jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 32002D0466(01)
 2002/466/EG: Beschluss des Rates vom 17. Dezember 2001 über den Abschluss eines Zusatzprotokolls zum Europa-Abkommen zur Gründung einer Assoziation zwischen den Europäischen Gemeinschaften und ihren Mitgliedstaaten einerseits und der Republik Lettland andererseits zur Festlegung der Handelsregelung für bestimmte Fische und Fischereierzeugniss
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 162 vom 20/06/2002 S. 0022 - 0022
 Beschluss des Ratesvom 17. Dezember 2001über den Abschluss eines Zusatzprotokolls zum Europa-Abkommen zur Gründung einer Assoziation zwischen den Europäischen Gemeinschaften und ihren Mitgliedstaaten einerseits und der Republik Lettland andererseits zur Festlegung der Handelsregelung für bestimmte Fische und Fischereierzeugnisse(2002/466/EG)DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION -gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, insbesondere auf Artikel 133 in Verbindung mit Artikel 300 Absatz 2 Unterabsatz 1 Satz 1,auf Vorschlag der Kommission,in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:(1) Es ist angebracht, das Europa-Abkommen zur Gründung einer Assoziation zwischen den Europäischen Gemeinschaften und ihren Mitgliedstaaten einerseits und der Republik Lettland andererseits(1) durch ein Zusatzprotokoll zu ergänzen, um Präferenzbedingungen für die Einfuhr bestimmter Fische und Fischereierzeugnisse mit Ursprung in der Republik Lettland in die Gemeinschaft und für die Einfuhr bestimmter Fische und Fischereierzeugnisse mit Ursprung in der Gemeinschaft in die Republik Lettland vorzusehen.(2) Zu diesem Zweck sollte dem Europa-Abkommen ein neues Protokoll hinzugefügt werden, das die Handelsregelung für bestimmte Arten von Fisch und Fischereierzeugnissen enthält.(3) Das Protokoll sollte genehmigt werden -BESCHLIESST:Artikel 1Das Zusatzprotokoll zum Europa-Abkommen zur Gründung einer Assoziation zwischen den Europäischen Gemeinschaften und ihren Mitgliedstaaten einerseits und der Republik Lettland andererseits zur Festlegung der Handelsregelung für bestimmte Fische und Fischereierzeugnisse wird im Namen der Gemeinschaft genehmigt.Der Wortlaut des Protokolls ist diesem Beschluss beigefügt.Artikel 2Der Präsident des Rates wird ermächtigt, die Person zu bestellen, die befugt ist, das Protokoll rechtsverbindlich für die Gemeinschaft zu unterzeichnen.Geschehen zu Brüssel am 17. Dezember 2001.Im Namen des RatesDer PräsidentA. Neyts-Uyttebroeck(1) ABl. L 26 vom 2.2.1998, S. 3.


type: wikipedia

text:
Denne artikel omhandler muser i den græske mytologi, for band, se Muse (gruppe), for Multiple Streaming Engine, se MuSE
 Muse (af græsk mousa fra verbet mimnésko (= jeg mindes, erindrer), knyttet til musernes mor Mnemosyne. Plutark kaldte muserne mneiai, dvs. "minder",) en af ni muser i græsk mytologi. De er døtre af Zeus og modsat de fleste andre olympiske guder, kendtes de ikke i før-græsk tid. Muserne opstod som selvstændige, mytiske skikkelser, da dyrkelsen af den olympiske gudeverden blev indført. Muserne er angiveligt født ved Olympens fod på sletten Piéria og måtte bosætte sig på selve bjerget. I græsk mytologi er det kun muserne og deres far Zeus, som bærer tilnavnet "olympiske".
 Ordet "muse" beskriver også den person, der inspirerer en kunstner til sine værker.
 De ni olympiske muser er:
 Erató for lyrik, kærlighedsdigte - afbildes med en kithara.
 Euterpe for fløjtespil og lyrik - afbildes med en fløjte.
 Kalliope for heltedigtning, epos - afbildes med en bogrulle eller skrivetavle.
 Klió for historieskrivning og heltedigt - afbildes med en bogrulle.
 Melpomene for tragediedigtning - afbildes med en tragisk maske.
 Polyhymnia for pantomime og for dansen - svøber sig i sin dragt.
 Terpsichore for sang, dans og korlyrik - afbildes med en lyre.
 Thalía for komediedigtning - afbildes med en komisk maske.
 Uranía for astronomi - afbildes med en stjerneglobus.
 Historie
 Musernes tilblivelse forbindes med en anekdote knyttet til en tabt hymne af Pindar, der beretter, at Zeus, efter at have skabt alt, spurgte de andre guder, om der ikke var noget, der manglede. De svarede, at der mangler nogen til at udtrykke glæde over, hvor godt alt var blevet skabt.
 Muserne er nært knyttet til Apollon Musagetes (= musernes anfører), og Parnassos, hvis kilde Castalia Musae Apollon havde viet til muserne. Kildens vand flød mellem de to store bjergtoppe og blev samlet i et bassin, hvorfra vandet blev hentet af Pythias præstinder til brug i oraklet i Delfi.
 Homer og Hesiod
 Digteren påkaldte muserne, for overhovedet at kunne digte. Han appellerede til sin muse, for det var hendes stemme, der lød, med digteren som medium. Muserne regnedes som alvidende. Meget sjældent omtaler digteren sig selv i Homers epos, men når det sker, henvender han sig hverken til læseren eller tilhørerne, men til muserne i håb om at blive delagtig i deres viden, som i Iliaden (2, 484 ff):
 Sig mig nu, muser, som bor i Olympens strålende sale,I er gudinder, er overalt og har viden om alting.
 Vi kan kun lytte til sagn og ved ikke noget med vished —
 På samme vis åbnes både Iliaden og Odysseen med anråbelse af digterens muse.
 I Iliaden:Syng, gudinde, om vreden, der greb peleiden Achilleus.
 I Odysseen:
 Syng for mig, muse, om manden, der videnom strejfed' -
 Hesiod åbnede Theogonien med ordene:Muserne, Helikons døtre, jeg åbner min hyldest og sang meddem, der har tilhold på Helikons tinde, storslået og hellig.
 Hesiod er den, der i Theogonien gav muserne deres individualitet ved som den første, vi kender, at navngive hver enkelt muse:
 ...døtre af Zeus i et antal af ni, og benævnes som følger: Klió, dernæst Eutérpe, Thalía og så Melpoméne og Terpsichóre,Polýmnia og Erató, Uranía,
 samt Kalliópe, for hun er den første og fremmeste af alle.
 I Theogonien fortælles om musernes ophav, at:
 Fødslen stod i Piéria, hvor Mnemosyne dem fødte,efter at Zeus og Eleútheros-højdens gudinde lå sammen.
 Ulykkers glemsel og hvile fra alskens bekymring formår de.Favntaget varede ni hele nætter, da rådvise fader,
 fjernt fra de øvrige guder, steg op i det hellige leje.
 Han hylder dem for at have inspireret ham:Nylig de lærte Hesiod kunsten at synge så smukt,
 dengang han vogtede får i hellige Helikons bakker,
 lyder det i Theogonien''. Hesiods hymne er afgjort knyttet til den lokale kult for muser ved hans hjemsted, Askra, ved Helikon-bjerget. Derfor åbner han hymnen med at omtale Helikons muser, for derpå at hylde Olympens muser, som anråbes i de homeriske sange. Det kan være Hesiods protest mod homerisk tradition. Han kan have været tilknyttet en episk fastlandstradition, der har eksisteret side om side med jonernes homeriske tradition.
 Hesiod lader muserne udtrykke sig alene gennem ord (dvs. sang) og dans, men aldrig gennem et instrument - tilsvarende forholdene i hans hjemlige kult for muser, hvor instrumenter aldrig blev anvendt - ikke engang Apollons lyre. Det forlød, at Hesiod selv var så dårlig til lyrespil, at han aldrig fik lov til at deltage i festspillene i Delfi.
 Galleri
 Kilder
 Se også
 De græske guders familietræ
 Græsk mytologi
 Græsk litteratur
 Musik
 Museum
 Eksterne henvisninger
 Græske guder


type: caselaw

text:
 6.6.2017
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 C 178/9
 Pedido de decisão prejudicial apresentado pelo Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Bélgica) em 20 de março de 2017 — Processo penal contra Van Gennip BVBA e o.
 (Processo C-137/17)
 (2017/C 178/10)
 Língua do processo: neerlandês
 Órgão jurisdicional de reenvio
 Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen
 Partes no processo principal
 Van Gennip BVBA, Antonius Johannes Maria ten Velde, Original BVBA, Antonius Cornelius Ignatius Maria van der Schoot
 Questões prejudiciais
 1)
 As infrações seguintes são qualificáveis de «infrações graves», na aceção do artigo 45.o da Diretiva 2013/29/UE (1) do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 12 de junho de 2013, relativa à harmonização das legislações dos Estados-Membros respeitantes à disponibilização no mercado de artigos de pirotecnia:
 a.
 a venda de artigos pirotécnicos num total de 2,666 kg de kg de substâncias pirotécnicas, que constitui uma infração aos artigos 265.o, n.o 7, e 257.o do Decreto Real de 23 de setembro de 1958, que aprova o regulamento geral relativo ao fabrico, armazenamento, posse, venda, transporte e utilização de explosivos, o qual proíbe a venda de artigos pirotécnicos em quantidades superiores a 1 kg de substâncias pirotécnicas, se o consumidor não dispuser de uma licença administrativa que lhe permita possuir uma quantidade superior de artigos pirotécnicos;
 b.
 a ultrapassagem do limite fixo de armazenamento e a inobservância dos locais de armazenamento previstos numa licença federal de fogos-de-artifício, quando já existia uma licença regional ambiental para o armazenamento das quantidades efetivamente mais elevadas em causa, nos locais em questão;
 c.
 o armazenamento temporário, de duração muito curta, de quantidades limitadas de artigos pirotécnicos em diversos locais não especificamente licenciados no perímetro de um comércio retalhista em artigos pirotécnicos que dispõe quer de uma licença federal de fogos-de-artifício quer de uma licença regional ambiental?
 2)
 O princípio da livre circulação dos artigos de pirotecnia, consagrado no artigo 6.o, n.o 1, da Diretiva 2007/23/EG (2) do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 23 de maio de 2007, relativa à colocação no mercado de artigos de pirotecnia (atual artigo 4.o, n.o 1, da Diretiva 2013/29/UE [...], eventualmente lido em conjugação com o artigo 10.o da Diretiva 2006/123/CE (3) do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 12 de dezembro de 2006, relativa aos serviços no mercado interno, opõe-se a uma legislação nacional que sujeita os locais de armazenamento de artigos pirotécnicos conformes à diretiva, associados ao mercado retalhista, ao duplo requisito de disporem, por um lado, de uma licença emitida no âmbito da legislação relativa ao fabrico, armazenamento, posse, venda, transporte e utilização de explosivos e, por outro, de uma licença emitida no âmbito da legislação relativa às licenças ambientais para instalações nocivas, quando ambos os regimes de licenciamento prosseguem, na realidade, o mesmo objetivo (a prevenção dos riscos de segurança) e um destes regimes de licenciamento (neste caso, o dos explosivos) pressupõe um limite máximo (muito) baixo para o armazenamento de fogos-de-artifício (num total de 50 kg de substâncias pirotécnicas — isto é, a substância ativa)?
 3)
 O princípio da livre circulação dos artigos de pirotecnia, consagrado no artigo 4.o, n.o 1, da Diretiva 2013/29[...] no artigo 6.o, n.o 2, da Diretiva 2007/23[...] (eventualmente lidos em conjugação com os artigos 34.o, 35.o e 36.o do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia), e em conjugação com o princípio da proporcionalidade, opõe-se a uma legislação nacional que proíbe a posse ou a utilização pelos consumidores assim como a venda a consumidores de fogos-de-artifício (das categorias 2 e 3 da Diretiva 2007/23/CE) que contêm mais de 1 kg de substâncias pirotécnicas?
 (1) JO 2013, L 178, p. 27.
 (2) JO 2007, L 154, p. 1.
 (3) JO 2006, L 376, p. 36.


type: other

text:
Tlačová informácia zo zasadnutia RVR dňa 15. 5. 2012 - Rada pre vysielanie a retransmisiu
 Tlačová informácia zo zasadnutia Rady pre vysielanie a retransmisiu, ktoré sa konalo dňa 15. 5. 2012 v sídle Rady pre vysielanie a retransmisiu
 pridelila frekvencie 104,0 MHz Banská Bystrica, 107,1 MHz Banská Štiavnica - Levice, 102,8 MHz Bardejov, 94,3 MHz Bratislava, 87,7 MHz Košice, 102,9 MHz Košice - mesto, 95,0 MHz Liptovský Mikuláš, 91,6 MHz Lučenec, 94,0 MHz Nitra, 102,5 MHz Poprad, 106,3 MHz Považská Bystrica, 102,8 MHz Rožňava, 89,2 MHz Ružomberok, 104,0 MHz Senica, 93,2 MHz Tornaľa, 89,1 MHz Trenčín, 99,2 MHz Žilina spoločnosti RADIO, a.s. (programová služba FUN RADIO);
 pridelila frekvencie 106,6 MHz Banská Bystrica, 105,1 MHz Banská Štiavnica, 95,6 MHz Bardejov, 101,8 MHz Bratislava, 91,1 MHz Brezno, 99,6 MHz Čadca, 107,0 Dobšiná, 87,9 MHz Dolný Kubín, 95,7 MHz Košice mesto, 96,0 MHz Lučenec, 88,1 MHz Marovka, 104,9 MHz Martin, 90,0 MHz Medzilaborce, 99,0 MHz Michalovce, 90,7 MHz Námestovo, 96,1 MHz Nitra, 104,8 MHz Poprad, 105,8 MHz Prešov, 92,9 MHz Prievidza – Silo, 106,7 MHz Rimavská Sobota, 101,4 MHz Rožňava, 91,1 MHz Ružomberok, 92,8 MHz Ružomberok, 88,5 MHz Snina, 92,4 MHz Stropkov, 105,5 MHz Trenčín, 92,0 MHz Žiar nad Hronom, 92,7 MHz Žilina – Zástranie spoločnosti CORPORATE LEGAL, s.r.o. (programová služba INFO Rádio);
 pridelila frekvenciu 97,7 MHz – Košice spoločnosti DRV s.r.o. (programová služba Dobré rádio),
 pridelila frekvenciu 98,1 MHz – Čadca spoločnosti GES Slovakia s.r.o. (programová služba Rádio HEY);
 pridelila frekvenciu 107,5 MHz Čadca spoločnosti LOUD, s. r. o. (programová služba PLUS FM);
 uložila sankciu – pokutu vo výške 1 000 eur vysielateľovi MAC TV s.r.o. (programová služba JOJ PLUS) za porušenie § 20 ods. 4 ZVR (ochrana maloletých – JSO) v súvislosti s nesprávnym označením prehľadu programov podľa JSO a nesprávnym zaradením upútavky na program Mafstory dňa 23. 10. 2011;
 uložila sankciu – upozornenie na porušenie zákona prevádzkovateľovi retransmisie GLOBALRON s.r.o. za porušenie § 15a ods. 2 ZVR (zákaz poskytovania retransmisie bez registrácie);
 začala správne konanie voči vysielateľovi MARKÍZA-SLOVAKIA, spol. s r.o. (programová služba TV MARKÍZA) vo veci možného porušenia § 31a ods. 4 ZVR (zákaz skrytej mediálnej komunikácie) v súvislosti s odvysielaním programu Reflex dňa 7. 3. 2012 o cca 17:25 hod., ktorý obsahoval informácie o programe Modré z neba;
 začala správne konanie voči vysielateľovi Rozhlas a televízia Slovenska (programová služba Jednotka) za možné porušenie § 16 ods. 3 písm. b) ZVR (objektívnosť a nestrannosť spravodajských a politicko-publicistických programov, oddeľovanie názorov a komentárov od informácií spravodajského charakteru) v súvislosti s odvysielaním príspevku Spomienky na prvý Slovenský štát v programe Správy STV dňa 14. 3. 2012 o cca 19:00 hod.;
 začala dve správne konania voči vysielateľovi MAC TV s.r.o. (programová služba JOJ) vo veci možného porušenia § 20 ods. 4 ZVR (ochrana maloletých – JSO) v súvislosti s odvysielaním programu Hotel paradise dňa 5. 3. 2012 o cca 21:32 hod., dňa 6. 3. 2012 o cca 14:50 hod. a o cca 21:26 hod., dňa 7. 3. 2012 o cca 15:00 hod.;
 začala správne konanie voči vysielateľovi MARKÍZA-SLOVAKIA, spol. s r.o. (programová služba TV MARKÍZA) vo veci možného porušenia § 16 ods. 3 písm. g) ZVR (povinnosť trvalo na obrazovke označiť televíznu programovú službu logom), ku ktorému mohlo dôjsť počas programu Muži v čiernom vysielaného dňa 3. 3. 2012 o cca 13:34 hod.;
 začala správne konanie voči vysielateľovi MARKÍZA-SLOVAKIA, spol. s r.o. (programová služba TV MARKÍZA) vo veci možného porušenia § 34 ods. 1 ZVR (zreteľné oddelenie reklamy, rozoznateľnosť a nezameniteľnosť reklamy od iných programov) v súvislosti s vysielaním v dňoch 20. a 27. 2., 4. a 11. 3. 2012 komunikátu propagujúceho alkohol Vodka 1906 a vo veci možného porušenia § 36 ods. 2 ZVR (vysielací čas vyhradený reklamným šotom) v súvislosti s vysielaním v dňoch 20. 2., 4. a 11. 3. 2012, kedy v čase 22:00 – 23:00 hod. mohlo dôjsť k odvysielaniu reklamných šotov v časovom rozsahu vyššom ako 12 minút;
 začala správne konanie voči vysielateľovi MAC TV s.r.o. (programová služba JOJ) vo veci možného porušenia § 36 ods. 2 ZVR (vysielací čas vyhradený reklamným šotom) v súvislosti s vysielaním dňa 26. 2. 2012, kedy v čase 21:00 – 22:00 hod. mohlo dôjsť k odvysielaniu reklamných šotov v časovom rozsahu vyššom ako 12 minút;
 začala správne konanie voči vysielateľovi TV AGENCY, s.r.o. (programová služba TV PATRIOT) vo veci možného porušenia § 16 ods. 3 písm. l) ZVR v súvislosti s tým, že nedodal Rade na jej vyžiadanie súvislý záznam vysielania programu Na margo vysielaného dňa 15. 1. 2012 o cca 11:00 hod. a o cca 13:39 hod,;


jurisdiction: US

text: b' -- NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL I\n\n OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS\n\n CLOSEOUT MEMORANDUM\n\n Case Number: 1-02-11-0031 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n ,I\n\n This investigation was initiated based on a qui tam received by the U.S. Attorney\'s Office,\n Baltimore, MD. The qui tam alleged that a social science research firm1 shifted labor costs from\n private contracts to government contracts, and charged government contracts for unallowable\n costs such as the preparation of bids and proposals, administrative labor, and overhead. ,\n\n Our investigation confirmed the allegations and revealed that the firm submitted false claims2 to\n NSF as well as three other federal agencies3 in connection with federal grants and contracts. The\n firm entered into a monetary settlement agreement4. The firm was also required to enter into a\n four-year compliance plan with the NSF OIG. (The settlement agreement and compliance plan\n are attached to this closeout).\n\n In light of the above, no further investigative effort is necessary in this matter.\n I,\n\n\n Accordingly, this case is closed.\n\n\n\n\nI\'\nNSF 01G Form 2 (1 1/02) I\n\x0c SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT\n\n\n This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered by and among the United Statesof\n\nAmerica - on behalf of its agencies (1) the Department of Justice, (2) the Department of\n\nEducation, (3) the Department. of Commerce, (4) the Department of Health and Human Services,\n l\n\nand (5) the National Science Foundation - the relator Jennifer Hanbury-Pobiak ("relator" or I\n\n\n\n"Pobiak"), COSMOS GROUP CORPORATION a/k/a COSMOS CORPORATION\n\n("COSMOS"), Robert Yin ("Yin"), and Karen Kaufman-Yin ("Kaufman-Yin"), all collectivdly\n I\nhereinafter .referred to as "the Parties."\n\n\n PREAMBLE\n\n\n A. WHEREAS on or about October 24,2002, Relator Pobiak filed a qui tam acGon\n\nin the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entitled United States ex rel.\n\nJennifer H. Pobiak v. COSMOS Corporation, Civil Action No. AMD-02-3478 ("the Civil\n\nAction") alleging that COSMOS Corporation violated the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. sections\n I\n\n\n3729-3733;\n I\n\n\n\n\n B. WHEREAS the United States investigated the allegations in the relator\'s\n\ncomplaint;. I\n\n\n\n\n C. WHEREAS, as a result of its investigation, the United States contends that\n I\n\n\nCOSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin violated the False Claims Act, 3 1 U.S.C. $9 3729-3733,\nand/or common law doctrines by submitting claims for payment under the contracts identified\n II\n on\n\nthe list attached hereto as Exhibit 1 that were false because they included as direct charges costs\n\x0cthat should have been charged either to other contracts or to overhead accounts (the "Covered\n\nConduct");\n\n\n D. WHEREAS the United States contends that the Covered Conduct resulted in the\n I/\n\n\n\nknowing submission of false billing claims to the government which enabled COSMOS, Yin,\n\nand Kaufman-Yin to collect federal payments improperly;\n\n\n E. WHEREAS COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin deny any wrongdoing or liability\n\nbased upon the contentions of the United States in paragraphs C and D above; and\n\n\n F. WHEREAS the Parties mutually desire to reach a full and final compromise of\n\nall civil claims the United States has or may have against COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufinan-Yin ,\n\nbased on the Covered Conduct, and further wish to avoid the delay, expense, inconvenience and 11\n\n\n\nuncertainty of protracted litigation.\n\n\n TERMS AND CONDITIONS\n\n\n NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and\n \'1\nobligations in this Agreement, and for good and valuable considerations as stated herein, receipt\n\nof which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:\n\n\n 1. COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin agree to pay the United States the sum\n I\nof One Million Five Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($ 1,550,000.00) ("Settlement Amount"),\n\nand this sum shall constitute a debt immediately due and owed to the United States on the date\n\nthat this Agreement is fully executed. The Settlement Amount shall be electronically transferred\n\nno later than the fifth (5h) business day following the date on which this Agreement is fully11\n\x0c executed by the Parties, pursuant to written instructions provided to David Bodenheimer, counsel\n\n for COSMOS, Yin and Kaufman-Yin, by the U.S. Department of Justice.\n\n 2. Subject only to the conditions specified in Paragraph 3 below, on receipt\n \\\n\n of the payment described in Paragraph 1 above, the United States fully and finally releases add\n\n will be deemed to have released COSMOS, Yin and Kaufman-Yin from any civil monetary\n\n claims that the United States has or may have under the False Claims Act, 3 1 U.S.C. $8 3729i\n\n 3733 (as amended); the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. $9 601-613; or the common law\n\n theories of payment by mistake, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and fraud for the Covered\n\n Conduct.\n\n I\n 3. The United States specifically does not release COSMOS, Yin, and\n\n Kaufman-Yin from (a) any potential criminal liability; (b) any criminal, civil or administrative\n\n claims arising under Title 26, U.S. Code (Internal Revenue Code); (c) any liability to the Unifed\n\n States (or any agencies thereof) for any conduct other than the Covered Conduct; (d) any\n\n obligations created by this Agreement; (e) any claims for defective or deficient services that F e\n\n not part of the Covered Conduct; (f) any claim for personal injury or property damage or for\n\n other consequential damage arising from the Covered Conduct; and (g) any administrative\n I\n liability except as referenced in Paragraphs 2 and 4. The United States does not release any\n\'\n claims based on the Covered Conduct against individuals other than Yin and Kaufman-Yin,\n\n including officers, directors, agents, employees, and shareholders of COSMOS.\n\n\n 4. In consideration of the obligations of COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin in\n I/\n\n this Agreement and the Compliance Program ("CP") entered into between the Off~ceof the\n\n Inspector General for the National Science Foundation (OIG-NSF) and COSMOS, and\n li\n\x0c li\n\nconditioned upon full payment of the Settlement Amount as set forth in Paragraph 1 above, a d\n Il\n\nCOSMOS\'S full compliance with the CP, which is herein incorporated by reference and attached\n \'1\nhereto as Exhibit 2, the OIG-NSF agrees to release and refrain from instituting, directing, or\n\nmaintaining any administrative action seeking debarment or suspension (as set forth in 48 C.F.R.\n\nsubpart 9.4) of COSMOS based upon the Covered Conduct, except as otherwise reserved in ,\n\nParagraph 3 above, and as reserved in this Paragraph. Nothing in this Paragraph precludes the\n\nOIG-NSF fiom taking action against entities or persons, or for conduct and practices, for which\n\nclaims have been reserved in Paragraph 3 above.\n\n\n 5. Pobiak agrees and represents that this settlement of the Civil Action is pir,\n\nadequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. $ 3730(c)(2)(B).\n\nThe United States agrees to pay Pobiak the sum of Two Hundred Sixty Three Thousand Five 11\n\nHundred Dollars ($263,500.00) from the payment described in Paragraph 1 above within a\n\nreasonable time after receipt by the United States of such payment pursuant to written\n\ninstructions provided to the Department of Justice by relator\'s counsel. On receipt of this\n \'I\npayment, Pobiak, for herself, for her heirs, successors, and assigns, releases and will be deemed\n \'I\nto have released and forever discharged the United States, its officers, agents and employees,\n /I 3\n\n\nfrom any claims arising from or relating to the filing of the Civil Action, or pursuant to 3 1 U.S.C.\n 11\n\n\n\n$ 3730(d)(1), for a share of the proceeds of the settlement of claims under this Agreement; and\n II\n\n\nCOSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin from any claims she has or may have, including all claims\n\nthat were or could have been asserted in relator\'s complaint. This Agreement does not resolye,\n\nor in any manner affect, any claims the United States has or may have against the relator arising\n\nunder Title 26, U.S. Code (Internal Revenue Code), or any claims arising under this Agreement.\n\x0c I/\n\n\n 6. Coincident with the full execution of this Agreement, counsel for the\n\nrelator will, pursuant to Rule 4, provide counsel for the United States with a fully executed\n\nstipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Counsel for the United States shall file the said\n\nstipulation with the Court promptly upon notification that the government has received the\n\npayment referenced in paragraph 1 above.\n\n\n 7. COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufinan-Yin fully and finally release the United\n\nStates, its agencies, employees, servants and agents, and relator, her heirs, successors, and\n 11\n\n\nassigns, from any claims (including attorneys fees, costs and expenses of every kind and\n\nhowever denominated) which COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufinan-Yin now have and could have ll\n\n\n\n\nasserted or could in the future assert against the United States, its agencies, employees, servants,\n\nand agents, and relator, her heirs, successors, and assigns, related to the Covered Conduct an\'U the\n\nUnited States\' inirestigation and prosecution thereof.\n i\n\n 8. COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin agree that all costs (as defined in the\n\nFederal Acquisition Regulations ("FAR) 3 1.205-470 incurred by or on behalf of COSMOS; Yin\n\nand Kaufman-Yin in connection with (I) the matters covered by this Agreement and the CP\n\nentered into by COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin with the OIG-NSF; (2) the government7si\n\ninvestigation of the matters covered by this Agreement; (3) COSMOS\', Yin\'s, and Kaufman-\n\nYin\'s investigation, defense and corrective actions, including the costs associated with the OIG-\n\nNSF CP, with respect to matters covered by this Agreement; (4) the negotiation of this\n\nAgreement; and (5) the payment made to the United States pursuant to this Agreement, shail be\n\nunallowable costs for purposes of government contracts and awards. These amounts shall be\n I/\n\n\n\nseparately accounted for by COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin.\n\x0c 9. Each party to this Agreement will bear its own legal and other costs\n\nincurred in connection with this matter, including the preparation and performance of this\n\nAgreement.\n\n\n 10. COSMOS, Yin and Kaufman-Yin waive and will not assert any defenges\n\nthey may have to any criminal prosecution or administrative action relating to the Covered\n\nConduct, which defenses may be based in whole or in part on a contention that, under the Double\n :I\nJeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, or under the Excessive Fines\n\nClause in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, this Settlement bars a remedy in such\n\ncriminal prosecution or administrative action. COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin agree that !his\n\nsettlement is not punitive in purpose or effect.\n\n\n 11. This Agreement is made as a compromise to avoid the expense of\n\nlitigation and to extinguish civil monetary claims as described in Paragraph 2 above. By entering\n\ninto this Agreement, COSMOS, Yin, and Kaufman-Yin do not admit to any impropriety,\n\nwrongdoing, or liability of any sort.\n\n\n 12. COSMOS, Yin, Kaufman-Yin, and Pobiak represent that this Agreement\n\nis freely and voluntarily entered into without any degree of duress or compulsion whatsoever.\n \'I\n\n\n\n 13. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States. The Parties\n\nagree that the exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any dispute arising between and among the\n Il\nP,artiesunder this Agreement will be the United States District Court for the District of\n\nMaryland.\n\x0c 14. This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the Parties.\n\nThe Parties agree that this Agreement does not constitute evidence, and is not an admission by\n\nany person or entity, and shall not be construed as an admission by any person or entity, with i\n\n\n\n\nrespect to any issue of law or fact. f!\n\n\n\n\n 15. This Agreement shall be .binding upon the Parties, their successors,\n\nassigns, and heirs.\n\n\n 16. This Agreement shall become final and binding only upon signing by each\n\nrespective party hereto. !!\n\n\n\n\n 17. This Agreement may not be changed, altered, or modified, except in\n 9\nwriting signed by all undersigned parties. This Agreement may not be discharged except by\n /I\n\nperformance in accordance with its terms or by writing signed by all parties.\n\n\n 18. All Parties consent to the United States\' disclosure of this ~~reernent,\'and\n 11\n\n\ninformation about this Agreement to the public.\n\n\n 19. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall,\n\nconstitute an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement.\n 1\n\n 20. This Agreement is effective on the date of the last signatory to it.\n\nFacsimiles of signatures shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes of this\n\nAgreement.\n\x0c THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n ROD J. ROSENSTEIN\n United States Attorney\n District of Maryland\n\nBy: Dated:\n Allen ~ . d & c k s\n Assistant United States Attorney\n\n\nBy: 3&;4 61 bJ7ic~1)2, Dated:\n David B. Wiseman\n Trial Attorney I\n 1,\n Department of Justice I!\n /I\n Civil Division\n Commercial Litigation Branch I\n I,\n\n\n\n\n COSMOS CORPORATION\n\nBy: Dated:\n Robert Y in, President\n\n ROBERT YIN\n\n Dated:\n Robert Yin\n\n KAREN KAUFMAN-YIN\n\n Dated:\n Karen Kaufman-Yin\n\n RELATOR\n\n Dated:\n Jennifer Hanbury-Pobiak, Relator\n\n Dated:\n William Hardy, Esq.\n Counsel for Relator\n\x0c THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\n ROD J. ROSENSTEIN 1\n\n United States Attorney\n District of Maryland\n\nBy: Dated:\n Allen F. Loucks\n Assistant United States Attorney\n\n\nBy: Dated:\n David B. Wiseman\n Trial Attorney\n Department of Justice\n Civil Division\n Commercial Litigation Branch \'\n\n\n\n\n COSMOS CORPORATION\n\nBy: w*\n Y%,\n Robert President\n Dated: d l 3 ,\\0?\n\n\n ROBERT YIN\n w . ~ Dated: I/ (310 7\n I -\n Robert Yin\n\n KAREN KAUFMAN-YIN\n\n Dated: //hh7\n #\n\n\n\n\n Dated:\n Jennifer Hanbury-Pobiak, Relator\n\n Dated:\n William Hardy, Esq. \'I\n Counsel for Relator\n\x0c MlWWWD HOME d A L d PAGE 02\n\n\n\n\n ROD J. ROSENSTBW\n umtcd swea Aa#ncy\n District of Matyland\n\n\n\n\nBY; Ikted:\n IkvidB. Wsemaa I\n\n\n rid Attoraey i\n -ofhutice\n Civil Division\n c4mlmdLi*Brarch\n\n COSMOS CORPOIW"I\'0N\n\n\n\n\n ROBERT W N\n\n\n\n KAREN K A m - Y I N\n\n\n\n RELATOR\n\x0c !I\n COSMOS Compliance Program Requirements\n\n I, Preamble\n\n 1. COSMOS agrees, as a term of its [date] Settlement Agreement (the Settlement\n Agreement) with the United States to which this Compliance Program is attached and incodorated\n by reference, to implement a Compliance Program (the "Program") to ensure compliance with the\n terms and conditions, General Grant Conditionr/FAR, and any Special Grant conditions,\n applicable to any National Science Foundation (NSF) Award; to ensure compliance yith all\n relevant laws and regulations governing NSF Awards as provided for in 45 CFR Parts 601 to 690,\n as applicable, as now or hereafter amended, and to demonstrate COSMOS\'S commitment to the\n prevention of fiaud, false statements, and misspending of funds related to NSF Awards by\n COSMOS, its officers, relevant employees, and relevant independent contractors, sub-contractors,\n and sub-recipients. The Program shall be based upon an assessment of the risk of such unlawful\n activities, have adequate financial and human resources, and shall be maintained so as tollensure\n that COSMOS and each of its officers, relevant employees, and relevant independent contractors\n and sub-recipients maintain the integrity required of a recipient of NSF funds. Relevant embloyees\n and relevant independent contractors are those individuals with a material role or responsibility in\n the application for, receipt of, and administration of NSF Awards and those individuals who\n .\n conduct projects supported by NSF Awards, including independent contractors, sub-contractors,\n and sub-recipients.\n\n 11. Terms and Conditions\nI\n 2. The period of future compliance obligations assumed by COSMOS under this\n Compliance Program shall be four (4) years from the effective date of the Settlement ~grkement.\n The "effective date" shall be the date on which the final signatory to the Agreement execrtes the\n Agreement. The scope of this Compliance Program shall be limited to NSF funds that are received\n or claimed during the aforesaid four-year period. IVSF Office of Inspector General (OIG) shall\n monitor compliance with the requirements of this Compliance Program on behalf of the United\n States Attorney\'s Office for the District of Maryland. All reports and notifications required under\n this Compliance Program shall be sent to the NSF OIG Associate Inspector General for\n I\n Investigations, via email to oig@nsf.gov.\nI\n\n\n\n\n 3. COSMOS agrees to implement the following measures within one hundred twenty\n (120) days of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, unless otherwise specified below:\n\n A. Compliance\n !I\n (1) Compliance Officer\n\n 4. A senior level administrator, who shall be neither Karen ~ a u f r n a n - ~ i n \' n Dr.\n or\n Robert Yin, reporting to the President of COSMOS, shall be chosen as Compliance,,Officer.\n COSMOS shall be permitted to select either a company employee or an outside consultant or entity\n to perform the Compliance Officer responsibilities under this Compliance Program. The\n\x0cCompliance Officer shall be responsible for the Compliance Program operations including, where I\nappropriate, the review of NSF Awards, the development of training programs, and the submission\nof comprehensive written annual reports to the President and to NSF OIG on the status of\ncompliance at COSMOS as set forth below.\n\n\n (2) Compliance Program ti\n I\n 5. The Compliance Program shall include identification of the positions throughout\nCOSMOS that have roles and responsibilities in the conduct and administration of NSF Awards.\nEach of those roles and responsibilities shall be described so that their relationship to COSMOS\'S\nresponsibilities under NSF Awards is clear. The lines of responsibility shall be clearly established\nfrom each individual position up to and including COSMOS\'S responsible signatory officJ?ls. All\nindividuals in such positions will be provided with (or have electronic access to) written \'policies\nandlor procedures applicable to their positions, i.e.:\n\n a code of conduct holding COSMOS personnel to high ethical standards of\n professional conduct and integrity, including addressing conflicts of interest;\n accurate time and effort reporting under NSF Awards to meet the standards\n of the cost principles specified in the Office of Management and Budget\n (OMB) Circular A-1 10, (2 C.F.R. part 21 5) or others as appropriate;\n accurate charging of costs under NSF Awards;\n accurate monitoring, managing and reporting of cost sharing;\n proper monitoring of sub-recipients and consultants and sub-recipient and\n consultant charges; /I\n accurate reconciliation of accounting records; and\n document management and retention.\n\n\n 6. The Compliance Officer shall periodically monitor COSMOS\'S internal controls to\nensure compliance with all applicable Federal laws and regulations regarding the use and 1\nexpenditure of NSF Award funds.\n\n\n (3) Written Policies\n\n 7. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the effective date of the Seftlement\nAgreement, COSMOS shall implement written policies regarding its commitment to ensure\ncompliance with all laws and regulations related to the receipt of NSF Awards. These policies\nshall be adopted and electronically provided by email to COSMOS officers and relevant\nemployees. To meet its obligations hereunder, Cosmos shall be permitted to provide copies of such\npolicies to senior management of any sub-recipient, independent contractor, or subcontractor, in\nlieu of making available such policies available individually to employees of such entitips. Such\npolicies shall be updated to reflect any changes in COSMOS\'S policies or practices. COSMOS\'S\ncompliance policies shall include disciplinary procedures for dealing with employees who fail to\nmeet the terms and conditions of NSF Awards. Copies of such policies will be provided to NSF\nOIG. The contents of such policies shall be covered in any annual training of COSMOS employees\n\x0cas provided in paragraph 13. Any policy modified during the terms of this compliance piogram\nshall be included as part of the annual report sent to NSF OIG under paragraphs 10-12.\n\n B. Audit Requirements\n\n 8. In addition to the single audit requirements contained in OMB Circular ,A-133.\nCOSMOS shall have conducted, on an annual basis, no later than 30 days after the annual\nanniversary of the Settlement Agreement, a comprehensive independent audit of COSMOS\'s\ncompliance with all applicable Federal laws and regulations regarding the use and expenditure of\nNSF Award funds, including the applicable NSF Award conditions, FAR provision, and OMB\n 1\nCirculars, where the scope includes a representative sample of NSF Awards ("independent annual\naudit"). Cosmos shall be permitted to engage either the firm conducting the OMB Circular A-133\naudit or any other qualified person or entity to perform the independent annual audit, including the\nCompliance Officer, so long as the Compliance Officer is not an employee of COSMOS.\nFurthermore, the independent annual audit shall include each component of COSMOS that\nreceives or has oversight responsibility with respect to NSF Awards and where appropriate shall be\nconducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards with a statistically-valid\nsample of NSF Awards. Special attention shall be devoted to risk assessment and internal controls\ndesigned to ensure compliance with NSF Award requirements, including the certifications made on\napplications, progress reports, financial reports, and other reports related to NSF Awards. Taking\ninto consideration the size and resources of COSMOS\' operations, the independent annulal audit\nshall also assess the efficacy of COSMOS\'s compliance program relative to whether:\n\n (a) COSMOS has established compliance standards and procedures to prevent\n and detect violation of law; \'I\n (b) COSMOS\'s leadership is knowledgeable about such standards and\n procedures and whether a high level person is assigned or retained to direct, ,,\n overall responsibility to ensure the implementation and effectiveness of the\n standards and procedures; I\n\n\n (c) COSMOS has made reasonable efforts to exclude from substantial authority\n any individual whom COSMOS knew or should have known through\n I1\n exercise of due diligence, has a history of engaging in violations of law or\n other conduct inconsistent with an effective program to prevent and detect\n violations of law; however, NSF acknowledges and agrees that COSMOS "\n intends to retain Dr. Robert Yin as President and Karen Kaufinan-Yin as\n I\n CFO during the term of this Compliance Program ;\n (d) COSMOS has made reasonable steps to communicate its compliance\n standards and procedures to relevant employees through effective training I!\n\n programs and otherwise disseminating information appropriate to such\n individuals\' respective roles and responsibilities;\n (e) COSMOS took reasonable steps to ensure that its program to prevent and\n detect violations of law is followed, to evaluate the effectiveness of the ,\n compliance standards and procedures, and to provide a system whereby\n COSMOS\'s employees and agents may report or seek guidance regarding,,\n potential or actual violations of law without fear of retaliation, including\n mechanisms that allow for anonymous reporting;\n\x0c (f) COSMOS\'S program to prevent and detect violations of law was enforced\n consistently through appropriate incentives and as necessary disciplinary\n measures for employees engaging in violations of law and for failing to take 1\n reasonable steps to prevent or detect violations of law; and\n (g) COSMOS has taken reasonable steps, if a violation of law was detected, to\n respond appropriately and to prevent future violations of law, including I\n\n\n making any necessary changes to the program for preventing and detecting\n violations of law.\n\nCOSMOS will provide NSF OIG with a copy of the written report and findings of the annual\nindependent audit. COSMOS waives the right to claim that any final reports resulting from the\nindependent annual audits as described above constitute attorney work product.\n\n 9. Any and all reviews and audits conducted at COSMOS, which reveal situations that\nmight constitute or indicate noncompliance with NSF Award requirements, are to be timely\ndisclosed to the entity or individual conducting the annual independent audit and the Compliance\nOfficer. i\n\n\n C. Annual Written Reporting\n\n 10. COSMOS will annually provide NSF OIG with a written report identifying\ndeficiencies discovered by internal audits or any other audit or review related to NSF Awards and\nthe corrective actions that COSMOS has undertaken to address such deficiencies. Such reports\nshall be due one (1) year after execution of the Settlement Agreement and for each of the three (3)\nyears thereafter. This report on COSMOS\'S corrective actions related to NSF Awards shall\ninclude a certification by COSMOS\'S Compliance Officer that all deficiencies have been\naddressed to ensure COSMOS\'S compliance with all requirements of Federal law, regulations,\nrelated to NSF Awards and this Compliance Program.\n\n 11. All audit work papers or other supporting documents for audits or reviews of\ncompliance with this Compliance Program shall be retained by COSMOS for three (3) years\nfollowing the expiration of obligations under the Settlement Agreement and shall bl\'e made\navailable to NSF and NSF OIG upon request. ?\n 12. A "material violation" is one that has a significant adverse impact on the\nadministrative, financial, or programmatic aspects supported by NSF Awards. Cosmos shall report\nto the NSF OIG within thirty (30) days of determining that a material violation has occurred when\na material violation has been discovered during any audit, review or otherwise. The report shall\nalso contain the corrective action that COSMOS has taken andlor plans to take to remedy the\nmaterial violation. If COSMOS cannot cure any such material violation within thirty (30) days of\nits initial report, COSMOS will so inform NSF OIG of such within the thirty (30) days following\nCOSMOS\'S knowledge of such violation and provide regular status reports thereafter until such\nmaterial violation has been resolved or otherwise cured. For all material violations, COSMOS will\nreport its findings concerning the material violation, its actions to correct such material violation,\nand any further steps COSMOS plans to take to address such material violation and prevent it from\nrecurring in the future.\n\n 4 !\n\x0c D. Training\n\n 13. COSMOS shall institute and maintain a comprehensive training program designed\n to ensure that each officer and relevant employee is aware of all applicable laws, regulation, grant\n conditions and standards of conduct that such individual is expected to follow when participating\n in any way with NSF Awards, and any relevant independent contractor, sub-contractor, and sub-\n I1\n recipient, and relevant employees thereof, is aware of all applicable laws, regulations, and\n standards of conduct that such individual is expected to follow in reporting to NSF on Awards, and\n the consequences both to the individual and COSMOS that will ensue from any violation of such\n requirements. Each officer and other relevant employee or independent contractor or sub-recipient\n shall receive at least two (2) hours of initial training that shall include a discussion of the dontents\n, of this Compliance Program as well as the relevant Award requirements, and shall receive\n\n additional compliance training of at least two (2) hours on an annual basis. A schedule and topic\n outline of the training shall be included in the annual report submitted to NSF OIG under\n paragraphs 10-12 above. To meet its obligations hereunder, COSMOS shall be to\n provide copies of its training materials to senior management of any sub-recipient, independent\n contractor, or subcontractor, in lieu of conducting training for employees of such entities.\n\n E. Confidential Disclosure Program\n\n 14. To the extent permitted by the laws of the State of Maryland, COSMOS shall establish a\n confidential disclosure mechanism enabling COSMOS\'S employees and employees of COSMOS\'S\n independent contractors, sub-contractors, and sub-recipient to disclose anonymously to\n COSMOS\'s Compliance Officer any practices, procedures, or acts considered by the employee to\n be inappropriate or a potential violation of law, regulation, or other NSF Award requirement.\n COSMOS shall make the confidential disclosure mechanism known to each relevant empl"oyeeas\n part of the training described above. COSMOS shall require the internal review of all such\n credible disclosures and ensure that proper follow-up is conducted. COSMOS shall include in its\n annual report to NSF OIG, under paragraphs 10-12 above, a summary of communications received\n under the confidential disclosure program, and the results of the internal review and follob-up of\n such disclosures. To meet its obligations hereunder, COSMOS shall be permitted to provide\n information about its confidential disclosure program to senior management of any sub-recipient,\n independent contractor, or subcontractor.\n\n F. Subcontractors and Subrecipients\n\n 15. COSMOS confirms its commitment to adhere to the NSF\'s General Grant Conditions and\n I/\n other requirements incorporated therein by reference (including, but not limited to, the\n procurement standards identified in 2 CFR \xc2\xa7 21 5). COSMOS hrther confirms its commitment to\n incorporate all required flowdown provisions in its agreements with any sub-recipient, independent\n contractor, or subcontractor. The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for monitoring ,\n COSMOS\'s compliance with these requirements and will address the status of COSMOS\'s\n compliance in the annual reports to NSF.\n\x0c111. NSF OIG Inspection, Audit, and Review Rights\n\n 16. In addition to any other right that NSF OIG has pursuant to NSF Award conditions\nor other authority, NSF OIG may examine and copy COSMOS\'s records for the purpose of\nverifying and evaluating: (a) COSMOS\'S compliance with the terms of this Compliance Program;\nand (b) COSMOS\'s compliance with any NSF requirements. COSMOS shall make theirecords\navailable at any reasonable time for inspection, audit, andlor reproduction. Furthenribre, for\npurposes of this provision, NSF OIG may interview any relevant COSMOS emplbyee at\nCOSMOS\'s place of business during normal business hours or at such other place and time as may\nbe mutually agreed upon between the employee and NSF OIG. NSF OIG recognizes and\nacknowledges that COSMOS does not have the authority or power to compel any employee to\nconsent to an interview with the NSF OIG or anyone else, but COSMOS does agree to make\navailable company work space and time during normal business hours for any interview agreed to\nby an employee.\n\n 17. In the event that NSF OIG believes COSMOS has breached any of its obligations\nunder this Compliance Program, NSF OIG shall notify COSMOS of the alleged breach by email\nand certified mail (return receipt requested) to both COSMOS\'s Authorized Organizational\nRepresentative ("AOR") and its Compliance Officer, specifying the nature and extent of the\nalleged breach. COSMOS will have thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice to: (a) cure said\nbreach; or (b) otherwise satisfy NSF OIG that ( I ) it is in full compliance with this ~ o d ~ l i a n c e\nProgram or (2) the breach cannot be reasonably cured within thirty (30) days, but that COSMOS\nhas taken action to cure the breach and is pursuing such action with diligence.\n\n 18. If, at the end of the thirty (30) day period described above, NSF OIG determines\nthat COSMOS continues to be in breach of any of its obligations under this Compliance Program,\nNSF OIG may, by email sent to COSMOS\'s AOR and the Compliance Officer, state its position\nthat COSMOS is in default and refer the matter for NSF to initiate proceedings to undertake\nappropriate administrative action, including but not limited to the suspension or termination of any\nor all NSF Awards and/or suspension or debarment of COSMOS. COSMOS shall have all of the\nrights of any other federal contractor or grantee under law or regulation to respond to, address, or\ndispute any such action. t\n\n\n 19. Should any action to enforce or interpret this Compliance Program or to resolve any\ndispute hereunder be required, COSMOS acknowledges the jurisdiction of the federal courts.\nCOSMOS further agrees that, absent a breach of this Compliance Program and the Settlement\nAgreement to which it is attached and incorporated by reference, the execution of the said\nSettlement Agreement shall be final as to all matters alleged in the said Agreement.\n\nIV. Costs\n\n 20. COSMOS shall bear its own costs, expenses, and fees in relation to implementation\nof this Compliance Program.\n\x0c 21. All costs, whether direct or indirect, incurred by or on behalf of COSMOS in\n connection with the following are unallowable costs under the cost principles applicable to\n1\n government Awards (hereafter, "unallowable costs"):\n\n (1) the matters covered by this Compliance Program;\n (2) the negotiation of this Compliance Program and the Settlement Agreement\n (including attorney\'s fees) and,\n (3) any payments made pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. I)\n\n\n\nI\n 22. These unallowable costs will be separately estimated and accounted for by\nI COSMOS and COSMOS will not charge such unallowable costs directly or indirectly to any\n Federal Awards.\n\n V. Modification\n\n 23. Any modification to this Compliance Program shall not be effective until a written\n I\n amendment is signed by representatives duly authorized to execute such amendment. II\n\n\n\n VI. Integration Clause\n\n 24. This Compliance Program and the Settlement Agreement to which it is attached and\n incorporated by reference, embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with\n respect to the subject matter contained herein. There are no restrictions, promises, representations,\n warranties, covenants, or undertakings other than those expressly set forth or referred to in this\n Compliance Program and the Settlement Agreement. This Compliance Program, together with the\nI Settlement Agreement, supersedes any and all prior agreements and understandings between the\nI Parties with respect to this subject matter, except for the terms and conditions of individual\nI Awards.\nI I\n1\n 25. This Agreement will be deemed effective on the date that the Settlement Agreement\n is fully executed and expire after four (4) years and NSF\'s receipt of the final annual report,\n whichever is later. [I\n\x0c'


text:
 22.5.2010
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 134/9
 Tiesas (astotā palāta) 2010. gada 25. februāra rīkojums (Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugāle) lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu) — Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa/Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin Intrnational Ltd, agrāk Baw International Ltd, Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
 (Lieta C-55/08) (1)
 (Lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu - Nepieņemamība)
 2010/C 134/14
 Tiesvedības valoda — portugāļu
 Iesniedzējtiesa
 Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto
 Lietas dalībnieki pamata procesā
 Prasītājs: Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa
 Atbildētāji: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional, Bwin Intrnational Ltd, agrāk Baw International Ltd, Betandwin.Com Interactive Entertainment
 Priekšmets
 Lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu — Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto — EKL 43. 49. un 56. panta interpretācija — Valsts tiesiskais regulējums, ar kuru noteiktai organizācijai tiek rezervētas ekskluzīvas tiesības rīkot azartspēles un loterijas un derību par sporta pasākumiem rīkošana, reklamēšana un likmju pieņemšana, tai skaitā internetā, tiek uzskatītas par likumpārkāpumu — Aizliegums uzņēmumam, kas nodarbojas ar derību un loteriju rīkošanu tiešsaistē un kura juridiskā adrese ir citā dalībvalstī, reklamēt un rīkot šīs derības un loterijas internetā un nodot vinnētāju rīcībā balvu vērtību
 Rezolutīvā daļa:
 Ar 2007. gada 19. decembra lēmumu iesniegtais Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu ir acīmredzami nepieņemams.
 (1) OV C 92, 12.04.2008.


type: legislation

text:
 20.3.2009
 FR
 Journal officiel de l’Union européenne
 C 67/1
 Décision no 12/2005 (1) de la Cour des comptes des Communautés européennes du 10 mars 2005 relative à l'accès du public aux documents de la Cour
 (2009/C 67/01)
 LA COUR DES COMPTES DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES,
 vu son règlement intérieur (2), et notamment l'article 30 de celui-ci,
 vu le règlement (CE, Euratom) no 1605/2002 du Conseil portant règlement financier applicable au budget général des Communautés européennes (3), et notamment ses articles 143, paragraphe 2, et 144, paragraphe 1,
 considérant que le traité sur l'Union européenne consacre la notion de transparence dans son article 1er, deuxième alinéa, qui dispose que le traité marque une nouvelle étape dans le processus créant une union sans cesse plus étroite entre les peuples de l'Europe, dans laquelle les décisions sont prises dans le plus grand respect possible du principe d'ouverture et le plus près possible des citoyens;
 considérant que, dans la déclaration commune (4) concernant le règlement (CE) no 1049/2001 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 30 mai 2001 relatif à l'accès du public aux documents du Parlement européen, du Conseil et de la Commission (5), le Parlement européen, le Conseil et la Commission demandent aux autres institutions d'adopter des règles internes concernant l'accès du public aux documents, qui tiennent compte des principes et limites définis dans ledit règlement;
 considérant que la décision no 18/97 de la Cour des comptes portant règles internes relatives au traitement des demandes d'accès aux documents dont dispose la Cour (6) est antérieure au règlement (CE) no 1049/2001 et qu'elle devrait être révisée à la lumière de ce dernier, ainsi que de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes et du Tribunal de première instance;
 considérant que la transparence renforce la légitimité, l'efficacité et la responsabilité de l'administration, ainsi que, par suite, les principes de la démocratie; qu'à cette fin, il conviendrait de promouvoir de bonnes pratiques administratives concernant l'accès aux documents;
 considérant que certains intérêts publics et privés doivent toutefois être garantis par le biais d'un régime d'exceptions au principe de l'accès du public aux documents, et qu'il importe de respecter pleinement les normes internationales d'audit en matière de confidentialité des informations relatives aux audits,
 DÉCIDE:
 Article premier
 Objet
 La présente décision vise à définir les conditions, les limites et les procédures dans le cadre desquelles la Cour des comptes (ci-après «la Cour») permet au public d'accéder aux documents dont elle dispose.
 Article 2
 Bénéficiaires et champ d'application
 1. Dans le cadre des dispositions que renferme la présente décision et des normes internationales régissant la confidentialité des informations relatives aux audits, tout citoyen de l'Union et toute autre personne physique ou morale domiciliée ou ayant son siège dans un État membre a un droit d'accès aux documents de la Cour, sous réserve des principes, conditions et limites définis dans la présente décision.
 2. Sous réserve des mêmes principes, conditions et limites, la Cour peut octroyer l'accès aux documents à toute personne physique ou morale non domiciliée ou n'ayant pas son siège dans un État membre.
 3. La présente décision s'applique à tous les documents détenus par la Cour, c'est-à-dire établis ou reçus par elle et en sa possession.
 4. La présente décision s'entend sans préjudice des droits d'accès du public aux documents détenus par la Cour, découlant éventuellement d'instruments du droit international ou d'actes communautaires adoptés en application de ces instruments.
 Article 3
 Définitions
 Aux fins de la présente décision, on entend par:
 a)
 «document»: tout contenu, quel qu'en soit le support (écrit sur support papier ou stocké sous forme électronique, enregistrement sonore, visuel ou audiovisuel);
 b)
 «tiers»: toute personne physique ou morale ou entité extérieure à la Cour, y inclus les États membres, les autres institutions et organes communautaires ou non communautaires, et les pays tiers.
 Article 4
 Exceptions
 1. La Cour refuse l'accès à un document dans le cas où la divulgation porterait atteinte à la protection:
 a)
 de l'intérêt public, à savoir, entre autres:
 —
 la sécurité publique,
 —
 la défense et les affaires militaires,
 —
 les relations internationales,
 —
 la politique financière, monétaire ou économique de la Communauté ou d'un État membre;
 b)
 de la vie privée et de l'intégrité de l'individu, notamment en conformité avec la législation communautaire relative à la protection des données à caractère personnel.
 2. Conformément à l'obligation de confidentialité édictée aux articles 143, paragraphe 2, et 144, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE, Euratom) no 1605/2002 du Conseil portant règlement financier applicable au budget général des Communautés européennes, ainsi que dans les dispositions correspondantes d'autres instruments du droit communautaire, la Cour refuse l'accès aux observations formulées dans le cadre de ses audits. Elle peut également refuser l'accès aux documents utilisés pour l'élaboration desdites observations.
 3. La Cour refuse l'accès à un document dans le cas où sa divulgation porterait atteinte à la protection:
 —
 des intérêts commerciaux d'une personne physique ou morale déterminée, y compris en ce qui concerne la propriété intellectuelle,
 —
 des procédures juridictionnelles et des avis juridiques,
 —
 des activités d'inspection, d'enquête et d'audit.
 4. L'accès à un document établi par la Cour pour son usage interne ou reçu par elle et qui a trait à une question n'ayant encore fait l'objet d'aucune décision, est refusé dans le cas où sa divulgation compromettrait le processus décisionnel de la Cour.
 Même après que la décision sur la question examinée a été arrêtée, l'accès à un document contenant des avis destinés à un usage interne et émis dans le cadre de délibérations et de consultations préliminaires au sein de la Cour est refusé dans le cas où la divulgation du document compromettrait le processus décisionnel de la Cour.
 5. Lorsque la demande porte sur un document détenu par la Cour, mais dont elle n'est pas l'auteur, la Cour accuse réception de la demande et indique la personne, l'institution ou l'organe à qui la demande doit être adressée.
 6. Si une partie seulement du document demandé est concernée par une ou plusieurs des exceptions susmentionnées, les autres parties du document sont divulguées.
 7. Les exceptions visées au présent article s'appliquent sans préjudice des dispositions du règlement (CEE, Euratom) no 354/83 du Conseil (7) relatives à l'accès public aux archives historiques des Communautés.
 8. Nonobstant les exceptions énoncées dans le présent article, la Cour peut décider d'octroyer l'accès à un document, en tout ou partie, si un intérêt public supérieur justifie la divulgation du document en cause.
 Article 5
 Demandes d'accès
 Les demandes d'accès aux documents doivent être formulées par écrit (8), sur support papier ou par des moyens électroniques, dans l'une des langues énumérées à l'article 314 du traité CE (9) et de façon suffisamment précise pour permettre à la Cour d'identifier le document. Le demandeur n'est pas tenu de justifier sa demande.
 Article 6
 Traitement des demandes initiales
 1. Les demandes d'accès aux documents sont traitées par le directeur du «Soutien à l’audit et communication». Il envoie un accusé de réception au demandeur, examine la demande et décide de la suite à lui donner.
 2. En fonction de l'objet de la demande, le directeur du «Soutien à l’audit et communication» informe et, le cas échéant, consulte le membre compétent, le secrétaire général, le service juridique ou le délégué à la protection des données avant de décider si le document peut être divulgué.
 3. Les demandes d'accès aux documents sont traitées avec promptitude. Dans un délai de quinze jours ouvrables à compter de l'enregistrement de la demande, la Cour soit octroie l'accès au document demandé suivant les modalités prévues à l'article 9, soit communique au demandeur, dans une réponse écrite, les motifs de son refus total ou partiel et l'informe de son droit de demander à la Cour de revoir sa position, conformément aux dispositions de l'article 7.
 4. En cas de demande portant sur un document très long ou sur un très grand nombre de documents, la Cour peut se concerter avec le demandeur de manière informelle afin de trouver un arrangement approprié. En l'occurrence, le délai prévu au paragraphe 3 peut, moyennant information préalable du demandeur et motivation, être prolongé de quinze jours ouvrables.
 Article 7
 Demande de réexamen
 1. En cas de refus total ou partiel, le demandeur peut, dans un délai de quinze jours ouvrables suivant la réception de la réponse de la Cour, demander à celle-ci de revoir sa position.
 2. L'absence de réponse de la Cour dans le délai imparti habilite également le demandeur à présenter une demande de réexamen.
 Article 8
 Traitement des demandes de réexamen
 1. Les demandes de réexamen sont adressées au président de la Cour. Selon le sujet à traiter, le président de la Cour consulte le membre compétent ou le secrétaire général; le cas échéant, il peut également consulter le service juridique ou le délégué à la protection des données avant de statuer sur la divulgation du document demandé.
 2. Les demandes de réexamen sont traitées avec promptitude. Dans un délai de quinze jours ouvrables à partir de l'enregistrement de la demande, la Cour soit octroie l'accès au document demandé et le fournit suivant les modalités prévues à l'article 9, soit communique, dans une réponse écrite, les motifs de son refus total ou partiel. Si elle refuse totalement ou partiellement l'accès, la Cour informe le demandeur des voies de recours dont il dispose, à savoir former un recours juridictionnel contre la Cour et/ou présenter une plainte au Médiateur, selon les conditions prévues respectivement aux articles 230 et 195 du traité CE.
 3. À titre exceptionnel, par exemple lorsque la demande porte sur un document très long ou sur un très grand nombre de documents, le délai prévu au paragraphe 2 peut, moyennant information préalable du demandeur et motivation, être prolongé de quinze jours ouvrables.
 4. L'absence de réponse de la Cour dans le délai imparti est considérée comme une réponse négative et habilite le demandeur à utiliser les voies de recours visées au paragraphe 2.
 Article 9
 Accès à la suite d'une demande
 1. Le demandeur peut consulter les documents auxquels la Cour a octroyé l'accès, soit au siège de la Cour à Luxembourg, soit par délivrance d'une copie, y compris, le cas échéant, une copie électronique. Dans le premier cas, la date et l'heure de la consultation sont à convenir entre le demandeur et le directeur du «Soutien à l’audit et communication».
 2. Le coût de la réalisation et de l'envoi des copies peut être mis à la charge du demandeur. Il ne peut excéder le coût réel de ces opérations. La gratuité est de règle en cas de consultation sur place, lorsque le nombre de copies n'excède pas vingt pages A4, ainsi qu'en cas d'accès direct aux documents sous forme électronique.
 3. Si un document est accessible au public, la Cour peut satisfaire à son obligation d'octroyer l'accès au document souhaité en informant le demandeur des moyens d'obtenir celui-ci.
 4. Les documents sont fournis dans une version et sous une forme existantes (y compris électroniquement ou sous une autre forme), compte tenu de la préférence du demandeur. La Cour n'est pas tenue de créer un nouveau document ou de collecter des informations à la requête du demandeur.
 Article 10
 Reproduction de documents
 1. Les documents divulgués en vertu de la présente décision ne peuvent être reproduits ou utilisés à des fins commerciales sans l'autorisation écrite préalable de la Cour.
 2. La présente décision s'applique sans préjudice de toute réglementation en vigueur dans le domaine du droit d'auteur pouvant limiter le droit du destinataire de reproduire ou d'utiliser les documents divulgués.
 Article 11
 Dispositions finales
 1. La décision no 18/97 de la Cour des comptes du 20 février 1997 est abrogée.
 2. La présente décision est publiée au Journal officiel de l'Union européenne.
 3. Elle entre en vigueur le premier jour du mois suivant celui de son adoption.
 Fait à Luxembourg, le 10 mars 2005.
 Par la Cour des comptes
 Hubert WEBER
 Président
 (1) Telle que modifiée par la décision no 14/2009 adoptée par la Cour en sa réunion du 5 février 2009.
 (2) JO L 18 du 20.1.2005, p. 1.
 (3) JO L 248 du 16.9.2002, p. 1.
 (4) JO L 173 du 27.6.2001, p. 5.
 (5) JO L 145 du 31.5.2001, p. 43.
 (6) JO C 295 du 23.9.1998, p. 1.
 (7) Règlement (CEE, Euratom) no 354/83 du Conseil, modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) no 1700/2003 du Conseil (JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1).
 (8) Elles doivent être adressées à la Cour des comptes européenne, Directeur du «Soutien à l’audit et communication», 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi, 1615 Luxembourg, LUXEMBOURG. Fax (+352) 43 93 42, courriel: euraud@eca.europa.eu
 (9) Actuellement: allemand, anglais, bulgare, danois, espagnol, estonien, finnois, français, grec, hongrois, irlandais, italien, letton, lituanien, maltais, néerlandais, polonais, portugais, roumain, slovaque, slovène, suédois et tchèque.


type: contracts

text:
 8.9.2015
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 L 234/3
 SPORAZUM
 u obliku razmjene pisama između Europske unije i Komisije za očuvanje južne plavoperajne tune (CCSBT) u vezi s članstvom Unije u proširenoj komisiji Konvencije za očuvanje južne plavoperajne tune
 Poštovani,
 čast mi je obratiti Vam se u vezi s Rezolucijom o osnivanju proširene komisije i proširenog znanstvenog odbora (dalje u tekstu „Rezolucija”), kako je izmijenjena na 20. sastanku CCSBT-a u listopadu 2013.
 Stavkom 6. Rezolucije utvrđeno je da svaka organizacija za regionalnu gospodarsku integraciju, subjekt ili ribarski subjekt, pod čijom zastavom plove plovila koja su u bilo kojem trenutku u prethodne tri kalendarske godine lovila južnu plavoperajnu tunu, izvršnom tajniku Komisije može izraziti svoju spremnost da postane član proširene komisije i proširenog znanstvenog odbora. U tu će svrhu izvršni tajnik CCSBT-a u ime Komisije provesti razmjenu pisama s predstavnikom te organizacije za regionalnu gospodarsku integraciju, tog subjekta ili ribarskog subjekta.
 U odnosu na stavak 8. Rezolucije, nema promjena u pogledu prava EU-a na kvotu od 10 tona za godine 2015.-2017.
 Bio bih Vam zahvalan ako biste potvrdili primitak ovog pisma te potvrdili da ovo pismo i Vaš odgovor predstavljaju Sporazum između CCSBT-a i Europske unije kojima ona postaje članica proširene komisije CCSBT-a i proširenog znanstvenog odbora u skladu s odredbama sadržanima u gore navedenoj Rezoluciji.
 EU bi željela istaknuti svoju čvrstu predanost nastavku poštovanja uvjeta Konvencije CCSBT-a i odluka proširene komisije.
 Ovaj se Sporazum privremeno primjenjuje od dana koji slijedi nakon dana Vašeg odgovora do obavijesti Unije o završetku postupaka za njegovo sklapanje.
 Molim Vas da primite izraze mojeg najdubljeg poštovanja.
 Za Europsku uniju
 Poštovani,
 čast mi je s današnjim datumom potvrditi primitak Vašega pisma koje glasi:
 „čast mi je obratiti Vam se u vezi s Rezolucijom o osnivanju proširene komisije i proširenog znanstvenog odbora (dalje u tekstu ‚Rezolucija’), kako je izmijenjena na 20. sastanku CCSBT-a u listopadu 2013.
 Stavkom 6. Rezolucije utvrđeno je da svaka organizacija za regionalnu gospodarsku integraciju, subjekt ili ribarski subjekt, pod čijom zastavom plove plovila koja su u bilo kojem trenutku u prethodne tri kalendarske godine lovila južnu plavoperajnu tunu, izvršnom tajniku Komisije može izraziti svoju spremnost da postane član proširene komisije i proširenog znanstvenog odbora. U tu će svrhu izvršni tajnik CCSBT-a u ime Komisije provesti razmjenu pisama s predstavnikom te organizacije za regionalnu gospodarsku integraciju, tog subjekta ili ribarskog subjekta.
 U odnosu na stavak 8. Rezolucije, nema promjena u pogledu prava EU-a na kvotu od 10 tona za godine 2015.-2017.
 Bio bih Vam zahvalan ako biste potvrdili primitak ovog pisma te potvrdili da ovo pismo i Vaš odgovor predstavljaju Sporazum između CCSBT-a i Europske unije kojim ona postaje članica proširene komisije CCSBT-a i proširenog znanstvenog odbora u skladu s odredbama sadržanima u gore navedenoj Rezoluciji.
 EU bi željela istaknuti svoju čvrstu predanost nastavku poštovanja uvjeta Konvencije CCSBT-a i odluka proširene komisije.
 Ovaj se Sporazum privremeno primjenjuje od dana koji slijedi nakon dana Vašeg odgovora do obavijesti Unije o završetku postupaka za njegovo sklapanje.”.
 Čast mi je potvrditi da Vaše pismo i ovaj odgovor predstavljaju Sporazum između CCSBT-a i Europske unije kojim ona postaje članica proširene komisije CCSBT i proširenog znanstvenog odbora.
 Molim Vas da primite izraze mojeg najdubljeg poštovanja.
 Za CCSBT,


text:
Nr. L 176/4 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 10 . 7. 90
 BESCHLUSS Nr. 1 /90 DES GEMISCHTEN AUSSCHUSSES EWG-FINNLAND
 vom 11 . April 1990
 zur Änderung des Protokolls Nr, 3 über die Bestimmung des Begriffs
 „Erzeugnisse mit Ursprung in" oder „Ursprungserzeugnisse" und über die
 Methoden der Zusammenarbeit der Verwaltungen infolge der Aussetzung der in
 der Zehnergemeinschaft und in Finnland anwendbaren Zollsätze auf Einfuhren
 aus Spanien
 DER GEMISCHTE AUSSCHUSS — in der übrigen Gemeinschaft ; damit erübrigt sich die
 Kennzeichnung spanischer Erzeugnisse —
 gestützt auf das am 5. Oktober 1973 in Brüssel unter
 zeichnete Abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Wirt
 schaftsgemeinschaft und der Republik Finnland, BESCHLIESST ;
 gestützt auf das Protokoll Nr. 3 über die Bestimmung des
 Begriffs „Erzeugnisse mit Ursprung in" oder „Ursprungs Artikel 1
 erzeugnisse" und über die Methoden der Zusammenarbeit
 der Verwaltungen, nachstehend „Protokoll Nr. 3" genannt, Das Protokoll Nr. 3 wird wie folgt geändert :
 insbesondere auf Artikel 28,
 1 . Artikel 24 und Artikel 25 Absatz 2 werden aufgehoben.
 in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe :
 2. In Anhang V erhält der letzte Satz der Fußnote Nr. 1
 Aufgrund der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 1673/89 und der folgende Fassung :
 Entscheidung 89/372/EGKS des Rates der Europäischen „Sind in einer Rechnung auch Waren aufgeführt, die
 Gemeinschaften wird die Erhebung bestimmter Zölle, die im Sinne des Artikels 19 des Protokolls Ursprungser
 in der Zehnergemeinschaft auf Einfuhren aus Spanien zeugnisse der Kanarischen Inseln, Ceutas oder Melillas
 anwendbar sind, ab 1 . Juli 1989 vollständig ausgesetzt. sind, so hat sie der Ausführer deutlich mit der Kurzbe
 Im Anschluß an den Beitritt des Königreichs Spanien zeichnung ,CCM' zu kennzeichnen."
 und der Portugiesischen Republik zur Gemeinschaft
 wurde ein drittes Zusatzprotokoll zum Abkommen Artikel 2
 zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und
 Finnland genehmigt ; dieses Protokoll sieht ebenfalls die Dieser Beschluß tritt am 1 . Juli 1989 in Kraft.
 Aussetzung der geltenden Zollsätze für unter das
 Abkommen fallende Waren vor, die von Spanien nach
 Finnland eingeführt werden. Finnland wendet die Geschehen zu Brüssel am 11 . April 1990 .
 Bestimmungen des dritten Zusatzprotokolls bis zu seiner
 Ratifizierung bereits seit dem 1 . Juli 1989 autonom an.
 Für den Gemischten Ausschuß
 Im Rahmen des genannten Abkommens hat dies zur Der Vorsitzende
 Folge, daß den spanischen Waren dieselbe Vörzugsbe
 handlung eingeräumt wird wie den Waren mit Ursprung R. COHEN


text:
 9.10.2010
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 274/14
 Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Consiglio di Stato (L-Italja) fit-30 ta’ Lulju 2010 — Elenca Srl vs Ministero dell’Interno
 (Kawża C-385/10)
 ()
 2010/C 274/21
 Lingwa tal-kawża: it-Taljan
 Qorti tar-rinviju
 Consiglio di Stato
 Partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali
 Rikorrenti: Elenca Srl
 Konvenut: Ministero dell’Interno.
 Domandi preliminari
 (1)
 Iċ-ċirkolari kkontestat fl-ewwel istanza u r-regoli nazzjonali li ssir referenza għalihom huma kompatibbli mal-liġi Komunitarja u mar-regoli li ssir referenza speċifika għalihom? B’mod partikolari, iċ-ċirkolari u r-regoli nazzjonali jiksru l-prinċipji u r-regoli stabbiliti mid-Direttiva 89/106/KEE (1) dwar il-prodotti għall-bini, li bl-ebda mod ma timponi l-użu tas-simbolu KE, iżda, għall-kuntrarju, tipprovdi, (fl-Artikolu 6(1) u (2)) li l-Istati Membri “ma għandhomx iwaqqfu il-moviment liberu, it-tqegħid fis-suq jew l-użu fit-territorju tagħhom ta’ prodotti li jissodisfaw id-dispożizzjonijiet” ta’ din id-direttiva, u għandhom jiżguraw li, “l-użu ta’ prodotti bħal dawn, għall-għan li ġew maħsuba għalih, ma jitwaqqfux minn regoli jew kundizzjonijiet imposti minn korpi pubbliċi jew korpi privati li jaġixxu bħala impriża pubblika jew f’isem korp pubbliku fuq bażi tal-pożizzjoni ta’ monopolju” u jippermettu li “prodotti mhux koperti b’Artiklu 4 (2) jitqiegħdu fis-suq fit-territorju tagħhom jekk jissodisfaw id-dispożizzjonijiet nazzjonali konsistenti mat-Trattat sakemm ma jingħatax lok mod ieħor mill-ispeċifikazzjonijiet tekniċi Ewropej li għalihom jirreferi l-Kapitoli II u III”?
 (2)
 Iċ-ċirkolari kkontestat u r-regoli nazzjonali invokati fih jiksru, b’mod partikolari, l-Artikoli 28 sa 31 tat-Trattat KE, li jipprojbixxu restrizzjonijiet fuq importazzjonijiet u miżuri li għandhom effett ekwivalenti, sa fejn jissuġġettaw il-kummerċjalizzazzjoni ta’ prodott li joriġina minn Stat Membru Komunitarju ieħor, bħal fil-każ preżenti, għal rekwiżit tekniku, speċifikament, l-użu tas-simbolu KE — possibbli u legali biss jekk ikun hemm standard armonizzat korrispondenti — li jwassal għal projbizzjoni tal-importazzjoni u d-distribuzzjoni tal-prodott inkwistjoni fuq it-territorju tal-Italja, bi ksur tal-prinċipji stabbiliti mill-imsemmija dispożizzjonijiet tat-Trattat KE u mil-liġi Komunitarja, li jiżguraw kompetizzjoni ħielsa, billi jeżiġu prinċipji adegwati li jiżguraw trattament ugwali, kif ukoll trasparenza, proporzjonalità u rispett tad-drittijiet ta’ kull impriża?
 (3)
 Skont ir-regoli Komunitarji ta’ kompetizzjoni effettiva fil-qasam li jirrigwarda din il-kawża, il-parlament nazzjonali u l-awtoritajiet amministrattivi kellhom jevitaw milli jadottaw il-miżuri leġiżlattivi li ssir referenza għalihom fiċ-ċirkolari u fid-Digriet Leġiżlattiv Nru 152/2006?
 (4)
 Fl-aħħar, il-pluraliżmu u l-kompetizzjoni fil-qasam inkwistjoni li huma żgurati mil-liġi Ewropea, huma protetti mir-regoli nazzjonali — bħad-Digriet Leġiżlattiv Nru 152/2006 (b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 285 u l-paragrafi 2.7 u 3.4 tal-Anness IX tat-Taqsima II) — li jistabbilixxu u jimponu r-restrizzjonijiet imsemmija iktar ’il fuq?
 (1) ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 13, Vol. 9, p. 296.


text:
 15.12.2016
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 L 341/62
 DECISIÓN DEL COMITÉ MIXTO DEL EEE
 N.o 163/2015
 de 11 de junio de 2015
 por la que se modifica el anexo XIII (Transportes) del Acuerdo EEE [2016/2198]
 EL COMITÉ MIXTO DEL EEE,
 Visto el Acuerdo sobre el Espacio Económico Europeo, en lo sucesivo, «Acuerdo EEE», y en particular su artículo 98,
 Considerando lo siguiente:
 (1)
 Debe incorporarse al Acuerdo EEE el Reglamento (UE) 2015/445 de la Comisión, de 17 de marzo de 2015, que modifica el Reglamento (UE) n.o 1178/2011 por el que se establecen requisitos técnicos y procedimientos administrativos relacionados con el personal de vuelo de la aviación civil (1).
 (2)
 Procede, por tanto, modificar en consecuencia el anexo XIII del Acuerdo EEE.
 HA ADOPTADO LA PRESENTE DECISIÓN:
 Artículo 1
 El punto 66ne [Reglamento (UE) n.o 1178/2011 de la Comisión] del anexo XIII del Acuerdo EEE se modifica como sigue:
 1)
 En el primer guion [Reglamento (UE) n.o 290/2012 de la Comisión], se añade lo siguiente:
 «, modificado por:
 —
 32015 R 0445: Reglamento (UE) 2015/445 de la Comisión, de 17 de marzo de 2015 (DO L 74 de 18.3.2015, p. 1).».
 2)
 Se añade el siguiente guion:
 «—
 32015 R 0445: Reglamento (UE) 2015/445 de la Comisión, de 17 de marzo de 2015 (DO L 74 de 18.3.2015, p. 1).»
 Artículo 2
 Los textos del Reglamento (UE) 2015/445 en lenguas islandesa y noruega, que se publicarán en el Suplemento EEE del Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea, son auténticos.
 Artículo 3
 La presente Decisión entrará en vigor el 12 de junio de 2015, siempre que se hayan transmitido al Comité Mixto del EEE todas las notificaciones previstas en el artículo 103, apartado 1, del Acuerdo EEE (*1).
 Artículo 4
 La presente Decisión se publicará en la sección EEE y en el Suplemento EEE del Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea.
 Hecho en Bruselas, el 11 de junio de 2015.
 Por el Comité Mixto del EEE
 El Presidente
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) DO L 74 de 18.3.2015, p. 1.
 (*1) No se han indicado preceptos constitucionales.


text:
Csilla Hegedüs (born 9 September 1967) is a Romanian politician and member of the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR) who served as Minister of Culture and Deputy Prime Minister in the Victor Ponta cabinet from November to December 2014. She was also State Secretary within the same ministry from March to November 2014.
 In 1997, Hegedüs graduated with an economics degree from Babeș-Bolyai University; she had undertaken studies in tourism and business management at Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University. She also has a degree in adult education from the University of Pécs, which she attained in 2009. From 1997 to March 2014, she headed the Transylvania Trust Foundation, meant to preserve buildings in Transylvania. Subsequently, she became a state secretary at the Culture Ministry in March 2014, and was promoted to minister that November. She left her cabinet positions the following month when her party quit the government.
 Notes
 External links
 Official site
 Living people
 1967 births
 Politicians from Cluj-Napoca
 Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania politicians
 Deputy Prime Ministers of Romania
 Romanian Ministers of Culture
 21st-century Romanian women politicians
 21st-century Romanian politicians


text:
Θεοτόκος είναι μία ελληνική λέξη, θρησκευτική προσαγόρευση, που σημαίνει "Εκείνη που τίκτει Θεό", (το δεύτερο συνθετικό -τόκος προέρχεται από το ρήμα τίκτω που σημαίνει γεννώ). Η προσαγόρευση Θεοτόκος (ως και Θεομήτωρ) χρησιμοποιήθηκαν από την πρωτοχριστιανική Εκκλησία για το πρόσωπο της Μαρίας της μητέρας του Ιησού Χριστού και καθιερώθηκε στην Γ' Οικουμενική Σύνοδο ενώ θεσμοθετήθηκε η γενική αποδοχή από τις Δ' και Ε' Οικουμενικές Συνόδους.
 Θεοτόκος και πρωτοχριστιανική Εκκλησία
 Πολλοί Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας χρησιμοποίησαν τον "τίτλο" Θεοτόκος τουλάχιστον από τον τρίτο αιώνα μ.Χ.
 Ο Ωριγένης το 230 μ.Χ. χρησιμοποίησε πρώτος το όνομα της Παρθένου Θεοτόκος. ερμηνεύοντας το κβ':23 του Δευτερονομίου, «την ήδη μεμνηστευμένην γυναίκα καλεί ούτω και επί του Ιωσήφ και της Θεοτόκου ελέχθη». Ο Ωριγένης, που κατακρίθηκε για άλλες κακοδοξίες του, δεν κατακρίθηκε για το όνομα Θεοτόκος, πράγμα που θα συνέβαινε, αν αυτό ήταν κάποια καινούρια προσφώνηση και όχι παλαιά.
 Ο Διονύσιος ο Αλεξανδρείας το 250 μ.Χ. σε επιστολή του προς τον Παύλο τον Σαμοσατέα λέγει: «τον σαρκωθέντα εκ της Αγίας Παρθένου και Θεοτόκου Μαρίας». Ο Γρηγόριος ο Νεοκαισαρείας ο θαυματουργός το 275 (λόγος εις τον Ευαγγελισμόν) λέει: «ταύτης ουν της προφητείας την ωδήν η Αγία Θεοτόκος ανέπεμπε λέγουσα, Μεγαλύνει ή ψυχή μου τον Κύριον κτλ.».
 Ο Ιερός Μεθόδιος επίσκοπος Πατάρων και εκκλησιαστικός συγγραφέας (το 300-311) λέει: «Και δη λαβομένη η Θεοτόκος τον εκ του αχράντου και παναμώμου αυτής θυσιαστηρίου σαρκωθέντα ζωοποιόν και ανέκφραστον άνθρακα, ως λαβίδι...» Και αλλού: «επί τούτοις παρρησιασάμενος ο δίκαιος, και τη προτροπή είξας της διακονησαμένης Θεώ προς ανθρώπους θεομήτορος...» Και αλλού πάλι «τι προς σε φθέγξομαι, ω μήτερ παρθένε, και παρθένε μήτερ; Πατρικοίς σε ύμνοις προσφθέγξομαι, θύγατερ Δαυίδ και μήτερ του Κυρίου και Θεού Δαυίδ... ω πασών γενεών υψηλοτέρα και πάντων ορατών τε και αοράτων δημιουργημάτων τιμιωτέρα φανείσα, διά σου γέγονε Κύριος ο Θεός των δυνάμεων μεθ' ημών. Εύγε εύγε εύγε Μήτερ Θεού, και δούλη».
 Ο Αλεξανδρείας Αλέξανδρος το 320, σε επιστολή προς τον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Αλέξανδρον τον επί της Α' οικουμενικής αγίας Συνόδου, και ο Άμμων Επίσκοπος Αδριανουπόλεως, ονόμαζαν την Παρθένο Θεοτόκο. Και ο Παμφίλου Ευσέβιος το 320 (εν βίω Κωνσταντίνου κεφ. μγ'.) λέει: «Διό δη βασιλίς η θεοσεβεστάτη (Ελένη), της Θεοτόκου την κύησιν (ήτοι την Βηθλεέμ), μνήμασι θαυμαστοίς κατεκόσμοι». Επίσης ο ίδιος ονομάζει την Παρθένο Μητέρα Θεού, λέγων «ανάγκη γαρ τον δημιουργόν των έργων αυτού κήδεσθαι, επεί δε κοσμικώ σώματι πλησιάζειν εν τε τη γη χρονίζειν έμελλε, της χρείας τούτο απαιτούσης, νέαν τινά γέννησιν εαυτού εμηχανήσατο, χωρίς γαρ τοι γάμων σύλληψις, και Αγνής παρθενίας ειλείθυια, και Θεού μήτηρ, κόρη κτλ.» (βλ. αυτόθι σ. 162).
 Ο Μέγας Αθανάσιος το 330 λέει «και αυτός δε ο Άγγελος δρώμενος ομολογεί απεστάλθαι παρά του δεσπότου, ως επί Ζαχαρίου ο Γαβριήλ, και επί της Θεοτόκου Μαρίας ο αυτός ωμολόγησε». Και πάλι «σκοπός τοίνυν ούτος και χαρακτήρ της αγίας Γραφής, ως πολλάκις είπομεν, διπλήν είναι την περί του Σωτήρας επαγγελίαν εν αυτή ότι τε αεί Θεός ων και υιός εστί, λόγος ων και απαύγασμα και σοφία του Πατρός, και ότι ύστερον δι' ημάς σάρκα λαβών εκ παρθένου της Θεοτόκου Μαρίας άνθρωπος γέγονε». Και πάλι «όθεν και γενομένης της σαρκός εκ της Θεοτόκου Μαρίας, αυτός λέγεται γεγεννήσθαι ο τοις άλλοις γέννησιν εις το είναι παρέχων και ο Ιωάννης γενομένης φωνής παρά της Θεοτόκου Μαρίας εσκίρτησεν εν αγαλλιάσει». Και πάλι «πόσον αν τις είποι το καύχημα της Αγίας παρθένου, και θεοειδούς Μαρίας». Και αλλού, «Διό και παρθενομήτωρ ως Θεοτόκος η Αγία Μαρία.» (Αθανασ. λογ. γ. κατά Άρειον: τόμ. α' σελ. 563-579-583, τόμ. β' σελ. 824-875-1271 τόμ. γ' σελ. 1351 κ. εξ.).
 Ο Γρηγόριος ο Θεολόγος το 370, (επιστ. προς Κληδ. τόμ. α' σελ. 738) κατά Απολλιναρίου, λέει: «Ει τις ου Θεοτόκον την Μαρίαν υπολαμβάνει χωρίς εστί της Θεότητος.» Και πάλι ο ίδιος (λόγος α' περί Υιού, προς Έλληνας) «Που γαρ εν τοις σοις έγνως Θεοτόκον παρθένον;» και στον λόγο λε' «Θεοτόκον παρθένον» ονομάζει την Παναγίαν.
 Ο Ιωάννης ο Χρυσόστομος το 400 (λόγ. εις την Αγίαν παρθένον τόμ. ε' σελ. 876 Εκδ. Ετόν.) λέει: «Ουδέν τοίνυν εν βίω οίον η Θεοτόκος Μαρία, περίελθε, ω άνθρωπε, πάσαν την κτίσιν τω λογισμώ, και βλέπε ει εστίν ίσον ή μείζον της Αγίας Θεοτόκου παρθένου, περινόστησον την γην, περίβλεψον την θάλασσαν, πολυπραγμόνησον τον αέρα, τους ουρανούς τη διανοία ερεύνησον, τας αοράτους πάσας δυνάμεις ενθυμήθητι, και βλέπε ει εστίν άλλο τοιούτον θαύμα εν τη κτίσει». Και πάλι ο ίδιος «Και νυν ου λείπει τω Θεώ Δεβώρα, ου λείπει τω Θεώ Ισραήλ, έχομεν γαρ και ημείς την Αγίαν Παρθένον Θεοτόκον Μαρίαν πρεσβεύουσαν υπέρ ημών, ει γαρ η τυχούσα γυνή ενίκησε, πόσω μάλλον η του Χριστού μήτηρ καταισχύνει τους εχθρούς της αληθείας;» (Λόγ. περί του χρησίμως τας προφητείας ασαφείς είναι). Και πάλι ο ίδιος: «Εάν ουν είπωσιν ότι των ουρανίων εστίν ο Μελχισεδέκ, ή άλλου τινός χωρίου, ακουσάτωσαν ότι και αυτός γόνυ κάμπτει τω Χριστώ τω σαρκωθέντι εκ της Θεοτόκου Μαρίας, λέγει γαρ ο Απόστολος κτλ.» (Ίωάν. Χρυσοστ. εις Μελχισεδέκ τόμ. στ' 296). Και πάλι «ο Θεός ουν ου μόνον έβλεπε την των Ιουδαίων ακμάζουσα ευσέβειαν, αλλά και την μετά ταύτα των πιστών ευσέβειαν προήδει ότι έμελλε προϊέναι εκ της Ιουδαίας η Αγία Θεοτόκος παρθένος, προεώρα τον χορόν των Αποστόλων, προέβλεπε τα τάγματα των ομολογητών, τας μυριάδας των Ιουδαίων των μελλόντων πιστεύειν κτλ.» (εις την δ'. ήμερ. της Κοσμοποιΐας τόμ. στ'. σελ. 475).
 Ο Πρόκλος Πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, μαθητής του Ιωάννου του Χρυσοστόμου, και Πατέρας της Εκκλησίας λέει: «Συνεκάλεσαν ημάς νυν ενταύθα η Αγία Θεοτόκος και παρθένος Μαρία το αμόλυντον της παρθενίας κειμήλιον, ο λογικός του δευτέρου Αδάμ παράδεισος, το εργαστήριον της ενώσεως των φύσεων, η πανήγυρις του σωτηρίου συναλλάγματος, η παστάς εν η ο λόγος ενυμφεύσατο την σάρκα, η έμψυχος της φύσεως βάτος, η παρθένος και ουρανός, η μόνη Θεού προς ανθρώπους γέφυρα, ο φρικτός της οικονομίας ιστός, εν ω αρρήτως υφάνθη ο της ενώσεως χιτών...», (εγκωμ. εις την Θεοτόκον κτλ 6).
 Ο Άγιος Αυγουστίνος το 400 (λόγ. περί φύσ. και χάριτ. κεφ. λστ') λέει: «Πλην μόνης της Θεοτόκου πάντες οι λοιποί ήμαρτον , κατά το, εάν ειπωμεν ότι αμαρτίαν ουκ έχομεν, ψευδόμεθα, μόνη γαρ η Θεοτόκος πλείονα έλαβε χάριν». Ο δε Ιερός Θεοδώρητος το 436 μαρτυρεί στεντορείως ότι είναι αποστολική παράδοση και διδασκαλία να ονομάζουμε την Μαριάμ Θεοτόκον, λέγει γαρ: «των πάλαι και πρόπαλαι της ορθοδόξου πίστεως κηρύκων κατά την Αποστολικήν παράδοσιν Θεοτόκον διδαξάντων ονομάζει και πιστεύει την του Κυρίου μητέρα» (Βλέπ. Θεοδ. επιστ. Σπορακίω τόμ. δ'. σελ. 639).
 Ο Γρηγόριος ο Νύσσης εις την γέννησιν του Κυρίου (Τόμ. III σελ. 460) λέγει περί της μητρός του Κυρίου η «Θεομήτωρ Παρθένος», το δε θεομήτωρ ερρήθη κατά το θεοπάτωρ, όπερ είναι επίθετον αποδιδόμενον τω προφήτη Δαυίδ παρά των υμνογράφων και των Αρχαίων πατέρων της Εκκλησίας ένεκεν της εξ αυτού κατά σάρκα καταγωγής του Κυρίου ημών Ιησού Χριστού.
 Τρίτη Οικουμενική Σύνοδος
 Ο «τίτλος» Θεοτόκος δόθηκε από την πρωτοχριστιανική Εκκλησία στη Μαρία, τη Μητέρα του Ιησού Χριστού, το 431 κατά την Γ' Οικουμενική Σύνοδο στην Έφεσο. Η θεολογική σημασία τότε ήταν να υπογραμμιστεί ότι ο Ιησούς, ο Υιός της Μαρίας, ήταν πλήρως Θεός, καθώς επίσης και πλήρως Άνθρωπος, και οι δύο φύσεις αυτές του Ιησού (Θεία και Ανθρώπινη) ήταν ενωμένες στο ένα συγκεκριμένο πρόσωπο της Αγίας Τριάδας. Η αντίπαλη άποψη σε εκείνη τη Σύνοδο ήταν ότι η Μαρία έπρεπε αντί για Θεοτόκος να λέγεται Χριστοτόκος, δηλαδή «Μητέρα του Χριστού». Αυτή η άποψη υποστηρίχτηκε από τον Νεστόριο, τότε Πατριάρχη Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Η πρόθεση πίσω από τον όρο Χριστοτόκος ήταν να περιορίσει τον ρόλο της σαν μητέρα της «ανθρώπινης φύσης του Χριστού» μόνο και όχι της Θείας φύσης του.
 Η Σύνοδος αναθεμάτισε την άποψη του Νεστορίου ως αίρεση, διότι διαιρεί τον Ιησού σε δύο ξεχωριστά πρόσωπα, ένα που ήταν παιδί της Μαρίας, και ένα άλλο, τη Θεία φύση, που δεν ήταν Υιός της Μαρίας. Ορίστηκε ότι αν και ο Ιησούς έχει δύο φύσεις, Ανθρώπινη και Θεία, αυτές είναι αιώνια ενωμένες σε ένα πρόσωπο. Η Μαρία που είναι Μητέρα του Θεού-Υιού έχει δικαίωμα επομένως να λέγεται Μητέρα του Θεού. Τελικά και ο Νεστόριος πείστηκε στη χρήση του όρου Θεοτόκος, προβάλλοντας την θέση της φαινομενικής μετάδοσης των ιδιωμάτων.
 Θεολογία του όρου Θεοτόκος
 Ο όρος Θεοτόκος σημαίνει την πραγματικότητα του μυστηρίου της Ενανθρωπήσεωςτου Υιού και Λόγου του Θεού Πατρός. Από την Παρθένο Μαρία δεν προήλθε άνθρωπος θεοφόρος, απλώς φέρων τον Θεό μέαα του, αλλά Θεός ενανθρωπήσας και "σεσαρκωμένος" κατά τον Άγιο Κύριλλο.Γεννήθηκε πραγματικά ο αϊδιος Λόγος του Πατρός. Το γεννηθέν από την Παρθένο Μαρία βρέφος ήταν Θεός μαζί και άνθρωπος.Ήταν ένα πρόσωπο ενιαίο και αδιάσπαστο. Επομένως η Μαρία γέννησε "Θεόν σεσαρκωμένον" και τοιουτοτρόπως στην κυριολεξία είναι Μήτηρ Θεού-Θεοτόκος. Καλείται Θεοτόκος και για το λόγο ότι η ανθρώπινη φύση του Θεού Λόγου, την οποία έλαβε από την Παρθένο Μαρία θεώθηκε, αφού ενώθηκε με τη Θεία φύση του Λόγου. Έτσι καλείται Θεοτόκος "ου μόνον δια την φύσιν του Λόγου, αλλά και δια την θέωσιν του ανθρώπου", κατά τον άγιο Ιωάννη τον Δαμασκηνό.
 Η Θεοτόκος υπέστη θάνατο πραγματικό και μέσω αυτού του θανάτου μετέστη στην "καινούργια εν Χριστώ Ζωή" Η ψυχή της Παναγίας εγκατέλειψε το πανάχραντο σώμα της το οποίο όπως ακριβώς συμβαίνει και με κάθε κοινό άνθρωπο παρέμεινε νεκρό, κηδεύτηκε και τάφηκε από τους μαθητές του Υιού της .Την παναγία ψυχή της την παρέλαβε ο Υιός της για να την τοποθετήσει στο θρόνο από τον οποίο είχε εκπέσει ο Εωσφόρος.Τρεις ημέρες μετά την Κοίμησή της, το αμόλυντο σώμα της μεταφέρθηκε στον ουρανό και εκεί γεύεται την εσχατολογική αφθαρσία της αιωνιότητας ως "ο πρώτος θεωμένος άνθρωπος" κατά τον Άγιο Γρηγόριο τον Παλαμά.
 Ύμνοι για την Θεοτόκο
 Ο τίτλος Θεοτόκος συνεχίζει να χρησιμοποιείται συχνά σε ύμνους της Ορθόδοξης Εκκλησίας. ( "Ο πάσιν αχώρητος, και πάσιν αθεώρητος, πώς ούτος δυνήσεται Παρθένου, μήτραν οικήσαι, ήν αυτός έπλασε; πώς δε και συλλήψομαι Θεόν, Λόγον τον συνάναρχον, τώ Πατρί και τώ Πνεύματι;" ). Γενικά τα τροπάρια που είναι αφιερωμένα στη Θεοτόκο ονομάζονται εξ αυτού Θεοτόκια. Σημαντικότερος ύμνος αφιερωμένος στη Θεοτόκο είναι ο Ακάθιστος Ύμνος, ενώ εξέχουσα θέση στη Θεία Λειτουργία έχει ο ύμνος "Άξιον εστίν ως αληθώς μακαρίζειν σε την Θεοτόκον"
 Δείτε επίσης
 Παναγία
 Πλατυτέρα
 Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
 Η Θεοτόκος στην Ορθόδοξη Εκκλησία - του τότε Μητροπολίτου Δημητριάδος και μακαριστού Αρχιεπισκόπου Χριστοδούλου.
 Μελέτη περί της Μητρός του Κυρίου της Υπεραγίας Θεοτόκου και Αειπαρθένου Μαρίας - του Αγίου Νεκταρίου.
 Άρθρο «Θεοτόκος» (στο www.orthodoxwiki.gr, εγκυκλοπαίδεια για τον Ορθόδοξο χριστιανισμό).
 Alexander Schmemann, The Celebration of Faith: The Virgin Mary,St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1995
 Βιβλιογραφία
 π. Ευάγγελος Κ. Πριγκιπάκης, Η Θεοτόκος και το μυστήριο της θείας Οικονομίας κατά τον άγιο Ανδρέα Κρήτης, Διατριβή επί διδακτορία, έκδ. Ι.Μ. Τιμίου Προδρόμου Ατάλης Μπαλή, Ρέθυμνο 2011, σσ. 499.
 Βασίλειος Ἀθ. Τσίγκος, "Ἡ διαμόρφωση τοῦ ὅρου ′Θεοτόκος‵ κατά τή διάρκεια τῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν Συνόδων καί ἡ χριστολογική καί σωτηριολογική σημασία του", Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης [Τμῆμα Ποιμαντικῆς καί Κοινωνικῆς Θεολογίας], τ. 7 (2001), σσ. 171-201.
 Παραπομπές
 Παναγία
 Χριστιανική θεολογία
 Θρησκευτικές προσαγορεύσεις


text:
Die Gefleckte Kleinschabe (Phyllodromica maculata) ist eine wenig erforschte Art der zu den Schaben gehörenden Waldschaben und von Mittel- bis Osteuropa beheimatet.
 Merkmale
 Beide Geschlechter sind flugunfähig.
 Weibchen
 Die Körperlänge beträgt mehr als 7 mm. Der Körper ist bis auf die hellen Halsschildränder und die bräunlichen oder gelblichen Beine einheitlich dunkel gefärbt. Die Vorderflügel (Deckflügel) sind quer abgestutzt bzw. abgerundet und reichen höchstens bis zum 3. Hinterleibssegment. Sie stoßen in der Mitte zusammen. Basal und apikal weisen sie einen dunklen Fleck auf, dieser kann jedoch auch fehlen. Die Oothek besitzt 2 bis 3 schwache Längsleisten in der Nähe des Kiels.
 Männchen
 Der Körper ist bis auf die hellen Halsschildränder mehr oder weniger einheitlich dunkel gefärbt. Die Vorderflügel sind undeutlich geadert, breit gerundet und besitzen in der apikalen Hälfte einen großen dunklen Fleck. Die Hinterflügel sind nur rudimentär ausgebildet und reichen höchstens bis zum 2. Tergit. Das 7. und 8. Tergit sind stark vergrößert, das 7. Tergit zudem aufgewölbt und der Hinterrand in der Mitte tief eingeschnitten. Die Drüsengrube ist groß, mit zwei vorderen und hinteren Aussackungen. Die Öffnung am Vorderrand des 7. Tergits wird vom 6. Tergit mehr oder weniger überdeckt. Die Styli (längliche Auswüchse am Ende des Hinterleibs) sind klein und ohne Schüppchen.
 Ähnliche Arten
 Die Vorderflügel sind härter als die der Ectobius-Arten und weniger deutlich geädert, zudem sind sie breit gerundet, während sie bei Ectobius schmal gerundet sind. Die Hinterflügel sind bei Ectobius außerdem höchstens geringfügig kürzer als die Vorderflügel.
 In Südeuropa gibt es noch weitere Arten der Gattung Phyllodromica, wie Phyllodromica subaptera oder Phyllodromica marginata. Die mitteleuropäische maculata-Gruppe der Gattung Phyllodromica enthält noch zahlreiche weitere Arten, so die länger bekannten Phyllodromica chladeki, Phyllodromica harzi, Phyllodromica hungarica, Phyllodromica marani und Phyllodromica transsylvanica sowie die erst im 21. Jahrhundert beschriebenen Arten Phyllodromica latipennis (Slowakei und Ungarn), Phyllodromica halterisignata (Rumänien) und Phyllodromica variabilis (Rumänien). Die Art Phyllodromica megerlei ist auch in Österreich zu finden.
 Verbreitung und Lebensraum
 Das Verbreitungsgebiet reicht von Mittel- bis Osteuropa. Bekannt ist die Art aus Deutschland, Polen, Tschechien, Österreich, der Slowakei und der Ukraine, eventuell auch aus Rumänien.
 In Deutschland ist die Art in Brandenburg (um Berlin relativ häufig), in Sachsen, Sachsen-Anhalt, Thüringen und in Baden-Württemberg und Bayern entlang der Schwäbischen und Fränkischen Alb an warmen Hängen stellenweise häufig. Neuere Nachweise gibt es auch aus Nordrhein-Westfalen. Die meisten Funde stammen aus der Region zwischen dem südlichen Ostdeutschland (Sachsen / Sachsen-Anhalt) und dem Osten Österreichs und Süden Tschechiens, bis zur slowakischen und ungarischen Grenze. In Thüringen ist die Art nur aus wenigen Fundgebieten an südseitigen, teils verbuschten Hängen bekannt, wo sie von der Boden- bis in die Strauchschicht auftritt. In Bayern lebt die Art häufig auf trockenen, grasigen Hügelflanken im Osten des Landes.
 In Deutschland gilt die Art auch innerhalb ihres beschränkten Verbreitungsgebiets als lokal selten, in Thüringen als extrem selten (R), in Sachsen-Anhalt steht sie auf der Vorwarnliste (V) und in Sachsen gilt sie ebenfalls als extrem selten (R) und gefährdet mit unbekanntem Ausmaß.
 Lebensweise
 Die Art ist nach manchen Literaturangaben von Mai bis September zu finden, nach anderen Literaturangaben nur in Mai und Juni und auf iNaturalist sind Sichtungen zwischen März und November verzeichnet. Die Art kommt zumindest in Thüringen nur in kleinen Populationen vor.
 Taxonomie
 Die Art wurde 1781 von Johann Christian von Schreber als Blatta maculata erstbeschrieben. Ein weiteres Synonym lautet Blatta quarta , 1769.
 Der Name Blatta maculata , 1781 ist sehr wahrscheinlich ein „junior synonym“ von Blatta schaefferi , 1781.
 Unterarten
 Neben dem Nominotypischen Taxon wurde noch die Unterart Phyllodromica maculata schaefferi (, 1778) beschrieben. Diese Unterart gilt jedoch als Nomen dubium.
 Literatur
 Michael Chinery: Pareys Buch der Insekten. Franckh-Kosmos Verlags-GmbH & Co., Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-440-09969-5, S. 60.
 Bernhard Klausnitzer (Hrsg.): Stresemann – Exkursionsfauna von Deutschland. Band 2 – Wirbellose: Insekten. 11. Auflage, Springer Spektrum.
 Weblinks
 Einzelnachweise
 Schaben