jurisdiction: US

text:
 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 42 CFR Part 100
 RIN 0906-AB24
 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table
 AGENCY:
 Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
 ACTION:
 Notice of proposed withdrawal; request for comments.
 SUMMARY:
 HHS proposes rescinding the final rule entitled “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table,” published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2021. That final rule, if it were to go into effect, would amend our regulations by removing Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), vasovagal syncope, and the new vaccines category (Item XVII) from the Vaccine Injury Table (Table). HHS seeks comments on this proposed rescission.
 DATES:
 The final rule published January 21, 2021, at 86 FR 6249, delayed February 23, 2021, at 86 FR 10835, is proposed to be withdrawn. Written comments and related material to this proposed withdrawal must be received on or before April 16, 2021.
 ADDRESSES:
 You may submit written comments electronically by the following method: Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions on the website for submitting comments.
 Instructions. Include the HHS Docket No. HRSA-2021-0001 in your comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. Please do not include any personally identifiable or confidential business information you do not want publicly disclosed.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 Please visit the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program's website, https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/, or contact Tamara Overby, Acting Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Healthcare Systems Bureau, HRSA, Room 08N146B, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; by email at vaccinecompensation@hrsa.gov; or by telephone at (855) 266-2427.
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
 This is a notice of proposed rulemaking by which HHS proposes to rescind the final rule titled “National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Revisions to the Vaccine Injury Table,” (final rule), January 21, 2021, 86 FR 6249, delayed February 23, 2021, 86 FR 10835, which, if it were to go into effect, would amend the provisions of 42 CFR 100.3 by removing Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA), vasovagal syncope, and the new vaccines category (Item XVII) from the Table.
 I. Background and Purpose
 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, title III of Public Law 99-660 (42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq.) (Vaccine Act), established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines to be compensated. The Vaccine Act has been amended several times since 1986.
 Petitions for compensation under this Program are filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims (Court), with a copy served on the Secretary, who is the “Respondent.” The Court, acting through judicial officers called Special Masters, makes findings as to eligibility for, and the amount of, compensation. To be found entitled to an award under the VICP, a petitioner must establish a vaccine-related injury or death, either by proving that a vaccine actually caused or significantly aggravated an injury (causation-in-fact) or by demonstrating the occurrence of what has been referred to as a Table injury. That is, a petitioner may show that the vaccine recipient suffered an injury of the type enumerated in the regulations at 42 CFR 100.3—the Vaccine Injury Table—corresponding to the vaccination in question, and that the onset of such injury took place within a time period also specified in the Table. The Table is accompanied by, among other provisions, the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation (QAI), which defines the injuries and conditions listed on the Table. If these criteria are met, the injury is presumed to have been caused by the vaccination, and the petitioner is entitled to compensation (assuming that other requirements are satisfied), unless the respondent affirmatively shows that the injury was caused by some factor other than the vaccination (see 42 U.S.C. 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(i), 300aa-13(a)(1)(B)), and 300aa-14(a)). Currently, cases are often resolved by negotiated settlements between the parties and approved by the Court. In such situations, HHS and the Court have not concluded, based upon review of the evidence, that the vaccine caused the alleged injury.
 Revisions to the Table are authorized under the Vaccine Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(c)-(e)). The Vaccine Act prohibits the Secretary of HHS from proposing a revision to the Table “unless the Secretary has first provided to the [Advisory] Commission [on Childhood Vaccines] a copy of the proposed regulation or revision, requested recommendations and comments by the Commission, and afforded the Commission at least 90 days to make such recommendations” (42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(d)). Further, once the proposed revision is published, the Secretary must afford the public at least 180 days of public comment (42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(c)(1)).
 HHS added SIRVA and vasovagal syncope to the Table in March 2017, following an extensive, multi-year process that involved nine HHS workgroups, including HRSA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the 2012 Institute of Medicine report, “Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality,” 82 FR 6294-95. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) provided a 180-day comment period that resulted in the receipt of 14 written comments; 13 from individuals and one from a national organization (Id. at 6296). In addition, a public hearing on the proposed rule was held on January 14, 2016 (Id.). Almost a year after considering the 14 written comments and the remarks at the public hearing, HHS issued the final rule that added SIRVA and vasovagal syncope to the Table (Id. at 6294).
 On July 20, 2020, HHS published an NPRM proposing to amend the Table by removing SIRVA, vasovagal syncope, and new vaccines category (Item XVII), 85 FR 43794. Item XVII includes “[a]ny new vaccine recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for routine administration to children, after publication by the Secretary of a notice of coverage.” SIRVA and vasovagal syncope are also listed as associated injuries for this category. That NPRM stated that HHS provided its proposed revisions to the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) for its comments “on or about February 15, 2020,” and that “[a]s part of its mandate under the [Vaccine] Act, the ACCV considered the proposed changes set forth in this NPRM on March 6, 2020, and May 18, 2020” (Id. at 43799 & n. 19). However, the NPRM was not officially provided to the ACCV as a group in mid-February 2020, and, while the statute requires the Secretary to request “recommendations and comments by the Commission,” instead the draft NPRM was mailed in hard copy to each of the ACCV members, marked “privileged and confidential,” with a request for comments from the individual members. Although the then-Chair started the first brief discussion of the draft NPRM at the ACCV meeting on March 6, 2020, the draft NPRM was not on the agenda (see https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/advisory-committees/vaccines/meetings/2020/accv-agenda-march2020.pdf), and no members of the ACCV other than the then-Chair knew in advance that it would be discussed. One ACCV member commented at the meeting that she thought that the members were not permitted to discuss the draft NPRM. Several members stated that they had questions about the draft NPRM and wished to have further discussion (see https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/advisory-committees/vaccines/meetings/2020/accv-march-meeting-minutes.pdf).
 At the May 18, 2020, ACCV meeting, three ACCV members expressed their concern that no HHS representative was present to explain the draft NPRM, provide scientific evidence in support, or discuss the recommendations with the ACCV members (see https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/advisory-committees/vaccines/meetings/2020/accv-may-meeting-minutes.pdf). It was highly unusual for HHS to propose a revision to the Table without sending an agency representative to discuss the proposal with the ACCV. The ACCV unanimously voted to oppose the proposed changes to the Table, and sent a recommendation to the Secretary opposing the draft NPRM for many reasons including: (1) No representative from HHS was made available to provide the evidence and reasoning behind the draft NPRM; (2) SIRVA and vasovagal syncope, though rare, are injuries caused by vaccines; (3) exposing vaccine administrators to civil liability could be a disincentive to vaccine administration and result in lower vaccination rates; and (4) the explanation in the draft NPRM did not meet the ACCV's guiding principles for recommending changes to the VICP Table (see https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/advisory-committees/vaccines/reports/accv-recommendation-may-2020.pdf).
 On October 29, 2020, HHS published in the Federal Register a Notice that a hearing on the NPRM would be held on November 9, 2020, 85 FR 68540. Unfortunately, that Federal Register Notice incorrectly gave a deadline of October 26, 2020 (three days earlier than the Notice was published) for individuals to register to speak at the hearing, 85 FR 68540. A correction extending the deadline to November 5, 2020, was published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2020 (one day after the deadline), 85 FR 71046. Despite these notice issues, 26 individuals spoke at the public hearing; all were opposed to the NPRM (see https://www.regulations.gov/document/HRSA-2020-0002-0373).
 The comment period for the NPRM closed on January 12, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. HHS received over 760 comments. Over 150 of those comments, more than 20 percent, were posted on the last day of the comment period or the next day, since some comments were received after normal business hours. Four business days later, on January 19, 2021, the Federal Register posted for public inspection the final rule amending the Table.
 Both the final rule and the NPRM included the following instruction: “In § 100.3, revise paragraph (a) and remove paragraphs (c)(10) and (13) and (e)(8). The revision reads as follows:” Removing paragraphs (c)(10) and (c)(13) would strike the definitions of SIRVA and vasovagal syncope, respectively, from the QAI, and removing (e)(8) would strike the new vaccines category (Item XVII of the Table) from the Coverage Provisions section of the regulation. However, what followed the instruction was only subsection (a) and the Table itself, but not the rest of the regulation, including the revised (c) QAI and (e) Coverage Provisions, which are a critical part of the regulation, 86 FR 6267; 85 FR 43804. Furthermore, the version of the Vaccine Injury Table that is currently displayed on the eCFR includes a link titled “Link to an amendment published at 86 FR 6267, Jan. 21, 2021.” This link displays only the Vaccine Injury Table that was published in the final rule (see https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=f5f03d551be5379a43b4de00614dafaa&mc=true&node=20210121y1.4). However, it does not include the (b) Provisions that apply to all conditions listed, (c) QAI, (d) Glossary for purposes of paragraph (c), and/or (e) Coverage Provisions sections of the Table.
 On January 20, 2021, the first day of the new Administration, the President's Chief of Staff sent a memorandum entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” which, among other things, instructed federal agencies to, “[w]ith respect to rules that have been sent to the OFR but not published in the Federal Register, immediately withdraw them from the OFR for review and approval” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/regulatory-freeze-pending-review/). The final rule was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2021, with an effective date of February 22, 2021, 86 FR 6249.
 The Regulatory Freeze Memorandum also instructed federal agencies to consider delaying the effective date of rules published in the Federal Register, but which have not yet taken effect, for a period of 60 days so that the new Administration may review recently published rules for “any questions of fact, law, and policy the rule may raise” (see https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/regulatory-freeze-pending-review/).
 Pursuant to that direction, and after a brief public comment period, effective February 22, 2021, HHS delayed the effective date of the final rule until April 23, 2021, so that the new Administration could review the final rule for “any questions of fact, law, and policy the rule may raise” (86 FR 10835). Specifically, HHS delayed the final rule to determine whether its promulgation raised any legal issues, including but not limited to (1) whether ACCV was properly notified of the proposed rule pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 300aa-14(c) and (d), and (2) whether the public was properly notified of the entire revised regulation, 42 CFR 100.3(b)-(e) (including the qualifications and aids to interpretation and the coverage provisions), given that both the proposed and final rules published in the Federal Register included only the revised Vaccine Injury Table itself, but not the entire revised regulation (Id. at 10835-36).
 II. Discussion of Proposed Rescission
 HHS proposes to rescind the final rule published on January 21, 2021, for both procedural and policy reasons. HHS has already been alerted to the fact that members of the public believe that the promulgation of the final rule was irregular in its haste, which stands in contrast to the extensive, multi-year process HHS followed to add SIRVA and vasovagal syncope to the Table in March 2017, and that HHS did not fully engage with either the ACCV or the public regarding its rationale behind the NPRM to subsequently remove these conditions from the Table. HHS agrees that the rule's promulgation further raises problematic issues related to the perceived procedural defects. Members of the public have raised concern that this Table modification was highly unusual because HHS failed to appear before the ACCV to discuss its proposed modification to the Table, and modified the Table over the opposition of the ACCV. Although HHS is not legally required to appear before the ACCV or accept the ACCV's recommendations, HHS acknowledges the ACCV's valid complaints that it was not able to fully engage in the process, which arguably runs counter to the ACCV's statutory purpose. Commenters and the ACCV itself pointed out that the method of transmittal of the NPRM to the ACCV and the manner in which it was introduced at the March 6, 2020 ACCV meeting raises concerns regarding whether the ACCV as a body had the full 90 days to make recommendations, as required by the Vaccine Act. HHS agrees that there is a legitimate question as to whether the ACCV received the full 90 days to make recommendations. Moreover, the paucity of time between the close of the comment period and the posting of the final rule for public inspection the day before the change in administration, with publication the day after, has raised doubts from the public regarding whether all public comments were sufficiently reviewed, considered, and responded to under Administrative Procedure Act (APA) standards. Given the numerous concerns that have already been raised and the questions that surround the final rule's promulgation, HHS proposes rescinding the final rule so that, if it chooses to proceed with removing SIRVA, vasovagal syncope, and the new vaccines category (Item XVII) from the Table, it does so with sufficient time to carefully and methodically review the policy, science, and law regarding these items and creates a transparent record of the process that clearly complies with all Vaccine Act and APA requirements.
 As a policy matter, HHS also is proposing to rescind the final rule because it is concerned that it could have a negative impact on vaccine administrators, which would be at odds with the federal government's efforts to increase vaccinations in the United States to respond to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, as well as to make up for observed delays in routine vaccinations that have occurred during the pandemic.
 The COVID-19 public health emergency was first declared on January 27, 2020, and continues to impact the nation.1
 On January 21, 2021, the White House published the National Strategy for the COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness (see https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/National-Strategy-for-the-COVID-19-Response-and-Pandemic-Preparedness.pdf) (National Strategy). Goal 2 of the National Strategy is to “Mount a safe, effective, comprehensive vaccination campaign,” and provides:
 1 See “Renewal of Determination That A Public Health Emergency Exists, “which was first declared on January 27, 2020 and was last renewed on January 21, 2021, at https://www.phe.gov/emergency/news/healthactions/phe/Pages/covid19-07Jan2021.aspx.
 The United States will spare no effort to ensure Americans can get vaccinated quickly, effectively, and equitably. The federal government will execute an aggressive vaccination strategy, focusing on the immediate actions necessary to convert vaccines into vaccinations, including improving allocation, distribution, administration, and tracking. Central to this effort will be additional support and funding for state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments—and improved line of sight into supply—to ensure that they are best prepared to mount local vaccination programs. At the same time, the federal government will mount an unprecedented public campaign that builds trust around vaccination and communicates the importance of maintaining public health measures such as masking, physical distancing, testing, and contact tracing even as people receive safe and effective vaccinations.
 (Id. at 8).
 In carrying out the National Strategy, the federal government has taken a number of recent actions. It has increased access to vaccines by creating the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program for COVID-19 Vaccination to provide COVID-19 vaccinations in more locations through various non-federal partners (see https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/retail-pharmacy-program/index.html/). It is also taking steps to increase the number of vaccine administrators. As President Biden stated to NIH Staff on February 11, 2021, “We're now allowing retired doctors and nurses to come back and administer shots. We're deploying federal vaccinators, and over the last three weeks, we put hundreds of new vaccinators in the field and are lining up thousands more. These include medical personnel from our Commissioned Corps at the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as personnel from FEMA, the Defense Department, and more departments to come.” (see https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/02/11/remarks-by-president-biden-to-national-institutes-of-health-staff/). Although the COVID-19 vaccine is not part of the VICP, HHS is cognizant of the fact that any action taken that concerns administration of other vaccines could impact the National Strategy's goals and affect the federal government's efforts to combat COVID-19. It is partially due to this unprecedented vaccination effort and the concern that the final rule's revisions to the Table could negatively impact the vaccine administrators carrying out this massive campaign that HHS proposes to rescind the final rule.
 HHS received comments in response to the February 12, 2021, NPRM that proposed to delay the effective date of the final rule that raised concerns from the public and interested organizations that the changes to the Table in the final rule would be particularly detrimental to vaccine administrators during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) and the National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations (NASPA) supported delaying the final rule, and urged HHS to rescind it. APhA and NASPA stressed that, “During a pandemic is not the time to make changes to the Vaccine Injury Table, when we are working as a nation to optimize the manufacture, distribution, and administration of COVID-19 and other critical vaccinations.” (see https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HRSA-2021-0001-0022). These organizations further explained they opposed the “removal of SIRVA and syncope from the Table because such a move would put a significant damper on vaccine research and development, the willingness of healthcare providers, including pharmacists, to administer vaccines, as well as the public's willingness to get vaccinated without the protections provided by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).” (Id.) Furthermore they stated, “Removing [SIRVA and syncope] might discourage providers from vaccinating if they are concerned about being sued in court for these vaccine injuries.” (Id.)
 The National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS) also supported delaying the final rule, and urged HHS to withdraw it, claiming it contained “policies that will serve to inhibit vaccine availability thus leading to poorer public health outcomes.” (see https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HRSA-2021-0001-0017).
 Another commenter stated, “The proposed Amendment to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Table is contrary to the purpose of the Act. It exposes doctors, nurses, health care workers and pharmacies to civil tort liability for administering a vaccine, which causes arm or shoulder injuries. The result will be more obstacles to the administration of vaccines as well as ultimately less Americans receiving vaccines availability thus leading to poorer public health outcomes.” (see https://www.regulations.gov/comment/HRSA-2021-0001-0004).
 HHS seeks comment by April 16, 2021 on the proposed rescission of the final rule, including on the issues raised above related to the final rule's promulgation and the impact the final rule could have on vaccine administrators.
 III. Regulatory Impact Analysis
 Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when rulemaking is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that provide the greatest net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, safety, distributive, and equity effects). In addition, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, if a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, HHS must specifically consider the economic effect of a rule on small entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule.
 The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
 HHS has determined that no resources are required to implement the requirements in this rule because compensation will continue to be made consistent with the status quo. Therefore, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, HHS certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
 HHS has also determined that this rule does not meet the criteria for a major rule under the Congressional Review Act or Executive Order 12866 and would have no major effect on the economy or Federal expenditures. Similarly, it will not have effects on State, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector such as to require consultation under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Nor on the basis of family well-being will the provisions of this rule affect the following family elements: Family safety; family stability; marital commitment; parental rights in the education, nurture and supervision of their children; family functioning; disposable income or poverty; or the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, as determined under section 654(c) of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999.
 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
 This rule has no information collection requirements.
 Norris Cochran,
 Acting Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
 [FR Doc. 2021-05486 Filed 3-12-21; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4165-15-P


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 16.12.2010
 EN
 Official Journal of the European Union
 L 332/57
 DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE
 No 107/2010
 of 1 October 2010
 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement
 THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,
 Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 98 thereof,
 Whereas:
 (1)
 Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 90/2010 of 2 July 2010 (1).
 (2)
 Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 on common rules in the field of civil aviation security and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 (2) was incorporated into the Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 69/2009 of 29 May 2009 (3), with country specific adaptations.
 (3)
 Commission Regulation (EU) No 1254/2009 of 18 December 2009 setting criteria to allow Member States to derogate from the common basic standards on civil aviation security and to adopt alternative security measures (4) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,
 HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
 Article 1
 The following point shall be inserted after point 66hc (Commission Regulation (EU) No 72/2010) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:
 ‘66hd.
 32009 R 1254: Commission Regulation (EU) No 1254/2009 of 18 December 2009 setting criteria to allow Member States to derogate from the common basic standards on civil aviation security and to adopt alternative security measures (OJ L 338, 19.12.2009, p. 17).
 The provisions of the Regulation shall, for the purposes of this Agreement, be read with the following adaptation:
 This Regulation shall apply as from the date on which the last of the Decisions of the EEA Joint Committee incorporating into the Agreement the measures necessary for the applicability of Regulation (EC) No 300/2008 enters into force.’
 Article 2
 The text of Regulation (EU) No 1254/2009 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.
 Article 3
 This Decision shall enter into force on 2 October 2010, provided that all the notifications pursuant to Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee (5).
 Article 4
 This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.
 Done at Brussels, 1 October 2010.
 For the EEA Joint Committee
 The President
 Stefán Haukur JÓHANNESSON
 (1) OJ L 277, 21.10.2010, p. 43.
 (2) OJ L 97, 9.4.2008, p. 72.
 (3) OJ L 232, 3.9.2009, p. 25.
 (4) OJ L 338, 19.12.2009, p. 17.
 (5) No constitutional requirements indicated.


type: caselaw

text:
 7.3.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 109/5
 Ordú ó Uachtarán na Cúirte an 5 Eanáir 2022 (iarraidh ar réamhrialú ón Amtsgericht Düsseldorf – an Ghearmáin) – PW v Eurowings GmbH
 (Cás C-697/21)
 (2022/C 109/19)
 Teanga an cháis: an Ghearmáinis
 Níl san Iris Oifigiúil seo ach na fógraí maidir le cásanna ar cuireadh clabhsúr leo roimh an 1 Eanáir 2022 agus mar sin níl leagan Gaeilge ar fáil.


text:
 Dôležité právne oznámenie
 |
 21999D0204(12)
 Úradný vestník L 030 , 04/02/1999 S. 0051 - 0051
 Rozhodnutie Spoločného výboru EHSč. 50/98z 29. mája 1998,ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa príloha II (Technické predpisy, normy, testovanie a certifikácia) k Dohode o EHPSPOLOČNÝ VÝBOR EHP,so zreteľom na Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, ktorá bola upravená Protokolom upravujúcim Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, ďalej označovanú ako "dohoda", a najmä na jej článok 98,keďže príloha II k dohode bola zmenená a doplnená rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru EHP č. 30/98 [1];keďže dvadsiata smernica Komisie 97/1/ES z 10. januára 1997, ktorou sa prílohy II, III, VI a VII smernice Rady 76/768/EHS o aproximácii právnych predpisov členských štátov týkajúcich sa kozmetických výrobkov [2] sa má zahrnúť do dohody;keďže smernica Komisie 97/18/ES zo 17. apríla 1997, ktorou sa posúva termín, po ktorom je zakázané testovanie zložiek alebo zmesí zložiek kozmetických prípravkov na zvieratách [3],ROZHODLA TAKTO:Článok 1Do bodu 1 (smernica Rady 76/768/EHS) v kapitole XVI prílohy II k dohode sa pridá tento bod:"— 397 L 0001: 20. smernica Komisie 97/1/ES z 10. januára 1997 (Ú. v. ES L 16, 18.1.1997, s. 85),— 397 L 0018: smernica Komisie 97/18/ES zo 17. apríla 1997 (Ú. v. ES L 114, 1.5.1997, s. 43)".Článok 2Texty smernice 97/1/ES a 97/18/ES v islandskom a nórskom jazyku, ktoré sú prílohami týchto jazykových verzií tohto rozhodnutia, sú autentické.Článok 3Toto rozhodnutie nadobudne účinnosť 1. júna 1998, ak boli spoločnému výboru EHP urobené oznámenia podľa článku 103 ods. 1 dohody.Článok 4Toto rozhodnutie bude uverejnené v oddiele EHP a v doplnku EHP k Úradnom vestníku Európskych spoločenstiev.V Bruseli 29. mája 1998Za Spoločný výbor EHPpredsedaF. Barbaso[1] Ú. v. ES L 310, 19.11.1998, s. 14.[2] Ú. v. ES L 16, 18.1.1997, s. 85.[3] Ú. v. L 114, 1.5.1997, s. 43.--------------------------------------------------


text:
10.1.2019
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 8/34
 ES IR JORDANIJOS ASOCIACIJOS TARYBOS SPRENDIMAS Nr. 1/2018
 2018 m. gruodžio 12 d.
 kuriuo susitariama dėl ES ir Jordanijos partnerystės prioritetų taikymo pratęsimo dvejiems metams [2019/30]
 ES IR JORDANIJOS ASOCIACIJOS TARYBA,
 atsižvelgdama į Europos ir Viduržemio jūros regiono šalių susitarimą, steigiantį Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių ir Jordanijos asociaciją (toliau – Susitarimas),
 kadangi:
 (1)
 1997 m. lapkričio 24 d. buvo pasirašytas ir 2002 m. gegužės 1 d. įsigaliojo Europos ir Viduržemio jūros regiono šalių susitarimas, steigiantis Europos Bendrijų bei jų valstybių narių ir Jordanijos asociaciją;
 (2)
 Susitarimo 91 straipsniu Asociacijos tarybai suteikiami įgaliojimai priimti atitinkamus sprendimus siekiant Susitarimo tikslų;
 (3)
 Susitarimo 101 straipsnyje numatyta, kad Šalys turi imtis bet kokių bendrojo pobūdžio ar konkrečių priemonių, siekdamos įvykdyti Susitarime nurodytus savo įsipareigojimus, ir turi užtikrinti, kad Susitarime nustatyti tikslai būtų pasiekti;
 (4)
 2016 m. gruodžio 19 d. sprendimu Nr. 1/2016 Asociacijos taryba susitarė dėl ES ir Jordanijos partnerystės prioritetų 2016–2018 m. tvirtinti jų partnerystei, kuria remiamas ir stiprinamas Jordanijos atsparumas ir stabilumas, kartu siekiant spręsti užsitęsusio konflikto Sirijoje poveikio problemas;
 (5)
 remdamosi ES ir Jordanijos partnerystės prioritetų peržiūra, Šalys susitarė, kad partnerystės prioritetų, dėl kurių susitarta 2016 m., taikymas turėtų būti pratęstas iki 2020 m. pabaigos ir kad 2019–2020 m. partnerystės prioritetų ir prie jų pridedamo ES ir Jordanijos susitarimo peržiūra galėtų būti atlikta tinkamu būdu;
 (6)
 Asociacijos tarybos darbo tvarkos taisyklių 10 straipsnyje numatyta galimybė priimti sprendimus tarp sesijų laikantis rašytinės procedūros, jei Šalys taip susitaria,
 NUSPRENDĖ:
 1 straipsnis
 Asociacijos taryba, laikydamasi rašytinės procedūros, nusprendžia, kad prie jos 2016 m. gruodžio 19 d. sprendimo Nr. 1/2016 pridedamų ES ir Jordanijos partnerystės prioritetų taikymas pratęsiamas iki 2020 m. gruodžio 31 d.
 2 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja jo priėmimo dieną.
 Priimta Briuselyje 2018 m. gruodžio 12 d.
 Asociacijos tarybos vardu
 Pirmininkė
 F. MOGHERINI


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22002D0004
 Gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 4/2002 av den 1 februari 2002 om ändring av bilaga XI (teletjänster) till EES-avtalet
 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning nr L 088 , 04/04/2002 s. 0007 - 0008
 Gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslutnr 4/2002av den 1 februari 2002om ändring av bilaga XI (teletjänster) till EES-avtaletGEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉN HAR FATTAT DETTA BESLUTmed beaktande av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, ändrat genom protokollet med justeringar av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, nedan kallat avtalet, särskilt artikel 98 i detta, ochav följande skäl:(1) Bilaga XI till avtalet ändrades genom Gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 48/2001 av den 30 mars 2001(1).(2) Kommissionens beslut 2001/497/EG av den 15 juni 2001 om standardavtalsklausuler för överföring av personuppgifter till tredje land enligt Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 95/46/EG(2) bör införlivas med avtalet.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1Följande nya punkt skall införas efter punkt 5ec (kommissionens beslut 2000/520/EG) i bilaga XI till avtalet: "5ed. 32001 D 0497: Kommisionens beslut 2001/497/EG av den 15 juni 2001 om standardavtalsklausuler för överföring av personuppgifter till tredje land enligt direktiv 95/46/EG (EGT L 181, 4.7.2001, s. 19), rättat i EGT L 253, 21.9.2001, s. 34."Artikel 2Texterna till beslut 2001/497/EG på isländska och norska, som skall offentliggöras i EES-supplementet till Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning, skall vara autentiska.Artikel 3Detta beslut träder i kraft den 2 februari 2002 under förutsättning att alla anmälningar enligt artikel 103.1 i avtalet har gjorts till Gemensamma EES-kommitten(3).Artikel 4Detta beslut skall offentliggöras i EES-delen av och EES-supplementet till Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning.Utfärdat i Bryssel den 1 februari 2002.På Gemensamma EES-kommitténs vägnarP. WesterlundOrdförande(1) EGT L 158, 14.6.2001, s. 63.(2) EGT L 181, 4.7.2001, s. 19.(3) Inga konstitutionella krav angivna.


type: legislation

text:
 11.4.2013
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 L 102/10
 REGOLAMENTO DI ESECUZIONE (UE) N. 328/2013 DELLA COMMISSIONE
 dell’8 aprile 2013
 relativo alla classificazione di talune merci nella nomenclatura combinata
 LA COMMISSIONE EUROPEA,
 visto il trattato sul funzionamento dell’Unione europea,
 visto il regolamento (CEE) n. 2658/87 del Consiglio, del 23 luglio 1987, relativo alla nomenclatura tariffaria e statistica ed alla tariffa doganale comune (1), in particolare l’articolo 9, paragrafo 1, lettera a),
 considerando quanto segue:
 (1)
 Al fine di garantire l’applicazione uniforme della nomenclatura combinata allegata al regolamento (CEE) n. 2658/87, è necessario adottare disposizioni relative alla classificazione delle merci di cui in allegato al presente regolamento.
 (2)
 Il regolamento (CEE) n. 2658/87 ha fissato le regole generali per l’interpretazione della nomenclatura combinata. Tali regole si applicano inoltre a qualsiasi nomenclatura che la riprenda, totalmente o in parte, o che aggiunga eventuali suddivisioni e che sia stabilita da specifiche disposizioni dell’Unione per l’applicazione di misure tariffarie o di altra natura nell’ambito degli scambi di merci.
 (3)
 In applicazione di tali regole generali, le merci descritte nella colonna 1 della tabella figurante nell’allegato del presente regolamento devono essere classificate nei corrispondenti codici NC indicati nella colonna 2, in virtù delle motivazioni indicate nella colonna 3.
 (4)
 È opportuno che le informazioni tariffarie vincolanti fornite dalle autorità doganali degli Stati membri in materia di classificazione delle merci nella nomenclatura combinata che non sono conformi al presente regolamento possano continuare a essere invocate dal titolare per un periodo di tre mesi, conformemente alle disposizioni dell’articolo 12, paragrafo 6, del regolamento (CEE) n. 2913/92 del Consiglio, del 12 ottobre 1992, che istituisce un codice doganale comunitario (2).
 (5)
 Le misure di cui al presente regolamento sono conformi al parere del Comitato del codice doganale,
 HA ADOTTATO IL PRESENTE REGOLAMENTO:
 Articolo 1
 Le merci descritte nella colonna 1 della tabella figurante in allegato sono classificate nella nomenclatura combinata nei codici NC indicati nella colonna 2 di detta tabella.
 Articolo 2
 Le informazioni tariffarie vincolanti fornite dalle autorità doganali degli Stati membri che non sono conformi al presente regolamento possono continuare ad essere invocate per un periodo di tre mesi in conformità alle disposizioni dell’articolo 12, paragrafo 6, del regolamento (CEE) n. 2913/92.
 Articolo 3
 Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il ventesimo giorno successivo alla pubblicazione nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea.
 Il presente regolamento è obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in ciascuno degli Stati membri.
 Fatto a Bruxelles, l'8 aprile 2013
 Per la Commissione, a nome del presidente
 Algirdas ŠEMETA
 Membro della Commissione
 (1) GU L 256 del 7.9.1987, pag. 1.
 (2) GU L 302 del 19.10.1992, pag. 1.
 ALLEGATO
 Descrizione delle merci
 Classificazione
 (Codice NC)
 Motivazione
 (1)
 (2)
 (3)
 Prodotto in polvere costituito di (% in peso):
 —
 carbonato di calcio
 97,
 —
 amido
 3.
 Il prodotto è idoneo all’uso in parecchi settori diversi, ad esempio, nei prodotti alimentari, nei prodotti medicinali e nelle cariche per pitture.
 Il prodotto è idoneo all’uso nella fabbricazione di compresse di calcio.
 2106 90 92
 La classificazione è determinata a norma delle regole generali per l’interpretazione della nomenclatura combinata 1 e 6, dalla nota 1 b) del capitolo 38, nonché dal testo dei codici NC 2106, 2106 90 e 2106 90 92.
 Vista la presenza di una sostanza non contemplata dalla nota 1, lettere a), d) o e), del capitolo 28, è esclusa la classificazione in detto capitolo.
 Il prodotto non è destinato ad uso terapeutico o profilattico. Ne è pertanto esclusa la classificazione alla voce 3003.
 Alla luce della composizione del prodotto, la classificazione nel capitolo 38 è esclusa in virtù della nota 1, lettera b) di tale capitolo (cfr. anche le note esplicative del sistema armonizzato, capitolo 38, Considerazioni generali).
 Il prodotto deve pertanto essere classificato nella voce 2106, come preparazione alimentare non nominata né compresa altrove.


text:
 16.2.2017
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 39/1
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) 2017/261 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 15 februari 2017
 tot vaststelling van de forfaitaire invoerwaarden voor de bepaling van de invoerprijs van bepaalde groenten en fruit
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EU) nr. 1308/2013 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 17 december 2013 tot vaststelling van een gemeenschappelijke ordening van de markten voor landbouwproducten en tot intrekking van de Verordeningen (EEG) nr. 922/72, (EEG) nr. 234/79, (EG) nr. 1037/2001 en (EG) nr. 1234/2007 van de Raad (1),
 Gezien Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 543/2011 van de Commissie van 7 juni 2011 tot vaststelling van nadere bepalingen voor de toepassing van Verordening (EG) nr. 1234/2007 van de Raad, wat de sectoren groenten en fruit en verwerkte groenten en fruit betreft (2), en met name artikel 136, lid 1,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Bij Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 543/2011 zijn, op grond van de resultaten van de multilaterale handelsbesprekingen van de Uruguayronde, de criteria vastgesteld aan de hand waarvan de Commissie voor de producten en de perioden die in bijlage XVI, deel A, bij die verordening zijn vermeld, de forfaitaire waarden bij invoer uit derde landen vaststelt.
 (2)
 De forfaitaire invoerwaarde wordt elke dag berekend overeenkomstig artikel 136, lid 1, van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 543/2011, met inachtneming van de variabele gegevens voor die dag. Bijgevolg moet deze verordening in werking treden op de dag van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie,
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 De in artikel 136 van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 543/2011 bedoelde forfaitaire invoerwaarden worden vastgesteld in de bijlage bij de onderhavige verordening.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de dag van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 15 februari 2017.
 Voor de Commissie,
 namens de voorzitter,
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Directeur-generaal
 Directoraat-generaal Landbouw en Plattelandsontwikkeling
 (1) PB L 347 van 20.12.2013, blz. 671.
 (2) PB L 157 van 15.6.2011, blz. 1.
 BIJLAGE
 Forfaitaire invoerwaarden voor de bepaling van de invoerprijs van bepaalde groenten en fruit
 (EUR/100 kg)
 GN-code
 Code derde landen (1)
 Forfaitaire invoerwaarde
 0702 00 00
 IL
 337,2
 MA
 120,3
 SN
 359,5
 TR
 130,6
 ZZ
 236,9
 0707 00 05
 MA
 64,9
 TR
 186,2
 ZZ
 125,6
 0709 91 00
 EG
 128,6
 ZZ
 128,6
 0709 93 10
 MA
 57,8
 TR
 183,0
 ZZ
 120,4
 0805 10 22 , 0805 10 24 , 0805 10 28
 EG
 48,8
 IL
 69,5
 MA
 48,8
 TN
 49,3
 TR
 76,6
 ZZ
 58,6
 0805 21 10 , 0805 21 90 , 0805 29 00
 EG
 93,2
 IL
 166,2
 JM
 122,7
 MA
 92,0
 TR
 87,8
 ZZ
 112,4
 0805 22 00
 IL
 114,7
 MA
 103,2
 TR
 60,4
 ZZ
 92,8
 0805 50 10
 EG
 82,4
 TR
 98,8
 ZZ
 90,6
 0808 10 80
 US
 105,5
 ZZ
 105,5
 0808 30 90
 CL
 121,2
 CN
 112,8
 ZA
 121,7
 ZZ
 118,6
 (1) Landennomenclatuur vastgesteld bij Verordening (EU) nr. 1106/2012 van de Commissie van 27 november 2012 tot uitvoering van Verordening (EG) nr. 471/2009 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad betreffende communautaire statistieken van de buitenlandse handel met derde landen, wat de bijwerking van de nomenclatuur van landen en gebieden betreft (PB L 328 van 28.11.2012, blz. 7). De code „ZZ” staat voor „overige oorsprong”.


text:
 |
 52014PC0447
 Prijedlog UREDBE VIJEĆA o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2866/98 u pogledu stope konverzije eura za Litvu /* COM/2014/0447 final - 2014/0208 (NLE) */
 OBRAZLOŽENJE
 1. Kontekst prijedloga
 Komisija je 4. lipnja 2014. u skladu s
 člankom 140. stavkom 2. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije (dalje u
 tekstu Ugovor) donijela prijedlog odluke Vijeća u kojem je predložila da
 Litva ispunjava potrebne uvjete za uvođenje eura te da odstupanje u korist
 Litve prestaje s učinkom od 1. siječnja 2015.
 U slučaju pozitivne odluke Vijeće
 će zatim morati prihvatiti stopu konverzije između eura i litavskog
 litasa, što će stupiti na snagu 1. siječnja 2015.
 Uredbom Vijeća (EZ)
 br. 2866/98 o stopama konverzije između eura i valuta država članica
 koje usvajaju euro[1]
 utvrđuju se neopozive stope konverzije za 18 država članica koje su
 trenutačno članice europodručja (Belgija, Njemačka,
 Estonija, Grčka, Španjolska, Francuska, Irska, Italija, Cipar, Luksemburg,
 Latvija, Malta, Nizozemska, Austrija, Portugal, Slovenija, Slovačka i
 Finska). Radi proširenja područja primjene te Uredbe na litavski litas,
 toj se Uredbi mora dodati uputa na tu valutu. To je predmet ovog prijedloga.
 2. Rezultati savjetovanja sa
 zainteresiranim stranama i procjena učinka
 Formalni postupak nakon Komisijina prijedloga
 uredbe Vijeća uključuje savjetovanje s ESB-om. Rasprave s državama
 članicama o izazovima ekonomske politike u državama članicama
 redovito se vode pod raznim naslovima u Gospodarskom i financijskom odboru,
 ECOFIN-u i Euroskupini. U te rasprave uključene su neslužbene rasprave o
 pitanjima koja su posebno važna za pripremu konačnog ulaska u
 europodručje (uključujući tečajne politike). Dijalog s akademskom
 zajednicom i drugim zainteresiranim skupinama odvija se u okviru
 konferencija/seminara i na ad hoc osnovi.
 Gospodarska kretanja u europodručju i u
 državama članicama ocjenjuju se u okviru različitih postupaka
 usklađivanja i nadzora ekonomske politike (posebno u skladu s člankom
 121. Ugovora), kao i u okviru redovitog praćenja i analize razvoja unutar
 dotične države, ali i na cijelom području (uključujući
 predviđanja, redovite objave, doprinos Gospodarskom i financijskom odboru,
 ECOFIN-u i Euroskupini), što provodi Komisija. U skladu s načelom
 proporcionalnosti i s obzirom na proteklu praksu smatra se da službena procjena
 učinka nije potrebna.
 3. Pravni elementi prijedloga
 3.1. Pravna osnova
 Pravna je osnova ovog prijedloga članak 140.
 stavak 3. Ugovora, u skladu s kojim Vijeće utvrđuje stopu konverzije
 prema kojoj euro zamjenjuje valutu države članice za koju je odstupanje
 prestalo u skladu s člankom 140. stavkom 2. Ugovora.
 Vijeće odlučuje jednoglasnom odlukom
 država članica čija je valuta euro i dotične države članice
 na prijedlog Komisije i nakon savjetovanja s ESB-om.
 3.2. Supsidijarnost i
 proporcionalnost
 Prijedlog je u isključivoj nadležnosti Unije.
 Načelo supsidijarnosti stoga se ne primjenjuje.
 Ova inicijativa ne prelazi ono što je potrebno za ostvarivanje
 njezina cilja i stoga je u skladu s načelom proporcionalnosti.
 3.3. Odabir pravnog instrumenta
 Instrument Uredbe jedini je primjereni pravni
 instrument za izmjenu Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 2866/98 o stopama konverzije
 između eura i valuta država članica koje usvajaju euro.
 4. Posljedice za proračun
 Prijedlog ne utječe na proračun Unije.
 5. Komentar na pojedine
 članke
 5.1. Članak 1.
 Predložena stopa je sadašnji središnji tečaj litavskog
 litasa u europskom tečajnom mehanizmu
 (ERM II).
 U pogledu drugih valuta i u skladu s Uredbom
 Vijeća (EZ) br. 1103/97[2]
 o određenim odredbama koje se odnose na uvođenje eura, tečaj se
 utvrđuje sa šest značajnih znamenki.
 5.2. Članak 2.
 Ovim se člankom 1. siječnja 2015. utvrđuje
 kao datum stupanja na snagu Uredbe i osigurava da će se ona primjenjivati
 u skladu s vremenskim rasporedom drugih akata Vijeća koji se odnose na
 uvođenje eura u Litvi, tj. datumom prestanka odstupanja i stupanja na
 snagu ostalih mjera potrebnih za uvođenje eura u Litvu.
 2014/0208 (NLE)
 Prijedlog
 UREDBE VIJEĆA
 o izmjeni Uredbe (EZ) br. 2866/98 u
 pogledu stope konverzije eura za Litvu
 VIJEĆE EUROPSKE UNIJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Ugovor o funkcioniranju
 Europske unije, a posebno njegov članak 140. stavak 3.,
 uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Europske
 komisije[3],
 uzimajući u obzir mišljenje Europske
 središnje banke[4],
 budući da:
 (1) Uredbom Vijeća (EZ)
 br. 2866/98[5]
 određuju se stope konverzije eura od 1. siječnja 1999.
 (2) U skladu s člankom 4.
 Akta o pristupanju iz 2003. Litva je država članica s odstupanjem kako je
 određeno u članku 139. stavku 1. Ugovora.
 (3) Na temelju Odluke Vijeća
 2014/.../EU od ...[6],
 Litva ispunjava potrebne uvjete za uvođenje eura te odstupanje u korist
 Litve prestaje s učinkom od 1. siječnja 2015.
 (4) Uvođenje eura u Litvi
 zahtijeva uvođenje stope konverzije između eura i litavskih litasa. Tu
 stopu konverzije treba odrediti na 3,45280 litasa za 1 euro, što odgovara
 trenutačnom središnjem paritetu litasa u Europskom tečajnom mehanizmu
 (ERM II).
 (5) Uredbu (EZ) br. 2866/98 stoga
 treba na odgovarajući način izmijeniti,
 DONIJELO JE OVU UREDBU:
 Članak 1.
 U članku 1. Uredbe (EZ) br. 2866/98,
 između stopa konverzije koje se primjenjuju na latvijske late i
 luksemburške franke umeće se sljedeći redak:
 “= 3,45280
 litavskih litasa”.
 Članak 2.
 Ova Uredba stupa na snagu
 1. siječnja 2015.
 Ova je Uredba u cijelosti
 obvezujuća i izravno se primjenjuje u svim državama članicama.
 Sastavljeno u Strasbourgu,
 Za
 Vijeće
 Predsjednik
 [1] SL L 359, 31.12.1998., str. 1.
 [2] SL L 162, 19.6.1997., str. 1.
 [3] SL C,..., str.
 [4] SL C,..., str.
 [5] Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 2866/98 od 31. prosinca
 1998. o stopama konverzije između eura i valuta država članica koje
 usvajaju euro (SL L 359, 31.12.1998., str. 1.).
 [6] Odluka Vijeća 2014/.../EU od ... o uvođenju
 eura u Litvi 1. siječnja 2015. [...]


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 52004SC1237
 Předloha rozhodnutí Smíšeného výboru EHP kterým se mění příloha XXI (statistika) Dohody o EHP - Předloha společného postoje Společenství - /* SEK/2004/1237 konecném znení */
 Předloha ROZHODNUTÍ SMÍŠENÉHO VÝBORU EHP kterým se mění příloha XXI (statistika) Dohody o EHP - Předloha společného postoje Společenství -Předloha ROZHODNUTÍ SMÍŠENÉHO VÝBORU EHP kterým se mění příloha XXI (statistika) Dohody o EHP - Předloha společného postoje Společenství -CS
 [pic]
 KOMISE EVROPSKÝCH SPOLEČENSTVÍ
 V Bruselu dne 14.10.2004
 SEK(2004)1237 v konečném znění
 .
 Předloha
 ROZHODNUTÍ SMÍŠENÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 kterým se mění příloha XXI (statistika) Dohody o EHP - Předloha společného postoje Společenství -.
 (předlozená Komisí)
 (předlozená Komisí)
 DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVA
 1. Pro zajistění nezbytné právní jistoty a jednotnosti má Smísený výbor EHP začleňovat veskeré příslusné právní předpisy Společenství do Dohody o EHP co nejdříve po jejich přijetí.
 2. Smísený výbor EHP by měl proto přijmout připojené rozhodnutí, kterým se mění příloha XXI dohody o EHP doplněním v nedávné době schváleného acquis v oblasti statistiky. Rozhodnutí se týká tří právních aktů:
 32003 R 1267: nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1267/2003 ze dne 16. června 2003, kterým se mění nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2223/96, pokud jde o lhůty pro předávání hlavních souhrnných ukazatelů národních účtů, odchylky týkající se předávání hlavních souhrnných ukazatelů národních účtů a předávání údajů o zaměstnanosti v odpracovaných hodinách;
 32003 R 1287: nařízení Rady (ES, Euratom) č. 1287/2003 ze dne 15. července 2003 o harmonizaci hrubého národního důchodu v trzních cenách (nařízení o HND);
 32003 D 1608: rozhodnutí Evropského parlamentu a Rady č. 1608/2003/ES ze dne 22. července 2003 o tvorbě a rozvoji statistiky Společenství v oblasti vědy a techniky.
 3. Je zapotřebí rozsířit přílohu XXI Dohody o EHP tak, aby zahrnovala výse uvedené nařízení. Předloha rozhodnutí Smíseného výboru EHP obsahuje odchylky pro Lichtenstejnsko. Důvody těchto pozadavků jsou následující:
 - Pokud jde o nařízení (ES) č. 1267/2003 a nařízení (ES) č. 1287/2003, nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2223/96 se s ohledem na přidělení nepřímo měřené finanční zprostředkovatelské sluzby (FISIM) v rámci Evropského systému národních a regionálních účtů (ESA) nevztahuje na Lichtenstejnsko.
 - Pokud jde o rozhodnutí č. 1608/2003/ES, v Lichtenstejnsku se nachází jen velmi málo společností s oddělením výzkumu a vývoje. Vsechny tyto společnosti jsou činné v rozdílných oblastech. Údaje jsou z důvodů bezpečnosti důvěrné a není mozné je zveřejnit. Dále je zapotřebí vzít v úvahu velmi omezené moznosti sběru, zpracování dat a vývoje metod a proměnných v Lichtenstejnsku.
 4. Podle čl. 1 odst. 3 písm. a) nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2894/94 o některých prováděcích pravidlech k Dohodě o Evropském hospodářském prostoru Rada zaujímá postoj Společenství u rozhodnutí, jimiz se rozsiřuje právní akt Společenství s podstatnými změnami.
 5. Předloha rozhodnutí Smíseného výboru EHP se předkládá Radě ke schválení, po němz Komise předlozí postoj Společenství ve Smíseném výboru EHP.
 Předloha
 ROZHODNUTÍ SMÍŠENÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 kterým se mění příloha XXI (statistika) Dohody o EHP
 SMÍŠENÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 s ohledem na Dohodu o Evropském hospodářském prostoru ve znění protokolu upravujícího tuto dohodu (dále jen ,dohoda"), a zejména na článek 98 této dohody,
 vzhledem k těmto důvodům:
 (1) Příloha XXI dohody byla pozměněna rozhodnutím Smíseného výboru EHP č. ... / ... ze dne ... [1].
 [1] Úř. věst. C [...], [...], s. [...].
 (2) Do dohody je zapotřebí začlenit nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1267/2003 ze dne 16. června 2003, kterým se mění nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2223/96, pokud jde o lhůty pro předávání hlavních souhrnných ukazatelů národních účtů, odchylky týkající se předávání hlavních souhrnných ukazatelů národních účtů a předávání údajů o zaměstnanosti v odpracovaných hodinách [2].
 [2] Úř. věst. L 180, 18.7.2003, s. 1.
 (3) Do dohody je zapotřebí začlenit nařízení Rady (ES, Euratom) č. 1287/2003 ze dne 15. července 2003 o harmonizaci hrubého národního důchodu v trzních cenách (nařízení o HND) [3].
 [3] Úř. věst. L 181, 19.7.2003, s. 1.
 (4) Do dohody je zapotřebí začlenit rozhodnutí Evropského parlamentu a Rady č. 1608/2003/ES ze dne 22. července 2003 o tvorbě a rozvoji statistiky Společenství v oblasti vědy a techniky [4].
 [4] Úř. věst. L 230, 16.9.2003, s. 1.
 (5) Toto rozhodnutí se nevztahuje na Lichtenstejnsko,
 ROZHODL TAKTO:
 Článek 1
 Příloha XXI dohody se mění takto:
 1. V bodu 19d (nařízení Rady (ES) č. 2223/96) se doplňuje nová odrázka, která zní:
 ,- 32003 R 1267: nařízení (ES) Evropského parlamentu a Rady č. 1267/2003 ze dne 16. června 2003 (Úř. věst. L 180, 18.7.2003, s. 1).
 Pro účely dohody se nařízení upravuje takto:
 Toto nařízení se nevztahuje na Lichtenstejnsko."
 2. Po bodu 19n (nařízení Komise (ES) č. 1921/2001) se vkládá bod, který zní:
 ,19o. 32003 R 1287: nařízení Rady (ES, Euratom) č. 1287/2003 ze dne 15. července 2003 o harmonizaci hrubého národního důchodu v trzních cenách (nařízení o HND) (Úř. věst. L 181, 19.7.2003, s. 1).
 Pro účely dohody se nařízení upravuje takto:
 Toto nařízení se nevztahuje na Lichtenstejnsko."
 3. Po bodu 27 (nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 2150/2002) se vkládá text, který zní:
 ,STATISTIKA V OBLASTI VĚDY A TECHNIKY
 28. 32003 D 1608: rozhodnutí Evropského parlamentu a Rady č. 1608/2003/ES ze dne 22. července 2003 o tvorbě a rozvoji statistiky Společenství v oblasti vědy a techniky (Úř. věst. L 230, 16.9.2003, s. 1).
 Pro účely dohody se rozhodnutí upravuje takto:
 Toto rozhodnutí se nevztahuje na Lichtenstejnsko."
 Článek 2
 Znění nařízení (ES) č. 1267/2003, nařízení (ES, Euratom) č. 1287/2003 a rozhodnutí č. 1608/2003/ES v islandském a norském jazyce, která se zveřejní v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie, jsou závazná.
 Článek 3
 Toto rozhodnutí vstupuje v platnost dne [...], pokud proběhla vsechna oznámení Smísenému výboru EHP [5] podle čl. 103 odst. 1 dohody.
 [5] [Ústavněprávní pozadavky neuvedeny.]
 Článek 4
 Toto rozhodnutí se zveřejní v oddíle EHP a v dodatku EHP Úředního věstníku Evropské unie.
 V Bruselu dne
 Za Smísený výbor EHP
 předseda / předsedkyně
 tajemníci
 Smíseného výboru EHP


type: other

text:
Haapasaaret nauttivat mökkeilystä kolmen sukupolven ja koiralauman voimin: "Muutamme tänne heti kesäkuun alusta alkaen" | Meillä kotona
 Haapasaaret nauttivat mökkeilystä kolmen sukupolven ja koiralauman voimin: "Muutamme tänne heti kesäkuun alusta alkaen"
 Vaikka Haapasaarten mökki on pieni ja vaatimaton, siitä on tullut kesän tukikohta ja koko perheen rakkain paikka.
 Teksti Katri Lehtola
 Kuvat Katri Lehtola
 Kiemuraisten teiden päässä, aivan Kustavin kaukaisimmassa niemenkärjessä mökkivieras otetaan vastaan näyttävästi. Kun auto on saatu parkkiin alapihalle, ylempää kalliolta rymistää karvakas vastaanottokomitea: neljä berninpaimenkoiraa. Joka puolella vilistää kuonoja ja heiluvia häntiä, kun monikymmenkiloiset koiranjötkäleet tervehtivät tulijaa ystävällisesti tuuppien ja haukahdellen.
 – Rento, Viljo, Bella, Namu, riittää kiitos, koirien emäntä Maarit Haapasaari huikkaa.
 Veikko-isä nauttii pihakeinusta avautuvasta merinäkymästä koirat seuranaan.
 Bernit jolkottavat kuuliaisesti takaisin mökin edustalle. Aamuaurinko on alkanut jo kuivattaa kalliolle yön aikana laskeutunutta kastetta. Sisäsaariston metsäinen luonto ympärillä on tyyni ja tuoksuva, päivästä on tulossa kaunis.
 Mökissä on hiljaista, vaikka kello lähenee jo kymmentä. Hereillä on Maaritin lisäksi ainoastaan hänen miehensä Jari Haapasaari, joka hörppii aamukahvia terassilla.
 Kaikki eivät ole täällä lomailemassa. Perheen kaksi nuorimmaista, Veera, 19, ja Valtteri, 18, ovat kesätöissä Kustavin keskustassa. Lähihoitajaksi valmistunut Veera työskentelee vanhusten palvelutalossa ja kokiksi kouluttautuva Valtteri vierasvenesataman ravintolassa. Kolmas lapsista, Ville, on töissä kaupungissa. Kymmenen kilometrin matka mökin pihalta Kustavin keskustaan vie pyörällä polkaisten reilut puoli tuntia.
 – On hienoa, että nuorille järjestyi kesätyöpaikat. Näin kuntakin hyötyy kesäasukkaista ja saa lomakaudeksi työvoimaa, Maarit iloitsee.
 Pian makuusoppien ovista alkaakin purkautua iltavuoroon lähtevää, tukat pörröisiksi nukkunutta nuorisoa. Viimeisenä perimmäisen kammarin uumenista pihalle pölmähtää mökin varsinainen isäntä, Maaritin isä Veikko Salovaara.
 Isällä on tapana juoda aamukahvi terassilla tai huonolla säällä tuvassa. Sen jälkeen hän menee mielellään istuskelemaan tontin korkeimmalla kohdalla olevaan pihakeinuun ja katselee merelle.
 Veikko sairastaa Alzheimerin tautia, ja Maarit on hänen omaishoitajansa. Yhteiselo mökillä sujuu hienosti, sillä sairaus ei ole vielä edennyt pitkälle.
 – Minä en tee täällä yhtään mitään. Tai voisi sanoa, että tehtäväni on olla keinun keinuttaja sekä koirien ja kissojen rapsuttaja, Veikko nauraa.
 Rapsutuksille tuntuukin olevan tilausta. Bernit työskentelevät ammatikseen emäntänsä kanssa muun muassa vanhusten sekä kehitysvammaisten lasten parissa. Työ on vaativaa, ja Maarit on kouluttanut koiransa huolellisesti. Mökillä koirat saavat lomailla ja laiskottelu on ansaittua. Leppoisimmin aika kuluu juuri Veikon kainalossa rapsutuksessa.
 Jari ja Maarit Haapasaaren kelomökin hirret on kuljetettu Kustaviin Ranualta asti.
 Mökissä ei ole mitään tarpeetonta
 Veikko hankki mökin edesmenneen vaimonsa Kertun kanssa 60–70-lukujen vaihteessa. Pariskunnan oli tutustuttanut Kustavin luontoon ystäväpariskunta, joilla oli saaressa kesäpaikka.
 Kun Veikko ja Kerttu löysivät sopivan tontin Kustavin kärjestä, haave sai tuulta alleen. Myyjä ei aluksi ollut halukas myymään koskematonta kahden hehtaarin tonttia, mutta suostui lopulta. Kun messuilta löytyi sopiva hirsitalontekijä, rakentaminen saattoi alkaa.
 Yllätyksiä alkoi kuitenkin ilmaantua. Myyjä halusi perua kaupan, mihin Veikko ja Kerttu eivät suostuneet. Lopulta kävi ilmi, että myyjä olikin ollut vain osaomistajana tontissa, mistä seurasi oikeustaistelu. Kauppa kuitenkin piti.
 – Tämä on vaatimaton mökki, tällaisia oli tapana rakentaa 1970-luvulla. Juomavesi tuodaan kaupungista tai haetaan Kustavin keskustasta, Maarit kertoo.
 Mitään tarpeetonta ei ole. Ruoka valmistetaan pienessä keittokomerossa, makuukammareihin mahtuvat juuri ja juuri sängyt sekä säilytettävät vaatteet. Sisällä aikaa vietetään pääosin tuvassa, jossa on ruokapöytä, sohva ja keinutuoli. Televisio tuo ajanvietettä sadepäiviin.
 – Makuukammareita on kolme, ja niihin meidän kaikkien on mahduttava jollain tavalla. Oman perheemme lisäksi täällä vierailee usein myös lastemme ystäviä. Sopu sijaa antaa, Maarit nauraa.
 Koirat nukkuvat yönsä tuvassa, mutta kissat ovat unipaikkansa suhteen vaativaisempia: heille kelpaa vain sänky. Suosituin paikka löytyy Veikon viereltä.
 – Papalla on sänky täynnä misuja. Meidän Lempi onkin joka miehen unelma, tumma ja tulinen, Maarit nauraa kissan astellessa ylhäästi pitkin tuvan lattiaa ja puskiessa ohimennen pöydänjalkaa.
 Veikon mukaan kissat ovat kivoja petikavereita.
 –Jos nukumme liian pitkään, koiralauma tulee herättämään ja nuolemaan kasvoja, Veikko kertoo.
 Tuvan pöydän äärelle kokoonnutaan syömään huonommalla kelillä. Perintöhuonekalut kunnostettiin aikoinaan maalariammattikoulussa. Lempi-Unelma tarkkailee vanhalta sohvalta tuvan tapahtumia.
 Rantoja koko niemenkärjellinen
 Mökkeilijät nauttivat eniten ympäröivästä luonnosta. Samalle tontille mahtuu karua kalliorantaa, jylhää petäjikköä ja vihreitä niittyjä. Koirat leikkivät pehmeillä heinämättäillä ja riehaantuvat painimaan. Joskus uintireissuilla vastaan luikertelee kyykäärme. Silloin on parasta vaihtaa rantaa ja jättää kyy rauhaan, sillä kallioisia rantoja riittää koko niemenkärjellinen.
 Luonto on saaristossa kaunis jokaisena vuodenaikana. Haapasaaret mökkeilevät keväästä syksyyn, mutta joskus he nauttivat mökkimiljööstään talvellakin.
 – Silloin auto pitää jättää tuonne tien alkuun 700 metrin päähän mökistä. Tuomme tavarat pulkalla perille. Koska porakaivo ei talvella ole käytössä, sulatamme pesuvedet lumesta, Jari kertoo.
 Jo heti maaliskuulta alkaen Haapasaaret pyrkivät viettämään kaikki viikonloput mökillä. He ajavat kotoa Kaarinasta reilussa tunnissa.
 – Minä, mieheni ja isäni muutamme tänne kokonaan jo heti kesäkuun alusta alkaen. Miehelleni nostan kyllä hattua, aika harva haluaisi viettää kesäänsä niin tiiviisti appiukkonsa kanssa. Hän myös huolehtii isästä todella paljon, Maarit kiittelee.
 Bernit työskentelevät Maaritin kanssa muun muassa vanhusten ja kehitysvammaisten lasten parissa. Koirat ovat perheen innokkaimpia uimareita.
 Lähimmäisenrakkautta ei säästellä
 Mökkipaikan hurmaava ilmapiiri syntyy osin juuri siitä, että arvot ovat kohdallaan. Lähimmäisenrakkautta ei säästellä, vaan kaikki elelevät sulassa sovussa ja nauttivat kunnioitusta – niin ihmiset kuin eläimetkin.
 Ja asukkaista he, jotka viettävät kesäänsä vain lomaillen eivätkä käy töissä, ottavat ilosta kaiken irti. Kalliolla mäen päällä oleva pihakeinu on leppoisassa liikkeessä suuren osan päivistä.
 – Minusta on mukavaa istuskella tässä ja katsella merelle, Veikko sanoo vieressä lepäilevä Viljo-koira seuranaan.
 – Lasken niemen ohi ajavia veneitä. Joinakin päivinä niitä kulkee jopa kaksi.
 Rannat ovat paikoin hyvin matalia. Maarit, Veera ja Jari Haapasaari käyttävät koiria usein uimassa kalliorannoilla. Kalliolla on leppoisaa jutella perheen kuulumisia tai vain katsella merelle. Sieltä näkee kauas.
 Sikke Sumarin kesäpaikka on luonnonkauniilla Muhun saarella – "Omenapuut kuiskuttelivat korvaani tänne tullessani"
 Kun on aika luopua – viimeinen kesä mökillä
 Julkaistu: 8.7.2017


text:
Environmentální ekonomie Ekonomické a administrativní nástroje ochrany ŽP Vilém Pařil. - ppt stáhnout
 Prezentace na téma: "Environmentální ekonomie Ekonomické a administrativní nástroje ochrany ŽP Vilém Pařil."— Transkript prezentace:
 Environmentální ekonomie Ekonomické a administrativní nástroje ochrany ŽP Vilém Pařil
 Otázka 1  Co je to instituce?
 Institucionální zabezpečení ochrany ŽP  Legislativní nástroje  Institucionálně organizační nástroje  Administrativní nástroje  Programové a strategické nástroje  Ekonomické nástroje
 Otázka 2  Co je cílem či účelem využívání administrativních nástrojů v ochraně ŽP?
 Administrativní nástroje  Cílem  dodržování přípustné míry znečištění životního prostředí  Forma direktivně prosazovaného  Příkazu  Zákazu  Limitu  Normy  Předepsaného administrativního postupu nebo omezení
 Administrativní nástroje  Příkazy a zákazy  zakotveny v konkrétních právních normách  obecně platné nebo adresné nařízení autority ke změně technologie  Limity  emisní  limity na emise škodlivin vypouštěných do ovzduší z určitého zdroje znečištění  limity na obsah škodlivin v jednotce vypouštěných odpadních plynů nebo vody  imisní  stanovení nejvyššího přípustného množství znečišťujících látek v ovzduší, odpadních vodách a půdě  Normy  hygiena  Předepsaného administrativního postupu nebo omezení  EIA, SEA, IPPC
 Limity  Limity využití území  Imisní limity  Apod. Znečišťující látkaDoba průměrováníImisní limityMax. překročení Oxid siřičitý1 hodina350 μg/m324 Oxid siřičitý24 hodin125 μg/m33 Oxid dusičitý1hodina200 μg/m318 Oxid dusičitý1 rok40 μg/m30 Oxid uhelnatý8 hod10 mg/m30 Benzen1 rok5 μg/m30 PM1024 hodin50 μg/m335 PM101 rok40 μg/m30 PM2,51 rok25 μg/m30 Olovo1 rok0,5 μg/m30
 Ekonomické nástroje  Makroekonomické  Pozitivní stimulace  Přímé (podpůrné programy)  Nepřímé (daňový systém)  Negativní stimulace  Mikroekonomické
 Funkce ekonomických nástrojů  Kompenzační  finanční náhrada (kompenzace či internalizace) externích efektů  Fiskální  dosažení finančního výnosu veřejných rozpočtů umožňující financování určitých aktivit veřejného sektoru, např. likvidaci starých zátěží  Stimulační  dosažení určitého ekologického cíle, např. snížení úrovně znečišťování nebo omezení spotřeby přírodních zdrojů  Redistributivní  ovlivnění cenových, respektive nákladových dopadů na různé sektory, odvětví a sociální skupiny  Komparativní  specifická pro transformační období postkomunistických států  operativní vyrovnání různých ekonomických podmínek různých znečišťovatelů, které vznikly předchozím vývojem, bez přímého ovlivnění podnikatelskými subjekty (např. v podmínkách cenové regulace, materiálního a technologického deficitu, atp.).
 Ekonomické nástroje negativní stimulace  poplatky za znehodnocování životního prostředí  výnos je použit na financování akcí na ochranu životního prostředí  pokuty, platby za nedodržení stanovených povinností v oblasti ochrany životního prostředí  náhrady škody za znehodnocování životního prostředí  daně ekologického charakteru  cla, stanovení dovozních a vývozních cel u ekologicky škodlivých výrobků
 Otázka 3  Jaká jsou metodická úskalí zavádění poplatků?
 Poplatky  Princip „polluter pays“  Funkce  Motivační (změna chování subjektů)  Fiskální (zajištění výdajů na ochranu ŽP)  Selektivní (zohlednění míry škodlivosti)  Klíčový problém  Stanovení poplatku ve výši nákladů na zamezení škod
 Metodická úskalí zavádění poplatků  Přesné stanovení ekvivalentu nákladů  Znečištění vody  Stanovení poplatků v případě neexistence ekvivalentních nákladů  Nemožnost likvidace škodliviny  Specifikace škodlivin  Kritéria  Významnost z hlediska znečišťování  Možnost měření  Využití poplatků  Národní, regionální, municipální úroveň
 Poplatky v ŽP dle OECD  Poplatky za znečišťování životního prostředí  Poplatky za využívání přírodních zdrojů  Uživatelské poplatky
 Poplatky za znečišťování životního prostředí  poplatky za znečišťování ovzduší  poplatky za vypouštění odpadních vod  poplatky za ukládání odpadů na skládky  poplatky za spalování odpadů  poplatky za hluk  administrativní, resp. místní poplatky
 Poplatky za využívání přírodních zdrojů  poplatky za odběry podzemní vody  poplatky za odběry vody z vodních toků  odvody za odnětí půdy ze zemědělského půdního fondu  poplatky za odnětí pozemků plnění funkcí lesa  úhrady z dobývacího prostoru a z vydobytých vyhrazených nerostů (PUPFL)  poplatky za kácení dřevin
 Uživatelské poplatky  poplatky za spotřebu látek poškozujících ozónovou vrstvu  poplatky za užívání vybraných umělých hnojiv a pesticidů  poplatky za používání tašek z umělých hmot, apod.  konstrukce těchto poplatků není technickou, ale sociálně- politickou úlohou
 Poplatky užívané v ČR  poplatky za znečišťování ovzduší  poplatky za výrobu a dovoz regulovaných látek a výrobků, které je obsahují (např. látky ohrožující ozónovou vrstvu Země)  poplatek za odebrané množství podzemní vody  poplatky za vypouštění odpadních vod  platba k úhradě správy vodních toků a správy povodí  platby za komunální odpad  poplatky na podporu sběru, zpracování, využití a odstranění vybraných autovraků  poplatky za uložení odpadů  registrační a evidenční poplatky dle zákona o obalech  odvody za odnětí půdy ze zemědělského půdního fondu  poplatek za odnětí pozemků určených k plnění funkcí lesa  úhrady z dobývacího prostoru a z vydobytých nerostů
 Poplatky za znečišťování životního prostředí v ČR  poplatky za znečišťování ovzduší  poplatky za vypouštění odpadních vod  poplatky za uložení odpadů  výše uložených poplatků  druh vypouštěných znečišťujících látek  pro látky s větším potenciálem škodlivosti pro životní prostředí může být stanovena vyšší sazba  množství vypouštěných znečišťujících látek  případně i další faktory - velikost, resp. kategorie zdroje znečišťování apod.
 Poplatky za využívání přírodních zdrojů v ČR  platba za odebrané množství podzemní vody  odvody za odnětí půdy ze zemědělského půdního fondu  úhrady z dobývacího prostoru a z vydobytých nerostů  poplatek za odnětí pozemků určených k plnění funkcí lesa
 Komponenty poplatkového systému  stanovení předmětu zpoplatnění  vymezení poplatníků, resp. plátců  určení způsobu výpočtu  stanovení výše poplatků (základní sazby)  případné zavedení přirážek k základní sazbě  stanovení úlev, odkladu placení popřípadě výjimek z placení  stanovení způsobu výběru poplatků  způsob kontroly celého systému  určení užití výnosu z poplatků
 Příjmy SFŽP 2012 (v mil. Kč)
 Poplatky za znečišťování ovzduší  Systém poplatků v ochraně ovzduší  poplatky za znečišťování ovzduší  poplatky za výrobu a dovoz regulovaných látek a výrobků, které je obsahují  Do roku 2012 Poplatky za znečišťování ovzdušíVyměřováníVýběr a vymáháníPříjemce výnosů Provozovatelé zvláště velkých a velkých stacionárních zdrojů (nad 50MW, 5- 50MW) KrajCelní úřadSFŽP Provozovatelé středních stacionárních zdrojů (0,2-5MW) Obec s rozšířenou působností Celní úřadSFŽP Provozovatelé malých stacionárních zdrojůObec Od 1. 9. 2012 pouze krajská úroveň
 Znečišťující látky vnášené do ovzduší  Hlavní zpoplatněné znečišťující látky do r. 2012:  tuhé znečišťující látky,  anorganické kyslíkaté sloučeniny síry vyjádřené jako oxid siřičitý (dále jen „oxid siřičitý“),  anorganické kyslíkaté sloučeniny dusíku vyjádřené jako oxid dusičitý (dále jen „oxidy dusíku“),  těkavé organické látky – vyjma zvláště vyjmenovaných mezi ostatními zpoplatněnými znečišťujícími látkami ve třídách I - II,  těžké kovy a jejich sloučeniny vyjádřené jako kov (dále jen „těžké kovy“); těžkými kovy se rozumí kovy, případně metaloidy, které jsou stabilní a jejich specifická hmotnost je větší než 4 500 kg/m3,  oxid uhelnatý  amoniak a soli amonné vyjádřené jako amoniak (dále jen „amoniak“)  polycyklické aromatické uhlovodíky,  methan.  Ostatní zpoplatněné znečišťující látky do r. 2012:  I. třída:  Azbest,  Benzen,  Berylium a jeho sloučeniny vyjádřené jako Be.  II. třída:  Fluor a jeho organické sloučeniny vyjádřené jako F x,  Chlor a jeho organické sloučeniny vyjádřené jako Cl x,  Brom a jeho organické sloučeniny vyjádřené jako Br x,  Fluor a jeho anorganické sloučeniny vyjádřené jako F x,  Chlor a jeho anorganické sloučeniny vyjádřené jako Cl x,  Brom a jeho anorganické sloučeniny vyjádřené jako Br x,  Sulfan,  Sirouhlík
 Sazby poplatků produkované velkými a středními stacionárními zdroji do r. 2012 Znečišťující látkaSazba (Kč/t) Tuhé znečišťující látky3 000 Oxid siřičitý1 000 Oxidy dusíku800 Těkavé organické látky2 000 Těžké kovy a jejich sloučeniny20 000 Oxid uhelnatý600 Amoniak1 000 Methan1 000 Polycyklické aromatické uhlovodíky20 000 Znečišťující látkaSazba (Kč/t) Třída I20 000 Třída II10 000
 Sazby poplatků produkované malými stacionárními zdroji do r. 2012 PalivoRozmezí sazeb (Kč/rok) Jmenovitý tepelný výkonnad 50 do 100 kW včetněnad 100 do 200 kW Topné oleje s obsahem síry od 0,1 do 0,2 %1 000 – 1 500 1 500 – 2 000 Topné oleje s obsahem síry do 1 %1 500 – 2 500 2 500 – 3 000 Jiná kapalná paliva a látky6 000 – 8 000 8 000 – 12 000 Černé uhlí1 500 – 2 000 2 000 – 3 000 Hnědé uhlí tříděné, palivo z hnědého uhlí2 500 – 4 000 4 000 – 5 000 Hnědé uhlí energetické, lignit4 000 – 6 0006 000 – 10 000 Uhelné kaly, proplástky10 000 – 20 00020 000 – 40 000  u malých ostatních zdrojů  u malých spalovacích zdrojů Typ zdroje znečišťováníRozmezí sazeb (Kč/rok) Zdroje emisí těkavých organických látek500 – 2 000 Zdroje emisí tuhých znečišťujících látek500 – 5 000
 Novelizace 1. 9. 2012  Poplatek pouze >50 tis. Kč za provozovnu  Základem poplatku za znečišťování je množství emisí ze stacionárního zdroje nebo zdrojů v tunách  Součin základu a sazby (příloha 9 zákona č. 201/2012 Sb.) a koeficientu dle dosahované úrovně emisí Kč/t2013 až 201620172018201920202021 TZL4 2006 3008 40010 50012 60014 700 SO21 350 2 100 2 800 3 500 4 200 4 900 NOx1 1001 7002 2002 8003 3003 900 VOC2 7004 2005 6007 0008 4009 800 do 50 % (do 2017)50-60 %60-70 %80-90 %přes 90 % koeficient0,00,40,60,81,0
 Platby za komunální odpad  Způsoby stanovení platby :  Zákon 185/2001 Sb. o odpadech  úhrada za shromažďování, sběr, přepravu, třídění, využívání a odstraňování komunálních odpadů  smluvní poplatek (§ 17)  poplatek za komunální odpad  OZV (§ 17a)  Zákon 565/1990 Sb. o místních poplatcích  místní poplatek za provoz systému shromažďování, sběru, přepravy, třídění, využívání a odstraňování komunálních odpadů  místní poplatek (§ 10b)
 Poplatky na podporu sběru, zpracování, využití a odstranění vybraných autovraků  § 37e zákona o odpadech  3.000 Kč v případě splnění mezních hodnot emisí EURO 2 (přibližně vozidla vyrobená v letech 1996-1999)  5.000 Kč v případě splnění mezních hodnot emisí EURO 1 (1993- 1995)  10.000 Kč v případě, kdy vozidlo nevyhoví ani normě EURO 1 (před rokem 1993).  poplatek neplacen - minimálně mezní hodnoty emisí podle normy EURO 3 (cca od roku výroby 2000)
 Poplatky za uložení odpadů  2 složky:  základní složka - uložení odpadu  příjmem obce  riziková složka - uložení nebezpečného odpadu  příjmem Státního fondu životního prostředí  např. výbušnost, oxidační schopnost, hořlavost, dráždivost, toxicita, karcinogenita, infekčnost atd. Jako příklad nebezpečných odpadů lze uvést odpady polychlorovaných bifenylů (PCB), infekční zdravotnické odpady nebo odpady obsahující rtuť či olovo atd.
 Sazby poplatků za uložení odpadů  Základní sazba  Riziková sazba
 Registrační a evidenční poplatky dle zákona o obalech  § 30 zákona č. 477/2001 Sb. o obalech  zápis do Seznamu nositelů povinnosti zpětného odběru nebo využití odpadu z obalů  800 Kč  rozhodnutí o autorizaci  2 000 Kč  smlouva o zajištění plnění povinnosti zpětného odběru a využití odpadu z obalů (smlouva o sdruženém plnění)  nad 300 Kg/rok  800 Kč za každou smlouvu
 Odvody za odnětí půdy ze zemědělského půdního fondu  zákon 334/1992 Sb. o ochraně ZPF  základní hodnotové ukazatele zemědělské půdy v Kč za 1 ha  podle hlavních půdních jednotek  podle klimatických regionů  ekologická váha vlivu  poškození zemědělské půdy  Příjem 40% obec / 60% SFŽP
 Poplatek za odnětí pozemků určených k plnění funkcí lesa (PUPFL)  289/1995 Sb. lesní zákon  Výše ročního poplatku za 1 ha  součin  průměrné roční potenciální produkce lesů  6,3 m 3 /ha  průměrné ceny dřeva na odvozním místě - 983 Kč za 1 m 3  faktoru ekologické váhy lesa  od 1,4 do 5,0  Příjem 40% obec / 60% SFŽP
 Úhrada z dobývacího prostoru  § 32a 44/1988 Sb. horní zákon  roční platba  Nejvýše 10% z tržní ceny  započatý hektar plochy dobývacího prostoru  rozmezí 100 Kč až 1.000 Kč na hektar  příjem obcí
 Úhrada z vydobytých nerostů na výhradních ložiskách nebo vyhrazených nerostů po jejich úpravě a zušlechtění  § 32a 44/1988 Sb. horní zákon  roční platba  sazba  od 0,5 % např. radioaktivní nerosty, uhlí hlubinně dobývané  do 10 % např. magnezit, kamenná sůl  příjem 25 % SR / 75 % obce
 Poplatek za odebrané množství podzemní vody  § 88 254/2001 Sb. vodní zákon  Poplatek neplacen  pod 6 000 m 3 za kalendářní rok nebo méně nebo rovno 500 m 3 v každém měsíci  odběry povolené k účelu získání tepelné energie  odběry vody ke snížení znečištění podzemních vod apod.
 Poplatky za vypouštění odpadních vod do vod povrchových  § 89-99 254/2001 Sb. vodní zákon
 Další poplatky související s vodou  Poplatek za povolené vypouštění odpadních vod do vod podzemních  § 100 254/2001 Sb. vodní zákon  3.500 Kč za kalendářní rok  Platba k úhradě správy vodních toků a správy povodí  § 101 254/2001 Sb. vodní zákon  větší odběr než 6 000 m 3 za kalendářní rok
 Nepřímé nástroje pozitivní stimulace  Poskytnutí úlev na daních  Daň z příjmů FO  Daň z příjmů PO  Silniční daň  DPH  Spotřební daň  Daň z nemovitosti
 Poskytnutí úlev na daních z příjmů FO  Zákon o daních z příjmů č. 586/1992 Sb.  Dary  z daňového základu lze odečíst hodnotu darů na ekologické účely  § 15 odst. 1 zákona 586/1992 Sb.  u FO ve výši 2 – 10% základu daně  minimální částka je 1000 Kč  nejvýše však do 2% ze základu daně na jeden dar
 Poskytnutí úlev na daních z příjmů PO  Zákon o daních z příjmů č. 586/1992 Sb.  Dary  z daňového základu lze odečíst hodnotu darů na ekologické účely  § 20 odst. 8 zákona 586/1992 Sb.  u PO musí činit hodnota daru minimálně 2000 Kč, nejvýše lze odečíst 5% základu daně  Zařízení k ochraně ŽP  mezi náklady je možné zahrnout výdaje na provoz vlastního zařízení k ochraně životního prostředí  § 24 odst. 2g zákona 586/1992 Sb.
 Poskytnutí úlev na daních z příjmů PO  Zákon o daních z příjmů č. 586/1992 Sb.  Obnovitelné zdroje  § 40 odst. 3 zákona 586/1992 Sb.  příjmy z provozu  malých vodních elektráren do výkonu 1 MW  větrných elektráren  solárních elektráren (ale 180/2005 o vyr. el. z obn. zdr.)  odvod 26% výkupní cena / 28% zelený bonus, mimo do 30kW a umístění na střešní krytině)  zařízení na výrobu bioplynu  geotermálních zdrojů  příjmy jsou osvobozeny po dobu 5 let po roce uvedení zařízení do provozu  ČOV a třídění  § 32 odst. 2 zákona 586/1992 Sb.  z daňového základu lze odečíst 15% ze vstupní ceny zařízení na čištění a úpravu vod a třídících a úpravárenských zařízení na zhodnocení druhotných surovin
 Poskytnutí úlev na silniční dani  Zákon č. 16/1993 o dani silniční  § 6 zákona č. 16/1993 o dani silniční  snížena sazba daně u vozidel ekologicky šetrných k životnímu prostředí KubaturaDaň do 800 cm31 200 Kč nad 800 cm3 do 1250 cm31 800 Kč nad 1250 cm3 do 1500 cm32 400 Kč nad 1500 cm3 do 2000 cm33 000 Kč nad 2000 cm3 do 3000 cm33 600 Kč nad 3000 cm34 200 Kč
 Poskytnutí úlev na DPH  Zákon č. 235/2004 Sb. o dani z přidané hodnoty  zrušeno  § 47 zákona č. 235/2004 Sb. o DPH  Dříve 22 % versus 5 %  20 % versus 14 %  Příloha č. 2 zákona č. 235/2004 Sb. o DPH  Odvádění a čištění odpadních vod včetně ostatních služeb souvisejících s těmito činnostmi  Sběr a přeprava komunálního odpadu  Příprava k likvidaci a likvidace komunálního odpadu
 Sazby spotřební daně  Vysoké zdanění uhlovodíkových paliv  cena pohonných hmot je významným faktorem ovlivňujícím rozvoj individuální automobilové dopravy  § 48 zákona č. 353/2003 Sb. o spotřebních daních  12 480 až 13 710 Kč / 1000 l
 Poskytnutí úlev na dani z nemovitostí  Zákon č. 338/1992 Sb. o dani z nemovitostí  § 4 zákona č. 338/1992 Sb.  pozemky  Ochranné lesy a lesy zvláštního určeni a vodní plochy  s výjimkou rybníků s intenzivním chovem ryb  pozemky území zvláště chráněných podle předpisů o ochraně přírody a krajiny  pozemky remízků, hájů a větrolamů a mezí na orné půdě, trvalých travních porostech  pozemky pásma hygienické ochrany vod I. stupně  § 7 zákona č. 338/1992 Sb.  stavby sloužící výlučně k účelům zlepšení stavu životního prostředí  Vyhláška MF ČR 12/1993 Sb. ze dne 18. prosince 1992, kterou se provádějí některá ustanovení zákona České národní rady č. 338/1992 Sb., o dani z nemovitostí
 Stavby sloužící výlučně k účelům zlepšení stavu životního prostředí  a) k umístění a provozu veřejné monitorovací sítě zajišťující informace o stavu jednotlivých složek životního prostředí financované z prostředků státních rozpočtů nebo rozpočtu obcí  b) k úpravě odpadů a pro jejich další využití  c) k asanaci a rekultivaci skládek odpadů  d) k asanaci kontaminovaných pozemků, podzemních vod a objektů  e) pro třídění a sběr odpadů  f) pro tepelné, biologické, chemické a fyzikální zneškodňování odpadů  g) pro skládky odpadů splňující podmínky stanovené pro provoz skládky zvláštními předpisy  h) provozu malých vodních elektráren do výkonu 1 MW  ch) pro generátory s větrným pohonem  i) pro generátory bioplynu včetně systémů jejich využití, pokud je získaná energie dodávána do sítě nebo dalším spotřebitelům  j) pro zdroje využívající geotermální energie včetně tepelných čerpadel, které dodávají teplo spotřebitelům  k) jako funkční sluneční kolektory  l) jako zdroje energie z biomasy
 Přímé ekonomické nástroje pozitivní stimulace  poskytnuté investiční dotace nebo subvence z veřejných zdrojů financování  poskytnutí úvěrů za výhodných podmínek  poskytnutí úlev z plateb (daní, poplatků, vyměřených pokut nebo náhrad škod) při realizaci opatření na ochranu životního prostředí  poskytnutí platby ze strany jiného znečišťovatele  poskytnutí platby z veřejných fondů
 Institucionální zabezpečení přímé podpory  ČR  Státní fond životního prostředí  Rakousko  Fond hospodaření s vodou  Fond životního prostředí  Fond pro sanaci kontaminovaných lokalit  Fond pro ekologickou energii
 Státní fond životního prostředí  zákon č. 388/1991 Sb. o Státním fondu životního prostředí České republiky  4. 10. 1991  Správcem Fondu je Ministerstvo životního prostředí  O poskytování prostředků z Fondu rozhoduje ministr  Na poskytnutí prostředků z Fondu není právní nárok
 Příjmy SFŽP 1992 – 2013 (v mil. Kč)
 Výdaje SFŽP 1992 - 2012
 Dotace, subvence, granty  SFŽP  EU  Operační program Životní prostředí  Operační program Infrastruktura (min. období)  ISPA (Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession)  ČR  Zelená úsporám  Národní programy
 ISPA  Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession 2000 – 2004  Infrastruktura  Životní prostředí EURISPASRÚSCCelkem ISPA celkem abs.347 973 631143 271 41664 961 894556 206 941 ISPA celkem %62,56%25,76%11,68% ISPA žp abs.171 988 01611 131 39064 961 894248 081 300 ISPA žp %49,43%7,77%100,00%44,60%
 Operační program Infrastruktura  2004 – 2006  Cíl  ochrana a zlepšování stavu životního prostředí a rozvoj a zkvalitňování dopravní infrastruktury  cca 591 mil. EUR  Priorita 2 - Snížení negativních důsledků dopravy na životní prostředí  Opatření 2.1 Realizace ochranných opatření na dopravní síti k zabezpečení ochrany životního prostředí  Opatření 2.2 Podpora kombinované dopravy  Opatření 2.3 Podpora zavádění alternativních paliv  Opatření 2.4 Studijní a výzkumné projekty k zabezpečování problematiky zlepšení životního prostředí z hlediska dopravy  Priorita 3 - Zlepšování environmentální infrastruktury  Opatření 3.1 Obnova environmentálních funkcí území  Opatření 3.2. Zlepšování infrastruktury ve vodním hospodářství  Opatření 3.3 Zlepšování infrastruktury ochrany ovzduší  Opatření 3.4 Nakládání s odpady a odstraňování starých zátěží
 Regionální rozložení výdajů ISPA a OPI Program Praha Střední Čechy JihozápadSevero-západSeverovýchodJihovýchod Střední Morava Moravsko- slezský Celkem ISPA0,00% 3,82%17,49%17,26%43,68%17,76%100,00% OP I0,00%17,38%13,96%9,96%8,04%25,69%10,07%14,89%100,00%
 Operační program Životní prostředí  Zlepšování vodohospodářské infrastruktury a snižování rizika povodní  1,99 mld. €, tj. 40,4 % OPŽP  Zlepšování kvality ovzduší a snižování emisí  0,63 mld. €, tj. 12,9 % OPŽP  Udržitelné využívání zdrojů energie  0,67 mld. €, tj. 13,7 % OPŽP  Zkvalitnění nakládání s odpady a odstraňování starých ekologických zátěží  0,78 mld. €, tj. 15,8 % OPŽP  Omezování průmyslového znečištění a snižování environmentálních rizik  0,06 mld. €, tj. 1,2 % OPŽP  Zlepšování stavu přírody a krajiny  0,60 mld. €, tj. 12,2 % OPŽP  Rozvoj infrastruktury pro environmentální vzdělávání, poradenství a osvětu  0,04 mld. €, tj. 0,9 % OPŽP  Technická pomoc  0,14 mld. €, tj. 2,9 % OPŽP
 Operační program Životní prostředí  Celkem poskytnuto  4,92 mld. € - cca 126 mld. Kč  Říjen 2013  Celkem alokováno 57 mld. Kč  Celkem proplaceno 46 mld. Kč  Říjen 2014  Celkem alokováno 94 mld. Kč  Celkem proplaceno 64 mld. Kč
 Národní programy  Program ochrany ozónové vrstvy Země (33,6 mil. Kč)  Program na podporu výkupů pozemků ve zvláště chráněných územích, jejich ochranných pásmech a významných krajinných prvcích (87,0 mil. Kč)  Program podpory EVVOaP (56,0 mil. Kč)  Program podpory obcí ležících v regionech NP (28,0 mil. Kč)  Program podpory zajištění monitoringu vod (19,2 mil. Kč)  Program na podporu systému pro nakládání s autovraky (35,9 mil. Kč)  Program podpory předkladatelů návrhů projektů z fondů EU (0,9 mil. Kč)  Program na podporu druhové diverzity neprodukčních rostlin a zachování jejich genových zdrojů (25,0 mil. Kč)  Program pro vítěze ocenění Zelená stuha ČR – péče o zeleň a ŽP mil. Kč)
 Ekonomické nástroje mikroekonomického charakteru  ocenění přírodních statků  Přímé vs. nepřímé  zařazení do ekonomické kalkulace  Finanční část vs. ekonomická část  environmentální management  Efektivita vs. životní prostředí
 Stáhnout ppt "Environmentální ekonomie Ekonomické a administrativní nástroje ochrany ŽP Vilém Pařil."


text:
 18.1.2016
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 C 16/40
 2015 m. rugsėjo 11 d. pareikštas ieškinys byloje Silver Plastics irJohannes Reifenhäuser/Komisija
 (Byla T-582/15)
 (2016/C 016/50)
 Proceso kalba: vokiečių
 Šalys
 Ieškovės: Silver Plastics GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorfas, Vokietija) ir Johannes Reifenhäuser Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Troisdorfas), atstovaujamos advokatų M. Wirtz, S. Möller ir W. Carstensen
 Atsakovė: Europos Komisija
 Reikalavimai
 Ieškovės Bendrojo Teismo prašo:
 —
 Panaikinti 2015 m. birželio 24 d. Europos Komisijos sprendimą AT.39563 tiek, kiek jis susijęs su ieškovėmis;
 —
 arba sumažinti ieškovėms solidariai paskirtą baudą iki sumos, kuri neviršija 10 % nuo pirmos ieškovės apyvartos paskutiniais verslo metais iki sprendimo dėl baudos priėmimo, remiantis tuo, kad jos nėra ūkio subjektas;
 —
 arba sumažinti ieškovėms solidariai paskirtą baudą iki sumos, kuri neviršija 10 % nuo kiekvienos pirmos ir antros ieškovių atitinkamos metinės apyvartos, remiantis tuo, kad gamykla nėra vienas ūkio subjektas;
 —
 arba sumažinti ieškovėms solidariai paskirtą baudą dėl ŠVE teritorijos, nustatant pagrindinės baudos sumą remiantis vien plastikinių padėklų iš putų polistirolio (EPS) apyvarta;
 —
 arba sumažinti ieškovėms solidariai paskirtą baudą dėl ŠVE teritorijos nustatant atskiras baudas už EPS plastikinius padėklus ir polipropileno (PP) plastikinius padėklus atsižvelgiant į įvairius pažeidimo laikotarpius;
 —
 arba sumažinti ieškovėms solidariai paskirtą baudą sumažinant apyvartos, į kurią atsižvelgta nustatant pagrindinės baudos dydį, vertę iki tokio lygio, kuris tinkamai atspindėtų tai, jog pirmos ieškovės veiksmai ŠVE teritorijoje ir Prancūzijoje, arba tik ŠVE teritorijoje, buvo paprasčiausi informacijos mainai, o ne susitarimai dėl kainų nustatymo;
 —
 arba sumažinti ieškovėms solidariai paskirtą baudą nustatant baudą dėl ŠVE teritorijos remiantis tik Vokietijoje atliktais pardavimais;
 —
 arba sumažinti ieškovėms solidariai paskirtą baudą dėl ŠVE teritorijos atsisakant papildomos specialios sumos, arba sumažinant šią sumą atsižvelgus į faktą, kad pažeidimai ŠVE teritorijoje buvo aiškiai mažiau antikonkurenciniai nei pažeidimai kitose geografinėse zonose;
 —
 arba sumažinti ieškovėms solidariai paskirtą baudą dėl ŠVE teritorijos ir Prancūzijos;
 —
 priteisti iš atsakovės bylinėjimosi išlaidas.
 Ieškinio pagrindai ir pagrindiniai argumentai
 Ieškovės prašo Bendrojo Teismo iš dalies panaikinti 2015 m. birželio 24 d. Komisijos sprendimą C (2015) 4336 final procedūroje pagal SESV 101 straipsnį ir EEE susitarimo 23 straipsnį (AT.39563 – Maisto produktų pakuotės, skirtos mažmeninei prekybai).
 Pagrįsdamos savo ieškinį ieškovės remiasi septyniais ieškinio pagrindais.
 1.
 Pirmas ieškinio pagrindas: Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1/2003 (1) 7 straipsnio 1 dalies ir 23 straipsnio 3 dalies, kartu su SESV 101 straipsnio 1 dalimi, pažeidimas
 Ieškovės teigia, kad Komisija neteisingai nusprendė, kad pirmos ieškovės veiksmai Šiaurės–Vakarų Europos (toliau – ŠVE) teritorijoje buvo susitarimai dėl kainų nustatymo vieno tęstinio pažeidimo forma polistirolo padėklų ir polipropileno padėklų, skirtų maisto pramonei, gamybos ir prekybos srityje.
 2.
 Antras ieškinio pagrindas: SESV 296 straipsnio 2 dalies ir Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1/2003 2 straipsnio, kartu su tyrimo savo iniciatyva principu, pažeidimas
 Šiuo pagrindų ieškovės teigia, kad Komisija nepakankamai įvykdė savo įrodinėjimo pareigą ir pareigą motyvuoti.
 3.
 Trečias ieškinio pagrindas: procesinių teisių, užtikrintų kaip pagrindinės teisės EŽTK 6 straipsnio 1 ir 2 dalimis ir 3 dalies d punktu ir Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos 47 straipsnio 2 dalimi, 48 ir 52 straipsniais, pažeidimas
 Ieškovės teigia, kad Komisija pažeidė jų lygiateisiškumo teisę ir teisę į teisingą bylos nagrinėjimą, nes pateikus kelis prašymus atsisakė iškviesti ir apklausti ieškovių nurodytus liudininkus jų naudai ir prieš jas.
 4.
 Ketvirtas ieškinio pagrindas: Pranešimo dėl atleidimo nuo baudų (2) 24, 25 ir 26 punktų pažeidimas
 Be to, ieškovės teigia, kad joms paskirta bauda nebuvo sumažinta pateikus įrodymą, dėl tariamų pažeidimų ŠVE teritorijoje, nepaisant to, kad buvo įvykdytos sąlygos.
 5.
 Penktas ieškinio pagrindas: Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1/2003 23 straipsnio 2 dalies pirmo ir antro sakinio, kartu su SESV 101 straipsnio 1 dalimi, pažeidimas
 Komisija neteisingai nusprendė, kad ieškovės sudarė vieną ūkio subjektą, todėl tai buvo įmonė, kaip tai suprantama pagal aukščiau minėtas nuostatas.
 6.
 Šeštas ieškinio pagrindas: Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1/2003 23 straipsnio 2 dalies antro sakinio pažeidimas
 Ieškovės teigia, kad, neatsižvelgusi į antros ieškovės kapitalo dalių perleidimą Reifenhäuser GmbH & Co. KG Maschinenfabrik, kuris teisėtai įvyko sprendimo dėl baudos priėmimo metu, ir į baudos apskaičiavimą įtraukusi šios perleistos įmonės pardavimus, Komisija viršijo teisės aktuose nustatytą 10 % nuo atitinkamos įmonės apyvartos ribą.
 7.
 Septintas ieškinio pagrindas: Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1/2003 23 straipsnio 2 dalies pirmo sakinio a punkto ir 3 dalies, kartu su Baudų apskaičiavimo gairių (3) 19, 20 ir 25 punktais ir vienodo požiūrio principu, pažeidimas
 Šiuo atveju ieškovės teigia, kad visiems sprendime dėl baudos numatytiems karteliams ir visoms įmonėms Komisija taiko vienodą procentinę dalį, t. y. 16 % nuo pardavimų vertės nustatant pagrindinę baudą ir 16 % papildomą specialią sumą, nors įvairių kartelių struktūra ir įmonių dalyvavimas labai skiriasi, tai nepalanku ieškovėms.
 (1) 2002 m. gruodžio 16 d. Tarybos Reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1/2003 dėl konkurencijos taisyklių, nustatytų Sutarties 81 ir 82 straipsniuose, įgyvendinimo (OL L 1, p. 1; 2004 m. specialusis leidimas lietuvių k., 8 sk., 2 t., p. 1).
 (2) Komisijos Pranešimas dėl atleidimo nuo baudų ir baudų sumažinimo kartelių bylose (OL C 45, p. 3).
 (3) Pagal Reglamento Nr. 1/2003 23 straipsnio 2 dalies a punktą skirtų baudų apskaičiavimo gairės (OL C 210, 2006, p. 2).