type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
4.5.2002 EL Επι ́σημη Εφημερι ́δα των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των C 109/65
 Η προσφευ ́γουσα δεν ́ελαβε με ́ρος στη συνα ́ντηση της Προσφυγη ́ της Deutsche Verkehrsbank AG κατα ́ της
 15ης Οκτωβρι ́ου 1997. Ο υπα ́λληλος της προσφευ ́γουσας που Επιτροπη ́ς των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ ν Κοινοτη ́των, που ασκη ́θηκε την
 ει ́χε προσκληθει ́ στη συνα ́ντηση αυτη ́ δεν ́ελαβε ́εγκριση απο ́ τον 1η Μαρτι ́ου 2002
 προϊστα ́μενο ́ του για να συμμετα ́σχει. 'Ενας υπα ́λληλος της
 Vereins- und Westbank, στην οποι ́α η προσφευ ́γουσα ει ́ναι
 πλειοψηφου ́σα με ́τοχος, ́ελαβε με ́ρος αποκλειστικα ́ εξ ονο ́ματος (Υπο ́θεση Τ-60/02)
 της τελευται ́ας. Η συμπεριφορα ́ της Vereins- und Westbank στην
 αγορα ́ ει ́ναι ανεξα ́ρτητη της συμπεριφορα ́ς της προσφευ ́γουσας (2002/C 109/123)
 και, επομε ́νως, η εταιρικου ́ δικαι ́ου σχε ́ση μεταξυ ́ τους δεν ει ́ναι
 δυνατο ́ν να αποτελε ́σει τη βα ́ση για να κριθει ́ ο ́τι υπα ́λληλος αυτη ́ς
 της τρα ́πεζας συμμετει ́χε στην επικρινο ́μενη συνα ́ντηση. ́ σσα διαδικασι ́ας: η γερμανικη ́)
 (Γλω
 Κατα ́ τον υπολογισμο ́ του προστι ́μου η Επιτροπη ́ παρεξε ́κλινε Η Deutsche Verkehrsbank AG, με ́εδρα τη Φραγκφου ́ρτη/Μα ́ιν
 κατα ́φωρα απο ́ τις κατευθυντη ́ριες γραμμε ́ς της και ́εθιξε την αρχη ́ (Γερμανι ́α), εκπροσωπου ́μενη απο ́ τους δικηγο ́ρους M. Klusmann
 της ́σης
 ι μεταχειρι ́σεως. και F. Wiemer, α ́σκησε την 1η Μαρτι ́ου 2002 ενω ́πιον του
 Πρωτοδικει ́ου των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των προσφυγη ́ κατα ́ της
 Επιτροπη ́ς των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των.
 Ου ́τε με την ανακοι ́νωση των αιτια ́σεων ου ́τε στο πλαι ́σιο της
 ακροα ́σεως ενω ́πιον του συμβου ́λου ακροα ́σεων ́εγινε λο ́γος περι ́ Η προσφευ ́γουσα ζητει ́ απο ́ το Πρωτοδικει ́ο:
 συμμετοχη ́ς της προσφευ ́γουσας στη συμφωνι ́α. Η Επιτροπη ́ ο ́φειλε
 να ενημερω ́σει την προσφευ ́γουσα προ της λη ́ψεως της αποφα ́σεως — να ακυρω ́σει την προσβαλλο ́μενη απο ́φαση, καθο ́σον θι ́γει
 για την αλλλαγη ́ της θε ́σεω ́ς της. την προσφευ ́γουσα,
 — επικουρικω ́ς, να μειω ́σει ευλο ́γως το υ ́ψος του προστι ́μου
 που επιβλη ́θηκε στην προσφευ ́γουσα με την προσβαλλο ́μενη
 Η Επιτροπη ́ προ ́σβαλε τα δικαιω ́ ματα α ́μυνας της προσφευ ́γουσας, απο ́φαση,
 διο ́τι δεν της επε ́τρεψε την προ ́σβαση στον φα ́κελο της υποθε ́σεως.
 ∆εν στα ́θηκε ιδι ́ως δυνατο ́ να λα ́βει γνω ́ση των παρατηρη ́σεων — να καταδικα ́σει την καθη ́ς στα δικαστικα ́ ́εξοδα.
 των λοιπω ́ν εμπλεκομε ́νων στην υπο ́θεση και των φακε ́λων των
 παραλλη ́λων διαδικασιω ́ν, και ́τοι η προσφευ ́γουσα ει ́χε βα ́σιμους
 λο ́γους να υποθε ́τει ο ́τι οι φα ́κελοι αυτοι ́περιει ́χαν υλικο ́ σημαντικο ́
 για την α ́μυνα ́ της. Λο ́γοι ακυρω ́ σεως και κυ ́ρια επιχειρη ́ματα
 Η προσφυγη ́ προσβα ́λλει την απο ́φαση Ε (2001) 3693, της
 Η απο ́φαση ει ́ναι ελλιπω ́ς αιτιολογημε ́νη, διο ́τι για πολλα ́ σημει ́α 11ης ∆εκεμβρι ́ου 2001, στο πλαι ́σιο της υποθε ́σεως COMP-
 δεν περιε ́χει σαφει ́ς αιτιολογι ́ες. ∆εν υπα ́ρχουν ιδι ́ως αιτιολογι ́ες 1/37.919 (ex 37.931) — τραπεζικα ́ τε ́λη για τη μετατροπη ́ των
 για τον καταλογισμο ́ της συμπεριφορα ́ς του εκπροσω ́ που της νομισμα ́των της ζω ́νης ευρω ́, με την οποι ́α η Επιτροπη ́ διαπι ́στωσε
 Vereins- und Westbank, για την παρα ́λειψη εφαρμογη ́ς των τη συμμετοχη ́ της προσφευ ́γουσας σε συμφωνι ́α κατα ́ την περι ́οδο
 κανο ́νων περι ́ ελαφρυντικω ́ν περιστα ́σεων και για την παρε ́κκλιση μεταβα ́σεως στο ευρω ́ απο ́ 1/1/1999 ́εως 31/12/2001 για την
 απο ́ την αρχη ́ ο ́τι δεν ει ́ναι δυνατο ́ν να αποφασιστει ́ η μη επιβολη ́ ει ́σπραξη προμηθει ́ας σε ποσοστο ́ ́εως 3 % περι ́που ως τε ́λη για
 προστι ́μου στους ́εχοντες την πρωτοβουλι ́α για τη δημιουργι ́α την αλλαγη ́ των τραπεζογραμματι ́ων των νομισμα ́των της ζω ́νης
 ενο ́ς καρτε ́λ. ευρω ́ και επε ́βαλε στην προσφευ ́γουσα προ ́στιμο υ ́ψους 14
 εκατομμυρι ́ων ευρω ́.
 Η συμπεριφορα ́ της Επιτροπη ́ς κατα ́ τη δια ́ρκεια της διαδικασι ́ας Η προσφευ ́γουσα ισχυρι ́ζεται τα εξη ́ς:
 δει ́χνει ο ́τι δεν την ενδιε ́φερε ο κολασμο ́ς ενο ́ς παρανο ́μου καρτε ́λ,
 αλλα ́, για λο ́γους πολιτικη ́ς, η μει ́ωση των τελω ́ν μετατροπη ́ς, τα ∆εν προβαι ́νει στις εν λο ́γω πρα ́ξεις λιανικη ́ς τραπεζικη ́ς, αλλα ́
 οποι ́α θεωρου ́σε πολυ ́ υψηλα ́. Οι τρα ́πεζες οι οποι ́ες, υπο ́ την δραστηριοποιει ́ται αποκλειστικω ́ς στο διατραπεζικο ́ εμπο ́ριο, η ́τοι
 πι ́εση αυτη ́, δη ́λωσαν προ ́θυμες να προβου ́ν σε μει ́ωση των προβαι ́νει σε πρα ́ξεις χονδρικη ́ς τραπεζικη ́ς με ξε ́να χαρτονο-
 τελω ́ν απαλλα ́χθηκαν ανεξαρτη ́τως του ρο ́λου τους στο φερο ́μενο μι ́σματα, και στο εμπο ́ριο συναλλα ́γματος, η ́τοι σε πρα ́ξεις σε ξε ́να
 παρα ́νομο καρτε ́λ. Με τον τρο ́πο αυτο ́ν, η Επιτροπη ́ προε ́βη σε νομι ́σματα που δεν ενε ́χουν υλικη ́ καταβολη ́ χρη ́ματος.
 εφαρμογη ́ του δικαι ́ου περι ́ ανταγωνισμου ́ με σκοπο ́ τη ρυ ́θμιση
 των τιμω ́ν, για την οποι ́α δεν ει ́ναι αρμο ́δια. Αυτο ́ συνιστα ́ Η Επιτροπη ́ χρησιμοποι ́ησε με ́σα αποδει ́ξεως χωρι ́ς να παραχωρη ́σει
 κατα ́χρηση εξουσι ́ας. στην προσφευ ́γουσα δικαιω ́ματα α ́μυνας. Αρνη ́θηκε την προ ́σβαση
 σε ́εγγραφα του φακε ́λου που θα απα ́λλασσαν την προσφευ ́γουσα.
 Προε ́βη αυθαιρε ́τως σε δυσμενη ́ δια ́κριση σε βα ́ρος της προσφευ ́γο-
 υσας κατα ́ τη λη ́ψη της αποφα ́σεως για ανεπι ́σημη περα ́τωση της
 διαδικασι ́ας.
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/66 EL Επι ́σημη Εφημερι ́δα των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των 4.5.2002
 Η απο ́φαση πα ́σχει απο ́ απο ́ψεως χρη ́σεως της διακριτικη ́ς ευχε- Η προσφευ ́γουσα ζητει ́ απο ́ το Πρωτοδικει ́ο:
 ρει ́ας, διο ́τι η Επιτροπη ́ επιδι ́ωκε εξωδικαιικου ́ς πολιτικου ́ς
 σκοπου ́ς, συγκεκριμε ́να να περα ́σει ορισμε ́νο μη ́νυμα στο ευρυ ́
 κοινο ́ σε σχε ́ση με την εισαγωγη ́ του ευρω ́. Καθο ́σον στην τρε ́χουσα — να ακυρω ́σει την απο ́φαση της Επιτροπη ́ς της 11ης ∆εκεμ-
 διοικητικη ́ διαδικασι ́α στην υπο ́θεση Τ-216/01 R υπη ́ρχαν ακο ́μη βρι ́ου 2001, αποδε ́κτης της οποι ́ας η ́ταν η προσφευ ́γουσα
 ανεπι ́λυτα επι ́δικα αιτη ́ματα, δεν επιτρεπο ́ταν η ́εκδοση τελικη ́ς και που περιη ́λθε στην προσφευ ́γουσα στις 20 ∆εκεμβρι ́ου
 διοικητικη ́ς αποφα ́σεως. 2001 [υπο ́θεση COMP/E-1/37.919 (ex 37.391)], ο ́σον
 αφορα ́ την επιβολη ́ προστι ́μου στην προσφευ ́γουσα,
 ∆εν αποδει ́χθηκε η υ ́παρξη σημαντικη ́ς βλα ́βης του διακρατικου ́
 εμπορι ́ου. — να καταδικα ́σει την Επιτροπη ́ στα δικαστικα ́ ́εξοδα.
 Η προσφευ ́γουσα δεν ́ελαβε με ́ρος ου ́τε σε συμφωνι ́α για τον
 τρο ́πο εισπρα ́ξεως τελω ́ν ου ́τε σε συμφωνι ́α για το υ ́ψος των τελω ́ν.
 Το συ ́στημα των προμηθειω ́ν δεν θα μπορου ́σε να αποτελει ́ Λο ́γοι ακυρω ́ σεως και κυ ́ρια επιχειρη ́ματα
 αντικει ́μενο συμφωνι ́ας, διο ́τι, κατο ́πιν της θε ́σεως σε ισχυ ́ του
 κανονισμου ́ 1103/97, δεν υφι ́στατο καμι ́α νομι ́μως επιτρεπο ́μενη
 εναλλακτικη ́ λυ ́ση. Τα αποδεικτικα ́ με ́σα που μνημονευ ́ει η καθη ́ς
 ει ́ναι αλυσιτελη ́ και αντιφατικα ́. Το τελευται ́ο αποδεικτικο ́ με ́σο Η προσφευ ́γουσα ισχυρι ́ζεται ο ́τι η καθη ́ς προσε ́βαλε τα δικαιω ́-
 που παραθε ́τει η καθη ́ς χρονολογει ́ται απο ́ τις 15 Οκτωβρι ́ου ματα α ́μυνα ́ς της. Η καθη ́ς δεν της ́εδωσε καμι ́α δυνατο ́τητα να
 1997, η ́τοι 4,5 ́ετη περι ́που πριν απο ́ τη συ ́ναψη της υποτιθε ́μενης λα ́βει γνω ́ση των κριτηρι ́ων βα ́σει των οποι ́ων ́εθεσε τε ́ρμα σε
 συμφωνι ́ας. 'Εκτοτε δεν υπη ́ρξαν κανενο ́ς ει ́δους επαφε ́ς μεταξυ ́ ορισμε ́νες παρα ́λληλες διαδικασι ́ες. Η Επιτροπη ́ δεν ενε ́μεινε σε
 των ενδιαφερομε ́νων τραπεζω ́ν. Στη φερο ́μενη ως συνα ́ντηση ο ́λες τις περιπτω ́σεις στην ανα ́γκη μειω ́σεως των τραπεζικω ́ν τελω ́ν
 του καρτε ́λ συμμετει ́χε εκπρο ́σωπος της Deutsche Bundesbank και αντιμετω ́πισε δια ́φορες τρα ́πεζες διαφορετικα ́ σε σχε ́ση με το
 (Γερμανικη ́ς Κεντρικη ́ς Τρα ́πεζας) και η τρα ́πεζα αυτη ́ ενημερω ́θηκε υ ́ψος της μειω ́σεως των τελω ́ν. Η Επιτροπη ́ ́επρεπε να γνωστοποιη ́-
 επιση ́μως για τα αποτελε ́σματα της συναντη ́σεως. σει στην προσφευ ́γουσα τα μη δημιουργου ́ντα διακρι ́σεις κριτη ́ρια
 βα ́σει των οποι ́ων θα αποφα ́σιζε τη συνε ́χιση η ́ την παυ ́ση της
 διαδικασι ́ας. Επιπλε ́ον, η απο ́φαση της Επιτροπη ́ς περιε ́χει νε ́α
 'Οσον αφορα ́ τη δια ́ρκεια της εικαζο ́μενης συμφωνι ́ας, η απο ́φαση επιβαρυντικα ́ στοιχει ́α σε σχε ́ση με τη γνωστοποι ́ηση των αιτια ́σεων,
 ει ́ναι αντιφατικη ́, διο ́τι στο διατακτικο ́ της λαμβα ́νεται υπο ́ψη επι ́ των οποι ́ων η προσφευ ́γουσα δεν μπο ́ρεσε να διατυπω ́σει τις
 διαφορετικη ́ δια ́ρκεια απ' ο ́,τι για τον υπολογισμο ́ του προστι ́μου. παρατηρη ́σεις της. Τε ́λος, δεν επιτρα ́πηκε στην προσφευ ́γουσα η
 προ ́σβαση στον φα ́κελο των παρα ́λληλων υποθε ́σεων. Για πολιτι-
 Τα βασικα ́ ποσα ́ που λη ́φθηκαν υπο ́ψη για τον υπολογισμο ́ του κου ́ς λο ́γους, η εσπευσμε ́νη επιβολη ́ προστι ́μου η ́ταν για την
 προστι ́μου ει ́ναι αυθαι ́ρετα και δυσανα ́λογα. Επιτροπη ́ σπουδαιο ́τερη απο ́ ο ́,τι η διεξαγωγη ́ μιας δι ́καιης
 διαδικασι ́ας.
 Η προσφευ ́γουσα αμφισβητει ́ ο ́τι κατα ́ τη συνα ́ντηση των εμπο-
 ρευομε ́νων τραπεζογραμμα ́τια της 15ης Οκτωβρι ́ου 1997 συνη ́φ-
 θησαν συμφωνι ́ες περιορι ́ζουσες τον ανταγωνισμο ́. Αντικει ́μενο της
 συναντη ́σεως αυτη ́ς η ́σαν οι τα ́σεις της αγορα ́ς και η συζη ́τηση επι ́
 ορισμε ́νων πασι ́γνωστων στοιχει ́ων. Η συνα ́ντηση αυτη ́ εντα ́σσεται
 στο πλαι ́σιο διαφο ́ρων συναντη ́σεων και συνεδρια ́σεων που πραγ-
 Προσφυγη ́ της Commerzbank AG κατα ́ της Επιτροπη ́ς των ματοποιη ́θηκαν μεταξυ ́ 1996 και 1998 για την προετοιμασι ́α της
 Ευρωπαϊκω ́ ν Κοινοτη ́των, που ασκη ́θηκε την 1η Μαρτι ́ου εισαγωγη ́ς του ευρω ́ και στις οποι ́ες μετει ́χαν επι ́σης συχνα ́
 2002 εκπρο ́σωποι των κεντρικω ́ν τραπεζω ́ν και ενι ́οτε εκπρο ́σωποι της
 Επιτροπη ́ς. Η προσφευ ́γουσα, ο ́πως προκυ ́πτει απο ́ εσωτερικα ́
 ́εγγραφα ́ της, ει ́χε η ́δη αποφασι ́σει αυτο ́νομα, πριν απο ́ τη
 (Υπο ́θεση T-61/02) συνα ́ντηση της 15ης Οκτωβρι ́ου 1997, να εφαρμο ́ζει ποσοστιαι ́α
 τε ́λη. Η αιτι ́αση της Επιτροπη ́ς ει ́ναι αβα ́σιμη και η Επιτροπη ́ δεν
 περιγρα ́φει το περιεχο ́μενο της δη ́θεν συμφωνι ́ας. Τα αποδεικτικα ́
 (2002/C 109/124) στοιχει ́α που προσκομι ́ζει η Επιτροπη ́, και ιδι ́ως το εσωτερικο ́
 υπηρεσιακο ́ σημει ́ωμα ενο ́ς υπαλλη ́λου της ολλανδικη ́ς τρα ́πεζας
 GWK Bank N.V., ει ́ναι αλυσιτελη ́. Η απο ́φαση της Επιτροπη ́ς
 (Γλω ́ σσα διαδικασι ́ας: η γερμανικη ́) αποδεικνυ ́ει α ́γνοια της συγκεκριμε ́νης υποθε ́σεως και ́ελλειψη
 αντικειμενικο ́τητας. Η Επιτροπη ́ αγνο ́ησε τη διαφορα ́ μεταξυ ́
 εμπορι ́ας τραπεζογραμματι ́ων και εμπορι ́ας συναλλα ́γματος, καθω ́ς
 και την επικρατου ́σα το ́τε νομικη ́ κατα ́σταση, και παρουσι ́ασε τα
 πρα ́γματα μονομερω ́ς, κατα ́ τρο ́πο επιβαρυ ́νοντα την προσφευ ́-
 Η Commerzbank AG, που εδρευ ́ει στη Φρανκφου ́ρτη/Μα ́ιν γουσα.
 (Γερμανι ́α), εκπροσωπου ́μενη απο ́ τους δικηγο ́ρους Η. Satzky και
 B. Maassen, α ́σκησε ενω ́πιον του Πρωτοδικει ́ου των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν
 Κοινοτη ́των την 1η Μαρτι ́ου 2002 προσφυγη ́ κατα ́ της Επιτροπη ́ς
 των Ευρωπαϊκω ́ν Κοινοτη ́των.


type: contracts

text:
 29.6.2006
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 L 175/86
 EEZ APVIENOTĀS KOMITEJAS LĒMUMS
 Nr. 42/2006
 (2006. gada 28. aprīlis),
 ar ko groza EEZ līguma I pielikumu (Veterinārijas un fitosanitārijas jautājumi)
 EEZ APVIENOTĀ KOMITEJA,
 ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Ekonomikas zonu, kurā grozījumi izdarīti ar Protokolu, ar ko pielāgo Līgumu par Eiropas Ekonomikas zonu, turpmāk tekstā “Līgums”, un jo īpaši tā 98. pantu,
 tā kā:
 (1)
 Līguma I pielikums tika grozīts ar EEZ Apvienotās komitejas 2006. gada 27. janvāra Lēmumu Nr. 1/2006 (1).
 (2)
 Komisijas 2003. gada 19. jūnija Regula (EK) Nr. 1053/2003, ar ko groza Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulu (EK) Nr. 999/2001 attiecībā uz ātrās diagnostikas testiem (2), ir jāiekļauj Līgumā.
 (3)
 Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2003. gada 16. jūnija Regula (EK) Nr. 1128/2003, ar ko groza Regulu (EK) Nr. 999/2001, lai pagarinātu pārejas posma pasākumu ilgumu (3), ir jāiekļauj Līgumā.
 (4)
 Komisijas 2003. gada 27. jūnija Regula (EK) Nr. 1139/2003, ar ko groza Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulu (EK) Nr. 999/2001 attiecībā uz uzraudzības programmu un īpašo riska materiālu (4), ir jāiekļauj Līgumā.
 (5)
 Komisijas 2003. gada 10. jūlija Regula (EK) Nr. 1234/2003, ar ko groza I, IV un XI pielikumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulai (EK) Nr. 999/2001 un Regulai (EK) Nr. 1326/2001 attiecībā uz transmisīvajām sūkļveida encefalopātijām un dzīvnieku barošanu (5), ir jāiekļauj Līgumā.
 (6)
 Komisijas 2003. gada 15. oktobra Regula (EK) Nr. 1809/2003, ar ko groza Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulu (EK) Nr. 999/2001 attiecībā uz noteikumiem dzīvu govju un govju, aitu un kazu produktu ievešanai no Kostarikas un Jaunkaledonijas (6), ir jāiekļauj Līgumā.
 (7)
 Komisijas 2003. gada 30. oktobra Regula (EK) Nr. 1915/2003, ar ko groza VII, VIII un IX pielikumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulai (EK) Nr. 999/2001 attiecībā uz aitu un kazu tirdzniecību un ievešanu un pasākumiem, kas jāveic pēc transmisīvās sūkļveida encefalopātijas apstiprināšanas govīm, aitām un kazām (7), ir jāiekļauj Līgumā.
 (8)
 Komisijas 2003. gada 19. decembra Regula (EK) Nr. 2245/2003, ar ko groza III pielikumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulai (EK) Nr. 999/2001 par to, kā kontrolēt aitu un kazu saslimstību ar transmisīvo sūkļveida encefalopātiju (8), ir jāiekļauj Līgumā.
 (9)
 Komisijas 2004. gada 29. aprīļa Regula (EK) Nr. 876/2004, ar ko groza VIII pielikumu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regulai (EK) Nr. 999/2001 attiecībā uz tirdzniecību ar vaislas aitām un kazām (9), ir jāiekļauj Līgumā.
 (10)
 Ar Regulu (EK) Nr. 1234/2003 atceļ Padomes Lēmumu 2000/766/EK (10) un Komisijas Lēmumu 2001/9/EK (11), kas ir iekļauti Līgumā un attiecīgi jāatceļ saskaņā ar Līgumu.
 (11)
 Šis lēmums neattiecas uz Islandi un Lihtenšteinu,
 IR NOLĒMUSI ŠĀDI.
 1. pants
 Līguma I pielikuma I nodaļu groza šādi.
 1)
 Šādus ievilkumus iekļauj 7.1. daļas 12. punktā (Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regula (EK) Nr. 999/2001):
 “—
 32003 R 1053: Komisijas 2003. gada 19. jūnija Regulu (EK) Nr. 1053/2003 (OV L 152, 20.6.2003., 8. lpp.),
 —
 32003 R 1128: Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2003. gada 16. jūnija Regulu (EK) Nr. 1128/2003 (OV L 160, 28.6.2003., 1. lpp.),
 —
 32003 R 1139: Komisijas 2003. gada 27. jūnija Regulu (EK) Nr. 1139/2003 (OV L 160, 28.6.2003., 22. lpp.),
 —
 32003 R 1234: Komisijas 2003. gada 10. jūlija Regulu (EK) Nr. 1234/2003 (OV L 173, 11.7.2003., 6. lpp.),
 —
 32003 R 1809: Komisijas 2003. gada 15. oktobra Regulu (EK) Nr. 1809/2003 (OV L 265, 16.10.2003., 10. lpp.),
 —
 32003 R 1915: Komisijas 2003. gada 30. oktobra Regulu (EK) Nr. 1915/2003 (OV L 283, 31.10.2003., 29. lpp.),
 —
 32003 R 2245: Komisijas 2003. gada 19. decembra Regulu (EK) Nr. 2245/2003 (OV L 333, 20.12.2003., 28. lpp.),
 —
 32004 R 0876: Komisijas 2004. gada 29. aprīļa Regulu (EK) Nr. 876/2004 (OV L 162, 30.4.2004., 52. lpp.).”
 2)
 Pielāgojuma tekstu 7.1. daļas 12. punktā (Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes Regula (EK) Nr. 999/2001) groza šādi
 1)
 Pielāgojuma tekstus B un C svītro.
 2)
 Līdzšinējais pielāgojuma teksts D kļūst par pielāgojuma tekstu B.
 3)
 Tekstu 7.1. daļas 11. punktā (Padomes Lēmums 2000/766/EK) un 7.2. daļas 16. punktā (Komisijas Lēmums 2001/9/EK) svītro.
 2. pants
 Regulu (EK) Nr. 1053/2003, (EK) Nr. 1128/2003, (EK) Nr. 1139/2003, (EK) Nr. 1234/2003, (EK) Nr. 1809/2003, (EK) Nr. 1915/2003, (EK) Nr. 2245/2003 un (EK) Nr. 876/2004 teksti norvēģu valodā, kas jāpublicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ papildinājumā, ir autentiski.
 3. pants
 Šis lēmums stājas spēkā 2006. gada 29. aprīlī, ja EEZ Apvienotā komiteja ir saņēmusi visus paziņojumus saskaņā ar Līguma 103. panta 1. punktu (12).
 4. pants
 Šo lēmumu publicē Eiropas Savienības Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ iedaļā un tā EEZ papildinājumā.
 Briselē, 2006. gada 28. aprīlī
 EEZ Apvienotās komitejas vārdā —
 priekšsēdētājs
 R. WRIGHT
 (1) OV L 92, 30.3.2006., 17. lpp.
 (2) OV L 152, 20.6.2003., 8. lpp.
 (3) OV L 160, 28.6.2003., 1. lpp.
 (4) OV L 160, 28.6.2003., 22. lpp.
 (5) OV L 173, 11.7.2003., 6. lpp.
 (6) OV L 265, 16.10.2003., 10. lpp.
 (7) OV L 283, 31.10.2003., 29. lpp.
 (8) OV L 333, 20.12.2003., 28. lpp.
 (9) OV L 162, 30.4.2004., 52. lpp.
 (10) OV L 306, 7.12.2000., 32. lpp.
 (11) OV L 2, 5.1.2001., 32. lpp.
 (12) Nav norādītas konstitucionālās prasības.


text:
 Dôležité právne oznámenie
 |
 12006E/PRO/35
 Zmluvy o založení Európskeho Spoločenstva (Konsolidované znenie) - D. Protokoly pripojené k Zmluve o založení Európskeho spoločenstva - Protokol (č. 35) k článku 67 Zmluvy o založení Európskeho spoločenstva (2001)
 Úradný vestník C 321 E , 29/12/2006 S. 0317 - 0317
 Protokol (č. 35)k článku 67 Zmluvy o založení Európskeho spoločenstva (2001)VYSOKÉ ZMLUVNÉ STRANYDOHODLI sa na tomto ustanovení, ktoré bude pripojené k Zmluve o založení Európskeho spoločenstva:Jediný článokOd 1. mája 2004 Rada pri prijímaní opatrení uvedených v článku 66 Zmluvy o založení Európskeho spoločenstva rozhoduje kvalifikovanou väčšinou na návrh Komisie a po porade s Európskym parlamentom.--------------------------------------------------


type: legislation

text:
 AN COIMISIÚN EORPACH
 An Bhruiséil,6.7.2021
 COM(2021) 363 final
 2021/0179(NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 lena n‐údaraítear do Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh, ar mhaithe leis an Aontas Eorpach, glacadh le haontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 ar na Gnéithe Sibhialta a bhaineann le Fuadach Idirnáisiúnta Leanaí
 MEABHRÁN MÍNIÚCHÁIN
 1.COMHTHÉACS AN TOGRA
 •Forais agus cuspóirí an togra
 Is é is aidhm do Choinbhinsiún na Háige an 25 Deireadh Fómhair 1980 ar na Gnéithe Sibhialta a bhaineann le Fuadach Idirnáisiúnta Leanaí (dá ngairtear: ‘Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980’), a dhaingnigh 101 tír go dtí seo, lena n‐áirítear Ballstáit uile an Aontais Eorpaigh, an status quo a thabhairt ar ais go pras trí leanaí a aistríodh nó a coinníodh go héagórach a thabhairt ar ais trí chóras comhair i measc na n‐údarás lárnach a cheapfaidh a bPáirtithe Conarthacha.
 I bhfianaise gur cuid riachtanach de bheartas an Aontais Eorpaigh é fuadach leanaí a chosc chun cearta an linbh a chur chun cinn, tá an tAontas Eorpach gníomhach ar an leibhéal idirnáisiúnta chun cur i bhfeidhm Choinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 a fheabhsú agus molann sé do thríú Stáit aontú leis.
 An 24 Feabhra 2017, thaisc Iamáice an ionstraim maidir le haontachas le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980. Tháinig an Coinbhinsiún i bhfeidhm in Iamáice an 5 Bealtaine 2017.
 Sonraítear in Airteagal 38(4) de Choinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 go mbeidh feidhm ag an gCoinbhinsiún idir an tír aontach agus na Stáit Chonarthacha sin a mbeidh sé dearbhaithe acu go nglacann siad leis an aontachas.
 Ar thionscnamh an Choimisiúin, chuathas i gcomhairle le Cúirt Bhreithiúnas an Aontais Eorpaigh a dhearbhaigh gurb ann d’inniúlacht eisiach an Aontais maidir le glacadh le haontachas tríú Stát le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980.
 An 14 Deireadh Fómhair 2014, luadh i dTuairim 1/13 ó Chúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh go gcuimsítear le hinniúlacht eisiach an Aontais Eorpaigh glacadh le haontachas tríú stát le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 ar na Gnéithe Sibhialta a bhaineann le Fuadach Idirnáisiúnta Leanaí.
 D’áitigh an Chomhairle go raibh gá le haonfhoirmeacht ar an ábhar ar leibhéal an Aontais Eorpaigh chun go seachnófar géométrie variable i measc na mBallstát.
 I bhfianaise go dtagann an tsaincheist maidir le fuadach idirnáisiúnta leanaí faoi inniúlacht eisiach sheachtrach an Aontais Eorpaigh, ní mór an cinneadh cibé acu a ghlacfar nó nach nglacfar le haontachas Iamáice a dhéanamh ar leibhéal an Aontais trí bhíthin cinneadh ón gComhairle. Dá bhrí sin, ba cheart do Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh an dearbhú glactha maidir le haontachas Iamáice a thaisceadh ar mhaithe leis an Aontas Eorpach.
 I gcás go nglacfaidh Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh leis an aontachas bheadh Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 infheidhme idir Iamáice agus Ballstáit an Aontais seachas an Danmhairg.
 •Comhsheasmhacht le forálacha beartais atá sa réimse beartais cheana
 Maidir le fuadach leanaí arna dhéanamh ag tuismitheoir, is é atá i gCoinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 contrapháirt idirnáisiúnta Rialachán Uimh. 2201/2003 ón gComhairle (ar a dtugtar Rialachán IIa na Bruiséile) arb é is bunchloch do chomhar breithiúnach an Aontais Eorpaigh é in ábhair maidir le pósadh agus in ábhair a bhaineann le freagracht tuismitheora.
 Ar cheann de phríomhchuspóirí an Rialacháin tá fuadach leanaí a dhíspreagadh idir na Ballstáit trí nósanna imeachta a bhunú chun a áirithiú go dtugtar an leanbh ar ais go pras go dtí an Ballstát ina bhfuil gnáthchónaí air nó uirthi. Chuige sin, in Airteagal 11 de Rialachán IIa na Bruiséile, ionchorpraítear an nós imeachta a leagtar síos i gCoinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 agus comhlánaítear é trí roinnt de na gnéithe atá ann a shoiléiriú, go háirithe gnéithe a bhaineann le héisteacht an linbh, leis an tréimhse ama chun cinneadh a dhéanamh tar éis iarratas ar an leanbh a thabhairt ar ais a bheith taiscthe agus leis an bhforas gan an leanbh a thabhairt ar ais. Tugtar isteach leis freisin forálacha lena rialaítear orduithe atá ar neamhréir le chéile chun an leanbh a thabhairt ar ais nó gan é a thabhairt ar ais, orduithe arna n‐eisiúint i mBallstáit éagsúla.
 Ar an leibhéal idirnáisiúnta, tacaíonn an tAontas Eorpach le haontachas tríú Stáit le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 ionas go mbeidh a Bhallstáit in ann brath ar chreat coiteann dlíthiúil chun dul i ngleic le fuadaigh idirnáisiúnta leanaí.
 Tá 18 gCinneadh ón gComhairle glactha cheana idir Meitheamh 2015 agus Feabhra 2019 chun glacadh le haontachas 26 thríú tír le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 maidir le Fuadach Idirnáisiúnta Leanaí (Maracó, Singeapór, Cónaidhm na Rúise, an Albáin, Andóra, na Séiséil, an Airméin, Poblacht na Cóiré, an Chasacstáin, Peiriú, an tSeoirsia, an Afraic Theas, an tSile, an Íoslainn, na Bahámaí, Panama, Uragua, an Cholóim, an tSalvadóir agus San Mairíne, an Phoblacht Dhoiminiceach, an Bhealarúis, an Úisbéiceastáin, Hondúras, Eacuadór agus an Úcráin)
 1
 .
 •Comhsheasmhacht le beartais eile de chuid an Aontais
 Is léir go bhfuil nasc idir an togra seo agus an cuspóir ginearálta a chumhdaítear in Airteagal 3 den Chonradh ar an Aontas Eorpach chun cearta an linbh a chosaint. Ceapadh córas Choinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 chun an leanbh a chosaint ar na héifeachtaí díobhálacha a bhaineann le fuadach arna dhéanamh ag tuismitheoir agus chun a áirithiú go mbeidh an leanbh in ann teagmháil a choinneáil leis an mbeirt tuismitheoirí, cur i gcás trí fheidhmiú éifeachtach na gceart rochtana a áirithiú.
 Is fiú a lua freisin an nasc le húsáid na hidirghabhála a chur chun cinn i dtaca le díospóidí teaghlaigh trasteorann a réiteach. Maidir leis an Treoir i ndáil le gnéithe áirithe den idirghabháil in ábhair shibhialta agus ábhair thráchtála
 2
 tá feidhm aici freisin maidir leis an dlí teaghlaigh laistigh den chomhlimistéar breithiúnach Eorpach. Le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 moltar díospóidí teaghlaigh a réiteach go cairdiúil freisin. Ar na Treoirleabhair maidir le Dea‐Chleachtas faoi Choinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 a d’fhoilsigh Comhdháil na Háige um an Dlí Idirnáisiúnta Príobháideach, tá treoirleabhar amháin dírithe ar leas a bhaint as an idirghabháil chun díospóidí teaghlaigh idirnáisiúnta a bhaineann le leanaí a réiteach, ar díospóidí iad a thagann faoi raon feidhme an Choinbhinsiúin. Ar thionscnamh an Choimisiúin Eorpaigh, aistríodh an Treoirleabhar seo go teangacha uile an Aontais seachas an Béarla agus an Fhraincis, agus go hAraibis freisin chun tacú leis an idirphlé leis na Stáit nár dhaingnigh an Coinbhinsiún nó nár aontaigh leis an gCoinbhinsiún go fóill agus chun bealaí nithiúla a aimsiú chun dul i ngleic leis na fadhbanna a bhaineann le fuadach idirnáisiúnta leanaí
 3
 .
 2.BUNÚS DLÍ, COIMHDEACHT AGUS COMHRÉIREACHT
 •Bunús dlí
 Foráiltear le hAirteagal 38 de Choinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 ‘nach mbeidh éifeacht ag aontachas [na Stát aontach] ach amháin a mhéid a bhaineann leis an gcaidreamh idir an Stát aontach agus na Stáit Chonarthacha sin a mbeidh sé dearbhaithe acu go nglacfaidh siad leis an aontachas’. Ós rud é go mbaineann an cinneadh le glacadh sainráite na mBallstát le haontachas Stáit aontaigh le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980, ar mhaithe leis an Aontas, is é Airteagal 218(6) den Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh an bunús dlí is infheidhme. Is é Airteagal 81(3) CFAE an bunús dlí substainteach, dá bhrí sin gníomhóidh an Chomhairle d’aon toil tar éis di dul i gcomhairle le Parlaimint na hEorpa.
 Tá Éire faoi cheangal ag Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 2201/2003 agus, dá bhrí sin, tá sí rannpháirteach i nglacadh agus i gcur i bhfeidhm an Chinnidh seo.
 I gcomhréir le hAirteagail 1 agus 2 de Phrótacal Uimh. 22 maidir le seasamh na Danmhairge, atá i gceangal leis an gConradh ar an Aontas Eorpach agus leis an gConradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, níl an Danmhairg rannpháirteach i nglacadh an Chinnidh seo agus níl sí faoi cheangal aige ná faoi réir a chur i bhfeidhm.
 •Comhréireacht
 Dréachtaítear an togra seo de réir na gCinntí ón gComhairle a glacadh cheana maidir leis an ábhar céanna agus ní théann sé thar a bhfuil riachtanach chun an cuspóir atá aige a bhaint amach, is é sin gníomhaíocht chomhleanúnach de chuid an Aontais Eorpaigh a bhaineann le fuadach idirnáisiúnta leanaí trína áirithiú go nglacfaidh Ballstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh le haontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 laistigh de thréimhse ama áirithe.
 3.TORTHAÍ AR MHEASTÓIREACHTAÍ EX POST, AR CHOMHAIRLIÚCHÁIN LEIS NA PÁIRTITHE LEASMHARA AGUS AR MHEASÚNUITHE TIONCHAIR
 •Comhairliúcháin leis na páirtithe leasmhara
 Chuaigh an Coimisiún i gcomhairle le Ballstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh maidir lena dtoilteanas glacadh le haontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 agus thug tromlach mór de na Ballstáit tuairim fhabhrach ina leith sin.
 Léiríodh sa phlé a rinneadh ag cruinniú na Saineolaithe an 2 Iúil 2019 nach raibh aon agóid ó na Ballstáit, ach in aon chás amháin, i gcoinne aontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 a ghlacadh.
 •Bailiú agus úsáid saineolais
 Mar ullmhúchán le haghaidh chruinniú na Saineolaithe an 2 Iúil 2019 agus an cruinniú dá éis sin, bhí an Coimisiún i ndlúth‐theagmháil le Comhdháil na Háige um an Dlí Príobháideach Idirnáisiúnta agus le Toscaireacht an Aontais in Iamáice.
 •Measúnú tionchair
 I ndáil leis na 18 gCinneadh ón gComhairle a glacadh cheana idir 2015 agus 2019 maidir le glacadh le haontachas roinnt tríú Stát le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980, ní dhearnadh aon mheasúnú tionchair sonrach i bhfianaise chineál an ghnímh reachtaigh seo. Scrúdaíodh leibhéal cur chun feidhme an Choinbhinsiúin ag Iamáice, áfach, ag cruinniú na Saineolaithe an 2 Iúil 2019 ag a raibh ionadaíocht ag Ballstáit uile an Aontais.
 Tá Iamáice tiomanta go hiomlán don Choinbhinsiún a chur chun feidhme agus tá reachtaíocht iomchuí náisiúnta glactha aici lena n‐áirítear comhchruinniú dlínse. Tá Breitheamh Líonra na Háige ceaptha ag Iamáice chun oibriú leis an Údarás Lárnach ar bhearta cur chun feidhme. Maidir le cúrsaí oiliúna, tharla roinnt gníomhaíochtaí cheana féin amhail cruinnithe agus plé le breitheamh den Údarás Lárnach sna Stáit Aontaithe maidir le ról na cúirte i gcásanna fuadaigh sa Háig, pléití le hÚdarás Lárnach SAM, turas staidéir chuig SAM agus comhdháil sa Ghuáin. I mí Dheireadh Fómhair 2018 ghlac Iamáice páirt i ‘Cruinniú Mhuir Chairib maidir le Cosaint Idirnáisiúnta Leanaí – Cur Chun Feidhme agus Oibriú Choinbhinsiúin Cosanta Leanaí na Háige’ a d’eagraigh Comhdháil na Háige um Dhlí Príobháideach Idirnáisiúnta. Cuireadh oiliúint maidir leis an idirghabháil ar fáil do bhaill foirne a bhíonn ag plé le cásanna fuadaigh.
 Ghlac 13 Pháirtí Conarthach le haontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980, lena n‐áirítear an Eilvéis, an tSeapáin agus Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá.
 4.IMPLEACHTAÍ BUISÉADACHA
 Níl aon impleachtaí buiséadacha ag an gcinneadh atá beartaithe.
 5.EILIMINTÍ EILE
 •Pleananna cur chun feidhme, agus socruithe faireacháin, meastóireachta agus tuairiscithe
 Ós rud é nach mbaineann an togra ach leis an údarás a tugadh do Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh glacadh le haontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980, tá an faireachán maidir lena chur chun feidhme teoranta d’urramú na mBallstát i leith fhoclaíocht an dearbhaithe, don tréimhse ama chun an dearbhú a thaisceadh agus do thaisce an dearbhaithe a chur in iúl don Choimisiún, mar a bunaítear leis an gCinneadh ón gComhairle.
 2021/0179 (NLE)
 Togra le haghaidh
 CINNEADH ÓN gCOMHAIRLE
 lena n‐údaraítear do Bhallstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh, ar mhaithe leis an Aontas Eorpach, glacadh le haontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 ar na Gnéithe Sibhialta a bhaineann le Fuadach Idirnáisiúnta Leanaí
 TÁ COMHAIRLE AN AONTAIS EORPAIGH,
 Ag féachaint don Chonradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, agus go háirithe Airteagal 81(3) i gcomhar le hAirteagal 218(6) de,
 Ag féachaint don togra ón gCoimisiún Eorpach,
 Ag féachaint don tuairim ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa
 4
 ,
 De bharr an mhéid seo a leanas:
 (1)Tá sé socraithe ag an Aontas Eorpach gur ceann dá chuspóirí é cearta an linbh a chur chun cinn, mar a luaitear in Airteagal 3 den Chonradh ar an Aontas Eorpach. Is cuid riachtanach den bheartas sin iad bearta chun leanaí a chosaint ar aistriú éagórach nó ar choinneáil éagórach.
 (2)Ghlac an Chomhairle Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 2201/2003
 5
 (‘Rialachán IIa na Bruiséile’), a bhfuil sé d’aidhm aige leanaí a chosaint ar na héifeachtaí díobhálacha de dheasca aistrithe éagóracha nó coinneáil éagórach agus nósanna imeachta a bhunú chun a áirithiú go dtugtar leanaí ar ais go pras go dtí an Stát ina bhfuil gnáthchónaí orthu, agus chun cosaint na gceart rochtana agus na gceart coimeádta a áirithiú chomh maith.
 (3)Le Rialachán IIa na Bruiséile, comhlánaítear agus treisítear Coinbhinsiún na Háige an 25 Deireadh Fómhair 1980 ar na Gnéithe Sibhialta a bhaineann le Fuadach Idirnáisiúnta Leanaí (‘Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980’) lena mbunaítear, ar an leibhéal idirnáisiúnta, córas oibleagáidí agus comhair idir Stáit Chonarthacha agus idir údaráis lárnacha agus arb é is aidhm dó a áirithiú go ndéanfar leanaí a aistríodh nó a coinníodh go héagórach a thabhairt ar ais go pras.
 (4)Is páirtithe iad Ballstáit uile an Aontais i gCoinbhinsiún na Háige 1980.
 (5)Molann an tAontas do thríú Stáit aontú le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 agus tacaíonn sé le cur chun feidhme ceart Choinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 trí pháirt a ghlacadh, in éineacht leis na Ballstáit, inter alia, sna Coimisiúin Speisialta arna n‐eagrú ar bhonn rialta ag Comhdháil na Háige um an Dlí Príobháideach Idirnáisiúnta.
 (6)D’fhéadfadh sé gur chreat coiteann dlíthiúil infheidhme idir Ballstáit an Aontais agus tríú stáit é an réiteach is fearr ar chásanna íogaire a bhaineann le fuadach idirnáisiúnta leanaí.
 (7)Sonraítear i gCoinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 go mbeidh feidhm ag an gCoinbhinsiún idir an Stát aontach agus na Stáit Chonarthacha sin a mbeidh sé dearbhaithe acu go nglacann siad leis an aontachas.
 (8)Le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 ní cheadaítear d’eagraíochtaí réigiúnacha um chomhtháthú eacnamaíoch, amhail an tAontas, a bheith ina bpáirtithe ann. Dá bhrí sin, ní féidir leis an Aontas aontú leis an gCoinbhinsiún sin, ná ní fhéadfaidh sé dearbhú glactha a thaisceadh i ndáil le Stát aontach ach oiread.
 (9)De réir Thuairim 1/13 ó Cúirt Bhreithiúnais an Aontais Eorpaigh, is faoi inniúlacht sheachtrach eisiach an Aontais a thagann dearbhuithe glactha faoi Choinbhinsiún na Háige 1980.
 (10)An 24 Feabhra 2017 thaisc Iamáice a hionstraim aontachais le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980. Tháinig an Coinbhinsiún i bhfeidhm in Iamáice an 5 Bealtaine 2017.
 (11)Ba é ba chonclúid do mheasúnú ar an staid in Iamáice go bhfuil na Ballstáit in ann, ar mhaithe leis an Aontas, glacadh le haontachas Iamáice faoi théarmaí Choinbhinsiún na Háige 1980.
 (12)Ba cheart, dá bhrí sin, na Ballstáit a údarú a ndearbhú glactha le haontachas Iamáice a thaisceadh, ar mhaithe leis an Aontas i gcomhréir leis na téarmaí a leagtar amach sa Chinneadh seo.
 (13)Tá Éire faoi cheangal ag Rialachán IIa na Bruiséile agus, dá bhrí sin, tá sí rannpháirteach i nglacadh agus i gcur i bhfeidhm an Chinnidh seo.
 (14)I gcomhréir le hAirteagail 1 agus 2 de Phrótacal Uimh. 22 maidir le seasamh na Danmhairge, atá i gceangal leis an gConradh ar an Aontas Eorpach agus leis an gConradh ar Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, níl an Danmhairg rannpháirteach i nglacadh an Chinnidh seo agus níl sí faoi cheangal aige ná faoi réir a chur i bhfeidhm,
 TAR ÉIS AN CINNEADH SEO A GHLACADH:
 Airteagal 1
 Údaraítear leis seo do na Ballstáit glacadh le haontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige an 25 Deireadh Fómhair 1980 ar na Gnéithe Sibhialta a bhaineann le Fuadach Idirnáisiúnta Leanaí (‘Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980’) ar mhaithe leis an Aontas.
 Déanfaidh na Ballstáit, tráth nach déanaí ná ... [12 mhí tar éis dháta glactha an Chinnidh seo], dearbhú glactha a thaisceadh maidir le haontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980 ar mhaithe leis an Aontas, agus an fhoclaíocht seo a leanas ann:
 ‘Dearbhaíonn [ainm iomlán AN BHALLSTÁIT] go nglacann sí le haontachas Iamáice le Coinbhinsiún na Háige an 25 Deireadh Fómhair 1980 ar na Gnéithe Sibhialta a bhaineann le Fuadach Idirnáisiúnta Leanaí, i gcomhréir le Cinneadh (AE) 2021/... ón gComhairle
 Cuirfidh Ballstáit an Aontais Eorpaigh in iúl don Chomhairle agus don Choimisiún maidir lena ndearbhú glactha i ndáil le haontachas Iamáice a thaisceadh agus cuirfidh na Ballstáit téacs an dearbhaithe sin in iúl don Choimisiún laistigh de dhá mhí tar éis é a thaisceadh.
 Airteagal 2
 Tiocfaidh an Cinneadh seo i bhfeidhm an [...] lá tar éis lá a fhoilsithe in Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh.
 Airteagal 3
 Dírítear an Cinneadh seo chuig na Ballstáit.
 Arna dhéanamh sa Bhruiséil,
 Thar ceann na Comhairle
 An tUachtarán
 (1)
 Tá 18 gCinneadh ón gComhairle glactha cheana, lena n‐údaraítear do na Ballstáit glacadh le haontachas na dtíortha seo a leanas le Coinbhinsiún na Háige 1980: Andóra (Cinneadh 2015/1023 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 15 Meitheamh 2015); Na Séiséil (Cinneadh 2015/2354 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 10 Nollaig 2015); An Rúis (Cinneadh 2015/2355 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 10 Nollaig 2015); An Albáin (Cinneadh 2015/2356 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 10 Nollaig 2015); Singeapór (Cinneadh 2015/1024 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 15 Meitheamh 2015); Maracó (Cinneadh 2015/2357 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 10 Nollaig 2015); An Airméin (Cinneadh 2015/2358 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 10 Nollaig 2015); Poblacht an Cóiré (Cinneadh 2016/2313 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 8 Nollaig 2016), an Chasacstáin (Cinneadh 2016/2311 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 8 Nollaig 2016), Peiriú (Cinneadh 2016/2312 ón gComhairle arna ghlacadh an 8 Nollaig 2016); An tSeoirsia agus An Afraic Theas (Cinneadh (AE) 2017/2462 ón gComhairle an 18 Nollaig 2017); An tSile, an Íoslainn agus na Bahámaí (Cinneadh (AE) 2017/2424 ón gComhairle an 18 Nollaig 2017); Panama, Uragua, an Cholóim agus an tSalvadóir (Cinneadh (AE) 2017/2464 ón gComhairle an 18 Nollaig 2017); San Mairíne (Cinneadh (AE) 2017/2463 ón gComhairle an 18 Nollaig 2017); An Phoblacht Dhoiminiceach (Cinneadh (AE) 2019/305 ón gComhairle an 18 Feabhra 2019); Eacuadór agus an Úcráin (Cinneadh (AE) 2019/306 ón gComhairle an 18 Feabhra 2019); Hondúras (Cinneadh (AE) 2019/307 ón gComhairle an 18 Feabhra 2019); An Bhealarúis agus an Úisbéiceastáin (Cinneadh (AE) 2019/308 ón gComhairle an 18 Feabhra 2019).
 (2)
 Treoir 2008/52/CE ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 21 Bealtaine 2008 maidir le gnéithe áirithe den idirghabháil in ábhair shibhialta agus ábhair thráchtála (IO L 136, 24 Bealtaine 2008, lch. 3);
 (3)
 https://www.hcch.net/en/publications‐and‐studies/details4/?pid=5568&dtid=3
 (4)
 IO C , , lch. .
 (5)
 Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 2201/2003 ón gComhairle an 27 Samhain 2003 maidir le dlínse agus le haithint agus forfheidhmiú breithiúnas in ábhair maidir le pósadh agus ábhair maidir le freagracht tuismitheora, lena n‐aisghairtear Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 1347/2000 (IO L 338, 23.12.2003, lch. 1).


text:
 7.4.2016
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea
 L 93/46
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT TAŻ-ŻEE
 Nru 30/2015
 tal-25 ta' Frar 2015
 li temenda l-Anness XX (Ambjent) tal-Ftehim ŻEE [2016/518]
 IL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT TAŻ-ŻEE,
 Wara li kkunsidra l-Ftehim dwar iż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea (“il-Ftehim ŻEE”), u b'mod partikolari l-Artikolu 98 tiegħu,
 Billi:
 (1)
 Id-Deċiżjoni ta' Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni 2011/850/UE tat-12 ta' Diċembru 2011 li tistabbilixxi regoli għad-Direttivi 2004/107/KE u 2008/50/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill fir-rigward tal-iskambju reċiproku ta' informazzjoni u r-rappurtar dwar il-kwalità tal-arja ambjentali (1) għandha tiġi inkorporata fil-Ftehim ŻEE.
 (2)
 Id-Deċiżjoni ta' Implimentazzjoni 2011/850/UE tħassar id-Deċiżjonijiet tal-Kummissjoni 2004/107/KE (2) u 2004/461/KE (3), li huma inkorporati fil-Ftehim ŻEE u li konsegwentement għandhom jitħassru taħt il-Ftehim ŻEE.
 (3)
 Għalhekk, l-Anness XX tal-Ftehim ŻEE għandu jiġi emendat skont dan,
 ADOTTA DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:
 Artikolu 1
 L-Anness XX tal-Ftehim ŻEE jiġi emendat kif ġej:
 1.
 Il-punt li ġej jiddaħħal wara l-punt 14c (id-Direttiva 2008/50/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill):
 “14ca.
 32011 D 0850: Id-Deċiżjoni ta' Implimentazzjoni tal-Kummissjoni 2011/850/UE tat-12 ta' Diċembru 2011 li tistabbilixxi regoli għad-Direttivi 2004/107/KE u 2008/50/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill fir-rigward tal-iskambju reċiproku ta' informazzjoni u r-rappurtar dwar il-kwalità tal-arja ambjentali (ĠU L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 86).”
 2.
 It-test tal-punti 21ai (id-Deċiżjoni tal-Kummissjoni 2004/224/KE) u 21aj (id-Deċiżjoni tal-Kummissjoni 2004/461/KE) jitħassar.
 Artikolu 2
 It-testi tad-Deċiżjoni ta' Implimentazzjoni 2011/850/UE bil-lingwa Iżlandiża u b'dik Norveġiża, li se ppubblikati fis-Suppliment taż-ŻEE ta' Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea, ikunu awtentiċi.
 Artikolu 3
 Din id-Deċiżjoni tidħol fis-seħħ fis-26 ta' Frar 2015, dment li jkunu saru n-notifiki kollha skont l-Artikolu 103(1) tal-Ftehim dwar iż-ŻEE (*).
 Artikolu 4
 Din id-Deċiżjoni tiġi ppubblikata fit-Taqsima taż-ŻEE u fis-Suppliment taż-ŻEE ta' Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
 Magħmul fi Brussell, il-25 ta' Frar 2015.
 Għall-Kumitat Konġunt taż-ŻEE
 Il-President
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) ĠU L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 86.
 (2) ĠU L 68, 6.3.2004, p. 27 (Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti: Kap. 15, Vol. 008, p. 203).
 (3) ĠU L 156, 30.4.2004, p. 78 (Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti: Kap. 15, Vol. 008, p. 418).
 (*) L-ebda rekwiżiti kostituzzjonali ma huma indikati.


text:
 14.2.2022
 GA
 Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh
 C 73/3
 Breithiúnas na Cúirte (an Ceathrú Dlísheomra) an 9 Nollaig 2021 (iarraidh ar réamhrialú ón Bundesgerichtshof – an Ghearmáin) – Pro Rauchfrei e.V. v JS e.K.
 (Cás C-370/20)
 (2022/C 73/05)
 Teanga an cháis: an Ghearmáinis
 Níl san Iris Oifigiúil seo ach na fógraí maidir le cásanna ar cuireadh clabhsúr leo roimh an 1 Eanáir 2022 agus mar sin níl leagan Gaeilge ar fáil.


type: wikipedia

text:
Catherine Örmen est conservatrice du patrimoine et une historienne de la mode.
 Elle a publié plusieurs ouvrages de références sur ce sujet. Notamment Comment regarder la Mode, Histoire de la Silhouette, Grand prix 2010 du livre de mode de l'université de Lyon, et L'Art de la Mode prix coup de cœur du jury du Drouot des amateurs du livre d'art, 2015.
 Biographie
 Après une année à Sciences Po Paris, Catherine Örmen s'oriente en suivant son en entrant à l'École du Louvre tout en suivant la formation au stylisme du Studio Berçot. Après avoir obtenu les diplômes de muséologie et de deuxième cycle, elle se présente au concours de la toute nouvelle École du patrimoine ce qui lui permet d'accéder au titre de conservateur du patrimoine.
 En 1988, Catherine Örmen est chargée, en tant que conservateur du patrimoine, de créer un musée de la mode à Marseille. Ce projet de Maryline Bellieud-Vigouroux de l'Institut Mode Méditerranée lui permet d'organiser diverses manifestations tout en préparant l'ouverture du musée, puis de poursuivre après son ouverture en 1989 jusqu'à son départ en 1995. Cette première expérience professionnelle lui permet d'aller à Paris prendre le poste de conservateur des collections du au Musée de la mode et du textile. Elle doit notamment préparer le fonds pour une réouverture de ce musée. En parallèle, elle continue à participer dans des ouvrages et catalogues. En 1998, Catherine Örmen, quitte le musée pour s'orienter vers une carrière indépendante.
 Elle écrit plusieurs ouvrages sur l'histoire de la mode tout en continuant à participer à des œuvres collectives, enseigne l'histoire de la mode et est ponctuellement commissaire d’événements et d'expositions, comme celle intitulée Marseille M la Mode, organisée en 2013 à Marseille par la Maison Méditerranéenne des Métiers de la Mode (MMMM).
 En 2015, Catherine Örmen publie, aux éditions Citadelles et Mazenod, un , de , intitulé L'Art de la Mode. Il est notamment, remarqué par le jury du Drouot des amateurs du livre d'art qui lui attribue son prix coup de cœur, et par Catherine Millet qui souligne, dans Art Press, le effectué par l'auteur.
 Prix
 2010, Grand prix du livre de mode par l'université de la Mode (Université Lumière-Lyon-II), pour Comment regarder la Mode, Histoire de la Silhouette aux éditions Hazan
 2015, prix coup de cœur du jury du Drouot des amateurs du livre d'art, pour son ouvrage L'art de la mode paru chez Citadelles & Mazenod.
 Commissaire d'exposition
 Sélection d'expositions dont le commissaire est Catherine Örmen :
 1994 : Corps drapés autour de la Méditerranée, Musée de la mode, Marseille,
 2007 : L'étoffe des héroïnes, Petit Palais, Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris,
 2012 : Lingerie française, , Espace Pierre-Cardin, Paris. Cette exposition devient ensuite , elle est présentée la même année à Londres, Dubaï et Shanghai, puis, en 2013 à New York, Moscou, Berlin et Toronto, en 2014 à Tokyo et Barcelonne. Elle termine son périple au pavillon français de l'Exposition universelle de 2015 à Milan.
 Publications
 Ouvrages
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 ,
 .
 Articles
 Notes et références
 Voir aussi
 Bibliographie
 .
 Interview
 ,
 .
 Articles connexes
 Histoire de la mode en France
 Maison Mode Méditerranée (nouveau nom de la Maison Méditerranéenne des Métiers de la Mode)
 Musée de la mode et du textile
 Liens externes
 Histoire de la mode
 Conservateur français de musée
 Commissaire d'exposition française
 Élève de l'École du Louvre
 Date de naissance non renseignée (XXe siècle)


text:
 9.2.2015
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 C 46/36
 Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing ingediend door de Juzgado Mercantil no 3 de Barcelona (Spanje) op 9 december 2014 — Nuria Robirosa Carrera en César Romera Navales/Banco Popular Español, S.A.
 (Zaak C-570/14)
 (2015/C 046/42)
 Procestaal: Spaans
 Verwijzende rechter
 Juzgado Mercantil no 3 de Barcelona
 Partijen in het hoofdgeding
 Verzoekende partijen: Nuria Robirosa Carrera en César Romera Navales
 Verwerende partij: Banco Popular Español, S.A.
 Prejudiciële vragen
 1)
 Vormt artikel 43 van de Spaanse wet op de burgerlijke rechtsvordering, dat de rechter verbiedt om aan partijen een mogelijke schorsing van de civiele procedure voor te stellen wanneer een andere rechter een prejudiciële vraag aan het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie heeft gesteld, niet een duidelijke beperking van het bepaalde in artikel 7 van richtlijn 93/13/EEG (1) met betrekking tot de plicht van de lidstaten om erop toe te zien dat er, in het belang van de consumenten alsmede van de concurrerende verkopers, doeltreffende en geschikte middelen bestaan om een eind te maken aan het gebruik van oneerlijke bedingen in overeenkomsten tussen consumenten en verkopers?
 2)
 Vormt artikel 721, lid 2, van de Spaanse wet op de burgerlijke rechtsvordering, dat de rechter verbiedt om ambtshalve voorlopige maatregelen voor te stellen of te nemen in individuele procedures waarin wordt verzocht om nietigverklaring van een algemene voorwaarde op grond van oneerlijkheid, niet een duidelijke beperking van het bepaalde in artikel 7 van richtlijn 93/13/EEG met betrekking tot de plicht van de lidstaten om erop toe te zien dat er, in het belang van de consumenten alsmede van de concurrerende verkopers, doeltreffende en geschikte middelen bestaan om een eind te maken aan het gebruik van oneerlijke bedingen in overeenkomsten tussen consumenten en verkopers?
 3)
 Moeten de gevolgen van de voorlopige maatregelen die hetzij ambtshalve, hetzij op verzoek van een partij kunnen worden genomen in het kader van een procedure waarin een individuele actie wordt ingesteld, niet worden gehandhaafd totdat er een definitieve uitspraak is gedaan hetzij in de individuele procedure, hetzij in een collectieve procedure die interfereert met het instellen van individuele acties, teneinde te garanderen dat sprake is van de in artikel 7 van de richtlijn genoemde doeltreffende en geschikte middelen?
 (1) Richtlijn van de Raad van 5 april 1993 betreffende oneerlijke bedingen in consumentenovereenkomsten (PB L 95, blz. 29).


jurisdiction: US

text:
This is an appeal from the rulings of the Court below on the admissibility of evidence offered at the trial of issues sent from the Orphans' Court of Anne Arundel County on a caveat to the last will and testament of Thomas P. Orme. Three issues were sent to the Circuit Court, but the first and third were abandoned, which left as the only one for trial: "Was the said Thomas P. Orme at the time of the signing of said paper writing purporting to be his last will and testament of sound and disposing mind and capable of executing a valid deed or contract?" The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the caveators and the appeal was taken by the executor named in the will. There are thirteen bills of exception in the record, but as the answers to the questions in the ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth are not given we cannot consider them, for when a question is permitted to be asked, we cannot determine whether it was prejudicial to the party objecting, unless the answer appears in the record. It has, therefore, been held in a number of cases that this Court will not review the ruling of the Court below when the answer to a question, which has been allowed, is not stated. Among others areLawson v. Price, 45 Md. 133, and Devoe v. Singleton,80 Md. 68. *Page 445
 It was also contended on the part of the appellees that the first and third exceptions could not be considered, because the answers to the questions were given in the second and fourth bills of exception, respectively, and they were not sufficiently connected. It is true that bills of exception "must be considered wholly distinct from each other, unless they contain sufficient words of connection," Armstrong v. Thruston, 11 Md. 157. But these were sufficiently connected. The first states the question objected to, that it was overruled and that the ruling of the Court was excepted to and then concludes in the usual way. The second begins by stating "The witness then, in answer to the said interrogatory excepted to, replied," etc. The third and fourth are connected substantially in the same way. Under the decision in Rowe v. B. O.R.R. Co., 82 Md. 493, and the cases there cited, those bills of exceptions were sufficiently connected to permit us to refer to the second to ascertain what was the answer to the question in the first and to the fourth to find the answer to the one in the third. We must, therefore, consider the eight bills of exception.
 Richard P. Sellman testified that he had known Thomas P. Orme for fifty-five years, he went to school and college with him, their houses were about a mile apart, and he saw the testator every day or two and was on friendly terms with him. After speaking of some incidents in his life, his characteristics, etc., he was asked, "Did Thomas P. Orme ever make any admissions to you as to his treatment of his wife on the first night after they were married," which was objected to and is the subject of the first bill of exceptions. The answer to the question; which we need not state, reflected more on the character of the testator than the condition of his mind. There is nothing in the record to show whether what he said was true or untrue, but if true, it indicated that he was a coarse, vulgar man, and, if he was, it would not necessarily throw any light on his mental condition. But if he was not a man of that character, it would reflect upon the question at issue, as a man of perfectly sound mind would not likely speak of *Page 446
 such things concerning his wife, unless he was exceedingly coarse and vulgar, if not depraved. But it was possible that the question asked might have called for an answer that would have been relevant, as his treatment to his wife might have been such as would indicate that his mind was not sound at that time, and, as the Court could not know what answer would be given, it was not error to permit the question to be asked. Practically the same question was asked another witness, which is presented in the sixth exception, and what we have said is likewise applicable to it.
 The witness Sellman, after answering the question embraced in the first bill of exceptions, stated that he spent days and nights at the house of the witness and they would also meet at a store, which was the postoffice. He was then asked, "From your knowledge of Thomas P. Orme, do you consider him to have been competent to execute a valid deed or contract?" which was objected to, but the Court permitted it to be answered, and that ruling is presented by the second bill of exceptions. The form of that question is objectionable. The issue before the jury was whether the testator was of sound and disposing mind and capable of executing a valid deed or contract, at the time of executing
 the paper writing purporting to be his last will and testament. The will is not in the record and its date is not given, except in the issues it is said to be dated the 20th day of December, 1890. Nor does the record show when he died, but the issues were framed on the 8th of October, 1900. The will was therefore apparently made about ten years before the death of the testator. A witness who knew a testator for fifty-five years might be of the opinion that he was not capable of making a valid deed or contract at some particular period or periods of his life, while he might, in his opinion, have been perfectly competent at other times. It cannot be necessarily inferred from the testimony that the witness considered Orme incapable of making a valid deed or contract throughout the whole time he knew him, for a part of the time he was at school and two years he was at St. John's College with him. Then he said the testator "had a *Page 447
 remarkable memory for horses; he could tell you the pedigree of every horse he had ever heard of; that the testator was himself a breeder of horses and dealt in horses." So it is not likely, that during all that time he considered him incompetent, and it is impossible to say from the question and answer that he referred to the time the will was made, or what time he did have reference to. It might result in great injustice in many cases to permit a question of that kind to be asked without fixing any time. InTownshend v. Townshend, 7 Gill, 10, cited by the appellees, the question was asked of a witness, who had known the testator for twenty-five years, as to his mental condition "during all the period of the witness' acquaintance with him." And our predecessors held that it ought to have been allowed. But there the witness' opinion during all the period of his acquaintance with the testator was asked for.
 The fourth exception presents a similar question, but is still more objectionable. A witness had been asked to relate an incident that had occurred about four years after the date of the will, which he was permitted to do; and "the counsel for the caveators then asked the witness if, in his opinion, the testator was able to make a valid deed or contract?" Although the witness had known the testator for over fifty years and spoke of a number of peculiar things he had done, one of them in 1889, it is impossible to say that he understood this question to refer to the date of the will or to what time it did refer, and following immediately after the inquiry about the incident which happened four years after that date, it might well have been understood by the witness to refer to the time of that incident and not to the date of the will, but no time was named. It is true, that on cross-examination the time might have been ascertained, but the question asked was not relevant, unless it reflected upon the testamentary capacity of the testator at the time he executed his will, and to permit a question, thus indefinite as to time, is calculated to mislead a fair witness and to give one who is not so, an opportunity to impose on the jury and it might mislead the jury. As reflecting *Page 448
 upon the mental condition of a party at the time of the act in question, evidence of the condition of his mind at other times, both before and after the act, may be admitted, but only for the purpose of enabling the jury to determine its condition at the time of the act. Although opinions of witnesses who are not experts are admissible under proper circumstances, it is a character of evidence that should be very carefully guarded and is liable to do great harm unless it is. A question calling for an opinion of that nature should be so framed that there can be no doubt as to the time it refers to and if it is not it should not be permitted to be propounded.
 These questions are also objected to on the ground that sufficient foundation had not been laid to show that these witnesses were competent to express opinions on the subject of the testamentary capacity of the testator. There is unquestionably great danger in allowing witnesses to express opinions on such subjects unless they fully measure up to the standard required by law to make them competent to do so. Cases resulting in setting aside wills are apparently much more frequent than formerly and it may be owing in some measure to the fact that witnesses have been permitted to express their opinions too freely as to the capacity of testators. Jurors are sometimes greatly influenced by the opinions of witnesses they happen to know, and in whose judgment they have confidence, and such an opinion should not be based on insufficient evidence. There were only two incidents related by Mr. Sellman which could possibly indicate that the testator's mind may have been affected. One of them was that the testator asked the witness to shoot him, and the witness explained the transaction as follows: "I shot at him with both barrels; the shot hitting about six inches above his head; he never flinched but said, `Dick Sellman, I believe you are fool enough to kill me.'" The latter remark certainly showed that the testator did not suppose that the witness would shoot at him and it would be rather a partial conclusion to reach to say that a party who would be thus shot at was mentally weak, but the one who did the shooting was of sound mind *Page 449
 and capable of passing on the sanity of the other. Then he said that a year or two before that "he stabbed himself with a knife, and about a year after that he tried it again." But that was "about the year 1865 or 1866" — a quarter of a century before the will was made, and there is nothing to show that he continued in that condition. It was said in McElwee v. Ferguson,43 Md. 479, "But strange and unaccountable as the phenomenon may appear to most persons, the act of self-destruction cannot be judicially regarded as a proof per se of insanity. After all it is but a fact, together with all other facts in the case, from which the Court or the jury are to determine the testamentary capacity of the testator, not at the time of committing suicide, but at the time of the execution of the will in question." In that case the will was executed the day before testator committed suicide, but the Court sustained it. Such being the law, the mere fact that a man attempted to commit suicide twenty-five years before he made his will is not sufficient evidence to justify any one in reaching a conclusion that he was not, at the time of the execution of the will, capable of executing a valid deed or contract. If that be insufficient in law to declare a man insane, then a witness should not be permitted to give his opinion from that act alone. There is nothing else stated by this witness which tends to show insanity, for, as we have seen, the expression used in connection with the shooting incident shows that the testator in reality had no idea that the witness would shoot him, and the only other statement of the witness that could possibly have any bearing on the subject is that "he had noticed peculiarities about the testator." That is immediately followed by the statement of his knowledge of the pedigree of horses and the shooting and stabbing incidents. Apparently they were the peculiarities referred to, but if every man about whom some person, who had known him all his life, "had noticed peculiarities" is to be deemed incapable of making wills but few of them could stand such a test. It is true that a witness is not required to mention everything upon which his opinion is founded, but when there is nothing stated by him *Page 450
 which is sufficient in law to justify such an opinion he should not be permitted to express it. A non-expert witness must not only show that he was acquainted with the facts, but he must state the facts, as far as he can, and disclose what has led to his conclusions. We do not mean that he must quote the language or give every incident that transpired upon which he bases his opinion, for that would often be impossible, especially for a witness who knew the party for many years, but when the whole testimony of the witness fails to show any facts or fact to justify the conclusion reached by him, he should not be permitted to express an opinion. With the exception of the incidents we have mentioned there is nothing in the testimony of this witness, as given in the record, which could make the sanity of this man a proper subject for argument, much less justify the conclusion that he was insane. Under the law the presumption is that a testator is sane and no one not an expert, or witness to the will, is competent to express an opinion contrary to that presumption unless he first states facts which are sufficient to base an opinion on. We think therefore there was error to permit this question to be asked of the witness Sellman, because he did not show himself to be qualified to answer it.
 If the question propounded to witness Lee had been confined to the specific times referred to there was evidence given by him which was sufficient to let him express an opinion. On one occasion Orme met him on the road, grabbed his horse and asked him what he was doing for his soul; he told the witness that he, Orme, was converted and asked the witness to get off his horse and pray. When witness afterwards spoke of the incident to him he denied it. Then again he asked the witness to kill him; that he would make a will leaving everything to him. When the witness asked him "what good would that do me, I would be hung," he replied that he would sign a paper exonerating him from blame and drew up such a paper and signed it. When the witness refused to kill him he burst out crying and said he had nothing to live for. That conduct was not such as we usually expect *Page 451
 from a rational man, and as the appearance, demeanor, etc., of Orme, and the impressions that would be made on the witness by such conduct could not otherwise be fully disclosed to the jury, the opinion of the witness could be given. If, therefore, the question had been so framed as to apply to such times, it would have been competent, but it was not, because it did not show to what time it referred.
 We do not see any reversible error in the third exception. The question was asked if the witness remembered an incident that occurred about four years after the date of the will. As we have said, testimony may be offered reflecting upon the mental condition of the testator before and after the execution of the will, so that the jury can determine from all the facts as to his mental condition at that time. There was nothing in the answer that materially reflected upon the question, unless it was that he told the witness that he had been poisoned. If that was not true, but was merely a delusion, it had some bearing on the subject in controversy. The record does not show whether or not it was true, but the question might have called for an answer that was material and the Court could not tell what the answer would be. The proper practice is when a question is asked that may call for an answer which is relevant and material but the answer given is irrelevant and improper, to then ask the Court to strike out the question and answer, and if it be calculated to do harm the Court should instruct the jury not to consider it. That may sometimes result in getting something before jurors which they ought not to hear, but if the question be in proper form and may be relevant the trial Court cannot assume that the answer will not be.
 Nor does the fifth exception present any reversible error. The witness was asked whether he had any talks with the testator on the subject of religion, the Bible and death. Evidence as to religious belief is not generally admissible, and if it refers to opinions on that subject which rational men might hold, it is not competent and is calculated to do harm. It might result in jurors being influenced by the fact that the testator had *Page 452
 different views from their own. But the witness merely replied that the testator was very fond of talking on those subjects and we cannot see that any injury was done by the question, even if it be conceded to be irrelevant. Under some circumstances such questions might be relevant. For example, in the seventh exception, the witness was asked what the testator would say on the subject of religion, and he replied "that sometimes the testator would believe in God, and the next day he would not." That would show such a vacillating mind as would be proper to be submitted with other facts in an inquiry of this kind.
 In the eighth exception the question was whether any of the conversations the witness had with the testator related to death. He replied, "That the testator would say in such conversations that he wished he was dead, or could die." That of itself would not prove insanity, but it was a circumstance which showed the state of mind the witness was in, which might have reflected on other subjects. As we have seen, suicide is not itself evidence of insanity, but it is a fact to be submitted to the jury. If a man is anxious to die he is in a condition that does not usually prevail with men and might, in some cases, indicate a condition of mind that together with other circumstances, might reflect upon his testamentary capacity. A particular fact may, of itself, be weak and inconclusive testimony, but if it is anywise pertinent to the issue, it is generally admissible in connection with other evidence in the cause which it may help to make clearer or in some way apply to.
 For error in the rulings included in the second and fourth exceptions the case must be reversed.
 Rulings reversed, cause remanded and new trial awarded.
 (Decided June 13th, 1901.) *Page 453


text:
 2.12.2006
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 294/28
 Prasība, kas celta 2006. gada 21. septembrī — Eiropas Kopienu Komisija pret Spānijas Karalisti
 (Lieta C-392/06)
 (2006/C 294/49)
 Tiesvedības valoda — spāņu
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītāja: Eiropas Kopienu Komisija (pārstāvji — N. Yerrell un R. Vidal Puig)
 Atbildētāja: Spānijas Karaliste
 Prasītājas prasījumi:
 —
 atzīt, ka, nepieņemot normatīvus un administratīvus aktus, kas vajadzīgi, lai izpildītu Eiropas Parlamenta un Padomes 2002. gada 11. marta Direktīvas 2002/15/EK par darba laika organizēšanu personām, kas ir autotransporta apkalpes locekļi (1), prasības, vai jebkurā gadījumā nedarot šos aktus zināmus Komisijai, Spānijas Karaliste nav izpildījusi pienākumus, ko tai uzliek šī direktīva;
 —
 piespriest Spānijas Karalistei atlīdzināt tiesāšanās izdevumus.
 Pamati un galvenie argumenti
 Termiņš Direktīvas 2002/15/EK transponēšanai valsts tiesībās beidzās 2005. gada 23. martā.
 (1) OV L 80, 35. lpp.


text:
(1153) Wallenbergia – planetoida z grupy pasa głównego asteroid okrążająca Słońce w ciągu 3 lat i 94 dni w średniej odległości 2,2 au. Została odkryta 5 września 1924 roku w Obserwatorium Simejiz na górze Koszka na Półwyspie Krymskim przez Siergieja Bielawskiego. Nazwa planetoidy pochodzi od Georga Jamesa Wallenberga, niemieckiego matematyka. Przed nadaniem nazwy planetoida nosiła oznaczenie tymczasowe (1153) 1924 SL.
 Zobacz też
 lista planetoid 1001–2000
 lista ponumerowanych planetoid
 Przypisy
 Bibliografia
 Linki zewnętrzne
 Planetoidy pasa głównego
 Nazwane planetoidy
 Obiekty astronomiczne odkryte w 1924


type: other

text:
Domare Kavanaugh ställs i strålkastarljuset - Eskilstuna Kuriren
 Brett Kavanugh anländer till den amerikanska senatens utfrågning. Foto: J Scott Applewhite
 En kvinna protesterar mot Brett Kavanaugh. Foto: Jacquelyn Martin
 Publicerad 5 september 2018 01:47
 Trump om HD-utfrågning: Sorgligt att se
 Redan första dagen av utfrågningen av president Trumps HD-kandidat blev en tumultartad illustration av de politiska splittringarna i Washington. När Brett Kavanaugh själv tog till orda försökte han gjuta olja på vågorna.
 Demokraterna i senatens juridiska utskott ville redan från början skjuta upp utfrågningen, för att få tid att granska dokument om och av Kavanaugh, vilket är brukligt. De påpekade ilsket att de inte fått sedvanlig möjlighet att sätta sig in i dokumenten.
 — Det här är ett förhör om vem som ska få sitta i vårt lands högsta juridiska ämbete, jag yrkar på att vi följer våra lagar om hur det ska gå till och att vi ajournerar utfrågningen, sade den demokratiska senatorn Kamala Harris från Kalifornien.
 Vid flera tillfällen fick också demonstranter ledas ut ur möteslokalen av väktare.
 Utskottets ordförande, republikanen Chuck Grassley, sade nej till kraven på att pausa utfrågningen, men lät på det stora hela de upprörda demokraterna hållas.
 Som stenansikte
 Det dröjde ganska många timmar innan Kavanaugh själv, som mestadels suttit som ett stenansikte, kunde ta till orda. USA:s högsta domstol "får aldrig, aldrig ses som ett partiskt organ", sade han.
 — Om jag godkänns till Högsta domstolen kommer jag att ha ett öppet sinne i vartenda fall, försäkrade han.
 — Jag kommer att ge lika rätt till fattiga som till rika.
 President Donald Trump, som nominerat Kavanaugh till posten, är inte lika försonlig i sina kommentarer. Förhandlingarna i utskottet "är verkligen en uppvisning i hur elak, arg och förkastlig den andra sidan är", skriver han på Twitter. "Så sorgligt att se!"
 Abort och vapen
 Och då väntas ändå de mer skarpa ämnena först på onsdagen, den andra dagen av fyra. Det lär handla bland annat om abort, samkönade äktenskap och vapenlagar. Detta eftersom Kavanaugh är tänkt att efterträda Anthony Kennedy, som har varit den vågmästardomare som avgjort när Högsta domstolen stått och vägt i känsliga frågor.
 Bland de övriga domarna anses fyra vara liberala och fyra konservativa. Den 53-årige Kavanaugh är en så kallad originalist, som är för en strikt texttolkning. Om han godkänns får HD – vars uppdrag är att avgöra huruvida lagar och domar är i enlighet med grundlagen – en mer tydligt konservativ tyngd, sannolikt i många år framöver.
 Uppfyller löfte
 Kavanaugh har de senaste åren varit verksam vid en appellationsdomstol i District of Columbia. Tidigare har han bland annat jobbat för Anthony Kennedy samt i Vita huset under George W Bush. Han har även arbetat för den särskilde åklagaren Kenneth Starr, som utredde president Bill Clinton.
 Godkänns Kavanaugh uppfyller presidenten i än högre grad sitt vallöfte att tillsätta konservativa domare i landets domstolar. Det var viktigt för många av de väljare som i övrigt inte lockades av den kontroversielle kandidaten Trump.
 Högsta domstolen har sitt säte i USA:s huvudstad Washington DC. Den inrättades 1789 och är den dömande makt som ska balansera den verkställande (presidentämbetet) och den lagstiftande (kongressen) makten. I praktiken avgör domstolen huruvida lagar och domar är i enlighet med USA:s grundlag som skrevs 1787 och började träda i kraft efter att ha ratificerats 1788 samt dess 27 tillägg. Bland tilläggen finns den så kallade Bill of Rights (de tio första tilläggen) som ratificerades 1791.
 Domstolen ska ha nio medlemmar som utses av presidenten på livstid. De kan dock pensionera sig på egen begäran samt i teorin avsättas genom riksrätt. Domarna måste godkännas av en majoritet av senatens medlemmar.


text:
Avainsana: mikko sipola
 Musiikki11.01.2013Voice of Finland- voittaja opastaa uusia kisaajia: "Tätä en silloin tajunnut"Viihde05.10.2012Voice of Finland -voittajaa kohtasi suuri suruMusiikki20.09.2012Mikko Sipola jäi tyhjän päälle - levy-yhtiö näytti ovea?Musiikki05.07.2012VOF-voittaja Mikko Sipola: Voittajalle eniten p*skaa käteenMusiikki12.05.2012Murskatulos: Idols-Diandra jättää Voice of Finland -voittajan varjoonsa!Musiikki25.04.2012Mikko Sipola, mitä jos levysi floppaa?Musiikki24.04.2012Voice of Finland -voittaja: Keikkakalenteri ei ole täynnäMusiikki24.04.2012Voice of Finland -voittaja avautuu tähtivalmentajista: Ihmiset ovat saaneet väärän kuvanMusiikki21.04.2012IS: Voice of Finlandin voittaja Mikko Sipola omisti voittonsa vaimolleenMusiikki17.04.2012Mitä tapahtui Elastiselle? Musiikki17.04.2012Mitä tapahtui Elastiselle?Musiikki20.09.2012Mikko Sipola jäi tyhjän päälle - levy-yhtiö näytti ovea?Musiikki11.01.2013Voice of Finland- voittaja opastaa uusia kisaajia: "Tätä en silloin tajunnut"Viihde05.10.2012Voice of Finland -voittajaa kohtasi suuri suruMusiikki24.04.2012Voice of Finland -voittaja avautuu tähtivalmentajista: Ihmiset ovat saaneet väärän kuvanMusiikki05.07.2012VOF-voittaja Mikko Sipola: Voittajalle eniten p*skaa käteenMusiikki21.04.2012IS: Voice of Finlandin voittaja Mikko Sipola omisti voittonsa vaimolleenMusiikki12.05.2012Murskatulos: Idols-Diandra jättää Voice of Finland -voittajan varjoonsa!Musiikki24.04.2012Voice of Finland -voittaja: Keikkakalenteri ei ole täynnäMusiikki25.04.2012Mikko Sipola, mitä jos levysi floppaa? Etusivu


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22001D0055
 Afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalg nr. 55/2001 af 18. maj 2001 om ændring af bilag VII (gensidig anerkendelse af faglige kvalifikationer) til EØS-aftalen
 EF-Tidende nr. L 165 af 21/06/2001 s. 0060 - 0061
 Afgørelse truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalgnr. 55/2001af 18. maj 2001om ændring af bilag VII (gensidig anerkendelse af faglige kvalifikationer) 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 VII til aftalen blev ændret ved afgørelse nr. 89/2000 truffet af Det Blandede EØS-udvalg den 27. oktober 2000(1).(2) I overensstemmelse med tilpasning a), punkt II, stk. 1, i punkt 1a i bilag VII til aftalen (Rådets direktiv 92/51/EØF af 18. juni 1992 om anden generelle ordning for anerkendelse af erhvervsuddannelser til supplering af direktiv 89/48/EØF(2)) har Norge anmodet om, at der i forbindelse med aftalen foretages ændringer i bilag C til direktiv 92/51/EØF.(3) Da der er indført ændringer i uddannelsesstrukturen for erhvervsfaglærere, anlægsgartnere og tandteknikere, skal førstnævnte fag tilføjes i bilag C og sidstnævnte to fag slettes i samme bilag.(4) Arbejdsgruppen, der er nedsat i forbindelse med tilpasning a), punkt II, stk. 1, litra b), under punkt 1a i bilag VII til aftalen (direktiv 92/51/EØF) har afgivet en positiv udtalelse om Norges anmodning -TRUFFET FØLGENDE AFGØRELSE:Artikel 1I tilpasning b) b) under punkt 1a i bilag VII til aftalen (Rådets direktiv 92/51/EØF) ændres afsnittet, der begynder med ordene "I Norge" og slutter med ordene "... mestertitlen", til følgende: "I Norgefølgende uddannelse:- erhvervsfaglærer ('yrkesfaglærer')der svarer til et samlet uddannelsesforløb på 18 til 20 år, heraf ni til ti års primærskole og sekundærskole på det nedre trin og enten mindst tre til fire års lærlingeuddannelse eller to års uddannelse på erhvervsfaglige skoler på det øvre trin af det sekundære uddannelsesniveau og to års lærlingeuddannelse, der fører frem til et lære- eller svendebrev, mindst fire års faglig erfaring som håndværker, mindst et års yderligere teoretisk håndværksuddannelse og gennemførelse af et års uddannelsesprogram i uddannelsesteori og -praksis."Artikel 2Denne afgørelse træder i kraft den 19. maj 2001, forudsat at Det Blandede EØS-udvalg har modtaget alle fornødne meddelelser i henhold til aftalens artikel 103, stk. 1(3).Artikel 3Denne afgørelse offentliggøres i EØS-afsnittet i og EØS-tillægget til De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende.Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 18. maj 2001.På Det Blandede EØS-udvalgs vegneP. WesterlundFormand(1) EFT L 7 af 11.1.2001, s. 9.(2) EFT L 209 af 24.7.1992, s. 25.(3) Ingen forfatningsmæssige krav angivet.


text:
 9.5.2012
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 123/33
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) Nr. 396/2012 VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 8 mei 2012
 tot vaststelling van de forfaitaire invoerwaarden voor de bepaling van de invoerprijs van bepaalde groenten en fruit
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Verordening (EG) nr. 1234/2007 van de Raad van 22 oktober 2007 houdende een gemeenschappelijke ordening van de landbouwmarkten en specifieke bepalingen voor een aantal landbouwproducten („integrale-GMO-verordening”) (1),
 Gezien Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 543/2011 van de Commissie van 7 juni 2011 tot vaststelling van nadere bepalingen voor de toepassing van Verordening (EG) nr. 1234/2007 van de Raad, wat de sectoren groenten en fruit en verwerkte groenten en fruit betreft (2), en met name artikel 136, lid 1,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Bij Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 543/2011 zijn, op grond van de resultaten van de multilaterale handelsbesprekingen van de Uruguayronde, de criteria vastgesteld aan de hand waarvan de Commissie voor de producten en de perioden die in bijlage XVI, deel A, bij die verordening zijn vermeld, de forfaitaire waarden bij invoer uit derde landen vaststelt.
 (2)
 De forfaitaire invoerwaarde wordt elke dag berekend overeenkomstig artikel 136, lid 1, van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 543/2011, met inachtneming van de variabele gegevens voor die dag. Bijgevolg moet deze verordening in werking treden op de dag van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 De in artikel 136 van Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) nr. 543/2011 bedoelde forfaitaire invoerwaarden worden vastgesteld in de bijlage bij de onderhavige verordening.
 Artikel 2
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de dag van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 8 mei 2012.
 Voor de Commissie, namens de voorzitter,
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 Directeur-generaal Landbouw en Plattelandsontwikkeling
 (1) PB L 299 van 16.11.2007, blz. 1.
 (2) PB L 157 van 15.6.2011, blz. 1.
 BIJLAGE
 Forfaitaire invoerwaarden voor de bepaling van de invoerprijs van bepaalde groenten en fruit
 (EUR/100 kg)
 GN-code
 Code derde landen (1)
 Forfaitaire invoerwaarde
 0702 00 00
 AL
 143,3
 MA
 69,3
 TN
 124,7
 TR
 143,3
 US
 39,7
 ZZ
 104,1
 0707 00 05
 JO
 200,0
 TR
 128,9
 ZZ
 164,5
 0709 93 10
 JO
 225,1
 TR
 118,2
 ZZ
 171,7
 0805 10 20
 EG
 48,3
 IL
 73,0
 MA
 46,2
 ZZ
 55,8
 0805 50 10
 TR
 52,0
 ZA
 91,9
 ZZ
 72,0
 0808 10 80
 AR
 94,7
 BR
 83,2
 CA
 148,4
 CL
 95,8
 CN
 90,6
 MA
 85,1
 MK
 31,8
 NZ
 124,9
 US
 155,8
 UY
 85,3
 ZA
 105,6
 ZZ
 100,1
 (1) Landennomenclatuur vastgesteld bij Verordening (EG) nr. 1833/2006 van de Commissie (PB L 354 van 14.12.2006, blz. 19). De code „ZZ” staat voor „overige oorsprong”.