) through (v).
 (B)STEM
 propertyThe term STEM property means—
 (i)computer equipment and software,
 (ii)microscopes,
 (iii)lab equipment,
 including glassware, digital scales, and temperature measuring devices,
 (iv)property used to
 maintain, renovate, or improve laboratory facilities,
 (v)STEM education curricula, and
 (vi)whiteboards,
 smartboards, cameras, and other relevant STEM education materials.
 (3)STEM service
 contributions
 (A)In
 generalThe term STEM service contributions means
 the amount paid or incurred during the taxable year to provide STEM services in
 the United States for the exclusive benefit of students at an elementary or
 secondary school but only if no charge is imposed for providing such
 services.
 (B)STEM
 servicesThe term STEM
 services means—
 (i)providing students the opportunity to
 engage in hands-on technical equipment training in a STEM education field,
 and
 (ii)bringing experts in a STEM education field
 into the classroom or after school programs for demonstrations, talks, or
 mentoring exercises.
 (4)STEM student and
 educator training contributions
 (A)In
 generalThe term STEM student and educator training
 contributions means the amount paid or incurred during the taxable year
 to provide STEM student and educator training services in the United States for
 the exclusive benefit of students at an elementary or secondary school but only
 if no charge is imposed for providing such services.
 (B)STEM student and
 educator training servicesThe term STEM student and
 educator training services means—
 (i)on-site technical equipment training in a
 STEM education field,
 (ii)field trips to
 research or related facilities in a STEM education field,
 (iii)student
 internships or long term on-site training in a STEM education field, and
 (iv)educator training
 exercises in a STEM education field.
 (5)STEM
 educationThe term STEM
 education means education in the biological sciences, mathematics, earth
 and physical sciences, computer and information science, engineering,
 geosciences, and social and behavioral sciences.
 (6)Elementary or
 secondary school
 (A)In
 generalThe term elementary or secondary school
 means any school which provides elementary education or secondary education
 (kindergarten through grade 12), as determined under State law.
 (B)Groupings of
 schoolsSuch term includes consortia or other groupings of such
 schools if all such schools in the consortia or grouping are located within the
 same State.
 (d)Denial of double
 benefitNo deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for any
 amount allowed as a credit under this
 section.
 .
 (b)Conforming
 amendments
 (1)Section 38(b) of
 such Code is amended by striking plus at the end of paragraph
 (35), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (36), and inserting
 , plus, and by adding at the end the following new
 paragraph:
 (37)the elementary
 and secondary school STEM contributions credit determined under section
 45S.
 .
 (2)The table of
 sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is
 amended by adding at the end the following new item:
 Sec. 45S. Contributions benefitting
 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at the elementary
 and secondary school
 level.
 .
 (c)Effective
 dateThe amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable
 years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
 4.GAO
 StudyNot later than 5 years
 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Government Accountability
 Office, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit to
 Congress a report detailing—
 (1)the efficacy of
 the STEM Education Opportunity Act in increasing higher education enrollment in
 the fields of math, science, engineering, and technology, and
 (2)any effect such
 Act has had on the price of higher education tuition in such fields.


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Tähtis õiguslik teade
 |
 52007PC0589
 [pic] | EUROOPA ÜHENDUSTE KOMISJON |Brüssel 9.10.2007KOM(2007) 589 lõplikEttepanek:NÕUKOGU OTSUSmilles käsitletakse geneetiliselt muundatud maisi (Zea mays L. liin T25) kasutamise ja müügi ajutist keelustamist Austrias vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivile 2001/18/EÜ(Ainult saksakeelne tekst on autentne)(komisjoni esitatud)SELETUSKIRI1. Geneetiliselt muundatud maisiliik Zea mays L. liin T25 lubati turule viia komisjoni otsuste kohaselt vastavalt direktiivi 90/220/EMÜ[1] C osale ning Prantsusmaa ametisutused andsid nõusoleku kõnealuse geneetiliselt muundatud organismi (GMO) turuleviimiseks. Nõusolek hõlmab toote kõiki kasutusviise, nimelt importi, toiduks või loomasöödaks töötlemist ja viljelust.2. Seejärel teavitas Austria direktiivi 90/220/EMÜ artikli 16 (kaitseklausel) kohaselt komisjoni oma otsusest keelustada ajutiselt maisi Zea mays L. liin T25 turuleviimine või piirata seda mis tahes kasutuse puhul, mida hõlmab direktiivi 90/220/EMÜ kohane nõusolek, ning tõi välja selle otsuse põhjused.3. Maisist Zea mays L. liin T25 saadud toodetele (tärklis ja kõik selle derivaadid, toorõli ja rafineeritud õli, kõik kuumtöödeldud või fermenteeritud tooted, mis on saadud maisist Zea mays L. liin T25, samuti sellest toodetud loomasööt), on antud luba vastavalt määrustele (EÜ) nr 258/97[2] ja (EÜ) nr 1829/2003[3]. Kõneluste kasutusalade suhtes ei kohaldata kaitseklauslit, millest Austria on teatanud.4. Peeti nõu taimede teaduskomiteega, kes leidis oma arvamuses, et Austria esitatud teave ei sisaldanud uusi olulisi teaduslikke tõendeid, mida ei oldud arvestatud nendest GMOdest tuleneva ohu esialgsel hindamisel ja mis annaksid põhjust Zea mays L. liin T25 suhtes esialgselt tehtud otsuse läbivaatamiseks.5. Nõukogu direktiiv 90/220/EMÜ tunnistati kehtetuks Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiviga 2001/18/EÜ geneetiliselt muundatud organismide tahtliku keskkonda viimise kohta.[4]6. Jaanuaris 2004 palus komisjon Austrial oma kaitseklausli uue õigusliku raamistiku kohaselt läbi vaadata ja vajaduse korral selle uuesti direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ raames ära märkida.7. Direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 23 kohaselt esitas Austria komisjonile lisateabe oma olemasoleva kaitseklausli meetmete toetuseks.8. Direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 23 kohaselt peab komisjon sellistel asjaoludel tegema otsused direktiivi artikli 30 lõikes 2 sätestatud korras, mille puhul kohaldatakse otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikleid 5 ja 7, võttes arvesse kõnealuse otsuse artiklis 8 sätestatut.9. Direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 28 lõike 1 kohaselt peeti nõu Euroopa Toiduohutusametiga (EFSA), mis asutati Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusega (EÜ) nr 178/2002,[5] mille kohaselt asjaomased teaduskomiteed asendati Euroopa Toiduohutusametiga, ning viimane järeldas oma 8. juuli 2004. aasta arvamuses,[6] et Austria esitatud teave ei sisaldanud uusi asjakohaseid teaduslikke tõendeid, mis muudaksid kehtetuks maisi Zea mays L. liin T25 keskkonnaohu hindamise ja põhjendaksid selle GMO keelustamist Austrias.10. Komisjoni otsuse eelnõu, milles paluti Austrial tunnistada kehtetuks oma kaitseklausel, esitati seetõttu nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõike 2 kohaselt arvamuse saamiseks direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 30 alusel moodustatud komiteele.11. Komitee ei esitanud pärast seda, kui 29. novembril 2004 tema poole pöörduti, oma arvamust kaitseklausli kohta, mis tähendab, et komisjon peab nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõike 4 kohaselt esitama viivitamata nõukogule ettepaneku võetavate meetmete kohta ja teavitama Euroopa Parlamenti.12. Nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõike 6 kohaselt väljendas keskkonnanõukogu 24. juunil 2005 kvalifitseeritud häälteenamusega oma vastuseisu ettepanekule, milles paluti Austrial tunnistada kehtetuks oma kaitsemeetmed, ning nimetatud lõike kohaselt peab komisjon ettepaneku uuesti läbi vaatama.13. Nõukogu teatas oma avalduses, et „geneetiliselt muundatud maisiliigi [...] T25 turuleviimisega seotud riiklike kaitsemeetmete suhtes valitseb endiselt ebakindlus”, ning kutsus komisjoni üles „koguma kõnealuse GMO kohta täiendavaid tõendeid ja hindama, kas [Austria] võetud meede, mille eesmärk oli ajutise ettevaatusabinõuna peatada [kõnealuse toote] turuleviimine, on õigustatud ning kas kõnealuse organismi lubamine vastab endiselt direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ ohutusnõuetele”.14. Novembris 2005 küsiti EFSA-lt, kas on teadulikku põhjust arvata, et maisi Zea mays L. liin T25 jätkuv turuleviimine võiks loa andmise tingimusi täites mõjuda kahjulikult inimeste tervisele või keskkonnale, ning eelkõige paluti EFSA-l arvesse võtta võimalikku uut teaduslikku teavet, mis on saadud pärast kõnealuse GMO ohutust hindavat eelmist teaduslikku arvamust.15. Pärast Austria taotluses esitatud tõendite uurimist märkis EFSA oma 29. märtsi 2006. aasta arvamuses (avaldatud 11. aprillil 2006)[7], et olemasolevad teaduslikud tõendid ei toeta Austria väiteid ja otsustas, et ei ole alust arvata, et maisi Zea mays L. liin T25 jätkuv turuleviimine võiks vastavate nõusolekute tingimusi täites mõjuda kahjulikult inimeste ja loomade tervisele või keskkonnale.16. Vastavalt nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõikele 6 esitas komisjon nõukogule ettepaneku, milles nõutakse, et Austria tühistab oma kaitsemeetme.17. Keskkonnanõukogu väljendas 18. detsembril 2006 oma vastuseisu ettepanekule kvalifitseeritud häälteenamusega.18. Oma otsuses osutas nõukogu keskkonnaohu hindamisele, nagu on sätestatud direktiivis 2001/18/EÜ ning märkis, et „keskkonnaohu hindamisel tuleb süsteemsemalt võtta arvesse Euroopa Liidu eri põllumajandusstruktuure ja piirkondlikke ökoloogilisi iseärasusi”.19. Nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõike 6 kohaselt võib komisjon seega esitada nõukogule muudetud ettepaneku, taasesitada oma ettepaneku või esitada seadusandliku ettepaneku asutamislepingu alusel.20. Nõukogu 18. detsembri 2006. aasta otsuses osutatakse üksnes kaitseklausli keskkonnaaspektidele, nimelt viljelusele.21. Austria on alustanud mis tahes oluliste teaduslike tõendite kogumist kõnealuste aspektide kohta, mis Austria arvates õigustavad kaitseklausli ajutist säilitamist, eelkõige seoses „eri põllumajandusstruktuuride ja piirkondlike ökoloogiliste omadustega”, nagu on märgitud eespool osutatud nõukogu otsuse 3. põhjenduses. Direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 23 kohaselt kutsutakse Austriat üles esitama komisjonile kõik kogutud teaduslikud tõendid, samuti kõik uued keskkonnaohu hindamised kohe pärast nende valmimist ning teavitama kõiki liikmesriike nendest.22. Austria taotluse ja tema teadusliku hindamise alusel tegutseb komisjon seoses Austria meetme kõnealuste aspektidega direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 23 kohaselt.23. Maisi Zea mays L. liin T25 toidu ja loomasööda ohutuse aspektid, mida hõlmab direktiivi 90/220/EMÜ kohane nõusolek (sealhulgas import ja töötlemine), on kogu Euroopas samad ning neid on hinnanud EFSA, kes jõudis järeldusele, et kõnealune toode ei oma tõenäoliselt kahjulikku mõju inimeste ega loomade tervisele.24. Selliste asjaolude korral on komisjon seisukohal, et ettepanekut tuleks muuta, et võtta arvesse üksnes Austria keelu toidu ja loomasööda aspekte, nimelt keeldu importida ja töödelda töötlemata maisi, mis on järgneva töötlemise lähtematerjal või mida kasutatakse otse toiduks või loomasöödaks.25. Kooskõlas nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõikega 6 esitab komisjon nõukogule muudetud ettepaneku.Ettepanek:NÕUKOGU OTSUSmilles käsitletakse geneetiliselt muundatud maisi (Zea mays L. liin T25) kasutamise ja müügi ajutist keelustamist Austrias vastavalt Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivile 2001/18/EÜ(Ainult saksakeelne tekst on autentne) (EMPs kohaldatav tekst)EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,võttes arvesse Euroopa Ühenduse asutamislepingut,võttes arvesse Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 12. märtsi 2001. aasta direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ geneetiliselt muundatud organismide tahtliku keskkonda viimise ja nõukogu direktiivi 90/220/EMÜ kehtetuks tunnistamise kohta,[8] eriti selle artikli 23 lõiget 2,võttes arvesse komisjoni ettepanekutning arvestades järgmist:(1) Komisjoni 22. aprilli 1998. aasta otsusega 98/294/EÜ geneetiliselt muundatud maisi (Zea mays L. liin T25) turuleviimise kohta otsustati vastavalt nõukogu direktiivile 90/220/EMÜ[9] anda luba kõnealuse toote turuleviimiseks.(2) Prantsusmaa ametiasutused andsid vastava nõusoleku 3. augustil 1998. Nõusolek hõlmab toote kõiki kasutusviise, eelkõige importi, toiduks või loomasöödaks töötlemist ja viljelust.(3) Vastavalt direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ (millega asendati direktiiv 90/220/EMÜ)[10] artikli 35 lõikele 1 kohaldatakse nende geneetiliselt muundatud organismide turuleviimise taotluste suhtes, mille menetlemine ei olnud lõpetatud 17. oktoobriks 2002, direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ.(4) Austria teavitas 8. mail 2000 komisjoni oma otsusest keelata ajutiselt maisi Zea mays L. liin T25 mis tahes kasutamine ja müük ning põhjendas seda direktiivi 90/220/EMÜ artikli 16 lõike 1 kohaselt.(5) Maisist Zea mays L. liin T25 saadud toodetele (tärklis ja kõik selle derivaadid, toorõli ja rafineeritud õli, kõik kuumtöödeldud või fermenteeritud tooted, mis on saadud maisist Zea mays L. liin T25, samuti sellest toodetud loomasööt), on antud luba vastavalt määrusele (EÜ) nr 258/97[11] ja määrusele (EÜ) nr 1829/2003[12]. Kõneluste kasutusalade suhtes ei kohaldata kaitseklauslit, millest Austria on teatanud.(6) Taimede teaduskomitee järeldas 20. juulil 2001, et Austria esitatud teave ei sisaldanud uusi asjakohaseid teaduslikke tõendeid, mida ei oldud arvestatud toimiku esialgsel hindamisel ja mis annaksid põhjust selle toote suhtes esialgselt tehtud otsuse läbivaatamiseks.(7) 9. jaanuaril 2004 ning 9. ja 17. veebruaril 2004 esitas Austria komisjonile lisateavet oma riiklike meetmete toetuseks seoses liini T25 maisiga.(8) Direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 28 lõike 1 kohaselt pidas komisjon nõu Euroopa Toiduohutusametiga (EFSA), mis asutati Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusega (EÜ) nr 178/2002[13], mille kohaselt vastavad teaduskomiteed asendati Euroopa Toiduohutusametiga.(9) EFSA märkis 8. juulil 2004[14], et Austria esitatud teave ei sisaldanud uusi teaduslikke tõendeid, mis oleksid muutnud kehtetuks liini T25 maisi keskkonnaohu hinnangu ning õigustanud kõnealuse toote kasutamise ja müügi keelustamist Austrias.(10) Kuna kõnealustel asjaoludel ei ole põhjust arvata, et see toode ohustaks inimeste tervist või keskkonda, esitas komisjon 29. novembril 2004 vastavalt direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 30 lõikes 2 osutatud korrale sama direktiivi artikli 30 alusel moodustatud komiteele otsuse eelnõu, milles paluti Austrial tunnistada kehtetuks oma ajutise kaitseklausli meetmed.(11) Kuna komitee ei esitanud oma arvamust nõukogu 28. juuni 1999. aasta otsuse 1999/468/EÜ (millega kehtestatakse komisjoni rakendusvolituste kasutamise menetlused)[15] artikli 5 lõike 4 kohaselt, esitas komisjon nõukogule ettepaneku võetavate meetmete kohta.(12) Kooskõlas nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõikega 6 lükkas nõukogu 24. juunil 2005 ettepaneku kvalifitseeritud häälteenamusega tagasi.(13) Nõukogu teatas oma avalduses, et „geneetiliselt muundatud maisiliigi [...] T25 turuleviimisega seotud riiklike kaitsemeetmete suhtes valitseb endiselt ebakindlus”, ning kutsus komisjoni üles „koguma kõnealuse GMO kohta täiendavaid tõendeid ja hindama, kas [Austria] võetud meede, mille eesmärk oli ajutise ettevaatusabinõuna peatada [kõnealuse toote] turuleviimine, on õigustatud ning kas kõnealuse organismi lubamine vastab endiselt direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ ohutusnõuetele”.(14) 2005. aasta novembris küsis komisjon uuesti EFSA arvamust, kas on teaduslikku põhjust arvata, et maisi T25 jätkuv turuleviimine võiks loaandmise tingimusi täites mõjuda kahjulikult inimeste tervisele või keskkonnale. Eelkõige paluti EFSA-l võtta arvesse võimalikku uut teaduslikku teavet, mis on saadud pärast eelmist kõnealuse GMO ohutust hindavat teaduslikku arvamust.(15) Oma 29. märtsi 2006. aasta arvamuses[16] järeldas EFSA, et ei ole põhjust arvata, et T25 maisi turuleviimise jätkamine võiks vastavate nõusolekute tingimusi täites mõjuda kahjulikult inimeste ja loomade tervisele või keskkonnale.(16) Vastavalt nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõikele 6 esitas komisjon nõukogule ettepaneku, milles nõutakse, et Austria tühistaks oma kaitsemeetme.(17) Kooskõlas nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõikega 6 väljendas keskkonnanõukogu 18. detsembril 2006 oma vastuseisu ettepanekule kvalifitseeritud häälteenamusega.(18) Oma otsuses osutas nõukogu keskkonnaohu hindamisele, nagu on sätestatud direktiivis 2001/18/EÜ ning märkis, et „keskkonnaohu hindamisel tuleb süsteemsemalt arvesse võtta Euroopa Liidu eri põllumajandusstruktuure ja piirkondlikke ökoloogilisi iseärasusi”.(19) Komisjon esitas vastavalt nõukogu otsuse 1999/468/EÜ artikli 5 lõikele 6 muudetud ettepaneku, et võtta arvesse nõukogu 18. detsembri 2006. aasta otsust, mis osutab ainult Austria kaitseklausli keskkonnaaspektidele, nimelt viljelusele.(20) Austria on alustanud mis tahes oluliste teaduslike tõendite kogumist kõnealuste aspektide kohta, mis Austria arvates õigustavad kaitseklausli ajutist säilitamist, eelkõige seoses „eri põllumajandusstruktuuride ja piirkondlike ökoloogiliste omadustega”, nagu on märgitud eespool osutatud nõukogu otsuse 3. põhjenduses. Direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 23 kohaselt kutsutakse Austriat üles esitama komisjonile kõik kogutud teaduslikud tõendid, samuti kõik uued keskkonnaohu hindamised kohe pärast nende valmimist ning nendest teavitama kõiki liikmesriike.(21) Austria taotluse ja tema teadusliku hindamise alusel tegutseb komisjon seoses Austria meetme kõnealuste aspektidega direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 23 kohaselt.(22) Maisi Zea mays L. liin T25 toidu ja loomasööda ohutuse aspektid, mida hõlmab direktiivi 90/220/EMÜ kohane nõusolek (sealhulgas import ja töötlemine), on kogu Euroopas samad ning neid on hinnanud EFSA, kes jõudis järeldusele, et kõnealune toode ei oma tõenäoliselt kahjulikku mõju inimeste ega loomade tervisele.(23) Komisjoni ettepanekus võetakse arvesse üksnes Austria keelu toidu ja loomasööda aspekte, nimelt keeldu importida ja töödelda töötlemata maisi, mis on järgneva töötlemise lähtematerjal või mida kasutatakse otse toiduks või loomasöödaks.(24) Kõnealuste asjaolude korral peaks Austria tühistama oma kaitsemeetmed vähemalt seoses maisi Zea mays L. liin T25 impordi ning töötlemisega toiduks ja loomasöödaks.ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:Artikkel 1Austria meetmed keelata maisi Zea mays L. liin T25 import ja töötlemine toiduks ja loomasöödaks, ning mida on otsusega 98/294/EÜ lubatud turule viia, ei ole direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 23 kohaselt õigustatud.Artikkel 2Austria astub vajalikud sammud, et tühistada maisi Zea mays L liin T25 impordi ja toiduks või loomasöödaks töötlemise keeld hiljemalt 20 päeva pärast selle teatavaks tegemist.Artikkel 3Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud Austria Vabariigile.Brüssel, [kuupäev] 2007Nõukogu nimeleesistuja [1] EÜT L 117, 8.5.1990, lk 15.[2] EÜT L 43, 14.2.1997, lk 1.[3] ELT L 106, 18.10.2003, lk 1.[4] EÜT L 106, 17.4.2001, lk 1.[5] EÜT L 31, 1.2.2002, lk 1. Määrust on viimati muudetud komisjoni määrusega (EÜ) nr 575/2006 (ELT L 100, 8.4.2006, lk 3).[6] Geneetiliselt muundatud organismide teaduskomisjoni arvamus komisjoni taotluse suhtes, seoses Austria algatusega direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 23 kohaselt, EFSA Teataja (2004) 78, lk 1–13.[7] Geneetiliselt muundatud organismide teaduskomisjoni arvamus komisjoni taotluse suhtes, milles käsitletakse geneetiliselt muundatud kultuure (mais Bt176, mais MON810, mais T25, raps Topas 19/2 ja raps Ms1xRf1), mille suhtes võib vastavalt direktiivi 90/220/EMÜ artiklile 16 rakendada kaitseklauslit, EFSA Teataja (2006) 338, lk 1–15.[8] EÜT L 106, 17.4.2001, lk 1.[9] EÜT L 131, 5.5.1998, lk 32.[10] EÜT L 117, 8.5.1990, lk 15.[11] EÜT L 43, 14.2.1997, lk 1.[12] ELT L 106, 18.10.2003, lk 1.[13] EÜT L 31, 1.2.2002, lk 1. Määrust on viimati muudetud komisjoni määrusega (EÜ) nr 575/2006 (ELT L 100, 8.4.2006, lk 3).[14] Geneetiliselt muundatud organismide teaduskomisjoni arvamus komisjoni taotluse suhtes, seoses Austria algatusega direktiivi 2001/18/EÜ artikli 23 kohaselt, EFSA Teataja (2004) 78, lk 1–13.[15] EÜT L 184, 17.7.1999, lk 23.[16] Geneetiliselt muundatud organismide teaduskomisjoni arvamus komisjoni taotluse suhtes, milles käsitletakse geneetiliselt muundatud kultuure (mais Bt176, mais MON810, mais T25, raps Topas 19/2 ja raps Ms1xRf1), mille suhtes võib vastavalt direktiivi 90/220/EMÜ artiklile 16 rakendada kaitseklauslit, EFSA Teataja (2006) 338, lk 1–15.


type: caselaw

text:
 18.12.2010
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 346/60
 Hotărârea Tribunalului Funcției Publice (Camera a doua) din 27 octombrie 2010 — Birkhoff/Comisia
 (Cauza F-60/09) (1)
 (Funcționari - Remunerație - Alocații familiale - Alocație pentru creșterea copilului aflat în întreținere - Copil care suferă de o boală gravă sau are o infirmitate care îl împiedică să se întrețină singur - Cerere de prelungire a plății alocației - Articolul 2 alineatul (5) din anexa VII la statut - Venitul maxim al copilului drept condiție de prelungire a plății alocației - Cheltuieli deductibile din venitul menționat)
 2010/C 346/119
 Limba de procedură: italiana
 Părțile
 Reclamant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germania) (reprezentant: C. Inzillo, avocat)
 Pârâtă: Comisia Europeană (reprezentanți: J. Currall și B. Eggers, agenți, asistați de A. Dal Ferro, avocat)
 Obiectul
 Anularea deciziei de respingere a cererii reclamantului privind obținerea unei prelungiri a plății alocației pentru copilul aflat în întreținere în temeiul articolului 2 alineatul (5) din anexa VII la Statutul funcționarilor
 Dispozitivul
 1.
 Respinge acțiunea.
 2.
 Îl obligă pe domnul Birkhoff la plata tuturor cheltuielilor de judecată.
 (1) JO C 205, 29.8.2009, p. 50.


text:
16.7.2011
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 211/3
 Domstolens dom (Tredje Afdeling) af 26. maj 2011 — Europa-Kommissionen mod Kongeriget Spanien
 (Sag C-306/08) (1)
 (Traktatbrud - direktiv 93/37/EØF og 2004/18/EF - fremgangsmåder med hensyn til indgåelse af offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter - byplanlægningslovgivning i den selvstyrende region Valencia)
 2011/C 211/05
 Processprog: spansk
 Parter
 Sagsøger: Europa-Kommissionen (ved A. Alcover San Pedro, D. Kukovec og M. Konstantinidis, som befuldmægtigede)
 Sagsøgt: Kongeriget Spanien (ved M. Muñoz Pérez, som befuldmægtiget)
 Sagens genstand
 Traktatbrud — tilsidesættelse af artikel 1 og artikel 6, stk. 6, samt artikel 11 og 12 og af afsnit IV, kapitel 2 (artikel 24-29) i Rådets direktiv 93/37/EØF af 14. juni 1993 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne med hensyn til indgåelse af offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter (EFT L 199, s. 54) og af artikel 2, 6, 24, 30 og artikel 31, stk. 4, litra a), samt artikel 48, stk. 2, og artikel 53 i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 2004/18/EF af 31. marts 2004 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne ved indgåelse af offentlige vareindkøbskontrakter, offentlige tjenesteydelseskontrakter og offentlige bygge- og anlægskontrakter (EUT L 134, s. 114) — byplanlægningslovgivningen for Valencia — manglende overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten
 Konklusion
 1)
 Kongeriget Spanien frifindes.
 2)
 Europa-Kommissionen betaler sagens omkostninger.
 (1) EUT C 223 af 30.8.2008.


text:
 |
 52012PC0512
 Návrh NAŘÍZENÍ EVROPSKÉHO PARLAMENTU A RADY, kterým se mění nařízení (EU) č. 1093/2010 o zřízení Evropského orgánu dohledu (Evropského orgánu pro bankovnictví), pokud jde o jeho vztah k nařízení Rady (EU) č. .../..., kterým se Evropské centrální bance svěřují zvláštní úkoly týkající se politik, které se vztahují k obezřetnostnímu dohledu nad úvěrovými institucemi /* COM/2012/0512 final - 2012/0244 (COD) */
 DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVA
 1. SOUVISLOSTI NÁVRHU
 V současné době je spolehlivost
 bankovního sektoru stále v mnoha ohledech úzce spjata s členským
 státem, v němž jsou banky usazeny. Pochybnosti o udržitelnosti
 veřejného dluhu, vyhlídkách na ekonomický růst a životaschopnosti
 úvěrových institucí vytvářejí negativní, vzájemně se posilující
 tržní trendy. To může být rizikové pro životaschopnost některých
 úvěrových institucí, jakož i pro stabilitu finančního systému a
 může to znamenat výraznou zátěž pro již tak napjaté veřejné
 finance dotčených členských států.
 Tato situace vytváří konkrétní rizika v
 eurozóně, kde jednotná měna zvyšuje pravděpodobnost toho, že
 vývoj v jednom členském státě může ohrozit hospodářský
 vývoj a stabilitu v celé eurozóně. Stávající riziko finančního
 rozštěpení postupující podél státních hranic navíc výrazně narušuje
 jednotný trh v oblasti finančních služeb a brání tomu, aby napomohl
 k hospodářskému oživení.
 Zřízení Evropského orgánu pro
 bankovnictví (dále „orgán pro bankovnictví“ nebo „EBA“) nařízením
 Evropského parlamentu a Rady (EU) č. 1093/2010 ze dne 24. listopadu 2010 o
 zřízení Evropského orgánu dohledu (Evropského orgánu pro bankovnictví) a
 Evropského systému dohledu nad finančním trhem (ESFS) již
 přispělo k lepší spolupráci mezi vnitrostátními orgány dohledu a
 k vypracování jednotného souboru pravidel pro finanční služby v EU. Dohled nad bankami však do značné míry nadále
 přísluší členským státům, a proto se nedokáže vypořádat
 s propojenými bankovními trhy. Od nástupu bankovní krize selhání dohledu
 významně narušilo důvěru v bankovní sektor EU a zhoršilo
 napětí na trzích se státními dluhopisy v eurozóně.
 Z tohoto důvodu v květnu 2012 vyzvala
 Komise v rámci dlouhodobější vize pro ekonomickou a fiskální integraci k vytvoření
 bankovní unie, aby se obnovila důvěra v banky a v euro.
 Jedním z klíčových prvků bankovní unie by měl být jednotný mechanismus
 dohledu s přímou kontrolou nad bankami, který by přísně a
 nestranně prosazoval obezřetnostní pravidla a účinně
 dohlížel na přeshraniční trhy s bankovními službami. Bude-li se
 bankovní dohled v eurozóně držet vysokých společných
 standardů, přispěje obnovení nezbytné důvěry mezi
 členskými státy, což je nezbytnou podmínkou pro zavedení jakéhokoli
 společného jištění.
 Na summitu eurozóny dne 29. června 2012
 vyzvaly hlavy států a předsedové vlád Komisi, aby „v brzké
 době předložila návrhy, které by zavedly jednotný mechanismus dohledu. Pokud bude takový mechanismus pro banky
 v eurozóně vytvořen, Evropský mechanismus stability by mohl mít na
 základě řádného rozhodnutí možnost přímo rekapitalizovat banky“. V závěrech zasedání Evropské rady konaného ve dnech
 28.–29. června 2012 se uvádí, že toto prohlášení týkající se eurozóny a
 návrhy, které v souladu s ním Komise předloží, by měly
 zohlednit vývoj „konkrétního a časově vymezeného plánu
 k dosažení skutečné hospodářské a měnové unie“.
 V rámci tohoto nového mechanismu bude
 Evropská centrální banka provádět širokou škálu klíčových úkolů
 v oblasti dohledu nad úvěrovými institucemi v členských
 státech eurozóny. V zájmu zachování a
 prohloubení vnitřního trhu budou ostatní členské státy moci navázat
 s Evropskou centrální bankou úzkou spolupráci.
 Aby po zavedení jednotného mechanismu dohledu
 nedošlo k roztříštění vnitřního trhu, je nezbytné zajistit
 řádné fungování orgánu pro bankovnictví. Jeho
 úloha by proto měla zůstat zachována, aby mohl dále pracovat na
 jednotném souboru pravidel a zajišťovat sbližování postupů dohledu
 v celé EU.
 Společně s návrhem
 nařízení Rady, kterým se podle čl. 127
 odst. 6 SFEU svěřují Evropské
 centrální bance zvláštní úkoly týkající se politik, které
 se vztahují k obezřetnostnímu dohledu nad úvěrovými institucemi, zavádí
 tento návrh cílené změny nařízení, kterým se zřizuje Evropský
 orgán pro bankovnictví.
 2. VÝSLEDKY KONZULTACÍ SE
 ZÚČASTNĚNÝMI STRANAMI A POSOUZENÍ DOPADŮ
 Komise zohlednila analýzu provedenou v
 souvislosti s přijetím tzv. dohledového balíčku, kterým byly
 vytvořeny evropské orgány dohledu, jež posoudila operační, správní,
 finanční a právní aspekty vztahující se k zavedení jednotného mechanismu
 dohledu. V krátkém termínu, který byl na summitu eurozóny z 29.
 června stanoven, nebylo možné formální posouzení dopadů vypracovat.
 3. PRÁVNÍ STRÁNKA NÁVRHU
 Návrh vychází z článku 114 SFEU,
 neboť mění nařízení (EU) č. 1093/2010, které bylo přijato
 na stejném právním základě.
 Návrh se omezuje na úpravu procedurálních
 postupů, kterými se orgán pro bankovnictví řídí, s cílem zohlednit
 svěření úkolů v oblasti dohledu Evropské centrální bance a zajistit,
 aby orgán pro bankovnictví mohl nadále vykonávat své funkce s cílem
 chránit celistvost, efektivnost a řádné fungování vnitřního trhu
 v oblasti finančních služeb a udržovat stabilitu finančního
 systému na vnitřním trhu. Návrh nemění rozložení příslušných
 pravomocí mezi orgánem pro bankovnictví a orgány členských států.
 Ustanovení tohoto návrhu nepřekračují rámec toho, co je nezbytně
 nutné pro dosažení sledovaných cílů. Návrh je proto v souladu se
 zásadami subsidiarity a proporcionality stanovenými v článku 5
 Smlouvy o Evropské unii.
 4. Podrobné vysvětlení návrhu
 Pravomoci orgánu pro bankovnictví, zejména
 pokud jde o závazná rozhodnutí přijímaná k urovnávání sporů a v
 mimořádných situacích
 Znění článku 4, čl. 18 odst. 1
 a čl. 35 odst. 1 až 3 se mění tak, aby mohl orgán pro bankovnictví
 vykonávat své úkoly také ve vztahu k Evropské centrální bance. Novelizací
 se tedy vyjasňuje, že pojem „příslušné orgány“ zahrnuje také
 Evropskou centrální banku, jak je tomu i v ostatních článcích, které
 na „příslušné orgány“ odkazují.
 Aby mohl orgán pro bankovnictví vykonávat své
 úkoly v oblasti urovnávání sporů a opatření
 v mimořádných situacích také ve vztahu k Evropské centrální
 bance, vkládají se v článcích 18 a 19 odstavce 3a, které stanoví
 zvláštní postup ve vztahu k rozhodnutím, které orgán pro bankovnictví
 přijímá podle odstavců 3 obou uvedených článků.
 V rámci tohoto postupu platí, že pokud Evropská centrální banka nevyhoví
 opatření orgánu pro bankovnictví, které má za cíl urovnání sporů nebo
 řešení mimořádné situace, měla by podat vysvětlení.
 V takovém případě (který je nepravděpodobný), kdy jsou
 příslušné požadavky stanoveny v přímo použitelných právních
 předpisech EU, může orgán pro bankovnictví přijmout individuální
 rozhodnutí určené dotčené finanční instituci, aby prosadil své
 opatření, a běžně se očekává, že tak učiní. Díky tomu
 budou opatření orgánu pro bankovnictví, která mají za cíl urovnání
 sporů nebo řešení mimořádné situace, plně vymahatelná.
 Způsob hlasování
 Jelikož bude Evropská centrální banka
 koordinovat postoj členských států eurozóny, je nutné změnit
 způsob hlasování, který je nyní stanoven v nařízení o EBA, aby
 rozhodnutí orgánu pro bankovnictví byla přijímána v zájmu zachování a
 posilování vnitřního trhu v oblasti finančních služeb.
 Podle nařízení o EBA přijímá
 rozhodnutí o otázkách regulačních (závazné technické normy, obecné pokyny
 a doporučení podle článků 10, 15 a 16 a rozhodnutí o
 přehodnocení omezení pro finanční činnosti podle čl. 9
 odst. 5) i rozpočtových (kapitola VI) rada orgánů dohledu kvalifikovanou
 většinou svých členů v souladu s čl. 16 odst. 4 Smlouvy o
 Evropské unii a článkem 3 Protokolu (č. 36) o přechodných
 ustanoveních.
 Rozhodnutí o dalších otázkách (např. o
 porušení práva podle článku 17, o urovnávání sporů podle článku
 19 nebo o volbě správní rady) přijímá rada orgánů dohledu
 prostou většinou členů s hlasovacím právem, kdy každý člen
 má jeden hlas.
 Pokud nebudou hlasovací práva
 změněna, nelze zajistit, aby rozhodnutí přijímaná prostou
 většinou vždy představovala zájmy Unie jako celku. Způsob
 hlasování v některých specifických případech prosté většiny
 je proto nutné upravit, aby zůstala zachována celistvost vnitřního
 trhu a zároveň nebyl ochromen rozhodovací proces v orgánu pro
 bankovnictví.
 Nejlepším způsobem, jak tohoto cíle
 dosáhnout, je svěřit rozhodovací pravomoci nezávislé odborné
 skupině a zavést účinný mechanismus hlasování na základě
 obráceného většinového principu, který zajistí, aby návrh vypracovaný
 nezávislou odbornou skupinou podpořily členské státy eurozóny i mimo
 eurozónu. Díky tomu také členské státy eurozóny nebudou disponovat
 blokační menšinou v případě opatření proti jednomu
 z nich.
 Článek 41 nařízení o orgánu pro
 bankovnictví se proto mění tak, aby měla nezávislá odborná skupina
 v otázkách porušení práva EU a urovnávání sporů silnější
 rozhodovací pravomoci, a odpovídajícím způsobem upravuje pravidla, kterými
 se řídí její složení.
 Článek 44 nařízení o orgánu pro
 bankovnictví nově stanoví, že rozhodnutí navržená nezávislou odbornou
 skupinou jsou přijata, nejsou-li zamítnuta prostou většinou, která
 zahrnuje alespoň tři hlasy zúčastněných členských
 států a tři hlasy nezúčastněných členských států.
 Je přidáno zvláštní ustanovení o jmenování nezávislé odborné skupiny.
 Složení správní rady
 Vzhledem k rozhodujícímu vlivu
 členů z členských států, které se účastní jednotného
 mechanismu dohledu nebo s ním úzce spolupracují, při volbě
 správní rady (prostá většina přítomných členů) nemohly být
 členské státy, které se mechanismu neúčastní, ve správní radě
 řádně zastoupeny. V návrhu se proto mění složení správní
 rady orgánu pro bankovnictví, aby bylo její složení vyrovnané a odráželo
 složení EU jako celku a aby v něm byly zastoupeny i členské
 státy, které se mechanismu neúčastní. Nově tak budou ve správní
 radě tyto členské státy zastoupeny alespoň dvěma
 členy.
 Článek 45 nařízení o orgánu pro
 bankovnictví se proto mění tak, aby správní rada nově zahrnovala
 alespoň dva členské státy, které se jednotného mechanismu dohledu
 neúčastní.
 Přezkum způsobu hlasování na
 základě dalšího vývoje
 Aby byl zohledněn jakýkoli vývoj
 v řadě členských států, jejichž měnou je euro
 nebo jejichž příslušné orgány začaly úzce spolupracovat podle
 článku 6 nařízení .../...., Komise se žádá, aby přezkoumala navržená
 ustanovení s cílem zjistit, zda na základě takového vývoje nejsou nezbytné
 případné další úpravy, aby bylo zajištěno, že orgán pro bankovnictví přijímá
 rozhodnutí v zájmu udržení a posílení vnitřního trhu v oblasti
 finančních služeb.
 5. ROZPOČTOVÉ DŮSLEDKY
 Návrh nemá
 žádné důsledky pro rozpočet EU.
 2012/0244 (COD)
 Návrh
 NAŘÍZENÍ EVROPSKÉHO PARLAMENTU A
 RADY,
 kterým se mění nařízení (EU)
 č. 1093/2010 o zřízení Evropského orgánu dohledu (Evropského orgánu
 pro bankovnictví), pokud jde o jeho vztah k nařízení Rady (EU)
 č. .../..., kterým se Evropské centrální bance svěřují zvláštní
 úkoly týkající se politik, které se vztahují k obezřetnostnímu dohledu nad
 úvěrovými institucemi
 EVROPSKÝ PARLAMENT A RADA EVROPSKÉ
 UNIE,
 s ohledem na Smlouvu o fungování
 Evropské unie, a zejména na článek 114 této smlouvy,
 s ohledem na návrh Evropské komise,
 po postoupení návrhu legislativního aktu
 vnitrostátním parlamentům,
 s ohledem na stanovisko Evropského
 hospodářského a sociálního výboru[1],
 s ohledem na stanovisko Evropské
 centrální banky[2],
 v souladu s řádným
 legislativním postupem,
 vzhledem k těmto důvodům:
 (1) Dne 29. června 2012
 hlavy států a předsedové vlád zemí eurozóny vyzvali Komisi, aby
 předložila návrhy ustavující jednotný mechanismus dohledu, do kterého by
 byla zapojena Evropská centrální banka. Evropská rada ve svých závěrech
 z 29. června 2012 vyzvala předsedu Evropské rady, aby v úzké
 spolupráci s předsedou Komise, předsedou Euroskupiny a prezidentem
 Evropské centrální banky připravil konkrétní harmonogram pro dosažení
 skutečné hospodářské a měnové unie, jenž by obsahoval konkrétní
 návrhy na zachování jednoty a celistvosti jednotného trhu finančních
 služeb a jenž by zohledňoval prohlášení zemí eurozóny a záměr Komise
 předložit návrhy založené na článku 127 Smlouvy o fungování Evropské
 unie.
 (2) Ustavení jednotného
 mechanismu dohledu je prvním krokem k vytvoření evropské bankovní
 unie, která je založena na skutečně jednotném souboru pravidel pro
 finanční služby a kterou tvoří také společný rámec pro
 pojištění vkladů a restrukturalizaci.
 (3) K naplnění
 jednotného mechanismu dohledu svěřuje nařízení Rady (EU) č.
 .../...[3] [nařízení podle čl.
 127 odst. 6 SFEU] Evropské centrální bance zvláštní úkoly týkající se politik,
 které se vztahují k obezřetnostnímu dohledu nad úvěrovými institucemi
 v členských státech, jejichž měnou je euro. Ostatní členské
 státy mohou s Evropskou centrální bankou navázat úzkou spolupráci.
 V rámci uvedeného nařízení má Evropská centrální banka koordinovat a
 uvádět postoj těchto členských států k rozhodnutím, která
 má přijmout rada orgánů dohledu Evropského orgánu pro bankovnictví (dále
 jen „orgán pro bankovnictví“) a která patří mezi úkoly Evropské centrální
 banky.
 (4) Skutečnost, že jsou
 Evropské centrální bance ve vztahu k některým členským státům
 Unie svěřeny úkoly dohledu v bankovnictví, by neměla nijak
 narušit fungování vnitřního trhu v oblasti finančních služeb. Je
 proto nezbytné zajistit řádné fungování orgánu pro bankovnictví poté, co
 budou Evropské centrální bance tyto úkoly svěřeny.
 (5) Vzhledem k úkolům
 v oblasti dohledu, které byly Evropské centrální bance svěřeny
 nařízením Rady (EU) č. .../... [nařízení podle čl. 127 odst. 6
 SFEU], by měl být orgán pro bankovnictví schopen vykonávat své úkoly také
 ve vztahu k Evropské centrální bance. Měl by být stanoven zvláštní
 postup, aby byly stávající mechanismy pro urovnávání sporů a opatření
 v mimořádných situacích i nadále účinné. Zejména pokud Evropská
 centrální banka nevyhoví opatření orgánu pro bankovnictví, které má za cíl
 urovnání sporů nebo řešení mimořádné situace, měla by podat
 vysvětlení. V takovém případě by měl orgán pro
 bankovnictví přijmout individuální rozhodnutí určené dotčené
 finanční instituci, pokud má na základě požadavků stanovených
 v přímo použitelných právních předpisech Unie tuto možnost.
 (6) Měl by být upraven
 způsob hlasování v radě orgánů dohledu – zejména pokud jde
 o rozhodnutí, která orgán pro bankovnictví přijímá prostou většinou
 členů –, aby byly odpovídajícím způsobem zohledněny zájmy
 všech členských států a aby mohl orgán pro bankovnictví
 řádně fungovat v zájmu zachování a prohlubování vnitřního
 trhu v oblasti finančních služeb.
 (7) Rozhodnutími týkajícími se
 porušení práva Unie a urovnávání sporů by se měla zabývat nezávislá odborná
 skupina složená z členů rady orgánů dohledu
 s hlasovacím právem, u nichž nedochází k žádnému střetu
 zájmů a které jmenuje rada orgánů dohledu. Rozhodnutí, která odborná
 skupina radě orgánů dohledu navrhne, by se měla považovat za
 přijatá, nejsou-li zamítnuta prostou většinou, která by měla
 zahrnovat odpovídající počet hlasů členů zastupujících členské
 státy, které se jednotného mechanismu dohledu účastní, a členů
 zastupujících členské státy, které se mechanismu neúčastní.
 (8) Na členy nezávislé
 odborné skupiny zřízené podle čl. 41 odst. 2 nařízení (EU)
 č. 1093/2010 by nemělo být nahlíženo tak, že jsou ve střetu
 zájmů, pokud jediným důvodem je, že zastupují příslušné orgány,
 které jsou součástí jednotného mechanismu dohledu, a že má odborná skupina
 rozhodovat ve věci, která se týká jednotného mechanismu dohledu. Orgán pro
 bankovnictví by měl vypracovat jednací řád odborné skupiny, který
 zajistí její nezávislost a objektivitu.
 (9) Složení správní rady by
 mělo být vyvážené a mělo by v ní být zajištěno řádné
 zastoupení členských států, které se jednotného mechanismu dohledu
 neúčastní.
 (10) V zájmu řádného
 fungování orgánu pro bankovnictví a odpovídajícího zastoupení všech
 členských států by měly být způsob hlasování, složení
 správní rady a složení nezávislé odborné skupiny po odpovídající době přehodnoceny
 s ohledem na získané zkušenosti a další vývoj.
 (11) Jelikož cílů tohoto
 nařízení, totiž zajištění vysoké, efektivní a jednotné
 úrovně obezřetnostní regulace a dohledu v celé Evropské
 unii, ochrany integrity, účinnosti a řádného fungování
 finančních trhů a udržování stability finančního systému, nemůže
 být uspokojivě dosaženo na úrovni členských států, a proto
 jich může být z důvodu rozsahu tohoto nařízení lépe
 dosaženo na úrovni Unie, může Unie přijmout opatření
 v souladu se zásadou subsidiarity stanovenou v článku 5
 Smlouvy o Evropské unii. V souladu se zásadou proporcionality
 stanovenou v uvedeném článku nepřekračuje toto
 nařízení rámec toho, co je nezbytné pro dosažení daných cílů,
 PŘIJALY TOTO NAŘÍZENÍ:
 Článek 1
 Nařízení (EU) č. 1093/2010 se
 mění takto:
 1. V článku 4 se bod 2
 podbod i) nahrazuje tímto:
 „i) příslušné orgány ve smyslu
 směrnic 2006/48/ES a 2006/49/ES, včetně Evropské centrální banky
 ve vztahu k záležitostem týkajícím se úkolů, které jsou jí
 svěřeny nařízením Rady (EU) č. .../...* [nařízení Rady
 podle čl. 127 odst. 6 SFEU], ve smyslu směrnice 2007/64/ES a
 příslušné orgány uvedené ve směrnici 2009/110/ES;
 __________________________
 * Úř. věst. L ..., ....., s.... “
 2. Článek 18 se mění
 takto:
 a) Odstavec 1 se nahrazuje tímto:
 „1. V případě
 nepříznivého vývoje, který může vážně ohrozit řádné
 fungování a integritu finančních trhů nebo stabilitu celého
 finančního systému Unie nebo jeho části, orgán pro bankovnictví
 aktivně podporuje a v případě nutnosti koordinuje
 veškerá opatření přijatá dotyčnými příslušnými orgány
 dohledu.
 Aby mohl orgán pro bankovnictví vykonávat svou
 podpůrnou a koordinační roli, musí jej dotyčné
 příslušné orgány dohledu plně informovat o relevantním vývoji
 a zvát v roli pozorovatele na veškerá důležitá jednání.“
 b) Za odstavec 3 se vkládá nový odstavec, který
 zní:
 „3a. Jestliže orgán pro bankovnictví
 v souladu s odstavcem 3 požádá Evropskou centrální banku jako
 příslušný orgán, aby přijala nezbytné opatření, musí mu Evropská
 centrální banka vyhovět, nebo musí orgánu pro bankovnictví do 48 hodin
 náležitě zdůvodnit, proč rozhodnutí nevyhověla.“
 3. V článku 19 se za
 odstavec 3 vkládá nový odstavec, který zní:
 „3a. Jestliže orgán pro bankovnictví
 v souladu s odstavcem 3 požádá Evropskou centrální banku jako
 příslušný orgán, aby přijala konkrétní opatření nebo aby se
 zdržela jednání, musí mu Evropská centrální banka vyhovět, nebo musí
 orgánu pro bankovnictví do deseti pracovních dnů od obdržení žádosti
 náležitě zdůvodnit, proč rozhodnutí nevyhověla.“
 4. V článku 35 se
 odstavce 1, 2 a 3 nahrazují tímto:
 „1. Příslušné
 orgány poskytnou orgánu pro bankovnictví na jeho žádost veškeré informace
 nezbytné pro plnění jeho povinností stanovených tímto nařízením, za
 předpokladu, že mají zákonný přístup k příslušným
 informacím a tato žádost o informace je nezbytná vzhledem
 k povaze dotyčné povinnosti.
 2. Orgán
 pro bankovnictví může také požádat o předkládání informací
 v pravidelném intervalu a ve stanoveném formátu. Pro tyto žádosti se pokud možno použijí jednotné
 formáty pro předkládání zpráv.
 3. Na
 řádně odůvodněnou žádost příslušného orgánu mu
 může orgán pro bankovnictví poskytnout veškeré informace, které jsou
 nezbytné k tomu, aby mohl plnit své povinnosti v souladu
 s povinností zachovávat služební tajemství, kterou stanoví příslušné
 odvětvové právní předpisy a článek 70.“
 5. V článku 41 se
 odstavce 2, 3 a 4 nahrazují tímto:
 „2. Pro účely článků 17 a 19
 zřídí rada orgánů dohledu nezávislou odbornou skupinu, kterou
 tvoří předseda a dva členové jmenovaní radou orgánů dohledu
 z řad členů s hlasovacím právem. Alespoň jeden
 z členů nezávislé odborné skupiny musí pocházet
 z členského státu, který není zúčastněným členským
 státem v souladu s nařízením (EU) č. .../... [nařízení
 Rady podle čl. 127 odst. 6 SFEU].
 Členové odborné skupiny vystupují
 nezávisle a objektivně v souladu s článkem 42 a nezastupují
 dotčený příslušný orgán ani příslušné orgány, jež jsou účastníky
 sporu.
 3. Odborná skupina navrhne rozhodnutí ke
 konečnému přijetí radou orgánů dohledu postupem podle
 čl. 44 odst. 1 třetího pododstavce.
 4. Rada orgánů dohledu přijme
 jednací řád odborné skupiny uvedené v odstavci 2,
 včetně prováděcích pravidel k požadavku stanovenému
 v druhém pododstavci uvedeného odstavce.“
 6. V článku 42 se
 doplňuje nový pododstavec, který zní:
 „Prvním ani druhým pododstavcem nejsou
 dotčeny úkoly, které jsou Evropské centrální bance svěřeny
 nařízením (EU) č. .../... [nařízení Rady podle čl. 127 odst. 6
 SFEU].“
 7. V článku 44 se odstavec
 1 nahrazuje tímto:
 „1. Rozhodnutí
 rady orgánů dohledu jsou přijímána prostou většinou
 členů. Každý člen má jeden
 hlas.
 Pokud jde o akty uvedené
 v článcích 10 až 16 a opatření a rozhodnutí
 přijímaná podle čl. 9 odst. 5 třetího pododstavce
 a kapitoly VI, přijímá rada orgánů dohledu, odchylně od
 prvního pododstavce tohoto odstavce, rozhodnutí kvalifikovanou většinou
 svých členů v souladu s čl. 16 odst. 4
 Smlouvy o Evropské unii a článkem 3 Protokolu
 (č. 36) o přechodných ustanoveních.
 Pokud jde o rozhodnutí podle článků
 17 a 19, považuje se rozhodnutí navržené odbornou skupinou za přijaté,
 není-li zamítnuto prostou většinou, která zahrnuje alespoň tři
 hlasy členů zastupujících zúčastněné členské státy a tři
 hlasy členů zastupujících členské státy, které nejsou ani
 zúčastněnými členskými státy v souladu s nařízením
 (EU) č. .../... [nařízení Rady podle čl. 127 odst. 6 SFEU], ani
 nenavázaly úzkou spolupráci s Evropskou centrální bankou v souladu
 s uvedeným nařízením.
 Od data, kdy se počet členských
 států, které nejsou zúčastněnými členskými státy v souladu
 s nařízením (EU) č. .../... [nařízení Rady podle čl. 127 odst.
 6 SFEU], ani nenavázaly úzkou spolupráci s Evropskou centrální bankou v souladu
 s uvedeným nařízením, sníží na čtyři nebo méně, se
 odchylně od třetího pododstavce považuje rozhodnutí navržené odbornou
 skupinou za přijaté, není-li zamítnuto prostou většinou, která
 zahrnuje alespoň jeden hlas členů zastupujících uvedené
 členské státy.
 Každý člen má jeden hlas.
 Pokud jde o složení odborné skupiny podle
 čl. 41 odst. 2, usiluje rada orgánů dohledu o dosažení obecné shody. Jestliže se jí dosáhnout nepodaří,
 přijímá rada orgánů dohledu rozhodnutí tříčtvrtinovou
 většinou hlasů svých členů. Každý
 člen má jeden hlas.“
 8. V čl. 45 odst. 1 se
 třetí pododstavec nahrazuje tímto:
 „Funkční období členů volených
 radou orgánů dohledu je dva a půl roku.
 Toto období může být jednou prodlouženo. Složení
 správní rady musí být vyvážené a úměrné a musí odrážet složení
 Unie jako celku. Správní radu tvoří
 alespoň dva zástupci členských států, které nejsou
 zúčastněnými členskými státy v souladu s nařízením
 [nařízení Rady podle čl. 127 odst. 6 SFEU] ani nenavázaly úzkou
 spolupráci s Evropskou centrální bankou v souladu s uvedeným
 nařízením. Mandáty se musejí
 překrývat a použije se vhodný postup pro rotaci členů.“
 Článek 2
 Aniž je dotčen článek 81
 nařízení (EU) č. 1093/2010, Komise do 1. ledna 2016 zveřejní
 zprávu o použití ustanovení tohoto nařízení, pokud jde o:
 a) vhodnost způsobu hlasování;
 b) složení správní rady; a
 c) složení nezávislé odborné skupiny,
 která připravuje rozhodnutí pro účely článků 17 a 19.
 Tato zpráva zejména zohlední jakýkoli vývoj
 v řadě členských států, jejichž měnou je euro
 nebo jejichž příslušné orgány začaly úzce spolupracovat podle
 článku 6 nařízení .../...., a zjistí, zda na základě takového vývoje
 nejsou nezbytné případné další úpravy uvedených ustanovení, aby bylo
 zajištěno, že orgán pro bankovnictví přijímá rozhodnutí v zájmu
 udržení a posílení vnitřního trhu v oblasti finančních služeb.
 Článek 3
 Toto nařízení vstupuje v platnost
 prvním dnem po vyhlášení v Úředním věstníku Evropské unie.
 Toto nařízení je závazné
 v celém rozsahu a přímo použitelné ve všech členských
 státech.
 V Bruselu dne
 Za Evropský parlament Za
 Radu
 předseda předseda
 [1] Úř. věst. C ..., ..., s. ....
 [2] Úř. věst. C ..., ..., s. ....
 [3]


type: contracts

text:
 27.11.2014
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 L 342/46
 DECISÃO DO COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE
 N.o 138/2014
 de 27 de junho de 2014
 que altera o anexo XX (Ambiente) do Acordo EEE
 O COMITÉ MISTO DO EEE,
 Tendo em conta o Acordo sobre o Espaço Económico Europeu, a seguir designado por «Acordo EEE», nomeadamente o artigo 98.o,
 Considerando o seguinte:
 (1)
 A Decisão 2013/793/UE da Comissão, de 19 de dezembro de 2013, que altera a Decisão 2007/506/CE com o objetivo de prorrogar a validade dos critérios ecológicos para atribuição do rótulo ecológico da UE a sabonetes, champôs e condicionadores de cabelo (1), deve ser incorporada no Acordo EEE.
 (2)
 O anexo XX do Acordo EEE deve, por conseguinte, ser alterado em conformidade,
 ADOTOU A PRESENTE DECISÃO:
 Artigo 1.o
 No Anexo XX do Acordo EEE, no ponto 2y (Decisão 2007/506/CE da Comissão), é aditado o seguinte travessão:
 «—
 32013 D 0793: Decisão 2013/793/UE da Comissão, de 19 de dezembro de 2013 (JO L 349 de 21.12.2013, p. 104).»
 Artigo 2.o
 Fazem fé os textos da Decisão 2013/793/UE nas línguas islandesa e norueguesa, que serão publicados no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Artigo 3.o
 A presente decisão entra em vigor em 28 de junho de 2014, desde que tenham sido efetuadas todas as notificações previstas no artigo 103.o, n.o 1, do Acordo EEE (2).
 Artigo 4.o
 A presente decisão é publicada na Secção EEE e no Suplemento EEE do Jornal Oficial da União Europeia.
 Feito em Bruxelas, em 27 de junho de 2014.
 Pelo Comité Misto do EEE
 O Presidente
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) JO L 349 de 21.12.2013, p. 104.
 (2) Não foram indicados requisitos constitucionais.


type: wikipedia

text:
Džaba Ioseliani (10. juuli 1926 Gruusia, Hašuri – 4. märts 2003, Gruusia, Thbilisi) oli Gruusia Sõjaväenõukogu (täitis presidendi kohuseid) kaasjuht koos Tengiz Kitovaniga 6. jaanuarist 10. märtsini 1992, seaduslik varas. Gruusia sõjaväestatud marurahvusliku paramilitaarse üksuse Mhedrioni asutaja 1989. a. Enne 1995 aastat mõisteti D. Ioseliani kahel korral kokku 30 aastaks toime pandud varguste, tapmise ja pangaröövi eest kinnipidamisasutusse karistust kandma. 1995. a süüdistati teda Gruusia riigi reetmises, Eduard Ševardnadzele atentaadi korraldamises ja mitme mõrva organiseerises ning ta mõisteti 11 aastaks kinnipidamiskohta.
 Välislingid
 Jaba Ioseliani. Violent. Warlord in post-Communist Georgia
 Dzhaba Ioseliani - 76. Oft-Imprisoned Leader of Georgian Paramilitary Force
 RAYMOND BONNER Georgian Fighter Wields Guns, Money and Charm The New York Times 16/11/1993
 Mkhedrioni trial in Georgia postponed again 21/08/2008
 GEORGIA: HUMAN RIGHTS AND CHANGING AUTHORITIES Former Political Prisoners for Human Rights 21/08/2008
 Забытые уроки Джабы Иоселиани Александр КРЫЛОВ НОВАЯ ПОЛИТИКА 21/08/2008
 О ворах в законе и Джабе Иоселиани
 Джаба Константинович Иоселиани - ჯაბა იოსელიანი
 Christoph Zürcher Georgia's time of troubles 1989-1993 21/08/2008
 Fotografía de Dzhaba Ioseliani en una iglesia ortodoxa
 Gruusia inimesed
 Sündinud 1926
 Surnud 2003


text:
Healthcare in Chennai is provided by both government-run and private hospitals. Chennai attracts about 45 percent of health tourists from abroad arriving in the country and 30 to 40 percent of domestic health tourists. The city has been termed India's health capital. Multi- and super-specialty hospitals across the city bring in an estimated 150 international patients every day. Factors behind the tourists' inflow in the city include low costs, little to no waiting period, and facilities offered at the speciality hospitals in the city.
 History
 The medical lineage of the city began with the first hospital of India set up at Fort St. George on 16 November 1664 by Sir Edward Winter to treat sick soldiers of the East India Company. The hospital grew, expanded, and moved out of the fort to its present location in 1772, where it stands today as the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, and was opened to Indians in 1842. In 1785, medical departments were set up in Bengal, Madras, and Bombay presidencies with 234 surgeons.
 Although the Western system of medicine was brought to India by the Portuguese, the base for a systematised and widespread network of government-run hospitals began with the hospital in Madras, as the city was known then. Throughout the colonial era, doctors from Europe and Eurasia trained and practised at the first hospital. Between 1800 and 1820, about four hospitals were formed in Madras. In 1835, Madras Medical College was set up, making it one of the oldest colleges of European medicine in Asia. In 1854, when the British government agreed to supply medicines and instruments to the growing network of minor hospitals and dispensaries, government store depots were established in Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, and Rangoon. In 1900, the Christian Medical College, Vellore was established, attracting some of the best talents in the United States. The Madras Public Health Act, the first of its kind in the country, was passed in 1939.
 In the later half of the twentieth century, many prominent institutions began to appear in the city. The Cancer Institute in Adyar was set up in 1954, and Sankara Nethralaya was founded in 1976, adding to the city's reputation. Along with the Government General Hospital they served as renowned centres for diagnosis, treatment and research for decades. The establishment of the Apollo Hospital in the city in 1983 marked the advent of corporate hospitals in the country. The city is where one of the earliest paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) was established in the 1990s.
 Today, Chennai is the hub of medical tourism in the country, an industry that is expected to grow at an estimated 30% per year, which is expected to become worth about 95,000 million by 2015, according to the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India.
 Healthcare institutes
 The government-aided hospitals in the city include General Hospital, Government multi-super speciality hospital, Government Kilpauk Hospital, Government Royapettah Hospital, Government Stanley Hospital, Adyar Cancer Institute, TB Sanatorium, and National Institute of Siddha. The National Institute of Siddha is one of the seven apex national-level educational institutions that promote excellence in Indian system of medicine and Ayurveda. Non-profit hospitals in the city include the Hindu Mission Hospital. Some of the popular private-run hospitals in Chennai are Apollo Hospitals, SIMS Hospital, Dr. Kamakshi Memorial Hospitals, Chettinad Health City, Billroth Hospitals, MIOT Hospital, Global Health City, SRM Hospital, Vasan Healthcare, Kauvery Hospital, Deepam Pallavaram Hospital, Dr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre and OneHealth Super Speciality Hospital. The prime NABH-accredited hospitals includes Chennai Apollo Speciality Hospital, Dr Mehta Hospitals, Frontier Lifeline Hospital, Global Hospitals & Health City, Sankara Nethralaya, and Vijaya Medical & Educational Trust. Apollo Hospitals Group has five hospitals in the city, including a main hospital and a speciality oncology hospital, with a total bed count of 1,100. The city has about seven palliative care units. Poonamallee High Road, one of the arterial roads of the city, has more hospitals than any other roads in the city and is known as the city's 'Med street'.As of 2012, the city had an estimated 12,500 hospital beds, of which only half is used by the city's population with the rest being shared by patients from other states of the country and foreigners. It is estimated that the number of beds in multi-specialty hospitals in the private sector in the city is in the range of 5,000 beds, whereas in the public sector it is over 6,000 beds. This works to 2.1 beds per 1,000 population against the national average of less than 1 bed per 1,000 population, making the city better than other cities in the country, viz., Delhi (1.4), Mumbai (0.8), Kolkata (0.8), Hyderabad (1.5) and Bangalore (2.1). However, this still does not fulfil World Health Organization norms of three beds per 1,000 persons. By mid-2012, with the addition of at least 3,000 beds in four leading hospitals in the city, the private hospital sector in the city is expected to increase its bed strength by nearly 25 percent. As of 2019, four government hospitals have pay wards, namely, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital (198 beds), Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Government Hospital for Women and Children (46 beds), Government Kasturba Gandhi Hospital for Women and Children (32 beds), and Gastrointestinal Bleed Centre of Government Stanley Medical College Hospital (58 beds). The occupancy rates in these pay wards was 90 to 100 percent.
 According to Chennai Corporation sources, there are about 250 registered laboratories in the city, although there are almost thrice as many unregistered ones. The city has six units of the state government's co-operative drug stores across the state known as Kamadhenu co-operative medical stores, where a wide range of 13,000 important medicines would be sold, including 6,000 medicines available on any given day. The government is planning to add 10 more stores in the city.
 In May 2011, Corporation of Chennai initiated an online direct health-reporting system under which all the hospitals in the city are required to provide details of the patients on a daily basis to the corporation.
 Home Healthcare
 Home healthcare and Home Nursing are also a growing phenomena in India. India Home Health Care is one such service provider, based in Chennai and Bangalore with over 300 nurses. Now, on-demand platforms like "Treat at Home" app are providing services like doctor home visit, nursing, caretaking and physiotherapy to patients at home by connecting them with their nearest available providers.
 Medical education
 The city has four government medical colleges and one ESI medical college, apart from private medical colleges. The four government-run colleges include Madras Medical College, Stanley Medical College, Kilpauk Medical College, and Omandurar Government Medical College.
 Medical tourism
 With people from across the country and abroad preferring to get treated in the hospitals in Chennai, the city is increasingly becoming a hub of medical tourism. According to a study by Confederation of Indian Industries (CII), Chennai attracts about 40 percent of the country's medical tourists. As of 2013, the city receives up to 200 foreign patients every day. The Coromandel Express, which plies between Kolkata and Chennai, is nicknamed 'Ambulance Express' in Howrah since it regularly ferries a chunk of patients from the eastern region for medical treatment at hospitals in Chennai. Foreigners, especially those from developing and underdeveloped countries such as Nigeria, Kenya, Burundi, Congo, Malawi, Bangladesh, Oman and Iraq, come to the city for advanced medical care. About 150 Maldivian patients arrive at the city every day for medical treatment, which resulted in Maldivian Airlines launching a thrice-a-week direct flight from Male to Chennai. From Malawi, numerous patients are travelling to India. Their most preferred destination is Chennai & Medobal healthcare. However, there are no consolidated statistics about the number of foreign patients that the city receives. Most leading hospitals, which receive a steady stream of patients from other states of India and abroad every day, have separate wings for international patients. Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre receives up to 100 overseas patients a month. Dr.Kamakshi Memorial Hospital receives 10 to 15 foreign patients in a month. Fortis Malar Hospital receives 15 to 20 foreign patients a month. Madras Medical Mission receives 14 foreign medical tourists every month, mainly from East African nations. Sankara Nethralaya receives nearly 500 overseas patients a month. MIOT Hospitals receives nearly 300 foreign patients every month. The Medical Tourism Industry in India is expected to reach US$9 Billion by 2020.
 Special certifications
 With more than 75 percent of the medical tourists being from the Middle East, hospitals in the city are vying for 'halal' certification. On 14 May 2012, the city-based Global Health City became the first in the country to receive the halal certification from the Halal Development Authority. Other hospitals in the city that have applied for the certification include Mehta Hospitals and Lifeline Hospitals. Halal-friendly medical tourism services include food, prayer hall, 'quiblah' (the direction of Mecca) signs in every room, prayer mat, copies of Quran and appointments of woman physicians for woman patients.
 Supportive infrastructure
 In January 2010, Aloka Trivitron Medical Technologies Park, the country's first medical technological park, was inaugurated in the SIPCOT complex at Irungattukottai in Sriperumbudur. Spread across 25 acres, the medical technology park, a facility to produce high-tech medical equipment, is designed to house 10 international medical technology manufacturers, in addition to Trivitron's own manufacturing units. The range of products to be manufactured at the medical technology park include ultrasound systems, X-ray machines/C-arm, in-vitro diagnostic reagents, modular operating theatres, operating room tables and lights, molecular diagnostic products, hemodialysis products, ECG/cardiac diagnostic instruments, critical care instruments and implantable medical devices.
 NGOs and Non-Profits
 Chennai has a strong base of healthcare non-profit organisations and non-government organisations. One such example is the Indian Heart Association, focused on cardiovascular health prevention.
 Other NGO example includes MOHAN Foundation that works for awareness for cadaver donation since 1997 and creating an organ sharing registry in the state of Tamil Nadu.
 Facts and records
 A former superintendent of the Regional Institute of Ophthalmology in the city, Kirk Patrick, was the first to have found the adenovirus that caused conjunctivitis, leading to the name Madras eye for the disease.
 The city is preeminent in transplant surgery, with several city-based hospitals creating records in such surgeries. Chennai recorded the first ever liver transplant in the country in the Government Stanley Medical College in the 1990s.
 In May 2011, the Madras Medical College opened the first-of-its-kind Orthopaedic Cadaveric Skills Lab in any government college in the country to train post graduate students in cadaveric dissection.
 In March 2012, the Government General Hospital performed its 1,000th kidney transplant, the highest in any government hospital in the country, of which about 90 were cadaver transplants.
 In 2008, the state government established a cadaver transplant programme at the Chennai Medical College. The programme has a regular transplant-coordinator and a computerised network linking government and private hospitals. Apollo Hospitals and the Government General Hospital continues to be the two main sources of cadaveric organs in the city. With the organ donor rate in the state of Tamil Nadu standing at 1.2 per million population, which is 15 times the national average, Chennai acts as a hub of deceased organ donation in India.
 Tamil Nadu has been the number one state in deceased donation. It has been awarded the best performing state in organ donation and transplantation in India by the Indian government for 2015 and 2016.
 In 2009, a group of doctors and specialists in Chennai and Coimbatore registered the successful treatment of thalassemia in a child using a sibling's umbilical cord blood.
 Future projects
 In August 2011, the state government decided to convert the much controversial, half-constructed Assembly-Secretariat complex in the city, built at an estimated 10,920 million, into a multi-specialty hospital.
 The city-based KM Cherian–promoted Frontier Lifeline has proposed a 10,000-million medicity project named Frontier Mediville on 350 acres of land of which 42 acres had received special economic zone (SEZ) status from the central government in 2009. Located at Elavur village, 40 km from the city centre, the project will be executed in three phases. The 1,600-million first phase will comprise a medical science park in the SEZ zone. It also includes a research and training centre and an animal laboratory to house clinical research organisations (CROs). The second will costing 5,000 million includes a 1,440-million bio hospital with 200 beds in the SEZ. The bio hospital is expected to be the first of its kind in India, designed as tertiary care in all sub-specialities of medicine supported by modern basic sciences including stem cell technology, tissue engineering and nanotechnology, which would also focus on integration of traditional and alternate medicinal technologies such as ayurveda, naturopathy, and siddha to the services. The second phase also includes another 750-bed multispeciality general hospital to be developed outside the SEZ.
 In 2014, the Indian government decided to establish a regional centre for organ transplant in Chennai, which would be one of the five regional centres in the country. The regional centres would collect data and send it to the national registry. The Chennai centre would cover the southern states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Pondicherry, and Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep islands.
 Criticisms
 Despite being known as the 'Mecca' of healthcare, only six private hospitals in the city have been accredited by the National Board for Accreditation of Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) as of 2012.
 However, per a release by National Board for Accreditation of Hospitals and Healthcare Providers, over 23 hospitals in the city were NABH accredited as of 2017.
 Per a research published in the August 2011 issue of the Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, there was no evidence of falsification of medicines in a sampling study carried out in the city, though 43 percent of drugs were substandard.
 See also
 Healthcare in India
 List of hospitals in India
 Medical tourism in India
 Organ transplantation in Tamil Nadu
 References
 External links
 Chennai Doctors webpage
 C


type: other

text:
Rob Tielman blogt: 2018-09-09
 261. Is homo-nieuws geen nieuws? (3)
 Onder de vraag "Is homo-nieuws geen nieuws?" plaatste ik op zaterdag 21 mei 2016 en op zaterdag 11 november 2017 blogberichten met tientallen voorbeelden waaruit bleek dat veel media aan homo-nieuws geen of weinig aandacht besteden. Een van de redenen is dat media vaak vinden dat goed nieuws geen nieuws is. Daardoor ontstaat ten onrechte het beeld dat de wereld nu achteruit holt terwijl het tegendeel het geval is. In het vorig jaar meest bekeken blogbericht 226, Terugblik op 2017: populismegolf gestopt, onderbouw ik dat met talloze feiten. In dit blogbericht bespreek ik waarom het te betreuren is dat de legalisering van homoseksualiteit in India zo weinig aandacht kreeg in de meeste media.
 Geschiedenis van gelijkgeslachtelijke relaties in India
 Bijvoorbeeld uit de Kamasutra en homo-erotische tempelbeelden blijkt duidelijk dat gelijkgeslachtelijke seks al eeuwenlang in India heel gebruikelijk was. Het ook in India rondvertelde verhaal dat homoseksualiteit een 'westerse ziekte' zou zijn, is dus om twee redenen onzin: het is volgens de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie WHO geen ziekte en het bestaat al duizenden eeuwen in India. Net als in de rest van Azië en wereldwijd dus.
 Koloniale strafbaarstelling van 'tegennatuurlijke' seks in India
 Niet homoseksualiteit is uit het Westen afkomstig maar de antihomoseksuele koloniale wetgeving die in 1868 in India werd ingevoerd (met levenslang!). Net als overigens in de rest van het Britse koloniale rijk zoals ik uiteenzet in blogbericht 19: "No sex please, we're British!" In die wetgeving wordt homoseks 'tegennatuurlijk' genoemd. Ook dat is om twee redenen onzin. Gelijkgeslachtelijke seks komt in het hele dierenrijk voor en iets hoeft niet in het dierenrijk voor te komen (zoals godsdienst en celibaat) om toch gedoogd te worden.
 Democratie als dictatuur van een meerderheid of als rechtstaat?
 De afschaffing van de strafbaarstelling van homoseksualiteit in India ging niet zonder slag of stoot. Op 2 juli 2009 bepaalde het hoge gerechtshof van Delhi dat die strafbaarstelling in strijd met de grondwet en met de mensenrechten was. Op 11 december 2013 verwierp het hooggerechtshof van India dit omdat zo'n beslissing door de wetgever genomen zou moeten worden. Maar toen duidelijk werd dat veel volksvertegenwoordigers vanwege de heersende antihomohaat in India hieraan hun vingers niet wilden branden, nam op 6 september 2018 het hooggerechtshof unaniem de beslissing om toch een einde aan deze strafbaarstelling te maken. Terecht, want democratie is niet de dictatuur van een of andere meerderheid maar de maatschappelijke vormgeving van het beginsel dat mensen zelf inhoud en vorm mogen geven aan hun leven zolang zij de zelfbeschikking van anderen niet aantasten. Daar zouden zogenaamd democratische leiders Poetin, Erdogan, Xi en Trump nog wat van kunnen leren.
 Waarom is dit besluit belangrijk? Onder populisten heerst de ernstige misvatting dat een meerderheidsbeslissing door een referendum het summum van democratie zou zijn. Maar als het gaat om de mensenrechten van individuen en van zelfgekozen minderheden kunnen referenda gevaarlijk zijn. Dictatuur van een intolerante meerderheid is geen democratie.
 In de tweede plaats leeft nu dankzij de 1,3 miljard inwoners van India, de 1,4 miljard inwoners van China, de 0,5 miljard inwoners van de Europese Unie alsook de 0,3 miljard inwoners van de VS een meerderheid van de wereldbewoners in een land waar homoseks niet strafbaar is. Net zoals aan het steeds groeiend aantal landen waar nu sprake is van huwelijksgelijkberechtiging zouden media daar wel wat meer aandacht mogen besteden. Dit is een feest waard: voor het eerst leeft een meerderheid zonder straf op homoseks!
 Naschrift. Op 5 november 2018 roept de Europese Unie Tanzania ter verantwoording voor een antihomocampagne die in Dar es Salaam gepland is. Er worden sancties tegen Tanzania ingesteld. Dit bericht krijgt weinig aandacht. Op 14 november 2018 werd bekend dat de Caribische Hof van Justitie de anti-travestie-wetgeving in Guyana ongrondwettelijk verklaard. Guyana is het enige land in Zuid-Amerika dat homoseksualiteit strafbaar stelt. Dit bericht krijgt in Nederlandse media geen aandacht. Op 21 december 2018 plaatst www.nu.nl een overzicht van goed (homo)nieuws. Weinig andere media doen dit. Op 23 januari 2019 werd homoseksualiteit niet langer strafbaar in Angola. Dit bericht kreeg geen aandacht in Nederlandse media. Op 12 maart 2019 stemde de Senaat in Nederland voor een verbod op discriminatie van trans- en genderpersonen. Ook hier was geen aandacht voor in Nederlandse media. Op 2 april 2019 kreeg Chicago als de eerste grote stad in de VS een openlijk lesbische en zwarte burgemeester. Weinig aandacht in Nederlandse media. Vanaf 3 april 2019 mag homoseksualiteit met stenigen worden bestraft in het islamitische Brunei. Dit bericht kreeg wel wereldwijd veel aandacht. Op 23 april 2019 blijkt dat de verklaring van het Europees Parlement tegen Brunei's stenigen van homo's niet de media haalt (goed nieuws is geen nieuws) maar wel dat Brunei zich daar niets van aantrekt. Op 2 mei 2019 doen leiders uit de internationale zakenwereld een oproep om Brunei en aanverwante bedrijven te boycotten. Dat bericht krijgt weinig aandacht, wel dat Brunei het stenigen opschort. Op 13 mei 2019 wordt bekend dat de haatprediker Anderson ook Ierland niet in mag komen. Dat bericht krijgt veel minder aandacht dan de weigering hem in Nederland toe te laten. Op 17 mei 2019 stelt, als eerste Aziatische land, Taiwan het huwelijk open voor paren van gelijk geslacht. Op deze wereldwijde dag tegen homohaat erkent KNVB-voorzitter Van Praag dat de Nederlandse voetbalwereld nog homovijandig is. Ook op dezelfde dag stemt het Amerikaanse Huis van Afgevaardigden met een meerderheid van 236 tegen 173 voor een wet die discriminatie tegen lhbt's verbiedt: vrijwel geen aandacht hiervoor in Nederlandse media. Op 23 mei 2019 stelt het hooggerechtshof van Brazilië discriminatie van homo's, lesbo's en transgenders strafbaar. Dit bericht krijgt weinig aandacht. Op 24 mei 2019 worden in Taiwan de eerste huwelijken voor paren van gelijk geslacht gesloten. Hiervoor is wel enige aandacht. Op 28 mei 2019 stemde de Tweede Kamer voor strafbaarstelling van de zogenaamde 'homogenezingen'. De christelijke partijen en de rechtse PVV en FvD stemden tegen strafbaarstelling. Dat laatste kreeg vrijwel geen aandacht in de media. Op 11 juni 2019 bepaalde het hooggerechtshof van Botswana dat de Brits koloniale strafbaarstelling van homoseksualiteit in strijd is met de grondwet. Dit bericht kreeg een beetje aandacht in de media. Op 13 juni 2019 werd bekend dat het hooggerechtshof van Ecuador besluit tot huwelijksgelijkberechtiging. Op 14 juni 2019 besluit het hooggerechtshof van Brazilië dat homofobie strafbaar is, tot grote ergernis van de homovijandige president. Op 12 juli 2019 besloot de Mensenrechtenraad van de VN om het mandaat te hernieuwen van de expert inzake de bescherming tegen geweld en discriminatie op basis van seksuele oriëntatie en genderidentiteit. Dit bericht kreeg geen aandacht in de Nederlandse media. Op 1 augustus 2019 werd bekend dat de rechtbank in Warschau de verspreiding verbiedt van haatdragende anti-homo-stickers. Kreeg vrijwel geen aandacht in Nederlandse media. Op 8 september 2019 werd voor het eerst een Pride in Sarajewo gehouden. Die verliep rustig en er was vrijwel geen aandacht voor in Nederlandse media. Vanaf 8 september 2019 is het middelbaar beroepsonderwijs verplicht de acceptatie van lhbti-ers te bevorderen. Zes op de tien lhbti-studenten in het mbo hebben te maken met negatieve reacties terwijl bijna de helft van de mbo-scholen daar geen aandacht aan besteed. Het bevorderen van lhbti-acceptatie is al verplicht op alle scholen voor basis- en voortgezet onderwijs.


text:
O Morane-Saulnier H foi um avião esportivo monoplano, monomotor em configuração de tração produzido na França nos anos imediatamente anteriores à Primeira Guerra Mundial, um monoposto derivado do bem sucedido Morane-Saulnier G com envergadura um pouco menor Como o Tipo G, ele foi um avião esportivo e de corridas de sucesso.
 Histórico
 Durante o segundo encontro aéreo internacional, ocorrido em Wiener Neustadt em Junho de 1913, Roland Garros ganhou o prêmio de pouso de precisão com um Tipo H. Mais tarde, no mesmo ano, Um Morane-Saulnier H foi usado para completar o primeiro voo sem escalas cruzando o Mediterrâneo, de Fréjus no Sul da França para Bizerte na Tunísia.
 O Exército Francês encomendou um lote de 26 aviões, e o Royal Flying Corps também o adquiriu em pequena quantidade, essas últimas compradas de Grahame-White, que estava fabricando o modelo no Reino Unido sob licença. Os aviões franceses participaram de maneira bastante limitada nos primeiros estágios da Guerra, com alguns pilotos entrando em combates aéreos usando revólveres e carabinas.
 Esse modelo também foi produzido sob licença na Alemanha pela Pfalz Flugzeugwerke, que o construiu sob as designações: E.I, E.II, E.IV, E.V, e E.VI, com motores de potências crescentes. Estes eram armados com uma única metralhadora LMG08/15 de 7,92 mm sincronizada.
 Uma outra versão fabricada na Alemanha pela Fokker, era um pouco maior e tinha a fuselagem feita com aço tubular, um trem de pouso redesenhado, um pouco mais largo e integrado ao suporte das asas e um leme em formato de "vírgula". Entrou em produção como o Fokker M.5. Em 1915, esse avião foi equipado com uma metralhadora sincronizada, formando a base para a linha de caças Fokker Eindecker.
 Sobreviventes
 Um exemplar do Tipo H está preservado no Musée de l'Air et de l'Espace em Le Bourget.
 Variantes
 Versões Morane-Saulnier
 MoS.2 G (biposto)
 MoS.3 L (configuração parasol)
 MoS.13 M (monoposto armado)
 Versões Pfalz
 E.I - com o motor Oberursel U.0 giratório (45 construídos)
 E.II - com o motor Oberursel U.I giratório (130 construídos)
 E.IV - com o motor Oberursel U.III giratório (46 construídos)
 E.V - com o motor Mercedes D.I refrigerado à água (20 construídos)
 E.VI - com o motor Oberursel U.I, fuselagem e cauda maiores (20 construídos como treinadores)
 Versão Fokker
 Fokker M.5 - base dos caças Fokker Eindecker.
 Usuários
 Áustria-Hungria
 Império Alemão
 Império Russo
 Especificação
 Estas são as características do Morane-Saulnier H
 Características gerais:
 Tripulação: um
 Comprimento: 5,48 m
 Envergadura: 9,12 m
 Altura: 2,26 m
 Peso vazio: 188 kg
 Peso máximo na decolagem: 444 kg
 Motor: 1 x Le Rhône 9C, de 80 hp.
 Performance:
 Velocidade máxima: 120 km/h
 Alcance: 177 km
 Teto de Serviço: 1.000 m
 Ver também
 Fokker M.5
 Bibliografia
 Ligações externas
 Morane Saulnier H. French early aircraft 1913
 Morane-Saulnier Type H (a)
 Le Morane type H de l’AJBS
 Morane-Saulnier G/H
 Morane-Saulnier Type H (b)
 MORANE SAULNIER H-13
 H
 Aviões produzidos na França
 Aviões militares a pistão
 Aviões da Primeira Guerra Mundial (França)
 1913 na aviação
 1914 na aviação