text:
During the month of March, 1931, the Taylor Motor Company, the then owner of certain premises located in the town of Westminster, Maryland, and the appellee, who at that time held a mortgage upon the same, leased the said premises to Lloyd A. Bowker for the term of ten years, accounting from the 1st day of April, 1931, at a monthly rental of $135, payable on the first day of each month, in advance. Thereafter, upon default, the appellee foreclosed the mortgage, subject to the terms of the lease, and acquired the fee simple title to the property.
 Prior to the negotiations resulting in the lease by Bowker, the appellant sold to him eight bowling alleys and equipment under a conditional sale contract; and, in contemplation of the purchase of said alleys and equipment, *Page 82
 the lease agreement provided that, in consideration of the installation of the same upon the demised premises, the lessors would, for themselves, their personal representatives and assigns, release the chattels so installed or placed upon the premises from any lien or claim which might accrue for rent reserved in the lease; but it was expressly stipulated in said lease agreement that such waiver would not apply to rent due and in arrear at any time the appellant determined to remove the alleys and equipment from the premises, provided the lessors gave notice by mail to the appellant of any arrearage in said rent, within one month after any part of the same became due and demandable. Both the lease agreement and the conditional sale contract were duly recorded in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court for Carroll County. It appears from the record that in September, 1931, four additional bowling alleys and equipment were sold, under like terms and conditions, and subject to the same rental waiver, by the appellant to Bowker; and that the total purchase price for the alleys and equipment was approximately the sum of $12,000.
 Although not promptly paid in accordance with the terms of the lease, the rental was collected by the appellee and her predecessor in title to December 31st, 1934; but meanwhile the lessee of the premises was in substantial default in compliance with the terms of the conditional sale contracts; and, as a result of this situation, the lessee, then owing approximately $6,000 under the conditional sale contracts, agreed to surrender all of the alleys and equipment to his vendor.
 The original agreement was reached by the vendor and vendee on December 28th, 1934, and was formally executed ad accepted by the parties thereto, as of said date, on the 16th day of January, 1935; and reads as follows:
 "Westminster, Md., Dec. 28, 1934.
 "To: Saunier-Wilhem Co., Pittsburgh, Pa.
 "Being unable to fulfill my contracted obligations to you and in consideration of your agreeing to release me from same, I hereby surrender *Page 83
 to you my whole interest, if any, in the bowling alleys and/or equipment that you furnished me under deferred payment contracts on or about March, 1931, and September, 1931. Consider this your authority to repossess and remove, or repossess and re-sell the same at your earliest convenience.
 "You will be responsible for the payment of the rent on the premises (at the rate of $135.00 per month) from Jan. 1st, 1935, to the day the alleys are removed from the building.
 "Lloyd A. Bowker.
 "G.E. Saunier. (Witness.) "Accepted Jan. 16th, 1935. "Saunier-Wilhem Co. "By P.F. Wilhem."
 Subsequent to the aforegoing transaction, the appellant endeavored to sell the installed equipment to the appellee; and he failing in these negotiations, the uncontradicted evidence in the record is that the appellant and the appellee co-operated in an endeavor to find a new lessee for the premises, and a purchaser of the equipment. These negotiations, however, were carried on over a period of more than six months; and they resulting in failure, the appellee, on July 16th, 1935, caused a distraint for seven months rent then due and in arrear, amounting to the sum of $945, to be made upon the first eight alleys and equipment purchased by Bowker, and appraised at the sum of $1,800. Two days later the appellant replevied the chattels distrained. From a judgment in favor of the avowant-appellee for the full amount of the rent claimed and costs, this appeal is taken.
 By the amended avowry, the appellee sets forth the seizure of the goods and chattels distrained; the lease of the premises to Bowker; her subsequent acquisition of the fee simple title to the property at a time prior to which the rent for which the distress was made had accrued; her recognition, as landlord, by Bowker; the sale of the chattels by the appellant to the tenant, under the *Page 84
 conditional sale contract, with full knowledge of the existence of the lease on the part of the vendor; their installation upon the demised premises, upon which they remained until replevied; the repossession of said chattels, and the full acquisition of title thereto, on the 28th day of December, 1934, by the appellant; the agreement between Bowker and the appellant, hereinbefore set forth; knowledge of said agreement on the part of the avowant; that the goods and chattels continued to remain upon said premises while the lease was still in force, and at the time of the distraint; and that at said time there was due and owing to the avowant rent which had accrued from the premises at the rate of $135 per month from the 1st day of January, 1935, to the 1st day of August, 1935, amounting to $945.
 Upon the overruling of a demurrer to the amended avowry, the appellant filed pleas in substance as follows:
 (1) That there was no rent in arrears. (2) That at the time of the distress there was no rent due and owing by the plaintiff to the avowant. (3) That the avowant did not demise the premises to the plaintiff. (4) That the plaintiff did not hold and possess the premises under a demise from the avowant. (5) That the property distrained was not distrainable. (6) That the distress was too late. (7) That the paper writing dated December 28th, 1934, set forth in the avowry, does not and cannot inure to the benefit of the avowant, or in any way enlarge effectuate, or establish a right of action or recovery by the avowant as against the plaintiff. (8, 9) The general issue pleas of never promised and never indebted as alleged. And by way of equitable defense: (10) That the tenancy of Bowker was terminated by mutual consent of all parties in interest on December 31st, 1934; that, during the time for which rent is claimed, the premises were untenanted and vacant; that the plaintiff never at any time became the tenant, never had possession of the alleys and equipment except by means of these proceedings, or the key to the premises; and that the avowant meanwhile held both actual and constructive possession *Page 85
 of the premises and equipment. (11) That it was expressly agreed between avowant and plaintiff that from January 1st, 1935, no rent for the premises would be claimed, provided plaintiff would permit the equipment to remain in the premises for the purpose of enabling avowant to more readily re-rent the same; that the plaintiff did comply with said agreement, and permitted said equipment to so remain until it was evident that avowant could not re-rent the premises as contemplated, whereupon avowant, in violation of said agreement, refused to permit the plaintiff to remove the same from the premises.
 Issue was joined on the first, fifth, and sixth of these pleas; and by a replication filed to the last equitable plea, the avowant denied that any such agreement was made between the parties, and that she refused to permit the plaintiff to remove the equipment in violation of any such agreement. Demurrers filed to the remaining pleas were sustained.
 At the trial below the plaintiff reserved ten exceptions; eight of which related to rulings on evidence, and the two remaining to rulings on prayers. The exceptions in the first named class, briefly, are as follows:
 (a) Objection was made to the introduction of the distraint papers by the avowant; and the court, we think, properly admitted the same, for the reason that they formed the very basis of the defendant's avowry. In 1 Poe's Pl. Pr. sec. 254, it is stated: "Avowry * * * answers to a declaration, and is so treated; and as it admits the property of the plaintiff in the goods, and justifies their seizure by way of distress for rent in arrear, the case turns upon the question whether the distress thus avowed was lawful, regular and valid, or not." It would seem that no better evidence could have been adduced before the trial court as to the legality of the distraint than the introduction of the distraint papers.
 (b) After the avowant had testified that no rent for the premises had been paid to her from the 1st day of January, 1935, to some time in July, 1935, when the alleys were replevied, she was asked on cross-examination *Page 86
 whether she knew the alleys were covered by a conditional sale contract. Objection to this question was sustained by the court, for the obvious reason that her knowledge of such a fact was immaterial. The apparent purpose of the question was to show that the alleys were not distrainable because of the existence of a conditional sale contract. If, as a fact, the alleys were subject to such a contract, her knowledge or lack of knowledge in that respect would not affect the legal status of the property distrained.
 (c) Bowker, the tenant, produced as a witness for the avowant, testified, without objection, to the purchase of the alleys from Wilhem under a conditional sale contract; that the cost of the twelve alleys was about $12,000; and that Wilhem called upon him in December, 1934, for the purpose of effecting settlement. He was then asked, how much Wilhem at that time claimed as the balance due upon the purchase price of the alleys and other equipment. Objection to the question was overruled, and the witness answered: "A little over $6,000 balance." The question was apparently asked for the purpose of establishing the consideration which passed between the vendor and vendee of the alleys when the settlement was made. We think it was material, because the theory of the avowant's case, as shown by the pleadings, was to the effect that the plaintiff repossessed the alleys by canceling the indebtedness.
 (d) As the fourth exception involved a question put to the witness Bowker, to which no responsive answer was given, and no motion to strike out the answer was made, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the same.
 (e) In the course of the examination of the plaintiff Wilhem, after he had testified that he had warehouse space in Pittsburg in which to store the alleys, and also knew of warehouse space in Westminster, and that Bowker had informed him that the monthly rental for the defendant's premises was $135, he was asked for what amount he could have warehoused the alleys. Objection to the question was sustained; and this forms the basis of the sixth *Page 87
 exception. The question was asked for the purpose of showing the possibility of obtaining storage elsewhere for the alleys, during the period for which rent was claimed, at a lesser rate. As the witness had previously testified that he had told the avowant that he could not leave the alleys on the premises if he had to pay rent, and in view of his testimony as to the availability of other storage space, the conclusion was that he could have obtained storage for less than the rental of the avowant's premises; and we therefore see no injury to the plaintiff by this ruling.
 (f) Further testimony by the plaintiff was to the effect that the avowant desired the alleys to remain upon the premises, to the end that a new tenant might be located by her, and the sale of the alleys effected by the plaintiff without their removal. This desire seems to have been met by the plaintiff, who co-operated with the avowant in a joint endeavor to secure both a new purchaser and tenant, respectively; which proved unsuccessful. It appears from the record that on January 23rd, 1935, the avowant wrote the plaintiff, advising the latter that the result of advertisements for a tenant and purchaser, which had been published at the instance of both, and in response to which applicants were to apply to her, had been a failure. Negotiations followed, through which the plaintiff proposed to sell the alleys to the avowant. These negotiations also did not materialize. The plaintiff then testified to his decision to dismantle the alleys, the refusal of the avowant to permit such action on his part, and her formal demand for the rental in controversy. In the course of his testimony he further set forth that meanwhile he had neither actual nor constructive possession of the premises; that he had no key to the same; and that she never, at any time prior to her formal demand, claimed rent for the premises, but, to the contrary, that he had consented to permit the alleys to remain on the premises, under a verbal understanding with the avowant that there would be no rent charged until either the plaintiff decided to remove the alleys, or pay rent, or until *Page 88
 the avowant informed him that he must pay rent. Upon cross-examination it was further testified by the plaintiff that on the 28th of December, 1934, he came to Westminster to make settlement with Bowker, and first interviewed avowant, who then told him he would owe no rent until she told him to pay; that he told her of his intention to repossess the alleys, and, after detailing subsequent negotiations with Bowker, by which the repossession was amicably arranged, he identified a copy of the original agreement under which it was effected with Bowker. Thereupon the avowant offered the agreement, hereinbefore set forth. This agreement was admitted over the objection of the plaintiff, and forms the basis of the seventh exception. A discussion of the correctness of this ruling seems unnecessary. The theory of the plaintiff's case, as shown by his argument, is that the alleys, being subject to the conditional sale contract, were not distrainable; whereas that of the avowant's case is that they were distrainable, as being unencumbered property of the plaintiff, discharged from her original rental release, and therefore subject to distraint. In view of these opposing contentions, and especially in view of the stipulation in the admitted paper that the plaintiff was to be responsible for the payment of the rent on the premises from the first day of January, 1935, until he removed the alleys from the premises, its rejection would, in our opinion, have been fatal error.
 (g) As no formal exception was noted in the record to the ruling of the trial court captioned in the record as "Exception No. 8," it need not be considered here.
 (h) The ninth exception, being to the action of the court in sustaining an objection to a leading question, is not reviewable. In any event, substantially the same question was later asked, modified to meet the objection, and was answered.
 The fifth exception is to the rejection of the plaintiff's A and B prayers, offered at the close of the avowant's case; but, inasmuch as the plaintiff thereafter proceeded with his case, the benefit of this exception was waived. *Page 89
 The remaining exception deals with the adverse ruling on the plaintiff's C, D, third, fifth, sixth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth prayers. Section 18 of article 53 of the Maryland Code (as amended by Acts 1935, ch. 206) exempts from distress for rent goods, chattels, or other personal property purchased by the tenant under a conditional contract of sale, as defined in section 55 of article 21 of the Code (as amended by Acts 1931, ch. 402); and it is contended by the plaintiff that an outstanding conditional sale contract precluded the avowant from distraining upon the property under those sections, and that, in any event, the property involved could not have been distrained upon unless the plaintiff was shown to be the tenant of the avowant. The distress warrant authorized the sheriff, as bailiff, to distrain any goods or chattels found on the premises occupied by the plaintiff and Bowker, the tenant, to satisfy and pay the rent; and by virtue of it, any property, not exempt under the statute, found upon the premises, was distrainable, regardless of whether the plaintiff was the tenant. Or, as stated in Mears v.Perine, 156 Md. 56, 143 A. 591, 593: "It is true that goods and chattels liable to distraint are not confined to those of the tenant, but any chattels which may happen to be upon the demised premises at the time rent becomes due may be sold under distraint proceedings for payment of the rent; and this is so, whether they belong to the tenant, subtenant, or a stranger." Under the pleadings, the avowant proceeded against the original tenant and the plaintiff, who together were in actual or constructive possession of the property; and, by her avowry, the lease to Bowker, the conditional contract of sale between Bowker and the plaintiff, and the subsequent settlement or cancellation of the contract and surrender of the chattels distrained upon by the vendee to the vendor, as well as the express stipulation that, as a condition of the settlement, the plaintiff would become responsible for the rent, as hereinbefore set forth, it would seem that the rejection of the plaintiff's C prayer, which challenged the sufficiency of the proof under the pleadings, was proper. *Page 90
 So also was the ruling of the trial court as to the plaintiff's D prayer, for the reason that the whole evidence presented questions of fact for proper submission to the court sitting as a jury.
 As it is our conclusion that the exemption statute, to which reference is hereinbefore made, was rendered inapplicable by virtue of the repossession of the chattels by the vendor, and the cancellation of the indebtedness, it follows that the rejection of the plaintiff's third prayer, directed to the application of the statute to the instant case, was correct.
 The fifth and sixth prayers raise, first, the issue that the goods were not distrainable; and, second, that the distraint was made too late. Having heretofore shown that any goods found upon the premises, not exempt by the statute, were distrainable, it seems unnecessary to further discuss this phase of the case; and inasmuch as the evidence conclusively shows the original lease between the defendant and Bowker has yet some years to run, and there is no evidence in the record tending to show its abrogation, and further that the distraint was made while this lease was in full force, and at a time when under its terms the rental claimed was overdue, we see no justification for sustaining a prayer to the effect that the distraint was made too late.
 The plaintiff's tenth, eleventh, and twelfth prayers are directed to the legal effect, as between the plaintiff and the avowant, of the paper writing of December 28th, 1934, (a) because of an alleged lack of consideration passing from the avowant to either of the parties to the agreement, (b) because the avowant was not a party to said paper writing, and (c) because said paper writing was not made for her benefit, notwithstanding that she had knowledge of the existence of the instrument. As hereinbefore indicated, the distraint proceeding was one in rem against property found upon the premises; and it is our opinion that the prayers were improper, in that the consideration for the distraint was amply supported by the rent due at the time it was levied; and it would therefore *Page 91
 seem unimportant whether the paper writing was made for the benefit of the avowant, or that she had knowledge of the same.
 Finally, the thirteenth prayer of the plaintiff, which was rejected, submitted to the trial court that, if it found that negotiations for the sale of the goods and chattels distrained upon had taken place between the avowant and the plaintiff, even though they were unsuccessful, and that during the course of these negotiations no formal demand or request for the payment of rent for the premises of the avowant had been made upon the plaintiff by the avowant, and further that, if it found that the avowant meanwhile offered and endeavored to rent the premises to some one other than the plaintiff, without consulting the tenant Bowker, then the verdict should be for the plaintiff, unless the court found that such offers to rent said premises were made by the avowant as the agent of the plaintiff. It seems quite clear that negotiations between the parties to this suit for the sale of the chattels distrained upon could in no manner affect the lease with Bowker; and there is no evidence anywhere in the record tending to show that Bowker was ever released of his tenancy, or that the plaintiff was ever substituted in his place. On the contrary, the uncontradicted testimony of Bowker, in explaining the reason for his insistence that the plaintiff assume responsibility for the payment of rent for the premises from January 1st, 1935, until such time as the alleys were removed therefrom, is as follows: "I said I would not sign it unless it was satisfactory to my landlord, because I held a lease for ten years on the building, and if we signed something between ourselves, and it wasn't agreeable to the landlord, for all I knew she could come back and still collect rent from me." Further testifying, the same witness, in explaining the sale of certain chattels on the premises, other than the chattels distrained upon, which were subject to the lien of a chattel mortgage held by the avowant, stated: "I told him (the purchaser) to make the check out to Mrs. Boyd because we decided all that material would *Page 92
 go to Mrs. Boyd for the time being, she would hold it all until some sort of a final settlement was made. That was not taken by her specifically on account of rent; she just took it to hold against the whole transaction between us." These statements by Bowker, in our opinion, tend to show that the outstanding lease between him and the avowant was never released; and we cannot conclude that the mere fact that the avowant sought to locate a new tenant for the premises would have the effect of canceling the lease by implication. Had she secured a new tenant, before she could have entered into a contract with the latter it would have been incumbent upon her to secure a release from Bowker. It follows that the court's ruling upon this prayer must be affirmed.
 For the reasons heretofore stated in reaching the conclusions upon the evidence and the prayers, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the rulings of the trial court upon the preliminary pleadings, because they involve substantially the same questions.
 Judgment affirmed, with costs to the appellee.


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Svarīgs juridisks paziņojums
 |
 22007A1219(10)
 Nolīgums starp Eiropas Kopienu un Moldovas Republiku par to personu atpakaļuzņemšanu, kuras uzturas neatļauti - Dikjarazzjonijiet
 Oficiālais Vēstnesis L 334 , 19/12/2007 Lpp. 0149 - 0167
 20071122Nolīgumsstarp Eiropas Kopienu un Moldovas Republiku par to personu atpakaļuzņemšanu, kuras uzturas neatļautiAUGSTĀS LĪGUMSLĒDZĒJAS PUSES,EIROPAS KOPIENA, turpmāk "Kopiena",unMOLDOVAS REPUBLIKA, turpmāk "Moldova",APŅĒMUŠĀS veicināt savu sadarbību, lai efektīvāk apkarotu nelikumīgu imigrāciju,VĒLOTIES ar šo nolīgumu un uz savstarpīguma pamata paredzēt ātras un efektīvas procedūras, lai varētu identificēt un droši un pienācīgi nosūtīt atpakaļ personas, kuras neatbilst vai vairs neatbilst ieceļošanas, atrašanās vai uzturēšanās nosacījumiem attiecībā uz Moldovas vai kādas Eiropas Savienības dalībvalsts teritoriju, un sadarbības garā veicināt šādu personu tranzītu,UZSVEROT, ka šis nolīgums neskar tādas Kopienas, Eiropas Savienības dalībvalstu un Moldovas tiesības, saistības un pienākumus, kas izriet no starptautiskām tiesībām, un jo īpaši – no 1950. gada 4. novembra Eiropas Cilvēktiesību un pamatbrīvību aizsardzības konvencijas un 1951. gada 28. jūlija Konvencijas par bēgļu statusu, un 1984. gada 10. decembra Konvencijas pret spīdzināšanu un citu nežēlīgu, necilvēcīgu vai pazemojošu izturēšanos vai sodīšanu,ŅEMOT VĒRĀ, ka šis nolīgums ietilpst Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līguma IV sadaļas darbības jomā un tā noteikumi neattiecas uz Dānijas Karalisti saskaņā ar Protokolu par Dānijas nostāju, kas pievienots Līgumam par Eiropas Savienību un Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līgumam,IR VIENOJUŠĀS PAR TURPMĀKO.1. pantsDefinīcijasŠajā nolīgumā:a) "Līgumslēdzējas puses" ir Moldova un Kopiena;b) "Moldovas valstspiederīgais" ir jebkura persona, kurai ir Moldovas pilsonība;c) "dalībvalsts valstspiederīgais" ir jebkura persona, kurai ir kādas dalībvalsts valstspiederība, kā noteikts Kopienā;d) "dalībvalsts" ir jebkura Eiropas Savienības dalībvalsts, izņemot Dānijas Karalisti;e) "trešās valsts valstspiederīgais" ir jebkura persona, kurai ir tādas valsts valstspiederība, kas nav Moldova vai kāda no dalībvalstīm;f) "bezvalstnieks" ir jebkura persona, kurai nav valstspiederības;g) "uzturēšanās atļauja" ir Moldovas vai kādas dalībvalsts izsniegta jebkura veida atļauja, kas personai dod tiesības uzturēties attiecīgās valsts teritorijā. Tas neietver pagaidu atļaujas, kas atļauj uzturēties tās teritorijā saistībā ar patvēruma pieteikuma vai uzturēšanās atļaujas pieteikuma izskatīšanu;h) "robežšķērsošanas vieta" ir vietas, kur Moldovas vai dalībvalstu kompetentās iestādes ir atļāvušas šķērsot savas attiecīgās robežas, tostarp starptautiskās lidostas;i) "vīza" ir Moldovas vai dalībvalsts izsniegta atļauja vai pieņemts lēmums, kas vajadzīgs, lai ieceļotu attiecīgajā teritorijā vai šķērsotu to tranzītā. Tas neattiecas uz lidostas tranzīta vīzu;j) "pieprasījuma iesniedzēja valsts" ir valsts (Moldova vai kāda no dalībvalstīm), kura iesniedz atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumu saskaņā ar nolīguma 7. pantu vai tranzīta pieteikumu saskaņā ar nolīguma 14. pantu;k) "pieprasījuma saņēmēja valsts" ir valsts (Moldova vai kāda no dalībvalstīm), kurai iesniedz atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumu saskaņā ar nolīguma 7. pantu vai tranzīta pieteikumu saskaņā ar nolīguma 14. pantu;l) "kompetentā iestāde" ir jebkura Moldovas valsts iestāde vai kādas dalībvalsts iestāde, kurai ir uzticēta šā nolīguma īstenošana saskaņā ar tā 19. panta 1. punkta a) apakšpunktu;m) "pierobežas apgabals" ir 30 km josla no kopīgās sauszemes robežas starp dalībvalsti un Moldovu, kā arī jūras ostu teritorijas, tostarp muitas zonas, un dalībvalstu un Moldovas starptautiskās lidostas;n) "tranzīts" ir pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts teritorijas šķērsošana, ko veic trešās valsts valstspiederīgais vai bezvalstnieks, kad viņš dodas no pieprasījuma iesniedzējas valsts uz galamērķa valsti.I IEDAĻAMOLDOVAS ATPAKAĻUZŅEMŠANAS PIENĀKUMI2. pantsSavas valsts valstspiederīgo atpakaļuzņemšana1. Pēc dalībvalsts pieprasījuma Moldova bez papildu formalitātēm, kas nav paredzētas šajā nolīgumā, uzņem atpakaļ visas personas, kuras neatbilst vai vairs neatbilst spēkā esošajiem ieceļošanas, atrašanās vai uzturēšanās nosacījumiem attiecībā uz pieprasījuma iesniedzējas dalībvalsts teritoriju, ja ir pierādīts vai var pamatoti uzskatīt, balstoties uz sniegtiem prima facie pierādījumiem, kā šīs personas ir Moldovas valstspiederīgie.2. Moldova arī uzņem atpakaļ:- personu, kas minētas 1. punktā, nepilngadīgos, neprecētos bērnus, neņemot vērā viņu dzimšanas vietu vai valstspiederību, izņemot, ja viņiem ir patstāvīgas uzturēšanās tiesības pieprasījuma iesniedzējā dalībvalstī,- personu, kas minētas 1. punktā, laulātos, kuriem ir citas valsts valstspiederība, ar noteikumu, ka viņiem ir tiesības ieceļot un uzturēties vai ir tiesības saņemt ieceļošanas un uzturēšanās atļauju Moldovā, izņemot, ja viņiem ir patstāvīgas uzturēšanās tiesības pieprasījuma iesniedzējā dalībvalstī.3. Moldova arī uzņem atpakaļ personas, kurām atņemta Moldovas valstspiederība vai kuras atteikušās no tās pēc ieceļošanas dalībvalsts teritorijā, ja vien dalībvalsts vismaz nav solījusi šīs personas naturalizēt.4. Pēc tam, kad Moldova ir apstiprinājusi atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumu, Moldovas kompetentā diplomātiskā pārstāvniecība vai konsulārā iestāde nekavējoties un ne vēlāk kā 3 darba dienu laikā izsniedz atpakaļ uzņemamās personas atgriešanai nepieciešamos ceļošanas dokumentus ar derīguma termiņu vismaz 3 mēneši. Ja juridisku vai faktisku iemeslu dēļ attiecīgo personu nevar pārvietot sākotnēji izsniegtā ceļošanas dokumenta derīguma termiņa laikā, Moldovas kompetentā diplomātiskā pārstāvniecība vai konsulārā iestāde 14 kalendāro dienu laikā izsniedz jaunu ceļošanas dokumentu ar tādu pašu derīguma termiņu. Ja Moldova 14 kalendāro dienu laikā nav izsniegusi jaunu ceļošanas dokumentu, tad uzskata, ka tā piekrīt izmantot ES standarta ceļošanas dokumentu izraidīšanas vajadzībām [1].5. Pieprasījuma iesniedzēja dalībvalsts ņem vērā personas izvēli attiecībā uz atpakaļuzņemšanas valsti, ja personai papildus Moldovas valstspiederībai ir arī citas trešās valsts valstspiederība.3. pantsTrešās valsts valstspiederīgo un bezvalstnieku atpakaļuzņemšana1. Pēc dalībvalsts pieprasījuma Moldova bez papildu formalitātēm, kas nav paredzētas šajā nolīgumā, uzņem atpakaļ visus trešās valsts valstspiederīgos un bezvalstniekus, kuri neatbilst vai vairs neatbilst spēkā esošajiem ieceļošanas, atrašanās vai uzturēšanās nosacījumiem attiecībā uz pieprasījuma iesniedzējas dalībvalsts teritoriju, ja saskaņā ar 9. pantu ir pierādīts vai var pamatoti uzskatīt, balstoties uz sniegtiem prima facie pierādījumiem, ka:a) šādām personām ir vai ieceļošanas laikā bija Moldovas izsniegta derīga vīza vai uzturēšanās atļauja; vaib) šādas personas nelegāli tieši ieceļojušas dalībvalsts teritorijā pēc tam, kad tās uzturējušās Moldovas teritorijā vai šķērsojušas to tranzītā.2. Šā panta 1. punktā noteiktais atpakaļuzņemšanas pienākums neattiecas uz gadījumiem, kad:a) trešās valsts valstspiederīgais vai bezvalstnieks bijis tikai gaisa ceļojuma tranzītā caur Moldovas starptautisko lidostu; vaib) pieprasījuma iesniedzēja dalībvalsts trešās valsts valstspiederīgajam vai bezvalstniekam ir izsniegusi vīzu vai uzturēšanās atļauju pirms vai pēc ieceļošanas tās teritorijā, izņemot gadījumus, ja:- attiecīgajai personai ir Moldovas izsniegta vīza vai uzturēšanās atļauja ar garāku derīguma termiņu, vai- pieprasījuma iesniedzējas dalībvalsts vīza vai uzturēšanās atļauja iegūta, izmantojot viltotus vai nepatiesus dokumentus vai sniedzot nepatiesus apgalvojumus, vai- attiecīgā persona neievēro ar vīzu saistītos nosacījumus.3. Pēc tam, kad Moldova ir apstiprinājusi atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumu, pieprasījuma iesniedzēja dalībvalsts izsniedz personai, kuras atpakaļuzņemšana ir apstiprināta, ES standarta ceļošanas dokumentu izraidīšanas vajadzībām [1].II IEDAĻAKOPIENAS ATPAKAĻUZŅEMŠANAS PIENĀKUMI4. pantsSavas valsts valstspiederīgo atpakaļuzņemšana1. Pēc Moldovas pieprasījuma dalībvalsts bez papildu formalitātēm, kas nav paredzētas šajā nolīgumā, uzņem atpakaļ visas personas, kuras neatbilst vai vairs neatbilst spēkā esošajiem ieceļošanas, atrašanās vai uzturēšanās nosacījumiem attiecībā uz pieprasījuma iesniedzējas dalībvalsts teritoriju, ja ir pierādīts vai var pamatoti uzskatīt, balstoties uz sniegtiem prima facie pierādījumiem, kā šīs personas ir attiecīgās dalībvalsts valstspiederīgie.2. Dalībvalsts arī uzņem atpakaļ:- personu, kas minētas 1. punktā, nepilngadīgos, neprecētos bērnus, neņemot vērā viņu dzimšanas vietu vai valstspiederību, izņemot, ja viņiem ir patstāvīgas uzturēšanās tiesības Moldovā,- personu, kas minētas 1. punktā, laulātos, kuriem ir citas valsts valstspiederība, ar noteikumu, ka viņiem ir tiesības ieceļot un uzturēties vai ir tiesības saņemt ieceļošanas un uzturēšanās atļauju dalībvalstī, izņemot, ja viņiem ir patstāvīgas uzturēšanās tiesības Moldovā.3. Dalībvalsts uzņem atpakaļ arī personas, kurām pēc ieceļošanas Moldovas teritorijā atņemta dalībvalsts valstspiederība vai kuras atteikušās no tās, ja vien Moldova nav vismaz solījusi šīs personas naturalizēt.4. Pēc tam, kad pieprasījuma saņēmēja dalībvalsts ir apstiprinājusi atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumu, kompetentā attiecīgās dalībvalsts diplomātiskā pārstāvniecība vai konsulārā iestāde nekavējoties un ne vēlāk kā 3 darba dienu laikā izsniedz atpakaļ uzņemamās personas atgriešanai nepieciešamos ceļošanas dokumentus ar derīguma termiņu vismaz 3 mēneši. Ja juridisku vai faktisku iemeslu dēļ attiecīgo personu nevar pārvietot sākotnēji izsniegtā ceļošanas dokumenta derīguma termiņa laikā, attiecīgās dalībvalsts kompetentā diplomātiskā pārstāvniecība vai konsulārā iestāde 14 kalendāro dienu laikā izsniedz jaunu ceļošanas dokumentu ar tādu pašu derīguma termiņu.5. Moldova ņem vērā personas izvēli attiecībā uz atpakaļuzņemšanas valsti, ja personai papildus pieprasījuma saņēmējas dalībvalsts valstspiederībai ir arī citas trešās valsts valstspiederība.5. pantsTrešās valsts valstspiederīgo un bezvalstnieku atpakaļuzņemšana1. Pēc Moldovas pieprasījuma dalībvalsts bez papildu formalitātēm, kas nav paredzētas šajā nolīgumā, uzņem atpakaļ visus trešās valsts valstspiederīgos un bezvalstniekus, kuri neatbilst vai vairs neatbilst spēkā esošajiem ieceļošanas, atrašanās vai uzturēšanās nosacījumiem attiecībā uz Moldovas teritoriju, ja saskaņā ar 9. pantu ir pierādīts vai var pamatoti uzskatīt, balstoties uz sniegtiem prima facie pierādījumiem, ka:a) šādām personām ir vai ieceļošanas laikā bija pieprasījuma saņēmējas dalībvalsts izsniegta derīga vīza vai uzturēšanās atļauja; vaib) šādas personas nelegāli tieši ieceļojušas Moldovas teritorijā pēc tam, kad tās uzturējušās pieprasījuma saņēmējas dalībvalsts teritorijā vai šķērsojušas to tranzītā.2. Šā panta 1. punktā noteiktais atpakaļuzņemšanas pienākums neattiecas uz gadījumiem, kad:a) trešās valsts valstspiederīgais vai bezvalstnieks bijis tikai gaisa ceļojuma tranzītā caur starptautisko lidostu pieprasījuma saņēmējā dalībvalstī; vaib) Moldova trešās valsts valstspiederīgajam vai bezvalstniekam ir izsniegusi vīzu vai uzturēšanās atļauju pirms vai pēc ieceļošanas tās teritorijā, izņemot gadījumus, ja- attiecīgajai personai ir pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts izsniegta vīza vai uzturēšanās atļauja, un šā dokumenta derīguma termiņš ir garāks, vai- Moldovas vīza vai uzturēšanās atļauja iegūta, izmantojot viltotus vai nepatiesus dokumentus vai sniedzot nepatiesus apgalvojumus, vai- attiecīgā persona neievēro ar vīzu saistītos nosacījumus.3. Šā panta 1. punktā minētais atpakaļuzņemšanas pienākums attiecas uz dalībvalsti, kas izsniegusi vīzu vai uzturēšanās atļauju. Ja divas vai vairākas dalībvalstis izsniegušas vīzu vai uzturēšanās atļauju, 1. punktā minētais atpakaļuzņemšanas pienākums attiecas uz dalībvalsti, kas izsniegusi dokumentu, kuram ir garāks derīguma termiņš, vai – ja vienam vai vairākiem no tiem beidzies derīguma termiņš – dokumentu, kas joprojām ir derīgs. Ja visiem dokumentiem beidzies derīguma termiņš, 1. punktā minētais atpakaļuzņemšanas pienākums attiecas uz dalībvalsti, kas izsniegusi dokumentu, kuram ir nesenākais derīguma termiņš. Ja šādus dokumentus nevar uzrādīt, 1. punktā minēto atpakaļuzņemšanas pienākumu uzņemas pēdējā dalībvalsts, no kuras persona ir izceļojusi.4. Pēc tam, kad dalībvalsts ir apstiprinājusi atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumu, Moldova izsniedz personas, kuras atpakaļuzņemšana ir apstiprināta, atgriešanai nepieciešamo ceļošanas dokumentu.III IEDAĻAATPAKAĻUZŅEMŠANAS KĀRTĪBA6. pantsPrincipi1. Ievērojot 2. punktu, lai pārsūtītu personu, kas jāuzņem atpakaļ, pamatojoties uz vienu no 2. līdz 5. pantā minētajiem pienākumiem, ir jāiesniedz atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījums pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts kompetentai iestādei.2. Atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījums nav vajadzīgs, ja personai, kas jāuzņem atpakaļ, ir derīgs ceļošanas dokuments un gadījumā, ja šī persona ir trešās valsts valstspiederīgais vai bezvalstnieks, arī pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts derīga vīza vai uzturēšanās atļauja.3. Ja persona ir aizturēta pieprasījuma iesniedzējas valsts pierobežas apgabalā (ietverot lidostas) pēc robežas nelikumīgas šķērsošanas, personai ierodoties tieši no pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts teritorijas, pieprasījuma iesniedzēja valsts var iesniegt atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumu 2 dienu laikā pēc šīs personas aizturēšanas (paātrinātā procedūra).7. pantsAtpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījuma saturs1. Iespēju robežās atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumā jābūt šādai informācijai:a) ziņas par personu, kura jāuzņem atpakaļ (piemēram, vārdi, uzvārdi, dzimšanas datums un, ja iespējams, dzimšanas vieta un pēdējā dzīvesvieta), un attiecīgā gadījumā arī ziņas par nepilngadīgajiem, neprecētajiem bērniem un/vai laulātajiem,b) norādes par pierādījumiem vai prima facie pierādījumiem attiecībā uz valstspiederību, tranzītu, trešās valsts un bezvalstnieku atpakaļuzņemšanas pamatojumu un nelikumīgu ieceļošanu un uzturēšanos.2. Iespēju robežās atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumā ir arī šāda informācija:a) paziņojums ar norādi par to, ka pārvietojamai personai var būt vajadzīga palīdzība vai aprūpe, ja attiecīgā persona ir skaidri izteikusi piekrišanu šādai norādei;b) jebkurš cits aizsardzības vai drošības pasākums, vai informācija par personas veselību, kas varētu būt vajadzīgi konkrētajā pārsūtīšanas gadījumā.3. Kopēja veidlapa, kas izmantojama atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumiem, ir pievienota šim nolīgumam kā 5. pielikums.8. PantsPierādījumi attiecībā uz valstspiederību1. Saskaņā ar 2. panta 1. punktu un 4. panta 1. punktu valstspiederību var pierādīt ar šā nolīguma 1. pielikumā minētajiem dokumentiem, pat ja to derīguma termiņš ir beidzies. Ja šādus dokumentus uzrāda, dalībvalstis un Moldova savstarpēji atzīst attiecīgo valstspiederību, neveicot papildu izmeklēšanu. Valstspiederību nevar pierādīt ar viltotiem dokumentiem.2. Saskaņā ar 2. panta 1. punktu un 4. panta 1. punktu valstspiederību ar prima facie pierādījumiem var pierādīt jo īpaši ar šā nolīguma 2. pielikumā minētajiem dokumentiem, pat ja to derīguma termiņš ir beidzies. Ja uzrāda šādus dokumentus, dalībvalstis un Moldova uzskata, ka valstspiederība ir konstatēta, ja vien tās nevar pierādīt citādi. Valstspiederību nevar pierādīt prima facie ar viltotiem dokumentiem.3. Ja nevar uzrādīt nevienu no 1. vai 2. pielikumā minētajiem dokumentiem, attiecīgās pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts kompetentās diplomātiskās vai konsulārās pārstāvniecības pēc pieprasījuma vienojas ar pieprasījuma iesniedzējas valsts kompetento iestādi, lai bez liekas kavēšanās un vēlākais 3 darba dienu laikā pēc pieprasījuma saņemšanas intervētu personu tās valstspiederības noskaidrošanai.9. pantsPierādījumi attiecībā uz trešo valstu valstspiederīgajiem un bezvalstniekiem1. 3. panta 1. punktā un 5. panta 1. punktā paredzētās trešās valsts valstspiederīgo un bezvalstnieku atpakaļuzņemšanas pamatojums ir apliecināms jo īpaši ar šā nolīguma 3. pielikumā minētajiem pierādījumiem; to nevar pierādīt ar viltotiem dokumentiem. Dalībvalstis un Moldova savstarpēji atzīst jebkuru tādu pierādījumu, neveicot papildu izmeklēšanu.2. Trešās valsts valstspiederīgo un bezvalstnieku atpakaļuzņemšanas pamatojums prima facie, kas paredzēts 3. panta 1. punktā un 5. panta 1. punktā ir apliecināms jo īpaši ar šā nolīguma 4. pielikumā minētajiem pierādījumiem; to nevar pierādīt ar viltotiem dokumentiem. Ja uzrāda tādu prima facie pierādījumu, dalībvalstis un Moldova uzskata, ka pamatojums ir noskaidrots, ja vien tās nevar pierādīt citādi.3. Ieceļošanas, atrašanās vai uzturēšanās nelikumību konstatē no attiecīgās personas ceļošanas dokumentiem, kuros trūkst vajadzīgās vīzas vai citas uzturēšanās atļaujas attiecībā uz pieprasījuma iesniedzējas valsts teritoriju. Pieprasījuma iesniedzējas valsts paziņojums par konstatējumu, ka attiecīgajai personai nav vajadzīgo ceļošanas dokumentu, vīzas vai uzturēšanas atļaujas, tāpat ir nelikumīgas ieceļošanas, atrašanās vai uzturēšanās prima facie pierādījums.10. pantsTermiņi1. Atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījums ir jāiesniedz pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts kompetentai iestādei ne vēlāk kā 6 mēnešu laikā no dienas, kad pieprasījuma iesniedzējas valsts kompetentā iestāde ir ieguvusi informāciju par to, ka trešās valsts valstspiederīgais vai bezvalstnieks neatbilst vai vairs neatbilst nosacījumiem, kas ir spēkā attiecībā uz ieceļošanu, atrašanos vai uzturēšanos. Ja iesniegt pieprasījumu laikā traucē juridiski vai faktiski šķēršļi, termiņš pēc pieprasījuma iesniedzējās valsts lūguma var tikt pagarināts, bet tikai līdz brīdim, kad šķēršļi ir novērsti.2. Atbildi uz atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījumu sniedz rakstiski:- 2 darba dienu laikā, ja pieprasījums ir iesniegts saskaņā ar paātrināto procedūru (6. panta 3. punkts),- 11 kalendāro dienu laikā visos pārējos gadījumos.Šie termiņi sākas no atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījuma saņemšanas dienas. Ja šajā termiņā atbilde nav saņemta, uzskata, ka pārsūtīšana ir apstiprināta.3. Ja ir kādi juridiski vai faktiski šķēršļi, kuru dēļ nav iespējams atbildēt 11 darba dienu laikā, termiņu pēc pienācīgi pamatota lūguma var pagarināt, bet ne vairāk kā par 2 darba dienām. Ja atbilde nav saņemta pagarinātajā termiņā, uzskata, ka pārsūtīšana ir apstiprināta.4. Atpakaļuzņemšanas pieprasījuma noraidījumam norāda iemeslus.5. Pēc apstiprinājuma saņemšanas vai attiecīgi pēc 2. punktā minētā termiņa beigām attiecīgo personu pārsūta trīs mēnešu laikā. Pēc pieprasījuma iesniedzējas valsts lūguma šo termiņu var pagarināt uz tik ilgu laiku, cik nepieciešams juridisko vai praktisko šķēršļu novēršanai.11. pantsPārsūtīšanas kārtība un transportēšanas veids1. Pirms personas atgriešanas Moldovas un attiecīgās dalībvalsts kompetentās iestādes iepriekš rakstiski vienojas par pārsūtīšanas datumu, ieceļošanas punktu, iespējamiem konvojiem un citiem ar pārsūtīšanu saistītiem jautājumiem.2. Pārvešanu var veikt pa gaisu vai sauszemi. Atgriešanai pa gaisu var izmantot ne tikai Moldovas un dalībvalsts gaisa pārvadātājus, un to var veikt, izmantojot plānotus reisus vai čārterreisus. Konvojētas atgriešanās gadījumā šādu konvoju izvēle nav ierobežota tikai ar pieprasījuma iesniedzējas valsts pilnvarotām personām ar noteikumu, ka tās ir Moldovas vai jebkuras dalībvalsts pilnvarotas personas.12. pantsKļūdaina atpakaļuzņemšanaPieprasījuma iesniedzēja valsts uzņem atpakaļ jebkuru personu, kas ir uzņemta atpakaļ pieprasījuma saņēmējā valstī, ja 3 mēnešu laikā pēc attiecīgās personas nodošanas ir noskaidrots, ka nav izpildītas šā nolīguma 2. līdz 5. pantā noteiktās prasības.Šādos gadījumos šā nolīguma procedurālos noteikumos piemēro mutatis mutandis, un ir jāpaziņo visa pieejamā informācija par atpakaļ uzņemamās personas patieso identitāti un valstspiederību.IV IEDAĻATRANZĪTA OPERĀCIJAS13. pantsPrincipi1. Dalībvalstīm un Moldovai būtu jācenšas trešo valstu valstspiederīgo vai bezvalstnieku tranzītu veikt tikai tajos gadījumos, kad šādas personas nevar tieši pārvest uz galamērķa valsti.2. Moldova atļauj trešo valstu valstspiederīgo vai bezvalstnieku tranzītu, ja to lūdz dalībvalsts, un dalībvalsts dod atļauju trešo valstu valstspiederīgo vai bezvalstnieku tranzītam, ja to lūdz Moldova, ja ir nodrošināts turpmākais ceļojums iespējamās citās tranzītvalstīs un atpakaļuzņemšana galamērķa valstī.3. Moldova vai dalībvalsts var atteikt tranzītu:a) ja trešās valsts valstspiederīgajam vai bezvalstniekam galamērķa valstī vai citā tranzītvalstī draud spīdzināšana, necilvēcīga vai pazemojoša apiešanās vai sods, vai nāves sods, vai vajāšana dēļ viņa rases, reliģijas, valstspiederības, piederības kādai sociālai grupai vai dēļ viņa politiskās pārliecības; vaib) ja trešās valsts valstspiederīgajam vai bezvalstniekam pieprasījuma saņēmējā valstī vai citā tranzītvalstī draud kriminālsankcijas; vaic) sabiedrības veselības aizsardzības, iekšējās drošības, sabiedriskās kārtības un citu pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts interešu dēļ.4. Moldova vai dalībvalsts var atcelt jebkādu izsniegtu atļauju, ja vēlāk rodas vai kļūst zināmi 3. punktā minētie apstākļi, kas traucē tranzīta operācijai, vai ja turpmākais ceļojums iespējamās tranzītvalstīs vai atpakaļuzņemšana galamērķa valstī vairs nav nodrošināts. Šajā gadījumā, ja vajadzīgs, pieprasījuma iesniedzēja valsts bez kavēšanās uzņem atpakaļ trešās valsts valstspiederīgo vai bezvalstnieku.14. pantsTranzīta procedūra1. Pieprasījums par tranzīta operāciju jāiesniedz pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts kompetentajai iestādei rakstiskā veidā, un tajā jābūt šādai informācijai:a) tranzīta veids (pa gaisu vai sauszemi), citas iespējamās tranzīta valstis un paredzētais galamērķis;b) attiecīgās personas dati (piemēram, vārds, uzvārds, pirmslaulību uzvārds, citi vārdi, kas ir lietoti/pēc kuriem persona ir pazīstama, vai pseidonīmi, dzimšanas datums, dzimums un, ja iespējams, dzimšanas vieta, valstspiederība, valoda, ceļošanas dokumenta veids un numurs);c) paredzamā robežšķērsošanas vieta, pārvešanas laiks un iespējamā konvoja izmantošana;d) deklarācija par to, ka no pieprasījuma iesniedzējas valsts viedokļa 13. panta 2. punkta nosacījumi ir izpildīti un ka nav zināmi nekādi iemesli atteikumam saskaņā ar 13. panta 3. punktu.Vienotā veidlapa, kas izmantojama tranzīta pieteikumiem, pievienota šim nolīgumam kā 6. pielikums.2. Pieprasījuma saņēmēja valsts 4 darba dienu laikā rakstiski informē pieprasījuma iesniedzēju valsti par savu piekrišanu, apstiprinot ieceļošanas vietu un paredzēto ieceļošanas laiku, vai arī informē to par atteikumu un šāda atteikuma iemesliem.3. Ja tranzīta operācija notiek ar gaisa transportu, atpakaļ uzņemamo personu un iespējamos konvojus atbrīvo no lidostas tranzītvīzas pieprasīšanas.4. Pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts kompetentās iestādes pēc abpusējām apspriedēm palīdz veikt tranzīta operācijas, jo īpaši sniedzot palīdzību attiecīgo personu novērošanā un nodrošinot šim nolūkam piemērotus līdzekļus.V IEDAĻAIZMAKSAS15. pantsTransporta un tranzīta izmaksasNeskarot kompetento iestāžu tiesības atgūt ar atpakaļuzņemšanu saistītās izmaksas no atpakaļ uzņemtajām personām vai trešām personām, visas transporta izmaksas līdz galamērķa valsts robežai, kas radušās saistībā ar atpakaļuzņemšanu un tranzīta operācijām saskaņā ar šo nolīgumu, sedz pieprasījuma iesniedzēja valsts.VI IEDAĻADATU AIZSARDZĪBA UN NEIETEKMĒŠANAS KLAUZULA16. pantsDatu aizsardzībaPersonas datu paziņošana notiek tikai tad, ja šāda paziņošana ir vajadzīga Moldovas vai dalībvalsts kompetentajām iestādēm šā nolīgumā īstenošanai. Personas datu apstrādi un darbu ar tiem konkrētā gadījumā nosaka Moldovas tiesību akti un, ja datu apstrādes iestāde ir dalībvalsts kompetentā iestāde, Direktīva 95/46/EK [2] un attiecīgās dalībvalsts tiesību akti, kas pieņemti saskaņā ar minēto direktīvu. Papildus ievēro šādus principus:a) personas datu apstrāde jāveic godīgi un likumīgi;b) personas dati jāvāc konkrētam, skaidram un likumīgam šā nolīguma īstenošanas nolūkam, un ne paziņotāja iestāde, ne saņēmēja iestāde nedrīkst tos turpmāk apstrādāt veidā, kas nav saderīgs ar šo nolūku;c) personas datiem jābūt adekvātiem, atbilstīgiem un samērīgiem apjoma ziņā ar nolūkiem, kādiem tie savākti un/vai tālāk apstrādāti; jo īpaši paziņotie personas dati drīkst attiekties tikai uz:- ziņām par pārsūtamo personu (piemēram, vārdi, uzvārdi, jebkādi bijušie vārdi, citi vārdi, kas lietoti/pēc kuriem persona ir pazīstama, vai pseidonīmi, dzimums, ģimenes stāvoklis, dzimšanas datums un vieta, pašreizējā un jebkāda agrākā valstspiederība),- pasi, personas apliecību vai vadītāja apliecību (numurs, derīguma termiņš, izdošanas datums, izdevēja iestāde, izdošanas vieta),- pieturvietām un maršrutiem,- citu informāciju, kas vajadzīga pārsūtāmās personas identificēšanai vai atpakaļuzņemšanas prasību izskatīšanai atbilstīgi šim nolīgumam;d) personas datiem jābūt precīziem, un vajadzības gadījumā tie jāatjaunina;e) personas datus jāuzglabā veidā, kas pieļauj datu subjektu identifikāciju ne ilgāk, kā tas nepieciešams nolūkiem, kuriem dati tika vākti vai kuriem tos turpmāk apstrādā;f) gan paziņotāja iestāde, gan saņēmēja iestāde veic visus atbilstīgos pasākumus, lai vajadzības gadījumā nodrošinātu labošanu, dzēšanu vai piekļuves noslēgšanu gadījumos, kad apstrāde neatbilst šā panta noteikumiem, īpaši, ja šie dati nav adekvāti, piederīgi, precīzi, vai ja tie ir pārmērīgi attiecībā uz apstrādes nolūkiem. Tas paredz paziņojumu otrai Pusei par jebkādu datu labošanu, izdzēšanu un bloķēšanu;g) saņēmēja iestāde pēc pieprasījuma informē paziņotāju iestādi par paziņoto datu izmantošanu un par iegūtajiem rezultātiem;h) personas datus drīkst paziņot tikai kompetentajām iestādēm. To tālāka nosūtīšana citām iestādēm notiek tikai ar paziņotājas iestādes iepriekšēju piekrišanu;i) paziņotājas iestādes un saņēmējas iestādes pienākums ir rakstveidā reģistrēt personas datu paziņošanu un saņemšanu.17. pantsNeietekmēšanas klauzula1. Šis nolīgums neierobežo Kopienas, dalībvalstu un Moldovas tiesības, pienākumus un atbildību, kas izriet no starptautisko tiesību aktiem, un jo īpaši no:- 1951. gada 28. jūlija Konvencijas par bēgļu statusu, kurā grozījumi izdarīti ar 1967. gada 31. janvāra Protokolu par bēgļu statusu,- starptautiskajām konvencijām, kas nosaka dalībvalsti, kura ir atbildīga par patvēruma pieteikuma izskatīšanu,- 1950. gada 4. novembra Eiropas Cilvēktiesību un pamatbrīvību aizsardzības konvencijas,- 1984. gada 10. decembra Konvencijas pret spīdzināšanu un citu nežēlīgu, necilvēcīgu vai pazemojošu izturēšanos vai sodīšanu,- starptautiskajām konvencijām par izdošanu un tranzītu,- daudzpusējām starptautiskajām konvencijām un nolīgumiem par ārvalstu valstspiederīgo atpakaļuzņemšanu.2. Nekas šajā nolīgumā nekavē personas atgriešanos saskaņā ar citu oficiālu vai neoficiālu vienošanos.VII IEDAĻAĪSTENOŠANA UN PIEMĒROŠANA18. pantsApvienotā atpakaļuzņemšanas komiteja1. Līgumslēdzējas puses sniedz savstarpēju palīdzību šā nolīguma piemērošanā un interpretēšanā. Tālab tās izveido apvienoto atpakaļuzņemšanas komiteju (turpmāk "komiteja"), kas jo īpaši:a) uzraudzīs šā nolīguma piemērošanu;b) lems par īstenošanas pasākumiem, kas vajadzīgi šā nolīguma vienādai piemērošanai;c) regulāri apmainīsies ar informāciju par īstenošanas protokoliem, kurus saskaņā ar 19. pantu izstrādājušas atsevišķas dalībvalstis un Moldova;d) ieteiks grozījumus šajā nolīgumā un tā pielikumos.2. Komitejas lēmumi ir saistoši Līgumslēdzējām pusēm.3. Komitejas sastāvā ir Kopienas un Moldovas pārstāvji; Kopienu pārstāv Komisija.4. Komiteja vajadzības gadījumā tiekas pēc kādas Līgumslēdzējas puses lūguma.5. Komiteja izstrādā savu reglamentu.19. pantsĪstenošanas protokoli1. Pēc dalībvalsts vai Moldovas lūguma Moldova un dalībvalsts izstrādā īstenošanas protokolu, kurā ietver noteikumus par:a) kompetento iestāžu norīkošanu, robežšķērsošanas punktiem un kontaktpunktu apmaiņu;b) atgriešanas kārtību paātrinātās procedūras gadījumā;c) nosacījumiem konvojētām atgriešanām, tostarp trešo valstu valstspiederīgo un bezvalstnieku tranzītu konvoja pavadībā;d) līdzekļiem un dokumentiem papildus tiem, kas uzskaitīti šā nolīguma 1. līdz 4. pielikumā.2. Šā panta 1. punktā minētie īstenošanas protokoli stājas spēkā tikai pēc tam, kad par tiem ir paziņots 18. pantā minētajai atpakaļuzņemšanas komitejai.3. Moldova piekrīt piemērot jebkuru noteikumu īstenošanas protokolā, kuru tā izstrādājusi ar kādu dalībvalsti, arī savās attiecībās ar jebkuru citu dalībvalsti, ja attiecīgā dalībvalsts to pieprasa.20. pantsSaistība ar dalībvalstu divpusējiem atpakaļuzņemšanas nolīgumiem vai pasākumiemŠā nolīguma noteikumiem ir priekšroka attiecībā pret pārējo divpusējo nolīgumu vai pasākumu noteikumiem par personu bez uzturēšanās atļaujas atpakaļuzņemšanu, kas ir noslēgti vai var tikt noslēgti saskaņā ar 19. pantu starp atsevišķām dalībvalstīm un Moldovu, ciktāl to noteikumi ir nesaderīgi ar šo nolīgumu.VIII IEDAĻANOBEIGUMA NOTEIKUMI21. pantsTeritoriālā piemērošana1. Ievērojot 2. punktu, šo nolīgumu piemēro Moldovas teritorijā un teritorijā, kurā ir piemērojams Eiropas Kopienas dibināšanas līgums.2. Šo nolīgumu nepiemēro Dānijas Karalistes teritorijā.22. pantsSpēkā stāšanās, ilgums un izbeigšana1. Līgumslēdzējas puses šo nolīgumu ratificē vai apstiprina saskaņā ar savām attiecīgajām procedūrām.2. Šis nolīgums stājas spēkā otrā mēneša pirmajā dienā pēc dienas, kad Līgumslēdzējas puses rakstveidā viena otrai paziņojušas, ka šā panta pirmajā daļā minētās procedūras ir pabeigtas.3. Šis nolīgums ir noslēgts uz nenoteiktu laiku.4. Katra Līgumslēdzēja puse var denonsēt šo nolīgumu, oficiāli paziņojot par to otrai Līgumslēdzējai pusei. Šo nolīgumu beidz piemērot sešus mēnešus pēc šādas paziņošanas dienas.23. pantsPielikumiŠā nolīguma 1. līdz 6. pielikums ir tā sastāvdaļa.Nolīgums ir sagatavots Briselē, divos eksemplāros, divi tūkstoši septītā gada desmitajā oktobrī, angļu, bulgāru, čehu, dāņu, franču, grieķu, holandiešu, igauņu, itāļu, latviešu, lietuviešu, maltiešu, moldāvu, poļu, portugāļu, rumāņu, slovāku, slovēņu, somu, spāņu, ungāru, vācu un zviedru valodā, un visi teksti ir vienlīdz autentiski.За Европейската общностPor la Comunidad EuropeaZa Evropské společenstvíFor Det Europæiske FællesskabFür die Europäische GemeinschaftEuroopa Ühenduse nimelΓια την Ευρωπαϊκή ΚοινότηταFor the European CommunityPour la Communauté européennePer la Comunità europeaEiropas Kopienas vārdāEuropos bendrijos varduAz Európai Közösség részérőlGħall-Komunitá EwropeaVoor de Europese GemeenschapW imieniu Wspólnoty EuropejskiejPela Comunidade EuropeiaPentru Comunitatea EuropeanăZa Európske spoločenstvoZa Evropsko skupnostEuroopan yhteisön puolestaFör Europeiska gemenskapenPentru Comunitatea EuropeanăPentru Comunitatea Europeană+++++ TIFF ++++++++++ TIFF +++++За Република МолдоваPor la República de MoldovaZa Moldavskou republikuFor Republikken MoldovaFür die Republik MoldauMoldova Vabariigi nimelΓια τη Δημοκρατία της ΜολδαβίαςFor the Republic of MoldovaPour la République de MoldovaPer la Repubblica di MoldovaMoldovas Republikas vārdāMoldovos Respublikos varduA Moldovai Köztársaság részérőlGħar-Repubblika tal-MoldovaVoor de Republiek MoldaviëW imieniu Republiki MołdowyPela República da MoldáviaPentru Republica MoldovaZa Moldavskú republikuZa Republiko MoldavijoMoldovan tasavallan puolestaFör Republiken MoldavienPentru Republica Moldova+++++ TIFF +++++[1] Saskaņā ar ES Padomes 1994. gada 30. novembra ieteikumā noteikto formu.[2] Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Direktīva 95/46/EK ( 1995. gada 24. oktobris) par personu aizsardzību attiecībā uz personas datu apstrādi un šādu datu brīvu apriti (OV L 281, 23.11.1995., 31. lpp.).--------------------------------------------------200711221. PIELIKUMSKOPĒJAIS DOKUMENTU SARAKSTS, KURU UZRĀDĪŠANA IR UZSKATĀMA PAR VALSTSPIEDERĪBAS PIERĀDĪJUMU (2. PANTA 1. PUNKTS, 4. PANTA 1. PUNKTS UN 8. PANTA 1. PUNKTS)- Jebkāda veida pases (valsts pases, diplomātiskās pases, dienesta pases un, attiecīgos gadījumos, grupu pases un aizvietotājpases, tostarp bērnu pases),- jebkāda veida personas apliecība,- jūrnieka grāmatiņas un kapteiņa dienesta apliecības,- pilsonības apliecības un citi oficiāli dokumenti, kuros minēta vai nepārprotami norādīta pilsonība.--------------------------------------------------200711222. PIELIKUMSKOPĒJAIS DOKUMENTU SARAKSTS, KURU UZRĀDĪŠANA IR UZSKATĀMA PAR VALSTSPIEDERĪBAS PIERĀDĪJUMU PRIMA FACIE (2. PANTA 1. PUNKTS, 4. PANTA 1. PUNKTS UN 8. PANTA 2. PUNKTS)- Jebkuru šā nolīguma 1. pielikumā minēto dokumentu fotokopijas,- karaklausības apliecības un militārā dienesta apliecības,- oficiāli paziņojumi, kurus paātrinātās procedūras nolūkos veikuši robežkontroles dienesta darbinieki vai liecinieki, kas var apliecināt, ka attiecīgā persona ir šķērsojusi robežu,- autovadītāja apliecības vai to fotokopijas,- dzimšanas apliecības vai to fotokopijas,- dienesta apliecības vai to fotokopijas,- liecinieku rakstiski paziņojumi,- attiecīgās personas rakstiski paziņojumi un valoda, kādā tā runā, tostarp oficiālas pārbaudes rezultāti,- jebkurš cits dokuments, kas var palīdzēt noteikt attiecīgās personas valstspiederību.--------------------------------------------------200711223. PIELIKUMSKOPĒJAIS DOKUMENTU SARAKSTS, KURUS VAR UZSKATĪT PAR PIERĀDĪJUMU TREŠO VALSTU VALSTSPIEDERĪGO UN BEZVALSTNIEKU ATPAKAĻUZŅEMŠANAS PAMATOJUMAM (3. PANTA 1. PUNKTS, 5. PANTA 1. PUNKTS UN 9. PANTA 1. PUNKTS)- Vīza vai uzturēšanās atļauja, ko ir izsniegusi pieprasījuma saņēmēja dalībvalsts,- iebraukšanas/izbraukšanas zīmogi vai līdzīgi apstiprinājumi attiecīgās personas ceļošanas dokumentā vai cita veida pierādījums par iebraukšanu/izbraukšanu (piemēram, fotogrāfiju veidā),- biļetes, kā arī jebkāda veida apliecinājumi un rēķini (piemēram, viesnīcas rēķini, ārsta/zobārsta apmeklējuma kartes, valsts/privātu iestāžu caurlaides, automašīnu nomas līgumi, kredītkaršu kvītis u. c.), kuros norādīts personas vārds un kuri skaidri liecina, ka attiecīgā persona ir uzturējusies pieprasījuma saņēmējas valsts teritorijā,- biļetes un/vai pasažieru saraksti lidmašīnu, vilcienu, tālsatiksmes autobusu un kuģu maršrutos, kuros norādīts personas vārds un kas pierāda attiecīgās personas uzturēšanos un pārvietošanos saņēmējas valsts teritorijā,- oficiāli paziņojumi, kurus veikuši robežkontroles dienesta darbinieki un liecinieki, kas var apliecināt, ka attiecīgā persona ir šķērsojusi robežu.--------------------------------------------------200711224. PIELIKUMSKOPĒJAIS TO DOKUMENTU SARAKSTS, KURUS UZSKATA PAR PRIMA FACIE PIERĀDĪJUMU TREŠO VALSTU VALSTSPIEDERĪGO UN BEZVALSTNIEKU ATPAKAĻUZŅEMŠANAS PAMATOJUMAM (3. PANTA 1. PUNKTS, 5. PANTA 1. PUNKTS UN 9. PANTA 2. PUNKTS)- Informācija, kas liecina, ka attiecīgā persona ir izmantojusi ceļojumu aģenta vai biroja pakalpojumus,- attiecīgās personas, tās ģimenes locekļu vai ceļabiedru oficiāla liecība administratīvajā procesā vai tiesvedībā,- oficiāli paziņojumi, kurus snieguši liecinieki, kas var apliecināt, ka attiecīgā persona ir šķērsojusi robežu,- starptautiskas organizācijas (piemēram, ANO augstā komisāra bēgļu jautājumos) sniegtas ziņas par personas identitāti un/vai tās uzturēšanos.--------------------------------------------------200711225. PIELIKUMS[Moldovas Republikas ģerbonis](Vieta un datums)(Pieprasījuma iesniedzējas iestādes nosaukums)Atsauce:Kam:PAĀTRINĀTĀ PROCEDŪRA(Pieprasījuma saņēmējas iestādes nosaukums)+++++ TIFF +++++ATPAKAĻUZŅEMŠANAS PIEPRASĪJUMSsaskaņā ar 7. pantu2007. gada 18. septembrisNolīgumā starp Eiropas Kopienu un Moldovas Republiku par to personu atpakaļuzņemšanu, kuras uzturas neatļautiA. PERSONAS DATI1. Pilns vārds (uzvārdu pasvītrot):2. Pirmslaulību uzvārds:3. Dzimšanas datums un vietaFotogrāfija4. Dzimums un izskata apraksts (augums, acu krāsa, atšķirības pazīmes u. c.):5. Citi vārdi (agrāki vārdi, citi lietotie vārdi vai pieņemtie vārdi):6. Valstspiederība un valoda:7. Ģimenes stāvoklis:Ja precējies(-usies): laulātā vārds:Bērnu vārdi un vecums (ja ir):8. Pēdējā adrese pieprasījuma iesniedzēja valstī:B. LAULĀTĀ (JA IR) PERSONAS DATI1. Pilns vārds (uzvārdu pasvītrot):2. Pirmslaulības uzvārds:3. Dzimšanas datums un vieta4. Dzimums un izskata apraksts (augums, acu krāsa, atšķirības pazīmes u. c.):5. Citi vārdi (agrāki vārdi, citi lietotie vārdi vai pieņemtie vārdi):6. Valstspiederība un valoda:precējies (-usies)atraitnis(-e)neprecējies(-usies)šķīries(-usies)+++++ TIFF +++++C. BĒRNU (JA IR) PERSONAS DATI1. Pilns vārds (uzvārdu pasvītrot):2. Dzimšanas datums un vieta:3. Dzimums un izskata apraksts (augums, acu krāsa, atšķirības zīmes u. c.):4. Valstspiederība un valoda:D. ĪPAŠI APSTĀKĻI ATTIECĪBĀ UZ PĀRSŪTĀMO PERSONU1. Veselības stāvoklis(piemēram, iespējama norāde uz īpašu medicīnisko aprūpi; iespējamās lipīgās slimības nosaukums latīņu valodā):2. Norādījums par īpaši bīstamu personu(piemēram, turēts aizdomās par smagu noziedzīgu nodarījumu; agresīva uzvedība):E. PIEVIENOTIE PIERĀDĪJUMI(Pases Nr.)(izdošanas datums un vieta)(izdevēja iestāde)(derīguma termiņš)(Personas apliecības Nr.)(izdošanas datums un vieta)(izdevēja iestāde)(derīguma termiņš)(Autovadītāja apliecības Nr.)(izdošanas datums un vieta)(izdevēja iestāde)(derīguma termiņš)(Cita oficiāla dokumenta Nr.)(izdošanas datums un vieta)(izdevēja iestāde)(derīguma termiņš)F. NOVĒROJUMI(Paraksts) (Zīmogs/spiedogs)+++++ TIFF +++++--------------------------------------------------200711226. PIELIKUMS[Moldovas Republikas ģerbonis](Vieta un datums)(Pieprasījuma iesniedzējas iestādes nosaukums)Atsauce:Kam:(Pieprasījuma saņēmējas iestādes nosaukums)+++++ TIFF +++++TRANZĪTA PIETEIKUMSsaskaņā ar 14. pantu2007. gada 18. septembraNolīgumā starp Eiropas Kopienu un Moldovas Republiku par to personu atpakaļuzņemšanu, kuras uzturas neatļautiA. PERSONAS DATI1. Pilns vārds (uzvārdu pasvītrot):2. Pirmslaulību uzvārds:3. Dzimšanas datums un vieta:Fotogrāfija4. Dzimums un izskata apraksts (augums, acu krāsa, atšķirības zīmes u. c.):5. Citi vārdi (agrāki vārdi, citi lietotie vārdi vai pieņemtie vārdi):6. Valstspiederība un valoda:7. Ceļošanas dokumenta veids un numurs:B. ĪPAŠI APSTĀKĻI ATTIECĪBĀ UZ PĀRSŪTĀMO PERSONU (JA VAJADZĪGS)1. Veselības stāvoklis(piemēram, iespējama norāde uz īpašu medicīnisko aprūpi; iespējamās lipīgās slimības nosaukums latīņu valodā):2. Norādījums par īpaši bīstamu personu(piemēram, turēts aizdomās par smagu noziedzīgu nodarījumu; agresīva uzvedība):C. TRANZĪTA OPERĀCIJA1. Tranzīta veids2. Galamērķa valsts3. Citas iespējamās tranzītvalstis4. Ierosinātā robežšķērsošanas vieta, datums, pārsūtīšanas laiks un iespējamais konvojs5. Uzņemšana ir garantēta visās citās tranzītvalstīs un galamērķa valstī(13. panta 2. punkts)pa gaisupa sauszemijānē+++++ TIFF +++++6. Ziņas par iemesliem tranzīta noraidījumam(13. panta 3. punkts)D. PIEZĪMESjānē(Paraksts) (Zīmogs/spiedogs)+++++ TIFF +++++--------------------------------------------------


type: caselaw

text:
 25.10.2008
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 272/11
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Landesgericht Feldkirch (Rakúsko) 28. júla 2008 – Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse/WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG
 (Vec C-347/08)
 (2008/C 272/18)
 Jazyk konania: nemčina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Landesgericht Feldkirch
 Účastníci konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom
 Žalobkyňa: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse
 Žalovaná: WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG
 Prejudiciálne otázky
 1.
 Má sa odkaz v článku 11 ods. 2 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 44/2001 z 22. decembra 2000 o právomoci a o uznávaní a výkone rozsudkov v občianskych a obchodných veciach (1) na článok 9 ods. 1 písm. b) tohto nariadenia vykladať v tom zmysle, že inštitúcia sociálneho poistenia, na ktorú na základe zákona (§ 332 ASVG) prešli nároky priamo poškodeného, môže podať žalobu priamo proti poistiteľovi v členskom štáte na súde podľa miesta svojej pobočky, pokiaľ je takáto priama žaloba prípustná a poistiteľ má bydlisko na území členského štátu?
 2.
 V prípade kladnej odpovede na otázku 1: Je táto právomoc daná aj v prípade, ak priamo poškodený v okamihu podania žaloby na súde nemá bydlisko alebo zvyčajný pobyt v členskom štáte, v ktorom má inštitúcia sociálneho poistenia svoju pobočku?
 (1) Ú. v. ES L 12, 2001, s. 1; Mim. vyd. 19/004, s. 42.


type: legislation

text:
 29.6.2016
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 170/3
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) 2016/1043
 z 15. júna 2016,
 ktorým sa do Registra chránených označení pôvodu a chránených zemepisných označení zapisuje názov [Café de Valdesia (CHOP)]
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 z 21. novembra 2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny (1), a najmä na jeho článok 52 ods. 2,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Žiadosť Dominikánskej republiky o zápis názvu „Café de Valdesia“ do registra bola v súlade s článkom 50 ods. 2 písm. a) nariadenia (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 uverejnená v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie
 (2).
 (2)
 Vzhľadom na to, že Komisii nebola oznámená žiadna námietka v zmysle článku 51 nariadenia (EÚ) č. 1151/2012, názov „Café de Valdesia“ by sa mal zapísať do registra,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Názov „Café de Valdesia“ (CHOP) sa zapisuje do registra.
 Názov uvedený v prvom odseku sa vzťahuje na výrobok triedy 1.8. Iné výrobky prílohy I k zmluve (koreniny atď.) uvedenej v prílohe XI k vykonávaciemu nariadeniu Komisie (EÚ) č. 668/2014 (3).
 Článok 2
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť dvadsiatym dňom po jeho uverejnení v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 15. júna 2016
 Za Komisiu
 v mene predsedu
 Phil HOGAN
 člen Komisie
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 14.12.2012, s. 1.
 (2) Ú. v. EÚ C 91, 8.3.2016, s. 15.
 (3) Vykonávacie nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) č. 668/2014 z 13. júna 2014, ktorým sa stanovujú pravidlá uplatňovania nariadenia Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) č. 1151/2012 o systémoch kvality pre poľnohospodárske výrobky a potraviny (Ú. v. EÚ L 179, 19.6.2014, s. 36).


text:
 26.6.2015
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 161/7
 A BIZOTTSÁG (EU) 2015/1004 VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2015. június 24.)
 az 1484/95/EK rendeletnek a baromfihús- és tojáságazatban alkalmazandó, valamint a tojásalbuminra vonatkozó irányadó árak meghatározása tekintetében történő módosításáról
 AZ EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel a mezőgazdasági termékpiacok közös szervezésének létrehozásáról, és a 922/72/EGK, a 234/79/EK, az 1037/2001/EK és az 1234/2007/EK tanácsi rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről szóló, 2013. december 17-i 1308/2013/EU európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletre (1) és különösen annak 183. cikke b) pontjára,
 tekintettel a mezőgazdasági termékek feldolgozásával előállított egyes árucikkekre alkalmazandó kereskedelmi szabályokról és az 1216/2009/EK, valamint a 614/2009/EK tanácsi rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről szóló, 2014. április 16-i 510/2014/EU európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletre (2) és különösen annak 5. cikke (6) bekezdésének a) pontjára,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az 1484/95/EK bizottsági rendelet (3) meghatározta a baromfihús- és a tojáságazatra, valamint a tojásalbuminra vonatkozó kiegészítőimportvám-rendszer végrehajtásának részletes szabályait, és megállapította az érintett termékekre alkalmazandó irányadó árakat.
 (2)
 A baromfihús- és tojáságazati termékekre, valamint a tojásalbuminra vonatkozó irányadó árak meghatározásának alapjául szolgáló adatok rendszeresen végrehajtott ellenőrzéséből az derül ki, hogy az irányadó árakat bizonyos termékek behozatala vonatkozásában a származási hely szerinti árkülönbségek figyelembevételével módosítani kell.
 (3)
 Az 1484/95/EK rendeletet ezért ennek megfelelően módosítani kell.
 (4)
 Tekintettel annak szükségességére, hogy az intézkedés alkalmazása a frissített adatok rendelkezésre bocsátását követően mihamarabb megkezdődjék, indokolt előírni, hogy e rendelet a kihirdetésének napján lépjen hatályba,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 Az 1484/95/EK rendelet I. mellékletének helyébe e rendelet mellékletének szövege lép.
 2. cikk
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetésének napján lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2015. június 24-én.
 a Bizottság részéről,
 az elnök nevében,
 Jerzy PLEWA
 mezőgazdasági és vidékfejlesztési főigazgató
 (1) HL L 347., 2013.12.20., 671. o.
 (2) HL L 150., 2014.5.20., 1. o.
 (3) A Bizottság 1995. június 28-i 1484/95/EK rendelete a kiegészítőimportvám-rendszer végrehajtásával kapcsolatos részletes szabályoknak és az irányadó áraknak a baromfihús- és tojáságazat, valamint a tojásalbumin tekintetében történő megállapításáról, valamint a 163/67/EGK rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről (HL L 145., 1995.6.29., 47. o.).
 MELLÉKLET
 „I. MELLÉKLET
 KN-kód
 Árumegnevezés
 Irányadó ár
 (EUR/100 kg)
 A 3. cikkben említett biztosíték
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Származási hely (1)
 0207 12 10
 Tisztított és bontott, 70 %-os csirke, fagyasztva
 139,2
 0
 AR
 0207 12 90
 Tisztított és bontott, 65 %-os csirke, fagyasztva
 153,3
 0
 AR
 170,1
 0
 BR
 0207 14 10
 A Gallus domesticus fajhoz tartozó szárnyasok darabolva, csont nélkül, fagyasztva
 324,4
 0
 AR
 238,9
 18
 BR
 342,8
 0
 CL
 308,7
 0
 TH
 0207 27 10
 Pulykadarabok, csont nélkül, fagyasztva
 348,9
 0
 BR
 413,2
 0
 CL
 0408 91 80
 Tojás, héj nélkül, szárítva
 384,3
 0
 AR
 1602 32 11
 A Gallus domesticus fajhoz tartozó szárnyasokból készült termékek főzés nélkül
 269,1
 5
 BR
 (1) A Közösség harmadik országokkal folytatott külkereskedelmére vonatkozó statisztikáról szóló 471/2009/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletnek az országok és területek nómenklatúrájának frissítése tekintetében történő végrehajtásáról szóló, 2012. november 27-i 1106/2012/EU bizottsági rendeletben (HL L 328., 2012.11.28., 7. o.) meghatározott országnómenklatúra szerint. A »ZZ« kód jelentése: »egyéb származási hely«.”