jurisdiction: US

text:
Some time prior to November 26th, 1924, a bridge over the Potomac River, connecting Main Street in Westernport, Maryland, with Ashfield Street in Piedmont, West Virginia, was destroyed by flood. It had been constructed and maintained jointly for many years by the Road Directors of Allegany County and the County Court of Mineral County, West Virginia, and when it was washed away they constructed, nearby, a temporary bridge to take its place pending the completion of a new permanent bridge. The temporary bridge was placed in a different location from the old one in order to have the clearance necessary for the construction of the new permanent bridge. To afford the travelling public convenient access to the temporary bridge it became necessary to cross a lot sixty feet in depth belonging to the appellants, which separated it from Main Street. The Road Directors thereupon contracted with the appellants for the use of that lot of ground free of charge for a period of six months. At the expiration of that period the permanent bridge was still uncompleted, and it then appeared that it would probably require an additional twelve months to finish it, and the appellee applied to the appellants for an extension of the privilege of using the lot for an additional *Page 496
 period of twelve months for a valuable consideration, but they refused to rent, lease or otherwise contract with the appellee for the use of the same. In that situation the appellee applied to the Circuit Court for Allegany County for a warrant directed to the sheriff of that county directing him to summon a jury to assess the damages which the appellants would sustain by the use of the said lot as a highway for the period of twelve months. On that application the court signed a nisi order, and the respondents by way of cause filed an answer in which they denied that the court had jurisdiction to issue the warrant prayed for, and alleged that the petitioner had no power or authority to condemn the land or any interest in it. A hearing was had and testimony taken in connection with the issues made by these pleadings and at its conclusion the court issued the warrant. A jury was summoned and sworn and its inquisition returned. Exceptions were filed to that inquisition, but the court overruled the exceptions and ratified the inquisition, and from that order the respondents appealed.
 The facts essential to a consideration of the questions presented by the appeal, in addition to those already referred to may be thus stated: Westernport was incorporated by chapter 40 of the Acts of 1868. The Road Directors of Allegany County were incorporated by chapter 262 of the Acts of 1904. The County Commissioners of Allegany County were authorized by chapter 103 of the Acts of 1868 "to levy such sum or sums of money as they deem necessary in their judgment, to aid in the construction of a bridge across the Potomac River at Westernport, in Allegany County, Maryland."
 The County Commissioners of Allegany County, in conjunction with the County Court of Mineral County, West Virginia, did construct the bridge referred to in that act and have since maintained it, renewing and repairing it from time to time as was necessary.
 Before this proceeding it was destroyed by flood, and the appellee, in conjunction with the County Court of Mineral *Page 497
 County, West Virginia, made plans for its reconstruction and had let contracts for a part of the construction work. On the 18th day of April, 1924, the appellee contracted with the appellants for the use of their lot, which was needed as a public way or approach to the temporary bridge. Under the contract the right to so use it for six months was granted to the appellee, and no charge was made for the use during that period, and the appellants agreed to renew the contract upon application by the appellee within the period of six months. No such application was made and the appellants then began to collect toll from persons crossing their land in going to and from the bridge. After the six months had expired the appellee, being of the opinion that the construction of the new bridge would not be completed within twelve months from that time, applied to the appellants for the use of the ground for a valuable consideration for that period, but was unable to reach an agreement with them as to such use. Thereupon the appellee by its attorneys filed the petition referred to above, supported by the affidavit of its chairman, for the condemnation of the land as a way or approach to the bridge for twelve months, and the subsequent proceedings resulted in the condemnation of the property and the award of damages to the owners for such use.
 We have treated these facts as uncontradicted, for while the appellants denied that the temporary bridge had been constructed or paid for by the appellee, and denied that the use of the land was necessary to the public convenience, and denied that the appellee had been unable to agree with the owners, if the court had jurisdiction to entertain the application at all, they are concluded by the finding of the jury and the subsequent ratification of the inquisition upon those facts.
 The appellants objected to the ratification of the inquisition for reasons which may be thus summarized, that is to say: (1) because all acts of the appellee in connection with the permanent and the temporary bridge were ultra vires and therefore void; (2) that there was no duty resting upon *Page 498
 the appellee to condemn the land; (3) that the appellee had no power to condemn land for the purpose set forth in the petition within the corporate limits of Westernport; (4) that the petitioner had never by any valid corporate act decided that it was necessary to condemn the land; (5) that the petition showed on its face that the appellee had never been requested to open a public road over the land in question, and that no notice had been given nor had any hearings in reference thereto been held; (6) that the proceedings show on their face that the public had adequate means of communication between Westernport and Piedmont; (7) that the jury had no opportunity of finding for the appellants because the form given them by the sheriff made no provision for a verdict in their favor; (8) that it did not appear on the face of the proceedings which of the appellants owned the land, and (9) that the statutes under which these proceedings had been held were repealed by "article 33A of the Code of Public General Laws of Maryland."
 Although we have stated them all, it is unnecessary for us to consider any of these objections except those which deny that the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the proceedings, and those which assert that the statutes under which this proceeding was instituted have been repealed, for if that court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, and if those statutes are unrepealed and this proceeding was properly instituted under them, its determination is final, and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this court. The reasons for that rule and the cases exemplifying its application have been so exhaustively treated in an opinion filed in this Court by Judge Pearce inDolfield v. Western Maryland R.R. Co., 107 Md. 584, that the citation of further authority seems unwarranted.
 If the appellee had the right to acquire land for the purpose set out in its petition and if sections 331 to 337, article 23, C.P.G.L. of Md. are still in force, and this proceeding is properly instituted under the authority thereof, then whether the appellee had by valid corporate act decided that *Page 499
 it was necessary to condemn the land, or whether it had attempted and failed to agree with the landowner as to its use and the proper compensation therefor, or whether public convenience required its condemnation, or whether there were irregularities in the conduct of the sheriff or the jury, or whether the interests of the several owners in the property were properly described in the petition, were all matters for the consideration of the trial court sitting in the exercise of a special statutory jurisdiction at the trial of the exceptions to the ratification of the inquisition, and from its judgment upon them no appeal lies to this Court. Dolfield v. Western Maryland R.R. Co.,supra.
 The important question presented by the appeal, therefore, is whether the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding, or stated in another way, whether the appellee had any power to condemn the land described in the petition for the purpose therein stated, but before considering that question we will first deal with the contention that this proceeding, if it can be maintained at all, should have been instituted under article 33A of the Code of Public General Laws of Maryland, and not under sections 331-337, article 23, Bagby's Code 1924. But in view of what was said in Koehler v. State Roads Commission,125 Md. 444, it is obvious (1) that those sections have never been repealed, and (2) that this proceeding was properly instituted under the authority thereof, if the appellee had the power to condemn at all. In that case, as in this, land was sought to be condemned for highway purposes, and in that case as in this the proceedings were brought under the sections of article 23 to which we have just referred, the only material difference between the cases being that in that case the land was sought for use as part of a state highway, while in this it is sought for use in connection with the county road system of Allegany County. And what was said by Judge Briscoe speaking for this Court therein is quite as applicable here. In dealing with that question he said: "It is clear that the object of the Act of 1912 was to provide condemnation proceedings *Page 500
 before a jury in court instead of before a sheriff's jury, in all cases, except those otherwise stated by the act itself. This is made plain and manifest not only by the title of the act, but by section 7 of the act, which is as follows: `The state, and any municipal or other corporation, commission, board, body or person, which under the laws of this State, has the right to acquire property by condemnation, shall acquire such property, if condemnation proceedings be resorted to, in pursuance of, and under the provisions of, this article, anything in any other public general law or public local law or private or special statute to the contrary notwithstanding; provided, however, that nothing in this article contained shall apply to or change the present law or procedure for the opening, closing, widening or straightening of highways.' The proviso in the seventh section above cited specially provides that nothing in the article should apply or change the present law or procedure for the opening, closing widening or straightening of highways. It is difficult to understand how any serious contention can be made, in view of this proviso, that the law and procedure, then in force (Acts of 1908, chapter 141, and Acts of 1910, chapter 501), relating to highways, were in any way intended to be repealed or to be affected by the act which excepted them from its operation."
 The appellants, however, contend that the Road Directors of Allegany County had no power or authority to condemn the land in question under this proceeding, (1) because it had no right to open, close, alter, or relocate a road except upon petition and notice in the manner provided in chapter 262, Acts of 1904, (2) that it had not the power to condemn land within the corporate limits of Westernport, (3) because it had no power or authority to condemn a temporary use in land and (4) because it had no power or authority to construct or maintain the temporary or the permanent bridge.
 Before considering separately these objections, we will restate briefly the situation of the appellee and the citizens of Westernport and Allegany County at the time these proceedings *Page 501
 were initiated. The two towns, Westernport in Maryland, and Piedmont in West Virginia, are separated by the Potomac River. The only safe and convenient means of communication between them for many years has been over a bridge constructed for their common convenience by the joint action of Mineral County, West Virginia, in which Piedmont is located, and the Road Directors of Allegany County. Commerce between the two towns had in course of time led to a considerable volume of travel over this bridge by the citizens of the two states. As a result of flood the bridge was destroyed and the only safe and convenient avenue of communication between the two states at that point became impassable. To serve the public convenience the appellee constructed a temporary bridge to care for the travel during the reconstruction of the old bridge, but access to that temporary bridge could only be had over private property. The owners of that property, after having allowed the use of it for that purpose for a period of six months, after the expiration thereof refused to permit it to be used any longer as an approach to the bridge except upon the payment of toll by such persons as had occasion to use the bridge.
 It is apparent from this statement that while the appellee proposed to open a new road, it was not such a road as would render it expedient or proper for it to pursue the procedure provided in that part of section 216K of the Act of 1904 which requires the appointment of examiners, the filing of petitions, hearings, appeals etc. which might not be concluded until long after the need for the temporary use had ceased. But at the same time it is well settled that the appellee has no power of eminent domain unless the Legislature has directly or by necessary implication conferred that power upon it, and that in such a case the manner of procedure provided in the enabling act must be strictly followed. Lewis on Eminent Domain, sec. 240 et seq. It is, however, contended that the concluding clause of section 216K authorizes the appellee to condemn lands needed for public roads under the provisions of sections 331-337, article 23, Bagby's *Page 502
 Code, and that is the view taken by the trial court. It may be said that the language of that section is by no means clear, but bearing in mind the duties imposed upon the appellee by statute in respect to the roads and highways under its control and supervision, and the powers necessary to any adequate discharge of that duty, there is much force in that contention. The portions of that act germane to the question are as follows:
 "All applications for opening, altering or closing roads shall be by petition to the Road Directors, and whenever any person or persons shall intend to petition said directors for opening, altering or closing any road, he or they shall give twenty days' notice thereof in one or more newspapers published in Allegany County, setting forth as near as may be the length and location of said road and the reason he or they have for opening, altering or closing the same; and counter petitions may be presented to the Road Directors at any time within fifteen days after the expiration of the twenty days' notice above provided for; and when any petitions are so presented, the said Road Directors shall appoint a day when the petitioners and counter petitioners shall be heard, and shall consider the same and such testimony as may be adduced before them, and shall determine the case in such manner as in their opinion shall be right and proper. Whenever the Road Directors decide it is expedient that a road be opened under the provisions of this section, they may contract with the owner or owners of the land through which the road is intended to be run for the right of way necessary for such roads. * * * and whenever the Road Directors shall deem it expedient that examiners should be appointed to view grounds for the purpose of opening, altering or closing a road, they shall appoint three persons as examiners, * * * but the appointment of the examiners shall not prevent the Road Directors from contracting with the owner or owners as above provided; or said Road Directors may proceed to condemn the lands that may be necessary for the laying out of new public roads *Page 503
 or for altering of existing roads under the provisions of sections 248 to 253, both inclusive, of article 23 of the Code of Public General Laws, title `Corporations,' and any and all amendments thereto."
 It might be said that these provisions mean that, after the filing of petitions, a hearing etc. and after having determined that the public convenience required the opening of a new road, the appellee could either appoint examiners, or acquire the land by contract, or condemn it. But we think a more reasonable construction, and one more in harmony with the general powers and duties of the appellee, is that it was intended to confer upon the appellee, whenever in its judgment the public safety, convenience or welfare required it, the power to condemn land for a new road without requiring the filing of a formal application and the long drawn out procedure incident thereto.
 But in view of what was said by this Court in Cumberland P.R.R. v. Penna. R.R., 57 Md. 267, and in other cases decided both before and after that case, we do not feel that this question is before us on this appeal. The subject matter of the proceeding was the condemnation of land for highway purposes. The appellee had undoubtedly the right to acquire land by condemnation for such purposes upon compliance with the conditions prescribed by the statute. Whether it had fully complied with those conditions was a question which, while jurisdictional in character, was yet one peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, upon exceptions to the inquisition. And what was said in the case last cited appears to conclusively negative our right to review its decision thereon. In that case the Court said: "The injunction in each case was refused by the learned judge of the circuit court, on the ground that the jurisdiction to determine the matters in controversy, was in the circuit court sitting in review of the condemnation proceedings; and in his opinion, refusing the injunction we fully concur. Not only were the alleged grounds of objection *Page 504
 open to the complainant by way of objection to the confirmation of the inquisition at the time of filing the first bill; but the said company did actually go into the said court, and made objections to the confirmation of the inquisition; and if it did not make all the objections, jurisdictional or otherwise, that could be made to the confirmation, it was its own fault, and it cannot complain if there was any omission; and if its objections did not receive due consideration by that court, or were erroneously decided, it is still bound by the decision; and we can see no reason why it should have another trial of the same questions, by the same court, sitting in another capacity, and having no more ample power or authority to decide the questions involved, while sitting in the one capacity than in the other."
 And in New York Mining Company v. Midland Co., 99 Md. 506, where the exceptant objected to the ratification of an inquisition on the ground that the property was not condemned for a public use, that there was no necessity for the condemnation, and that the warrant directing the sheriff to summon a jury was not issued in conformity with law, it was said: "Whatever subject-matter involved in the controversy, the court below had the right to decide was necessarily a subject-matter within the jurisdiction of that tribunal. Accordingly the inquiry here is, not whether the trial court rightly decided but whether it had the right to decide, what it did decide. If it had the right to decide what it did decide then, though its decision be, in point of fact or of law, erroneous it cannot be reviewed, because the statute has conferred no power upon this Court to sit in review of such a judgment. So the ultimate question is, were the things complained of and decided below, things which the court had jurisdiction to decide? * * * As each and all of the exceptions to the ratification of the inquisition and the reasons assigned as grounds of error embrace and comprise matters which, in the last analysis, relate merely to the correctness of the circuit court's judgment, and in no way concern or affect its jurisdiction over the subject-matter and the parties *Page 505
 then before it, and it is obvious, upon well settled principles, that neither an appeal nor a writ of error will lie to review the judgment complained of."
 And again in Dolfield v. Western Md. R. Co., supra, in referring to a statement in Hopkins v. P., W. B.R.R. Co.,94 Md. 257, the Court used this language: "But in that case, the court used the following significant language: `The only ground upon which the present appeal can be maintained is that the appellee had no right at all to make the condemnation complained of, and for that reason the circuit court had exceeded its jurisdiction in confirming the inquisition. If such be the case the decisions support the right of appeal. George's CreekCoal Iron Co. v. New Cent. Coal Co., 40 Md. 425; B. O. v.Waltemeyer, 47 Md. 331; Herzberg v. Adams, 39 Md. 312.' The cases thus referred to merely show and were merely intended to show, that an appeal lies where the lower court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, and therefore no right to render any judgment upon the merits."
 In this case, assuming that the appellee could not condemn except upon application or petition, and after notice and a hearing, nevertheless whether those steps had been taken was a question which the trial court had the right to decide, and having the power to decide them its decision in respect to them is final.
 The contention that the lower court had not jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this proceeding also involves, as we have said above, these propositions: (1) that the appellee had no authority to condemn land in the town of Westernport, (2) that it had no power to condemn a mere temporary use of property, (3) that it had no power to build either the permanent or temporary bridge, or any way or approach in connection therewith.
 The first and third propositions appear to have been answered by the case of Allegany County v. Seaber, 123 Md. 527. In that case the defendant sought to escape liability for injuries resulting from the unsafe condition of the bridge *Page 506
 under consideration here, on the ground that the Road Directors of Allegany County, under section 2 of article 25, Bagby's Code 1924, had no control over the roads, streets and alleys in incorporated towns, even though situated within Allegany County, but in dealing with that question this Court, through Judge Urner, said: "There is no such exception, however, in the separate provision, by section 13, that `they may build and repair bridges and levy upon the property of the county therefor.' These sections were all in effect when the road directors were incorporated and invested with powers co-extensive with those of the County Commissioners with respect to public roads and bridges, and they have continued to be operative to the present time. * * * The bridge upon which the accident occurred, though located within the limits of Westernport, was built upon soil which formed part of the territory of the county, and the public interests which required its construction were obviously much broader than the local convenience of the citizens of the municipality. It was not established as a means of passage over a stream which divided the area of the town and impeded the association of its people, but it was erected over a river which marks the boundary between Maryland and a sister state, and it was undoubtedly designed to facilitate intercourse between the larger communities on either side of the river in which the two towns at the termini of the bridge are included. The County Commissioners of Allegany County, and co-extensively the road directors of the county, were given express and comprehensive authority to build and repair bridges. In the absence of any qualification of this power in the section by which it was conferred, as to its exercise within municipal areas, it could not properly be held that the county is without interest or responsibility with respect to this interstate bridge which it has constructed and maintained, under the special arrangement described, with funds to which its taxpayers generally have contributed."
 It was expressly decided in that case that the appellee was validly authorized by chapter 103 of the Acts of 1868 to *Page 507
 build the bridge and to maintain it, and that it was charged with the duty of keeping it in safe condition for public use. For the conclusion in that case necessarily assumed that in building and maintaining the permanent bridge the appellee acted within its statutory powers. And if it had the authority to construct, or to join with Mineral County in constructing, the permanent bridge and to maintain it as a necessary incident of that power, it must also have had the power to do such things as were reasonably necessary to prevent or lessen inconvenience to the public which might result from any interruption of the use of that bridge, and in our opinion the power to maintain the temporary bridge while the permanent bridge is under construction and to acquire by condemnation or otherwise land necessary to afford access thereto is fairly implied from the authority to build and maintain the permanent bridge.
 The remaining objection to the jurisdiction is that the appellee had no power to condemn a mere temporary use of the land. No authority has been cited in support of that proposition and what authority we have found is the other way. Dillon, Mun.Corp. (5th ed.), par. 1025, note 2; Hepburn v. Jersey City,67 N.J.L. 114; Lewis, Em. Dom., par. 278.
 Since therefore the appellee had the power to condemn the land in question, the Circuit Court for Allegany County had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this proceeding, and from its judgment given in the exercise of that jurisdiction no appeal lies, and it follows that the appeal taken in this case must be dismissed.
 Appeal dismissed, with costs. *Page 508


type: wikipedia

text:
Världens starkaste man (WSM) är en årligen återkommande strongmantävling som arrangeras av TWI, ett dotterbolag till IMG Media. Denna tävling är ej att förväxla med världsmästerskapen som hölls av den numera nedlagda federationen International Federation of Strength Athletes (IFSA). Tävlingen brukar hållas i slutet av september. 14 gånger har tävlingen vunnits av deltagare från Norden och 11 gånger av deltagare från USA.
 Världens starkaste kvinna avgörs parallellt med männens och de genomför tävlingen inom samma grenar, men belastningen brukar vara ca 50 % lägre.
 Vinnare
 Externa länkar
 Officiell webbplats
 Idrottsrekord
 Strongman


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22001D0034
 ETA:n sekakomitean päätös N:o 34/2001, tehty 30 päivänä maaliskuuta 2001, ETA-sopimuksen liitteen I (Eläinlääkintä- ja kasvinsuojeluasiat) muuttamisesta
 Virallinen lehti nro L 158 , 14/06/2001 s. 0022 - 0025
 ETA:n sekakomitean päätösN:o 34/2001,tehty 30 päivänä maaliskuuta 2001,ETA-sopimuksen liitteen I (Eläinlääkintä- ja kasvinsuojeluasiat) muuttamisestaETA:N SEKAKOMITEA, jokaottaa huomioon Euroopan talousalueesta tehdyn sopimuksen, sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna Euroopan talousalueesta tehdyn sopimuksen tarkistamisesta tehdyllä pöytäkirjalla, jäljempänä "sopimus", ja erityisesti sen 98 artiklan,sekä katsoo seuraavaa:(1) Sopimuksen liite I muutettiin 17 päivänä joulukuuta 1999 tehdyllä ETA:n sekakomitean päätöksellä N:o 189/1999(1).(2) Sopimuksen osaksi olisi otettava 26 säädöstä, jotka koskevat eläinlääkintäalan valvontaa.(3) Tätä päätöstä ei sovelleta Islantiin eikä Liechtensteiniin,ON PÄÄTTÄNYT SEURAAVAA:1 artiklaMuutetaan sopimuksen liitteessä I oleva I luku tämän päätöksen liitteen mukaisesti.2 artiklaKomission päätösten 92/271/ETY(2), 1999/293/EY(3), 1999/334/EY(4), 1999/384/EY(5), 1999/441/EY(6), 1999/507/EY(7), 1999/514/EY(8), 1999/517/EY(9), 1999/542/EY(10), 1999/549/EY(11), 1999/623/EY(12), 1999/643/EY(13), 1999/644/EY(14), 1999/683/EY(15), 1999/713/EY(16), 1999/746/EY(17), 1999/788/EY(18), 1999/789/EY(19), 1999/839/EY(20), 1999/868/EY(21), 2000/6/EY(22), 2000/64/EY(23), 2000/104/EY(24), 2000/149/EY(25), 2000/150/EY(26) ja 2000/255/EY(27) norjaksi laaditut tekstit, jotka julkaistaan Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisen lehden ETA-täydennysosassa, ovat todistusvoimaisia.3 artiklaTämä päätös tulee voimaan 31 päivänä maaliskuuta 2001, jos kaikki sopimuksen 103 artiklan 1 kohdan mukaiset ilmoitukset on tehty ETA:n sekakomitealle(28).4 artiklaTämä päätös julkaistaan Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisen lehden ETA-osastossa ja ETA-täydennysosassa.Tehty Brysselissä 30 päivänä maaliskuuta 2001.ETA:n sekakomitean puolestaP. WesterlundPuheenjohtaja(1) EYVL L 74, 15.3.2001, s. 24.(2) EYVL L 138, 21.5.1992, s. 39.(3) EYVL L 114, 1.5.1999, s. 55.(4) EYVL L 126, 20.5.1999, s. 19.(5) EYVL L 146, 11.6.1999, s. 52.(6) EYVL L 171, 7.7.1999, s. 17.(7) EYVL L 194, 27.7.1999, s. 66.(8) EYVL L 195, 28.7.1999, s. 42.(9) EYVL L 197, 29.7.1999, s. 45.(10) EYVL L 207, 6.8.1999, s. 33.(11) EYVL L 209, 7.8.1999, s. 36.(12) EYVL L 245, 17.9.1999, s. 52.(13) EYVL L 255, 30.9.1999, s. 38.(14) EYVL L 255, 30.9.1999, s. 39.(15) EYVL L 270, 20.10.1999, s. 31.(16) EYVL L 281, 4.11.1999, s. 90.(17) EYVL L 298, 19.11.1999, s. 36.(18) EYVL L 310, 4.12.1999, s. 62.(19) EYVL L 310, 4.12.1999, s. 71.(20) EYVL L 325, 17.12.1999, s. 62.(21) EYVL L 334, 28.12.1999, s. 51.(22) EYVL L 3, 6.1.2000, s. 29.(23) EYVL L 22, 27.1.2000, s. 67.(24) EYVL L 29, 4.2.2000, s. 36.(25) EYVL L 50, 23.2.2000, s. 22.(26) EYVL L 50, 23.2.2000, s. 25.(27) EYVL L 78, 29.3.2000, s. 35.(28) Valtiosäännön asettamista vaatimuksista ei ole ilmoitettu.LIITEETA:n sekakomitean päätökseen N:o 34/2001Muutetaan sopimuksen liitteessä I oleva I luku seuraavasti:1. Lisätään 1.2 osan 35 kohtaan (komission päätös 95/108/EY) luetelmakohta seuraavasti: - 399 D 0384: komission päätös 1999/384/EY, tehty 31 päivänä toukokuuta 1999 (EYVL L 146, 11.6.1999, s. 52).2. Lisätään 1.2 osan 86 kohtaan (komission päätös 98/653/EY) luetelmakohdat seuraavasti: - 399 D 0517: komission päätös 1999/517/EY, tehty 28 päivänä heinäkuuta 1999 (EYVL L 197, 29.7.1999, s. 45),- 399 D 0713: komission päätös 1999/713/EY, tehty 21 päivänä lokakuuta 1999 (EYVL L 281, 4.11.1999, s. 90),- 32000 D 0104: komission päätös 2000/104/EY, tehty 31 päivänä tammikuuta 2000 (EYVL L 29, 4.2.2000, s. 36).3. Lisätään 1.2 osan 90 kohdan (komission päätös 1999/766/EY) jälkeen kohdat seuraavasti: 91. 392 D 0271: Komission päätös 92/271/ETY, tehty 20 päivänä toukokuuta 1992, Bosnian ja Hertsegovinan tasavallasta peräisin tai lähtöisin olevien elävien eläinten ja eläintuotteiden tuonnista yhteisöön (EYVL L 138, 21.5.1992, s. 39), sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna seuraavalla:- 399 D 0441: komission päätös 1999/441/EY, tehty 28 päivänä kesäkuuta 1999 (EYVL L 171, 7.7.1999, s. 17).92. 399 D 0293: Komission päätös 1999/293/EY, tehty 29 päivänä huhtikuuta 1999, lampaan bluetongue-tautiin liittyvistä suojatoimenpiteistä tietyillä Kreikan alueilla (EYVL L 114, 1.5.1999, s. 55), sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna seuraavilla:- 399 D 0623: komission päätös 1999/623/EY, tehty 10 päivänä syyskuuta 1999 (EYVL L 245, 17.9.1999, s. 52),- 399 D 0683: komission päätös 1999/683/EY, tehty 7 päivänä lokakuuta 1999 (EYVL L 270, 20.10.1999, s. 31),- 399 D 0746: komission päätös 1999/746/EY, tehty 8 päivänä marraskuuta 1999 (EYVL L 298, 19.11.1999, s. 36).93. 399 D 0334: Komission päätös 1999/334/EY, tehty 7 päivänä toukokuuta 1999, eräistä Etelä-Afrikasta lähtöisin oleviin rekisteröityihin hevosiin liittyvistä suojatoimenpiteistä (EYVL L 126, 20.5.1999, s. 19).94. 399 D 0507: Komission päätös 1999/507/EY, tehty 26 päivänä heinäkuuta 1999, eräistä Malesian niemimaalta ja Australiasta lähtöisin olevia hedelmälepakoita, koiria ja kissoja koskevista suojatoimenpiteistä (EYVL L 194, 27.7.1999, s. 66), sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna seuraavilla:- 399 D 0643: komission päätös 1999/643/EY, tehty 15 päivänä syyskuuta 1999 (EYVL L 255, 30.9.1999, s. 38),- 32000 D 0006: komission päätös 2000/6/EY, tehty 10 päivänä joulukuuta 1999 (EYVL L 3, 6.1.2000, s. 29).95. 399 D 0514: Komission päätös 1999/514/EY, tehty 23 päivänä heinäkuuta 1999, sen päivämäärän vahvistamisesta, jona nautatuotteiden tuonti Yhdistyneestä kuningaskunnasta saa alkaa päivämäärään perustuvassa vientijärjestelmässä neuvoston päätöksen 98/256/EY 6 artiklan 5 kohdan nojalla (EYVL L 195, 28.7.1999, s. 42).96. 399 D 0542: Komission päätös 1999/542/EY, tehty 28 päivänä heinäkuuta 1999, Bulgariasta peräisin olevien tiettyjen eläinten tuontia koskevista suojatoimenpiteistä bluetongue-tautitapausten vuoksi (EYVL L 207, 6.8.1999, s. 33).97. 399 D 0549: Komission päätös 1999/549/EY, tehty 19 päivänä heinäkuuta 1999, eräistä Newcastlen tautiin liittyvistä suojatoimenpiteistä Australiassa (EYVL L 209, 7.8.1999, s. 36), sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna seuraavalla:- 399 D 0868: komission päätös 1999/868/EY, tehty 30 päivänä marraskuuta 1999 (EYVL L 334, 28.12.1999, s. 51).98. 399 D 0644: Komission päätös 1999/644/EY, tehty 15 päivänä syyskuuta 1999, eräistä Malesiasta (Malakan niemimaalta) tulevia rekisteröityjä hevosia koskevista suojatoimenpiteistä (EYVL L 255, 30.9.1999, s. 39).99. 399 D 0788: Komission päätös 1999/788/EY, tehty 3 päivänä joulukuuta 1999, eräitä ihmisravinnoksi tai eläinten rehuksi tarkoitettuja dioksiinin saastuttamia sioista tai siipikarjasta peräisin olevia tuotteita koskevista suojatoimenpiteistä (EYVL L 310, 4.12.1999, s. 62), sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna seuraavalla:- 32000 D 0150: komission päätös 2000/150/EY, tehty 22 päivänä helmikuuta 2000 (EYVL L 50, 23.2.2000, s. 25).100. 399 D 0789: Komission päätös 1999/789/EY, tehty 3 päivänä joulukuuta 1999, eräistä suojatoimenpiteistä afrikkalaista sikaruttoa vastaan Portugalissa (EYVL L 310, 4.12.1999, s. 71), sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna seuraavilla:- 32000 D 0064: komission päätös 2000/64/EY, tehty 25 päivänä tammikuuta 2000 (EYVL L 22, 27.1.2000, s. 67),- 32000 D 0255: komission päätös 2000/255/EY, tehty 28 päivänä maaliskuuta 2000 (EYVL L 78, 29.3.2000, s. 35).101. 399 D 0839: Komission päätös 1999/839/EY, tehty 6 päivänä joulukuuta 1999, eräistä Amerikan yhdysvalloista lähtöisin oleviin hevoseläimiin liittyvistä suojatoimenpiteistä ja päätöksen 1999/707/EY kumoamisesta (EYVL L 325, 17.12.1999, s. 62).102. 32000 D 0149: Komission päätös 2000/149/EY, tehty 22 päivänä helmikuuta 2000, eräistä avian-influenssaan liittyvistä suojatoimenpiteistä Italiassa (EYVL L 50, 23.2.2000, s. 22).


text:
A Szatmári-síkság vagy Szamos-síkság (románul Câmpia Someșului) Magyarországon és Romániában található tájegység. Nyugaton (Magyarországon) a Nyírség peremvidékéig, illetve a Kraszna csatornától a Tisza vonaláig terjed, keleten és délen, Románia területén az Avas-hegység, Kőhát-hegység, Gutin-hegység, valamint a Szilágyság nyugati szélén fekvő Bükk-hegység nyúlványai határolják.
 Domborzat
 A Szatmári síkság felszíne sík, folyókkal szabdalt, geomorfológiailag tökéletes síkságnak mondható. Magasságkülönbsége a legmagasabb és legalacsonyabb pontja között csekély, vagyis még 15 métert sem tesz ki.
 Keletkezése
 Felszínét a Tisza, Szamos, Túr, s kisebb folyók holocén időszaki mederváltozásai, üledékfelhalmozásai alakították. Az itteni folyók okozta árvizek hordalékterítése nyomán folyóhátak épültek, 1-3,5 méter magasságú hordalékkúpokkal, mint például Szamoshát, Erdőhát, Túrhát, Tiszahát. Ezek a folyóhátak váltak alkalmassá a későbbiekben az ember itteni megtelepedésére, s mezőgazdasági, szántóföldi művelésre. A folyóhátakat megszakító lejtők pedig levezették a folyók árvizeit az ártéri síkságok alacsonyabban fekvő részeire.
 Története
 A Tisza és annak bal parti mellékfolyói a folyószabályozások előtt gyakran elöntötték az ártéri síkság alacsonyabban fekvő részeit, sokszor az áradások egymást érték, amihez nagyban hozzájárult az is, hogy ezen a tájon
 a Kárpátok közelsége miatt a csapadék mennyisége is magasabb az országos átlagnál. A sok áradás és csapadék miatt a síkság mélyebben fekvő, lefolyástalan részein olyan nagy kiterjedésű lápok és mocsarak alakultak ki, mint például az Ecsedi-láp volt lecsapolása előtt.
 A 19. század nagy folyószabályozásai (Tisza, Szamos, Túr, Kraszna), belvízelvezetései, láplecsapolásai (Ecsedi-láp) szinte teljesen megváltoztatták a tájat: az Ecsedi-láp vizét a Kraszna és a környező lecsapoló csatornák a Tiszába vezették, a folyókat szűk árvízvédelmi töltések közé szorították.
 A Szatmári-síkság egyik sajátossága, hogy a peremvidékektől kiindulva a középső részek felé mélyül, s így éppen a Tisza és Szamos találkozásánál a legmélyebb. Ez okozza a vizek gyors lefutását, de ugyanakkor a torkolatnál, a Tisza-Szamos találkozásánál a torlódást, egymás visszaduzzasztását is. Erre volt példa az 1970-es nagy árvíz is, amikor a Kárpátokban egyszerre lehullott nagy mennyiségű csapadék a három itteni folyón, a Tiszán, Szamoson és Túron egyszerre okozott nagyméretű árhullámot, s ezáltal negyven település került víz alá.
 Növény és állatvilága
 A Szatmári-síkság növény és állatvilága is rendkívül gazdag. Bár a fennmaradt adatok alapján a tájegység több mint felét még a 18. században is erdő borította, azonban ezt a területet – az idők során elvégzett meliorációs munkálatok következtében – sikerült szántóföldi művelésbe fogni.
 A Szatmári-síkság azonban máig különlegesen egyedi növény és állatvilággal rendelkezik, amit viszonylagos érintetlenségének, elzártságának is köszönhet.
 Természetes eredetű erdőfoltjai ugyan ma már kisebbek, de számos védett növény és állatfaj él még itt ma is. E növényritkaságok és állatfajok védelmére hozták létre 1982-ben a Szatmár-beregi Tájvédelmi Körzetet, amely 110 négyzetkilométernyi terület foglal magába, erdőket, réteket, állóvizeket, s az ott élő ritka, vagy védelemre szoruló növény és állatfajokat.
 Ilyen a magosligeti Cserköz-erdő, ahol a kárpáti sáfrány még nagyobb számban fellelhető, vagy a Garbolci-erdő, ahol a ritka kockás liliom, az erdélyi csillagvirág és a réti kardvirág bontja szirmait.
 A Ricsei-erdő gyertyános tölgyeseiben nyílik a gyöngyvirág és a tavaszi tőzike, és égeres láperdeiben a békaliliom. A Ricsei-erdőben sok védett madárfaj is otthonra lelt, fészket rak itt például a ritka fekete gólya és a darázsölyv is.
 A hajdani tölgyerdők irtványföldein alakult ki a híres Túristvándi közelében fekvő Rókás legelő is, melynek ritkásan megmaradt famatuzsálemei mára már alaposan megfogyatkoztak, vagy a Garbolci legelő, mely ugyancsak irtáson alakult ki.
 A Szatmári-síkság különlegességei közé tartoznak még a kórokozóknak ellenálló ártereken, folyópartokon még fellelhető szatmári „dzsungelgyümölcsösök” is, melyeknek dió, alma, körte és szilvafái máig termést hoznak. Az itt található diófaligetekben terem a milotai és tiszacsécsi dió. Az itt termő "nemtudom-szilva" néven ismert szilva apró kék gyümölcséből a híres szilvalekvár és aszalt szilva mellett a világhírű szatmári szilvapálinkát készítik.
 Tájegységei
 Szamosköz
 Krasznaköz
 Tiszahát
 Túrhát
 Erdőhát
 Szamoshát
 Fontosabb folyói
 Tisza
 Szamos
 Kraszna)
 Túr
 Ér
 Legnagyobb, legszélesebb folyóvize a Szamos, de ezt nem használják fel a vízenergia kiaknázásának céljából.
 Az egyetlen energiát szolgáltató folyóvíz a környéken a Túr, melynek sodrásából a környező települések energiát nyernek, mint például Kányaháza (románul: Călineşti-Oaş). Így jött létre a Kányaházi-tó (lacul Călineşti-Oaş), melyet a Túr táplál. Itt zsilipek segítségével szabályozzák a Túr folyását a tómederbe, s így bizonyos mennyiségű energiát nyernek.
 A Túr a Szatmári-síkság harmadik leghosszabb, a területen áthaladó folyója, viszont a második a Kraszna, amit ugyancsak nem használnak energiakiaknázási célokra. A negyedik helyen az Ér kullog keskeny folyómedrével és kevés vízhozamával.
 A Szatmári-síkságon tavak is vannak, de a legtöbbjük mesterségesen létrehozott, ilyen például a Kányaházi-tó, a Kökényesdi-halastó, az Újberki-tó, a Majtényi-halastavak sokasága. Vízcsatornák kevésbé vannak, ezek is a Túr környékén leginkább.
 Fontosabb települések
 Magyarországon
 Tiszabecs
 Milota
 Szatmárcseke
 Kölcse
 Túristvándi
 Kisar
 Olcsvaapáti
 Fehérgyarmat
 Szamosszeg
 Kocsord
 Mátészalka
 Nagyecsed
 Vállaj
 Tunyogmatolcs
 Ököritófülpös
 Tyukod
 Porcsalma
 Csenger
 Csengersima
 Zajta
 Romániában
 Sárköz (Livada)
 Túrterebes (Turulung)
 Halmi (Halmeu)
 Aranyosmeggyes (Mediesu Aurit)
 Szatmárnémeti (Satu Mare)
 Szamosborhíd (Valea Vinului)
 Erdőd (Ardud)
 Krasznabéltek (Beltiug)
 Királydaróc (Craidorot)
 Kaplony (Capleni)
 Nagykároly (Carei)
 Börvely (Berveni)
 Források
 Hortobágyi Nemzeti Park Igazgatósága
 https://web.archive.org/web/20111129200118/http://www.termeszetvilaga.hu/termeszetvedelem/bozser.html
 További információk
 Kisfilm a Szatmári-síkság vizeiről – YouTube-videó
 Magyarország földrajzi kistájai
 Magyarország síkságai
 Szatmár–Beregi-síkság
 Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg megye földrajza
 Románia tájegységei
 Románia síkságai


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22003D0116
 Afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalg nr. 116/2003 af 26. september 2003 om ændring af bilag XIII (transport) til EØS-aftalen
 EU-Tidende nr. L 331 af 18/12/2003 s. 0036 - 0037
 Afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalgnr. 116/2003af 26. september 2003om ændring af bilag XIII (transport) til EØS-aftalenDET BLANDEDE EØS-UDVALG HAR -under henvisning til aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde som ændret ved protokollen om tilpasning af aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde, i det følgende benævnt "aftalen", særlig artikel 98, ogud fra følgende betragtninger:(1) Bilag XIII til aftalen blev ændret ved afgørelse nr. 91/2003 truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalg den 11. juli 2003(1).(2) Kommissionens direktiv 2003/27/EF af 3. april 2003 om tilpasning til den tekniske udvikling af Rådets direktiv 96/96/EF for så vidt angår kontrol af emissioner fra udstødningen på motorkøre-tøjer(2) skal indarbejdes i aftalen -TRUFFET FØLGENDE AFGØRELSE:Artikel 1Følgende led indsættes i punkt 16a (Rådets direktiv 96/96/EF) i bilag XIII til aftalen:"- 32003 L 0027: Kommissionens direktiv 2003/27/EF af 3. april 2003 (EUT L 90 af 8.4.2003, s. 41)."Artikel 2Teksterne til direktiv 2003/27/EF på islandsk og norsk, som offentliggøres i EØS-tillægget til Den Europæiske Unions Tidende, er autentiske.Artikel 3Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 27. september 2003, forudsat at Det Blandede EØS-udvalg har modtaget alle fornødne meddelelser i henhold til aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1(3).Artikel 4Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i Den Europæiske Unions Tidendes EØS-afsnit og EØS-tillæg.Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 26. september 2003.På Det Blandede EØS-udvalgs vegneH. S. H. Prinz Nikolaus von LiechtensteinFormand(1) EUT L 272 af 23.10.2003, s. 27.(2) EUT L 90 af 8.4.2003, s. 41.(3) Ingen forfatningsmæssige krav angivet.


text:
 23.12.2004
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 376/51
 AZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG HATÁROZATA
 (113/2004)
 (2004. július 9.)
 az EGT-megállapodás XX. mellékletének (környezet) módosításáról
 AZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló, az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás kiigazításáról szóló jegyzőkönyvvel módosított megállapodásra — a továbbiakban: „a megállapodás” — és különösen annak 98. cikkére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 A megállapodás XX. mellékletét a 2004. június 8-i 82/2004 EGT-vegyesbizottsági határozat (1) módosította.
 (2)
 A veszélyes anyagokkal kapcsolatos súlyos balesetek veszélyeinek ellenőrzéséről szóló 96/82/EK tanácsi irányelv módosításáról szóló, 2003. december 16-i 2003/105/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelvet (2) be kell építeni a megállapodásba,
 A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:
 1. Cikk
 A megállapodás XX. mellékletének 23a. pontja (96/82/EK tanácsi irányelv) a következővel egészül ki:
 „az alábbi módosítással:
 —
 32003 L 0105: A 2003. december 16-i 2003/105/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelve (HL L 345., 2003.12.31., 97. o.).”
 2. Cikk
 A 2003/105/EK irányelv izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövegei, amelyeket az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-kiegészítésében közzé kell tenni, hitelesek.
 3. Cikk
 Ez a határozat 2004. július 10-én lép hatályba, amennyiben a megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerint előírt összes értesítést eljuttatták az EGT-Vegyesbizottsághoz. (3)
 4. Cikk
 Ezt a határozatot az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében, illetve EGT-kiegészítésében közzé kell tenni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2004. július 9-én.
 az EGT-Vegyesbizottság részéről
 az elnök
 Kjartan JÓHANNSSON
 (1) HL L 349., 2004.11.25., 39. o.
 (2) HL L 345., 2003.12.31., 97. o.
 (3) Alkotmányos követelmények nincsenek megjelölve.


type: caselaw

text:
 9.2.2015
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 46/48
 Presuda Općeg suda od 12. prosinca 2014. – Comptoir d'Épicure protiv OHIM-a – A-Rosa Akademie (da rosa)
 (Predmet T-405/13) (1)
 ((„Žig Zajednice - Postupak povodom prigovora - Prijava međunarodne registracije u kojoj je navedena Europska zajednica - Figurativni žig da rosa - Raniji verbalni žig Zajednice aROSA - Relativni razlog za odbijanje - Vjerojatnost dovođenja u zabludu - Članak 8. stavak 1. točka (b) Uredbe (EZ) br. 207/2009 - Članak 42. stavci 2. i 3. Uredbe br. 207/2009 i pravilo 22 Uredbe (EZ) br. 2868/95”))
 (2015/C 046/60)
 Jezik postupka: francuski
 Stranke
 Tužitelj: Le Comptoir d'Épicure (Pariz, Francuska) (zastupnik: S. Arnaud, odvjetnik)
 Tuženik: Ured za usklađivanje na unutarnjem tržištu (žigovi i dizajni) (zastupnik: V. Melgar, agent)
 Druga stranka u postupku pred žalbenim vijećem OHIM-a, intervenijent u postupku pred Općim sudom: A-Rosa Akademie GmbH (Rostock, Njemačka) (zastupnik: A. Theis, odvjetnik)
 Predmet
 Tužba podnesena protiv odluke petog žalbenog vijeća OHIM-a od 22. svibnja 2013. (predmet R 1195/2012-5), u vezi s postupkom povodom prigovora između društva A-Rosa Akademie Gmbh i društva Le Comptoir d’Épicure.
 Izreka
 1.
 Tužba se odbija.
 2.
 Nalaže se društvu Le Comptoir d’Épicure snošenje troškova.
 (1) SL C 284, 28.9.2013.


text:
 22.5.2010
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 134/35
 Vispārējās tiesas 2010. gada 24. marta rīkojums — Lind/Komisija
 (Lieta T-5/09) (1)
 (Prasība par zaudējumu atlīdzību - Kodolkatastrofas Tulē (Grenlande) ietekme uz sabiedrības veselību - Direktīva 96/29/Euratom - Pret dalībvalsti vērstu pasākumu nenoteikšana no Komisijas puses - Acīmredzami juridiski nepamatota prasība)
 2010/C 134/59
 Tiesvedības valoda — angļu
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītāja: Brigit Lind (Greve, Dānija) (pārstāvis — I. Anderson, advokāts)
 Atbildētāja: Eiropas Komisija (pārstāvji — E. White un M. Patakia)
 Priekšmets
 Prasība par zaudējumu atlīdzību nolūkā saņemt atlīdzību par kaitējumu, kas esot ciests tādēļ, ka Komisija neesot noteikusi nepieciešamos pasākumus, lai uzliktu Dānijas Karalistei pienākumu pieņemt normatīvus un administratīvus aktus, kas tai ļautu izpildīt Padomes 1996. gada 13. maija Direktīvas 96/29/Euratom, kas nosaka drošības pamatstandartus darba ņēmēju un iedzīvotāju veselības aizsardzībai pret jonizējošā starojuma radītajām briesmām (OV L 159, 1. lpp.), prasības un piemērot šos noteikumus attiecībā uz Tulas (Grenlande) kodolkatastrofā iesaistītajiem darbiniekiem
 Rezolutīvā daļa:
 1)
 prasību noraidīt;
 2)
 Brigit Lind atlīdzina tiesāšanās izdevumus.
 (1) OV C 69, 21.03.2009.


text:
 Svarīgs juridisks paziņojums
 |
 22001D0043
 Oficiālais Vēstnesis L 158 , 14/06/2001 Lpp. 0055 - 0056
 EEZ Apvienotās komitejas LēmumsNr. 43/2001(2001. gada 30. marts),ar ko groza EEZ līguma VI pielikumu (Sociālā nodrošināšana)EEZ APVIENOTĀ KOMITEJA,ņemot vērā Eiropas Ekonomikas zonas līgumu, kas grozīts ar protokolu, kurš precizē Eiropas Ekonomikas zonas līgumu, turpmāk tekstā — "līgums", un jo īpaši tā 98. pantu,tā kā:(1) Līguma VI pielikums grozīts ar EEZ Apvienotās komitejas 2000. gada 27. oktobra Lēmumu Nr. 86/2000 [1];(2) Līgumā ir jāiekļauj Eiropas Kopienu Migrējošo darba ņēmēju sociālā nodrošinājuma administratīvās komitejas 1999. gada 24. jūnija Lēmums Nr. 176, kas dalībvalsts kompetentai iestādei paredz atlīdzināt izmaksas, kuras radušās, uzturoties citā dalībvalstī, izmantojot Regulas (EEK) Nr. 574/72 (96/249/EK) 34. panta 4. punktā minēto procedūru [2];(3) Eiropas Kopienu Migrējošo darba ņēmēju sociālā nodrošinājuma administratīvās komitejas Lēmumu Nr. 109, kas šobrīd ir ietverts līgumā, ir aizstājis Lēmums Nr. 175,IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.1. pantsLīguma VI pielikumu groza šādi:1. Dzēš 3.16. (Lēmums Nr. 109) un 3.45. (Lēmums Nr. 161) punktu tekstu.2. Pēc 3.54. punkta (Lēmums Nr. 175) iekļauj šādu punktu:"3.55 32000 D 0582: 1999. gada 24. jūnija Lēmums Nr. 176, kas dalībvalsts kompetentai iestādei paredz atlīdzināt izmaksas, kuras radušās, uzturoties citā dalībvalstī, izmantojot Regulas (EEK) Nr. 574/72 (96/249/EK) 34. panta 4. punktā minēto procedūru (OV L 243, 28.9.2000., 42. lpp.)."2. pantsLēmuma Nr. 176 teksti islandiešu un norvēģu valodā, kas jāpublicē Eiropas Kopienu Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ pielikumā, ir autentiski.3. pantsŠis lēmums stājas spēkā 2001. gada 31. martā ar noteikumu, ka EEZ Apvienotajai komitejai [3] ir sniegti visi paziņojumi saskaņā ar līguma 103. panta 1. punktu.4. pantsŠo lēmumu publicē Eiropas Kopienu Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ iedaļā un EEZ pielikumā.Briselē, 2001. gada 30. martāEEZ Apvienotās komitejas vārdā —priekšsēdētājsP. Westerlund[1] OV L 7, 11.1.2001., 1. lpp.[2] OV L 243, 28.9.2000., 42. lpp.[3] Konstitucionālas prasības nav norādītas.--------------------------------------------------


type: other

text:
SloTheravada - (MN 32) Mahāgosinga Sutta – Dolgo učenje v Gosingi
 (MN 32) Mahāgosinga Sutta – Dolgo učenje v Gosingi
 1. Tako sem slišal. Nekoč je Blaženi živel v parku gozda sāla dreves, Gosinga, skupaj s številnimi zelo znanimi starejšimi učenci – s častitim Sāriputto, častitim Mahā Moggallāno, častitim Mahā Kassapo, častitim Anuruddho, častitim Revato, častitim Ᾱnando[1] in drugimi zelo znanimi starejšimi učenci.
 2. Ko je bil večer je častiti Mahā Moggallāna prišel iz samote, odšel do častitega Mahā Kassape in mu rekel: “Prijatelj Kassapa, pojdimo do častitega Sāriputte poslušati Dhammo.” - “Da, prijatelj,” je odgovoril častiti Mahā Kassapa. Potem so častiti Mahā Moggallāna, častiti Mahā Kassapa in častiti Anuruddha odšli do častitega Sāriputte poslušati Dhammo.
 3. Častiti Ᾱnanda jih je videl, kako so šli do častitega Sāriputte poslušati Dhammo. Odšel je do častitega Revata in mu rekel “Prijatelj Revata, ti pravi ljudje gredo do častitega Sāriputte poslušati Dhammo. Pojdiva do častitega Sāriputto poslušati Dhammo.” - “Da, prijatelj,” je odgovoril častiti Revata. Potem sta častiti Revata in častiti Ᾱnanda odšla do častitega Sāriputte poslušati Dhammo.
 (ᾹNANDA)
 4. Častiti Sāriputta je videl častitega Revata in častitega Ᾱnando prihajati v daljavi in je rekel častitemu Ᾱnandi: “Naj pride častiti Ᾱnanda, pozdrav častitemu Ᾱnandi, spremljevalcu Blaženega, ki je vedno v prisotnosti Blaženega. Prijatelj Ᾱnanda, gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga je prijeten, noč je oblita z mesečino, drevesa sāla so vsa v cvetenju in težke vonjave lebdijo v zraku. Kakšne vrste menih, prijatelj Ᾱnanda, lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?”
 “Prijatelj Sāriputta, menih se je veliko naučil, si zapomnil, kar se je naučil in utrdil, kar se je naučil. Takšna učenja so dobra v začetku, dobra v sredini in dobra na koncu, s pravilnim pomenom in izražanjem; on razodeva sveto življenje, ki je popolnoma dovršeno in prečiščeno – takšnih učenj kot je to, se je veliko naučil, si jih zapomnil, obvladal ustno, jih raziskoval z umom in dobro prodrl vanje s pogledom. In on uči Dhammo štiri skupnosti[2] z dobro zaokroženimi in skladnimi izjavami in frazami za izkoreninjenje osnovnih nagnjenj. Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.”
 (REVATA)
 5. Ko je bilo to rečeno, je častiti Sāriputta nagovoril častitega Revato: “Prijatelj Revata, častiti Ᾱnanda je govoril v skladu s svojim lastnim navdihom. Sedaj sprašujemo častitega Revato: Prijatelj Revata, gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga je očarljiv, noč je oblita z mesečino, drevesa sāla so vsa v cvetenju in težke vonjave lebdijo v zraku. Kakšne vrste menih, prijatelj Revata, lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?”
 “Prijatelj Sāriputta, menih uživa v samoti in je navdušen nad samoto; je predan notranji jasnosti uma, ne zanemarja meditacije, ima vpogled in prebiva v praznih kočah.[3] Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.”
 6. Ko je bilo to rečeno, je častiti Sāriputta nagovoril častitega Anuruddho: “Prijatelj Anuruddha, častiti Revata je govoril v skladu s svojim lastnim navdihom. Sedaj sprašujemo častitega Anuruddho: Prijatelj Anuruddha, gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga je očarljiv ... Kakšne vrste menih, prijatelj Anuruddha, lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?”
 “Prijatelj Sāriputta, z očesom prebujenega, ki je prečiščeno in presega človeškega, menih pregleda tisoč svetov. Tako kot človek z dobrim vidom, ko se je povzpel do sobe v najvišjem delu palače, lahko pregleda tisoč kolesnih obročev, tako tudi z očesom prebujenega, ki je prečiščeno in presega človeškega, menih pregleda tisoč svetov.[4] Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.”
 (MAHᾹ KASSAPA)
 7. Ko je bilo to rečeno, je častiti Sāriputta nagovoril častitega Mahā Kassapo: “Prijatelj Kassapa, častiti Anuruddha je govoril v skladu s svojim lastnim navdihom. Sedaj sprašujemo častitega Mahā Kassapo: Prijatelj Kassapa, gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga je očarljiv ... Kakšne vrste menih, prijatelj Kassapa, lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?”
 “Prijatelj Sāriputta, menih sam je prebivalec gozda in govori v hvalo prebivanja v gozdu; on sam je jedec miloščinske hrane in hvali hranjenje z miloščinsko hrano; on sam nosi zavrženo obleko in hvali nošnjo zavržene obleke; on sam nosi tri obleke in hvali nošenje treh oblek;[5] on sam ima malo želja in hvali maloštevilnost želja; on sam je zadovoljen in hvali zadovoljenost; on sam je v samoti in hvali samoto; on sam je daleč od družbe in hvali oddaljenosti od družbe; on sam je energičen in hvali vzbujanja energije; on je sam dosegel krepost in hvali doseganja kreposti; on sam je dosegel zbranost in hvali dosego zbranosti; on sam je dosegel modrost in hvali dosego modrosti; on sam je dosegel svojo osvoboditev in hvali dosege osvoboditve; on sam je dosegel znanje in vizijo osvoboditve in hvali dosege znanja in vizije osvoboditve. Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.”
 8. Ko je bilo to rečeno, je častiti Sāriputta nagovoril častitega Mahā Moggallāno: “Prijatelj Moggallāna, častiti Mahā Kassapa je govoril v skladu s svojim lastnim navdihom. Sedaj sprašujemo častitega Mahā Moggallāno: Prijatelj Moggallāna, gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga je očarljiv ... Kakšne vrste menih, prijatelj Moggallāna, lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?”
 “Prijatelj Sāriputta, dva meniha sta se lotila pogovora o višji Dhammi in sprašujeta eden drugega in vsak na vprašanja drugega odgovori brez spotikanja in njun pogovor se odvija v skladu z Dhammo. Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.”
 (SᾹRIPUTTA)
 9. Ko je bilo to rečeno, je častiti Mahā Moggallāna nagovoril častitega Sāriputto: “Prijatelj Sāriputta, mi smo govorili v skladu z našim lastnim navdihom. Sedaj sprašujemo častitega Sāriputto: Prijatelj Sāriputta, gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga je očarljiv, noč je oblita z mesečino, drevesa sāla so vsa v cvetenju in težke vonjave lebdijo v zraku. Kakšne vrste menih, prijatelj Sāriputta, lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?”
 “Prijatelj Moggallāna, menih uveljavlja mojstrstvo čez svoj um, on ne pusti, da um uveljavi mojstrstvo čez njega. V dopoldnevu biva v kateremkoli bivanju ali dosežku, v katerem hoče bivati v dopoldnevu; sredi dneva biva v kateremkoli bivanju ali dosežku, v katerem hoče bivati sredi dneva; zvečer biva v kateremkoli bivanju ali dosežku, v katerem hoče bivati zvečer. Predpostavimo, da je imel kralj ali kraljev minister skrinjo polno različno obarvanih oblačil. Zjutraj je lahko oblekel katerikoli par oblačil je hotel obleči zjutraj; sredi dneva je lahko oblekel katerikoli par oblačil je hotel obleči sredi dneva; zvečer je lahko oblekel katerikoli par oblačil je hotel obleči zvečer. Tako tudi, menih uveljavlja mojstrstvo čez svoj um, ne dovoli, da um uveljavi mojstrstvo čez njega. Zjutraj ... sredi dneva ... zvečer biva v kateremkoli bivanju ali dosežku, v katerem hoče bivati zvečer. Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.”
 10. Potem je častiti Sāriputta nagovoril te častite: “Prijatelji, vsi smo govorili v skladu s svojim lastnim navdihom. Pojdimo do Blaženega in mu poročajmo o tej zadevi. Kot bo Blaženi odgovoril, tako si to zapomnimo.” - “Da, prijatelj,” so odgovorili. Potem so ti častiti odšli do Blaženega in ko so mu izkazali spoštovanje, so sedli na stran. Častiti Sāriputta je rekel Blaženemu:
 11. “Častiti gospod, častiti Revata in častiti Ᾱnanda sta prišla do mene, da bi poslušala Dhammo. Videl sem ju prihajati v daljavi in rekel sem častitemu Ᾱnandi: ‘Naj pride častiti Ᾱnanda, pozdravljen častiti Ᾱnanda ... Prijatelj Ᾱnanda, gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga je očarljiv ... Kakšne vrste menih, prijatelj Ᾱnanda, lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?’ Ko je bil vprašan, častiti gospod, je častiti Ᾱnanda odgovoril: ‘Tako, prijatelj Sāriputta, menih se je veliko naučil ... (kot v §4) ... Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.’”
 “Dobro, dobro, Sāriputta. Ᾱnanda, po pravici povedano, naj govori točno tako, kot dela. Kajti Ᾱnanda se je veliko naučil, si zapomnil kar se je naučil, in utrdil kar se je naučil. Takšna učenja so dobra v začetku, dobra v sredini in dobra na koncu, s pravilnim pomenom in izražanjem; on razodeva sveto življenje, ki je popolnoma dovršeno in prečiščeno – takšnih učenj, kot je to, se je veliko naučil, si jih zapomnil, obvladal ustno, jih raziskoval z umom in dobro prodrl vanje s pogledom. In on uči Dhammo štiri skupnosti z dobro zaokroženimi in skladnimi izjavami in frazami za izkoreninjenje osnovnih tendenc.”
 12. “Ko je bilo to rečeno, častiti gospod, sem nagovoril častitega Revato: ‘Prijatelj Revata ... Kakšne vrste menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?’ In častiti Revata je odgovoril: ‘Tako, prijatelj Sāriputta, menih uživa v samoti ... (kot v §5) ... Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.’”
 “Dobro, dobro, Sāriputta. Revata, po pravici povedano, naj bi govoril točno tako, kot dela. Kajti Revata uživa v samoti in je navdušen nad samoto, je predan notranji jasnosti uma, ne zanemarja meditacije, ima vpogled in prebiva v praznih kočah.”
 13. “Ko je bilo to rečeno, častiti gospod, sem nagovoril častitega Anuruddho: ‘Prijatelj Anuruddha ... Kakšne vrste menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?’ In častiti Anuruddha je odgovoril: ‘Tako, prijatelj Sāriputta, z očesom prebujenega ... (kot v §6) ... Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.’”
 “Dobro, dobro, Sāriputta. Anuruddha, po pravici povedano, naj bi govoril točno tako, kot dela. Kajti z očesom prebujenega, ki je prečiščeno in presega človeškega, Anuruddha pregleda tisoč svetov.”
 14. “Ko je bilo to rečeno, častiti gospod, sem nagovoril častitega Mahā Kassapo: ‘Prijatelj Kassapa ... Kakšne vrste menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?’ In častiti Mahā Kassapa je odgovoril: ‘Tako, prijatelj Sāriputta, menih sam je prebivalec gozda ... (kot v §7) ... Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.’”
 “Dobro, dobro, Sāriputta. Kassapa, po pravici povedano, naj bi govoril točno tako, kot dela. Kajti Kassapa sam je prebivalec gozda in govori v hvalo prebivanja v gozdu ... on sam je dosegel znanje in vizijo osvoboditve in govori v hvalo dosege znanja in vizije osvoboditve. Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.”
 15. “Ko je bilo to rečeno, častiti gospod, sem nagovoril častitega Mahā Moggallāno: ‘Prijatelj Moggallāna ... Kakšne vrste menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?’ In častiti Mahā Moggallāna je odgovoril: ‘Tako, prijatelj Sāriputta, dva meniha se pogovarjata o višji Dhammi ... (kot v §8) ... Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.’”
 “Dobro, dobro, Sāriputta. Moggallāna, po pravici povedano, naj bi govoril točno tako, kot dela. Kajti Moggallāna je ta, ki govori o Dhammi.”
 16. Ko je bilo to rečeno, je častiti Mahā Moggallāna rekel Blaženemu: “Potem, častiti gospod, sem nagovoril častitega Sāriputto: ‘Prijatelj Sāriputta ... Kakšne vrste menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga?’ In častiti Sāriputta je odgovoril: ‘Tako, prijatelj Moggallāna, menih uveljavlja mojstrstvo čez svoj um ... (kot v §9) ... Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.’”
 “Dobro, dobro, Moggallāna. Sāriputta, po pravici povedano, naj bi govoril točno tako, kot dela. Kajti Sāriputta uveljavlja mojstrstvo čez svoj um, on ne pusti, da um uveljavi mojstrstvo čez njega. V dopoldnevu biva v kateremkoli bivanju ali dosežku, v katerem hoče bivati v dopoldnevu; sredi dneva biva v kateremkoli bivanju ali dosežku, v katerem hoče bivati sredi dneva; zvečer biva v kateremkoli bivanju ali dosežku, v katerem hoče bivati zvečer.”
 17. Ko je bilo to rečeno, je častiti Sāriputta vprašal Blaženega: “Častiti gospod, kateri od nas je dobro govoril?”
 “Vsi ste govorili dobro, Sāriputta, vsak na svoj način. Poslušaj tudi mene o tem, kakšna vrsta meniha lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga. Sāriputta, ko se je menih vrnil s svoje hoje po miloščinsko hrano, po svojem obroku, sede na tla, prekriža noge, vzravna svoje telo, se posveti pozornosti in je odločen: ‘Ne bom prekinil tega sedečega položaja, dokler skozi nenavezanost moj um ni osvobojen vplivov.’ Takšen menih lahko olepša ta gozd sāla dreves, Gosinga.”
 To je bilo tisto, kar je rekel Blaženi. Častiti so bili zadovoljni in veseli besed Blaženega.
 [1] Častitega Ᾱnando je Buddha razglasil za prevladujočega učenca med temi, ki so se veliko naučili in za njegova učenja je bilo rečeno, da so navdušila štiri skupnosti (DN 16.5.16/ii.145).
 [2] Štiri skupnosti so: menihi, nune, moški laični sledilci in ženske laične sledilke. Sedem osnovnih nagnjenj je navedenih v MN 18.8.
 [3] Častiti Revata je bil razglašen za prevladujočega učenca med temi, ki so meditatorji.
 [4] Častiti Anuruddha je bil razglašen za prevladujočega učenca med temi, ki imajo oko prebujenega.
 [5] Mahā Kassapa je bil prevladujoči učenec med temi, ki so se držali asketskih praks.
 ir: Bhikkhu Nanamoli/Bodhi - The Middle Length Discourese of the Buddha, Wisdom Publications, 2009
 prevod: Bojan Božič / oktober 2016, rev. januar 2020


type: legislation

text:
 |
 52011PC0322
 /* KOM/2011/0322 slutlig - NLE 2011/0151 */ Förslag till RÅDETS FÖRORDNING om avslutande av antidumpningsåtgärder som tillämpas på import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina
 MOTIVERING1. BAKGRUND TILL FÖRSLAGET2. Skäl och målsättningarDetta förslag gäller tillämpningen av rådets förordning (EG) nr 1225/2009 av den 30 november 2009 om skydd mot dumpad import från länder som inte är medlemmar i Europeiska gemenskapen (nedan kallad grundförordningen ) i förfarandet beträffande import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina.- Allmän bakgrundFörslaget läggs fram som ett led i tillämpningen av grundförordningen och grundar sig på en undersökning som utförts i enlighet med de innehållsmässiga och procedurmässiga krav som anges i grundförordningen.- Gällande bestämmelser på det område som berörs av förslagetRådets förordning (EG) nr 600/1996 av den 25 mars 1996 om införande av en slutgiltig antidumpningstull på import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina[1].Rådets förordning (EG) nr 769/2002 av den 7 maj 2002 om införande av en slutgiltig antidumpningstull på import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina[2].Rådets förordning (EG) nr 2272/2004 av den 22 december 2004 om utvidgning av den slutgiltiga antidumpningstull som infördes genom förordning (EG) nr 769/2002 på import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina till att även omfatta import av kumarin avsänd från Republiken Indien eller Konungariket Thailand oavsett om den deklarerats ha ursprung i Republiken Indien eller Konungariket Thailand eller inte[3].Kommissionens beslut (EG) nr 3/2005 av den 3 januari 2005 om godtagande av ett åtagande som erbjudits inom ramen för undersökningen av eventuellt kringgående av de genom rådets förordning (EG) nr 769/2002 införda antidumpningsåtgärderna beträffande import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina genom import av kumarin som avsänts från Republiken Indien eller Konungariket Thailand, oavsett om den deklarerats ha sitt ursprung i Republiken Indien eller Konungariket Thailand eller ej[4].Rådets förordning (EG) nr 1650/2006 av den 7 november 2006 om utvidgning av den slutgiltiga antidumpningstull som infördes genom förordning (EG) nr 769/2002 om import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina till att även omfatta import av kumarin som avsänts från Republiken Indonesien eller Malaysia oavsett om den deklarerats ha sitt ursprung i Republiken Indonesien eller Malaysia eller inte[5].Rådets förordning (EG) nr 654/2008av den 29 april 2008 om införande av en slutgiltig antidumpningstull på import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina, utvidgad till att även omfatta Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia, oavsett om deras deklarerade ursprung är Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia eller inte[6].- Förenlighet med Europeiska unionens politik och mål på andra områdenEj tillämpligt.3. SAMRÅD MED BERÖRDA PARTER OCH KONSEKVENSANALYS4. Samråd med berörda parterDe parter som berörs av förfarandet har under undersökningen getts möjlighet att försvara sina intressen, i överensstämmelse med bestämmelserna i grundförordningen.- Extern experthjälpNågon extern experthjälp har inte behövts.- KonsekvensanalysDetta förslag är ett resultat av tillämpningen av grundförordningen.I den grundläggande antidumpningsförordningen föreskrivs inte någon allmän konsekvensanalys, men den innehåller en uttömmande förteckning över villkor som måste bedömas.5. RÄTTSLIGA ASPEKTER6. Sammanfattning av den föreslagna åtgärdenDen 5 november 2010 inledde kommissionen på eget initiativ en partiell interimöversyn, som begränsades till antidumpningsåtgärdernas skadeaspekter gällande import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina, utvidgad till att även omfatta import av kumarin som avsänts från Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia, oavsett om dess deklarerade ursprung är Indien, Thailand, Indonesien, Malaysia eller inte, i enlighet med artikel 11.3 i rådets förordning (EG) nr 1225/2009 om skydd mot dumpad import från länder som inte är medlemmar i Europeiska gemenskapen.Syftet med denna undersökning var att undersöka om kumarin fortfarande produceras i Europeiska unionen och huruvida unionsindustrin fortfarande led skada förorsakad av dumpad import.Kommissionen underrättades om att den enda tillverkaren av kumarin i EU, som utgjorde unionsindustrin i den undersökning som ledde till införandet av de gällande åtgärderna, hade beslutat att lägga ner sin tillverkning av kumarin i slutet av augusti 2010. För närvarande finns det inget annat alternativ för europeiska företag än att importera kumarin.Kommissionen har inte funnit argument som tyder på att unionens intresse skulle berättiga att de nuvarande antidumpningsåtgärderna fortsätter vara gällande och därför anser den att dessa åtgärder bör upphävas.Kommissionen föreslår således att rådet antar det bifogade förslaget till förordning, som bör offentliggöras i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning så snart som möjligt, men under inga omständigheter senare än den 12 juli 2011.- Rättslig grundRådets förordning (EG) nr 1225/2009 av den 30 november 2009 om skydd mot dumpad import från länder som inte är medlemmar i Europeiska gemenskapen.- SubsidiaritetsprincipenFörslaget avser ett område där Europeiska unionen är ensam behörig. Subsidiaritetsprincipen är därför inte tillämplig.- ProportionalitetsprincipenFörslaget är förenligt med proportionalitetsprincipen av följande skäl:Åtgärdsformen beskrivs i grundförordningen och ger inget utrymme för nationella beslut.Det är inte tillämpligt att ange på vilket sätt den ekonomiska och administrativa börda som faller på unionen, nationella regeringar, regionala och lokala myndigheter, ekonomiska aktörer och medborgare begränsas till ett minimum och står i proportion till förslagets mål.- Val av regleringsformFöreslagen regleringsform: förordning.Övriga regleringsformer skulle vara olämpliga av följande skäl:Andra regleringsformer skulle inte vara lämpliga, eftersom det inte föreskrivs några alternativ i grundförordningen.7. BUDGETKONSEKVENSERFörslaget påverkar inte unionens budget.2011/0151 (NLE)Förslag tillRÅDETS FÖRORDNINGom avslutande av antidumpningsåtgärder som tillämpas på import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken KinaEUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNINGmed beaktande av fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt,med beaktande av rådets förordning (EG) nr 1225/2009 av den 30 november 2009 om skydd mot dumpad import från länder som inte är medlemmar i Europeiska gemenskapen[7] (nedan kallad grundförordningen ), särskilt artiklarna 9 och 11.2,med beaktande av det förslag som Europeiska kommissionen (nedan kallad kommissionen ) lagt fram efter samråd med rådgivande kommittén, ochav följande skäl:8. FÖRFARANDE9. Gällande åtgärder10. De åtgärder som för närvarande är i kraft är en slutgiltig antidumpningstull som infördes genom rådets förordning (EG) nr 654/2008om införande av en slutgiltig antidumpningstull på import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina, utvidgad till att även omfatta Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia, oavsett om deras deklarerade ursprung är Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia eller inte[8], och ett åtagande som godtagits från en indisk tillverkare (Atlas Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd)[9].11. Grund för översynen12. Kommissionen hade underrättats om att den enda tillverkaren av kumarin, som utgjorde unionsindustrin i den undersökning som ledde till införandet av de gällande åtgärderna, hade beslutat att lägga ner tillverkningen av kumarin i Europeiska unionen i slutet av augusti 2010.13. Inledande14. Efter samråd med rådgivande kommittén inledde kommissionen genom ett tillkännagivande i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning[10] en partiell interimöversyn avseende antidumpningsåtgärdernas skadeaspekter gällande import av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina, utvidgad till att även omfatta import av kumarin som avsänts från Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia, oavsett om deras deklarerade ursprung är Indien, Thailand, Indonesien, Malaysia eller inte.15. Kommissionen underrättade officiellt unionstillverkarna och företrädarna för Folkrepubliken Kina om att en översyn hade inletts. Berörda parter gavs tillfälle att inom tidsfristen i tillkännagivandet om inledande lämna skriftliga synpunkter och begära att bli hörda.16. Produkt som omfattas av översynen17. Den produkt som berörs är kumarin med ursprung i Kina, som för närvarande klassificeras enligt KN-nummer ex 2932 21 00 (nedan kallad den berörda produkten ).18. Undersökningsresultat och avslutande av förfarandet19. Undersökningen bekräftade att den enda unionstillverkaren av den berörda produkten har stängt sin produktionsanläggning för gott i augusti 2010.20. Kommissionen anser att det aktuella förfarandet borde avslutas, eftersom det i översynen inte framkom något nytt inom ramen för undersökningen som tydde på att ett avslutande av förfarandet skulle stå i strid med unionens intresse. De berörda parterna underrättades om detta och gavs tillfälle att lämna synpunkter. Kommissionen har inte tagit emot några synpunkter som tyder på att det inte skulle ligga i unionens intresse att avsluta förfarandet.21. Kommissionen drar därför slutsatsen att antidumpningsförfarandet gällande import till EU av kumarin med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina, utvidgad till att även omfatta import av kumarin med ursprung i Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia, oavsett om deras deklarerade ursprung är Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia eller inte bör avslutas.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1Antidumpningsåtgärderna rörande import av kumarin, för närvarande klassificerat enligt KN-nummer ex 2932 00 21, med ursprung i Folkrepubliken Kina, utvidgad till att även omfatta Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia, oavsett om deras deklarerade ursprung är Indien, Thailand, Indonesien och Malaysia eller inte, ska upphöra att gälla och förfarandet rörande denna import ska avslutas.Artikel 2Denna förordning träder i kraft dagen efter det att den offentliggjorts i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning .Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla medlemsstater.Utfärdad i Bryssel den [...]På rådets vägnarOrdförande [1] EGT L 86, 4.4.1996, s. 1.[2] EGT L 123, 9.5.2002, s. 1.[3] EUT L 396, 31.12.2004, s. 19.[4] EUT L 1, 4.1.2005, s. 15.[5] EUT L 311, 10.11.2006, s. 1.[6] EUT L 183, 11.7.2008, s. 1.[7] EUT L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 51.[8] EUT L 183, 11.7.2008, s. 1.[9] EUT L 1, 4.1.2005, s. 15.[10] EUT C 299, 5.11.2010, s. 4.


text:
 11.4.2014
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 108/3
 FORDÍTÁS
 MEGÁLLAPODÁS
 az Európai Unió és a Tanzániai Egyesült Köztársaság között a kalóztámadások elkövetésével gyanúsított személyeknek és a kalóztámadásokkal összefüggésben lefoglalt javaknak az Európai Unió által vezetett tengeri erők részéről a Tanzániai Egyesült Köztársaság részére történő átadására vonatkozó feltételekről
 AZ EURÓPAI UNIÓ, a továbbiakban Unió,
 egyrészről, és
 A Tanzániai Egyesült Köztársaság, a továbbiakban: Tanzánia,
 másrészről,
 a továbbiakban együttesen: a Felek,
 FIGYELEMBE VÉVE:
 —
 az Egyesült Nemzetek Szervezete Biztonsági Tanácsának (ENSZ BT) 1814 (2008), 1838 (2008), 1846 (2008) és 1851 (2008) sz. határozatait, valamint az ezeket követő ENSZ BT-határozatokat,
 —
 az ENSZ 1982. évi Tengerjogi Egyezményét (UNCLOS) és különösen annak 100–107. és 110. cikkét,
 —
 az Unió Tanácsának a Szomália partjainál folytatott kalóztámadásoktól és fegyveres rablásoktól való elrettentéshez, azok megelőzéséhez és visszaszorításához való hozzájárulás céljából folytatott európai uniós katonai műveletről (1) (EUNAVFOR Atalanta művelet) szóló és később módosított 2008. november 10-i 2008/851/KKBP együttes fellépését,
 —
 az emberi jogokra vonatkozó nemzetközi jogot, ideértve a Polgári és Politikai Jogok Nemzetközi Egyezség okmányát (1966), valamint a kínzás és más kegyetlen, embertelen vagy megalázó büntetések vagy bánásmódok elleni egyezményt (1984),
 —
 azt, hogy e megállapodás nem érinti a Felek nemzetközi megállapodások és egyéb, nemzetközi bíróságok létrehozásáról szóló dokumentumok – többek között a Nemzetközi Büntetőbíróság alapokmánya – alapján fennálló jogait és kötelezettségeit,
 FIGYELEMBE VÉVE TOVÁBBÁ:
 —
 a kalóztámadások elleni küzdelemmel kapcsolatos regionális kezdeményezéseket, mint például az Afrikai Unió (AU), a Kelet-afrikai Közösség (EAC), a Dél-afrikai Fejlesztési Közösség (SADC), a Dzsibuti Magatartási Kódex és a 2010-ben Mauritiuson elfogadott regionális tengeri biztonsági és kalózkodás elleni stratégia keretében indított kezdeményezéseket,
 A KÖVETKEZŐKBEN ÁLLAPODTAK MEG:
 1. cikk
 Cél
 Ez a megállapodás határozza meg a kalóztámadások elkövetésével vagy annak szándékával gyanúsított, az EUNAVFOR által fogva tartott személy(ek)nek, valamint az EUNAVFOR által a kalóztámadásokkal összefüggésben lefoglalt javaknak az EUNAVFOR részéről Tanzánia részére történő átadására és az átadást követően az azokkal való bánásmódra, illetve azok kezelésére vonatkozó feltételeket és részletes szabályokat.
 2. cikk
 Fogalommeghatározások
 E megállapodás alkalmazásában:
 a) „az Európai Unió által vezetett tengeri erők (EUNAVFOR)”: az „Atalanta” elnevezésű uniós műveletben részt vevő Uniós katonai parancsnokságok és nemzeti kontingensek, valamint ezek hajói, repülőgépe, felszerelései és eszközei;
 b) „művelet”: az Európai Unió Tanácsának 2008/851/KKBP együttes fellépése által létrehozott katonai missziónak és/vagy annak utódjának előkészítése, telepítése, végrehajtása és támogatása;
 c) „nemzeti kontingensek”: az Európai Unió tagállamaihoz, valamint a műveletben részt vevő más államokhoz tartozó egységek és hajók;
 d) „küldő állam”: az EUNAVFOR számára nemzeti kontingenst biztosító állam;
 e) „kalózkodás”: az UNCLOS 101. cikkében meghatározottak szerinti kalózkodás;
 f) „átadott személy”: kalóztámadás elkövetésével vagy annak szándékával gyanúsított és az EUNAVFOR által e megállapodás értelmében Tanzánia részére átadott személy.
 3. cikk
 Általános elvek
 (1) Tanzánia az EUNAVFOR kérésére elfogadhatja az EUNAVFOR által kalóztámadások kapcsán fogva tartott személyek és az EUNAVFOR által ezzel összefüggésben lefoglalt javak átadását, valamint nyomozás, illetve büntetőeljárás lefolytatása céljából átadhatja ezen személyeket és javakat az illetékes hatóságainak. A felajánlott átadások elfogadásáról Tanzánia eseti alapon dönt, figyelembe véve valamennyi releváns körülményt, az esemény helyét is beleértve.
 (2) Az EUNAVFOR csak Tanzánia illetékes bűnüldöző hatóságainak ad át személyeket.
 (3) A Feleknek az 1. cikkben említett személyeket – az átadást megelőző és követő időszakban egyaránt – kíméletes, a nemzetközi emberi jogi előírásokból fakadó kötelezettségeknek megfelelő bánásmódban kell részesíteniük, ideértve a kínzás és más kegyetlen, embertelen és megalázó bánásmód vagy büntetés tilalmát, a jogellenes fogva tartás tilalmát és a tisztességes eljárás biztosításának követelményét is.
 (4) Az átadásra csak azt követően kerülhet sor, hogy Tanzánia illetékes bűnüldöző hatóságai Tanzánia belső eljárásaival összhangban, az EUNAVFOR által a megfelelő kommunikációs csatornákon keresztül továbbított bizonyítékok alapján úgy határoznak, hogy első megközelítésben megalapozott az EUNAVFOR által fogva tartott személyekkel szembeni büntetőeljárás.
 4. cikk
 Az átadott személyekkel kapcsolatos bánásmód, büntetőeljárás és tárgyalás
 (1) Az átadott személyeket emberséges bánásmódban kell részesíteni, nem tehetők ki kínzásnak vagy kegyetlen, embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmódnak vagy büntetésnek, biztosítani kell számukra az elfogadható szállást és élelmezést és az orvosi ellátás igénybevételének lehetőségét, valamint lehetővé kell tenni, hogy a vallási szokásokat betarthassák.
 (2) Az átadott személyt haladéktalanul bíró vagy a törvény által igazságszolgáltatási hatáskörrel felruházott más tisztségviselő elé kell állítani, aki késedelem nélkül határoz a fogva tartás törvényességéről, és elrendeli az adott személy szabadlábra helyezését, ha a fogva tartás nem indokolt.
 (3) Az átadott személynek joga van arra, hogy ésszerű határidőn belül tárgyalást tartsanak az ügyében, vagy szabadlábra helyezzék.
 (4) Az átadott személynek joga van ahhoz, hogy az ellene irányuló vádemelés során egy törvény által létrehozott, független és pártatlan, illetékes bíróság tisztességes és nyilvános tárgyaláson meghallgassa.
 (5) A bűncselekménnyel vádolt átadott személyt mindaddig ártatlannak kell vélelmezni, amíg bűnösségét a törvénynek megfelelően meg nem állapították.
 (6) Az ellene irányuló vádemelés során minden átadott személynek – az egyenlőség jegyében – joga van a következő minimális garanciákhoz:
 a)
 valamely általa értett nyelven haladéktalanul pontos tájékoztatásban részesüljön az ellene felhozott vád jellege és indokolása tekintetében;
 b)
 rendelkezzen a védekezésének előkészítéséhez és az általa választott jogi tanácsadóval való értekezéshez szükséges idővel és lehetőséggel;
 c)
 ügyét késedelem nélkül tárgyalják;
 d)
 ügyét jelenlétében tárgyalják, és személyesen vagy az általa választott jogi segítséggel védekezhessen; ha nem rendelkezik jogi segítséggel, tájékoztassák erről a jogáról; és jelöljenek ki számára jogi segítséget, amennyiben az igazságszolgáltatás érdekében ez kívánatos, és ha nem rendelkezik az ennek fedezéséhez szükséges eszközökkel, térítésmentesen részesüljön ilyen segítségben;
 e)
 megvizsgálhasson vagy megvizsgáltathasson minden ellene szóló bizonyítékot, ideértve a letartóztatását végrehajtó tanúk vallomásait is, és kieszközölhesse a védelem tanúinak ugyanolyan feltételek melletti beidézését és kihallgatását, mint amelyek a vád tanúira vonatkoznak;
 f)
 térítésmentesen tolmács álljon rendelkezésére, ha nem érti vagy nem beszéli a tárgyaláson használt nyelvet;
 g)
 ne kötelezzék saját maga elleni vallomásra vagy bűnösségének bevallására.
 (7) Az átadott és bűncselekmény elkövetése miatt elítélt személynek joga van ahhoz, hogy a bűnössége megállapítása és a büntetés kiszabását tartalmazó ítélet ellen magasabb fokú bíróságnál fellebbezzen vagy felülvizsgálatot kérjen, Tanzánia jogszabályainak megfelelően.
 (8) Tanzánia az Unióval folytatott konzultációt követően az elítélt és büntetését Tanzániában töltő bármely személyt átadhatja az emberi jogi normákat tiszteletben tartó valamely harmadik államnak abból a célból, hogy a büntetést e harmadik államban töltse le. Ha a harmadik államban tapasztalható emberi jogi helyzet kapcsán komoly aggályok merülnek fel, az átadásra mindaddig nem kerül sor, amíg a Felek közötti konzultációk útján kielégítő megoldást nem találnak a kifejezésre juttatott aggályokra.
 5. cikk
 Büntetés
 Az átadott személyekkel szemben nem lehet olyan bűncselekmény tárgyában büntetőeljárást folytatni, amelyre vonatkozóan a kiszabható legmagasabb büntetés szigorúbb, mint az életfogytig tartó börtönbüntetés.
 6. cikk
 Nyilvántartás és értesítések
 (1) Az átadásnak a feltétele az EUNAVFOR képviselője és Tanzánia illetékes bűnüldöző hatóságainak képviselője által aláírt megfelelő dokumentum kiállítása.
 (2) Az EUNAVFOR az átadott személyre vonatkozóan a fogva tartással kapcsolatos nyilvántartást bocsát Tanzánia rendelkezésére. Ez a nyilvántartás kiterjed az átadott személy fogva tartás alatti fizikai állapotára, a Tanzánia részére történő átadás időpontjára, a fogva tartás indokára, a fogva tartás megkezdésének időpontjára és helyére, valamint a fogva tartással kapcsolatos valamennyi határozatra.
 (3) Tanzánia felel valamennyi átadott személy pontos nyilvántartásáért, amely magában foglalja többek között a lefoglalt javak összességének, a személyek fizikai állapotának, a fogva tartás helyének, a személyek elleni vádaknak, valamint a büntetőeljárás és a tárgyalás során hozott valamennyi jelentős határozatnak a nyilvántartását.
 (4) A nyilvántartást a tanzániai jogszabályokkal és rendelkezésekkel összhangban – Tanzánia Külügyminisztériumához intézett írásbeli kérésükre – az Unió és az EUNAVFOR képviselőinek rendelkezésére kell bocsátani.
 (5) Tanzánia értesíti továbbá az EUNAVFOR-t az e megállapodás szerint átadott személy fogva tartásának helyéről, fizikai állapotának esetleges rosszabbodásáról és a nem megfelelő bánásmódra vonatkozó állításokról. Az Unió és az EUNAVFOR képviselői az e megállapodás értelmében átadott valamennyi személyhez – az alkalmazandó jogszabályokra is figyelemmel – bejárással rendelkeznek a fogva tartás ideje alatt, és jogukban áll őket kihallgatni.
 (6) A nemzeti és nemzetközi humanitárius ügynökségek kérésükre engedélyt kapnak az e megállapodás szerint átadott személyek látogatására.
 (7) Annak biztosítása céljából, hogy az EUNAVFOR kellő időben képes legyen Tanzánia számára az EUNAVFOR kötelékébe tartozó tanúk beidézésével és a vonatkozó tanúvallomás megtételével kapcsolatos segítséget megadni, Tanzánia bármely átadott személy elleni büntetőper indítására vonatkozó szándékáról, valamint a bizonyítási eszközök rendelkezésre bocsátására vagy meghallgatására vonatkozó határidőkről értesítést küld az EUNAVFOR részére.
 7. cikk
 Az Uniónak és az EUNAVFOR-nak a nyomozás és a büntetőeljárás megkönnyítésére irányuló kötelezettsége
 (1) Az Unió és az EUNAVFOR eszközeihez és lehetőségeihez mérten minden segítséget megad Tanzániának az átadott személyekkel kapcsolatos nyomozás és büntetőeljárás lefolytatása céljából.
 (2) Az Unió és az EUNAVFOR:
 a)
 az e megállapodás 6. cikkének (2) bekezdése értelmében átadja a fogva tartásról vezetett nyilvántartást;
 b)
 Tanzánia illetékes hatóságainak előírásaival összhangban feldolgozza a bizonyítékokat, a 10. cikkben említett végrehajtási rendelkezéseknek megfelelően;
 c)
 törekszik arra, hogy rendelkezésre bocsássa az EUNAVFOR kötelékébe tartozó, olyan eseményekben érintett tanúk által tett nyilatkozatokat vagy vallomásokat, amelyek kapcsán e megállapodás értelmében személyek átadására került sor;
 d)
 átadja az EUNAVFOR birtokában lévő, vonatkozó lefoglalt javak összességét;
 e)
 megőrzi vagy átadja a birtokában lévő valamennyi lefoglalt javat, bizonyítékot, fényképet, illetve bizonyító erejű tárgyat;
 f)
 biztosítja az EUNAVFOR kötelékébe tartozó tanúknak a tárgyalás során a bíróság előtt vallomástétel céljából történő megjelenését (illetve videokapcsolat vagy más elfogadott technikai eszköz útján történő vallomástételt);
 g)
 elősegíti a Tanzánia illetékes hatóságai által esetlegesen kért tolmácsok a célból történő megjelenését, hogy azok segítséget nyújtsanak az átadott személyeket érintő nyomozások és tárgyalások során.
 8. cikk
 Az átadott személyek egyéb jogaihoz fűződő kapcsolat
 E megállapodásnak nem célja, hogy eltérjen az átadott személyek tekintetében alkalmazandó nemzeti vagy nemzetközi jog által biztosított jogoktól, továbbá nem értelmezhető az ilyen jogoktól való eltérésként.
 9. cikk
 Kapcsolattartás és vitás kérdések
 (1) Az e megállapodás alkalmazásával összefüggésben felmerülő minden kérdést Tanzánia és az Unió illetékes hatóságai közösen vizsgálnak meg.
 (2) Az előzetes rendezés elmaradása esetén az e megállapodás értelmezésével vagy alkalmazásával kapcsolatos vitás kérdéseket Tanzánia és az Unió képviselői kizárólag diplomáciai úton rendezik.
 10. cikk
 Végrehajtási rendelkezések
 (1) E megállapodás alkalmazásában az operatív, adminisztratív és technikai kérdések egyrészről a Tanzánia illetékes hatóságai, másrészről az Unió illetékes hatóságai és a küldő államok illetékes hatóságai által kötendő végrehajtási rendelkezések tárgyát képezhetik.
 (2) A végrehajtási rendelkezések többek között a következőkre terjedhetnek ki:
 a)
 Tanzánia illetékes bűnüldöző hatóságainak megnevezése, amelyeknek az EUNAVFOR a személyeket átadhatja;
 b)
 az átadott személyek fogva tartására kijelölt intézmények;
 c)
 a dokumentumok kezelése, ideértve a bizonyítékok összegyűjtésével kapcsolatos dokumentumokat is, amelyeket a személyek átadásakor átadnak Tanzánia illetékes bűnüldöző hatóságainak;
 d)
 értesítés céljára kijelölt kapcsolattartók, valamint az EUNAVFOR részéről a tanzániai illetékes hatóságoknak küldendő figyelmeztetések részletes szabályai;
 e)
 átadás esetén használandó formanyomtatványok;
 f)
 Tanzánia kérésére technikai, szakértői, képzési és egyéb támogatás nyújtása a hazaszállításhoz, az őrizetbe vételhez, az állampolgárság meghatározásához, a jogi képviselethez és a felelősségvállalással kapcsolatos kérdéseket illetően e megállapodás céljainak elérése érdekében.
 11. cikk
 Hatálybalépés és felmondás
 (1) Ezt a megállapodást az aláírásának napjától ideiglenesen alkalmazni kell, és az akkor lép hatályba, amikor a Felek értesítették egymást az e megállapodás megerősítéséhez szükséges belső eljárások befejezéséről.
 (2) Írásbeli értesítés útján bármely Fél felmondhatja e megállapodást. Ebben az esetben a felmondás az értesítés kézhezvételének napjától számított három hónap elteltével válik hatályossá.
 (3) Ez a megállapodás a Felek közötti írásbeli megállapodással módosítható.
 (4) E megállapodás megszűnése nem érinti a végrehajtásából a megszűnést megelőzően keletkezett jogokat és kötelezettségeket, ideértve az átadott személy jogait is, amennyiben Tanzánia területén tartják őt őrizetben, vagy ott indítanak ellene büntetőeljárást.
 (5) A megállapodás megszűnését követően az Unió külügyi és biztonságpolitikai főképviselője által kijelölt bármely személy gyakorolhatja az Uniónak e megállapodás szerinti valamennyi jogát. A megállapodás megszűnését követően az e megállapodás értelmében az EUNAVFOR részére küldendő valamennyi értesítést az Unió külügyi és biztonságpolitikai főképviselője részére kell megküldeni.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, a kétezer-tizennegyedik év április havának első napján angol nyelven, két eredeti példányban.
 az Európai Unió részéről
 a Tanzániai Egyesült Köztársaság részéről
 (1) HL L 301., 2008.11.12., 33. o.