type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Svarbus teisinis pranešimas
 |
 52005SC0258
 Projektas EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimas iš dalies keičiantis EEE susitarimo 31 protokolą dėl bendradarbiavimo tam tikrose srityse, kurioms netaikomos keturios laisvės - Bendrijos bendrosios pozicijos projektas /* SEK/2005/0258 galutinis */
 [pic] | EUROPOS BENDRIJŲ KOMISIJA |Briuselis, 23.2.2005SEK(2005) 258 galutinisProjektasEEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMASiš dalies keičiantis EEE susitarimo 31 protokolą dėl bendradarbiavimo tam tikrose srityse, kurioms netaikomos keturios laisvės- Bendrijos bendrosios pozicijos projektas -(pateiktas Komisijos)AIŠKINAMASIS MEMORANDUMAS1. EEE susitarimo 31 protokole numatytos specialios nuostatos dėl Bendrijos ir EEE bei ELPA valstybių bendradarbiavimo su keturiomis laisvėmis nesusijusiose srityse.2. Pridedamu EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimo projektu siekiama iš dalies pakeisti 31 protokolą, išplečiant bendradarbiavimą mokslinių tyrimų ir technologijų plėtros srityse. Jame numatomos bendradarbiavimo bendrosios nuostatos ir išdėstomos EEE ELPA šalių dalyvavimo sąlygos nuo 2005 m. sausio 1 d. Bendrijos programose ir veiklose, pagal šią 2005 m. ES bendrojo biudžeto eilutę:- 08 14 01 biudžeto eilutė: Parengiamasis veiksmas Europos saugumo tyrimams gerinti (2005 m.).3. Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 2894/94 nustatančio EEE susitarimo taikymo tvarką 1 straipsnio 3 dalies b punkte numatyta, kad Taryba, remdamasi Komisijos pasiūlymu, nustato Bendrijos poziciją dėl tokių sprendimų.4. EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimo projektas pateikiamas tvirtinti Tarybai. Po to Komisija Bendrijos poziciją kaip galima anksčiau pateiks EEE jungtiniam komitetui.ProjektasEEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMASiš dalies keičiantis EEE susitarimo 31 protokolą dėl bendradarbiavimo tam tikrose srityse, kurioms netaikomos keturios laisvėsEEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą su pakeitimais, padarytais Protokolu, patikslinančiu Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau – Susitarimas), ypač į jo 86 ir 98 straipsnius,kadangi:(1) Susitarimo 31 protokolas buvo iš dalies pakeistas [...] EEE jungtinio komiteto sprendimu Nr. .../...[1].(2) Tikslinga išplėsti susitariančiųjų šalių bendradarbiavimą tam, kad jis apimtų parengiamąjį veiksmą Europos saugumo tyrimams gerinti (2005 m.).(3) Todėl, Susitarimo 31 protokolas turėtų būti iš dalies pakeistas tam, kad šis bendradarbiavimas galėtų prasidėti nuo 2005 m. sausio 1 d.NUSPRENDĖ:1 straipsnisSusitarimo 31 protokolo 1 straipsnis iš dalies keičiamas taip:1. 1 dalies tekstas keičiamas taip:„1. Nuo 1994 m. sausio 1 d. ELPA valstybės dalyvauja įgyvendinant pagrindų programas dėl Bendrijos veiklos mokslinių tyrimų ir technologijų plėtros srityse, numatytose 5 dalyje, o nuo 2005 m. sausio 1 d. – 8 dalyje numatytoje veikloje, dalyvaudamos savo specialiosiose programose.“2. 2 dalies tekstas keičiamas taip:„2. Pagal Susitarimo 82 straipsnio 1 dalies a punktą ELPA valstybės finansiškai prisideda prie 5 ir 8 dalyse nurodytų veiklų finansavimo.“3. 6 dalies tekstas keičiamas taip:„6. Vertinimas ir bet koks pagal Bendrijos pagrindų programas įgyvendinamų 5 ir 8 dalyse numatytų veiklų mokslinių tyrimų ir technologijų plėtros srityse keitimas vykdomas pagal Susitarimo 79 straipsnio 3 dalyje nurodytą procedūrą.“4. Ši dalis įterpiama po 7 dalies:„8. Nuo 2005 m. sausio 1 d. ELPA valstybės dalyvauja Bendrijos veiksmuose pagal šią biudžeto eilutę, įrašytą į 2005 finansinių metų bendrąjį Europos Sąjungos biudžetą:– 08 14 01 biudžeto eilutė: „Parengiamasis veiksmas Europos saugumo tyrimams gerinti (2005 m.)“.“2 straipsnisŠis sprendimas įsigalioja kitą dieną po paskutinio Susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalyje numatyto pranešimo perdavimo EEE jungtiniam komitetui*.Jis taikomas nuo 2005 m. sausio 1 d.3 straipsnisŠis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE dalyje ir EEE priede.Priimta Briuselyje,EEE jungtinio komiteto varduPirmininkasEEE jungtinio komiteto sekretoriai [1] OL L ...* [Konstituciniai reikalavimai nenurodyti.] [Konstituciniai reikalavimai nurodyti.]


type: wikipedia

text:
En hær betegner almindeligvis landmilitære styrker i modsætning til f.eks. marine og luftvåben. Indenfor en hær finder man typisk en række våbenarter, eksempelvis:
 Infanteri
 Kavaleri
 Artilleri
 Pansertropper
 Ingeniørtropper
 Forsyningstropper
 Telegraftropper
 Sanitetstropper
 Faldskærmstropper
 Specialstyrker
 Hierarki
 En hær vil som regel være opdelt i en række enheder, hvis benævnelser kan variere afhængigt af hvilken våbenart, der er tale om, ligesom betydningen af betegnelserne kan variere fra land til land. Fra den største til den mindste enhed vil man typisk finde:
 Armégruppe
 Armé
 Armékorps
 Division
 Brigade (Rom: Legion)
 Regiment
 Bataljon (Artilleriet: Afdeling)
 Kompagni (Kavaleriet: Eskadron; Artilleriet: Batteri)
 Deling
 Gruppe
 De enkelte våbenarter opererer ikke på egen hånd, men vil typisk indgå som dele af en større militær enhed, f.eks. en brigade eller en division.
 Ledelse
 En hærs øverste ledelse vil typisk bestå af en hærchef og hans stab samt en række organisationer, der varetager forskellige overordnede opgaver. Det kan f.eks. være anskaffelse af materiel. For hver våbenart vil der typisk være en inspektør, der med sin stab varetager forskellige opgaver, f.eks. omkring personalet (uddannelse, forfremmelser, forflytninger) eller organisatoriske spørgsmål. Samtidig fungerer inspektørerne som eksperter ifh. til hærens øverste ledelse.
 Stående hær
 En stående hær er en hær bestående af fuldtids professionelle soldater der er parate til indsættelse med kort varsel. De adskiller sig fra reservister der kun indkaldes i tilfælde af krig eller naturkatastrofer. Stående hære er dyre at opretholde og derfor ofte af begrænset størrelse. Men de er ofte mere effektive, bedre udstyret, trænet og forberedte til konflikter end en til lejligheden mobiliseret hær.
 Historie
 Stående hære har eksisteret siden antikken. De ægyptiske faraoer havde stående hære, ligeledes kendtes det i antikkens Grækenland og Rom (legion).
 Efter Roms fald anses de osmanniske janitsjarer for at have været den første stående hær i Europa. Den franske kong Karl VII rejste i det 15. århundrede den første stående hær i Vesteuropa. Formålet her var dog mere at beskæftige de mange soldater der havde deltaget i den nyligt afsluttede Hundredårskrig, så de ikke tog til plyndringer. Mere kontroversiel var opbygningen af stående hære i 17. århundredes Storbritannien og senere USA. Nogle mente dette ville give for stor magt til statsoverhovederne, og underminere den civile kontrol med militæret, hvilket til slut ville resultere i tyranni.
 Den engelske filosof Adam Smith argumenterede i sit skelsættende værk Nationernes velstand (bog V, kap. 1, del 1) fra 1776 at stående hære er et tegn på et moderne samfund, eftersom moderne krige kræver større kunnen og disciplin.
 Siden det 18. århundrede har stående hære været en central del i forsvaret af majoriteten af de mere økonomisk velstillede nationer.
 Se også
 Hæren – Hæren udgør det danske forsvars landmilitære del.
 Militær


text:
La alegoría, del griego ἀλληγορία (allegoría) «figuradamente», es una figura literaria o tema artístico, que busca representar una idea valiéndose de formas humanas, de animales u objetos cotidianos.
 La alegoría pretende dar una imagen a lo que no tiene imagen, para que pueda ser mejor entendido por la generalidad. Dibujar lo abstracto, hacer «visible» lo que solo es conceptual, obedece a una intención didáctica. Así, una mujer ciega con una balanza es alegoría de la justicia, y un esqueleto que porta una guadaña es alegoría de la muerte. El creador de alegorías suele esforzarse en explicarlas para que todos puedan comprenderlas. Por su carácter evocador, se empleó profusamente como recurso en temas religiosos y profanos. Fue utilizada desde la Antigüedad, en la época del Egipto faraónico, la Antigua Grecia, Roma, la Edad Media y el Barroco, aunque el uso del término "alegoría" en gramática y retórica comienza en el con Cicerón y Quintiliano como principales sistematizadores.
 Una alegoría puede entenderse como una temática artística o una figura literaria utilizada para simbolizar una idea abstracta a partir de recursos que permitan representarla, ya sea apelando a individuos, animales u objetos. Por citar un ejemplo: la imagen de una calavera con dos huesos cruzados constituye una alegoría de la piratería.
 También se denomina alegoría a un procedimiento retórico de más amplio alcance, en tanto que por él se crea un sistema extenso y subdividido de imágenes metafóricas que representa un pensamiento más complejo o una experiencia humana real, y en ese sentido puede constituir obras enteras, como el Roman de la Rose de Jean de Meung; la alegoría se transforma entonces en un instrumento cognoscitivo y se asocia al razonamiento por analogías o analógico.
 Tzvetan Todorov dice que una alegoría implica la existencia de, por lo menos, dos sentidos para las mismas palabras; se nos dice a veces que el sentido primero debe desaparecer, y otras que ambos deben estar juntos. En segundo lugar, este doble sentido está indicado en la obra explícitamente y no depende de la interpretación. La imposibilidad de atribuir un sentido alegórico a los elementos sobrenaturales del cuento, nos remite al sentido literal.
 Los escritores y oradores suelen utilizar alegorías para transmitir significados (semi)ocultos o complejos a través de figuras, acciones, imágenes o acontecimientos simbólicos, que en conjunto crean el significado moral, espiritual o político que el autor desea transmitir. Muchas alegorías utilizan la personificación de conceptos abstractos.
 Etimología
 Atestiguada por primera vez en inglés en 1382, la palabra alegoría procede del latín allegoria, latinización del griego ἀλληγορία (alegoría), "lenguaje velado, figurado", que a su vez procede tanto de ἄλλος (allos), "otro, diferente" como de ἀγορεύω (agoreuo), "arengar, hablar en la asamblea", que procede de ἀγορά (agora), "asamblea".
 Alegoría literaria
 Por ejemplo, Omar Khayyam afirma que la vida humana es como una partida de ajedrez, en la cual las casillas negras representan las noches y las blancas los días; en ella, el jugador es una pieza más en el tablero. Jorge Manrique, por otra parte, afirma, tomándolo del Eclesiastés, que nuestras vidas son ríos y como ellos solo parecen diferentes en su curso y caudal, pero no en su final, que es el mar/la muerte: el final ha sido ya escrito, pero no el transcurso de la vida. Y Bernardo de Chartres enseñaba que somos «enanos a hombros de gigantes», porque por nosotros mismos no podemos ver muy lejos, pero subidos a hombros del saber antiguo podemos ver incluso más de lo que vieron los grandes hombres del pasado.
 El significado alegórico es también uno de los cuatro que es posible extraerle a la Sagrada Escritura según los teólogos. Por otra parte, se conoce como Escuela alegórico-dantesca la poesía alegórica española del siglo XV influenciada por la Divina Comedia de Dante Alighieri. Podemos ver en la Divina Comedia de Dante que la loba es alegoría de la traición y el león es alegoría de soberbia. Los principales representantes fueron don Íñigo López de Mendoza, el Marqués de Santillana y Juan de Mena.
 El dramaturgo barroco Pedro Calderón de la Barca llevó a su perfección el subgénero dramático alegórico en un acto de tema eucarístico denominado auto sacramental, donde los personajes son en realidad alegorías de conceptos abstractos. En El verdadero dios Pan, define así la alegoría:
 La alegoría no es másque un espejo que traslada
 lo que es con lo que no es,y está toda su elegancia
 en que salga parecidatanto la copia en la tabla,
 que el que está mirando a unapiense que está viendo a entrambas.
 Un buen ejemplo de alegoría son los siguientes versos de Jorge Manrique:
 Este mundo es el caminopara el otro, que es morada
 sin pesarmas cumple tener buen tino
 para andar esta jornadasin errar.
 Partimos cuando nacemosandamos, mientras vivimos,
 y llegamosal tiempo que fallecemos
 así que cuando morimosdescansamos.
 (Coplas a la muerte de su padre)
 O estas frases de Cervantes:
 La alegoría en la filosofía
 En la filosofía, una alegoría se usa para ilustrar ideas que son difíciles de comprender, especialmente cuando se quiere explicar un concepto abstracto. Por lo general, este recurso es utilizado en libros y tratados filosóficos. Algunos de los filósofos que han recurrido a este han sido Platón, Hegel y Kant.
 La alegoría de la caverna de Platón
 En la alegoría de la caverna, Platón busca explicar que la humanidad no puede acceder al verdadero conocimiento, aunque lo intente; sino que solo ve una sombra de este. Esta alegoría consiste en una cueva, donde se encuentra un grupo de prisioneros y una fogata, que proyecta las sombras de lo que ocurre fuera de la cueva. Los prisioneros consideran que las sombras que ven son la verdad y cuando uno de ellos sale de la caverna, por haber estado tanto tiempo en la oscuridad, ve con dificultad el mundo exterior que era la verdad.
 Dialéctica del amo y el esclavo
 En esta alegoría, Hegel busca explicar la historia universal y su teoría del desarrollo la autoconciencia. Para Hegel, la historia universal consiste en una sociedad en la que se han desarrollado relaciones desiguales, donde hay una entidad reconocida como el amo, y una que reconoce al amo, es decir, el esclavo. Esto debido a que, al haber un choque de deseos de los individuos, la entidad reconocida intenta imponerse sobre los otros. Esto es importante ya que construimos nuestra propia identidad dependiendo de la forma en la que nos relacionemos con los otros.
 La paloma de Kant
 En Crítica de la razón pura (1781), Kant utiliza la alegoría como un recurso retórico para ampliar el sentido de una metáfora. En esta alegoría, Kant hace un juicio sobre la metafísica, afirmando que esta no hace parte de la razón pura porque no puede ser una ciencia al no tener ninguna certeza en sus ideas. Para esto, él dice que la metafísica es como una paloma que vuela por el espacio vacío, sin ningún apoyo, ni ningún fundamento. Además, Kant ejemplifica esto con el filósofo Platón, ya que este último confiaba en la verdad de sus ideas metafísicas, pero para Kant estas solo son especulaciones ya que no tienen una base o una certeza de la cual partir para desarrollar otras ideas.
 La alegoría en la pintura
 En historia del arte es la representación artística de ideas abstractas por medio de figuras o atributos. Son características las alegorías del pintor flamenco El Bosco, en El carro de heno o El jardín de las delicias, aunque también son propias de otros autores, como Botticelli en su Alegoría de la Primavera, o La calumnia de Apeles.
 Véase también
 Alegoresis
 Referencias
 Bibliografía
 Alexander Kojeve, La dialéctica del amo y del esclavo en Hegel. Buenos Aires: La Pleyade, 1975.
 Equipo editorial, Etecé, Alegoría. Argentina. Disponible en: https://concepto.de/alegoria/.
 Ecopalabras. La paloma de Kant. Disponible en: https://ecopalabras.com/2017/07/18/la-paloma-de-kant/
 Significado.com, Alegoría.Disponible en: https://www.significados.com/alegoria/
 Filosofía&Co, ¿Necesitamos el reconocimiento del otro para forjar nuestra identidad?, 2021. Disponible en: https://www.filco.es/el-amo-y-el-esclavo-hegel/
 Alexander Jojeve, La dialéctica entre el amo y el esclavo de Hegel. Madrid, 2006. Disponible en: https://lamenteesmaravillosa.com/la-dialectica-del-amo-y-el-esclavo-de-hegel/
 Enlaces externos
 Colecciones de Dibujos y Grabados alegóricos digitalizados en la Biblioteca Digital Hispánica de la Biblioteca Nacional de España
 Akerman, Mariano. «Las alegorías de la Fe en el arte de occidental», Atualidade Teológica, Vol. 20, No. 54 (Pontifícia Universidade Católica, Río de Janeiro, 2016), pp. 807-831: texto e ilustraciones.
 Figuras retóricas
 Alegorías
 Subgéneros didácticos


type: caselaw

text:
28.10.95 ISY Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning Nr C 286/9
 domare, med H. Jung som justitiesekreterare, den 13 juli FÖRSTAINSTANSRÄTTENS DOM
 1995 meddelat dom med följande domslut: av den 13 juli 1995
 in mål T- 176/94 : K mot Europeiska gemenskapernas
 1 ) Talan i samtliga mål ogillas. kommission ^)
 (Tjänstemän — Europeiska konventionen angående skydd
 2 ) Sökandena skall bära sina egna rättegångskostnader, för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande
 samt ersätta de kostnader som bar förorsakats rådet. friheterna — Klagomål — Rätten till skydd för sitt
 privatliv)
 3 ) Kommissionen skall bära sina egna rättegångskostna ( 95/C 286/22 )
 der.
 (Rättegångsspråk : franska)
 (') EGT nr C 91 , 1.4.1993 , EGT nr C 124 , 6.5.1993 , och EGT nr
 C 159 , 11.6.1993 . I mål T-176/94 K, tjänsteman vid Europeiska gemenskaper
 nas kommission, bosatt i Bryssel och företrädd av Jean-Noel
 Louis, advokat i Bryssel, med delgivningsadress hos Fiduci
 aire Myson sarl, 1 , rue Glesener, Luxemburg, mot Euro
 peiska gemenskapernas kommission ( ombud: Ana Maria
 Alves Vieira och Denis Waelbroeck ), angående dels en talan
 om upphävande av kommissionens beslut i den del det avser
 FÖRSTAINSTANSRATTENS DOM
 ett underförstått avslag av sökandens yrkande om skade
 stånd samt det uttryckliga beslutet att avslå sökandens
 av den 13 juli 1995 klagomål , dels ett yrkande om skadestånd, har förstain
 i mål T-545/93, Heinz Kschwendt mot Europeiska gemen stansrätten ( tredje avdelningen ) sammansatt av J. Bianca
 skapernas kommission^) relli, ordförande, samt C. P. Briët et C. W. Bellamy, domare,
 med J. Palacio Gonzålez som justitiesekreterare, den 13 juli
 (Tjänstemän — Barnbidrag — Skolbidrag — Medicinska 1995 avkunnat följande dom :
 kostnader — Återbetalning)
 ( 95/C 286/21 )
 1 ) Talan ogillas.
 (Processpråk: franska) 2 ) Vardera parten skall bära sin kostnad.
 (!) EGT nr C 161 , 11.6.1994 .
 I mål T-545/93 , Heinz Kschwendt, tjänsteman vid Euro
 peiska gemenskapernas kommission, bosatt i Luxemburg,
 företrädd av advokaterna Georges Vandersanden och Laure
 Levi i Bryssel, med delgivningsadress hos Fiduciaire Myson
 SARL, 1 , rue Glesener, Luxemburg, mot Europeiska
 gemenskapernas kommission ( ombud : Ana Maria Alves
 Vieira och Bertrand Wägenbaur ), angående ogiltigförkla FÖRSTAINSTANSRÄTTENS DOM
 ring av kommissionens beslut av den 3 februari 1 993 , av den av den 13 september 1995
 29 mars 1993 och av den 21 juni 1993 , i vilket har fastställts i de förenade målen T-244/93 och T-486/93 : TWD
 att sökanden inte har rätt till vissa ersättningar för sin dotter Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH mot Europeiska gemenska
 och sökanden förpliktas att återbetala felaktigt utbetalda pernas kommission^)
 belopp, har förstainstansrätten (tredje avdelningen ), sam
 mansatt av J. Biancarelli, ordförande, samt C. P. Briët och ("Statligt stöd — Beslut fattade av kommissionen som
 C. W. Bellamy, domare, med H. Jung som justitiesekrete innebär att betalningen av visst stöd skjuts upp till dess att
 rare, den 13 juli 1995 avkunnat följande dom : otillåtet tidigare stöd återbetalats ")
 ( 95/C 286/23 )
 1 ) Det slås fast att yrkandena i stämningsansökan delvis
 har återkallats med den begränsning som har preciserats (Rättegångsspråk : tyska)
 i punkt 25 i denna dom .
 I de förenade målen T-244/93 och T-486/93 , TWD Textil
 werke Deggendorf GmH, Deggendorf ( Tyskland ), företrätt
 2 ) Talan ogillas. av Walter Forstner, Lutz Radtke och Karl-Heinz Schupp,
 advokater i Deggendorf, biträdda av Michael Schweitzer,
 professor vid universitetet i Passau, med delgivningsadress i
 3 ) Sökanden förpliktas att ersätta samtliga kostnader. Luxemburg hos Stein, Bayerische Landesbank International
 SA, 7—9 , boulevard Royal med stöd av Förbundsrepubli
 (') EGT nr C 313 , 19.11.1993 . ken Tyskland ( ombud : Ernst Röder och Bernd Kloke ), mot
 Europeiska gemenskapernas kommission, ( ombud : Anto
 nio Abate, Bernhard Jansen, Bernard Langeheine, Claus
 Michael Happe och Meinhard Hilf), angående en talan om


text:
 25.6.2013
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 172/11
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 599/2013
 z dnia 24 czerwca 2013 r.
 zmieniające rozporządzenie (UE) nr 578/2010 w odniesieniu do kwot nieobjętych świadectwami refundacji wywozowych dla niektórych produktów rolnych wywożonych w postaci towarów nieobjętych załącznikiem I do Traktatu oraz powiadamiania przez państwa członkowskie o niektórych powiązanych danych
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1216/2009 z dnia 30 listopada 2009 r. ustanawiające zasady handlu niektórymi towarami pochodzącymi z przetwórstwa produktów rolnych (1), w szczególności jego art. 8 ust. 3 akapit pierwszy,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 Rozporządzenie Komisji (UE) nr 578/2010 z dnia 29 czerwca 2010 r. w sprawie wykonania rozporządzenia Rady (WE) nr 1216/2009 w odniesieniu do systemu przyznawania refundacji wywozowych dla niektórych produktów rolnych wywożonych w postaci towarów nieobjętych załącznikiem I do Traktatu oraz kryteriów ustalania wysokości kwot takich refundacji (2) stanowi, że mali eksporterzy są zwolnieni z obowiązku przedstawiania świadectwa refundacji do łącznych kwot określonych na poziomie indywidualnym i ogólnym. Określono w nim również, że świadectwa refundacji, o które złożono wnioski, oraz, w niektórych przypadkach, wydane świadectwa refundacji, należy zgłosić Komisji.
 (2)
 Niedawne obniżki stawek refundacji wywozowych, spowodowane połączeniem takich czynników, jak reforma wspólnej polityki rolnej i zmiany cen towarów rolnych na rynku światowym, doprowadziły do sytuacji, w której złożono mniej wniosków o świadectwa refundacji lub nie złożono ich w ogóle, dzięki czemu zmniejszyło się obciążenie budżetu Unii refundacjami wywozowymi dla towarów nieobjętych załącznikiem I do Traktatu. W tych okolicznościach, gdy Unii nie grozi naruszenie jej zobowiązań międzynarodowych, należy uprościć system przyznawania refundacji wywozowych dla niektórych produktów rolnych w postaci towarów nieobjętych załącznikiem I do Traktatu, co pozwoli ograniczyć obciążenia administracyjne.
 (3)
 Należy zatem podwyższyć próg płatności, poniżej którego mali eksporterzy są zwolnieni z obowiązku przedstawiania świadectwa refundacji na poziomie indywidualnym i ogólnym. Należy również zawiesić obowiązki właściwych organów państw członkowskich w zakresie powiadamiania o kwotach świadectw refundacji, o które złożono wnioski, w przypadku gdy refundacje mające zastosowanie do wszystkich podstawowych produktów zostały zawieszone, nie zostały ustalone lub wynoszą zero; powiadamiania o niektórych świadectwach refundacji w przypadku gdy nie wydano żadnych świadectw refundacji, oraz – w przypadku gdy nie przyznano żadnych kwot – obowiązek zgłaszania niektórych informacji w celu zagwarantowania funkcjonowania systemu świadectw refundacji i zarządzania nim; a także informowania Komisji o tym, że nie przyznano żadnych kwot.
 (4)
 Należy zatem odpowiednio zmienić rozporządzenie (UE) nr 578/2010.
 (5)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Komitetu Zarządzającego ds. horyzontalnych zagadnień dotyczących handlu przetworzonymi produktami rolnymi niewymienionymi w załączniku I do Traktatu,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 W rozporządzeniu (UE) nr 578/2010 wprowadza się następujące zmiany:
 1)
 art. 42 ust. 1 otrzymuje brzmienie:
 „1. Dla wywozu, w odniesieniu do którego wnioski złożone przez podmiot gospodarczy w roku budżetowym nie powodują wypłaty refundacji w kwocie wyższej niż 200 000 EUR, świadectwa nie są wymagane.”;
 2)
 art. 43 ust. 1 otrzymuje brzmienie:
 „1. Dla każdego okresu budżetowego wywozy, o których mowa w art. 42 ust. 1, kwalifikują się do wypłaty refundacji w ramach limitu określonego rezerwą łączną w wysokości 80 mln EUR na każdy rok budżetowy.”;
 3)
 dodaje się art. 53a w brzmieniu:
 „Artykuł 53a
 1. W przypadku gdy refundacja mająca zastosowanie do wszystkich produktów podstawowych, o których mowa w załączniku I, została zawieszona, nie została ustalona lub wynosi zero w jednym z okresów, o których mowa w art. 29 ust. 1 lit. a)–f), przewidziany w art. 30 i art. 34 ust. 2 obowiązek państw członkowskich w zakresie powiadamiania w odniesieniu do tego okresu jest zawieszony.
 2. W przypadku gdy w okresach, o których mowa w art. 51 ust. 1 lit. c) i d), nie wydano żadnych świadectw refundacji, obowiązek państwa członkowskiego w zakresie powiadamiania przewidzianego w art. 51 ust. 1 lit. c) i d) jest zawieszony.
 3. W przypadku gdy nie przyznano żadnych kwot, obowiązki państw członkowskich w zakresie powiadamiania przewidziane w art. 51 ust. 1 lit. a) i b), art. 51 ust. 2, art. 52 i art. 53 zdanie pierwsze oraz obowiązek poinformowania, że nie przyznano żadnych refundacji, przewidziany w art. 53 zdanie drugie, są zawieszone.”.
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 24 czerwca 2013 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 José Manuel BARROSO
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 328 z 15.12.2009, s. 10.
 (2) Dz.U. L 171 z 6.7.2010, s. 1.


text:
 21.2.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 84/15
 Caingean arna tabhairt an 21 Nollaig 2021 – ClientEarth v an Coimisiún
 (Cás T-792/21)
 (2022/C 84/62)
 Teanga an cháis: an Béarla
 Páirtithe
 Iarratasóir: ClientEarth AISBL (an Bhruiséil, an Bheilg) (ionadaí: F. Logue, Aturnae)
 Cosantóir: an Coimisiún Eorpach
 An t-ordú atá á lorg
 Maíonn an t-iarratasóir gur cheart don Chúirt Ghinearálta:
 —
 an Cinneadh Intuigthe ón gCoimisiún Eorpach dar dáta an 12 Deireadh Fómhair 2021 sa chás GESTDEM Uimh. 2021/4394, lenar diúltaíodh iarratas an iarratasóra ar rochtain ar dhoiciméid, a chur ar neamhní; (1)
 —
 a ordú don chosantóir costais an iarratasóra a íoc de bhun Airteagal 133 agus 134 de Rialacha Nós Imeachta na Cúirte Ginearálta, lena n-áirítear costais idiragraithe ar bith.
 Saincheisteanna dlí agus príomhargóintí
 Mar thaca leis an gcaingean, tá an t-iarratasóir ag brath ar shaincheist dlí amháin lena maítear gur mhainnigh an Coimisiún cúiseanna a lua de shárú ar Airteagal 8(1) de Rialachán (CE) 1049/2001, (2) Airteagal 41(2)(c) de Chairt um Chearta Bunúsacha an Aontais Eorpaigh agus Airteagal 296, mír 2, CFAE.
 (1) Nóta eagarthóireachta: baineann na doiciméid atá i gceist le tionscnamh reachtach AE i ndáil le rialachas corparáideach inbhuanaithe.
 (2) Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1049/2001 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 30 Bealtaine 2001 maidir le rochtain phoiblí ar dhoiciméid de chuid Pharlaimint na hEorpa, na Comhairle agus an Choimisiúin (IO 2001 L 145, lch. 43).


text:
Força nuclear fraca ou interação fraca é uma das quatro forças fundamentais da natureza. É comumente vista no decaimento beta relacionado à radiação. Ela afeta todos os léptons e quarks. É mediada pelos bósons W e Z. A força nuclear fraca (ou simplesmente força fraca) é a força que cinde as partículas. O Modelo padrão da física de partículas, desenvolvido em 1968 por Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam e Steven Weinberg, descreve a interação eletromagnética e a interação fraca como dois aspectos diferentes de uma mesma interação eletrofraca.
 O alcance efetivo da força fraca é limitado a distâncias subatômicas e é menor que o diâmetro de um próton. É uma das quatro forças fundamentais da natureza, ao lado da interação forte, eletromagnetismo e gravitação.
 Corrente neutra
 Em 1933, Enrico Fermi, físico italiano, introduziu o conceito de interação fraca, que em conjunto com o recém postulado neutrino, entrariam na teoria do decaimento beta. Assim numa interação fraca um neutrino é sempre produzido com um pósitron, ou um antineutrino com um elétron, o que dá um conjunto de carga eletricamente carregado.
 Esperava-se que nas correntes fracas e raras, a interação entre neutrino e a matéria, um neutrino desse um elétron. Observou-se esse fenômeno mas também um fenômeno inesperado, um neutrino que interagia guardando a sua carga nula. Era preciso concluir na existência de uma corrente neutra, o que já permitia de relação indireta com as previsões da teoria electrofraca.
 Gargamela
 Em 1973 a equipe que realizou experiências na câmara de bolhas Gargamela com um feixe de neutrinos do CERN apresentou a primeira evidência direta da existência de interação fraca eletricamente neutra, a força nuclear fraca.
 Física de partículas
 Física nuclear


type: contracts

text:
 30.7.2016
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 205/24
 AZ EU–PFSZ VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG 1/2016 HATÁROZATA
 (2016. február 18.)
 az egyrészről az Európai Közösség, másrészről Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) közötti kereskedelemről és együttműködésről szóló euromediterrán ideiglenes társulási megállapodáshoz csatolt, a „származó termék” fogalmának meghatározásáról és az igazgatási együttműködés módszereiről szóló 3. jegyzőkönyv felváltásáról [2016/1256]
 AZ EU–PFSZ VEGYES BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az egyrészről az Európai Közösség, másrészről Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) közötti kereskedelemről és együttműködésről szóló euromediterrán ideiglenes társulási megállapodásra (1) és különösen annak 25. cikkére,
 tekintettel az egyrészről az Európai Közösség, másrészről Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) közötti kereskedelemről és együttműködésről szóló euromediterrán ideiglenes társulási megállapodáshoz csatolt, a „származó termék” fogalmának meghatározásáról és az igazgatási együttműködés módszereiről szóló 3. jegyzőkönyvre,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az egyrészről az Európai Közösség, másrészről Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) közötti kereskedelemről és együttműködésről szóló euromediterrán ideiglenes társulási megállapodás (a továbbiakban: a megállapodás) 25. cikke a megállapodásnak a származási szabályokat megállapító, valamint az Európai Unió, Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) és a pán-euromediterrán preferenciális származási szabályokról szóló regionális egyezmény (2) (a továbbiakban: az egyezmény) egyéb szerződő felei közötti származási kumulációról rendelkező 3. jegyzőkönyvére (a továbbiakban: a 3. jegyzőkönyv) hivatkozik.
 (2)
 A 3. jegyzőkönyv 39. cikke úgy rendelkezik, hogy a jegyzőkönyv rendelkezéseinek módosításáról a megállapodás 63. cikkével létrehozott vegyes bizottság határozhat.
 (3)
 Az egyezmény célja a származási szabályokról szóló, a pán-euromediterrán övezet országai között jelenleg hatályos jegyzőkönyvek egyetlen egységes jogi aktussal történő felváltása.
 (4)
 Az Európai Unió és Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) 2011. június 15-én, illetve 2013. szeptember 18-án írta alá az egyezményt.
 (5)
 Az Európai Unió és Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) 2012. március 26-án, illetve 2014. május 27-én helyezte letétbe elfogadási okmányát az egyezmény letéteményesénél. Következésképpen az egyezmény 10. cikkének (3) bekezdése értelmében az egyezmény az Unió és Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) tekintetében 2012. május 1-jén, illetve 2014. július 1-jén lépett hatályba.
 (6)
 A 3. jegyzőkönyvet ezért egy új, az egyezményre hivatkozó jegyzőkönyvvel kell felváltani,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A HATÁROZATOT:
 1. cikk
 Az egyrészről az Európai Közösség, másrészről Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) közötti kereskedelemről és együttműködésről szóló euromediterrán ideiglenes társulási megállapodáshoz csatolt, a „származó termék” fogalmának meghatározásáról és az igazgatási együttműködés módszereiről szóló 3. jegyzőkönyv helyébe az e határozat mellékletében foglalt szöveg lép.
 2. cikk
 Ez a határozat az elfogadásának napján lép hatályba.
 Ezt a határozatot 2016. március 1-jétől kell alkalmazni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2016. február 18-án.
 a vegyes bizottság részéről
 az elnök
 C. BERGER
 (1) HL L 187., 1997.7.16., 3. o.
 (2) HL L 54., 2013.2.26., 4. o.
 MELLÉKLET
 3. JEGYZŐKÖNYV
 a „származó termék” fogalmának meghatározásáról és az igazgatási együttműködés módszereiről
 1. cikk
 Az alkalmazandó származási szabályok
 (1) E megállapodás végrehajtása tekintetében a pán-euromediterrán preferenciális származási szabályokról szóló regionális egyezmény (1) (a továbbiakban: az egyezmény) I. függeléke és II. függelékének vonatkozó rendelkezései alkalmazandók.
 (2) A pán-euromediterrán preferenciális származási szabályokról szóló regionális egyezmény I. függelékében és II. függelékének vonatkozó rendelkezéseiben szereplő „releváns megállapodás” kifejezés e megállapodásra történő hivatkozásként értelmezendő.
 2. cikk
 A viták rendezése
 (1) Amennyiben az egyezmény I. függelékének 32. cikke szerinti ellenőrzési eljárásokkal kapcsolatban olyan viták merülnek fel, amelyeket nem lehet rendezni az ellenőrzést kérő vámhatóságok és az ezen ellenőrzésnek a végrehajtásáért felelős vámhatóságok között, ezeket a vitákat a vegyes bizottság elé kell terjeszteni.
 (2) Az importőr és az importáló ország vámhatóságai közötti viták rendezésére vonatkozóan minden esetben az említett ország jogszabályai az irányadók.
 3. cikk
 A jegyzőkönyv módosítása
 E jegyzőkönyv rendelkezéseinek módosításáról a vegyes bizottság határozhat.
 4. cikk
 Az egyezmény felmondása
 (1) Amennyiben akár az Európai Unió, akár Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) írásban értesíti az egyezmény letéteményesét arról, hogy az egyezmény 9. cikke értelmében fel kívánja mondani az egyezményt, az Unió és Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) e megállapodás végrehajtása érdekében azonnal tárgyalásokat kezd a származási szabályokról.
 (2) Az e tárgyalások eredményeképpen megállapított új származási szabályok hatálybalépéséig e megállapodás tekintetében továbbra is az egyezmény I. függelékében és adott esetben II. függelékének vonatkozó rendelkezéseiben előírt, a felmondás időpontjában hatályos származási szabályok alkalmazandók. Mindazonáltal az egyezmény I. függelékében és adott esetben II. függelékének vonatkozó rendelkezéseiben előírt származási szabályok a felmondás időpontjától kezdve kizárólag az Európai Unió és Ciszjordánia és a Gázai-övezet Palesztin Nemzeti Hatósága képviseletében a Palesztin Felszabadítási Szervezet (PFSZ) közötti kétoldalú kumulációt lehetővé tevő rendelkezésekként értelmezendők.
 (1) HL L 54., 2013.2.26., 4. o.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22000D1019(17)
 Beschluss des Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschusses Nr. 44/1999 vom 26. März 1999 über die Änderung des Anhangs XX (Umweltschutz) des EWR-Abkommens
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 266 vom 19/10/2000 S. 0052 - 0052
 Beschluss des Gemeinsamen EWR-AusschussesNr. 44/1999vom 26. März 1999über die Änderung des Anhangs XX (Umweltschutz) des EWR-AbkommensDER GEMEINSAME EWR-AUSSCHUSS -gestützt auf das Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum, geändert durch das Anpassungsprotokoll zum Abkommen über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum, nachstehend "Abkommen" genannt, insbesondere auf Artikel 98,in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:(1) Anhang XX des Abkommens wurde durch den Beschluss Nr. 21/1999 des Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschusses(1) geändert.(2) Die Entscheidung 98/488/EG der Kommission vom 7. April 1998 zur Festlegung der Umweltkriterien für die Vergabe des EG-Umweltzeichens für Bodenverbesserungsmittel(2) ist in das Abkommen aufzunehmen -BESCHLIESST:Artikel 11. In Anhang XX des Abkommens erhält Nummer 2ec (Entscheidung 94/923/EG der Kommission) folgende Fassung:"398 R 0488: Entscheidung 98/488/EG der Kommission vom 7. April 1998 zur Festlegung der Umweltkriterien für die Vergabe des EG-Umweltzeichens für Bodenverbesserungsmittel (ABl. L 219 vom 7.8.1998, S. 39)."Artikel 2Der Wortlaut der Entscheidung 98/488/EG in isländischer und norwegischer Sprache, der den jeweiligen Sprachfassungen dieses Beschlusses beigefügt ist, ist verbindlich.Artikel 3Dieser Beschluss tritt am 27. März 1999 in Kraft, sofern dem Gemeinsamen EWR-Ausschuss alle Mitteilungen nach Artikel 103 Absatz 1 des Abkommens vorliegen. Er gilt ab 1. April 1998.Artikel 4Dieser Beschluss wird im EWR-Abschnitt und in der EWR-Beilage des Amtsblatts der Europäischen Gemeinschaften veröffentlicht.Brüssel, den 26. März 1999Für den Gemeinsamen EWR-AusschussDer VorsitzendeF. Barbaso(1) ABl. L 148 vom 22.6.2000, S. 46.(2) ABl. L 219 vom 7.8.1998, S. 39.


text:
Pontos nos ii foi um semanário humorístico dirigido por Rafael Bordalo Pinheiro, com redação em Lisboa. Começou a ser publicado em Maio de 1885, na sequência da suspensão de O António Maria, e terminou, também suspenso, em Fevereiro de 1891, sendo notória a relação editorial e de conteúdos entre as duas publicações, a começar pela própria apresentação: “Ora aqui me têm outra vez. Sou a Maria, a viúva do António...”. E assim continua, com uma narrativa crítica, cómica, para “rir sem descanso”, brincando, de forma jocosa, com a alternância no poder entre regeneradores e progressistas e com a sua permanente guerra política, fazendo uso da já reputada combinação de RBP: desenho/narração. Contudo, Pontos nos ii reserva algumas páginas “sérias” para notícias, crónicas, reportagens culturais, atividade literária, inaugurações e progressos, crimes e óbitos, entre outros assuntos. Na colaboração artística, contou de novo com o lápis do seu filho, Manuel Gustavo Bordalo Pinheiro, enquanto na literária sobressai a pena de Alfredo Morais Pinto (pseudónimo: Pan-Tarantula) e de Fialho de Almeida (pseudónimo de Irkan).
 Ver também
 Lista de publicações disponíveis na Hemeroteca Municipal de Lisboa
 Ligações externas
 Pontos nos ii (1885-1891) cópia digital, Hemeroteca Digital
 Jornais extintos de Portugal
 Fundações em Portugal em 1885
 Extinções em Portugal em 1891
 Publicações fundadas em 1885


text:
 27.11.2013
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 316/6
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 1204/2013
 z dnia 25 listopada 2013 r.
 zmieniające rozporządzenie (WE) nr 798/2008 w odniesieniu do wpisu dotyczącego Republiki Mołdawii w wykazach państw trzecich, z których dozwolone jest wprowadzanie do Unii niektórych rodzajów mięsa, produktów mięsnych, jaj i produktów jajecznych
 (Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG)
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając dyrektywę Rady 2002/99/WE z dnia 16 grudnia 2002 r. ustanawiającą przepisy sanitarne regulujące produkcję, przetwarzanie, dystrybucję oraz wprowadzanie produktów pochodzenia zwierzęcego przeznaczonych do spożycia przez ludzi (1), w szczególności formułę wprowadzającą art. 8, art. 8 pkt 1 akapit pierwszy i art. 8 pkt 4,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie (WE) nr 854/2004 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 29 kwietnia 2004 r. ustanawiające szczególne przepisy dotyczące organizacji urzędowych kontroli w odniesieniu do produktów pochodzenia zwierzęcego przeznaczonych do spożycia przez ludzi (2), w szczególności jego art. 11 ust. 1,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W dyrektywie 2002/99/WE ustanowiono ogólne przepisy w zakresie wymagań zdrowotnych dla zwierząt regulujące produkcję, przetwarzanie, dystrybucję w Unii oraz wprowadzanie z państw trzecich produktów pochodzenia zwierzęcego przeznaczonych do spożycia przez ludzi i przewidziano ustanawianie szczegółowych zasad i certyfikacji dotyczących tranzytu.
 (2)
 Rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 798/2008 z dnia 8 sierpnia 2008 r. ustanawiające wykaz państw trzecich, terytoriów, stref lub grup, z których dopuszczalny jest przywóz do i tranzyt przez terytorium Wspólnoty drobiu i produktów drobiowych oraz wymogów dotyczących świadectw weterynaryjnych (3) stanowi, że niektóre towary mogą być przywożone do Unii i być przedmiotem tranzytu przez jej terytorium jedynie z państw trzecich, terytoriów, stref lub grup wyszczególnionych w tabeli w części 1 załącznika I do wyżej wymienionego rozporządzenia. Rozporządzenie to określa również wymogi dotyczące świadectw weterynaryjnych obowiązujące w odniesieniu do tych towarów. W wymogach tych uwzględniono również wymagania dotyczące dodatkowych gwarancji w związku ze statusem tych państw trzecich, terytoriów, stref lub grup w odniesieniu do chorób. Dodatkowe gwarancje dotyczące tych towarów określone są w części 2 załącznika I do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 798/2008.
 (3)
 Republika Mołdawii wymieniona jest w decyzji Komisji 2011/163/UE z dnia 16 marca 2011 r. w sprawie zatwierdzenia planów przedłożonych przez państwa trzecie zgodnie z art. 29 dyrektywy Rady 96/23/WE (4) i posiada plan w zakresie kontroli pozostałości zatwierdzony w odniesieniu do jaj.
 (4)
 Republika Mołdawii zwróciła się do Komisji o objęcie jej zezwoleniem na przywóz do Unii produktów jajecznych i przedłożyła odpowiednie informacje. Obróbka termiczna produktów jajecznych zmniejsza do znikomego poziomu potencjalne ryzyko dla zdrowia zwierząt związane z tymi produktami. Należy zatem włączyć to państwo trzecie do wykazu znajdującego się w części 1 załącznika I do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 798/2008.
 (5)
 Należy zatem odpowiednio zmienić rozporządzenie (WE) nr 798/2008.
 (6)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Stałego Komitetu ds. Łańcucha Żywnościowego i Zdrowia Zwierząt,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 W załączniku I do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 798/2008 wprowadza się zmiany zgodnie z załącznikiem do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 25 listopada 2013 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 José Manuel BARROSO
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 18 z 23.1.2003, s. 11.
 (2) Dz.U. L 139 z 30.4.2004, s. 206.
 (3) Dz.U. L 226 z 23.8.2008, s. 1.
 (4) Dz.U. L 70 z 17.3.2011, s. 40.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 W części 1 załącznika I do rozporządzenia (WE) nr 798/2008 po pozycji „KR – Republika Korei” dodaje się pozycję dotyczącą Republiki Mołdawii w brzmieniu:
 „MD – Republika Mołdawii
 MD-0
 Cały kraj
 EP”


text:
 29.6.2006
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 175/91
 DECYZJA WSPÓLNEGO KOMITETU EOG
 NR 44/2006
 z dnia 28 kwietnia 2006 r.
 zmieniająca załącznik II (Przepisy techniczne, normy, badania i certyfikacja) do Porozumienia EOG
 WSPÓLNY KOMITET EOG,
 uwzględniając Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym, zmienione Protokołem dostosowującym Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym, dalej zwane „porozumieniem”, w szczególności jego art. 98,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 Załącznik II do porozumienia został zmieniony decyzją Wspólnego Komitetu EOG nr 113/2005 z dnia 30 września 2005 r. (1).
 (2)
 W porozumieniu należy uwzględnić dyrektywę Komisji 2005/67/WE z dnia 18 października 2005 r. zmieniającą, w celu ich dostosowania, załączniki I i II do dyrektywy Rady 86/298/EWG, załączniki I i II do dyrektywy Rady 87/402/EWG oraz załączniki I, II i III do dyrektywy 2003/37/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady odnoszące się do homologacji typu ciągników rolniczych lub leśnych (2),
 STANOWI, CO NASTĘPUJE:
 Artykuł 1
 W pkt 20 (dyrektywa Rady 86/298/EWG), pkt 22 (dyrektywa Rady 87/402/EWG) i pkt 28 (dyrektywa 2003/37/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady) rozdziału II załącznika II do porozumienia dodaje się tiret w następującym brzmieniu:
 „—
 32005 L 0067: dyrektywa Komisji 2005/67/WE z dnia 18 października 2005 r. (Dz.U. L 273 z 19.10.2005, str. 17).”.
 Artykuł 2
 Teksty dyrektywy 2005/67/WE w językach islandzkim i norweskim, które zostaną opublikowane w Suplemencie EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Unii Europejskiej, są autentyczne.
 Artykuł 3
 Niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie z dniem 29 kwietnia 2006 r. pod warunkiem że Wspólny Komitet EOG otrzyma wszystkie notyfikacje przewidziane w art. 103 ust. 1 porozumienia (3).
 Artykuł 4
 Niniejsza decyzja zostaje opublikowana w Sekcji EOG oraz w Suplemencie EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Unii Europejskiej.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia 28 kwietnia 2006 r.
 W imieniu Wspólnego Komitetu EOG
 R. WRIGHT
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 339 z 22.12.2005, str. 12.
 (2) Dz.U. L 273 z 19.10.2005, str. 17.
 (3) Nie wskazano wymogów konstytucyjnych.


text:
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 202/289
 ПРОТОКОЛ (No 18)
 ОТНОСНО ФРАНЦИЯ
 ВИСОКОДОГОВАРЯЩИТЕ СЕ СТРАНИ,
 КАТО ЖЕЛАЯТ да вземат предвид специфична особеност, свързана с Франция,
 СЕ СПОРАЗУМЯХА по следните разпоредби, които са приложени към Договора за Европейския съюз и към Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз:
 Франция запазва привилегията си да осъществява парична емисия в Нова Каледония, във Френска Полинезия и в Уолис и Футуна при условията, създадени от националното й законодателство и единствена ще има право да определя курса на CFР – франка.


jurisdiction: US

text:
The appeal in this case is from a judgment recovered against the Hagerstown Brewing Company, a corporation (appellant), on two contracts executed in its name by its president and general manager, endorsed on and guaranteeing the payment of two single bills of one Kurtz in favor of the appellee, each for the sum of five hundred dollars, and both dated the 18th of November, 1907; one payable twenty-seven months after date and the other payable thirty months after date.
 The case was instituted in the Circuit Court for Washington County, and the declaration contained five of the common counts and four special counts. The sixth count charges that the plaintiff was the owner of a stock of goods, fixtures, etc., and that Kurtz desired to purchase the same and to give in part payment therefor his promissory note under seal or single bill for five hundred dollars, dated November 18th, 1907, and payable twenty-seven months after date, and that the defendant, "by its servants and agents, while acting within the scope of their authority, promised and agreed with" the plaintiff that if the plaintiff would sell and deliver said stock of goods, fixtures, etc., to Kurtz it would pay said single bill "at its maturity;" that the plaintiff, in consideration of the defendant's promise, sold and delivered said stock of goods, fixtures, etc., to Kurtz, but Kurtz did not pay said single bill, and that the defendant had due notice of that fact but refused to pay the same when requested to do so.
 The seventh count makes the same charge in reference to the single bill payable thirty months after date, and the eighth count alleges that the plaintiff was the owner of the stock of goods, etc., and that Kurtz desired to purchase the same and to give in part payment therefor his single bill in the following words: *Page 351
 "JOHNSTOWN, PA., November 18th, 1907.
 Twenty-seven months after date we promise to pay to the order of George E. Gates, five hundred dollars, without defalcation, value received with interest from maturity, at Dollar Deposit Bank of Johnstown. And further, we do hereby empower any attorney of any Court of record within the United States or elsewhere to appear for me and after one or more declarations filed, confess judgment against us as of any term for the above sum, with costs of suit and attorney's commissions of six per cent., for collection, and release of all errors, and without stay of execution, and inquisition and extension upon any levy on real estate is hereby waived and condemnation agreed to and the exemption of personal property from levy and sale on any execution hereon is also expressly waived and no benefit of exemption is claimed under and by virtue of any exemption law now in force or which may hereafter be passed.
 Witness our hands and seals,
 STEVE KURTZ (Seal)"
 That the defendant, by its agents and servants, while acting within the scope of their authority, had "previously written on the back" of said single bill as follows:
 "For value received we hereby guarantee the payment of this note at maturity.
 (Signed) HAGERSTOWN BREW'G Co., By PHILIP HERMANN, Pres."
 And the plaintiff accepted the single bill with said endorsement thereon in part payment for his stock of goods, etc., and delivered said goods to Kurtz, but Kurtz did not pay said single bill, and that the defendant, after due notice thereof, has also failed to pay the amount due thereon. The averments of the ninth count are the same in reference to the single bill payable thirty months after date.
 The defendant filed two pleas, first, that it never promised as alleged, and, second, that it never was indebted as alleged, and demurred to the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth counts of the declaration. The plaintiff joined issue on *Page 352
 the pleas, and on the 6th of October, 1910, upon the suggestion and affidavit of the defendant, the case was removed to the Circuit Court for Allegany County. That Court overruled the demurrers to the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth counts of thenarr., and on the same day the defendant filed its third and fourth pleas to those counts and its fifth plea to the declaration. By the third plea the defendant says that "it was incorporated in the year 1898 under the provisions of the general laws of the State of Delaware for the purpose of brewing, manufacturing and making beer and other kinds of malt liquors and for the sale, transportation or other disposition of the products of said business, and these are the only powers given to it by its certificate of incorporation and that it has not the power to guarantee the obligations of other persons except for a valuable consideration moving to the said defendant, and that the said alleged promise or guarantee of the said defendant on said promissory note was wholly without consideration and is ultravires on the part of the defendant and void and unenforceable by a suit against the defendant." The fourth plea alleges that the endorsements were made without the authority of the defendant and have not been ratified by it, and the fifth plea, which on motion of the plaintiff was not received, says that the plaintiff "is and has been a resident of the State of Pennsylvania since before the execution of the alleged promissory notes sued on and endorsements thereon, and that the alleged cause of action arose in the State of Pennsylvania, and did not arise in the State of Maryland, and the subject of the action is not and has never been situated in this State, and that the defendant is and has been a non-resident of the State of Maryland since before the execution of the alleged promissory notes sued on and endorsements thereon, and that both plaintiff and defendant are non-residents of the State of Maryland, and that the plaintiff has no right of action in this Court."
 The plaintiff joined issue on the fourth plea, and filed six replications to the third plea. The Court below sustained *Page 353
 a demurrer to the first and fifth replications, and issue was joined on the second, third, fourth and sixth replications, which deny the averments of the plea that the promises of the defendant were made without consideration and were ultra vires, and allege that they were made for valuable considerations "moving to the defendant," and that the certificate of incorporation did give the defendant power to guarantee the obligation of others, etc.
 During the trial of the case the defendant reserved seven exceptions, the first six of which relate to rulings on the evidence, and the seventh to the granting of the plaintiff's first, third and fifth prayers, and the rejection of the defendant's first, second, third, fifth, sixth, ninth, tenth and eleventh prayers and a modification of its eighth prayer.
 The defendant's fifth prayer presents its contention that a non-resident of this State can not sue a foreign corporation in the Courts of this State on a contract made in some other State. That was undoubtedly the law prior to the Act of 1908, Chapter 240, except where the subject of the action was situated in this State, but section 67 of that act declares that "Any person or corporation, whether a resident or a non-resident of this State, may sue any foreign corporation regularly during business or regularly exercising any of its franchises therein for any cause of action." This language is very broad and clear, and the right of a non-resident to sue a foreign corporation in the Courts of this State is no longer confined to cases in which "the cause of action has arisen, or the subject of the action shall be situated in this State," as was the case under section 411 of Article 23 of the Code, which was expressly repealed by the Act of 1908. The appellant insists, however, that section 67 of Chapter 240 of the Acts of 1908 was repealed or modified by the later Act of 1908, Chapter 309, which provides that "Any corporation now chartered by the laws of this State, which shall transact business therein, shall be deemed to hold and exercise franchises within this State, and shall be liable to suit in any of the Courts of this State on any dealings or transactions *Page 354
 therein, and also shall be liable to suit in any of the Courts of this State, on any controversy which may arise between such corporation and any resident of this State." This act is practically section 409 of Article 23 of the Code of 1904 with the additional provision for controversies between such corporations and residents of this State. It was never suggested that section 409 of the Code so modified the provisions of section 411 as to confine the jurisdiction of our Courts to suits against non-resident corporations on transactions in the State, on the contrary it was repeatedly held that, under section 411, they had jurisdiction also in cases where "the subject of the action" was situated in this State (Cromwell et al. v. RoyalCanadian Ins. Co., 49 Md. 382; Universal Life Ins. Co. v.Bachus, 51 Md. 31), and there is no more reason for holding that Chapter 309 of the Act of 1908 repeals or modifies section 67 of Chapter 240 than that section 411 of the Code was restricted or limited by section 409. Chapter 309 does not expressly repeal Chapter 240, and if allowed the effect contended for by the appellant it would take away the jurisdiction of our Courts in cases of suits by non-residents against foreign corporations where the subject of the action is situated in this State, which was expressly provided for in section 411 of the Code, and included in the terms of Chapter 240. The argument of counsel for the appellant that to allow corporations regularly doing business in this State to be sued by non-residents on any cause of action would impose great additional labor upon the Courts and extra burdens upon the taxpayers of this State would be entitled to some weight if the terms or meaning of the act were obscure or uncertain, but here the language is clear and does not admit of any doubt as to its meaning. It expressly provides that a foreign corporation regularly doing business or exercising any of its franchises in this State may be sued by any person or corporation, resident or non-resident, on any
 cause of action, and the evidence in this case shows that the appellant was "regularly doing business" in this State. and had an office, if not its *Page 355
 main office and chief place of business, in Hagerstown. Moreover, as the Act of 1908 has been in force for nearly four years, and as this is the first time the question has been raised in this Court, it would seem that the apprehension of the appellant are not well founded.
 Plaintiff's third prayer instructed the jury that there was "no legally sufficient evidence" in the case to show that the endorsement of the single bills sued on was beyond the corporate powers of the appellant. The certificate of incorporation was not offered in evidence, and the ground of the demurrer to the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth counts of the declaration, and of the appellant's objection to this prayer is that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege and show that the contract sued on was within the corporate powers of the appellant. It is said in 5Ency. of P. P. 95: "If the defendant wishes to interpose the defense of ultra vires in an action by a corporation against him, he should specially plead it. And, in an action against a corporation, the plaintiff need not set out in his complaint or declaration the capacity of the corporation to make the contract sued on. Where the defense of ultra vires is allowable to a corporation, the corporation must specially plead it." In 10Cyc. 1155, JUDGE SEYMOUR D. THOMPSON says: "A general presumption of right-acting attends corporations, the effect of which is to place the burden of proving that a contract made or an act done by a corporation was ultra vires upon him who alleges that fact as the foundation of his action or defense." He says further: "Aside from casting the burden of proof upon a party setting up the want of power this presumption operates in several ways. If the powers possessed by the particular corporation do not appear at all, and are not judicially noticed by the Court, then it operates within certain limits to carry with it the general presumption that the act or contract which is challenged is within its powers. If it has the power to do the given act, or to make a contract of a given nature under prescribed conditions, then the principle operates to create the *Page 356
 presumption that these conditions existed in the particular instance. * * * If the corporation itself seeks to avoid its contract on the ground that it was ultra vires this presumption puts upon it the burden of showing that its articles of incorporation did not authorize the contract." In the case ofRailway Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U.S. 258, it is said: "When a contract is not on its face necessarily beyond the scope of the power of the corporation by which it was made, it will, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed to be valid. Corporations are presumed to contract within their powers." See also 3 Ency. of Ev. 633, note 12; Star Brick Co. v. Ridsdaleet al., 36 N.J.L. 229; Elkins v. Camden, Etc., R. Co. etal., 36 N.J. Eq. 241; Rider Life Raft Co. v. Roach, 97 N.Y. 378; 1 Morawetz on Private Corp., section 324. But in this case we are not required to go to the extent of the rule thus broadly stated, either in disposing of the demurrer or the objection to the prayer, and we must not be understood as holding that in every case, regardless of the nature of the contract or the character of the corporation, the act of the corporation relied on will be presumed to be within its corporate powers. In each of the counts demurred to the plaintiff alleged that the contract declared on was executed by the defendant by its agent and servant while acting within the scope of his authority. As no agent of a corporation is authorized to make an ultra vires
 contract, these averments were in effect that the defendant had the power to make the contract and that it was executed by its duly authorized agent. The defendant's third plea admits that it was authorized to guarantee the obligations of other persons "for a valuable consideration moving to" it, and where it is admitted that contracts like the one in question are not outside of the powers of the corporation, and that they may be made by it under certain conditions, it will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that those conditions existed. Besides, in this case, all the evidence tends to show that the single bills were endorsed by the *Page 357
 defendant in consideration of the promise of Kurtz to sell its beer.
 The evidence in the case further shows, or tends to show, that the plaintiff was the owner of a wholesale liquor business in South Fork, Pennsylvania, and that he agreed to sell the same to Steve Kurtz for $7,700 and to take in payment therefor twenty-five hundred dollars cash and ten single bills, nine for five hundred dollars each and one for seven hundred dollars, to be signed and sealed by Kurtz and endorsed by the Hagerstown Brewing Company (appellant) guaranteeing their payment; that the appellant, by its president and general manager, in consideration of the promise of Kurtz to sell the beer of the appellant, agreed to and did guarantee the payment of the single bills, all of which were paid by Kurtz as they became due, except the two sued on in this case, which Kurtz and the appellant have failed and refused to pay; that Kurtz continued in business for about eight months, and during seven months of that time purchased beer from the appellant at the rate of about one carload every two weeks; that the directors of the appellant did not meet more than once a year, and that Philip Hermann, its president and general manager, had full charge of all the business of the company.
 By plaintiff's first prayer the jury were told that if they found from the evidence that Philip Hermann was the president and general manager of the defendant and that while so acting he executed the contracts endorsed on and guaranteeing the payment of the single bills offered in evidence, and further found that in consideration of the execution of said contracts Kurtz promised to sell no other beer than that manufactured by the defendant, and further found that the plaintiff parted with his property upon the faith of said endorsements, then their verdict should be for the plaintiff, unless the jury further found that Hermann had no authority to execute such contracts, and that there was no evidence in the case legally sufficient to show such want of authority. Plaintiff's fifth prayer instructed the *Page 358
 jury that if they found that the defendant's business, at the time of the endorsement of the single bill sued on, was the manufacture and sale of beer; that Hermann was the general manager and president of the defendant, and that it was his duty as such to sell defendant's beer; that said Hermann endorsed defendant's name on said single bills for the purpose of promoting the sale of defendant's beer, and did thereby effect the sale of large quantities of its beer, and that said single bills were still overdue and unpaid their verdict should be for the plaintiff.
 In addition to the contentions of the appellant already referred to, it urges as further objections to these prayers, first, that the burden was on the plaintiff and that he failed to show that Hermann was authorized to bind the appellant by the endorsements; and, second, that, assuming that there was evidence tending to establish Hermann's authority, the prayers should have left it to the jury to find that he was authorized to make the contracts.
 It is stated in the defendant's third plea that the appellant was incorporated under the "General Laws of the State of Delaware for the purpose of brewing, manufacturing and making beer and other kinds of malt liquor and for the sale, transportation or other disposition of the products of said business," and that it had the power to guarantee the obligations of other persons "for a valuable consideration moving to" it, and it is not, therefore, necessary to consider the question whether a brewing company is authorized to guarantee the payment of the obligations of a customer in order to promote the sale of its products for it is admitted, as we have said, by the plea that the appellant had the power to do so for a valuable consideration. The only question to be determined is whether where such a contract is executed by the president and general manager of a company on its behalf and in its name, and the contract is within the powers of the corporation, it will be presumed that he was duly authorized to make it. *Page 359
 In National State Bank v. Vigo County Bank, 40 N.E. 799 (Ind.), the Court said: "When a contract is made in the name of a corporation by the president, in the usual course of business, which the directors have the power to authorize him to make, or to ratify after it is made, the presumption is that that contract is binding on the corporation until it is shown that the same was not authorized or ratified." In the case of Eureka Iron SteelWorks v. Bresnahan, 60 Mich. 332, it is said: "In the absence of any provision to the contrary contained in the charter of a corporation, it will be presumed that its president, secretary and treasurer have the authority to make all necessary contracts in transacting the ordinary business of the corporation, within the legitimate scope, object, and purpose of its organization." In the case of Smith v. Smith et al., 62 Ill. 493, speaking of the president of the corporation the Court said: "He being the legal head of the body, where an act pertaining to the business of the company is performed by him, the presumption will be indulged that the act is legally done, and is binding upon the body," and in Patterson v. Robinson et al., 116 N.Y. 193, the Court held that the contract was one which the board of directors had the power to authorize their president to make, or to ratify after it had been made, and that, therefore, the burden was on the plaintiff to show that the contract was not authorized or ratified by the directors. In Thompson on Corporations, Vol. 2, sec. 1576 (2nd ed.), the learned author, after stating that "The governing principle with reference to the general power of a manager is that where he has the actual charge and management of the business, by the appointment of or with the knowledge of the directors, the corporation will be bound by his acts and contracts which are necessary or incident in the course of the business, without other evidence of actual authority," says: "The reason for this rule is that the corporation by the very fact of the appointment of such manager, holds him out to the public as the person authorized to bind it by contracts necessary in the prosecution of *Page 360
 its business. It has been said that the very use of the word `manager,' when applied to the officer, conveyed the idea to the ordinary mind that to one thus named had been committed the management of the affairs of the corporation; and to hold that one dealing with the person so held out must, before the corporation can be held liable for his acts, show affirmatively that it had authorized them, would often result in great hardship." In the case of Equitable Endowment Asso. v.Fisher, 71 Md. 430, the general agent and State agent of the appellant employed the appellee as general manager of its business, and he was afterwards dismissed from the service of the appellant and brought suit to recover for breach of contract. The suit was defended on the ground that the general agent and State agent had no authority to employ a general manager, and in disposing of that question JUDGE BRYAN says: "The officers making this contract for services were designated as defendant's general agent and State agent, and would naturally be understood by the public as having the power to employ persons to assist in the prosecution of its work. * * * It was impossible for the plaintiff to know in what way the powers of the officers in charge of the business of the defendant were limited by by-laws or private instructions. They were held out to the public as having general authority, which would comprehend the contract in question, and what they have done within the scope of this authority is, and ought to be, binding on the defendant." In the case at bar the contract sued on was executed in the name of the appellant by its president and general manager, and for the purpose of promoting the very business for which the company was incorporated, and in which it was engaged. It was not made to assist Kurtz, or to advance any private interest of the agent of the company, but was executed in order to accomplish the end for which the company was organized, and the appellant received the benefit of it. The entire management and conduct of the business were apparently entrusted by the directors to the president and general manager of the company, and we think the contract in question, *Page 361
 having for its only purpose and object the sale of the beer of the company, was clearly within his implied authority.
 What we have said disposes of all of the rejected prayers of the defendant except its sixth prayer, which, in so far as it is free from objection, is fully covered by its eighth prayer as modified and granted by the Court.
 The evidence referred to in the first exception was not admissible on cross-examination, there being no reference to the matter to which it relates to the examination in chief.
 The second and third bills of exception each include more than one exception to rulings on the evidence, and, under the rule which requires each ruling to be presented by a separate bill of exception, those exceptions will not be considered. Junkins v.Sullivan, 110 Md. 539; Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co. v. Reuter,114 Md. 687.
 The fourth exception is to the refusal of the Court below to admit in evidence the by-laws of the appellant, and we think there was no error in this ruling. It was impossible for the plaintiff to know in what way the powers of the president and general manager of the appellant in charge of the business were limited by by-laws or private instructions. Equitable Endow.Assn. v. Fisher, supra. In the case of Smith v. Smith, etal., supra, the Court, speaking of the by-laws of a company, said: "But those are private and only accessible to the officers of the company. Strangers to the company can not be bound by the rules adopted for the government of the company * * * and persons not officers of the company can not be required to know the provisions of their by-laws."
 The fifth and sixth exceptions are to the rejection of evidence offered by the defendant to show that the plaintiff, before Kurtz sold his business in August, 1908, requested Hermann not to interfere with the sale by Kurtz, and promised that if he did not do so, and the single bills in question were not paid out of the proceeds of such sale, he would *Page 362
 release the defendant from any liability on them. This evidence was not admissible for the reason that the defendant insisted that Hermann was not authorized by it to make any such contract with the plaintiff.
 It does not appear from the record in what way or to what extent the Court below modified the eighth prayer of the defendant, and we can not, therefore, pass upon the exceptions to the modification of the prayer.
 Finding no reversible error in any of the rulings of the Court below, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.
 Judgment affirmed, with costs.


text:
 2.3.2018
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 60/5
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) 2018/307
 z 28. februára 2018,
 ktorým sa rozširujú osobitné záruky týkajúce sa Salmonella spp. stanovené v nariadení Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 853/2004 na mäso z brojlerov (Gallus gallus) určené pre Dánsko
 (Text s významom pre EHP)
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 853/2004 z 29. apríla 2004, ktorým sa ustanovujú osobitné hygienické predpisy pre potraviny živočíšneho pôvodu (1), a najmä na jeho článok 8 ods. 3 písm. b),
 keďže:
 (1)
 V nariadení (ES) č. 853/2004 sa pre prevádzkovateľov potravinárskych podnikov stanovujú osobitné predpisy týkajúce sa hygieny potravín živočíšneho pôvodu s určitými osobitnými zárukami pre potraviny živočíšneho pôvodu určené pre fínsky a švédsky trh. Preto musia prevádzkovatelia potravinárskych podnikov, ktorí chcú umiestniť mäso zo špecifikovaných zvierat na trh v uvedených členských štátoch, dodržiavať určité predpisy týkajúce sa Salmonella. K zásielkam takéhoto mäsa musí byť ďalej priložený obchodný doklad, v ktorom sa uvádza, že v súlade s právnymi predpismi Únie sa vykonal mikrobiologický test, ktorého výsledky boli negatívne.
 (2)
 Okrem toho uvedené osobitné záruky sa špecifikujú v nariadení Komisie (ES) č. 1688/2005 (2), ktorým sa stanovujú pravidlá týkajúce sa odberu vzoriek z takéhoto mäsa a mikrobiologických metód testovania uvedených vzoriek. Takisto sa v ňom stanovuje vzor obchodného dokladu, ktorý má byť k zásielkam mäsa priložený.
 (3)
 Dňa 5. októbra 2007 postúpila Dánska veterinárna a potravinová správa v súlade s nariadením (ES) č. 853/2004 Komisii žiadosť o schválenie osobitných záruk pre Dánsko týkajúcich sa Salmonella v mäse z brojlerov (Gallus gallus) pre celé územie Dánska. Žiadosť zahŕňa opis dánskeho programu kontroly Salmonella v mäse z brojlerov (Gallus gallus).
 (4)
 Stály výbor pre potravinový reťazec a zdravie zvierat počas svojho zasadnutia 18. júna 2008 schválil pracovný dokument útvarov Komisie s názvom „Guidance document on the minimum requirements for Salmonella control programmes to be recognised equivalent to those approved for Sweden and Finland in respect of meat and eggs of Gallus gallus“ (Usmerňujúci dokument o minimálnych požiadavkách na programy kontroly Salmonella, ktoré sa majú uznať za rovnocenné s programami schválenými pre Švédsko a Fínsko, pokiaľ ide o mäso a vajcia druhu Gallus gallus) (3) (ďalej len „usmerňujúci dokument“).
 (5)
 Dánsky program kontroly Salmonella v mäse z brojlerov (Gallus gallus) sa pokladá za rovnocenný s programom schváleným pre Fínsko a Švédsko a je v súlade s usmerňujúcim dokumentom. Prevalencia Salmonella v dánskych chovných kŕdľoch Gallus gallus však bola vyššia než horná hranica navrhnutá v usmerňujúcom dokumente, preto sa nemohla považovať za rovnocennú so situáciou vo Fínsku a Švédsku.
 (6)
 Dňa 6. februára 2017 postúpila Dánska veterinárna a potravinová správa údaje o prevalencii Salmonella v kŕdľoch plemenných kurčiat, plemenných nosníc, brojlerov a v mäse druhov Gallus gallus za obdobie rokov 2011 – 2016. Prevalencia v období rokov 2015 – 2016 je v súlade s hornými hranicami stanovenými v usmerňujúcom dokumente.
 (7)
 Preto by sa osobitné záruky mali rozšíriť na zásielky mäsa z brojlerov (Gallus gallus) určené pre Dánsko. Okrem toho by sa na takéto zásielky mali uplatňovať pravidlá stanovené v nariadení (ES) č. 1688/2005 týkajúce sa odberu vzoriek z takéhoto mäsa, mikrobiologických metód testovania uvedených vzoriek a vzoru obchodného dokladu.
 (8)
 Opatrenia stanovené v tomto nariadení sú v súlade so stanoviskom Stáleho výboru pre rastliny, zvieratá, potraviny a krmivá,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Dánsku sa povoľuje uplatňovať osobitné záruky týkajúce sa Salmonella spp. stanovené v článku 8 ods. 2 nariadenia (ES) č. 853/2004 na zásielky mäsa, ako je vymedzené v bode 1.1 prílohy I k nariadeniu (ES) č. 853/2004, z brojlerov (Gallus gallus), ktoré sú určené pre Dánsko.
 Článok 2
 K zásielkam mäsa uvedeným v článku 1 je priložený obchodný doklad, ktorý je v súlade so vzorom stanoveným v prílohe IV k nariadeniu (ES) č. 1688/2005.
 Článok 3
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť dvadsiatym dňom po jeho uverejnení v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 28. februára 2018
 Za Komisiu
 predseda
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 139, 30.4.2004, s. 55.
 (2) Nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 1688/2005 zo 14. októbra 2005, ktorým sa vykonáva nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 853/2004, pokiaľ ide o osobitné záruky týkajúce sa salmonely v súvislosti so zásielkami istých druhov mäsa a vajec do Fínska a Švédska (Ú. v. EÚ L 271, 15.10.2005, s. 17).
 (3) https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/biosafety_food-borne-disease_salmonella_guidance_min-req_eggs-poultry-meat.pdf


text:
Община Силистра е разположена в Североизточна България и е една от съставните общини на област Силистра.
 География
 Географско положение, граници, големина
 Общината е разположена в северната част на област Силистра. С площта си от 515,891 km2 заема 2-ро място сред 7-те общините на областта, което съставлява 18,12% от територията на областта. Границите ѝ са следните:
 на югоизток – община Кайнарджа;
 на юг – община Алфатар и община Дулово;
 на запад – община Ситово;
 на север и североизток – Румъния.
 Природни ресурси
 Релеф
 Община Силистра се намира в северната част Източната Дунавска равнина. Релефът ѝ е равнинен и ниско хълмист, наклонен на север с надморска височина от 200 m на юг до 50 m на север, набразден от дълбоки (на места над 100 m) спрямо околния терен суходолия. Крайните ѝ южни райони попадат в обсега на северната, ниска част на Лудогорското плато, а крайните ѝ източни – в западната част на Добруджанското плато. Максималната ѝ височина се намира в най-южната ѝ част, югоизточно от село Брадвари – 221,4 m н.в., а най-ниската – 9 m н.в., на брега на река Дунав при Силистра. В северната част на общината, покрай брега на Дунав се простира Айдемирската низина (34 km2, дължина 17 km, ширина до 3 km) с надморска височина от 12 до 40 m.
 Води
 По северната граница на община Силистра, на протежение от 23 km (от km 375 до km 398, километрите се броят нагоре от устието на реката) преминава участък от долното течение на река Дунав.
 С изключение на река Дунав на територията на общината липсват повърхностно течащи води. При силни дъждове и при топенето на снеговете по суходолията протичат водни течения, които по-късно и през лятото пресъхват. При поройни дъждове водите прииждат с голяма сила и унищожават всичко в коритата си. През нейната територия преминават три големи суходолия, дълбоко всечени сред околния терен. Първото от тях (източното) е на река Канагьол (десен „приток“ на Дунав). То навлиза в пределите на общината югозападно от село Попкралево на 67 m н.в. Минава югоизточно и източно от село Богорово и североизточно от него напуска пределите на общината и навлиза на румънска територия на 21 m н.в. При село Богорово на 25 m н.в. в него отдясно се „влива“ суходолието на Хърсовска река, което навлиза в общината на 49 m н.в. и минава между селата Попкралево и Главан. В западната част на общината, от юг на север преминава третото голямо суходолие на територията ѝ – Демиркулак (Дуванкулак, Дерменкулак, което се „влива“ в езерото Сребърна). То навлиза в общината западно от село Йорданово на 52 m н.в, минава западно от село Сърпово и източно от село Сребърна и североизточно от последното се „влива“ в езерото Сребърна на 10 m н.в.
 Населени места
 Общината се състои от 19 населени места. Списък на населените места, подредени по азбучен ред, население и площ на землищата им:
 Административно-териториални промени
 МЗ No 2191/обн. 27.06.1942 г. – преименува с. Резоаре на с. Багатур;
 – преименува с. Грамосте на с. Богорово;
 – преименува с. Балтаджи ени кьой на с. Брадвари;
 – преименува с. Али фак на с. Главан;
 – преименува с. Айдемир на с. Княз Хесенски;
 – преименува с. Генерал Прапорджеску на с. Майор Ценович;
 – преименува с. Реджина Мария на с. Ново Петрово;
 – преименува с. Калипетрово на с. Петрово;
 – преименува с. Бръчма ени кьой на с. Полковник Боде;
 – преименува с. Фрашари на с. Полковник Ламбриново;
 – преименува с. Гюргенджик на с. Попкралево;
 – преименува с. Кочина на с. Професор Иширково;
 – преименува с. Голебина чаталджа на с. Сабин;
 – преименува с. Кара Омур на с. Смилец;
 – преименува с. Кара Орман на с. Срацимир;
 – преименува с. Бръчма на с. Стубел;
 – преименува с. Сюнеч на с. Сърпово;
 – преименува с. Карол ІІ на с. Цар Фердинанд;
 МЗ /обн. 28.12.1943 г. – възстановява старото име на с. Княз Хесенски на с. Айдемир;
 – преименува с. Стубел на с. Княз Хесенски;
 МЗ No 3688/обн. 05.06.1945 г. – преименува с. Княз Хесенски на с. Бръчма;
 след 1946 г. – преименувано е с. Багатур на с. Изгрев без административен акт;
 МЗ No 5530/обн. 17.09.1947 г. – преименува с. Сабин на с. Йорданово;
 Указ No 107/обн. 13.03.1951 г. – преименува с. Полковник Боде на с. Българка;
 – преименува с. Петрово на с. Станчево;
 Указ No 317/обн. 13.12.1955 г. – заличава с. Бръчма и го присъединява като квартал на с. Българка;
 – заличава с. Голебина и го присъединява като квартал на с. Йорданово;
 – заличава с. Татарица и го присъединява като квартал на с. Айдемир;
 – заличава с. Ново Петрово и го присъединява като квартал на с. Станчево;
 през 1956 г. – преименувано е с. Майор Ценович на с. Ценович без административен акт;
 Указ No 148/обн. 29.05.1956 г. – възстановява старото име на с. Станчево на с. Калипетрово;
 Указ No 881/обн. 30.11.1965 г. – заличава с. Цар Фердинанд и го присъединява като квартал на гр. Силистра;
 Указ No 1840/обн. 24.11.1970 г. – заличава селата Айдемир и Калипетрово и ги присъединява като квартали на гр. Силистра;
 Указ No 203/обн. 02.03.1976 г. – отделя кварталите Айдемир и Калипетрово от гр. Силистра и ги възстановява като отделни населени места – с. Айдемир и с. Калипетрово;
 Указ No 3005/обн. 09.10.1987 г. – закрива община Професор Иширково и заедно с включените в състава ѝ населени места я присъединява към община Силистра.
 Население
 Численост на населението според преброяванията през годините:
 Етнически състав
 Преброяване на населението през 2011 г.
 Численост и дял на етническите групи според преброяването на населението през 2011 г., по населени места (подредени по численост на населението):
 Вероизповедания
 Численост и дял на населението по вероизповедание според преброяването на населението през 2011 г.:
 Политика
 Общински съвет
 Състав на общинския съвет, избиран на местните избори през годините:
 Награда за община Силистра е:
 Победител в категория „Инвестиции и работни места“, раздел „средни общини“, в онлайн конкурса „Кмет на годината, 2017“. Приз за кмета д-р Юлиян Найденов за привличане на инвеститори и разкриване на работни места.
 Транспорт
 През североизточната на общината преминава последният участък от 18,5 km от трасето на жп линията Самуил – Силистра.
 През общината преминават изцяло или частично 7 пътя от Републиканската пътна мрежа на България с обща дължина 112,5 km:
 началният участък от 17 km от Републикански път I-7 (от km 0 до km 17,0);
 последният участък от 24,6 km от Републикански път II-21 (от km 90,3 до km 114,9);
 началният участък от 15,4 km от Републикански път II-71 (от km 0 до km 15,4);
 целият участък от 15,5 km от Републикански път III-213;
 целият участък от 10,2 km от Републикански път III-215;
 началният участък от 22,4 km от Републикански път III-218 (от km 0 до km 22,4);
 участък от 7,4 km от Републикански път III-7001 (от km 5,5 до km 12,9).
 Топографски карти
 Източници
 Литература
 Външни препратки
 Силистра


text:
Darker Still es el séptimo álbum de estudio de la banda australiana de metalcore Parkway Drive. Fue lanzado el 9 de septiembre de 2022 a través de Epitaph Records. El álbum fue producido por George Hadji-Christou.
 Antecedentes y lanzamiento
 El 11 de enero de 2022, la banda anunció una gira por América del Norte en mayo y junio, con el apoyo de Hatebreed, The Black Dahlia Murder y Stick to Your Guns. Sin embargo, el 6 de abril anunciaron la cancelación de la gira, afirmando que "la naturaleza implacable de estar en esta banda nos ha dado muy poco tiempo para reflexionar sobre quiénes somos como individuos, quiénes queremos ser y el costo que tiene". asumiendo nosotros mismos y nuestras amistades". El 23 de mayo, se anunció que, por su salud mental, Parkway Drive se tomaría un descanso de la actividad, pero aclaró que "llegaron para quedarse".
 El 7 de junio, luego de una serie de teasers publicados en varias redes sociales, la banda presentó un nuevo sencillo titulado "Glitch" junto con un video musical. El 8 de junio, la banda anunció que su gira europea de otoño de 2022 con Lorna Shore y While She Sleeps continuaría según lo programado con un cambio de marca y nueva música para acompañar dicha gira. El 6 de julio, la banda lanzó el segundo sencillo "The Greatest Fear" y su correspondiente video musical. Al mismo tiempo, anunciaron oficialmente el álbum y también revelaron la portada del álbum, la lista de canciones y la fecha de lanzamiento. El 22 de agosto, la banda publicó el tercer sencillo y tema principal "Darker Still".
 Lista de canciones
 Posicionamiento en lista
 Personal
 Parkway Drive
 Winston McCall - voz principal
 Jeff Ling - guitarras
 Luke Kilpatrick - guitarras
 Jia O'Connor - bajo
 Ben Gordon - batería
 Referencias
 Álbumes de 2022
 Álbumes de Parkway Drive
 Álbumes de Epitaph Records
 Álbumes de metal alternativo
 Álbumes de heavy metal
 Álbumes de nu metal
 Álbumes en inglés
 Álbumes número uno en Australia