text:
The 1999 Seattle WTO protests, sometimes referred to as the Battle of Seattle, were a series of protests surrounding the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999, when members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) convened at the Washington State Convention and Trade Center in Seattle, Washington on November 30, 1999. The Conference was to be the launch of a new millennial round of trade negotiations.
 The negotiations were quickly overshadowed by massive street protests outside the hotels and the Washington State Convention and Trade Center. The protests were nicknamed "N30", akin to J18 and similar mobilizations, and were deemed controversial by the media. The large scale of the demonstrations, estimated at no fewer than 40,000 protesters, dwarfed any previous demonstration in the United States against a world meeting of any of the organizations generally associated with economic globalization, such as the WTO, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank.
 Organizations and planning
 Planning for the actions began months in advance and included local, national, and international organizations. Among the most notable participants were national and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as Global Exchange (especially those concerned with labor issues, the environment, and consumer protection), labor unions (including the AFL–CIO), student groups, religion-based groups (Jubilee 2000), and anarchists (some of whom formed a black bloc). The protests also drew support from some political conservatives, such as American presidential candidate and commentator Pat Buchanan.
 The coalition was loose, with some opponent groups focused on opposition to WTO policies (especially those related to free trade), with others motivated by prolabor, anticapitalist, or environmental agendas. Many of the NGOs represented at the protests came with credentials to participate in the official meetings, while also planning various educational and press events. The AFL–CIO, with cooperation from its member unions, organized a large permitted rally and march from Seattle Center to downtown.
 However, others were more interested in taking direct action, including both civil disobedience and acts of vandalism and property destruction to disrupt the meeting. Several groups were loosely organized together under the Direct Action Network (DAN), with a plan to disrupt the meetings by blocking streets and intersections downtown to prevent delegates from reaching the convention center, where the meeting was to be held. The black bloc was not affiliated with DAN, but was responding to the original call for autonomous resistance actions on November 30 issued by People's Global Action.
 Of the different coalitions that aligned in protest were the "teamsters and turtles" – a blue–green alliance consisting of the teamsters (trade unions) and environmentalists.
 Corporations targeted
 Certain activists, including locals and an additional group of anarchists from Eugene, Oregon (where they had gathered that summer for a music festival), advocated more confrontational tactics, and conducted vandalism of corporate properties in downtown Seattle. In a subsequent communique, they listed the particular corporations targeted, which they considered to have committed corporate crime.
 Lead-up months
 On July 12, the Financial Times reported that the latest United Nations Human Development report advocated "principles of performance for multinationals on labour standards, fair trade and environmental protection ... needed to counter the negative effects of globalisation on the poorest nations". The report itself argued, "An essential aspect of global governance is responsibility to people—to equity, to justice, to enlarging the choices of all".
 On July 16, Helene Cooper of The Wall Street Journal warned of an impending "massive mobilization against globalization" being planned for the end-of-year Seattle WTO conference. Next day, the London Independent newspaper savaged the WTO and appeared to side with the organizers of the rapidly developing storm of protest:
 The way it has used [its] powers is leading to a growing suspicion that its initials should really stand for World Take Over. In a series of rulings it has struck down measures to help the world's poor, protect the environment, and safeguard health in the interests of private—usually American—companies.
 "The WTO seems to be on a crusade to increase private profit at the expense of all other considerations, including the well-being and quality of life of the mass of the world's people," says Ronnie Hall, trade campaigner at Friends of the Earth International. "It seems to have a relentless drive to extend its power."
 On November 16, two weeks before the conference, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13141—Environmental Review of Trade Agreements, which committed the United States to a policy of "assessment and consideration of the environmental impacts of trade agreements" and stated, "Trade agreements should contribute to the broader goal of sustainable development."
 Activists staged a spoof of Seattle daily newspaper the Post-Intelligencer on Wednesday November 24, inserting thousands of hoax editions of a four-page front-page wrap-around into piles of newspapers awaiting distribution to hundreds of street boxes and retail outlets. The spoof front-page stories were "Boeing to move overseas" (to Indonesia) and "Clinton pledges help for poorest nations". The byline on the Boeing story attributed it to Joe Hill (a union organizer who had been executed by firing squad in Utah in 1915). On the same day, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development reported:
 developing countries have remained steadfast in their demand that developed countries honour Uruguay Round commitments before moving forward full force with new trade negotiations.
 Specifically, developing countries are concerned over developed countries' compliance with agreements on market access for textiles, their use of antidumping measures against developing countries' exports, and over-implementation of the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs).
 N30
 On the morning of Tuesday, November 30, 1999, the DAN's plan was put into effect. Several hundred activists arrived in the deserted streets near the convention center and began to take control of key intersections. Over the next few hours, a number of marchers began to converge on the area from different directions. These included a student march from the north, a march of citizens of the developing world who marched in from the south and, beginning around 09:00, militant anarchists (in a formation known as a black bloc) marching down Pike Street from 6th Avenue, blockading the streets with newspaper boxes and smashing windows. Some demonstrators held rallies, others held teach-ins and at least one group staged an early-morning street party. Meanwhile, a number of protesters still controlled the intersections using lockdown formations.
 That morning, the King County Sheriff's Office and Seattle Police Department fired pepper spray, tear gas canisters, and stun grenades at protesters at several intersections in an attempt to reopen the blocked streets and allow as many WTO delegates as possible through the blockade. At 6th Avenue and Union Street, the crowd threw objects back at the police.
 By late morning, the black bloc had swelled to 200 people and smashed dozens of shops and police cars. This seems to have set off a chain reaction of sorts, with previously nonviolent protesters throwing bottles at police and joining in the vandalism shortly before noon.
 The police were eventually overwhelmed by the mass of protesters downtown, including many who had chained themselves together and were blocking intersections. Meanwhile, the late-morning labor-organized rally and march drew tens of thousands; though the intended march route had them turning back before they reached the convention center, some ignored the marshals and joined what had become a chaotic scene downtown.
 At noon, the opening ceremony at the convention center was officially canceled. It took police much of the afternoon and evening to clear the streets. Seattle mayor Paul Schell declared a state of emergency, imposed a curfew, and a 50-block "no-protest zone."
 December 1
 Overnight, the governor of Washington, Gary Locke, called in two battalions of Army National Guardsmen, other law enforcement agencies sent support, and before daylight on Wednesday, troops and officers lined the perimeter of the no-protest zone. Police surrounded and arrested several groups of would-be protesters (and more than one bystander). Beginning at 21:00, a major clash took place on Broadway in the vicinity of Denny Way, involving rocks, bottles, and police concussion grenades. It did not involve a black bloc, but appears to have included local residents, although it is known that many local residents were treated as protesters, even being teargassed, despite having no part in the protests. Police called in from other cities mistook the typically crowded streets of Capitol Hill as groups of protesters. More than 500 people were jailed on Wednesday. Throughout the day, police used tear gas to disperse crowds downtown, although a permitted demonstration organized by the Steelworkers Union was held along the waterfront.
 December 2–3
 Protests continued the following days. Thousands demonstrated outside the Seattle Police Department protesting their tactics and arrests of peaceful protestors. President Clinton arrived and attended the conference. On December 3 the conference ended as delegations were unable to reach agreements, partly in response to the protests.
 Confrontations with the police continued, albeit at a lower intensity. The primary goal of disrupting the trade talks achieved, some sought the horizons of possibility; it was determined quickly that the necessary ambition to achieve the broader goals of various anarchist factions was not sufficient.
 Media response
 The New York Times printed an erroneous article that stated that protesters at the 1999 WTO convention in Seattle threw Molotov cocktails at police. Two days later, The New York Times printed a correction saying that the protest was mostly peaceful and no protesters were accused of throwing objects at delegates or the police, but the original error persisted in later accounts in the mainstream media.
 The Seattle City Council also dispelled these rumors with its own investigation findings:
 The level of panic among police is evident from radio communication and from their inflated crowd estimates, which exceed the numbers shown on news videotapes. ARC investigators found the rumors of "Molotov cocktails" and sale of flammables from a supermarket had no basis in fact. But, rumors were important in contributing to the police sense of being besieged and in considerable danger.
 An article in the magazine The Nation disputed that Molotov cocktails have ever been thrown at an antiglobalization protest within the US.
 Though media coverage of the Battle in Seattle condemned the violence of some of the protesters, the nature of this violence has been justified by some people. Specifically, the violence employed was not person-to-person violence, but "acts directed toward property, not people."
 Though many still denounced the violent tactics used by protesters of the 1999 WTO meeting in Seattle, this violence clearly resulted in increased media coverage of the event. The WTO meeting had an increase in evening news airtime from 10 minutes and 40 seconds on the first day of the meeting to 17 minutes on the first day of violence. In addition, WTO coverage was the lead or second story on CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC after violence was reported. Two days after the start of violence, the meeting remained the top story on three of the four networks. Though these numbers alone are telling, the media coverage of subsequent demonstrations that did not include violence by protesters shows even more the effect of violence on coverage. For example, the World Bank/International Monetary Fund (WB/IMF) meetings in the spring showed a "coverage pattern that was almost the reverse of that in Seattle" and that "suggests the crucial role of violence in garnering time on the public screen." In an even more striking example of the effects of violence on media coverage, the 2001 WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar, included no reports of violence. As a result, "there was absolutely no TV evening news coverage by the four major networks."
 This coverage did not center exclusively on the violence. Instead, details of the protesters' message and antiglobalization campaign were included along with the discussions of symbolic violence taking place. DeLuca believes the violence served as a dense surface that opened viewers' and readers' minds to a whole new way of thinking about globalization and corporations' operations. That is, not only was this violence contained within the familiar setting of television, and not only did it meet the criteria of being dramatic and emotional enough to warrant air time, but it also shattered preconceived notions of globalization and the practices of corporations that drive so much of America's economy.
 Aftermath
 To many in North American anarchist and radical circles, the Seattle WTO riots, protests, and demonstrations were viewed as a success. Prior to the "Battle of Seattle", almost no mention was made of "antiglobalization" in the US media, while the protests were seen as having forced the media to report on 'why' anybody would oppose the WTO.
 Previous mass demonstrations had taken place in Australia in December 1997, in which newly formed grass-roots organizations blockaded Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, and Darwin city centers.
 Controversy over the city's response to the protests resulted in the resignation of the police chief of Seattle, Norm Stamper, and arguably played a role in Schell's loss to Greg Nickels in the 2001 mayoral primary election. The massive size of the protest added $3 million to the city's estimated meeting budget of $6 million, partly due to city cleanup and police overtime bills. In addition, the damage to commercial businesses from vandalism and lost sales has been estimated at $20 million.
 On January 16, 2004, the city of Seattle settled with 157 individuals arrested outside of the no-protest zone during the WTO events, agreeing to pay them a total of $250,000. On January 30, 2007, a federal jury found that the city had violated protesters' Fourth Amendment constitutional rights by arresting them without probable cause or evidence.
 See also
 1988 IMF/World Bank protests, anti-globalization precursor protest a decade earlier in West Berlin
 27th G8 summit, a 2001 summit that resulted in anti-globalization protests and similar controversies about police and government response
 Battle in Seattle, a 2007 film loosely based on the protests.
 Electrohippies, an international group of internet activists involved in action against the WTO
 List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States
 Multilateral Agreement on Investment, a draft agreement that failed in 1998 due to
 Showdown in Seattle, a 1999 documentary film about the protests
 30 Frames a Second: The WTO in Seattle 2000, a 2000 documentary shot during the protests
 Via Campesina, an international movement of peasants' organizations
 References
 Bibliography
 Further reading
 External links
 University of Washington WTO History Project, interviews and documentation of the protest
 Raw video footage of the protests, organized by day and street intersection
 Storming Seattle by Paul De Armond, an account of the protest in multiple parts
 The World Trade Organization 1999 Seattle Ministerial Conference Protest collection, 1993–2011. 45.63 cubic feet. At the Labor Archives of Washington, University of Washington Libraries Special Collections. Also see digital collections.
 1999 protests
 1999 riots
 1999 in Washington (state)
 Anti-globalization protests
 Anti-capitalism
 1999 in Seattle
 Protests in Seattle
 World Trade Organization
 Anarchism in the United States
 Communism in the United States
 Socialism in the United States
 Riots and civil disorder in Washington (state)
 November 1999 events in the United States
 December 1999 events in the United States
 Political riots in the United States


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 25.8.2007
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 199/3
 Rozsudek Soudního dvora (velkého senátu) ze dne 26. června 2007 (žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien – Rakousko) – T-Mobile Austria GmbH, 3G Mobile Telecommunications GmbH, mobilkom austria Aktiengesellschaft, dříve mobilkom austria AG & Co. KG, master-talk Austria Telekom Service GmbH & Co. KG, ONE GmbH, Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH, tele.ring Telekom Service GmbH, právní nástupkyně TRA 3G Mobilfunk GmbH v. Rakouská republika
 (Věc C-284/04) (1)
 (Šestá směrnice o DPH - Zdanitelná plnění - Pojem „hospodářská činnost“ - Článek 4 odst. 2 - Udělení práv umožňujících používání vymezené části radiofrekvenčního spektra vyhrazené telekomunikačním službám)
 (2007/C 199/04)
 Jednací jazyk: němčina
 Předkládající soud
 Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien
 Účastníci původního řízení
 Žalobkyně: T-Mobile Austria GmbH, 3G Mobile Telecommunications GmbH, mobilkom austria Aktiengesellschaft, dříve mobilkom austria AG & Co. KG, master-talk Austria Telekom Service GmbH & Co. KG, ONE GmbH, Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH, tele.ring Telekom Service GmbH, právní nástupkyně TRA 3G Mobilfunk GmbH
 Žalovaná: Rakouská republika
 Předmět věci
 Žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce – Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien – Výklad čl. 4 odst. 5 a přílohy D bodu 1 směrnice 77/388/EHS: Šesté směrnice Rady ze dne 17. května 1977 o harmonizaci právních předpisů členských států týkajících se daní z obratu – Společný systém daně z přidané hodnoty: jednotný základ daně (Úř. věst. L 145, s. 1) – Činnosti nebo plnění prováděné veřejnoprávním subjektem jako orgánem veřejné správy – Přidělování frekvencí provozovatelům mobilních telefonních komunikací automatickým výběrem nabídky
 Výrok
 Článek 4 odst. 2 šesté směrnice Rady 77/388/EHS ze dne 17. května 1977 o harmonizaci právních předpisů členských států týkajících se daní z obratu – Společný systém daně z přidané hodnoty: jednotný základ daně musí být vykládán v tom smyslu, že udělení takových práv, jakými jsou práva na používání frekvencí elektromagnetického spektra s cílem poskytování mobilních telekomunikačních služeb veřejnosti, vnitrostátním regulačním orgánem, který je odpovědný za přidělení frekvencí, formou dražby nepředstavuje hospodářskou činnost ve smyslu tohoto ustanovení, a tudíž nespadá do působnosti této směrnice.
 (1) Úř. věst. C 262, 23.10.2004.


type: wikipedia

text:
Albam beo leis an gceoltóir Éireannach Christy Moore is ea Live at the Point, a rinneadh os comhair lucht féachana mór in Áras an Phointe i mBaile Átha Cliath sa bhliain 1994. Tógadh na rianta as sraith de cheolchoirmeacha a sheinn sé sa bhliain seo.
 Clár
 Welcome To The Cabaret
 Natives
 Fairytale Of New York
 Delirium Tremens
 Black Is The Colour
 Missing You
 Cliffs Of Dooneen
 Well Below The Valley
 Go Move Shift
 Casey
 Ride On
 Knock
 Joxer Goes To Stuttgart
 Nancy Spain
 Ceoltóirí
 Christy Moore: giotár fuaimiúil, guth, bodhrán
 Albaim beo
 Ceol traidisiúnta na hÉireann


type: contracts

text:
 1.12.2012
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 L 331/52
 ELi-KOREA KAUBANDUSE JA SÄÄSTVA ARENGU KOMITEE OTSUSE nr 1/2012 EELNÕU,
 27. juuni 2012,
 ühelt poolt Euroopa Liidu ja selle liikmesriikide ning teiselt poolt Korea Vabariigi vahelise vabakaubanduslepingu artikliga 13.13 ettenähtud kodanikuühiskonna foorumi korralduseeskirjade vastuvõtmise kohta
 (2012/741/EL)
 KAUBANDUSE JA SÄÄSTVA ARENGU KOMITEE,
 võttes arvesse ühelt poolt Euroopa Liidu ja selle liikmesriikide ning teiselt poolt Korea Vabariigi vahel 6. oktoobril 2010 Brüsselis allkirjastatud vabakaubanduslepingut (edaspidi „leping”), eriti selle artiklit 13.13,
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)
 Lepingu artiklis 13.13 on sätestatud, et kummagi lepinguosalise riikliku nõuanderühma liikmed kohtuvad kodanikuühiskonna foorumil.
 (2)
 Kodanikuühiskonna foorumi koosseisu puhul peab olema tagatud riikliku nõuanderühma liikmete võrdne esindatus.
 (3)
 Lepinguosalised lepivad kaubanduse ja säästva arengu komitee otsusega kokku kodanikuühiskonna foorumi korraldamises hiljemalt ühe aasta jooksul pärast käesoleva lepingu jõustumist,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Kehtestatakse käesoleva otsuse lisas esitatud kodanikuühiskonna foorumi korralduseeskirjad.
 Artikkel 2
 Käesolev otsus jõustub selle vastuvõtmise päeval.
 Brüsselis 27. juunil 2012
 Kaubanduse ja säästva arengu komitee nimel
 Korea Vabariiki esindav kaubanduse ja säästva arengu komitee kaasesimees
 Kyungduck AN
 Sanghoon KIM
 Euroopa Liitu esindav kaubanduse ja säästva arengu komitee kaasesimees
 Peter THOMPSON
 LISA
 KODANIKUÜHISKONNA FOORUMI KORRALDUSEESKIRJAD
 Artikkel 1
 Kodanikuühiskonna foorum moodustatakse nõuanderühmade endi poolt määratud ELi riikliku nõuanderühma 12 liikmest ja Korea riikliku nõuanderühma 12 liikmest. Liikmeid võivad saata ekspertnõustajad. Kummagi lepinguosalise kodanikuühiskonna foorumi esindajate hulka peab kuuluma vähemalt kolm ettevõtlusorganisatsiooni esindajat, kolm ametiühingute esindajat ja kolm valitsusväliste organisatsioonide esindajat.
 Artikkel 2
 Kodanikuühiskonna foorumil on ELi esindav ja Koread esindav kaasesimees. ELi riiklik nõuanderühm ja Korea riiklik nõuanderühm määravad kaasesimehed oma kodanikuühiskonna foorumil osalevate esindajate hulgast.
 Kaasesimehed koostavad kodanikuühiskonna foorumi koosolekute päevakorra vastavalt oma riiklike nõuanderühmade esitatud taotlustele. Lisaks kuuluvad päevakorra alla järgmised tavapärased teemad:
 a)
 lepinguosaliste poolt esitatav teave kaubanduse ja jätkusuutliku arengu peatüki rakendamise kohta;
 b)
 aruanded artikli 13.14 alusel peetud konsultatsioonide ja artikli 13.15 alusel tehtud eksperdikomisjoni töö kohta.
 Artikkel 3
 Kodanikuühiskonna foorum toimub vähemalt üks kord aastas ja seda korraldatakse vaheldumisi Brüsselis ja Soulis, juhul kui lepinguosalised ei otsusta teisiti. Erakorraline koosolek võidakse kokku kutsuda ühe riikliku nõuanderühma taotlusel.


type: other

text:
ECLI:SI:VSRS:2005:I.IPS.270.2004
 VS22811
 kazniva dejanja zoper gospodarstvo - poslovna goljufija - preslepitev - gospodarska dejavnost - opis kaznivega dejanja
 Razlika med kaznivim dejanje goljufije po členu 217 KZ in kaznivim dejanjem poslovne goljufije po členu 234a KZ je v tem, da je kaznivo dejanje poslovne goljufije možno storiti le pri opravljanju gospodarske dejavnosti ter da pri tem kaznivem dejanju ni potrebno, da bi storilec zasledoval goljufivi namen že od vsega začetka, torej od sklenitve posla, temveč je izvršitev dejanja možna tudi med njegovim izvajanjem.
 Zapeljati v zmoto pri kaznivem dejanju poslovne goljufije lahko pomeni že samo dejstvo, da je storilec z načinom sklenitve pogodbe, ki mu je včasih dodana še pisna garancijska izjava, zagotavljal, da je posel zanesljiv, čeprav v resnici ni bil.
 V primeru, ko izrek vsebuje tudi abstraktni dejanski stan, abstraktni in konkretni del opisa predstavljata celoto in ni potrebno, da se za razumljivost oziroma konkretizacijo kaznivega dejanja določeni znaki ponavljajo, še posebej, če so ti dovolj konkretizirani v abstraktnem delu.
 Za sklepčnost obtožnega akta glede kaznivega dejanja po 234.a členu KZ v smislu konkretizacije gospodarske dejavnosti, kot jo opredeljuje 1. točka 5. odstavka 126. člena KZ, zadošča navedba, da je obsojenec dejanje storil pri opravljanju gospodarske dejavnosti s tem, da je kot samostojni podjetnik zaradi tega, da bi lahko opravljal svojo dejavnost, z oškodovancem sklenil "pogodbo o nakupu blaga".
 Zahtevi vrhovnega državnega tožilca za varstvo zakonitosti se ugodi in se ugotovi, da je bila z izpodbijanim pravnomočnim sklepom kršena določba 1. odstavka 234.a člena KZ na način iz 1. točke 1. odstavka 372. člena ZKP.
 Senat Okrožnega sodišča v Kranju je z uvodoma navedenim sklepom, ko je odločal o zahtevi predsednice senata, podane v skladu z 2.
 odstavkom 284. člena Zakona o kazenskem postopku (ZKP), kazenski postopek zoper V.K. zaradi kaznivega dejanja poslovne goljufije po 1. odstavku 234.a člena KZ iz razloga po 1. točki 1. odstavka 277. člena ZKP ustavil ter s stroški postopka obremenil proračun. Pritožbo okrožnega državnega tožilca je kot neutemeljeno zavrnilo višje sodišče s sklepom z dne 3.9.2003.
 Zoper navedeno pravnomočno sodno odločbo je dne 10.3.2004 vložil vrhovni državni tožilec svetnik M.V. zahtevo za varstvo zakonitosti zaradi kršitve določb 1. odstavka 234.a člena KZ in 1. točke 1.
 odstavka 372. člena ZKP. Vrhovnemu sodišču predlaga, da zahtevi za varstvo zakonitosti ugodi in na podlagi 2. odstavka 426. člena ZKP ugotovi uveljavljani kršitvi določb kazenskega zakona in Zakona o kazenskem postopku.
 Z izpodbijano pravnomočno sodno odločbo je bil zoper V.K. ustavljen postopek, da naj bi pri opravljanju gospodarske dejavnosti pri sklenitvi pogodbe preslepil drugega s prikazovanjem, da bodo obveznosti izpolnjene, zaradi celotne neizpolnitve obveznosti pa je nastala za stranko premoženjska škoda, s tem da je dne 12.12.2000 v Z.B. kot samostojni podjetnik, zaradi tega, da bi lahko opravljal svojo dejavnost, pri predstavniku družbe N.-t. d.o.o. J.S.-ju naročil lepilo v traku in clean topilo in čistilo in mu je pri tem s podpisom in štampiljko na naročilnici zagotovil, da bo blago plačano v roku 30 dni od prevzema blaga, s čimer je dosegel, da mu je bilo blago izročeno, pri tem pa blaga ni imel namena plačati, saj ga ni plačal vse do sedaj, s čimer je povzročil gospodarski združbi N.-t. d.o.o. za 16.219,70 SIT premoženjske škode. Po mnenju obeh sodišč iz konkretnega opisa dejanja ni razvidno, v čem naj bi bila ob sklepanju posla, to je ob podpisu zaključnice - naročila dne 12.12.2000 s strani obdolženca izvršena preslepitev oziroma lažno prikazovanje, da bo obveznost, to je plačilo kupnine za naročeno in dobavljeno blago v 30 dneh izvršeno. Sam podpis in žigosanje naročilnice, ki je sestavni del sklenitve posla, po oceni senata še ne izkazuje preslepitve oziroma lažnega prikazovanja, da bodo obveznosti izpolnjene. Višje sodišče je tem razlogom dodalo le še to, da iz izreka tudi ni razvidno, s kakšno dejavnostjo se obdolženec ukvarja oziroma ali sploh gre za gospodarsko dejavnost.
 Kaznivo dejanje poslovne goljufije po 234.a členu KZ je posebna oblika goljufije. Razlika med kaznivim dejanjem goljufije po členu 217 in kaznivim dejanjem poslovne goljufije po členu 234.a je v tem, da je kaznivo dejanje poslovne goljufije možno storiti le pri opravljanju gospodarske dejavnosti ter da pri tem kaznivem dejanju ni potrebno, da bi storilec zasledoval goljufivi namen že od vsega začetka, torej od sklenitve posla, temveč je izvršitev dejanja možna tudi med njegovim izvajanjem. Storilec tega kaznivega dejanja izvrši dejanje tako, da preslepi drugega (pri drugi osebi ustvari zmotno predstavo o kakšnih okoliščinah), ali jo pusti v zmoti o obstoju oziroma neobstoju določenih okoliščin. Kaznivo dejanje je dokončano s tem, da je nastala za stranko ali za koga drugega premoženjska škoda (prepovedana posledica, ki je objektivni pogoj kaznivosti). Nastanek škode pa mora biti vedno pogojen z dejanjem storilca, kar pomeni, da mora biti med goljufivim ravnanjem storilca in nastankom škode podana vzročna zveza. Zakonski tekst namreč ne zahteva nekega aktivnega ravnanja oškodovanca kot posledico storilčevih aktivnosti (tako kot pri kaznivem dejanju goljufije, kjer pretežni del aktivnosti, s katerimi nastane škoda, izvrši oškodovanec sam). Okoliščina, da je preslepitev storjena pri opravljanju gospodarske dejavnosti, že sama pomeni, da je oškodovanca lažje preslepiti. Narava pravnih poslov in odnosov storilcem vsaj v pretežnem številu primerov ne nalaga dolžnosti, da bi pogodbene partnerje obveščali o finančnem in bilančnem stanju svoje gospodarske družbe oziroma podjetja, razen če posamezni gospodarski partner tega izrecno ne zahteva. Zapeljati v zmoto torej pri kaznivem dejanju poslovne goljufije lahko pomeni že samo dejstvo, da je storilec z načinom sklenitve pogodbe, ki mu je včasih dodana še pisna garancijska izjava, zagotavljal, da je posel zanesljiv, čeprav v resnici ni bil.
 V skladu s 1. odstavkom 269. člena ZKP mora obtožnica med drugim vsebovati opis kaznivega dejanja. Vsebovati mora vsa odločilna dejstva, ki po objektivni in subjektivni plati konkretizirajo določeno kaznivo dejanje. V primeru, ko izrek vsebuje tudi abstraktni dejanski stan, abstraktni in konkretni del opisa predstavljata celoto in ni potrebno, da se za razumljivost oziroma konkretizacijo kaznivega dejanja določeni znaki ponavljajo, še posebej, če so ti dovolj konkretizirani v abstraktnem delu. Opis kaznivega dejanja je pomemben namreč iz dveh razlogov, in sicer je podlaga za obravnavo pred sodiščem, po drugi strani pa daje obdolžencu možnost obrambe, ki je lahko učinkovita le, če so zakonski znaki kaznivega dejanja, ki se mu očitajo, dovolj konkretizirani. Z opisom se torej določa dejanska in pravna podlaga obtožnega akta.
 V konkretni kazenski zadevi se zastavlja vprašanje, ali opis dejanja, kot je naveden v izreku izpodbijanega prvostopenjskega sklepa, da je obdolženec "preslepil drugega s prikazovanjem, da bodo obveznosti izpolnjene... s tem, da je s podpisom in štampiljko na naročilnici zagotovil, da bo blago plačano v roku 30 dni, pri tem pa že od vsega začetka ni imel namena plačati in ga ni plačal še vse do sedaj..." zadošča kriterijem zakonskega besedila "preslepil drugega".
 Preslepiti drugega pomeni ustvariti pri oškodovancu zmotno predstavo, v konkretni zadevi, da bo blago plačal, kar je podkrepil še s podpisom in štampiljko na naročilnici. Gre torej za aktivno ravnanje obdolženca, ki pomeni za prodajalca zagotovitev plačila za prodano blago, kot na to upravičeno opozarja vrhovni državni tožilec, takšno njegovo ravnanje pa je imelo za posledico, da mu je oškodovanec blago tudi izročil oziroma je nastala prepovedana posledica. Dovolj pa je v izreku konkretizirana tudi gospodarska dejavnost, kot jo sicer opredeljuje 1. točka 5. odstavka 126. člena KZ. Za sklepčnost obtožnega akta tako zadošča, da je dejanje storil pri opravljanju gospodarske dejavnosti s tem, da je kot samostojni podjetnik zaradi tega, da bi lahko opravljal svojo dejavnost z oškodovancem sklenil "pogodbo o nakupu blaga".
 Vrhovno sodišče je glede na vse navedeno ugotovilo, da je sodišče z izpodbijano sodno odločbo kršilo kazenski zakon glede vprašanja, ali je dejanje, za katerega je bil obdolženec preganjan, kaznivo dejanje (1. točka 372. člena ZKP). Ker pa je bila zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti vložena v obdolženčevo škodo, je bilo potrebno v skladu z določbo 2. odstavka 426. člena ZKP kršitev le ugotoviti, ne da bi se pri tem posegalo v pravnomočno odločbo.
 Ker je Vrhovno sodišče ugotovilo kršitev kazenskega zakona, v zahtevi očitanih kršitev določb ZKP ni presojalo.
 KZ člen 234a, 217, 126, 126/5-1.ZKP člen 269, 269/1.
 P2RvYy0yNTU5NQ==


text:
 7.9.2015
 FR
 Journal officiel de l'Union européenne
 C 294/69
 Recours introduit le 19 mai 2015 — Almaz-Antey/Conseil
 (Affaire T-255/15)
 (2015/C 294/84)
 Langue de procédure: l'anglais
 Parties
 Partie requérante: OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscou, Russie) (représentants: C. Stumpf et A. Haak, avocats)
 Partie défenderesse: Conseil de l’Union européenne
 Conclusions
 La partie requérante conclut à ce qu’il plaise au Tribunal:
 —
 annuler la décision (PESC) 2015/432 du Conseil, du 13 mars 2015, modifiant la décision 2014/145/PESC concernant des mesures restrictives eu égard aux actions compromettant ou menaçant l'intégrité territoriale, la souveraineté et l'indépendance de l'Ukraine (JO L 70, p. 47), et le règlement d'exécution (UE) 2015/427 du Conseil, du 13 mars 2015, mettant en œuvre le règlement (UE) no 269/2014 concernant des mesures restrictives eu égard aux actions compromettant ou menaçant l'intégrité territoriale, la souveraineté et l'indépendance de l'Ukraine (JO L 70, p. 1), pour autant que ces mesures s’appliquent à la partie requérante,
 —
 condamner la partie défenderesse aux dépens.
 Moyens et principaux arguments
 À l’appui du recours, la partie requérante invoque cinq moyens.
 1.
 Premier moyen, tiré de ce que le Conseil n’aurait pas donné de motifs adéquats ou suffisants pour justifier l’inscription de la partie requérante sur la liste des personnes, entités et organismes qui font l’objet de mesures restrictives au regard de la situation en Ukraine.
 2.
 Deuxième moyen, tiré de ce que le Conseil aurait commis une erreur manifeste d’appréciation en considérant que l’un des critères d’inscription sur la liste des personnes soumises aux mesures contestées était rempli en ce qui concerne la partie requérante.
 3.
 Troisième moyen, tiré de ce que la décision prise par la partie défenderesse aurait violé le principe de proportionnalité.
 4.
 Quatrième moyen, tiré de ce que l’ensemble du raisonnement tenu par la partie défenderesse ne satisfait pas aux exigences pour la mise en œuvre de mesures restrictives.
 5.
 Cinquième moyen, tiré de ce que le Conseil aurait violé, sans justification et de manière disproportionnée, les droits fondamentaux de la partie requérante, y compris ses droits de la défense et le droit à une protection juridictionnelle effective.


jurisdiction: US

text:
In 1941 the Government of the United States was greatly concerned with the condition of world affairs and of the probability that it might be drawn into the vortex of a world war. Its weapons of defense were greatly depleted, some being old and antiquated, those which were modern and up-to-date existed only to a limited extent, and scientific agencies needed in matters of research to keep pace with modern implements of war were in great demand. In that year the President of the United States, by Administrative Order, May 25, 1940, created the office of Emergency Management in the Executive Office of the President. One of the organizations created by the Office of Executive Management was the Office of Scientific Research and Development. Executive Order June 28, 1941, No. 8807. This latter office will be hereafter referred to as the O.S.R.D.
 The O.S.R.D. first operated within the limits of the City of Washington, but as its work expanded it outgrew its quarters, and in March, 1942, it asked the Johns Hopkins University to undertake and carry out, on a much larger scale, operations relating to the war efforts of the Government. It entered into a contract with Hopkins, under which it purchased for the Government two parcels of land, aggregating about 40 acres, situate in or near Silver Spring, in Montgomery County, Maryland, and erected thereon a plant to carry out *Page 616
 scientific research for the Government, and when erected the Government removed its men and equipment from its old location to this new plant. Hopkins paid for the land, the erection of the plant, the cost of operations there conducted, and the taxes on the plant, all of which was repaid by the Government to Hopkins.
 Hopkins is a university and does not engage, as such, in the work it was called on to do by the Government, which was then at war, and it will have and has no use for this plant in carrying out its functions as a university. Hopkins conducts its university at Baltimore, Maryland. This plant was erected near the City of Washington, because a Naval Officer was the director of the Bureau of the Research Division of the Bureau of Ordnance, and under him was the chairman of the section of the O.S.R.D., known as Section T., and Hopkins took its instructions with respect to the operations from this chairman. It was, therefore, necessary for high government naval officers to keep in close touch with the operations of the plant and hence, no doubt, was the reason for the location of the plant at Silver Spring, which is close by.
 The contract between Hopkins and the O.S.R.D., among other things, contains the following: "The Contractor (The Johns Hopkins University) shall convey to the Government or to its designee, when and as directed by the Contracting Officer any lands purchased hereunder or under said agreement for the cost of which reimbursement is claimed hereunder or under said agreement, together with all buildings, improvements, rights, and privileges, and appurtenances belonging or appertaining thereto."
 This plant, the title to which, on the Land Records of Montgomery County, stands in the name of the Johns Hopkins University, was assessed against it for tax purposes for the years 1944 and 1945. Hopkins resisted the tax, asserting its interest in the property is solely as agent or trustee for the United States and that the assessment of the plant is an attempt to tax United States *Page 617
 property in violation of the Constitution of the United States and Section 7(21) of Article 81 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1939), exempting from taxation property exempted by the Constitution.
 Appellees contend that the record owner, under the Maryland law, is the owner for tax purposes and that the assessors are not required to go back of the Land Records in determining to whom property is assessable. They claim that under the Maryland law a tax claim is personal and a suit for taxes can be maintained against the record holder of real estate. They further claim that the tax involved here is not a direct tax on property of the United States but it is a tax on Hopkins as the agent of the United States, and a tax upon such agency does not violate the immunity against taxation accorded Government property.
 There is no doubt of the rule applied generally in Maryland regarding property, the title to which, in law, is vested in a trustee. A number of cases are cited by appellees to establish the Maryland rule. It is sufficient to refer to the following cases:
 In Grand Lodge of Maryland, Knights of Pythias v. Mayor andCity Council of Baltimore, 157 Md. 542, at pages 546, 547,146 A. 744, at page 746, where the rule is set out and a number of the cases and text authorities are cited, it is said: "The general rule is that, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, the trustees as the owner of the legal estate would be assessed with the value of the land. As stated in Cooley on Taxation (4th Ed.), Sec. 1097: `By the owner of property for the purpose of assessment is meant the legal, and not the equitable, owner; therefore trustees having the legal title are properly assessed.'Ibid, Sec. 1103; Perry on Trusts (7th Ed.), Sec. 331. This rule is commended by its utility, simplicity, and universality; and so makes for the certain and prompt collection of taxes upon real estate. Hill v. Williams, 104 Md. 595, 603, 604,65 A. 413. Although it is not so with respect to personal property (Code, Art. 81, § 226), there is no statute *Page 618
 affecting the application of the rule to real estate, and the various sections of the revenue law of the state that relate to the imposition of taxes upon real estate are consistent with the enforcement of the rule."
 In Latrobe v. Mayor, etc., of Baltimore, 19 Md. 13, a trustee was sued at law by the City of Baltimore for taxes assessed on mortgages of property in the City of Baltimore. There the Court said: "The appellee, in resorting to its remedy at law, assumes that the taxes assessed constitute a legal cause of action, and that the appellant, as the holder of the legal title of the property upon which the assessment was made, is liable for its satisfaction. That taxes assessed upon a trust estate, constitute a legal cause of action against the holder of the legal title, we do not doubt, for at law the legal estate in the hands of a trustee, has the legal incidents and obligations of an absolute title, subject only to the claims in equity of the cestui que
 trust."
 If this was a case not involving property interests of the United States Government, the judgment of the Court below could not be questioned. We regard the case of the United States ofAmerica and Mesta Machine Company v. County of Allegheny,Pennsylvania, 322 U.S. 174-198, 88 L. Ed. 1209, as conclusive of the case at bar. The Mesta Machine Company was engaged in heavy industry. The Government desired it to manufacture certain ordnance. It needed heavy machinery in order to manufacture the ordnance which the Government desired. The Government supplied the company with this machinery which was installed in its plant, and was leased to the company. Allegheny County assessed to Mesta, as part of the real estate, the machinery supplied by the Government, although it itemized various items showing the value thereof, including the machinery furnished by the Government. The Supreme Court of the United States, in this case, reversed the Pennsylvania Court and held that the machinery supplied Mesta by the Government was immune from taxation. The Supreme Court quotedCarpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, *Page 619
 367, 368, 60 S. Ct. 121, 74 L. Ed. 478, 482: "Where a federal right is concerned we are not bound by the characterization given to a state tax by state courts or Legislatures, or relieved by it from the duty of considering the real nature of the tax and its effect upon the federal right asserted." 322 U.S. 174, 74 L. Ed. 484.
 It held that: "any contractual obligation of the War Department to pay Mesta's taxes does not operate either to waive or to create an immunity. Nor is the validity of the tax dependent upon the ultimate resting place of the economic burden of the tax."
 The Court further said. "The Commonwealth certainly has broad powers and choices of methods to tax Mesta, a corporation created by it and domiciled and operating within its borders. The trend of recent decisions has been to withdraw private property and profits from the shelter of governmental immunity but without impairing the immunity of the State or the Nation itself. Benefits which a contractor receives from dealings with the Government are subject to state income taxation, (Citing, Jamesv. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 82 L. Ed. 155). Salaries received from it may be taxed. The fact that materials are destined to be furnished to the Government does not exempt them from sales taxes imposed on the contractor's vendor. (CitingState of Alabama v. King Boozer, 314 U.S. 1, 86 L. Ed. 3). But in all of these cases what we have denied is immunity for the contractor's own property, profits, or purchases. We have not held either that the Government could be taxed or its contractors taxed because property of the Government was in their hands. The distinction between taxation of private interests and taxation of governmental interests, although sometimes difficult to define, is fundamental in application of the immunity doctrine as developed in this country. * * * Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are in someone who is not himself the Government but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal *Page 620
 advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed as we have held. But neither he nor the Government can be taxed for the Government's property interest. Rarely does a state or municipality pursue the Federal Government itself."
 Again the Court said in this case: "We hold that Government-owned property, to the full extent of the Government's interest therein, is immune from taxation either as against the Government itself or as against one who holds it as a bailee."
 The appellees strongly rely upon James v. Dravo ContractingCompany and State of Alabama v. King Boozer, supra, but in view of the Mesta case we cannot give to these cases the controlling effect on the case at bar as urged by appellees. We shall not discuss the various other cases cited, as we regard that the Mesta case controls.
 The evidence in the case clearly shows that Hopkins holds the mere naked title to the properties in question. The equitable title is vested in the Government, and Hopkins, under its contract with the Government, is bound to deed the property to it or its designee. It cannot, therefore, be said that the Government has not an interest in the properties in question. The title to the properties was in Hopkins, but, says the Mesta case, the title may be in "an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed as we have held. But neither he nor the Government can be taxedfor the Government's property interest." [322 U.S. 174,74 L. Ed. 484.] (Italics supplied.)
 We think, therefore, that the ruling of the lower court was erroneous and the same is reversed.
 Judgment reversed with costs, case remanded that an order maybe passed in accordance with this opinion. *Page 621


text:
 26.10.2015
 CS
 Úřední věstník Evropské unie
 C 354/21
 Žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce podaná Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Španělsko) dne 7. srpna 2015 – Liberbank, S.A. v. Rafael Piris del Campo
 (Věc C-431/15)
 (2015/C 354/24)
 Jednací jazyk: španělština
 Předkládající soud
 Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria – Sección 4
 Účastníci původního řízení
 Navrhovatelka: Liberbank, S.A.
 Odpůrce: Rafael Piris del Campo
 Předběžné otázky
 1)
 Je omezení zpětné účinnosti neplatnosti zneužívající klauzule o minimálním úroku vložené do spotřebitelské smlouvy v souladu se zásadou nezávazné povahy zneužívajících klauzulí a s články 6 a 7 směrnice Rady 93/13/EHS (1) ze dne 5. dubna 1993 o nepřiměřených podmínkách [zneužívajících klauzulích] ve spotřebitelských smlouvách?
 2)
 Je zachování účinků založených klauzulí o minimálním úroku vloženou do spotřebitelské smlouvy, která byla prohlášena za neplatnou z důvodu zneužívající povahy, v souladu s články 6 a 7 směrnice Rady 93/13/EHS ze dne 5. dubna 1993 o nepřiměřených podmínkách [zneužívajících klauzulích] ve spotřebitelských smlouvách?
 3)
 Je omezení zpětné účinnosti neplatnosti zneužívající klauzule o minimálním úroku vložené do spotřebitelské smlouvy z důvodu zjištění rizika závažného narušení hospodářského veřejného pořádku a dobré víry v souladu s články 6 a 7 směrnice Rady 93/13/EHS ze dne 5. dubna 1993 o nepřiměřených podmínkách [zneužívajících klauzulích] ve spotřebitelských smlouvách?
 4)
 Pokud bude odpověď na předchozí otázku kladná, má se při uplatňování individuálních nároků směřujících k prohlášení neplatnosti zneužívající klauzule vložené do spotřebitelské smlouvy mít za to, že je s články 6 a 7 směrnice 93/13/EHS ze dne 5. dubna 1993 o nepřiměřených podmínkách [zneužívajících klauzulích] ve spotřebitelských smlouvách slučitelné, aby bylo riziko vážného narušení hospodářského veřejného pořádku předpokládáno, nebo má být toto riziko posuzováno s přihlédnutím ke konkrétním hospodářským údajům, z nichž lze vyvodit, jaký makroekonomický dopad vznikne v případě, že bude neplatnosti zneužívající klauzule přiznána zpětná účinnost?
 5)
 Má se při uplatňování individuálních nároků směřujících k prohlášení neplatnosti zneužívající klauzule vložené do spotřebitelské smlouvy mít za to, že je s články 6 a 7 směrnice 93/13/EHS ze dne 5. dubna 1993 o nepřiměřených podmínkách [zneužívajících klauzulích] ve spotřebitelských smlouvách slučitelné, aby bylo riziko vážného narušení hospodářského veřejného pořádku posuzováno s přihlédnutím k hospodářským účinkům případného uplatnění individuálních nároků ze strany velkého množství spotřebitelů? Nebo má být toto riziko naopak posuzováno s přihlédnutím k hospodářským dopadům konkrétního individuálního nároku uplatněného spotřebitelem, který se projeví v oblasti hospodářství?
 6)
 Pokud bude odpověď na třetí otázku kladná, je s články 6 a 7 směrnice 93/13/EHS ze dne 5. dubna 1993 o nepřiměřených podmínkách [zneužívajících klauzulích] ve spotřebitelských smlouvách slučitelné, aby bylo při posuzování dobré víry obecně přezkoumáváno jednání blíže neurčeného prodávajícího nebo poskytovatele?
 7)
 Nebo je naopak s ohledem na výklad článku 6 směrnice 93/13/EHS ze dne 5. dubna 1993 o nepřiměřených podmínkách [zneužívajících klauzulích] ve spotřebitelských smlouvách nutné, aby byla tato dobrá víra přezkoumávána a posuzována v každém konkrétním případě zvlášť a s přihlédnutím ke konkrétnímu způsobu, jakým daný prodávající nebo poskytovatel postupoval při uzavírání smlouvy či vkládání zneužívající klauzule do smlouvy?
 (1) Úř. věst. L 95, s. 29.


text:
 Ważna informacja prawna
 |
 22003D0006
 Dziennik Urzędowy L 094 , 10/04/2003 P. 0053 - 0054
 Decyzja Wspólnego Komitetu EOGnr 6/2003z dnia 31 styczna 2003 r.zmieniająca Załącznik II (Przepisy techniczne, normy, badania i certyfikacja) do Porozumienie EOGWSPÓLNY KOMITET EOG,uwzględniając Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym, dostosowane Protokołem dostosowującym Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym, zwane dalej 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 161/2002 z dnia 6 grudnia 2002 r. [1](2) Rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 1162/2002 z dnia 28 czerwca 2002 r. zmieniające rozporządzenie (EWG) nr 94/92 ustanawiające szczegółowe zasady wprowadzenia w życie uzgodnień dotyczących przywozu z państw trzecich przewidzianych w rozporządzeniu (EWG) nr 2092/91 [2] należy włączyć do Porozumienia,PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZĄ DECYZJĘ:Artykuł 1W rozdziale XII pkt 54b (rozporządzenie Rady (EWG) nr 2092/91) Załącznika II do Porozumienia dodaje się tiret w brzmieniu:"— 32002 R 1162: rozporządzeniem Komisji (WE) nr 1162/2002 z dnia 28 czerwca 2002 r. (Dz.U. L 170 z 29.6.2002, str. 44).".Artykuł 2Teksty rozporządzenia (WE) 1162/2002 w językach islandzkim i norweskim, które podlegają obowiązkowi publikacji w Dodatku EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Unii Europejskiej, są autentyczne.Artykuł 3Niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie dnia 1 lutego 2002 r., pod warunkiem że wszystkie notyfikacje na mocy art. 103 ust. 1 Porozumienia [3] zostały dokonane wobec Wspólnego Komitetu EOG.Artykuł 4Niniejsza decyzja zostaje opublikowana w Sekcji EOG i w Dodatku EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Unii Europejskiej.Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia 31 stycznia 2003 r.W imieniu Wspólnego Komitetu EOGP. WesterlundPrzewodniczący[1] Dz.U. L 38 z 13.2.2003, str. 16.[2] Dz.U. L 170 z 29.6.2002, str. 44.[3] Nie wskazano wymogów konstytucyjnych.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 21.5.2011
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 152/3
 Rozsudok Súdneho dvora (veľká komora) z 29. marca 2011 — Anheuser-Busch, Inc./Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, Úrad pre harmonizáciu vnútorného trhu (ochranné známky a vzory)
 (Vec C-96/09 P) (1)
 (Odvolanie - Ochranná známka Spoločenstva - Nariadenie (ES) č. 40/94 - Článok 8 ods. 4 - Prihláška slovnej a obrazovej ochrannej známky BUD - Námietka - Údaj o zemepisnom pôvode „bud“ - Ochrana podľa Lisabonskej dohody a dvojstranných zmlúv zaväzujúcich dva členské štáty - Používanie v obchodnom styku - Označenie, ktoré má väčší ako iba miestny dosah)
 2011/C 152/04
 Jazyk konania: angličtina
 Účastníci konania
 Odvolateľ: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (v zastúpení: V. von Bomhard a B. Goebel, Rechtsanwälte)
 Ďalší účastníci konania: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (v zastúpení: F. Fajgenbaum, T. Lachacinski, C. Petsch a S. Sculy-Logotheti, avocats), Úrad pre harmonizáciu vnútorného trhu (ochranné známky a vzory) (v zastúpení: A. Folliard-Monguiral, splnomocnený zástupca)
 Predmet veci
 Odvolanie podané proti rozsudku Súdu prvého stupňa (prvá komora) zo 16. decembra 2008, Budějovický Budvar/ÚHVT a Anheuser-Busch (spojené veci T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 a T-309/06), ktorým Súd prvého stupňa zrušil rozhodnutia druhého odvolacieho senátu Úradu pre harmonizáciu vnútorného trhu (ÚHVT) R 234/2005-2, R 241/2005-2, R 802/2004-2 a R 305/2005-2 zamietajúce odvolania podané proti rozhodnutiam námietkového oddelenia, ktorými boli zamietnuté námietky, ktoré podal Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, proti prihláške slovnej ochrannej známky „BUD“ pre tovary patriace do tried 32 a 33 — Porušenie článku 8 ods. 4 písm. b) nariadenia (ES) č. 40/94
 Výrok rozsudku
 1.
 Rozsudok Súdu prvého stupňa Európskych spoločenstiev zo 16. decembra 2008, Budějovický Budvar/ÚHVT — Anheuser-Busch (BUD) (T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 a T-309/06), sa zrušuje v rozsahu, v akom Súd prvého stupňa, pokiaľ ide o výklad článku 8 ods. 4 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 40/94 z 20. decembra 1993 o ochrannej známke spoločenstva, zmeneného a doplneného nariadením Rady (ES) č. 422/2004 z 19. februára 2004, najprv nesprávne rozhodol, že dosah dotknutého označenia, ktorý musí byť väčší ako miestny, sa má posudzovať výlučne vzhľadom na rozsah územia ochrany tohto označenia bez ohľadu na jeho používanie na tomto území, potom, že príslušné územie na posúdenie používania uvedeného označenia nie je nevyhnutne územie jeho ochrany, a nakoniec, že k používaniu tohto označenia nemusí nevyhnutne prísť pred podaním prihlášky na zápis ochrannej známky Spoločenstva.
 2.
 Vo zvyšnej časti sa odvolanie zamieta.
 3.
 Spojené veci T-225/06, T-255/06, T-257/06 a T-309/06 sa vracajú Všeobecnému súdu Európskej únie.
 4.
 O trovách konania sa rozhodne v konaní o veci samej.
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ C 113, 16.5.2009.


text:
 Biografia
 Figlio del pittore Eugenio e di Ersilia Vassellai, studiò a Trento e ad Este ma non frequentò mai l'università (tranne un paio di mesi in cui seguì le lezioni di Karl von Ettmayer a Friburgo). Nonostante ciò, dopo qualche anno di insegnamento nelle scuole medie di Orvieto e Modena, nel 1924 conseguì brillantemente la libera docenza in Dialettologia italiana, di fronte a una commissione composta da Vincenzo Crescini, Clemente Merlo e Matteo Giulio Bartoli. Negli anni precedenti, infatti, il Prati si era distinto per aver redatto alcuni interessanti studi, fondati unicamente sulla sua grande passione per l'argomento.
 Nel 1925 si stabilì a Roma. Per un periodo fu bibliotecario privato, quindi venne assunto dall'Accademia d'Italia per la redazione del Vocabolario della lingua italiana. Non condividendo le posizioni adottate dalla direzione, abbandonò l'incarico e preferì condurre una vita riservata ma indipendente, che gli permise di coltivare in piena libertà i propri interessi. Questa scelta, tuttavia, ne pregiudicò la situazione economica costringendolo, nel 1950, a vendere la sua fornita collezione di dizionari dialettali.
 Nel novembre dello stesso anno, grazie all'interessamento di Giovan Battista Pellegrini, ottenne l'insegnamento di Storia della lingua italiana presso l'università di Pisa. Vi rimase sino al 1953 allorché, nuovamente oppresso dalle ristrettezze economiche, fu costretto a trasferirsi a Velletri.
 Colpito da una grave malattia, volle lasciare l'ospedale di Velletri per raggiungere il paese natale, ma morì durante il viaggio in treno.
 Opere
 Le opere di Prati si incentrano principalmente sulle parlate della sua terra natale, la Valsugana, spaziando poi sulla toponomastica trentina e veneta sino all'etimologia delle parole italiane.
 Al primo filone appartengono L'italiano e il parlare della Valsugana (1916), I Valsuganotti (1923) e il Dizionario valsuganotto (1960). I suoi studi più generali confluirono nel Dizionario di marina dell'Accademia d'Italia (1937), nel Vocabolario etimologico italiano (1951) e nelle Storie di parole italiane (1960). Produsse poi il repertorio bibliografico I vocabolari delle parlate italiane (1931) e il libro Voci di gerganti, vagabondi e malviventi sui linguaggi gergali (1940).
 Bibliografia
 Collegamenti esterni
 Professori dell'Università di Pisa