type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 236 Md. 534 (1964)
 204 A.2d 546
 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE
 v.
 ALLIED CONTRACTORS, INC.
 [No. 53, September Term, 1964.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided November 16, 1964.
 The cause was argued before HENDERSON, C.J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
 Nelson B. Seidman and James B. Murphy, Assistant City Solicitors, with whom was Ambrose T. Hartman, Acting City Solicitor, on the brief, for appellant.
 W. Hamilton Whiteford for appellee.
 HAMMOND, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 This case comes to us confused by the granting below of a summary judgment after two days of testimony on the issues on which the parties differed, but as we see it the points on which the decision must turn are (a) whether the determination *538 by the Director of Public Works of Baltimore that a specified number of dollars was due the appellee, Allied Contractors, Inc., for extra work and expense caused by the City during performance of a construction contract was made by him under the contract provisions that:
 "To prevent disputes and litigations, the Director will be the referee in case any question shall arise between the Contractor and the City touching the Contract, and his determination, decision and/or estimate shall be final and conclusive upon the Contractor, and shall also be a condition precedent to the right of the Contractor to receive any moneys under the Contract"
 and (b) if so, whether the City was finally bound by the determination or could, as it attempted to do, repudiate the determination and tender a lesser sum in full settlement.
 Allied was awarded the contract for the erection of a bridge over Northern Parkway by the City in June 1958. Due to a change in plans, notice to proceed was not given until November. Claiming damages and extra costs of $104,266.26 because of this delay and other reasons attributed to the City  such as extra work, additional costs of winter concreting, changes in construction procedures, added costs of a structural steel assessed to Allied by its suppliers because delivery was delayed, and the cost of rebuilding forms that had been made unusable Allied made demand for payment of this sum upon the City. In March 1961, apparently pursuant to a suggestion by the consulting engineers, J.E. Greiner and Co., Allied submitted a written detailed summary of its claims to the City's highways engineer, Walters, sending a copy to the bridge engineer, Kravetz, and a copy to Greiner.
 On April 13, 1961, a meeting was held in Walters' office attended by him, Kravetz, an assistant of Kravetz, and three Greiner engineers. The Greiner men explained that they could make recommendations on all claims but that final decision on some would depend on the policy of the City in regard to the lapse of time between an award and the notice to proceed. They then made comments and specific recommendations to the City officials on each of Allied's various claims, generally recommending *539 no allowance at all but, as to some, suggesting payment of a small percentage of the amount claimed.
 A week later, on April 20, 1961, Walters wrote Allied saying that after examination "and carefully weighing all the circumstances connected with this contract," the City disallowed all claims. The letter then suggested that under Sec. 4-39 of the contract specifications the matter could go to the Director of Public Works, Werner, for his controlling decision. On May 12, Allied wrote Werner saying that Walters had disallowed their claims on April 20 and that "in accordance with Section 4-39 of the specifications of this contract, we wish to appeal this decision."
 Werner then directed Walters and Kravetz to make an investigation and analysis of the facts and figures involved in the claims. A meeting was held on May 22, 1961, attended by Walters and Kravetz, representing the City, and Allied's president, Pecora, and its vice-president, Kingan. One small claim was approved and it was agreed that the others would first be gone over by the City and Allied and, if possible, agreed on, and then submitted to Werner for his decision. A number of meetings followed, culminating with two full days of investigation by Kravetz at Allied's office (on Friday, September 29, and Saturday, September 30), during which each claim was again checked in detail. Kravetz was given Allied's complete files including material and time sheets, cancelled checks and other written data he wanted for verifications. As a result of this detailed study, Allied's claim of $104,266.26 was cut to $71,106.90. Kravetz told Allied he would recommend to his superior Walters that this amount be paid and if Walters agreed that it should the figure would be submitted to Werner for his final decision, and Allied assented.
 Walters did accept Kravetz' recommendation after a meeting in late October with Pecora and Kravetz at which the claims again were gone over thoroughly. Walters suggested to Pecora that he "set up" a meeting with Werner for submission of the claims as reduced. The meeting was held on November 3, attended by Werner, Walters, Kravetz and Pecora. The claims were discussed one by one, with consideration being given to their backgrounds and reasons for being, and their *540 merits and amounts, as originally submitted and as reduced. After this, Walters recommended payment of the claims and Werner said he would accept the recommendation.
 Thereupon Walters handed Werner a letter addressed to the Board of Estimates of Baltimore City recommending payment to Allied in the amount of $71,106.90, which he told Werner he had caused to be prepared in anticipation of Werner's decision. The letter which was dated November 1 and signed by Walters (a) recited the date of the contract, June 25, 1958, the beginning of work on December 1, 1958, and its finish on August 24, 1960, resulting in a total of 349 working days compared to the 270 such days allowed by the contract, and that the final cost of the work performed by Allied was $66,790.98 more than the contract price (the parties are in agreement that previously authorized funds were available to pay the sum of $4,315.92 which is the difference between $71,106.90, the amount it had been determined Allied should receive, and $66,790.98, so that only the latter amount presently was sought from the Board of Estimates); (b) explained the reasons for the delay (deletion of a water line from the bridge and construction by the City of a sewer line in the area); (c) set out the details and amounts of each claim; (d) requested authority to expend $66,790.98; and concluded (e) "these facts, together with the delays interposed by the sewer line construction and changes in plans, in our opinion justify the allowance of 79 extra working days shown by the record, and it is so recommended for your approval."
 Werner read the letter, signed it under the typed word "approved" and over the typed words "Director of Public Works" and then authorized its presentation to the Board of Estimates. He directed Walters and Kravetz to be before the Board when the letter was presented in order to be available to answer any questions. Pecora was given a copy of the letter and assured that it would be his evidence that the City had agreed to pay Allied and that payment could be expected in a matter of days after the Board of Estimates approved the request for funds.
 On November 8 the Board, at a formal meeting, did approve the request. Allied was not paid because the City disbursing department would not pay more than the $66,790.98 authorized *541 by the Board of Estimates unless the vouchers which had been presented to it were reformed and the highway officials seemed unable to comply so as to satisfy the disbursing department, although in an effort to do this Werner went with Pecora to see the department head and request expeditious action. Meanwhile, considerable time passed and, at the end of November, Kravetz announced to Pecora that he had come to the conclusion that the City had made a bad settlement and offered Allied $41,000 in full on a take it or leave it basis. It may be inferred from the record that two reasons actuated Kravetz. First, the written reports of Greiner on the subject of Allied's claims  which had been written almost a year before and the substance of which had been transmitted to Walters and Kravetz and an assistant of Kravetz at the meeting of April 1961  were forwarded to Kravetz by Greiner on November 22. (Apparently Greiner would not sooner deliver the written reports to the City because it had not been paid the additional compensation it thought it should be paid for them.) The second was that Kravetz seemingly was disturbed because the City, in weighing the fairness of Allied's claims and the desirability of paying them, had routinely contemplated that the United States Bureau of Public Highways would pay half of the additional costs, as it had of the original contract costs, and the Bureau refused to pay anything under its regular policy not to do so when the municipality was at fault or responsible for the extra cost.
 Pecora refused Kravetz' take it or leave it offer of $41,000 in full settlement, saying that Allied had an accrued and absolute right to $71,106.90 under the award of the referee Werner, the Director of Public Works.
 On January 9, 1962, the City sent Allied a check for $43,372.56, marked "final payment of all claims"  the amount having been arrived at by Kravetz without consultation with Werner who did no more than sign the check. After consulting its lawyer, Allied deposited the check and wrote Walters that the check was for less than the amount "awarded us by the decision of the Director of Public Works and approved by the Board of Estimates on Nov. 8, 1961" and that it reserved the right "* * * to take whatever additional steps are necessary to enforce collection of this difference."
 *542 Allied filed suit against the City on February 23, 1962, for $28,869.37 (the difference between "the final sum due" plus "agreed arbitration adjustments for credits" minus the amount of the check for $43,372.56). It filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by the affidavit of Pecora as to the matters which have been recited above. The declaration alleged facts to support its theory that there had been "decision and arbitration" under the contract which was "final and binding in a liquidated amount" and had not been paid in full. The City filed the general issue plea, an answer to the motion for summary judgment, in which it was alleged that there was a genuine dispute as to material facts and admitted "that such claims [those of Allied] were referred to the Director of Public Works as arbitrator," but denied that the Director decided Allied was entitled to $71,106.90 as alleged by Allied. The answer further asserted "that the amount determined by the arbitration to be due Plaintiff was $43,372.56, which was paid to and accepted by the Plaintiff in full payment and satisfaction." Also filed by the City was the affidavit of Kravetz in support of the answer. This did no more than repeat in outline the refutations and allegation of the answer.
 The City filed interrogatories which, among other things, asked Allied to state in detail the bases of its various claims totalling $71,106.90.
 Allied excepted to these interrogatories for the reason that "* * * this suit is predicated on an adjudication and arbitration by Bernard L. Werner in his capacity as Director of Public Works and acting under the authority vested in him in the Specifications pertaining to the work." Allied's exceptions further stated that the City's effort was to reopen matters which had all been thoroughly explored prior to Werner's adjudication and that these matters were not now subject to review, so that Allied "stands on the basis of a binding arbitration and award by the Director of the Board of Public Works."
 Judge Niles sustained Allied's exceptions, the case was placed on the consolidated docket as a non-jury case and, in due course, came on for trial before Judge Byrnes. Opening statements were made, pertinent writings were introduced and testimony taken over a two-day period from Pecora, Walters, Werner, *543 Kingan, Kravetz, and Carroll Simmons, a lawyer who is in Werner's department and sits in with him on formal hearings or claims against the City. Arguments on both sides were made and briefs submitted.
 Judge Byrnes filed a written opinion in which he said there were two questions to be decided  whether Werner had acted under the contract provisions as referee and made a binding award, and whether the acceptance of the check for $43,372.56 marked "final payment of all claims" released the City from further demands. Judge Byrnes, after referring to the testimony and the writings introduced, found "* * * that the evidence compels the conclusion that all interested parties intended the meeting of Nov. 3, 1961, to be a final determination by the arbitrator of the damages claimed and as there were no formalities required for a valid arbitration under Section 4-39 of the Specifications the approval of Mr. Werner did constitute an arbitration and final determination of the damages claimed." He also found that inasmuch as there had been a final determination by the referee specified in the contract, the City could not be heard to say that the amount due thereafter was in dispute and, therefore, the liquidated and undisputed claim of Allied was not discharged by the payment of a lesser amount notwithstanding the presence of a notation stating that the lesser amount is to constitute payment in full.
 Then, although he had in effect made findings of fact, Judge Byrnes "after carefully considering the evidence" found "* * * that there is no dispute as to any material fact and that the case is properly before the Court for summary judgment consideration" and granted Allied's motion for summary judgment, directing payment of $27,734.34.
 In this Court the City contends that summary judgment could not have been properly granted because of disputes as to material facts, that there never was an arbitration or award under Sec. 4-39 of the contract (counsel for the City, at the conclusion of the trial below, told Judge Byrnes that the statements of the City over the signature of the City Solicitor and the assistant solicitor in charge of the case, made in the answer to the motion for summary judgment and repeated in the supporting affidavit that it admitted that Allied's claims had been *544 "referred to the Director of Public Works as arbitrator" and that "the amount determined by arbitration to be due * * * was $43,372.56," had been included in the pleading inadvertently and mistakenly), that if there was arbitration it was not binding because vitiated by mistake and that acceptance of the check for $43,372.56 discharged the City from further obligation to Allied.
 It is clear, we think, that summary judgment could not have been granted under the circumstances. Werner's testimony was that he had never held a formal hearing as, he said, he would have if he had acted under Sec. 4-39 of the contract specifications and that his approval of the $71,106.90 payment was conditional in that he said that it was to be subject to further check to be made by Kravetz. Allied's evidence was to the contrary. After Judge Niles, by upholding Allied's exceptions to the City's demand for the furnishing of the details of the various claims, had limited the issue to whether there had been a binding adjudication by Werner, it is clear that both sides prepared to go to trial and did go to trial on the merits of that issue. This view is buttressed by various colloquies between counsel and the court, various rulings of the court and the memorandum of law of each side submitted after testimony had been concluded and the case argued orally. There were conflicting factual contentions to be resolved, or, at the least, differing significant inferences that could have been drawn from what the various witnesses testified had been said and done, and the trial court made factual resolutions and drew inferences in arriving at his decision.
 Summary judgment was not proper or permissible under such circumstances. Md. Rule 610 d 1; Roland v. Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., 221 Md. 11, 19; Tellez v. Canton Railroad Co., 212 Md. 423; White v. Friel, 210 Md. 274.
 That Judge Byrnes characterized the judgment as summary and said it had been granted on Allied's motion for such a judgment does not mean that his action in determining that Allied was entitled to $71,106.90, by reason of Werner's decision that the City properly should pay that sum, was in error.
 There was a full hearing on the merits, at which Allied presented the writings and witnesses it desired in support of its *545 contention that there had been a binding award which was the equivalent of the award of an arbitrator, and the City did the same in an effort to show the contrary. The argument of the City that the trial was not on the merits because the City was not permitted to show that the award was made in error and was unjustified is not sound. The issue had been limited to, and the trial was to determine, whether in fact and in law there had been a binding award, not whether the award was correct or whether the court would have made the same award. The Greiner reports and the circumstances of the revelation of their contents to the City officials in April and their transmission to the City in late November came into evidence and were sufficient to enable the court to decide whether there had been any mistake in the making of the award of a kind sufficient to invalidate it.
 It is established that when the parties have provided for a binding determination of disputed matters by a designated person, such as an architect or engineer, even though that person is an official or representative of one of the parties, his decision is the equivalent of the award of an arbitrator and like such an award is final and conclusive on both parties in the absence of fraud or mistake so gross as to imply bad faith or the failure to exercise honest judgment. Nelley v. Baltimore City, 224 Md. 1, and cases cited.
 Every reasonable intendment supports the validity of such an award and ordinarily an arbitrator may not impeach his own award. Parr Construction Co. v. Pomer, 217 Md. 539, 543.
 The City contends that there was no award under Sec. 4-39 of the contract specifications because no formal hearing underlay its making. We see no significance in this fact. As Judge Byrnes observed in his opinion: "Sec. 4-39 of the Specifications merely states `* * * the Director will be the referee in case any question shall arise between the contractor and the city touching the contract.'" We agree with his conclusion there was no provision requiring a formal hearing or mode of determination, Boor v. Wilson, 48 Md. 305, 314, and he was justified in deciding that "* * * considering all the circumstances the conduct of the parties unquestionably indicates that the meeting of November 3, 1961, was intended to be a final arbitration of the damages claimed."
 *546 The City argues further that Werner did not referee or arbitrate but only approved a negotiated settlement, admitting that the line between the two may be a fine one. The testimony certainly permitted the finding that the parties were on the arbitration side of the line. Werner considered not only amounts but the background, reason and validity of each claim and the final decision was his. Apposite here is what was said in Litman v. Holtzman, 219 Md. 353, because here, as in Litman, much, if not all, that was done by the referee constituted an arbitration in the nature of an appraisal. In Litman it was said (p. 359): "* * * although he was aided by his employee in procuring the facts, figures, data and verifications, all pertinent and essential judgments, tentative and final, were his." Later in the Litman opinion the following language was adopted (p. 363):
 "* * * `[I]t is entirely proper for arbitrators, in a case requiring it, to obtain from disinterested persons of acknowledged skill such information and advice in reference to technical questions submitted to them, as may be necessary to enable them to come to correct conclusions, provided that the award is the result of their own judgment after obtaining such information.'"
 The claim of the City that there was mistake in the award which it should have been allowed to show by developing the theories of the Greiner reports must be rejected. A mistake which will vitiate or invalidate an award must be gross and manifest to the point of showing bad faith or failure to exercise honest judgment. M. & C.C. of Balt. v. Clark, 128 Md. 291, 309, 313-314; J.A. LaPorte Corp. v. Mayor and City Council, 13 F. Supp. 795 (D.C. Md.).
 Mistakes by an arbitrator in drawing incorrect inferences or forming erroneous judgments or conclusions from the facts will not vitiate his award. Roloson v. Carson, 8 Md. 208; Ebert v. Ebert, 5 Md. 353; Cromwell v. Owings, 6 Har. & J. 10.
 As in the case of an enrolled judgment, the decisive primary question is not whether the judgment was right or wrong but whether impropriety, to a significant extent, brought about its *547 obtention. In the case before us the most that can be gleaned from the record is that if there was error, it was error in judgment. The City officials knew everything that Allied knew and also knew Greiner's views and with all this before him Werner made a judgment. Whether it was right or wrong is beside the point, for it was honestly made on fully known or thoroughly investigated facts, circumstances, and figures. That the City chose to attribute more weight to Greiner's views in late November (after the federal road officials would not pay half the cost of Allied's extra work) than it did in April and early November would not amount to a mistake in the obtention or coming about of the award.
 The trial court did not, in our view, err in deciding that the case was governed by the rule of Eastover Co. v. All Metal Fabr., 221 Md. 428, that where a claim is liquidated and undisputed it is not discharged by acceptance of a lesser sum tendered in full settlement. The valid award made the claim of Allied liquidated and undisputed within the meaning of the rule.
 It appears to us that the purposes of justice will be advanced by permitting further proceedings in this cause and, therefore, the case is remanded to the lower court without affirmance or reversal for the entry of a proper judgment in the amount of the referee Werner's award, less payment thereon of $43,372.56, upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law of Judge Byrnes which we have approved. Such a judgment, in addition to the sum of $27,734.34, the amount of the judgment granted by Judge Byrnes ($71,106.90 minus $43,372.56), may be determined to include in addition the sum of $1,135.03 (the difference between the reduction originally made by the City of $12,648.00, because of the elimination of the water mains from the contract, and $11,512.97 which Allied claimed was the proper reduction) if the trial court finds as a fact that the award included the lessened credit, because the letter of November 1, 1961, approved by Werner November 3, 1961, included it, or for some other reason.
 Case remanded, without affirmance or reversal, for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, costs to be paid by the appellant.


jurisdiction: EU

text:
 24.4.2017
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 129/23
 Žaloba podaná dne 15. února 2017 – Apple v. EUIPO – Apo International (apo)
 (Věc T-104/17)
 (2017/C 129/36)
 Jazyk, ve kterém byla podána žaloba: angličtina
 Účastníci řízení
 Žalobkyně: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, Kalifornie, Spojené státy) (zástupci: J. Olsen a P. Andreottola, Solicitors a G. Tritton, Barrister)
 Žalovaný: Úřad Evropské unie pro duševní vlastnictví (EUIPO)
 Další účastnice řízení před odvolacím senátem: Apo International Co. Ltd (Taipei City, Taiwan)
 Údaje týkající se řízení před EUIPO
 Přihlašovatel sporné ochranné známky: Další účastnice v řízení před odvolacím senátem
 Sporná ochranná známka: Obrazová ochranná známka Evropské unie obsahující slovní prvek „apo“ – Přihláška č. 11 293 628
 Řízení před EUIPO: Námitkové řízení
 Napadené rozhodnutí: Rozhodnutí čtvrtého odvolacího senátu EUIPO ze dne 1. prosince 2016, ve věci R 698/2016-4
 Návrhová žádání
 Žalobkyně navrhuje, aby Tribunál:
 —
 napadené rozhodnutí zrušil;
 —
 vyhověl žalobě žalobkyně směřující proti napadenému rozhodnutí v plném rozsahu
 —
 uložil EUIPO náhradu nákladů řízení.
 Dovolávané žalobní důvody
 —
 Porušení čl. 8 odst. 1 písm. b) a čl. 8 odst. 5 nařízení č. 207/2009;
 —
 Napadené rozhodnutí je v rozporu se zásadou reformatio in peius;
 —
 Odvolací senát se dopustil nesprávného právního posouzení, když konstatoval, že podání žaloby podle čl. 8 odst. 4 není opodstatněné.


type: contracts

text:
Nr. L 81 / 12 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 1 . 4 . 75
 OVEREENKOMST
 tussen de Europese Economische Gemeenschap en de Islamitische Republiek
 Mauretanië betreffende de levering van zachte tarwe als voedselhulp
 DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE GEMEENSCHAPPEN ,
 enerzijds,
 DE REGERING VAN DE ISLAMITISCHE REPUBLIEK MAURETANIË,
 anderzijds,
 HEBBEN BESLOTEN deze Overeenkomst te sluiten en hebben daartoe als gevolmachtigden aange
 wezen :
 DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE GEMEENSCHAPPEN :
 DE REGERING VAN DE ISLAMITISCHE REPUBLIEK MAURETANIË :
 DIE OMTRENT DE VOLGENDE BEPALINGEN OVEREENSTEMMING HEBBEN BEREIKT :
 Artikel I doeleinden aan te wenden en gratis te verdelen aan de
 In het kader van haar programma voor voedselhulp noodlijdende bevolkingsgroepen .
 met graan voor het jaar 1973/ 1974, levert de Europese
 Economische Gemeenschap, hierna genoemd „Ge Artikel VI
 meenschap", aan de Islamitische Republiek Maureta
 nië, hierna genoemd „land van bestemming", als gift
 een hoeveelheid van 4 000 ton zachte tarwe . De Gemeenschap staat aan het land van bestemming
 een forfaitaire bijdrage toe als aandeel in de door dit
 Artikel II land gemaakte kosten voor het vervoer van het pro
 dukt van het cif-stadium naar de plaatsen van be
 De leveringen worden verricht cif-haven van het land stemming. Deze bijdrage is gesteld op 50 rekeneen
 van bestemming in nieuwe jute zakken met een net heden per ton geleverd produkt.
 togewicht van 50 kilogram elk.
 De Gemeenschap verplicht zich ertoe deze bijdrage
 Artikel III
 over te maken zo spoedig mogelijk nadat de Commis
 De bepalingen inzake de verplichtingen en de ver sie der Europesè Gemeenschappen de in artikel 6 van
 antwoordelijkheid van de Gemeenschap en van het de bijlage bedoelde kopie van het bewijs van overna
 land van bestemming betreffende de levering en de me heeft ontvangen .
 overname zijn opgenomen in de bijlage, welke een in
 tegrerend deel uitmaakt van deze Overeenkomst.
 Artikel VII
 Artikel IV
 De Partijen bij de Overeenkomst verplichten zich er
 Het land van bestemming verplicht zich ertoe alle toe, deze zodanig uit te voeren dat aan de normale
 nodige maatregelen te nemen voor het vervoer en de
 structuur van de nationale produktie en van de inter
 verzekering van het produkt van het cif-stadium naar
 nationale handel geen nadeel wordt berokkend. Zij
 de plaatsen van bestemming. treffen daartoe de nodige maatregelen om te verzeke
 Artikel V ren dat de leveringen in het kader van de voedselhulp
 een aanvulling vormen op, en niet in de plaats komen
 Het land van bestemming verplicht zich ertoe het als van, de handelstransacties die zonder zodanige leve
 voedselhulp ontvangen produkt voor consumptieve ringen redelijkerwijs te verwachten zijn .
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 4 . 75 Publikatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen Nr. L 81 / 13
 Artikel VIII veelheden ; aantal en hoedanigheid van de geholpen
 personen ; plaatsen en wijze van verdeling.
 Het land van bestemming neemt alle dienstige maat
 regelen ter voorkoming van : Artikel X
 — de wederuitvoer zowel van het als voedselhulp
 ontvangen produkt als van de hiervan afkomstige Het land van bestemming neemt alle dienstige maat
 produkten en bijprodukten ; regelen ten einde de personen die daartoe door de
 Gemeenschap naar behoren gemachtigd zijn , in staat
 — de commerciële en de niet-commerciële uitvoer, . te stellen ter plaatse het verloop van de uitvoering van
 gedurende een periode van 6 maanden vanaf de de Overeenkomst te volgen .
 laatste levering, zowel van het ter plaatse geprodu
 ceerde produkt dat met het als gift ontvangen pro Artikel XI
 dukt overeenkomt als van de hiervan afkomstige
 produkten en bijprodukten . Op verzoek van één van de Partijen vindt overleg tus
 sen de Partijen bij de Overeenkomst plaats over alle
 Artikel IX vraagstukken in verband met de toepassing van deze
 Overeenkomst .
 Het land van bestemming verplicht zich ertoe, de wij
 ze van uitvoering van deze Overeenkomst ter kennis Artikel XII
 van de Gemeenschap te brengen . Daartoe verstrekt
 het aan de Commissie van de Europese Gemeen Deze Overeenkomst is opgesteld in twee exemplaren ,
 schappen om de 3 maanden totdat de in het kader in de Deense, de Duitse, de Engelse, de Franse, de Ita
 van de voedselhulp geleverde hoeveelheden volledig liaanse en de Nederlandse taal , zijnde alle teksten ge
 zijn verbruikt de volgende gegevens : verdeelde hoe lijkelijk authentiek .
 BIJLAGE
 BEPALINGEN INZAKE LEVERING EN OVERNAME
 Artikel 1 Zij doet in de charterpartij een bepaling opnemen , waarbij
 De levering is verricht en de risico's gaan over van de Ge de kapitein verplicht wordt het land van bestemming min
 stens 72 uur van tevoren op de hoogte te stellen van de da
 meenschap op het land van bestemming op het tijdstip
 tum waarop het schip waarschijnlijk in de loshaven zal aan
 waarop de goederen daadwerkelijk in het ruim van het schip komen .
 in de loshaven zijn overgenomen .
 Het land van bestemming draagt alle kosten vanaf de leve Artikel 4
 ring van de goederen, inclusief die voor het lossen (zoals ver
 stuwen, hijsen, overnemen), alsook eventuele lichterkosten . Bij levering van de goederen geldt een tolerantie van 5 %
 onder de in artikel I van de Overeenkomst aangegeven hoe
 Het eventuele overliggeld of de eventuele spoedpremie (dis veelheden .
 patch money) in de loshaven komt ten laste of ten goede van
 het land van bestemming. Over het bedrag en de wijze van
 A rt ik el 5
 betaling, vastgesteld in het contract tussen de in artikel 5 be
 doelde gemachtigde van de Gemeenschap en de vervoerder, De Gemeenschap wijst voor de uitvoering van de bepalingen
 moeten deze gemachtigde en de in artikel 5 bedoelde ver van deze bijlage een gemachtigde aan en deelt diens naam
 tegenwoordiger van het land van bestemming van tevoren en adres tijdig aan het land van bestemming mee .
 overeenstemming hebben bereikt.
 Het land van bestemming wijst voor elke loshaven een ver
 Artikel 2 tegenwoordiger aan voor het overnemen van de goederen en
 deelt diens naam en adres vóór de uitvoering van de Over
 Zo spoedig mogelijk nadat de goederen in het schip zijn ge
 eenkomst aan de Gemeenschap mee .
 laden, deelt de Gemeenschap het land van bestemming mee
 met welk schip de verzending plaatsvindt, en stelt zij het in
 Artikel 6
 kennis van de datum van inlading, de hoeveelheid en kwali
 teit van de goederen als vastgesteld bij het inladen , en de Bij de levering van de goederen overhandigt het land van be
 loshaven .
 stemming aan de gemachtigde van de Gemeenschap een be
 Artikel 3
 wijs van overname met vermelding van de loshaven , aard en
 hoeveelheid alsmede eventuele op - en aanmerkingen betref
 De Gemeenschap stelt het land van bestemming minstens fende de kwaliteit van de goederen . Het zendt een kopie
 10 volle dagen van tevoren op de hoogte van de vermoedelij hiervan aan de Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschap
 ke datum van aankomst van het schip in de loshaven . pen .


text:
 19.3.2009
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 L 73/36
 EEZ APVIENOTĀS KOMITEJAS LĒMUMS
 Nr. 4/2009
 (2009. gada 5. februāris),
 ar ko groza EEZ līguma II pielikumu (Tehniskie noteikumi, standarti, testēšana un sertifikācija)
 EEZ APVIENOTĀ KOMITEJA,
 ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Ekonomikas zonu, kurā grozījumi izdarīti ar Protokolu, ar ko pielāgo Līgumu par Eiropas Ekonomikas zonu, turpmāk “Līgums”, un jo īpaši tā 98. pantu,
 tā kā:
 (1)
 Līguma II pielikums tika grozīts ar EEZ Apvienotās komitejas 2008. gada 26. septembra Lēmumu Nr. 98/2008 (1).
 (2)
 Līgumā ir jāiekļauj Komisijas 2008. gada 30. janvāra Direktīva 2008/5/EK par tādu norāžu obligātu iekļaušanu dažu pārtikas produktu marķējumā, kas nav paredzētas Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīvā 2000/13/EK (Kodificēta versija) (2).
 (3)
 Līgumā ir jāiekļauj Komisijas 2007. gada 4. decembra Lēmums 2007/802/EK, ar kuru groza Lēmumu 2002/840/EK, ar ko pieņem sarakstu attiecībā uz apstiprinātām iekārtām pārtikas produktu apstarošanai trešās valstīs (3).
 (4)
 Līgumā ir jāiekļauj Komisijas 2007. gada 28. marta Ieteikums 2007/196/EK par uzraudzību attiecībā uz furāna sastopamību pārtikas produktos (4).
 (5)
 Ar Direktīvu 2008/5/EK atsauc Komisijas Direktīvu 94/54/EK (5), kas ir iekļauta Līgumā un tāpēc ir atceļama saskaņā ar Līgumu.
 (6)
 Šis lēmums neattiecas uz Lihtenšteinu,
 IR NOLĒMUSI ŠĀDI.
 1. pants
 Līguma II pielikuma XII nodaļu groza šādi.
 1)
 Pielikuma 54.zc punkta teksts (Komisijas Direktīva 94/54/EK) tiek svītrots.
 2)
 Pielikuma 54.zze punktu (Komisijas Lēmums 2002/840/EK) papildina ar šādu ievilkumu:
 “—
 32007 D 0802: Komisijas 2007. gada 4. decembra Lēmumu 2007/802/EK (OV L 323, 8.12.2007., 40. lpp.).”
 3)
 Aiz punkta 54.zzzv (Komisijas Direktīva 2006/141/EK) iekļauj šādu punktu:
 “54.zzzw.
 32008 L 0005: Komisijas 2008. gada 30. janvāra Direktīva 2008/5/EK par tādu norāžu obligātu iekļaušanu dažu pārtikas produktu marķējumā, kas nav paredzētas Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīvā 2000/13/EK (Kodificēta versija) (OV L 27, 31.1.2008., 12. lpp.).”
 4)
 Aiz 63. punkta (Komisijas Ieteikums 2007/331/EK) iekļauj šādu punktu:
 “64.
 32007 H 0196: Komisijas 2007. gada 28. marta Ieteikums 2007/196/EK par uzraudzību attiecībā uz furāna sastopamību pārtikas produktos (OV L 88, 29.3.2007., 56. lpp.).”
 2. pants
 Direktīvas 2008/5/EK, Lēmuma 2007/802/EK un Ieteikuma 2007/196/EK teksti īslandiešu un norvēģu valodā, kas jāpublicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ papildinājumā, ir autentiski.
 3. pants
 Šis lēmums stājas spēkā 2009. gada 6. februārī, ja EEZ Apvienotajai komitejai ir iesniegti visi paziņojumi saskaņā ar Līguma 103. panta 1. punktu (6).
 4. pants
 Šo lēmumu publicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ iedaļā un tā EEZ papildinājumā.
 Briselē, 2009. gada 5. februārī
 EEZ Apvienotās komitejas vārdā —
 priekšsēdētājs
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) OV L 309, 20.11.2008., 19. lpp.
 (2) OV L 27, 31.1.2008., 12. lpp.
 (3) OV L 323, 8.12.2007., 40. lpp.
 (4) OV L 88, 29.3.2007., 56. lpp.
 (5) OV L 300, 23.11.1994., 14. lpp.
 (6) Konstitucionālās prasības nav norādītas.


type: wikipedia

text:
El Grob G-120 es un avión biplaza de entrenamiento, que también está preparado para realizar acrobacias. Está basado en la aeronave de entrenamiento Grob G-115TA, y se encuentra especialmente diseñado para el entrenamiento de pilotos civiles y militares. Cuenta con un tren de aterrizaje de tres ruedas y un timón en forma de cruz.
 El primer comprador fue Lufthansa, que los utilizó en su escuela de vuelo.
 Características
 El fuselaje está hecho de plástico reforzado con fibra de carbono, que es totalmente inmune a la corrosión y proporciona accesibilidad de mantenimiento en algunas partes. Esto habilita al avión para realizar maniobras de hasta 6/-4 g, ideales para las acrobacias. Su vida de servicio mínima es algo más de 15.000 horas de vuelo.
 La cabina ofrece espacio a los estudiantes para el uso de equipo militar y cascos. El avión está equipado con un sistema de aire acondicionado, asientos móviles y pedales que sirven de timón. También dispone de una segunda palanca de empuje.
 Operadores
 Luftwaffe
 Fuerza Aérea Argentina
 Adquiridas un total de 10 unidades G-120TP por un monto de 26 millones de dólares, para reemplazar a los antiguos T-34 Mentor.
 Real Fuerza Aérea Canadiense
 Fuerza Aérea Ecuatoriana 8 unidades en servicio.
 Armée de l'air
 Fuerza Aérea Israelí
 Fuerza Aérea Mexicana
 La Fuerza Aérea Mexicana ha ordenado 25 Grob G-120TP (con opción de pedir 15 adicionales) en septiembre del 2014 con el propósito de reforzar su capacidad del entrenamiento básico y avanzado de los pilotos y se espera que en el transcurso del 2015 terminen de llegar todos los pedidos.
 Especificaciones
 G-120A
 Generales
 Tripulación: dos (alumno e instructor)
 Largo: 8,11 m
 Envergadura: 10,18 m
 Altura: 2,66 m
 Superficie alar: 13,3 m2
 Peso en vacío:
 Peso cargado:
 Carga útil: 360 kg
 Máximo peso al despegue: 1440 kg
 Planta motriz:Lycoming AEIO-540-D4D5 de 6 cilindros, de 3 palas por motor
 Combustible utilizable: 252 L
 Rendimiento
 Velocidad máxima: 435 km/h (235 KTS)
 Velocidad de crucero: 379 km/h (205 KTS)
 Rango: 1.535 kilómetros
 Tasa de ascenso: 6,51 m/s
 Carga alar: kg/m2
 Vida de servicio mínima: 15.000 h de vuelo
 Distancia de despegue: 654 m
 Distancia de aterrizaje: 562 m
 Límites G: +6/-4G
 G-120TP
 Generales
 Tripulación: dos (alumno e instructor)
 Largo: 8,4 m
 Envergadura: 10,18 m
 Altura: 2,7 m
 Superficie alar: 13,3 m2
 Peso en vacío:1.095 kg
 Peso cargado:1.590 kg
 Carga útil: 360 kg
 Máximo peso al despegue: 1,590 kg
 Planta motriz: 1 x Turbohélice Rolls-Royce M250-B17F, 340 kW (456 hp) de 5 palas por motor
 Combustible utilizable: 252 L
 Rendimiento
 Velocidad máxima: 460 km/h
 Velocidad de crucero: 435 km/h
 Rango: 1,074 kilómetros
 Tasa de ascenso: 6,51 m/s
 Carga alar: toneladas/m2
 Vida de servicio mínima: 15.000 h de vuelo
 Distancia de despegue: 376 m
 Distancia de aterrizaje: 455 m
 Límites G: +6/-4G
 Insignias
 Referencias y notas de pie
 Notas aclaratorias
 Notas al pie
 Bibliografía
 Grob G 115,120 and 140 Information brochure and Technical Datasheet (Grob Aerospace Sales Department, 2004)
 Jackson, Paul. Jane's All The World's Aircraft 2003–2004. Coulsdon, UK: Jane's Information Group, 2003. ISBN 0-7106-2537-5.
 Enlaces externos
 Página corporativa de la Compañía Grob
 G-120
 Aeronaves de ala baja
 Aviones tractores monomotores
 Aviones deportivos de Alemania de los años 1990
 Aviones entrenadores militares de Alemania de los años 1990


type: legislation

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 52004PC0428(01)
 Návrh rozhodnutí Rady o podpisu a prozatímním uplatňování protokolu k Euro-středomořské dohodě mezi Evropskými společenstvími a jejich členskými státy na jedné straně a Egyptskou arabskou republikou na straně druhé, který zohledňuje přistoupení České republiky, Estonské republiky, Kyperské republiky, Maďarské republiky, Lotysské republiky, Litevské republiky, Republiky Malta, Polské republiky, Republiky Slovinsko a Slovenské republiky k Evropské unii /* KOM/2004/0428 konecném znení */
 Návrh ROZHODNUTÍ RADY o podpisu a prozatímním uplatňování protokolu k Euro-středomořské dohodě mezi Evropskými společenstvími a jejich členskými státy na jedné straně a Egyptskou arabskou republikou na straně druhé, který zohledňuje přistoupení České republiky, Estonské republiky, Kyperské republiky, Maďarské republiky, Lotysské republiky, Litevské republiky, Republiky Malta, Polské republiky, Republiky Slovinsko a Slovenské republiky k Evropské unii(předložená Komisí)DŮVODOVÁ ZPRÁVAPodle čl. 6 odst. 2 aktu o přistoupení nových členských států k EU je třeba dohodnout přistoupení nových členských států EU k Euro-středomořské dohodě o přidruzení prostřednictvím protokolu k uvedené dohodě. Stejný článek obsahuje zjednodusený postup, který stanoví, ze protokol uzavírá Rada, jednající jednomyslně za členské státy, a dotčená třetí země. Tímto postupem nejsou dotčeny vlastní pravomoci Společenství.Rada dne 10. února 2004 schválila mandát Komise ke sjednání takového protokolu s Egyptskou arabskou republikou. Jednání byla mezitím uzavřena ke spokojenosti Komise. Znění protokolu bylo parafováno Komisí a egyptskými úřady v Káhiře dne 11. května 2004.Přilozené návrhy jsou 1) rozhodnutí Rady o podpisu protokolu a 2) rozhodnutí Rady o uzavření protokolu.Znění sjednaného protokolu se připojuje k tomuto rozhodnutí. Nejdůlezitějsími prvky protokolu jsou ustanovení o přístupu nových členských států k dohodě o přidruzení EU-Egypt, úprava protokolu o zemědělských produktech a začlenění nových úředních jazyků EU.Komise si dovoluje pozádat Radu o schválení přilozených předloh rozhodnutí Rady k podpisu a uzavření protokolu.O souhlas s protokolem bude pozádán Evropský parlament.Návrh ROZHODNUTÍ RADY o podpisu a prozatímním uplatňování protokolu k Euro-středomořské dohodě mezi Evropskými společenstvími a jejich členskými státy na jedné straně a Egyptskou arabskou republikou na straně druhé, který zohledňuje přistoupení České republiky, Estonské republiky, Kyperské republiky, Maďarské republiky, Lotysské republiky, Litevské republiky, Republiky Malta, Polské republiky, Republiky Slovinsko a Slovenské republiky k Evropské uniiRADA EVROPSKÉ UNIE,s ohledem na Smlouvu o zalození Evropského společenství, a zejména na článek 310 ve spojení s druhou větou čl. 300 odst. 2,s ohledem na akt o přistoupení nových členských států k Evropské unii, a zejména na čl. 6 odst. 2 tohoto aktu,s ohledem na návrh Komise,vzhledem k těmto důvodům:(1) Rada dne 10. února pověřila Komisi, aby za Evropské společenství a jeho členské státy zahájila jednání s Egyptem za účelem změny Euro-středomořské dohody o přidruzení uzavřené mezi Evropským společenstvím a jeho členskými státy na jedné straně a Egyptskou arabskou republikou na straně druhé s cílem zohlednit přístup nových členských států k EU.(2) Jednání byla uzavřena ke spokojenosti Komise.(3) Čl. 12 odst. 3 protokolu sjednaného s Egyptskou arabskou republikou stanoví prozatímní uplatňování protokolu do té doby, nez vstoupí v platnost.(4) Vzhledem k moznému uzavření k pozdějsímu datu je třeba protokol za Společenství podepsat a prozatímně uplatnit,ROZHODLA TAKTO:Článek 1Předseda Rady je oprávněn určit osobu nebo osoby zmocněné podepsat jménem Společenství a jeho členských států protokol k Euro-středomořské dohodě mezi Evropskými společenstvími a jejich členskými státy na jedné straně a Egyptskou arabskou republikou na straně druhé, aby se zohlednilo přistoupení České republiky, Estonské republiky, Kyperské republiky, Maďarské republiky, Lotysské republiky, Litevské republiky, Republiky Malta, Polské republiky, Republiky Slovinsko a Slovenské republiky k Evropské unii. Znění protokolu se připojuje k tomuto rozhodnutí.Článek 2Evropské společenství a jeho členské státy souhlasí s prozatímním uplatňováním podmínek protokolu s ohledem na jeho mozné uzavření k pozdějsímu datu.V Bruselu dneZa Radupředseda/předsedkyn


text:
8.12.2014
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 439/25
 Sag anlagt den 13. oktober 2014 — Europa-Kommissionen mod Kongeriget Danmark
 (Sag C-468/14)
 (2014/C 439/34)
 Processprog: dansk
 Parter
 Sagsøger: Europa-Kommissionen (ved M. Clausen, C. Cattabriga, befuldmægtigede)
 Sagsøgt: Kongeriget Danmark
 Påstande
 —
 Det fastslås, at Kongeriget Danmark, ved at opretholde en retstilstand hvor salg af løs snus er tilladt i strid med artikel 8, sammenholdt med artikel 2, nr. 4, i direktiv 2001/37/EF af 5. juni 2001 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes love og administrative bestemmelser om fremstilling, præsentation og salg af tobaksvarer (1), har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til dette direktiv.
 —
 Kongeriget Danmark tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.
 Søgsmålsgrunde og væsentligste argumenter
 Kongeriget Danmark har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 8 i direktiv 2001/37/EF ved kun at forbyde salg af snus i porøse portionsbreve, men ikke løs snus, i Danmark. Danmark har ikke bestridt, at dets nationale regler ikke er i overensstemmelse med EU-retten for så vidt angår forbuddet mod markedsføring af tobak, som indtages oralt. Et lovforslag, der ville have gennemført et fuldstændigt forbud mod at markedsføre snus i Danmark, blev imidlertid forkastet af det danske Folketing.
 Danmark har ikke afgivet yderligere tilsagn med henblik på at bringe de danske regler i overensstemmelse med EU-retten. Kommissionen må således konstatere, at Danmark fortsat ikke overholder sine forpligtelser i henhold til direktivets artikel 8, sammenholdt med artikel 2, nr. 4.
 (1) EFT L 194, s. 26.


text:
 5.10.2011
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 260/1
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 981/2011
 z dnia 30 września 2011 r.
 rejestrujące w rejestrze chronionych nazw pochodzenia i chronionych oznaczeń geograficznych nazwę [Jabłka grójeckie (CHOG)]
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 510/2006 z dnia 20 marca 2006 r. w sprawie ochrony oznaczeń geograficznych i nazw pochodzenia produktów rolnych i środków spożywczych (1), w szczególności jego art. 7 ust. 4 akapit pierwszy,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 Zgodnie z art. 6 ust. 2 akapit pierwszy rozporządzenia (WE) nr 510/2006 wniosek Polski o rejestrację nazwy „Jabłka grójeckie” został opublikowany w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej
 (2).
 (2)
 Ponieważ do Komisji nie wpłynęło żadne oświadczenie o sprzeciwie zgodnie z art. 7 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 510/2006, nazwa ta powinna zostać zarejestrowana,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Nazwa wymieniona w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia zostaje zarejestrowana.
 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 30 września 2011 r.
 W imieniu Komisji, za Przewodniczącego,
 Dacian CIOLOȘ
 Członek Komisji
 (1) Dz.U. L 93 z 31.3.2006, s. 12.
 (2) Dz.U. C 322 z 27.11.2010, s. 35.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Produkty rolne przeznaczone do spożycia przez ludzi wymienione w załączniku I do Traktatu:
 Klasa 1.6. Owoce, warzywa i zboża świeże lub przetworzone
 POLSKA
 Jabłka grójeckie (CHOG)


text:
Κανονικό Δίκαιο είναι η θεολογική επιστήμη, η οποία ερευνά επιστημονικά και εκθέτει συστηματικά το διαμορφωμένο μέσα στην Εκκλησία δίκαιο. Μέσω αυτού του δικαίου ρυθμίζεται η εξωτερική ζωή της Εκκλησίας, ως ορατού οργανισμού στον κόσμο, με βάση τα διαταχθέντα από τον Ιησού Χριστό και τους Αποστόλους, καθώς και βάσει των Ιερών Κανόνων, των εκκλησιαστικών διατάξεων, των ηθών, των εθίμων και των νόμων.
 Το Κανονικό Δίκαιο είναι θεολογική επιστήμη, διότι οι Ιεροί Κανόνες και οι εκκλησιαστικές διατάξεις που καθορίζουν το πολίτευμα και τη διοίκηση της Εκκλησίας διατυπώνονται σε μορφή νόμου αλλά απαραίτητα έχουν θεολογική βάση και θεολογικές προϋποθέσεις.
 Το Κανονικό Δίκαιο αποτελεί μέρος του Εκκλησιαστικού Δικαίου.
 Οι Ιεροί Κανόνες που συναποτελούν το Κανονικό Δίκαιο της Εκκλησίας είναι οι Κανόνες των Αγίων Αποστόλων και των Συνόδων, οικουμενικών και τοπικών οι οποίοι ρυθμίζουν το βίο της Εκκλησίας Συστηματική καταγραφή των Κανόνων της Εκκλησίας τους έχει γίνει σε 6 τόμους από τους Γ. Α. Ράλλη - Μ Ποτλή (1852-1859)
 Πηγές
 Μητροπολίτου Παντελεήμονος Ροδόπουλου, "Μαθήματα Κανονικού Δικαίου", Θεσσαλονίκη 1986
 Φραγκίστα Χαρ., "Στοιχεία Εκκλησιαστικού Δικαίου", Πανεπιστήμιο Θεσσαλονίκης
 Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
 Σελίδα Κανονικού Δικαίου της Αγγλικανικής Εκκλησίας
 Σελίδα Κανονικού Δικαίου της Ρωμαιοκαθολικής Εκκλησίας
 Σελίδα της Θεολογικής Σχολής Α.Π.Θ. για το Κανονικό Δίκαιο
 Σελίδα Πανεπιστημίου Κρήτης για το Κανονικό Δίκαιο της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας
 Παραπομπές
 Θεολογία
 Εκκλησιαστικό Δίκαιο
 Κανονικό Δίκαιο


text:
 24.11.2007
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 283/24
 Tožba, vložena 3. oktobra 2007 – Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Italijanski republiki
 (Zadeva C-449/07)
 (2007/C 283/43)
 Jezik postopka: italijanščina
 Stranki
 Tožeča stranka: Komisije Evropskih skupnosti (zastopnika: E. Montaguti in R. Vidal Puig, zastopnika)
 Tožena stranka: Italijanska republika
 Predlogi tožeče stranke:
 —
 Ugotovi naj se, da Italijanska republika, s tem da ni sprejela (vseh) zakonov in drugih predpisov, potrebnih za uskladitev z Direktivo 2004/36/ES (1) Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. aprila 2004 o varnosti zrakoplovov iz tretjih držav, ki pristajajo na letališčih Skupnosti, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 11 te direktive;
 —
 Italijanski republiki naj se naloži plačilo stroškov postopka.
 Tožbeni razlogi in bistvene trditve
 Rok za prenos Direktive 2004/36/ES se je iztekel 30. aprila 2006.
 (1) UL L 143, str. 76.


text:
 Събития
 След успешно приключване на войната с Партската империя за контрол върху Армения, Луций Вер е удостоен с триумф (тържествено посрещане като висока награда за постижение в Древен Рим) и титлата Арменски.
 Марк Аврелий и Луций Вер получават титлата Pater Patriae (мн.ч. Patres Patriae) („Баща на Родината“)
 Започва война с германските племена, които нападат от север, пресичайки Дунав.
 Начало на понтификата на Св. Папа Сотер.
 Родени
 Починали


text:
 27.6.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 244/16
 Iarraidh ar réamhrialú ón Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto Juízo Local Cível da Maia (an Phortaingéil) a taisceadh an 15 Márta 2022 – WH, NX v TAP — Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, SGPS, S.A.
 (Cás C-202/22)
 (2022/C 244/20)
 Teanga an cháis: an Phortaingéilis
 An chúirt a rinne an tarchur
 Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto Juízo Local Cível da Maia
 Páirtithe sna príomhimeachtaí
 Iarratasóirí: WH, NX
 Cosantóir: TAP — Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, SGPS, S.A.
 Na ceisteanna a tharchuirtear
 1.
 Más rud é, ag féachaint d’Airteagail 5(1)(c); 6(1); 7(1), agus 8(1)(b) de Rialachán Uimh. 261/2004 (1) gur chóir go mbeadh moill mhór ar iompar go dtí an ceann scríbe i mbus arna chur ar fáil ag aeriompróir oibríochta do phaisinéirí a chaill nasceitilt faoi réir cúitimh sa chaoi céanna le moill eitilte.
 2.
 Más rud é, ag féachaint d’Aithris 14 agus d’Airteagal 7(3) de Rialachán Uimh. 261/2004, gur ionann briseadh síos an bhus agus an riachtanas bus ionaid a chur ar fáil le linn an turais go dtí an ceann scríbe agus imthoisc urghnách a scaoilfeadh an t-iompróir ón oibleagáid cúiteamh a íoc leis na paisinéirí i gcás moill fhada ó thaobh am sroichte réamh-mheasta nó intuartha an bhus ag an gceann scríbe de.
 (1) Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 261/2004 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 11 Feabhra 2004 lena mbunaítear rialacha comhchoiteanna maidir le cúiteamh agus cúnamh do phaisinéirí i gcás nach gceadófar dóibh bordáil agus i gcás ina gcuirfear eitiltí ar ceal nó i gcás ina gcuirfear moill fhada orthu, agus lena n-aisghairtear Rialachán (CEE) Uimh. 295/91 (IO L 46, 17.2.2004, lch. 1).