text:
 11/Sv. 86
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 277
 42012X0107(02)
 L 004/18
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 Samo izvorni tekstovi UNECE-a imaju pravni učinak prema međunarodnom javnom pravu. Status i dan stupanja na snagu ovog Pravilnika treba provjeriti u posljednjem izdanju UNECE dokumenta TRANS/WP.29/343, koji je dostupan na internetskoj stranici:
 http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29fdocstts.html
 Izmjene iz 2010. godine Pravilnika br. 23 Gospodarske komisije Ujedinjenih naroda za Europu (UNECE) - Jedinstvene odredbe o homologaciji svjetala za vožnju unatrag motornih vozila i njihovih prikolica
 Izmjene Pravilnika br. 23 objavljenog u SL L 148, 12.6.2010., str. 34.
 Koje sadrže:
 Dopunu 16. prvobitnoj verziji Pravilnika — dan stupanja na snagu: 9. prosinca 2010.
 Dopunu 17. prvobitnoj verziji Pravilnika — dan stupanja na snagu: 23. lipnja 2011.
 Izmjene sadržaja
 Sadržaj se izmjenjuje da glasi:
 „...
 PRILOZI
 Prilog 1. —
 Izjava o dodjeljivanju ili odbijanju ili proširivanju ili povlačenju homologacije ili konačnoj obustavi proizvodnje za tip svjetla za vožnju unatrag u skladu s Pravilnikom br. 23
 Prilog 2. —
 Primjeri postavljanja homologacijskih oznaka
 Prilog 3. —
 Fotometrijska mjerenja
 Prilog 4. —
 Najmanji zahtjevi za usklađenost kontrolnih postupaka u proizvodnji
 Prilog 5. —
 Najmanji zahtjevi za uzorkovanje koje obavlja inspektor”
 Izmjene glavnog teksta Pravilnika.
 Umeće se novi stavak 5.3.3. koji glasi:
 „5.3.3.
 Modul izvora svjetlosti bit će izrađen tako da, bez obzira na korištenje alata, neće biti mehanički zamjenjiv s bilo kojim drugim zamjenjivim homologiranim izvorom svjetlosti.”;
 stavak 8. izmjenjuje se da glasi:
 „8.
 BOJA EMITIRANOG SVJETLA
 Boja emitiranog svjetla unutar polja mreže distribucije svjetla definirane u točki 2. Priloga 3., bit će bijela. Radi provjere tih kolorimetrijskih značajki, primjenjuje se postupak ispitivanja opisan u stavku 7. ovog Pravilnika. Izvan tog polja ne uočava se nikakva oštra varijacija boje.
 Međutim, za svjetla s nezamjenjivim izvorom svjetlosti (žarulje sa žarnom niti i druge), kolorimetrijske značajke provjeravaju se izvorima svjetlosti prisutnima u svjetlu, u skladu s relevantnim podstavcima stavka 7.1. ovog Pravilnika”;
 stavak 9.2. izmjenjuje se da glasi:
 „9.2.
 Moraju se zadovoljiti minimalni zahtjevi usklađenosti proizvodnih kontrolnih postupaka koji su navedeni u Prilogu 4 ovom Pravilniku.”;
 stavak 9.3. izmjenjuje se da glasi:
 „9.3.
 Moraju se zadovoljiti minimalni zahtjevi za uzorkovanje, koje obavlja inspektor, koji su navedeni u Prilogu 5 ovom Pravilniku.”
 Izmjene priloga
 Prilog 4. se briše;
 Prilog 5. (prethodni) postaje Prilog 4.;
 Prilog 4. (novi) stavak 2.5. izmjenjuje se da glasi:
 „2.5.
 Rukovodeći kriteriji prihvatljivosti
 Proizvođač je odgovoran za provedbu statističke analize rezultata ispitivanja te za određivanje, u dogovoru s nadležnom ustanovom, kriterija koji određuju prihvatljivost njegovih proizvoda radi ispunjavanja zahtjeva utvrđenih za provjeru sukladnosti proizvodnje u stavku 9.1. ovog Pravilnika.
 Kriteriji koji određuju prihvatljivost trebaju biti takvi da s vjerojatnošću prihvaćanja od 95 %, najmanja vjerojatnost prolaza provjere uzorkovanjem u skladu s Prilogom 5. (prvo uzorkovanje) bude 0,95.”;
 Prilog 6. (prethodni) postaje Prilog 5.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
27.5.2000 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen C 149/35
 De door verzoekster aangevoerde middelen en argumenten De bestreden verordening heeft de vroegere regeling volledig
 zijn in wezen dezelfde als die in de zaken T-186/97 (1), opzij gezet. Zij heeft tot gevolg, dat in azijn verduurzaamde
 T-187/97, T-191/97, T-192/97, T-210/97 en T-211/97. paddestoelen met een zoutgehalte van meer dan 2,5 % van
 post 2001 90 50 zijn uitgesloten, ook indien het zout enkel
 voor de bereiding, en niet ter verduurzaming, is toegevoegd.
 (1) PB C 318 van 18.10.1997, blz. 17. Deze paddestoelen vallen thans onder de veel ongunstiger
 tariefregeling van post 2003 10 van de gecombineerde nomen-
 clatuur.
 Verzoekster voert tot staving van haar vordering de volgende
 middelen aan:
 — Onbevoegdheid van de Commissie, gelet op artikel 26 EG-
 Verdrag.
 Beroep, op 8 maart 2000 ingesteld door IPOSEA di
 Giusto Masiello & Figli tegen Commissie van de Europese — Schending en onjuiste toepassing van artikel 9 van verorde-
 Gemeenschappen ning nr. 2658/87, de rechtsgrondslag van de bestreden
 verordening, voor zover de hierin voorziene bevoegdheden
 van de Commissie van executieve aard zijn en niet
 (Zaak T-49/00)
 kunnen worden aangewend om wijziging te brengen in
 fundamentele bepalingen die de tariefregeling van goede-
 (2000/C 149/67) ren bepalen. Voorts doen zich in casu geen omstandighe-
 den voor die wijziging van de vroegere bepalingen recht-
 vaardigen.
 (Procestaal: Italiaans)
 — Schending van het beginsel van gelijke behandeling, daar
 de nieuwe regeling alle lasten legt op de producenten en
 Bij het Gerecht van eerste aanleg van de Europese Gemeen- importeurs van in azijn verduurzaamde, maar met gebruik
 schappen is op 8 maart 2000 beroep ingesteld tegen Commis- van een hoog zoutgehalte bereide paddestoelen.
 sie van de Europese Gemeenschappen door IPOSEA, vertegen-
 woordigd door A. Guarino en A. Lorang, advocaten te Rome
 Verzoekster betoogt voorts, dat de bestreden verordening
 respectievelijk Luxemburg.
 ontoereikend en tegenstrijdig is gemotiveerd en gebrekkig is
 wegens miskenning van het evenredigheidsbeginsel en het
 Verzoekster concludeert dat het het Gerecht behage: beginsel van bescherming van het gewettigd vertrouwen.
 — verordening nr. 2626/99 van de Commissie nietig te (1) PB L 321, van 14.12.1999, blz. 3.
 verklaren; (2) PB L 170, van 28.6.1997, blz. 13.
 — de Commissie in de kosten te verwijzen.
 Middelen en voornaamste argumenten
 Verzoekster, een onderneming die voor menselijke consumptie
 bestemde verduurzaamde groenten en peulvruchten invoert, Beroep, op 8 maart 2000 ingesteld door Dalmine Spa
 komt op tegen verordening (EG) nr. 2626/99 van de Commis- tegen Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen
 sie tot wijziging van bijlage I bij verordening (EEG) nr. 2658/87
 van de Raad met betrekking tot de tarief- en statistieknomen- (Zaak T-50/00)
 clatuur en het gemeenschappelijk douanetarief (1). Tot de
 voornaamste door haar gevoerde producten behoren gekookte
 en in azijn verduurzaamde „agaricus” paddestoelen. Nadat (2000/C 149/68)
 daaraan vervolgens zout is toegevoegd, bedraagt het zoutgehal-
 te 15 % à 20 %.
 (Procestaal: Italiaans)
 In de bij verordening nr. 2685/87 ingevoerde gecombineerde
 nomenclatuur konden „agaricus” paddestoelen onder drie Bij het Gerecht van eerste aanleg van de Europese Gemeen-
 verschillende posten vallen. Om dit probleem op te lossen, schappen is op 8 maart 2000 beroep ingesteld tegen de
 werd verordening (EG) nr. 1196/97 van 27 juni 1997 houden- Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen door Dalmine
 de indeling van bepaalde goederen in de gecombineerde Spa, vertegenwoordigd door M. Siragusa en F. M. Morttetti,
 nomenclatuur (2) vastgesteld. advocaten te Rome en Venetië.
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/36 NL Publicatieblad van de Europese Gemeenschappen 27.5.2000
 Verzoekster concludeert dat het het Gerecht behage: Beroep, op 23 maart 2000 ingesteld door M. Costacurta
 tegen Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen
 — het besluit van de Commissie van 8 december 1998 —
 IV/E-1/35.860-B — Naadloze stalen buizen, geheel of
 gedeeltelijk nietig te verklaren (Zaak T-51/00)
 — subsidiair de aan verzoekster opgelegde boete nietig te
 verklaren of te verlagen (2000/C 149/69)
 — de Commissie in de kosten te verwijzen
 (Procestaal: Frans)
 Middelen en voornaamste argumenten:
 Bij het Gerecht van eerste aanleg van de Europese Gemeen-
 Verzoekster wordt verweten, te hebben deelgenomen aan een schappen is op 23 maart 2000 beroep tegen Commissie van
 overeenkomst tussen Europese en japanse producenten van de Europese Gemeenschappen ingesteld door M. Costacurta,
 naadloze buizen, in het kader van de zogeheten Club Europa- wonende te Luxemburg, vertegenwoordigd door M. Petit,
 Japan, die onder meer tot doel had de bescherming van de advocaat te Luxemburg.
 nationale productie van OCTG-buizen met standaardschroef-
 draad en „linepipe-project” OCTG-buizen (Oil Country Tubular
 Goods). Voorts wordt verzoekster ter zake van deze inbreuk Verzoeker concludeert dat het Gerecht behage:
 verweten, te hebben deelgenomen aan een andere overeen-
 komst, alleen tussen de Europese producenten, waarbij de
 levering van gladde OCTG-buizen aan British Steel onder deze — nietig te verklaren het stilzwijgend genomen besluit tot
 producenten werd verdeeld. afwijzing van verzoekers klacht betreffende zijn verzoek
 (om mededeling) van het besluit van het TABG waarbij hij
 per 1 september 1996 is aangesteld bij de eenheid Plan-
 Tot staving van haar vordering brengt verzoekster het volgende
 ning, contracten en algemene diensten van het Publicatie-
 naar voren:
 bureau te Luxemburg;
 — Vormfouten in de administratieve fase, onder meer ontoe-
 laatbaarheid van enkele vragen die haar door verweerster — nietig te verklaren het besluit van het TABG van het Bureau
 in het kader van de vaststelling van de feiten zijn gesteld, voor officiële publicaties der Europese Gemeenschappen
 de vertrouwelijke behandeling en het feit dat enkele van 15 mei 1998 waarbij verzoeker bij de eenheid Verkoop
 documenten die als bijlage bij de mededeling van punten en beheer van auteursrechten is tewerkgesteld, op grond
 van bezwaar waren gevoegd niet overeenstemmen met de dat dit besluit op een non-existente of niet-statutaire
 voor het besluit gebruikte bijlagen. handeling is gebaseerd;
 — Schending van artikel 81 van het Verdrag en het bij
 verzoekster gewettigd vertrouwen, doordat het bestreden — de Commissie van de Europese Gemeenschappen in alle
 besluit op verschillende punten een weergave van de feiten kosten van het geding te verwijzen;
 bevat die niet overeenstemt met hetgeen de ondernemin-
 gen wordt verweten.
 — alle andere rechten, aanspraken, middelen en vorderingen,
 — Gebrekkige en onderling tegenstrijdige motivering, alsme- met name betreffende de vergoeding van de schade,
 de schending van artikel 81 van het Verdrag met betrek- voorbehouden.
 king tot de analyse van de markt en de commerciële
 handelwijze van verzoekster, de gestelde onwettigheid van
 de leveringscontracten voor het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de
 beoordeling van de restrictiviteit van de overeenkomst in Middelen en voornaamste argumenten
 het kader van de Club Europa-Japan.
 Wat in concreto de leveringscontracten voor het Verenigd Verzoeker komt op tegen het besluit van de Commissie
 Koninkrijk betreft, verklaart verzoekster dat haar contract met houdende afwijzing van zijn op 20 juli 1999 ingediend
 British Steel, dat niet voortvloeit uit een overeenkomst tussen verzoek om mededeling van het formele besluit om hem per
 de Europese producenten, grotendeels betrekking heeft op 1 september 1996 bij het Bureau voor officiële publicaties der
 producten die niet tot de door de Commissie gedefinieerde Europese Gemeenschappen te Luxemburg tewerk te stellen.
 relevante markt behoren. Voorts heeft verzoekster niet deel-
 genomen aan enige horizontale overeenkomst met de andere
 Europese producenten voor de verdeling van de leveringen in Tot staving van zijn beroep voert verzoeker aan, dat boven-
 het Verenigd Koninkrijk. genoemd tewerkstellingsbesluit
 — de artikelen 2, 3 en 25 van het Ambtenarenstatuut schendt;


type: wikipedia

text:
A hegyes szárnyú tarkamolyfélék (Acrolepiidae) a valódi lepkék (Glossata) alrendjébe tartozó Yponomeutoidea öregcsalád egyik családja három nemmel. Egyesek szerint a taxon nem önálló család, hanem Acrolepiinae néven a szakállasmolyfélék (Glyphipterigidae) egyik alcsaládja.
 A tarkamolyfélék közeli rokonai. Az északi félgömbön terjedtek el; hazánkban nyolc-kilenc fajuk él. A hernyók a tápnövény levelében (vagy virágszárában) aknáznak, majd gubót szőnek a levél felszínén, és abban bábozódnak be (Mészáros, 2005).
 Ismertebb fajaik
 Acrolepia (Curtis, 1838)
 ebszőlő-tarkamoly (Acrolepia autumnitella, A. pygmaeana Curtis, 1838) – Magyarországon többfelé előfordul (Fazekas, 2001; Pastorális, 2011);
 Acrolepiopsis:
 hagymamoly (hagymavirág-tarkamoly – Acrolepiopsis assectella Zeller, 1839, mások szerint Acrolepia assectella) – Magyarországon sokfelé előfordul (Mészáros, 2005; Pastorális, 2011);
 fehérfoltos tarkamoly (Acrolepiopsis tauricella, A. karolyii Staudinger, 1871) – Magyarországon sokfelé előfordul (Pastorális, 2011);
 Digitivalva (Gaedike, 1970)
 árnikarágó tarkamoly (Digitivalva arnicella Heyden, 1863) – Magyarországon szórványos (Pastorális, 2011);
 ökörszemlevél-tarkamoly (Digitivalva granitella Treitschke, 1833) – Magyarországon szórványos (Pastorális, 2011);
 látványos tarkamoly (Digitivalva perlepidella Stainton, 1849) – Magyarországon szórványos (Pastorális, 2011);
 homályos tarkamoly (Digitivalva pulicariae) Klimesch, 1956) – Magyarországon közönséges (Fazekas, 2001; Pastorális, 2011; Pastorális & Szeőke, 2011);
 szalmagyopár-tarkamoly (Digitivalva reticulella, D. cariosella Hb., 1796) – Magyarországon szórványos (Pastorális, 2011);
 peremizsevő tarkamoly (Digitivalva valeriella Snellen, 1878) – Magyarországon közönséges (Fazekas, 2001; Pastorális, 2011; Pastorális & Szeőke, 2011);
 Jegyzetek
 Források
 Mészáros, 2005: Mészáros Zoltán: A magyarországi molylepkék gyakorlati albuma
 Pastorális, 2011: Pastorális Gábor: A Magyarországon előforduló molylepkefajok jegyzéke. Microlepidoptera.hu 3: 37–136. (2011.09.30.) HU
 Fazekas, 2001: FAZEKAS IMRE: Somogy megye molylepke faunája
 Csóka György: Levélaknák és levélaknázók
 Horváth, 1997: HORVÁTH Gyula János: Újabb adatok a Szigetköz lepke faunájának ismeretéhez
 Buschmann, 2003: BUSCHMANN FERENC: A Mátra Múzeum molylepke-gyűjteménye I.
 Pastorális & Szeőke, 2011: Pastorális & Szeőke: A Vértes hegység molylepkéi
 2
 Rovarcsaládok


text:
 8.3.2008
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 64/61
 Acțiune introdusă la 8 ianuarie 2008 — Evets/OAPI (DANELECTRO)
 (Cauza T-20/08)
 (2008/C 64/98)
 Limba de procedură: engleza
 Părțile
 Reclamantă: Evets Corporation (Irvine, Statele Unite ale Americii) (reprezentant: S. Ryan, Solicitor)
 Pârât: Oficiul pentru Armonizare în cadrul Pieței Interne (mărci, desene și modele industriale)
 Concluziile reclamantei
 —
 Anularea deciziei R 603/2007-4 a Camerei a patra de recurs din 4 noiembrie 2007;
 —
 emiterea unei ordonanțe prin care să se declare că cererea de restitutio in integrum a fost prezentată în termenul prevăzut la articolul 78 alineatul (2);
 —
 trimiterea cauzei Camerei a patra de recurs pentru a se pronunța pe fond cu privire la aspectul dacă au fost luate toate măsurile necesare pentru reînnoirea mărcii vizate;
 —
 obligarea pârâtului la plata cheltuielilor de judecată.
 Motivele și principalele argumente
 Marca comunitară vizată: marca comunitară verbală „DANELECTRO” pentru produse și servicii din clasele 9 și 15 — cererea nr. 117 937.
 Decizia examinatorului: refuză cererea de restitutio in integrum și declară ca fiind anulată marca.
 Decizia camerei de recurs: respinge recursul și declară că cererea de restitutio in integrum se consideră ca neprezentată.
 Motivele invocate: încălcarea articolului 78 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 40/94 al Consiliului.
 Reclamanta susține că aspectul respectării termenului de două luni prevăzut de articolul menționat pentru prezentarea cererii de reînnoire și plata taxelor de reînnoire a înregistrării unei mărci nu a făcut obiectul recursului. În cazul în care Tribunalul statuează că în mod întemeiat camera de recurs a examinat acest aspect, reclamanta susține, în subsidiar, că termenul limită a fost calculat greșit.


type: legislation

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 32004D0308
 2004/308/CE: Décision de la Commission du 2 avril 2004 confiant la gestion des aides à des organismes de mise en œuvre, en ce qui concerne les mesures de préadhésion en faveur de l'agriculture et du développement rural dans la République de Slovénie au cours de la période de préadhésion
 Journal officiel n° L 099 du 03/04/2004 p. 0059 - 0060
 Décision de la Commissiondu 2 avril 2004confiant la gestion des aides à des organismes de mise en oeuvre, en ce qui concerne les mesures de préadhésion en faveur de l'agriculture et du développement rural dans la République de Slovénie au cours de la période de préadhésion(2004/308/CE)LA COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES,vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne,vu le règlement (CE) n° 1266/1999 du Conseil du 21 juin 1999 sur la coordination de l'assistance aux pays candidats dans le cadre de la stratégie de préadhésion, et modifiant le règlement (CEE) n° 3906/89(1), et notamment son article 12, paragraphe 2,vu le règlement (CE) n° 1268/1999 du Conseil du 21 juin 1999 relatif à une aide communautaire à des mesures de préadhésion en faveur de l'agriculture et du développement rural dans les pays candidats d'Europe centrale et orientale, au cours de la période de préadhésion(2), et notamment son article 4, paragraphes 5 et 6,considérant ce qui suit:(1) Conformément à l'article 4, paragraphe 5, du règlement (CE) n° 1268/1999, le programme spécial d'adhésion pour l'agriculture et le développement rural pour la République de Slovénie (ci-après dénommé le "programme Sapard"), a été approuvé par la décision de la Commission du 27 octobre 2000(3), modifiée en dernier lieu par la décision de la Commission du 24 novembre 2003.(2) Le gouvernement de la République de Slovénie et la Commission, agissant au nom de l'Union européenne, ont signé, le 5 mars 2001, la convention de financement pluriannuelle fixant le cadre technique, juridique et administratif pour l'exécution du programme Sapard, modifiée en dernier lieu par la convention annuelle de financement pour 2003, et qui est finalement entrée en vigueur le 11 novembre 2003.(3) L'autorité compétente de la République de Slovénie a désigné l'organisme Sapard pour la mise en oeuvre de certaines mesures définies dans le programme Sapard, à savoir l'organisme pour les marchés agricoles et le développement rural de la République de Slovénie. Le ministère des finances, direction du Fonds national, a été désigné pour les fonctions financières à assumer dans le cadre de la mise en oeuvre du programme Sapard.(4) Sur la base d'une analyse, cas par cas, de la capacité de gestion des programmes/projets nationaux et sectoriels, des procédures de contrôle financier et des structures relatives aux finances publiques, conformément à l'article 12, paragraphe 2, du règlement (CE) n° 1266/1999, la Commission a adopté la décision 2001/820/CE du 19 novembre 2001 confiant la gestion des aides à des organismes de mise en oeuvre, en ce qui concerne les mesures de préadhésion en faveur de l'agriculture et du développement rural dans la République de Slovénie au cours de la période de préadhésion(4), pour certaines mesures prévues par le programme Sapard.(5) Entre-temps, la Commission a procédé à une analyse, conformément à l'article 12, paragraphe 2, du règlement (CE) n° 1266/1999, en ce qui concerne la mesure n° 5 "assistance technique" (ci-après dénommée la "mesure n° 5") prévue dans le programme Sapard. La Commission estime que, pour cette mesure également, la République de Slovénie respecte les dispositions des articles 4 à 6 et de l'annexe du règlement (CE) n° 2222/2000 de la Commission du 7 juin 2000 fixant les règles financières d'application du règlement (CE) n° 1268/1999 du Conseil relatif à une aide communautaire à des mesures de préadhésion en faveur de l'agriculture et du développement rural dans les pays candidats d'Europe centrale et orientale, au cours de la période de préadhésion(5), et les conditions minimales contenues dans l'annexe du règlement (CE) n° 1266/1999.(6) Il convient donc de déroger à l'exigence relative à la procédure d'approbation ex ante prévue à l'article 12, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) n° 1266/1999, et de confier la gestion décentralisée des aides, pour la mesure 5, à l'organisme pour les marchés agricoles et le développement rural et à la direction du Fonds national de la République de Slovénie.(7) Étant donné que les vérifications effectuées par la Commission pour la mesure n° 5 se fondent sur un système qui n'est pas encore totalement opérationnel en ce qui concerne tous les éléments pertinents, il convient cependant, conformément à l'article 3, paragraphe 2, du règlement (CE) n° 2222/2000, de confier à titre provisoire la gestion du programme Sapard à l'organisme pour les marchés agricoles et le développement rural et à la direction du Fonds national de la République de Slovénie.(8) La délégation définitive de la gestion du programme Sapard sera envisagée uniquement après que d'autres vérifications auront été effectuées, afin de s'assurer du bon fonctionnement du système, et après que les recommandations éventuelles de la Commission sur la délégation de la gestion de l'aide à l'organisme pour les marchés agricoles et le développement rural et à la direction du Fonds national de la République de Slovénie auront été mises en oeuvre.(9) Le 14 novembre 2001, les autorités slovènes ont proposé des règles d'éligibilité des dépenses conformément à la section B, article 4, paragraphe 1, de la convention de financement pluriannuelle. Ces règles ont été partiellement modifiées dans la lettre du 21 août 2003. La Commission est invitée à prendre une décision sur ce point.(10) Conformément à l'article 9, paragraphe 1, deuxième tiret, du règlement (CE) n° 2222/2000, les dépenses en matière d'assistance technique exposées par le bénéficiaire avant la date de la décision de la Commission confiant la gestion peuvent faire l'objet d'un remboursement. Il convient donc de fixer la date à compter de laquelle ces dépenses peuvent être remboursées.A ARRÊTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DÉCISION:Article premierIl est renoncé à l'exigence relative à la procédure d'approbation ex ante de la Commission qui est prévue à l'article 12, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) n° 1266/1999, en ce qui concerne la sélection des projets et les adjudications pour la mesure n° 5 réalisée par la République de Slovénie.Article 2La gestion du programme Sapard est confiée à titre provisoire:1) à l'organisme pour les marchés agricoles et le développement rural de la République de Slovénie, rue Dunajska 160, 1000 Ljubljana, République de Slovénie, en ce qui concerne la mesure n° 5 du programme Sapard, telle que définie dans le programme pour l'agriculture et le développement rural qui a été approuvé par la décision de la Commission visée ci-dessus, et2) au ministère des finances, direction du Fonds national, de la République de Slovénie, rue Beethovnova 11, 1502 Ljubljana, République de Slovénie, pour les fonctions financières qu'il est chargé d'assumer dans le cadre de la mise en oeuvre du programme Sapard pour la mesure n° 5, pour la République de Slovénie.Article 3Les dépenses exposées au titre de la mesure n° 5 sont admises au cofinancement communautaire à compter du 27 octobre 2000, à la condition stricte qu'elles n'aient pas été remboursées par l'organisme Sapard avant la date d'adoption de la présente décision.Article 4Sans préjudice de toute décision d'octroi d'une aide au titre du programme Sapard à des bénéficiaires individuels, les règles d'éligibilité des dépenses concernant la mesure n° 5 proposées par la République de Slovénie dans sa lettre du 21 août 2003 et enregistrées à la Commission sous la référence AGR A/29346 sont applicables.Fait à Bruxelles, le 2 avril 2004.Par la CommissionFranz FischlerMembre de la Commission(1) JO L 161 du 26.6.1999, p. 68.(2) JO L 161 du 26.6.1999, p. 87. Règlement modifié en dernier lieu par le règlement (CE) n° 696/2003 (JO L 99 du 17.4.2003, p. 24).(3) C(2000) 3138 final.(4) JO L 307 du 24.11.2001, p. 25.(5) JO L 253 du 7.10.2000, p. 5. Règlement modifié en dernier lieu par le règlement (CE) n° 188/2003 (JO L 27 du 1.2.2003, p. 14).


text:
 10.3.2007
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 C 56/23
 Klage, eingereicht am 23. Januar 2007 — Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften/Irland
 (Rechtssache C-20/07)
 (2007/C 56/43)
 Verfahrenssprache: Englisch
 Parteien
 Klägerin: Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (Prozessbevollmächtigte: J. Hottiaux und D. Lawunmi)
 Beklagter: Irland
 Anträge
 Die Klägerin beantragt,
 —
 festzustellen, dass Irland dadurch gegen seine Verpflichtungen aus Art. 3 der Richtlinie 2004/26/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 21. April 2004 zur Änderung der Richtlinie 97/68/EG zur Angleichung der Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung der Emission von gasförmigen Schadstoffen und luftverunreinigenden Partikeln aus Verbrennungsmotoren für mobile Maschinen und Geräte (1) verstoßen hat, dass es die Rechts- und Verwaltungsvorschriften, die erforderlich sind, um dieser Richtlinie nachzukommen, nicht erlassen oder jedenfalls der Kommission nicht mitgeteilt hat.
 —
 Irland die Kosten aufzuerlegen.
 Klagegründe und wesentliche Argumente
 Die Frist für die Umsetzung der Richtlinie sei am 20. Mai 2005 abgelaufen.
 (1) ABl. L 146, S. 1.


text:
20.2.1999 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias C 48/25
 B. Vesterdorf, presidente, J. Pirrung e M. Vilaras, juízes; DESPACHO DO TRIBUNAL
 secretaÂrio: H. Jung, proferiu, em 25 de Novembro de DE PRIMEIRA INSTAÃNCIA
 1998, um despacho cuja parte decisória eÂ a seguinte: de 15 de Dezembro de 1998
 1. O recurso eÂ julgado inadmissível. no processo T-25/98, Henri de Compte contra Parlamento
 Europeu (1)
 2. Cada uma das partes suportaraÂ as suas próprias despe- (FuncionaÂrios Ð Recurso de anulacËaÄo e pedido de indem-
 sas. nizacËaÄo Ð DecisaÄo do Parlamento que daÂ quitacËaÄo quanto
 aÁ execucËaÄo do orcËamento para o exercício de 1995 Ð Pro-
 (1) JO C 357 de 22.11.1997. cedimento administrativo preÂvio Ð DecisaÄo de indeferi-
 mento de uma reclamacËaÄo Ð Identidade do objecto do
 pedido e da causa de pedir Ð Inadmissibilidade parcial Ð
 ForcËa de caso julgado Ð Recurso manifestamente despro-
 vido de fundamento jurídico)
 (1999/C 48/55)
 DESPACHO DO TRIBUNAL
 DE PRIMEIRA INSTAÃNCIA
 (Língua do processo: franceÃs)
 de 11 de Dezembro de 1998
 no processo T-22/98, Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Ltd
 contra ComissaÄo das Comunidades Europeias (1) No processo T-25/98, Henri de Compte, antigo funcionaÂ-
 rio do Parlamento Europeu, com domicílio em Longeville-
 (Política agrícola comum Ð Framboesas destinadas aÁ -leÁs-Metz (FrancËa), representado por Henri Ferretti, advo-
 transformacËaÄo Ð Ajuda forfetaÂria aÁs organizacËoÄes de pro- gado no foro de Thionville, com domicílio escolhido no
 dutores Ð RecuperacËaÄo dos montantes pagos Ð Acto naÄo Luxemburgo no escritório do advogado Guy Harles, 8-10,
 susceptível de recurso Ð Efeitos jurídicos Ð Recurso de rue Mathias Hardt, contra Parlamento Europeu (agentes:
 anulacËaÄo Ð Inadmissibilidade) Evelyn Waldherr e Anders Neergaard), que tem por objec-
 (1999/C 48/54) to, por um lado, um pedido de anulacËaÄo da decisaÄo
 A4-0125/97 do Parlamento Europeu, de 10 de Abril de
 1997, que daÂ quitacËaÄo quanto aÁ execucËaÄo do orcËamento
 (Língua do processo: ingleÃs)
 para o exercício de 1995 Ð SeccËaÄo I Ð Parlamento Euro-
 peu/Anexo Provedor de JusticËa (JO C 132 de 28.4.1997,
 No processo T-22/98, Scottish Soft Fruit Growers Ltd, p. 148), bem como da decisaÄo do Parlamento, comunicada
 estabelecida em Blairgowrie (GraÄ-Bretanha), representada em 19 de Novembro de 1997, que indeferiu a reclamacËaÄo
 por Fergus Randolph, barrister, do foro de Inglaterra e do apresentada pelo recorrente e, por outro lado, um pedido
 País de Gales, com domicílio escolhido no Luxemburgo no de indemnizacËaÄo pelo dano sofrido pelo recorrente com a
 escritório dos advogados Arendt e Medernach, 8-10, rue publicacËaÄo da referida decisaÄo de quitacËaÄo, bem como
 Mathias Hardt, contra ComissaÄo das Comunidades Euro- com a acusacËaÄo injusta de extravio de fundos, o Tribunal
 peias (agente: Xavier Lewis) que tem por objecto um de Primeira InstaÃncia (Quarta SeccËaÄo), composto por
 pedido de anulacËaÄo da decisaÄo da ComissaÄo contida numa R. M. Moura Ramos, presidente, V. Tiili e P. Mengozzi,
 carta de 16 de Outubro de 1997 dirigida ao Scottish Offi- juízes; secretaÂrio: H. Jung, proferiu, em 15 de Dezembro
 ce, que indefere o pedido deste relativo aÁ interpretacËaÄo e de 1998, um despacho cuja parte decisória eÂ a seguinte:
 aplicacËaÄo do Regulamento (CEE) n. 1991/82 do Conse-
 lho, de 13 de Julho de 1992, que estabelece um regime
 específico de medidas em relacËaÄo aÁs framboesas destinadas 1. O recurso eÂ julgado inadmissível, excepto no que
 aÁ transformacËaÄo (JO L 199 de 18.7.1992, p. 1), e do respeita aos pedidos referentes aÁ anulacËaÄo do lancËa-
 Regulamento (CEE) n. 2252/92 da ComissaÄo, de 13 de mento contabilístico correspondente ao montante de
 Julho de 1992, que estabelece as regras de execucËaÄo do 4 136 125 BEF e aÁ recusa do Parlamento de colocar aÁ
 regime específico de medidas para as framboesas destina- disposicËaÄo do recorrente o conjunto dos elementos da
 das aÁ transformacËaÄo (JO L 219 de 4.8.1992, p. 19), o Tri- contabilidade que justificam a recusa de quitacËaÄo a
 bunal de Primeira InstaÃncia das Comunidades Europeias este uÂltimo.
 (Quinta SeccËaÄo), composto por: J. D. Cooke, presidente,
 R. García-Valdecasas e P. Lindh, juízes, secretaÂrio: H.
 Jung, proferiu em 11 de Dezembro de 1988 um despacho 2. EÂ negado provimento ao recurso por ser manifesta-
 cuja parte decisória eÂ a seguinte: mente desprovido de qualquer fundamento jurídico,
 quanto ao demais.
 1. O recurso eÂ rejeitado por inadmissível.
 3. Cada uma das partes suportaraÂ as suas próprias despe-
 2. A recorrente suportaraÂ as suas despesas assim como as sas.
 efectuadas pela ComissaÄo.
 (1) JO C 94 de 28.3.1998.
 (1) JO C 94 de 28.3.1998.


text:
Bei der Photolumineszenz-Spektroskopie (PL-Spektroskopie) wird das zu untersuchende Material durch Lichtabsorption in elektronisch angeregte Energiezustände gebracht, das daraufhin unter Aussenden von Licht (spontane Photonen-Emission in Form von Fluoreszenz oder Phosphoreszenz) wieder energetisch tiefer liegende Energiezustände erreicht. Das ausgesandte Licht wird detektiert und gibt Aufschluss über die elektronische Struktur des Materials.
 Die Photolumineszenz-Spektroskopie ist eine sehr empfindliche Methode, um sowohl intrinsische als auch defektbedingte elektronische Übergänge in Halbleitern und Isolatoren zu untersuchen. Es können optisch aktive Defekte in Konzentrationen von bis zu nachgewiesen werden. Während die Methode zuerst hauptsächlich in der Grundlagenforschung Anwendung fand, wird sie durch die stetig steigende Nachfrage nach hochreinen bzw. gezielt dotierten Materialien immer häufiger industriell für die zerstörungsfreie, ortsaufgelöste Materialcharakterisierung eingesetzt.
 Bei der Photolumineszenz an Halbleitern werden durch Anregung mit Photonen mit Elektronen vom Valenzband ins Leitungsband gehoben. Diese angeregten Ladungsträger thermalisieren nichtstrahlend an die Bandkanten von Leitungs- und Valenzband über Abgabe der Energie an den Halbleiterkristall in Form von Phononen. Je nach Kristall rekombinieren diese freien Ladungsträger als Elektron-Loch-Paare, die sogenannten Exzitonen oder fallen in tiefer liegende Zustände und rekombinieren von dort. Es lassen sich mit der PL-Spektroskopie freie Exziton, an Störstellen gebundene Exzitonen, Donator-Akzeptor-Paare und weitere Zustände, die sich aus höher liegenden Niveaus des Exzitons (n=1, 2, ...) oder aus Kombinationen von Löchern aus unterschiedlichen Valenzbändern (A, B oder C) bilden, nachweisen. Als Störstellen kommen Donatoren, Akzeptoren und Kristalldefekte wie Versetzungen in Betracht.
 Diese Zustände rekombinieren dann mit charakteristischen Lebensdauern, welche einen Nachweis ermöglicht (z. B. über zeitaufgelöste Photolumineszenz-Spektroskopie (TRPL, engl.: time-resolved PL)). Die dabei frei werdende Energie kann in verschiedenen Formen abgegeben werden, zum Beispiel als Phononen über das Kristallgitter, als Photonen oder auch als Auger-Elektronen. Bei der Photolumineszenz werden die von strahlenden Rekombinationsmechanismen emittierten Photonen detektiert. Wenn mehrere angeregte Zustände existieren, können durch die sehr schnelle Thermalisierung im Allgemeinen nur Übergänge vom niedrigsten Zustand aus beobachtet werden. Die gemessene Strahlung erlaubt wichtige Einblicke in die Eigenschaften des untersuchten Stoffes, zum Beispiel in das Defektinventar des Kristalls und seine Bandlücke.
 Die meisten Photolumineszenz-Messungen werden bei tiefen Temperaturen (Probe durch flüssigen Stickstoff, 77 K, oder Helium, 4 K, gekühlt) durchgeführt, um thermische Ionisierung der optischen Zentren zu verhindern und die Verbreiterung der Photolumineszenz-Linien durch Gitterschwingungen (Phononen) zu vermeiden. Bei tiefen Temperaturen liegen die meisten Exzitonen im gebundenen Zustand vor und ermöglichen so Aussagen über die energetische Position der Störstellen und die Störstellenkonzentration.
 Experimenteller Aufbau
 Die Lumineszenz des zu untersuchenden Materials wird durch Lichtanregung erreicht, zum Beispiel durch einen Laser ausreichender Energie. Im Allgemeinen wird vor den Laser ein Filter gestellt, der nicht-lasende Linien des Laserplasmas, die im relevanten spektralen Bereich liegen, eliminiert. Der Laserstrahl wird durch eine Linse auf die Probe im Kryostat fokussiert. Das emittierte Licht (und teilweise auch Streulicht vom Laser) wird wiederum durch 2 Linsen auf den Eingangsspalt des Monochromators fokussiert. Idealerweise wird vor dem Spalt ein Filter montiert, um das Laserstreulicht zu filtern. Im Monochromator wird die Strahlung durch variable Gitter (auswählbar je nach gewünschtem Wellenlängenbereich) spektral zerlegt und das dispergierte Licht auf den Detektor gelenkt. Dort wird das optische Signal je nach Detektorart in ein Strom- oder Spannungssignal umgewandelt. Bei Verstärkung und phasensensitiver Detektion des Signals mittels eines Lock-in-Verstärkers muss die Strahlung (idealerweise gleich vor der Strahlungsquelle) durch einen Chopper moduliert werden.
 Siehe auch
 Lumineszenz
 Kathodolumineszenz
 Optischer Effekt
 Spektroskopisches Verfahren


text:
 11.4.2017
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 98/4
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) 2017/677
 z 10. apríla 2017
 o predĺžení platnosti výnimky z nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006, pokiaľ ide o minimálnu vzdialenosť od pobrežia a minimálnu hĺbku, udelená na lov afie priesvitnej (Aphia minuta) záťahovými sieťami ovládanými z lode v určitých pobrežných vodách Španielska (Murcia)
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 1967/2006 z 21. decembra 2006 o riadiacich opatreniach pre trvalo udržateľné využívanie zdrojov rybného hospodárstva v Stredozemnom mori (1), a najmä na jeho článok 13 ods. 5,
 keďže:
 (1)
 V článku 13 ods. 1 nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006 sa zakazuje používanie vlečeného výstroja do 3 námorných míľ od pobrežia alebo po hĺbnicu 50 m, ak sa táto hĺbka dosiahne v kratšej vzdialenosti od pobrežia.
 (2)
 Komisia môže na žiadosť členského štátu povoliť výnimku z článku 13 ods. 1 nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006, pokiaľ je splnených niekoľko podmienok uvedených v článku 13 ods. 5 a 9.
 (3)
 Dňa 17. apríla 2012 požiadalo Španielsko Komisiu o výnimku z článku 13 ods. 1 prvého pododseku daného nariadenia, na základe ktorej by v pobrežných vodách Autonómneho spoločenstva Murcia bolo možné na lov afie priesvitnej (Aphia minuta) používať záťahové siete ovládané z lode.
 (4)
 Výnimku požadovanú Španielskom a súvisiaci návrh riadiaceho plánu posúdil v roku 2013 Vedecký, technický a hospodársky výbor pre rybárstvo (STECF).
 (5)
 Španielsko prijalo svoj riadiaci plán 27. marca 2013 (2).
 (6)
 Výnimka z článku 13 ods. 1 prvého pododseku bola poskytnutá do 31. decembra 2016 na základe vykonávacieho nariadenia Komisie (EÚ) č. 773/2013 z 12. augusta 2013 (3).
 (7)
 V júni 2013, septembri 2014, júli 2015 a júli 2016 predložilo Španielsko Komisii vedecké správy o vykonávaní riadiaceho plánu.
 (8)
 Dňa 13. júla 2016 španielske orgány požiadali Európsku komisiu o predĺženie platnosti výnimky na obdobie po 31. decembri 2016. Španielsko poskytlo aktualizované informácie odôvodňujúce predĺženie výnimky.
 (9)
 Výbor STECF v roku 2016 posúdil žiadosť Španielska o predĺženie výnimky a súvisiaci návrh riadiaceho plánu.
 (10)
 Výnimka, o ktorú Španielsko požiadalo, spĺňa podmienky uvedené v článku 13 ods. 5 a 9 nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006.
 (11)
 Vzhľadom na obmedzenú rozlohu kontinentálneho šelfu a osobitnú distribúciu cieľového druhu platia konkrétne geografické obmedzenia.
 (12)
 Rybolov záťahovými sieťami ovládanými z lode nemožno kombinovať s rybolovom iným výstrojom a nesmie mať výrazný vplyv na morské prostredie.
 (13)
 Výnimka, o ktorú požiadalo Španielsko, sa týka iba obmedzeného počtu 27 plavidiel.
 (14)
 Riadiacim plánom sa zaručuje, že v budúcnosti nedôjde k zvýšeniu rybolovného úsilia, keďže oprávnenia na rybolov budú vydané iba predmetným 27 plavidlám s celkovým rybolovným úsilím 1 211 kW, ktoré už majú oprávnenie na vykonávanie rybolovu v Španielsku.
 (15)
 Tieto plavidlá sú uvedené v zozname, ktorý bol v súlade s požiadavkami článku 13 ods. 9 nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006 oznámený Komisii.
 (16)
 Riadiaci plán zavádza zmeny, ktorých cieľom je zefektívniť rybolovné operácie, konkrétne i) ponúka možnosť zvoliť si začiatok rybolovnej sezóny flexibilne v závislosti od meteorologických podmienok, ii) stanovuje maximálny povolený denný výlov na plavidlo, na deň a na rybára zapojeného do rybolovu, iii) upravuje hraničné referenčné body na základe vedeckých údajov za roky 2012 až 2016, iv) zavádza opatrenia na obmedzenie prenosov oprávnení na rybolov a v) zriaďuje riadiaci výbor, ktorého členovia sú zástupcami úradov, odvetvia rybolovu, vedeckej obce a zainteresovaných strán.
 (17)
 Predmetné rybolovné činnosti spĺňajú požiadavky článku 4 ods. 1 nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006, v ktorom sa umožňuje výnimka, na základe ktorej možno za určitých podmienok povoliť rybolov nad chránenými biotopmi, pokiaľ pri rybolove nedochádza ku kontaktu s dnom zarasteným morskou trávou.
 (18)
 Požiadavky článku 8 ods. 1 písm. h) nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006 nie sú uplatniteľné, pretože sa týkajú plavidiel na lov vlečnou sieťou.
 (19)
 Pokiaľ ide o požiadavku na súlad s článkom 9 ods. 3, v ktorom sa stanovuje minimálna veľkosť ôk siete, Komisia konštatuje, že Španielsko v súlade s článkom 9 ods. 7 nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006 vo svojom riadiacom pláne povolilo výnimku z týchto ustanovení vzhľadom na to, že predmetné rybolovné činnosti sú výrazne selektívne, majú zanedbateľný vplyv na morské prostredie a nevzťahujú sa na ne ustanovenia článku 4 ods. 5
 (20)
 Riadiaci plán Španielska obsahuje opatrenia na monitorovanie rybolovných činností, a teda spĺňa podmienky článku 14 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 (4).
 (21)
 Predmetné rybolovné činnosti nenarúšajú rybolovné činnosti iných plavidiel.
 (22)
 Používanie záťahových sietí ovládaných z lode je v riadiacom pláne Španielska regulované s cieľom zabezpečiť, aby sa úlovky druhov uvedených v prílohe III k nariadeniu (ES) č. 1967/2006 obmedzili na minimum.
 (23)
 Záťahové siete ovládané z lode sa nepoužívajú na cielený lov hlavonožcov.
 (24)
 Riadiaci plán Španielska obsahuje opatrenia na monitorovanie rybolovných činností uvedených v článku 13 ods. 9 treťom pododseku nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006.
 (25)
 Požadovaná výnimka by sa preto mala udeliť.
 (26)
 Španielsko by malo v stanovenom termíne a v súlade s plánom monitorovania stanoveným v španielskom riadiacom pláne predložiť Komisii správu.
 (27)
 Obmedzením trvania výnimky sa zabezpečí pohotové prijatie nápravných riadiacich opatrení v prípade, že sa na základe monitorovania plánu riadenia ukáže zlý stav ochrany lovených populácií, a zároveň sa ním vytvorí možnosť na zlepšenie vedeckého základu, vďaka ktorému sa môže skvalitniť plán riadenia.
 (28)
 Výnimka by sa preto mala uplatňovať do 31. decembra 2019.
 (29)
 Opatrenia stanovené v tomto nariadení sú v súlade so stanoviskom Výboru pre rybolov a akvakultúru,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Výnimka
 Článok 13 ods. 1 nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006 sa neuplatňuje v pobrežných vodách Španielska susediacich s pobrežím Autonómneho spoločenstva Murcia pri love druhu afie priesvitnej (Aphia minuta) záťahovými sieťami ovládanými z plavidiel, ktoré:
 a)
 sú zapísané v námornom registri, ktorý vedie Generálne riaditeľstvo pre hospodárske zvieratá a rybolov Autonómneho spoločenstva Murcia;
 b)
 daný druh rybolovu vykonávajú viac ako päť rokov a nespôsobia budúce zvýšenie rybolovného úsilia a
 c)
 majú oprávnenie na rybolov a svoju činnosť vykonávajú podľa riadiaceho plánu, ktorý prijalo Španielsko na základe článku 19 nariadenia (ES) č. 1967/2006 (ďalej len „riadiaci plán“).
 Táto výnimka sa uplatňuje do 31. decembra 2019.
 Článok 2
 Plán monitorovania a správa
 Španielsko do troch rokov od nadobudnutia účinnosti tohto nariadenia predloží Komisii správu vypracovanú v súlade s plánom monitorovania prijatým v rámci riadiaceho plánu uvedeného v článku 1 prvom odseku písm. c).
 Článok 3
 Nadobudnutie účinnosti
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť dňom nasledujúcim po jeho uverejnení v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 10. apríla 2017
 Za Komisiu
 predseda
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 36, 8.2.2007, s. 6.
 (2) Referenčné číslo úradného vestníka Murcijskej oblasti: 78, 6.4.2013, s. 13950.
 (3) Vykonávacie nariadenie Komisie (EÚ) č. 773/2013 z 12. augusta 2013, ktorým sa udeľuje výnimka z nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1967/2006, pokiaľ ide o minimálnu vzdialenosť od pobrežia a minimálnu hĺbku mora pre lov druhu Aphia minuta záťahovými sieťami ovládanými z lode v určitých pobrežných vodách Španielska (Murcia) (Ú. v. EÚ L 217, 13.8.2013, s. 28).
 (4) Nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 z 20. novembra 2009, ktorým sa zriaďuje systém kontroly Únie na zabezpečenie dodržiavania pravidiel spoločnej politiky v oblasti rybného hospodárstva a ktorým sa menia a dopĺňajú nariadenia (ES) č. 847/96, (ES) č. 2371/2002, (ES) č. 811/2004, (ES) č. 768/2005, (ES) č. 2115/2005, (ES) č. 2166/2005, (ES) č. 388/2006, (ES) č. 509/2007, (ES) č. 676/2007, (ES) č. 1098/2007, (ES) č. 1300/2008, (ES) č. 1342/2008 a ktorým sa zrušujú nariadenia (EHS) č. 2847/93, (ES) č. 1627/94 a (ES) č. 1966/2006 (Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1).


text:
 22.2.2013
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 49/52
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) Nr. 161/2013
 af 21. februar 2013
 om godkendelse af et præparat af natriumhydroxid som tilsætningsstof til foder til hunde, katte og prydfisk
 (EØS-relevant tekst)
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 af 22. september 2003 om fodertilsætningsstoffer (1), særlig artikel 9, stk. 2, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 indeholder bestemmelser om godkendelse af fodertilsætningsstoffer og om grundlaget og procedurerne for meddelelse af sådanne godkendelser. Forordningens artikel 10 indeholder bestemmelser om en ny vurdering af tilsætningsstoffer, der er godkendt i henhold til Rådets direktiv 70/524/EØF (2).
 (2)
 Et præparat af natriumhydroxid, CAS-nummer 1310-73-2, blev godkendt uden tidsbegrænsning i overensstemmelse med direktiv 70/524/EØF som tilsætningsstof til foder til katte og hunde ved Kommissionens direktiv 86/525/EØF (3). Præparatet blev derpå opført i fællesskabsregistret over fodertilsætningsstoffer som et eksisterende produkt, jf. artikel 10, stk. 1, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003.
 (3)
 Der er i henhold til artikel 10, stk. 2, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003, sammenholdt med samme forordnings artikel 7, indgivet en ansøgning om en ny vurdering af natriumhydroxid, CAS-nummer 1310-73-2, som tilsætningsstof til foder til katte og hunde samt, i henhold til forordningens artikel 7, om en ny anvendelse til prydfisk, med anmodning om, at tilsætningsstoffet klassificeres i tilsætningsstofkategorien »teknologiske tilsætningsstoffer«. Ansøgningen var vedlagt de oplysninger og dokumenter, der kræves i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 3, i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003.
 (4)
 Den Europæiske Fødevaresikkerhedsautoritet (i det følgende benævnt »autoriteten«) konkluderede i sin udtalelse af 11. september 2012 (4), under hensyntagen til at dette tilsætningsstof allerede var godkendt til fødevarebrug med samme funktion, at natriumhydroxid under de foreslåede anvendelsesbetingelser ikke har skadelige virkninger på dyrs sundhed, at dets funktion som surhedsregulerende middel i foder er stort set den samme som i fødevarer, og at der derfor ikke kræves yderligere dokumentation for effektiviteten. Autoriteten konkluderede, at der ikke ville opstå sikkerhedsmæssige problemer for brugerne, forudsat at der træffes passende beskyttelsesforanstaltninger. Autoriteten har ligeledes gennemgået den rapport om metoden til analyse af fodertilsætningsstoffet i foder, der blev forelagt af det i henhold til forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003 oprettede referencelaboratorium.
 (5)
 Vurderingen af natriumhydroxid viser, at betingelserne for godkendelse, jf. artikel 5 i forordning (EF) nr. 1831/2003, er opfyldt. Anvendelsen af dette præparat bør derfor godkendes som angivet i bilaget til nærværende forordning.
 (6)
 Da der ikke er sikkerhedsmæssige forhold, der nødvendiggør øjeblikkelig gennemførelse af ændringerne af godkendelsesbetingelserne, bør der indrømmes en overgangsperiode til afvikling af eksisterende lagre af tilsætningsstoffet samt forblandinger og foderblandinger indeholdende det, som er godkendt ved direktiv 86/525/EØF.
 (7)
 Foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Den Stående Komité for Fødevarekæden og Dyresundhed —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 Det i bilaget opførte præparat, som tilhører tilsætningsstofkategorien »teknologiske tilsætningsstoffer« og den funktionelle gruppe »surhedsregulerende midler«, tillades anvendt som fodertilsætningsstof på de betingelser, der er fastsat i samme bilag.
 Artikel 2
 Det i bilaget opførte tilsætningsstof samt forblandinger indeholdende det, som er produceret og mærket før den 14. marts 2014 i overensstemmelse med de bestemmelser, der var gældende før den 14. marts 2013, kan fortsat markedsføres og anvendes, indtil de eksisterende lagre er opbrugt.
 Foderblandinger indeholdende det i bilaget opførte tilsætningsstof, som er produceret og mærket før den 14. marts 2015 i overensstemmelse med de bestemmelser, der var gældende før den 14. marts 2013, kan fortsat markedsføres og anvendes, indtil de eksisterende lagre er opbrugt.
 Artikel 3
 Denne forordning træder i kraft på tyvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 21. februar 2013.
 På Kommissionens vegne
 José Manuel BARROSO
 Formand
 (1) EUT L 268 af 18.10.2003, s. 29.
 (2) EFT L 270 af 14.12.1970, s. 1.
 (3) EFT L 310 af 5.11.1986, s. 19.
 (4) EFSA Journal 2012; 10(10):2882.
 BILAG
 Tilsætningsstoffets identifikationsnummer
 Navn på indehaveren af godkendelsen
 Tilsætningsstof
 Sammensætning, kemisk betegnelse, beskrivelse, analysemetode
 Dyreart eller -kategori
 Maksimumsalder
 Minimumsindhold
 Maksimumsindhold
 Andre bestemmelser
 Godkendelse gyldig til
 mg/kg fuldfoder med et vandindhold på 12 %
 Kategori: teknologiske tilsætningsstoffer. Funktionel gruppe: surhedsregulerende midler
 1j524
 —
 Natriumhydroxid
 Tilsætningsstoffets sammensætning
 Natriumhydroxid 50 % w/w
 (opløsning i vand)
 Aktivstoffets karakteristika
 Natriumhydroxid ≥ 98,0 % alkali i alt (som NaOH)
 NaOH — CAS nr.: 1310-73-2
 Fremstillet ved kemisk syntese
 Analysemetode
 (1)
 Bestemmelse af natriumhydroxid i fodertilsætningsstoffet: Titrimetrisk metode — FAO/JECFA, Combined Compendium for Food Additive Specifications, Monograph No 1 (2006) — »sodium hydroxide«.
 Hunde, katte og prydfisk
 —
 —
 —
 1.
 Sikkerhedsforanstaltninger: Der bæres åndedrætsværn, beskyttelsesbriller, handsker og beskyttelsesbeklædning under håndteringen.
 2.
 Anvendelse: Det samlede indhold af natrium i foder må ikke bringe den overordnede elektrolytbalance i fare.
 14.3.2023
 (1) Nærmere oplysninger om analysemetoderne findes på følgende internetadresser: http://irmm.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EURLs/EURL_feed_additives/Pages/index.aspx og http://www.fao.org/ag/jecfa-additives/details.html?id=400.


text:
 19.7.2008
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 183/27
 Rikors ippreżentat fit-22 ta' Mejju 2008 — JOOP! vs L-UASI (rappreżentazzjoni ta' esklamazzjoni)
 (Kawża T-191/08)
 (2008/C 183/51)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: Il-Ġermaniż
 Partijiet
 Rikorrenti: JOOP! GmbH (Hamburg, il-Ġermanja) (rappreżentanti: H. Schmidt-Hollburg, W. Möllering, A. Löhde, H. Leo, A. Witte, T. Frank, A. Theil, H.-P. Rühland, B. Willers u T. Rein, avukati)
 Konvenut: L-Uffiċċju għall-Armonizzazzjoni fis-Suq Intern (Trade marks u Disinni)
 Talbiet tar-rikorrenti
 —
 tannulla d-deċiżjoni ta' l-Ewwel Bord ta' l-Appell ta' l-Uffiċċju għall-Armonizzazzjoni fis-Suq Intern mogħtija fis-6 ta' Marzu 2008 fil-każ R 1822/2007-1;
 —
 tikkundanna lill-Uffiċċju għall-Armonizzazzjoni fis-Suq Intern għall-ispejjeż, inklużi dawk sostnuti fil-kuntest tal-proċedimenti quddiem il-Bord ta' l-Appell.
 Motivi u argumenti prinċipali
 Trade mark Komunitarja kkonċernata: trade mark figurattiva, li tirrappreżenta punt ta' esklamazzjoni, għal prodotti fil-klassijiet 14, 18 u 25 (applikazzjoni Nru 5 332 176)
 Deċiżjoni ta' l-eżaminatur: rifjut ta' l-applikazzjoni
 Deċiżjoni tal-Bord ta' l-Appell: ċaħda tar-rikors
 Motivi invokati: ksur ta' l-Artikolu 7(1)(b) u (ċ) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 40/94 (1), inkwantu t-trade mark li għaliha saret applikazzjoni għal reġistrazzjoni għandha karattru distintiv u m'għandhiex tinżamm għad-dispożizzjoni libera ta' kulħadd.
 (1) Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE), ta' l-20 ta' Diċembru 1993, dwar it-trade mark Komunitarja.


text:
Το Σχέδιο Ανάν ήταν σχέδιο που προτάθηκε από τον γενικό γραμματέα του Οργανισμού Ηνωμένων Εθνών, Κόφι Ανάν για την επίλυση του Κυπριακού προβλήματος. Το σχέδιο εγκρίθηκε από την τουρκοκυπριακή κοινότητα, αλλά απορρίφθηκε από την ελληνοκυπριακή σε δυο ξεχωριστά δημοψηφίσματα.
 Το ιστορικό
 Μετά το πραξικόπημα και την τουρκική εισβολή το 1974 στην Κύπρο, οι τούρκικες δυνάμεις έλεγχαν το 38% του εδάφους, ενώ υπήρξε και ανταλλαγή πληθυσμού το 1975. Από τότε, υπήρξαν διάφορες πρωτοβουλίες για επίλυση του Κυπριακού, σχεδόν όλες υπό την επίβλεψη του ΓΓ του ΟΗΕ, ωστόσο όλες αποτύγχαναν.
 Τον Δεκέμβριο 1999, ξεκίνησαν ξανά εκ του σύνεγγυς συνομιλίες για προετοιμασία του εδάφους για ουσιαστικές διαπραγματεύσεις. Τότε πρόεδρος της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας ήταν ο Γλαύκος Κληρίδης, ηγέτης των Τουρκοκυπρίων ο Ραούφ Ντενκτάς και Γενικός Γραμματέας του ΟΗΕ ο Κόφι Ανάν με ειδικό του Σύμβουλο για τον Κυπριακό τον Άλβαρο ντε Σότο. Ο Κόφι Ανάν υπέβαλε Σχέδιο για συνολική επίλυση του Κυπριακού. Η αρχική του μορφή (το αποκαλούμενο σήμερα σχέδιο Ανάν Ι) παρουσιάστηκε για πρώτη φορά στις 11 Νοεμβρίου 2002 και το δεύτερο αναθεωρημένο σχέδιο στις 10 Δεκεμβρίου 2002 (Σχέδιο Ανάν ΙΙ). Στις 26 Φεβρουαρίου 2003 υπεβλήθη το Σχέδιο ΙΙΙ. Ακολούθησε η εκλογή του Τάσου Παπαδόπουλου στις προεδρικές εκλογές του 2003. Τον Μάρτιο του 2004 παρουσιάστηκε η πέμπτη και τελική μορφή του σχεδίου. Παρότι ο Κόφι Ανάν ήθελε να παρουσιάσει ένα σχέδιο προερχόμενο μόνο από τις διαπραγματεύσεις των δυο κοινοτήτων, προ του συνεχιζόμενου αδιεξόδου, αναγκάστηκε να τελειώσει το κείμενο μόνος του.
 Οι πρόνοιες του σχεδίου Ανάν
 Το σχέδιο Ανάν ήταν σχέδιο βασισμένο σε συμβιβασμούς ανάμεσα στις θέσεις των δυο κοινοτήτων.
 Η συνέχιση ή όχι της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας
 Όπως φάνηκε στις διαπραγματεύσεις, η κυριότερη διαφωνία ήταν η ουσία της συνολικής διευθέτησης: Η δημοκρατία της Κύπρου θα παρέμενε ως κρατική οντότητα ή θα υπήρχε ένα νέο κράτος στην θέση του, το οποίο θα αποτελούντο από δυο πολιτείες. Η ελληνοκυπριακή πλευρά ζητούσε την πρώτη εκδοχή και η τουρκοκυπριακή την δεύτερη.
 Ο λόγος για την θέση των τουρκοκυπρίων ήταν η ανησυχία τους πως σε περίπτωση μελλοντικής επανάληψης της διακοινοτικής βίας (όπως για παράδειγμα στις ταραχές του 1963, η ελληνοκυπριακή πλευρά θα αντιμετωπιζόταν ως η μόνη νόμιμη εκπρόσωπος της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας και αυτοί θα βρισκόντουσαν πάλι διεθνώς απομονωμένοι. Επιπλέον, όσο η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία είναι ενιαίο κράτος, τόσο η κοινότητα που έχει την πλειοψηφία θα μπορεί να καθορίσει τις εξελίξεις σε περιόδους αστάθειας. Έτσι η μόνη διέξοδος τους είναι να υπάρχει διεθνής αναγνώριση. Διαμετρικά αντίθετη ήταν η θέση των Ελληνοκυπρίων που ήθελαν να διατηρήσουν τον νόμιμο τίτλο του κράτους, σε περίπτωση νέας πρωτοβουλίας των Τουρκοκυπρίων να αποσχιστούν. Το φόβο των ελληνοκυπρίων εξέφρασε υποδειγματικά ο Τάσος Παπαδόπουλος στο διάγγελμά του λίγο πριν το δημοψήφισμα:«...Παρέλαβα κράτος διεθνώς αναγνωρισμένο. Δεν θα παραδώσω «κοινότητα» χωρίς δικαίωμα λόγου διεθνώς και σε αναζήτηση κηδεμόνα...»
 Ένας δεύτερος λόγος για την αντιπαράθεση σχετικά με την μοίρα της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, είναι αρκετά ψηφίσματα του ΟΗΕ, από το 1963, τα οποία τονίζουν την ανεξαρτησία και εδαφική ακεραιότητα της Κύπρου. Οι Ελληνοκύπριοι τα χρησιμοποίησαν αυτά τα ψηφίσματα για να αδυνατίσουν την συνθήκη εγγυήσεων, ενώ οι τουρκοκύπριοι θεωρούν πως εμποδίζουν το δικαίωμα της Τουρκίας να τους προστατεύει επεμβαίνοντας στην Κύπρο sine qua non. Η ύπαρξη μιας νέας κρατικής οντότητας, θα αχρηστεύσει τα ψηφίσματα.
 Το σχέδιο Ανάν, χρησιμοποιώντας στο λεκτικό του «δημιουργική ασάφεια» προσπάθησε να ισορροπήσει τις δυο αντίθετες επιδιώξεις, δημιουργώντας την Ενωμένη Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, χωρίς να είναι ούτε συνέχεια της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, ούτε νέο κράτος.
 Τα δημοψηφίσματα
 Στην Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, το σχέδιο βρήκε σθεναρή αντίσταση από τον τότε πρόεδρο Τάσσο Παπαδόπουλο. Το συγκυβερνών κόμμα του ΑΚΕΛ, μετά την αντίσταση του προέδρου στο σχέδιο, απέσυρε την υποστήριξη του στο τελικό κείμενο των προτάσεων. Ο ΔΗΣΥ, με ηγέτη τον Νίκο Αναστασιάδη, υποστήριξε το σχέδιο.. Επίσης, εναντίον του σχεδίου τάχθηκε και το ΔΗΚΟ (το κόμμα του Προέδρου Τάσου Παπαδόπουλου), η ΕΔΕΚ, οι Νέοι Ορίζοντες και το Κίνημα Οικολόγων Περιβαλλοντιστών. Το μικρό κόμμα Ενωμένοι Δημοκράτες υποστήριξε το σχέδιο.
 Ανάμεσα στους τουρκοκυπρίους υπήρχε γενικότερος ενθουσιασμός υπέρ του σχεδίου, καθώς ήλπιζαν στον τερματισμό του διεθνούς αποκλεισμού τους, αν και ο ιστορικός ηγέτης Ραούφ Ντενκτάς απέρριψε το πλάνο. Το σχέδιο το απέρριψαν και οι Γκρίζοι Λύκοι.
 Στην Ελλάδα, η κυβέρνηση του Κώστα Καραμανλή κράτησε ουδέτερη θέση, ωστόσο ο ηγέτης της αντιπολίτευσης Γιώργος Παπανδρέου υποστήριξε το σχέδιο, καθώς ο ίδιος ήταν υπουργός εξωτερικών κατά τις διαπραγματεύσεις του σχεδίου
 Τόσο η Ελλάδα, όσο και η Τουρκία, του Ταγίπ Ερντογάν, υποστήριξαν το σχέδιο.
 Το σχέδιο υποβλήθηκε στις 24 Απριλίου 2004 σε δύο ξεχωριστά δημοψηφίσματα, απορρίφθηκε από τους ελληνοκυπρίους, με ποσοστό 76% καθώς μόνο 24% το υπερψήφισε, ενώ εγκρίθηκε από την τουρκοκυπριακή κοινότητα σε ποσοστό 65%.
 Οι λόγοι της απόρριψης του σχεδίου από τους ελληνοκύπριους ήταν ποικίλοι. Αρκετοί το έβλεπαν σαν προσπάθεια του ΟΗΕ να επιβάλει τα συμφέροντα ξένων δυνάμεων, ενώ η Κύπρος δεν θα ήταν ένα πλήρως ανεξάρτητο κράτος.Το αποτέλεσμα έδειξε την αδυναμία του ΟΗΕ ως προς την διευθέτηση διαφορών σύμφωνα με τις αρχές του διεθνούς δικαίου.
 Δείτε επίσης
 Πλαίσιο ABC
 Δείκτες ντε Κουεγιάρ
 Δέσμη ιδεών Γκάλι
 Συνομιλίες για επίλυση του Κυπριακού προβλήματος
 Παραπομπές
 Πηγές
 Ahmet Sözen & Kudret Özersay (2007) The Annan Plan: State succession or continuity, Middle Eastern Studies, 43:1, 125-141
 Theodoulou, Michael (2016) The Peace Plans: 2004 Annan Plan από το αφιέρωμα Background briefing: The Divided Island. Εφημερίδα Cyprus Mail.
 Εξωτερικοί συνδέσμοι
 Το κείμενο του σχεδίου
 Το διάγγελμα του Προέδρου της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας (κείμενο)
 Ελληνοτουρκικές σχέσεις
 Ιστορία της Κύπρου
 Οργανισμός Ηνωμένων Εθνών
 Διεθνείς σχέσεις της Κύπρου
 Ελληνοκυπριακές σχέσεις
 Σχέδια λύσης Κυπριακού
 Σχέσεις Κύπρου-Τουρκίας


text:
 12.3.2011
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 C 80/14
 Návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania, ktorý podal Tribunale di Palermo (Taliansko) 5. januára 2011 — Trestné konanie proti Fabiovi Caronnovi
 (Vec C-7/11)
 2011/C 80/26
 Jazyk konania: taliančina
 Vnútroštátny súd, ktorý podal návrh na začatie prejudiciálneho konania
 Tribunale di Palermo
 Osoba, proti ktorej sa vedie trestné konanie
 Fabio Caronna
 Prejudiciálne otázky
 1.
 Ukladá odsek 2 článku 77 smernice 2001/83/ES Európskeho parlamentu a Rady zo 6. novembra 2001, ktorým sa ustanovuje zákonník spoločenstva o humánnych liekoch článku, povinnosť získať povolenie na veľkodistribúciu liekov aj lekárnikom napriek tomu, že zámerom komunitárneho zákonodarcu bolo oslobodiť lekárnikov od povinnosti žiadať o vydanie uvedeného povolenia, ako to zrejme možno pochopiť z textu odôvodnenia č. 36?
 2.
 Ako správne vykladať právnu úpravu povolenia na distribúciu liekov v článkoch 76 až 84 smernice, predovšetkým v súvislosti s požiadavkami, ktoré musí splniť lekárnik (ako fyzická osoba, nie spoločnosť) na to, aby mohol vykonávať distribúciu liekov, ak už po splnení týchto požiadaviek v minulosti získal povolenie na maloobchodný predaj liekov upravené vnútroštátnym právnym poriadkom?


jurisdiction: US

text:
 844 A.2d 406 (2004)
 380 Md. 195
 Julio J. NAVARRO-MONZO, et ux.
 v.
 WASHINGTON ADVENTIST HOSPITAL t/a ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE, INC., et al.
 No. 69, Sept. Term, 2003.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 March 11, 2004.
 *407 Samuel M. Grant (David J. Preller, Jr., Preller and Preller, on brief), Towson, for appellants.
 Francis X. Leary (Dena M. Terra, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.P., Towson, Benjamin S. Vaughan, Susan B. Boyce, Armstrong, Donohue, Ceppos & Vaughan, Rockville, Albert D. Brault, Stuart N. Herschfeld, Joan F. Braunt. Brault, Graham, Scott & Brault, LLC, Rockville, all on brief), for appellees.
 Argued before BELL, C.J. RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, ELDRIDGE, JOHN C. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
 WILNER, J.
 The Circuit Court for Montgomery County dismissed this medical malpractice action because, in that court's view, appellants failed, when the case was pending before the Health Claims Arbitration Office, to file an expert's certificate within the time limit set forth in Maryland Code, § 3-2A-04(b) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (CJP). We believe that the court erred and shall therefore reverse.
 BACKGROUND
 Title 3, subtitle 2A of CJP creates an arbitration program for the resolution of medical injury claims made against health care providers, in which damages in excess of the concurrent jurisdiction of the District Court (currently $25,000) are sought. CJP, §§ 3-2A-02(a) and 3-2A-04 require that all such claims be filed initially with the Health Claims Arbitration Office (HCAO). Unless the jurisdiction of that office is waived pursuant to § 3-2A-06A or § 3-2A-06B, those claims are submitted to a form of non-binding arbitration, subject to de novo trial in the Circuit Court. See §§ 3-2A-05 and 3-2A-06.
 In 1986, the General Assembly added a new requirement to the program. Section 3-2A-04(b)(1)(i) requires that the claim be dismissed if the claimant fails to file with the Director of HCAO, within 90 days after the date of the complaint, a certificate of a qualified expert attesting (1) to a departure from the standard of care by the defendant, and (2) that the departure was the proximate cause of the alleged injury. With amendments added in 1989, however, § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii) states that, in lieu of dismissing the claim, the arbitration panel chair "shall grant an extension of no more than 90 days" for filing the required certificate if (1) the limitations period applicable to the claim has expired, and (2) the failure to file the certificate was neither willful nor the result of gross negligence. If the plaintiff files the certificate and the defendant wishes to dispute liability, the defendant must then file a certificate from a qualified expert attesting either to compliance with the standard of care or that the alleged departure was not the proximate cause of the alleged injury. If the defendant fails to file such a certificate within *408 120 days after service of the plaintiff's certificate, the claim may be adjudicated in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of liability. See § 3-2A-04(b)(2).
 Two other statutory provisionsthe ones principally at issue hereprovide some relief from these time requirements. Section 3-2A-04(b)(5) states that "[a]n extension of the time allowed for filing a certificate of a qualified expert under this subsection shall be granted for good cause shown." (Emphasis added). Section 3-2A-05(j), which is part of the section dealing specifically with arbitration of the claim, provides that "[e]xcept for time limitations pertaining to the filing of a claim or response, the [HCAO] Director or the [arbitration] panel chairman, for good cause shown, may lengthen or shorten the time limitations prescribed in subsections (b) and (g) of this section and § 3-2A-04 of this article." (Emphasis added).[1]
 On September 14, 2001, appellants Julio and Miryana Navarro-Monzo filed a complaint with HCAO against Washington Adventist Hospital and Drs. Frank Gravino, James Fonger, Norton Elson, and Herman Segal, alleging a number of sequential episodes of medical malpractice. The nature of the alleged malpractice is not important to the issues before us. Under CJP § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(i), appellants had until December 13, 2001, to file the required certificate. On December 13, they moved for an extension, explaining that they were working with several physicians and were awaiting expert reports, "which has taken a longer period of time than expected." On January 11, 2002, the HCAO Director granted an extension of 69 days. The order did not specify when the 69-day period commenced, and thus was facially ambiguous. If the period commenced on December 14, it would have expired February 21, 2002; if it commenced on January 11, it would have expired March 21, 2002.
 Appellants apparently assumed that the extension ran to March 21, for, on that day, they requested a second extension, again claiming that they were working with several physicians and were awaiting expert reports. This request was opposed by appellees. Drs. Gravino, Elson, and Segal took the position that the first extension expired on March 14, apparently on the ground that the HCAO Director's discretion was limited to an extension of 90 days from December 14, and that, as the certificate had not been filed by then, "pursuant to the strict and unyielding provisions provided in the Annotated Code," no further extension could be granted and the action had to be dismissed. Neither the HCAO Director nor any panel chair made any immediate ruling on either the request for extension or the motion to dismiss.
 On June 4, 2002, appellants, having received no response to their March 20 request, moved for a third extension, asserting that, within 21 days, they would either file the required certificate or report that no certificate would be forthcoming. The next day, on June 5, the HCAO Director granted a 30-day extension. As with the first extension, the order did not specify a commencement date for the 30 day period. On July 5, 2002, appellants filed a certificate from a Dr. David Davis asserting that the treatment by the appellee hospital and doctors departed from the standards of care required of them and that the departure from those standards was the proximate cause of the alleged injury. Although they no doubt disagree with Dr. *409 Davis's conclusions, appellees have never contested the substantive validity of that certificate.
 On September 17, 2002, Drs. Gravino, Elson, and Segal filed an election to waive arbitration, and, by order of the HCAO Director, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. See CJP § 3-2A-06B(c) and (d), permitting a defendant to waive arbitration after the plaintiff has filed his/her certificate, provided that the written waiver is filed within 60 days after all defendants have filed their own expert's certificate.[2] In accordance with CJP § 3-2A-06B(f), appellants filed a complaint in the Circuit Court. That complaint was met by motions to dismiss filed by all appellees, based on the assertions that (1) the second and third requested extensions were sought pursuant to CJP § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii), which did not allow more than one 90-day extension, and (2) any extension requested pursuant to CJP § 3-2A-04(b)(5) or 3-2A-05(j) must be filed before the expiration of the time allowed for filing a certificate, and that the second and third requests were not timely filed. Appellees thus argued that the HCAO Director had no authority to grant the untimely requests but was, instead, required to dismiss the claim.
 The Circuit Court obviously found merit in that argument for, in a series of orders entered in January and February, 2003, it dismissed the complaint against all defendants with prejudice, citing as authority in each of its orders McCready Memorial Hosp. v. Hauser, 330 Md. 497, 624 A.2d 1249 (1993). Appellants appealed, and we granted certiorari on our own initiative prior to proceedings in the Court of Special Appeals to review those judgments.[3]
 DISCUSSION
 Appellees present the same argument to us that they raised in the Circuit Court, namely, that § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii) permits but one 90-day extension and that, if any further extension is to be sought under either § 3-2A-04(b)(5) or § 3-2A-05(j), the extension must be sought before the expiration of the 90-day extension granted under § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii). Relying on McCready, they aver that, once that extension period expires, the claim must be dismissed. Their reliance, and the Circuit Court's reliance, on McCready is misplaced.
 When the certificate requirement was added in 1986, there was no automatic extension provision. CJP § 3-2A-04(b)(1) provided that, unless the sole basis of the claim was the lack of informed consent, the claim had to be dismissed, without prejudice, if the claimant failed to file the certificate within 90 days from the date of the complaint. Section 3-2A-04(b)(5) permitted an extension for good cause shown, and § 3-2A-05(j) allowed the HCAO Director or the arbitration panel chair to lengthen or shorten the time limitations for filing the certificate for good cause shown.
 This construct came before the Court of Special Appeals in Robinson v. Pleet, 76 Md.App. 173, 544 A.2d 1 (1988). The *410 plaintiff there filed her claim in November, 1986, but failed to file the required certificate within the 90-day period. On April 27, 1987, nearly five months later, one of the defendants moved to dismiss. On May 11, having received no answer from the plaintiff, the panel chairman granted the motion and dismissed the claim. Two days later, the plaintiff filed an answer, to which was attached the required certificate. That was followed, a week later, by a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. That motion was implicitly denied when the HCAO Director entered an award in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff then filed a complaint in the Circuit Court which, on motion, was dismissed because of the default at the HCAO level.
 Treating the plaintiff's failure to comply with the certificate requirement as equivalent to a failure to arbitrate the claim, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The appellate court noted that, under § 3-2A-04(b), dismissal was mandatory if the certificate is not filed within the 90-day period. That was true, the court held, even though limitations had run on the claim, thereby precluding a refiling of it, and the failure to file the certificate was not deliberate.
 As we pointed out in McCready, legislative reaction to Robinson was swift. At its next session following announcement of the Robinson decision, the General Assembly, after considerable debate, amended § 3-2A-04(b) to add the mandatory extension language of subsection (b)(1)(ii)that, in lieu of dismissing the claim, the panel chair must grant an extension of not more than 90 days for filing the required certificate if (1) limitations had by then run on the claim, and (2) the failure to file the certificate was neither wilful nor the result of gross negligence.
 In McCready, the plaintiffs filed their claim on March 14, 1990, just a few days before limitations ran. When no certificate was filed within the 90-day period, the defendants moved to dismiss the claim. On July 3111 days after the claim was filedthe plaintiffs requested a 90-day extension under § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii), alleging that limitations had run and that the failure to file the certificate was neither willful nor the result of gross negligence. They did not seek a "good cause" extension under § 3-2A-04(b)(5) or § 3-2A-05(j) and, indeed, offered no explanation for the default. HCAO took no immediate action on the request, but, following a hearing on October 17, the panel chairman dismissed the claim. No certificate had been filed, even at that point. The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court which, as in Robinson, was dismissed. The Court of Special Appeals reversed that judgment, but we affirmed it.
 McCready gave us the opportunity to examine the relationship between the mandatory extension provision in § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii), on the one hand, and the good cause extension provisions in §§ 3-2A-04(b)(5) and 3-2A-05(j), on the other. We construed § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(i) and (ii) as intended to operate in tandem and thus, where the two conditions applied, to mandate an extension of 90 days, commencing not later than the end of the first 90-day period, even without a request. Id. at 510, 624 A.2d at 1255-56.[4] Once the 180 days had run, however, no further extension was permitted under § 3-2A-04(b)(1).
 The good cause provisions in §§ 3-2A-04(b)(5) and 3-2A-05(j), we said, differ *411 from the provision in § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii) in that, on the one hand, they require the claimant to establish good cause and do not permit an extension without such a showing, but, on the other, "are silent as to the timing of a request, and they do not expressly limit the length of any extension." Id. at 508, 624 A.2d at 1255. "Presumably," we added, "the length of the extension, if granted, would be based on the nature of the `good cause' shown." Id.
 There are two significant differences between McCready and this case. In McCready, the plaintiffs never sought an extension based on good cause and offered no good cause for the default, and, as noted, no certificate was ever filed with the HCAO. Although we concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to an automatic 90-day extension under § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii), commencing on the 90th day following the date of the complaint, once that period expired without a request for further good cause extension, § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(i) became applicable and the claim was required to be dismissed.
 Here, a timely request for extension was filed, on December 13. Although that request referenced "3-2A-04(ii)"an incorrect reference, as no such section exists it did offer a good cause explanation for the extension, which would not have been necessary for an automatic extension under § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii). The Director did not act on the request until January 11, when he granted an extension of 69 days, without indicating a commencement point. The order was facially ambiguous. As we have noted, if intended to run from December 14, 2001, the 69-day period would have expired February 21, 2002. If entered under § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii), it could not, in any event, extend beyond March 14a fact that, in light of McCready, the HCAO Director must have known. If the 69-day period was intended to commence on the date of the order, which, in the absence of any provision suggesting the contrary, is more likely the case, that period would end on March 21. For such a commencement date to be valid, however, the order would have to have been entered pursuant to § 3-2A-04(b)(5) or § 3-2A-05(j), based on an implicit finding of good cause.
 We expressly recognized that prospect in McCready, noting that "there could conceivably be instances where there might be `good cause' to grant a request for an extension that was made after the initial ninety-day period in lieu of dismissing the claim." McCready, 330 Md. at 506 n. 5, 624 A.2d at 1254 n. 5. Indeed, §§ 3-2A-04(b)(5) and 3-2A-05(j) would have little or no meaning unless read to permit good cause extensions over and above the mandatory extension called for in § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii). In construing statutes, the paramount goal is to ascertain and carry out the intention of the Legislature. In that regard, when there are several statutory provisions dealing with the same subject, the courts must strive, if at all possible, to harmonize and read them together, so that each may be given effect. See Balto. Gas & Elec. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 305 Md. 145, 157, 501 A.2d 1307, 1313 (1986) ("[A] provision contained within an integrated statutory scheme must be understood in that context and harmonized to the extent possible with other provisions of the statutory scheme"); State v. Ghajari, 346 Md. 101, 115, 695 A.2d 143, 149 (1997) (quoting State v. Harris, 327 Md. 32, 39, 607 A.2d 552, 555 (1992)) ("We presume that the legislature intends its enactments `to operate together as a consistent and harmonious body of law.'"); Carter v. Maryland Management, 377 Md. 596, 613, 835 A.2d 158, 168 (2003) (same).
 The several provisions at issue here may be read together without any difficulty. *412 Recognizing the harshness of the penalty it has exacted for failing to file a certificate within the initial 90-day period, the General Assembly has provided three distinct, but complementary, escape valves. First, it has required that an extension of up to 90 days be granted if the conditions stated in § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii) are met. Second, in § 3-2A-04(b)(5) it has provided that an extension without any fixed statutory limit shall be granted by the Director or panel chairman for good cause shown. And finally, in § 3-2A-05(j), it has allowed either of those persons to lengthen the time for filing the certificate, again without any fixed limitation.
 Especially as the right to grant indeterminate extensions was enacted as part of the bill that imposed the requirement in the first instance, was stated twice in the law, and was not amended in the 1989 enactment, there can be no doubt that it remains fully intact. Notwithstanding a mandatory extension under § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii), the Director and the panel chairman retain the authority to grant a further extension, beyond 180 days from filing of the claim, upon a showing of good cause.
 It is evident that the HCAO Director regarded his January 11 order as extending to March 21, for otherwise he would not (and under McCready could not) have granted a further extension under § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii). Although the arbitration process itself is not in the nature of an administrative remedy, HCAO is an administrative agency within the Executive Branch of the State Government (see CJP § 3-2A-03), and therefore its Director, in administering that office, acts as an administrative official. In reviewing the administrative decisions of the Director, we must afford at least the same deference that we afford to other administrative agencies in making discretionary decisions, including, in the absence of some clear indication in the record to the contrary, an assumption that the Director is aware of the law controlling his/her conduct and acts in conformance with it. We may therefore properly assume that the Director was aware of our pronouncements in McCready and regarded his January 11 extension of 69, rather than 90, days as one based on a finding of good cause and not as a mandatory one under § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii).
 Upon this analysis, the request for further extension filed March 20, based on good cause, was timely. The HCAO Director did not act on that request until June 5, when he granted a 30-day extension, presumably commencing from the date of the order and thus implicitly including as well the period from March 21 to June 5. As the certificate was filed on the last day of that period, it too was timely. The Circuit Court erred in dismissing the complaint.
 JUDGMENT OF CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS; COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLEES.
 NOTES
 [1] Section 3-2A-05(b)(2) requires that all discovery be completed within 270 days after all defendants have been served. Section 3-2A-05(g) sets certain time limits with respect to the making of an arbitration award and delivery of the award to the HCAO Director.
 [2] The HCAO docket sheet shows that the four doctors filed expert certificates prior to waiving arbitration. There is no indication that any such certificate was filed by the hospital. As appellants do not raise that as an issue, we shall not make it one.
 [3] At oral argument, this Court posed the question of whether, once appellees waived arbitration, any error in the granting of an extension by HCAO remained material. Because that issue was not raised or briefed by the parties, we shall address the issue that was raised and reserve the materiality question for another time.
 [4] We did not take account of the prospect, in McCready, that an extension could be granted under § 3-2A-04(b)(1)(ii) for less than 90 days and simply assumed that the plaintiff was entitled to a 90-day extension. That erroneous assumption made no difference in McCready.