text:
 11.2.2020
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 38/1
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2020/182 AL COMISIEI
 din 14 ianuarie 2020
 privind modelele utilizate pentru calificările profesionale în domeniul navigației interioare
 (Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Directiva (UE) 2017/2397 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 12 decembrie 2017 privind recunoașterea calificărilor profesionale în domeniul navigației interioare și de abrogare a Directivelor 91/672/CEE și 96/50/CE ale Consiliului (1), în special articolul 11 alineatul (3), articolul 18 alineatul (3) și articolul 22 alineatul (4),
 după consultarea comitetului menționat la articolul 33 din Directiva (UE) 2017/2397,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Directiva (UE) 2017/2397 stabilește condițiile și procedurile pentru certificarea calificărilor persoanelor implicate în operarea unei construcții navale care navighează pe căile navigabile interioare ale Uniunii. Certificarea are drept scop facilitarea mobilității, garantarea siguranței navigației și asigurarea protecției vieții omenești și a mediului.
 (2)
 Pentru a asigura condiții uniforme de punere în aplicare, Directiva (UE) 2017/2397 prevede că trebuie stabilite modele de eliberare a certificatelor de calificare ale Uniunii, a carnetelor de serviciu, a documentelor unice care combină certificatele de calificare ale Uniunii și carnetele de serviciu, a jurnalelor de bord și a certificatelor de examinare practică.
 (3)
 În conformitate cu articolul 34 din Directiva (UE) 2017/2397, actele de punere în aplicare care stabilesc aceste modele trebuie să facă trimitere la standardele stabilite de Comitetul european pentru elaborarea de standarde privind navigația interioară („CESNI”) și să includă textul integral al acestora, cu condiția ca respectivele standarde să fie disponibile și actualizate și să îndeplinească toate cerințele aplicabile stabilite în anexele la Directiva (UE) 2017/2397 și cu condiția ca interesele Uniunii să nu fie compromise de modificările din procesul decizional al CESNI. La 15 octombrie 2019, CESNI a adoptat rezoluții (2) de stabilire a standardelor privind modelele pentru calificările profesionale în domeniul navigației interioare, în deplină conformitate cu condițiile prevăzute la articolul 34 din Directiva (UE) 2017/2397.
 (4)
 În conformitate cu recomandările stabilite în Planul de acțiune al UE privind guvernarea electronică 2016-2020 (3), trebuie să fie utilizată guvernarea electronică pentru a spori eficiența serviciilor publice și a face ca administrațiile publice transfrontaliere să fie favorabile întreprinderilor. Prin urmare, trebuie să se stabilească, de asemenea, un model în format electronic pentru certificatele Uniunii de calificare în calitate de comandant de navă, de expert în gaz natural lichefiat și de expert în navigația cu pasageri,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Modelele de certificate ale Uniunii de calificare în calitate de comandant de navă, de expert în gaz natural lichefiat și de expert în navigația cu pasageri, în format tipărit și în format electronic, sunt cele prevăzute în anexa I.
 Articolul 2
 Modelul de document unic care combină certificatele Uniunii de calificare și carnetul de serviciu este cel prevăzut în anexa II.
 Articolul 3
 Modelul de certificat pentru examinarea practică cel este prevăzut în anexa III.
 Articolul 4
 Modelul de carnet de serviciu este cel prevăzut în anexa IV.
 Articolul 5
 Modelul de jurnal de bord este cel este prevăzut în anexa V.
 Articolul 6
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a douăzecea zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 14 ianuarie 2020.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1) JO L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 53.
 (2) Rezoluția CESNI 2019-II-1, Rezoluția CESNI 2019-II-2, Rezoluția CESNI 2019-II-3, Rezoluția CESNI 2019-II-4 și Rezoluția CESNI 2019-II-5.
 (3) Comunicare a Comisiei către Parlamentul European, Consiliu, Comitetul Economic și Social European și Comitetul Regiunilor: „Planul de acțiune al UE privind guvernarea electronică 2016-2020 – Accelerarea transformării digitale a guvernării” [COM(2016) 179 final].
 ANEXA I
 Modele de certificate ale Uniunii de calificare în calitate de comandant de navă, de expert în gaz natural lichefiat („GNL”) și de expert în navigația cu pasageri
 1. Model pentru formatul electronic al certificatelor Uniunii de calificare în calitate de comandant de navă, de expert în GNL și de expert în navigația cu pasageri
 Modelul de certificat al Uniunii de calificare în calitate de comandant de navă și modelul de certificat al Uniunii de calificare în calitate de expert în gaz natural lichefiat (GNL) sau în calitate de expert în navigația cu pasageri este documentul PDF/A, care conține datele referitoare la certificatul respectiv, care pot să fie extrase din baza de date menționată la articolul 25 alineatul (2) din Directiva (UE) 2017/2397 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului (1), din dosarul personal al membrului echipajului. Certificatul Uniunii de calificare eliberat sub formă de document PDF/A trebuie să includă elementele de securitate care permit verificarea originii și a integrității datelor în conformitate cu Regulamentul (UE) nr. 910/2014 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului (2).
 Instrucțiuni pentru autoritățile emitente
 1.
 Numele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 2.
 Prenumele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 Numele trebuie să fie cele care figurează pe cartea de identitate sau pașaportul persoanei în cauză și trebuie introduse în UNICODE.
 Dacă un nume se scrie diferit în UNICODE și în ASCII, trebuie să existe și o transcriere în ASCII între paranteze.
 3a.
 Data nașterii (zz/ll/aaaa)
 3b.
 Locul nașterii (localitatea)
 4.
 Numărul de identificare ca membru de echipaj al titularului (CID) ca în baza de date menționată la articolul 25 alineatul (2) din Directiva (UE) 2017/2397
 5.
 Identificarea fizică a titularului prin importarea fișierului electronic de imagine
 6.
 Numărul de serie al certificatului.
 Numărul de serie al certificatului este format din:
 —
 numărul de identificare al membrului echipajului;
 —
 tipul de document, astfel cum este codificat în Sistemul european de gestionare a datelor de referință (ERDMS – European Reference Data Management System);
 —
 autoritatea emitentă, astfel cum a fost codificată în ERDMS;
 —
 numărul documentului din 4 cifre.
 7.
 Data eliberării certificatului
 8.
 Data expirării
 9.
 Denumirea autorității emitente
 10.
 Autorizații specifice codificate: R (pentru navigația cu ajutorul radiolocației); M (pentru navigația pe căi navigabile interioare cu caracter maritim); pentru navigația pe căi navigabile cu riscuri specifice, astfel cum sunt codificate în Sistemul european de gestionare a datelor de referință (ERDMS); C (pentru navigația cu convoaie mari), codificată împreună cu autoritatea emitentă și cu indicarea numărului de serie al autorizației
 11.
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical [codurile 01-09, astfel cum apar în Directiva delegată (UE) 2020/12 a Comisiei (3).
 Pentru certificatele Uniunii de calificare în calitate de expert în gaz natural lichefiat (GNL) și de expert în navigația cu pasageri, punctele 10 și 11 nu se aplică.
 Caracteristicile vizuale ale certificatului de calificare al Uniunii
 Fundal de culoare albastru deschis Pantone 290C, imprimabil în format A4.
 2. Model pentru copia tipărită a certificatelor Uniunii de calificare ca expert în GNL sau ca expert în navigația cu pasageri
 (față)
 (verso)
 Instrucțiuni pentru autoritățile emitente
 1.
 Numele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 2.
 Prenumele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 Numele trebuie să fie cele care figurează pe cartea de identitate sau pașaportul persoanei în cauză și trebuie introduse în UNICODE.
 Dacă un nume se scrie diferit în UNICODE și în ASCII, trebuie să existe și o transcriere în ASCII între paranteze.
 3a.
 Data nașterii (zz/ll/aaaa)
 3b.
 Locul nașterii (localitatea)
 4.
 Numărul de identificare ca membru de echipaj al titularului (CID) în baza de date menționată la articolul 25 alineatul (2) din Directiva (UE) 2017/2397
 5.
 Identificarea fizică a titularului prin importarea fișierului electronic de imagine
 6.
 Numărul de serie al certificatului.
 Numărul de serie al certificatului este format din:
 —
 numărul de identificare al membrului echipajului;
 —
 tipul de document, astfel cum este codificat în Sistemul european de gestionare a datelor de referință (ERDMS – European Reference Data Management System);
 —
 autoritatea emitentă astfel cum a fost codificată în ERDMS;
 —
 numărul documentului din 4 cifre.
 7.
 Data eliberării certificatului
 8.
 Data expirării
 9.
 Denumirea autorității emitente
 10.
 Autorizații specifice codificate: R (pentru navigația cu ajutorul radiolocației); M (pentru navigația pe căi navigabile interioare cu caracter maritim); pentru navigația pe căi navigabile cu riscuri specifice, astfel cum sunt codificate în ERDMS; C (pentru navigația cu convoaie mari)
 11.
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical [codurile ca în ES-QIN, astfel cum apar în Directiva delegată (UE) 2020/12.
 Caracteristicile fizice ale certificatului de calificare al Uniunii în calitate de comandant de navă
 Fundal de culoare albastru deschis; Pantone 290C
 Format de card ID-1, conform cu ISO/IEC 7810
 3. Model pentru copia tipărită a certificatelor de calificare ale Uniunii în calitate de expert în GNL sau în calitate de expert în navigația cu pasageri
 (față)
 (verso)
 Instrucțiuni pentru autoritățile emitente
 1.
 Numele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 2.
 Prenumele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 Numele trebuie să fie cele care figurează pe cartea de identitate sau pașaportul persoanei în cauză și trebuie introduse în UNICODE.
 Dacă un nume se scrie diferit în UNICODE și în ASCII, trebuie să existe și o transcriere în ASCII între paranteze.
 3a.
 Data nașterii (zz/ll/aaaa)
 3b.
 Locul nașterii (localitatea)
 4.
 Numărul de identificare ca membru de echipaj al titularului (CID) în baza de date menționată la articolul 25 alineatul (2) din Directiva (UE) 2017/2397
 5.
 Identificarea fizică a titularului prin importul fișierului electronic de imagine
 6.
 Numărul de serie al certificatului
 Numărul de serie al certificatului este format din:
 —
 numărul de identificare al membrului echipajului;
 —
 tipul de document, astfel cum este codificat în Sistemul european de gestionare a datelor de referință (ERDMS – European Reference Data Management System);
 —
 autoritatea emitentă astfel cum a fost codificată în ERDMS;
 —
 numărul documentului din 4 cifre.
 7.
 Data eliberării certificatului
 8.
 Data expirării
 9.
 Autoritatea emitentă
 Caracteristicile fizice ale certificatului Uniunii de calificare ca expert în navigație sau ca expert în GNL
 Fundal de culoare albastru deschis Pantone 290C
 Format de card ID-1, conform cu ISO/IEC 7810
 (1) Directiva (UE) 2017/2397 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 12 decembrie 2017 privind recunoașterea calificărilor profesionale în domeniul navigației interioare și de abrogare a Directivelor 91/672/CEE și 96/50/CE ale Consiliului (JO L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 53).
 (2) Regulamentul (UE) nr. 910/2014 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 23 iulie 2014 privind identificarea electronică și serviciile de încredere pentru tranzacțiile electronice pe piața internă și de abrogare a Directivei 1999/93/CE (JO L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 73).
 (3) Directiva delegată (UE) 2020/12 a Comisiei din 2 august 2019 de completare a Directivei (UE) 2017/2397 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului în ceea ce privește standardele pentru competențe și cunoștințele și aptitudinile corespunzătoare, pentru examenele practice, pentru omologarea simulatoarelor și pentru capacitatea din punct de vedere medical (JO L 6, 10.1.2020, p. 15).
 ANEXA II
 Model pentru documentul unic care combină certificatele de calificare ale Uniunii și carnetul de serviciu
 Pagina 1 a modelului
 Numele țării
 Carnet de serviciu combinat cu certificatele de calificare
 Identificarea titularului
 Cod de bare 2D
 1.
 Numele titularului:
 2.
 Prenumele:
 3a.
 Data nașterii:
 3b.Locul nașterii:
 4.
 Numărul de identificare ca membru al echipajului:
 5.
 Foto
 Identificarea carnetului de serviciu
 1.
 Număr de serie:
 2.
 Data eliberării:
 3.
 Autoritate emitentă:
 4.
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 5.
 Numărul de serie al carnetului de serviciu anterior:
 SRBXXXXSSSS
 Pagina 2 a modelului
 Certificatele de calificare ale Uniunii și certificatele de calificare emise în conformitate cu reglementările privind personalul navigant pe Rin pentru ucenici, mateloți, navigatori, navigatori brevetați și timonieri
 Titlul certificatului: ________________________________________
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical:
 Număr de serie:
 Data eliberării: Data expirării:
 Autoritate emitentă:
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 Titlul certificatului: ________________________________________
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical:
 Număr de serie:
 Data eliberării: Data expirării:
 Autoritate emitentă:
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 Titlul certificatului: ________________________________________
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical:
 Număr de serie:
 Data eliberării: Data expirării:
 Autoritate emitentă:
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 Titlul certificatului: ________________________________________
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical:
 Număr de serie:
 Data eliberării: Data expirării:
 Autoritate emitentă:
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 Titlul certificatului: ________________________________________
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical:
 Număr de serie:
 Data eliberării: Data expirării:
 Autoritate emitentă:
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 SRBXXXXSSSS
 Pagina 3 a modelului
 Alte certificate pentru calificările relevante din domeniul navigației interioare
 Titlul certificatului: ________________________________________
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical:
 Număr de serie:
 Data eliberării: Data expirării:
 Autoritate emitentă:
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 Titlul certificatului: ________________________________________
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical:
 Număr de serie:
 Data eliberării: Data expirării:
 Autoritate emitentă:
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 Titlul certificatului: ________________________________________
 Măsuri de atenuare și restricții legate de capacitatea din punct de vedere medical:
 Număr de serie:
 Data eliberării: Data expirării:
 Autoritate emitentă:
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 SRBXXXXSSSS
 Pagina 4 a modelului
 Durata serviciului
 Durata serviciului la bord, denumirea construcției navale:
 Numărul european unic de identificare a navei sau alt număr oficial al construcției navale:
 Tipul construcției navale (1):
 Statul de înmatriculare:
 Lungimea construcției navale în m (*1)/numărul de pasageri (*1):
 Proprietar (numele și adresa):
 Titularul și-a început serviciul în calitate de (2):
 Titularul și-a început serviciul la (data):
 Sfârșitul serviciului (data):
 Comandantul de navă (numele și adresa):
 Locul, data și semnătura comandantului de navă:
 Durata serviciului la bord, denumirea construcției navale:
 Numărul european unic de identificare a navei sau alt număr oficial al construcției navale:
 Tipul construcției navale
 Statul de înmatriculare:
 Lungimea construcției navale în m (*1)/numărul de pasageri (*1):
 Proprietar (numele și adresa):
 Titularul și-a început serviciul în calitate de:
 Titularul și-a început serviciul la (data):
 Sfârșitul serviciului (data):
 Comandantul de navă (numele și adresa):
 Locul, data și semnătura comandantului de navă:
 SRBXXXXSSSS
 Paginile 5-22 sunt identice cu pagina 4
 Pagina 23 a modelului
 Timpul de navigație și căile navigabile interioare pe care a navigat titularul în ultimele 15 luni
 Anul:................
 Numărul de zile în care s-a navigat trebuie să corespundă timpului de navigație introdus în jurnalul de bord
 Denumirea construcției navale, numărul european unic de identificare sau alt număr oficial de identificare a construcției navale
 Voiaj de la
 via la(km) (km)
 Începutul voiajului
 (data)
 Zile de întrerupere
 Încheierea voiajului (data)
 Numărul total al zilelor de navigație
 Semnătura comandantului de navă
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 G
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 Document complet ☐ da ☐ nu
 ☐ Incertitudini la rândul (rândurile):________
 Incertitudinile au fost eliminate prin prezentarea ☐ (unor fragmente ale) jurnalului de bord ☐ altor documente oficiale
 Spațiu rezervat pentru autoritatea competentă
 A se completa de către autoritatea competentă: numărul total al zilelor de navigație luate în considerare de pe pagina curentă
 Marca de validare a autorității competente
 Prezentat la (data) __________
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității
 SRBXXXXSSSS
 Paginile 24-55 sunt identice cu pagina 23
 Titlurile coloanelor A-G nu se mai imprimă pe paginile următoare
 Pagina 56 a modelului
 Pagină albă
 Instrucțiuni pentru autoritățile emitente
 Identificarea titularului
 1.
 Numele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 2.
 Prenumele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 Numele trebuie să fie cele care figurează pe cartea de identitate sau pașaportul persoanei în cauză și trebuie introduse în UNICODE.
 Dacă un nume se scrie diferit în UNICODE și în ASCII, trebuie să existe și o transcriere în ASCII între paranteze.
 3a.
 Data nașterii (zz/ll/aaaa)
 3b.
 Locul nașterii (localitatea)
 4.
 Numărul de identificare ca membru de echipaj al titularului (CID), astfel cum este alocat în baza de date menționată la articolul 25 alineatul (2) din Directiva (UE) 2017/2397 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului.
 Identificarea carnetului de serviciu
 Numărul de serie al carnetului de serviciu este format din:
 —
 numărul de identificare al membrului echipajului;
 —
 tipul de document, astfel cum este codificat în Sistemul european de gestionare a datelor de referință (ERDMS – European Reference Data Management System);
 autoritatea emitentă astfel cum a fost codificată în ERDMS;
 —
 numărul documentului din 4 cifre.
 Numărul de serie al carnetului de serviciu fără partea referitoare la CID se repetă în secțiunea de jos a fiecărei pagini.
 Certificatele de calificare
 Titlul certificatului emis trebuie introdus (cu majuscule) de către autoritatea competentă relevantă. Acesta se completează cu următoarele numere între paranteze, după caz: „(2)” pentru timonier, „(3)” pentru navigator brevetat, „(4)” pentru navigator, „(5)” pentru matelot și „(6)” pentru ucenic.
 În ceea ce privește certificatele de calificare ale Uniunii, titlul „Certificat al Uniunii Europene de calificare în domeniul navigației interioare”, însoțit de calificarea relevantă, este precizat, de exemplu, astfel: „Certificat al Uniunii Europene de calificare în domeniul navigației interioare – Navigator brevetat (3)”.
 În ceea ce privește certificatele de calificare emise în conformitate cu reglementările privind personalul navigant de pe Rin, titlul „Certificat de calificare al CCNR”, însoțit de calificarea relevantă, este precizat, de exemplu, astfel: „Certificat de calificare al CCNR – Navigator brevetat (3)”.
 Caracteristicile fizice ale documentului
 Culoare: Coperta: albastru deschis Pantone 290C; fond alb pentru paginile interioare.
 Format A5, în conformitate cu ISO 216
 Exemplu de intrare completată pentru durata serviciului
 Durata serviciului la bord, denumirea construcției navale: UNTERWALDEN
 Numărul european unic de identificare a navei sau alt număr oficial al construcției navale: 07000281
 Tipul construcției navale1:
 Statul de înmatriculare: CH
 Lungimea construcției navale în m*/numărul de pasageri* 105 m
 Proprietar (numele și adresa):
 TSAG, Hauptstrasse 55, CH-4127 Riehen, Basel-Stadt
 Titularul și-a început serviciul în calitate de2: 3
 Titularul și-a început serviciul la (data): 22.10.1995
 Sfârșitul serviciului (data): 22.11.1996
 Comandantul de navă (numele și adresa):
 K. Huber, Rheinstrasse 55, D-76497 Wintersdorf
 Locul, data și semnătura comandantului de navă: Rotterdam, 20.11.1996
 K. Huber
 Exemplu de pagină completată pentru timpul de navigație și căi navigabile parcurse
 Timpul de navigație și căile navigabile pe care a navigat titularul în ultimele 15 luni
 Anul: 2015/2016
 Numărul de zile în care s-a navigat trebuie să corespundă timpului de navigație introdus în jurnalul de bord
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 G
 1 07000281
 Rotterdam (999,90) Mainz (500,00) Viena (1930,00)
 22.11.15
 11
 17.12.15
 15
 Semnătura Huber
 2 07000281
 Viena (1930,00) Mainz (500,00) Basel (169,90)
 20.12.15
 4
 4.1.16
 12
 Semnătura Huber
 3 07000281
 Basel (169,90) Rotterdam (999,90)
 6.1.16
 0
 10.1.16
 5
 Semnătura Huber
 4 07000281
 Rotterdam (999,90) Anvers (20,00) Basel (169,90)
 13.1.16
 1
 23.1.16
 10
 Semnătura Huber
 5 07000281
 Basel (169,90) Anvers (20,00)
 25.1.16
 0
 29.1.16
 5
 Semnătura Huber
 6 07000281
 Anvers (20,00) Basel (169,90)
 1.2.16
 0
 7.2.16
 7
 Semnătura Huber
 7 07000281
 Basel (169,90) Mainz (500,00) Bratislava (1867,00)
 9.2.16
 5
 22.2.16
 9
 Semnătura Huber
 8 07000281
 Bratislava (18657,00) Regensburg (2376,30)
 27.2.16
 0
 2.3.16
 5
 Semnătura Huber
 9 07000281
 Regensburg (2376,30) Mainz (500,00) Rotterdam (999,90)
 3.3.16
 0
 9.3.16
 7
 Semnătura Huber
 10 07000281
 Rotterdam (999,90) Basel (169,90)
 12.3.16
 0
 17.3.16
 6
 Semnătura Huber
 Document complet ☑ da ☐ nu
 ☐ Incertitudini la rândul (rândurile)________
 Incertitudinile au fost eliminate prin prezentarea ☐ (unor fragmente ale) jurnalului de bord ☐ altor documente oficiale
 Spațiu rezervat pentru autoritatea competentă
 A se completa de către autoritatea competentă: numărul total al zilelor de navigație luate în considerare de pe pagina curentă
 81
 Marca de validare a autorității competente
 Prezentat la (data) 15.4.16
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității
 SRBXXXXSSSS
 (1) La tipul construcției navale, precizați întotdeauna dacă este vorba despre o navă petrolieră C sau G, un convoi mare sau o construcție navală care folosește GNL drept combustibil.
 (*1) A se elimina dacă nu se aplică.
 (2) „Titularul și-a început serviciul în calitate de”: postul se numerotează în conformitate cu instrucțiunile de păstrare a jurnalului de bord.
 ANEXA III
 Model pentru certificate de examinare practică
 Denumirea organismului de examinare,
 certificăm prin prezentul certificat nr. ........................... că
 1.
 Numele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 2.
 Prenumele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 3a.
 Data nașterii (zz/ll/aaaa)
 3b.
 Locul nașterii (localitatea)
 a susținut cu succes examenul practic [pentru obținerea unui certificat de calificare în calitate de comandant de navă] [și] [pentru o autorizație specifică de navigație cu ajutorul radiolocației]
 pe simulatorul (denumirea simulatorului), omologat de (denumirea autorității competente).
 Locul și data eliberării
 Semnătura și ștampila organismului de examinare
 Instrucțiuni
 Numele trebuie să fie cele care figurează pe cartea de identitate sau pașaportul persoanei în cauză și trebuie introduse în UNICODE.
 Dacă un nume se scrie diferit în UNICODE și în ASCII, trebuie să existe și o transcriere în ASCII între paranteze.
 Se alege examinarea aplicabilă și se elimină cealaltă dacă nu se aplică.
 Caracteristici fizice
 Culoare: fond alb. Format A4, în conformitate cu ISO 216
 ANEXA IV
 MODEL PENTRU CARNETELE DE SERVICIU
 Pagina 1 a modelului
 Numele țării
 Carnet de serviciu
 Identificarea titularului
 1.
 Numele titularului:
 2.
 Prenumele:
 3a.
 Data nașterii:
 3b.
 Locul nașterii:
 4.
 Numărul de identificare ca membru al echipajului:
 5.
 Foto
 Identificarea carnetului de serviciu
 1.
 Număr de serie:
 2.
 Data eliberării:
 3.
 Autoritate emitentă:
 4.
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 5.
 Numărul de serie al carnetului de serviciu anterior:
 SRBXXXXSSSS
 Pagina 2 a modelului
 Pagină albă
 Pagina 3 a modelului
 Durata serviciului
 Durata serviciului la bord, denumirea construcției navale:
 Numărul european unic de identificare a navei sau alt număr oficial al construcției navale:
 Tipul construcției navale (1):
 Statul de înmatriculare:
 Lungimea construcției navale în m (*1)/numărul de pasageri (*1):
 Proprietar (numele și adresa):
 Titularul și-a început serviciul în calitate de (2):
 Titularul și-a început serviciul la (data):
 Sfârșitul serviciului (data):
 Comandantul de navă (numele și adresa):
 Locul, data și semnătura comandantului de navă:
 Durata serviciului la bord, denumirea construcției navale:
 Numărul european unic de identificare a navei sau alt număr oficial al construcției navale:
 Tipul construcției navale
 Statul de înmatriculare:
 Lungimea construcției navale în m (*1)/numărul de pasageri (*1):
 Proprietar (numele și adresa):
 Titularul și-a început serviciul în calitate de:
 Titularul și-a început serviciul la (data):
 Sfârșitul serviciului (data):
 Comandantul de navă (numele și adresa):
 Locul, data și semnătura comandantului de navă:
 SRBXXXSSSS
 Paginile 4-22 sunt identice cu pagina 3
 Pagina 23 a modelului
 Timpul de navigație și căile navigabile interioare pe care a navigat titularul în ultimele 15 luni
 Anul:
 Numărul de zile în care s-a navigat trebuie să corespundă timpului de navigație introdus în jurnalul de bord!
 Denumirea construcției navale, numărul european unic de identificare sau alt număr oficial de identificare a construcției navale
 Voiaj de lavia la
 (km) (km)
 Începutul voiajului (data)
 Zile de întrerupere
 Sfârșitul voiajului (data)
 Numărul total al zilelor de navigație
 Semnătura comandantului de navă
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 G
 1
 2
 3
 Document complet ☐ da ☐ nu
 ☐ Incertitudini la rândul (rândurile) ___________
 Incertitudinile au fost eliminate prin prezentarea ☐ (unor fragmente ale) jurnalului de bord ☐ altor documente oficiale
 Spațiu rezervat pentru autoritatea competentă
 A se completa de către autoritatea competentă: Numărul total al zilelor de navigație luat în considerare de pe pagina curentă
 Marca de validare a autorității competente
 Prezentat la (data): ___________
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității
 SRBXXXSSSS
 Paginile 24-55 sunt identice cu pagina 23
 Titlurile coloanelor A-G nu se mai imprimă pe paginile următoare
 Pagina 56 a modelului
 Pagină albă
 Instrucțiuni pentru autoritățile emitente
 Identificarea titularului
 1.
 Numele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 2.
 Prenumele actual(e) al(e) titularului
 Numele trebuie să fie cele care figurează pe cartea de identitate sau pașaportul persoanei în cauză și trebuie introduse în UNICODE.
 Dacă un nume se scrie diferit în UNICODE și în ASCII, trebuie să existe și o transcriere în ASCII între paranteze.
 3a.
 Data nașterii (zz/ll/aaaa)
 3b.
 Locul nașterii (localitatea)
 4.
 Numărul de identificare ca membru de echipaj al titularului (CID), din baza de date menționată la articolul 25 alineatul (2) din Directiva (UE) 2017/2397 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului (3).
 Identificarea carnetului de serviciu
 Numărul de serie al carnetului de serviciu este format din:
 —
 numărul de identificare al membrului echipajului;
 —
 tipul de document, astfel cum este codificat în Sistemul european de gestionare a datelor de referință (ERDMS – European Reference Data Management System);
 —
 autoritatea emitentă astfel cum a fost codificată în ERDMS;
 —
 numărul documentului din 4 cifre.
 Numărul de serie al carnetului de serviciu fără partea referitoare la CID se repetă în secțiunea de jos a fiecărei pagini.
 Caracteristicile fizice ale documentului
 Culoare: albastru deschis Pantone 290C pentru copertă; fond alb pentru paginile interioare.
 Formatul: A5, în conformitate cu ISO 216.
 Exemplu de intrare completată pentru durata serviciului
 Durata serviciului la bord, denumirea construcției navale: UNTERWALDEN
 Numărul european unic de identificare a navei sau alt număr oficial al construcției navale: 07000281
 Tipul construcției navale1:
 Statul de înmatriculare: CH
 Lungimea construcției navale în m1/numărul de pasageri* 105 m
 Proprietar (numele și adresa):
 TSAG, Hauptstrasse 55, CH-4127 Riehen, Basel-Stadt
 Titularul și-a început serviciul în calitate de2: 3
 Titularul și-a început serviciul la (data): 22.10.1995
 Sfârșitul serviciului (data): 22.11.1996
 Comandantul de navă (numele și adresa):
 K. Huber, Rheinstrasse 55, D-76497 Wintersdorf
 Locul, data și semnătura comandantului de navă: Rotterdam, 20.11.1996
 K. Huber
 Exemplu de pagină completată pentru timpul de navigație și căi navigabile parcurse
 Timpul de navigație și căile navigabile interioare pe care a navigat titularul în ultimele 15 luni
 Anul: 2015/2016
 Numărul de zile în care s-a navigat trebuie să corespundă timpului de navigație introdus în jurnalul de bord
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 G
 1 07000281
 Rotterdam (999,90) Mainz (500,00) Viena (1930,00)
 22.11.15
 11
 17.12.15
 15
 Semnătura Huber
 2 07000281
 Viena (1930,00) Mainz (500,00) Basel (169,90)
 20.12.15
 4
 4.1.16
 12
 Semnătura Huber
 3 07000281
 Basel (169,90) Rotterdam (999,90)
 6.1.16
 0
 10.1.16
 5
 Semnătura Huber
 4 07000281
 Rotterdam (999,90) Anvers (20,00) Basel (169,90)
 13.1.16
 1
 23.1.16
 10
 Semnătura Huber
 5 07000281
 Basel (169,90) Anvers (20,00)
 25.1.16
 0
 29.1.16
 5
 Semnătura Huber
 6 07000281
 Anvers (20,00) Basel (169,90)
 1.2.16
 0
 7.2.16
 7
 Semnătura Huber
 7 07000281
 Basel (169,90) Mainz (500,00) Bratislava (1867,00)
 9.2.16
 5
 22.2.16
 9
 Semnătura Huber
 8 07000281
 Bratislava (18657,00) Regensburg (2376,30)
 27.2.16
 0
 2.3.16
 5
 Semnătura Huber
 9 07000281
 Regensburg (2376,30) Mainz (500,00) Rotterdam (999,90)
 3.3.16
 0
 9.3.16
 7
 Semnătura Huber
 10 07000281
 Rotterdam (999,90) Basel (169,90)
 12.3.16
 0
 17.3.16
 6
 Semnătura Huber
 Document complet ☑ da ☐ nu
 ☐ Incertitudini la rândul (rândurile)________
 Incertitudinile au fost eliminate prin prezentarea ☐ (unor fragmente ale) jurnalului de bord ☐ altor documente oficiale
 Spațiu rezervat pentru autoritatea competentă
 A se completa de către autoritatea competentă: numărul total al zilelor de navigație luate în considerare de pe pagina curentă
 81
 Marca de validare a autorității competente
 Prezentat la (data) _15.4.16
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității
 SRBXXXXSSSS
 (1) La tipul construcției navale, precizați întotdeauna dacă este vorba despre o navă petrolieră C sau G, un convoi mare sau o construcție navală care folosește GNL drept combustibil.
 (*1) A se elimina dacă nu se aplică.
 (2) „Titularul și-a început serviciul în calitate de”: postul se numerotează în conformitate cu instrucțiunile de păstrare a jurnalului de bord.
 (3) Directiva (UE) 2017/2397 a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului din 12 decembrie 2017 privind recunoașterea calificărilor profesionale în domeniul navigației interioare și de abrogare a Directivelor 91/672/CEE și 96/50/CE ale Consiliului (JO L 345, 27.12.2017, p. 53).
 ANEXA V
 Model pentru jurnalele de bord
 Pagina 1 a modelului
 Numele țării
 Jurnal de bord
 Numărul de serie al jurnalului de bord:
 Data eliberării:
 Numele construcției navale:
 Numărul european unic de identificare a navei:
 Autoritate emitentă:
 Semnătura și ștampila autorității emitente:
 LBKXXXXSSSS
 Pagina 2 a modelului
 Instrucțiuni pentru completarea jurnalului de bord
 Acest jurnal de bord conține 200 de pagini, numerotate de la 1 la 200. Consemnările trebuie să fie lizibile și scrise cu cerneală (de exemplu, cu litere de tipar).
 Consemnările în jurnalul de bord trebuie să se facă în conformitate cu reglementările aplicabile privind formarea echipajului. În cazul căilor navigabile interioare ale căror cursuri nu intră în totalitate în sfera de aplicare a unei cerințe privind echipajul, timpul de navigație și timpul de repaus înregistrate pe secțiuni situate în afara domeniului de aplicare al reglementării trebuie, de asemenea, luate în considerare.
 În cazul în care activitățile de încărcare și descărcare necesită operațiuni de navigație activă, cum ar fi dragarea sau manevrele între punctele de încărcare sau de descărcare, timpul utilizat pentru astfel de activități se introduce ca timp de navigație.
 Activitățile membrilor echipajului se introduc în funcție de posturile acestora, utilizând codul relevant:
 1
 Comandant de navă
 2
 Timonier
 3
 Navigator brevetat
 4
 Navigator
 5
 Matelot
 6
 Ucenic
 7
 Inginer
 8
 Mașinist (care are grijă de motoare)
 9
 În cazul în care reglementările naționale prevăd alte posturi decât cele menționate mai sus, aceste posturi se introduc folosind numere de la 9 în sus, cu indicarea titulaturii postului național în cauză.
 Pe fiecare pagină se indică următoarele mențiuni:
 —
 modul de funcționare (după fiecare schimbare a modului de funcționare se utilizează o pagină nouă);
 —
 anul;
 —
 de îndată ce construcția navală își începe voiajul:
 —
 Coloana 1 – data (ziua și luna)
 —
 Coloana 2 – ora (ora și minutul)
 —
 Coloana 3 – numele locului în care a început voiajul
 —
 Coloana 4 – calea navigabilă și kilometrul locului în care a început voiajul;
 —
 de îndată ce construcția navală își întrerupe voiajul:
 —
 Coloana 1 – data (ziua și luna), dacă este diferită de ziua începerii voiajului
 —
 Coloana 5 – ora (ora și minutul)
 —
 Coloana 6 – numele locului unde staționează construcția navală
 —
 Coloana 7 – calea navigabilă și kilometrul locului unde staționează construcția navală;
 —
 de îndată ce construcția navală reia navigația: aceleași consemnări ca și cele de la începerea voiajului;
 —
 imediat ce construcția navală își încheie voiajul: aceleași consemnări ca și cele de la întreruperea voiajului.
 Pagina 3 a modelului
 —
 Se completează coloana 8 (funcția, numele, prenumele, numărul de serie al carnetului de serviciu al membrului echipajului sau numărul de serie al certificatului de calificare în calitate de comandant de navă) atunci când echipajul se îmbarcă pentru prima dată și ori de câte ori se schimbă componența echipajului.
 —
 În coloanele 9-11 se introduc datele privind începutul și sfârșitul perioadelor de repaus pentru fiecare membru al echipajului. Aceste consemnări se fac până la ora 8:00 a zilei următoare. Dacă membrii echipajului petrec perioade de repaus după un program regulat, este suficientă o singură schemă per voiaj.
 —
 În coloanele 12 și 13 se introduce orice schimbare în componența echipajului, precizând îmbarcarea și debarcarea fiecărui membru al echipajului.
 LBKXXXXSSSS
 Pagina 4 a modelului
 Pagină albă
 Pagina 5 a modelului
 PERIOADE DE REPAUS
 Modul de operare (1) ________
 Anul
 CONSTRUCȚIA NAVALĂ
 ECHIPAJUL
 Începerea voiajului
 Încheierea voiajului
 Membrii echipajului
 Carnet de serviciu
 Perioadele de repaus ale membrilor echipajului
 Îmbarcare
 Debarcare
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
 10
 11
 12
 13
 Data
 Ora
 Locație
 km
 Ora
 Locație
 km
 Funcție
 Nume și prenume
 Nr.
 de la
 până la
 de la
 până la
 de la
 până la
 Ora
 Ora
 Instrucțiuni pentru autoritățile emitente
 Identificarea jurnalului de bord
 Numărul de serie al jurnalului de bord este format din:
 —
 tipul de document, astfel cum este codificat în Sistemul european de gestionare a datelor de referință (ERDMS – European Reference Data Management System);
 —
 autoritatea emitentă astfel cum a fost codificată în ERDMS;
 —
 numărul documentului din 4 cifre.
 Numărul de serie al jurnalului de bord se repetă în partea de jos a fiecărei pagini.
 Caracteristicile fizice ale documentului
 Culoare: roșu Pantone 187C pentru copertă; fond alb pentru paginile interioare.
 Format A4, orientare de tip vedere (orizontală), în conformitate cu ISO 216.
 (1) Dacă este cazul.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
 244 Md. 18 (1966)
 222 A.2d 627
 MESSALL AND HOWE
 v.
 MERLANDS CLUB, INC.
 [No. 477, September Term, 1965.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided September 13, 1966.
 Motion for rehearing filed October 13, 1966.
 Denied October 20, 1966.
 Certiorari denied April 17, 1967.
 *22 The cause was argued before PRESCOTT,[1] C.J., and HAMMOND, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and McWILLIAMS, JJ.
 Robert V. Smith, with whom were Smith, Ristig & Smith and Thomas A. Lohm on the brief, for appellants.
 William F. Hickey and Joseph Zitomer for appellee.
 Certiorari denied, Supreme Court of the United States, April 17, 1967.
 McWILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 In our narration of what has transpired between these parties we shall do our best to distill the essential facts out of the great broth of pleading and evidence which has boiled up to us from the court below. A number of questions have been presented but, as we see it, our decision will depend on whether a judgment of the Circuit Court for Caroline County (Carter, C.J.) is res judicata in respect of the decision of the trial court (Pugh, J.) in the case at bar.
 On 1 June 1956 appellants (Landlords) leased 23 1/2 acres in Montgomery County to appellee (Tenant). The land was improved by a clubhouse, a swimming pool, tennis courts, a riding ring, stables and a lake stocked with fish. Tenant's option to purchase the property had to be exercised during the first three of the last six months of the seven year term. The right to exercise the option was contingent upon Tenant's "compliance with all its obligations" under the lease. Tenant was required to "maintain at its own expense the demised premises in good repair" and "to comply at all times, at its own cost * * * with all rules, orders, ordinances and legal requirements" of public bodies "under whose supervision the demised premises may come." The lease also contained a provision to the effect that the devolution of the lease, by operation of law, upon any person other than Tenant would constitute a default. In 1961 a dispute arose over the computation of rent and the manner of paying it. This resulted in litigation which finally *23 found its way to this Court. Messall v. Merlands Club, 233 Md. 29, 194 A.2d 793 (1963). The impact of our decision in Messall upon the case at bar will be discussed later.
 Early in November 1962, Landlords filed a summary repossession action against Tenant in the Montgomery County People's Court in which it was claimed that Tenant was in default as of 10 November 1962. Landlords were enjoined from proceeding with this action, however, by an ex parte order of the court in the then pending litigation.[1] On 16 November 1962, Landlords notified Tenant that the lease was in default for failure to pay the proper rent. A month later (18 December) a letter was sent to Landlords purporting to exercise the option to purchase. This was signed on behalf of the president of the Board of Trustees of Merlands Club, Inc., by counsel for Tenant. Landlords replied that the attempt to exercise the option was a nullity and again demanded the surrender of the premises forthwith.
 On 1 April 1963, the day after the lease expired, Tenant filed its bill for the specific performance of the option agreement. On the same day the court, ex parte and without bond, ordered Landlords "to cease and desist from any action that would change the status quo of the position of the parties pending the resolution" of the specific performance proceeding. On 5 April, Landlords filed an action in ejectment against Tenant claiming that the lease had expired, by its own terms, on 31 March.
 Landlords answered the bill for specific performance on 20 May and on the day following filed a cross-bill seeking a declaratory judgment that the lease was in default on 16 November and that the attempt to exercise the option was ineffective. The day before a scheduled hearing on Tenant's motion to consolidate the two cases Landlords dismissed the cross-bill and filed a suggestion and affidavit of removal in the ejectment case. Judge Pugh designated Baltimore County as the new venue. Tenant succeeded in putting off the trial of the case in Baltimore County until 28 April 1964 when its last motion for a continuance *24 was denied. On 1 May, Tenant filed a suggestion and affidavit of removal and on the same day the court ordered the case sent to Caroline County. Landlords pressed for trial and, over Tenant's objection, the case was assigned for trial on 22 June.
 When the case was called for trial the court granted Tenant's motion to amend its pleas. As one might expect, this generated a minor uproar at the trial table but when the dust settled Tenant, by its amended pleas and the court's rulings in respect thereof, had posited the following issues:
 1. The general issue by virtue of its plea of "not guilty."
 2. Does the People's Court of Montgomery County have exclusive jurisdiction of Landlords' suit?
 3. Is Messall v. Merlands Club, supra, res judicata of the basic issues?
 4. As detailed in its plea on equitable grounds:
 (a) The equity case was filed four days prior to the ejection case and "will be determinative of the very issues in the ejectment suit * * * [and] they involve the same parties and subject matter." (Emphasis supplied.)
 (b) Tenant was not in default and the exercise of the option created the relationship of vendor and vendee, thereby vesting equitable title in the vendee.
 The parties having agreed to try the case before Judge Carter without a jury and to exclude witnesses waiting to testify, the three day trial began in Denton, the county seat of Caroline County. After hearing argument and considering the briefs filed by counsel, Judge Carter, on 24 July, found Tenant guilty of "the trespass and ejectment mentioned * * * in the declaration." On the same day "judgment nisi" was entered. On 27 July Tenant appealed. On 28 July judgment was made absolute. The appeal to this Court was dismissed on 14 April 1965. (Reargument denied 25 May 1965.) Merlands Club v. Messall, 238 Md. 359, 208 A.2d 687 (1965).
 Judge Carter filed his opinion on 30 September 1964. In disposing of the issue created by Tenant's plea of res judicata he *25 agreed that the parties and the property in Messall v. Merlands Club, 233 Md. 29 (1963) and the parties and the property in the case before him were identical. He noted also this Court's comment in that case that "the record discloses that substantial repairs had been made in recent years, which, we think, would have been sufficient to support a finding that the lease was not in default for failure to keep the demised premises in good repair." (233 Md. at 38.) He observed that "no evidence was admitted [at the trial in 233 Md. 29] to establish any condition subsequent to the date" of filing of the original bill and the cross-bill. (16 June 1961 and 22 August 1961 respectively.) Judge Carter went on to say:
 "It, therefore, appears that the material issues that were determined in the suit previously adjudicated, which are also present in this suit, consist of: (1), the issue of whether the failure of the Lessee to make proper monthly payments under the lease amounted to defaults by the Lessee; and (2) was there a substantial failure of the Lessee to keep the premises in good repair prior to such suits or prior to August 22, 1961. The Court of Appeals determined both of these questions in favor of the Lessee in that suit. Taking cognizance of this fact and furthermore assuming, without deciding, that the acceptance of monthly payments by the Lessor up to November, 1962, constituted a waiver by the Lessors of their right to assert any defaults of the Lessee respecting proper payments or repairs up to that time; the issues here presented which it appears, were not determined in the former suit, are as follows:  (1) the default if any, of the Lessees in failing to properly maintain and repair the property during the period from November 1 to December 18, 1962; (2) the default, if any, of the Lessee because of a violation of paragraph 2(g) existing on December 18, 1962; that is, a failure on its part to comply with the health and fire regulations of Montgomery County; (3) whether the forfeiture of the Lessee's charter on October 31, 1962, which continued until January 27, 1964, thereby vested ownership in the *26 lease in persons other than the Lessee and therefore constituted a default by reason of a violation of paragraph 4(e) of the lease. It appears from the record of the appeal and the opinions of the lower and appellate Courts that these questions were not determined in Merlands v. Messall, supra."
 Judge Carter discussed, in considerable detail, each of the three issues above mentioned and stated:
 "It is, therefore, our opinion that at the time the option to purchase was attempted to be exercised on December 18, 1962, the Lessee was in default in its obligation under the lease in respect to at least the three matters mentioned above and therefore ineligible to exercise such an option."
 Directly after the conclusion of the trial in Denton hostilities were renewed before Judge Pugh in Rockville and continued con brio for another year. A few days after the issuance of our mandate in the ejectment case (25 May 1965) Landlords renewed, for the last time, their oft-repeated motion to "Dismiss or Abate," setting forth as grounds therefor the res judicata effect of the final judgment of the Circuit Court for Caroline County. On 7 September, Judge Pugh filed a lengthy (37 pages) opinion declaring Tenant to be entitled to a decree of specific performance, which he signed the following week.
 Since Judge Pugh devoted nearly all of his opinion to the development of his reasons for rejecting the res judicata effect of Judge Carter's decision and since Tenant's contentions virtually coincide with the rationale of Judge Pugh's opinion, we shall consider the several facets thereof and state as concisely as possible why we are unable to agree with the learned Chancellor.
 (a)
 The Injunction
 It will be recalled that simultaneously with the filing of the bill of complaint the court ordered Landlords to "cease and desist from any action that would change the status quo of the *27 parties * * *." (Emphasis supplied.) In his opinion Judge Pugh charges that despite his ordering Landlords "not to take any action to evict or otherwise hinder * * * [Tenant] in the use of the property" they disobeyed the injunction and filed the ejectment suit. (Emphasis supplied.) It is intimated that in some unexplained manner their suit was thereby nullified.
 Entirely apart from the question whether Landlords were bound by an order which fails to measure up to the requirements of Maryland Rules BB 78 a and BB 72 b, it is clear that the order expired (as to Messall) on 12 April (Rule BB 72 b) and no later than 7 May as to Howe (a non-resident who was not personally served). An order extending the injunction was filed 20 May but since the original orders had expired no later than 7 May (Landlords did not consent, Rule BB 72 b) the extension was a nullity. Neither the court nor Tenant ever sought to enforce the injunction by contempt proceedings. In fact, Tenant, shortly thereafter, recognized the legitimacy of the ejectment suit by declaring, in its petition for an order of consolidation, that "the subject matter of both actions is inherently intertwined and must be heard together to be appropriately adjudicated." So also did Judge Pugh. On 27 July 1964, in open court, he said, "These cases could have been consolidated. It would have been the proper thing to do."
 It will be observed that the court did not order the Landlords "not to take any action to evict or otherwise hinder" Tenant. In the language of the injunction Landlords were ordered to do nothing more than "cease and desist from any action that would change the status quo." What Tenant or the court intended this language to mean is not clear but we think it most unlikely that the mere docketing of an action in ejectment could "change the status quo" of the parties.
 (b)
 Jurisdiction
 Judge Pugh held the Caroline County court to be utterly without jurisdiction in the ejectment suit because, he avowed Code, Art. 53, § 1, vests in the Montgomery County People's Court exclusive jurisdiction to try actions brought by a landlord against a tenant holding over. Neither the court nor Tenant's *28 counsel (who put this contention in issue before Judge Carter) has directed our attention to, nor have we found, any authority in support of this somewhat startling proposition.
 The statute (Art. 53, § 1) which has been in force for over a century, provides "a method for repossessing property by a summary proceeding before a justice of the peace." Trotter v. Lewis, 185 Md. 528, 536, 45 A.2d 329 (1946); Darling Shops v. Balto. Center, 191 Md. 289, 297, 60 A.2d 669 (1948). In the language of the statute (§ 1) "the lessor * * * may make a complaint * * * to any justice of the peace * * * [in the county] wherein such real estate is situate." (Emphasis supplied.) The comment of Chief Judge Allan W. Rhynhart of the People's Court of Baltimore City, in his comprehensive article on the Maryland Law of Landlord and Tenant, is of interest:
 "However, if the landlord desires to avail himself of the summary remedy provided by Article 53, Section 1, he must give three months' written notice to the tenant before the expiration of the term. If the landlord fails to give the notice, * * * then being barred from the summary proceedings which are brought in the People's Court, he must proceed in an action of ejectment in a court of higher jurisdiction." Rhynhart, Notes on the Law of Landlord and Tenant, 20 Md. L. Rev. 1, 29 (1960).
 In Glorius v. Watkins, 203 Md. 546, 551, 102 A.2d 274 (1954), the owner of the land sought to eject the occupant by means of a bill in equity. The language of Chief Judge Sobeloff, who spoke for the Court, seems especially appropriate:
 "So here, fundamentally the appellee's object is to recover possession of a piece of real estate. Anticipating that the appellants would interpose the contract as a defense, the appellee asserted that it was of no effect because of breaches by the appellants, and because it had been superseded by a new relationship, that of landlord and tenant instead of vendor and vendee. Yet the appellee's main purpose was precisely what an action of ejectment could gratify  recovery of possession, *29 with the incidental aim, as in Crook v. Brown, supra, to declare the anticipated defense groundless. Stinchcomb v. Realty Mortgage Co., 171 Md. 317, 322, 188 A. 790, 792; Finglass v. George Frank Sons Co., supra, 172 Md. at 136, 190 A. at 752; Punte v. Taylor, 189 Md. 102, 111, 53 A.2d 773, 777; Diener v. Wheatley, 191 Md. 690, 698, 62 A.2d 783, 786."
 Maryland Rules T 40, T 41 and T 42 should dispel any lingering doubt that the landlord has a free choice to proceed against a tenant either before a justice of the peace as provided in Art. 53, § 1, or in the circuit court as provided in Rule T 40. One of the oddities in the case is the fact that Landlords, as earlier noted, did bring a summary repossession action in the People's Court but were enjoined by Judge Pugh from pressing it.
 (c)
 Judicial Estoppel
 The trial judge asserts that Landlords are judicially estopped from contending the judgment in the ejectment suit is res judicata because of inconsistent statements made by Landlords in their pleadings. We shall consider these alleged inconsistent statements in the order in which they appear in the court's opinion.
 Paragraph 5 (e) of Tenant's amended plea filed 22 June 1964 (just before the trial in Denton) reads as follows:
 "(e) that the exercise of an Option to purchase in a Lease extinguished said Lease and terminated the legal relationship of Landlord and Tenant and creates the legal relationship of Vendor and Vendee thereby vesting equitable title in the Vendee, the subject matter of which is an equitable matter and to be determined by equitable principles."
 Landlords "demurred thereto * * * [and said it] is insufficient in law and of substance * * * and that equitable title is insufficient in law as a defense to an action of ejectment by the legal title holder, who can show both title and right to possession." We see no inconsistency here. The demurrer merely *30 questions whether it is correct, as a matter of law, to say that an equitable title is a defense to an action in ejectment by the holder of the legal title. Judge Carter overruled the demurrer, however, and Landlords amended their answer so as to "deny that the option was properly exercised." We do not think this is the equivalent of saying that the issues in the equity case and the ejectment case were not identical.
 While the case was in the Baltimore County court, Landlords, answering one of Tenant's motions to stay the proceedings, stated:
 "3. That regardless of the outcome of said Equity action No. 26628, the plaintiffs are entitled to proceed in this ejectment suit and should be permitted to do so."
 Landlords, answering another motion (for a continuance) stated:
 "1. That an action between these litigants now pending in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, being Equity No. 26628, does not involve identical issues as alleged by the defendant, nor would the resolution of such cause make moot the questions presented herein."
 After the transfer of the case to Denton, Landlords, in their answer (filed 22 May 1964) to Tenant's opposition to their motion to advance and set the case for trial, stated:
 "1. That the equity action now pending in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, between these parties does not involve identical issues to this cause as the defendant, who is the plaintiff in that suit, seeks to specifically enforce an option to buy the subject premises."
 It appears to us Judge Pugh has overlooked the fact that the identify of issues did not occur until Tenant filed its amended pleas in the ejectment case on 22 June 1964, the first day of the trial. Landlords contend that the statements extracted from their pleadings were correct when made and we are inclined to *31 agree. Indeed, in their Second Amended Answer, filed in the equity case on 31 July 1964 (after the trial in Denton), Landlords, for the first time averred that the equity case involved "the identical subject matter, the same property, and the same litigants." It will be observed, in passing, that the notion Landlords are estopped was raised for the first time, not by Tenant, but by Judge Pugh.
 Another of the oddities in this case is the fact that Tenant, on a number of occasions, stated in its pleadings that "the subject matter of both actions is inherently intertwined," that there was an "identity of subject matter and issues pending in both cases," that the action involved "the same parties [and] the same subject matter," and that the equity case "will be determinative of the very issues in this ejectment suit." Yet on 23 September 1964 (after the ejectment trial), answering Landlords' motion to dismiss, we find Tenant asserting that the "issues determined by the Caroline County Court were separate and distinctive (sic) from issues before this court and show a complete lack of identity." (Emphasis supplied.)
 Perhaps it would be more correct to say Tenant is estopped from contending that Judge Carter's decision is not res judicata.
 (d)
 Prior Litigation (233 Md. 29)
 It will be recalled that Judge Carter concluded that Messall v. Merlands Club, 233 Md. 29, was not res judicata as to any of the issues in the ejectment suit because "no evidence concerning Lessee's [Tenant's] failure to repair" subsequent to 22 August 1961 was admitted. Judge Pugh says Judge Carter "was in error" in doing so and he cites many pages of the transcript (in 233 Md. 29) in support of his views. We have examined this testimony but we find nothing which would undercut Judge Carter's finding. There are a few references to work which was done prior to August 1962 (when the testimony was produced) but it must be remembered that Judge Carter's finding was in respect of conditions as they existed between 1 November and 18 December 1962.
 *32 (e)
 Attack on Findings of the Court in the Ejectment Case
 Judge Pugh says Judge Carter cited "six alleged defalcations by the tenant in failing to make repairs to the premises between November 1, 1962 and December 18, 1962." He went on to say "these defalcations did not occur during this period. * * * [they] occurred years before * * *." (Emphasis supplied.) Judge Pugh also disputes Judge Carter's findings regarding the violation of health and fire regulations.
 What Judge Carter held can best be related by using his own language:
 "The evidence here presented on the first issue establishes that during the period from November 1, to December 18, 1962 the buildings and improvements on the property were in a state of disrepair to an extent that their condition constituted a default at that time of the obligation of the Lessee under paragraph 2(e) of the lease requiring the Lessee `to keep and maintain the demised premises in good repair including painting, as the same shall be at the commencement of the term.  ' These defalcations as they have been thus established consist of:
 "(a) failure to keep the exterior of the buildings properly painted;
 "(b) failure to properly maintain the interior of the main buildings;
 "(c) failure to maintain the roadway leading to the main building in proper repair;
 "(d) failure to maintain several hundred feet of fencing on the property in proper repair;
 "(e) failure to maintain the apron of the swimming pool in proper repair; and
 "(f) failure to maintain the lake at the rear of the property and the border thereof in proper condition.
 "All of these failures caused the property to be in substantially less valuable and usable condition than when possession thereof was acquired by the Lessee on April *33 1, 1956. These failures existed on December 18, 1962 when Mr. Hickey, as attorney for the President of the Lessee corporation, attempted to exercise the option on behalf of the corporation.
 "The evidence presented on the second issue as to whether the Lessee was in default in respect to its obligations under paragraph 2(g) requiring compliance with County health and fire regulations at the time the option to purchase was attempted to be exercised on December 18, 1962, establishes the following non-compliances:
 "(a) failure to connect the sewerage disposal facilities on the property with the public sewerage system as directed by the health authorities;
 "(b) failure to correct a nuisance and health menace created by an overflow of the sewerage disposal facilities;
 "(c) failure to clean the exhaust fan above the stove and the stove itself, used in the preparation of food;
 "(d) failure to correct fire hazards as requested by the county authorities namely, to repair the boiler room door and cover the inside thereof with fire resistant material; and
 "(e) failure to correct a fire hazard caused by use of extension cords, and unapproved fire extinguishers.
 "The Lessee's failure to comply with the regulations of lawful authority in respect to these matters, related to the operation of the Club, constituted a direct violation of its obligation under the aforesaid paragraph of the lease and therefore amounted to a default on its part which existed."
 We have examined those parts of the record which Judge Pugh cited in support of his contradiction of Judge Carter's findings but, in our judgment, they fall far short of demonstrating that Judge Carter's findings were not supported by substantial *34 evidence. In any event, even if it could be shown that he was wrong, the judgment implementing his decision is final and unreversed and it is not subject to attack or impeachment by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. See cases collected in 13 M.L.E., Judgments, §§ 131-35.
 (f)
 Estoppel to Use Charter Forfeiture
 In respect of the effect of the forfeiture (31 October 1962) of Tenant's charter on its right to exercise the option, Judge Carter had this to say:
 "Such a devolution of the ownership of the lease as a corporate asset clearly constitutes a devolvement upon persons other than the Lessee, by operation of law, and is therefore squarely within the provisions of the subject paragraph thereby constituting a default which existed on December 18, 1962. The Lessee contends that notwithstanding this fact when the charter was revived on January 27, 1964 the revival validated all contracts, acts, matters, and things made, done and performed by the officers and agents of the corporation during the time when the charter was void with the same force and effect as if the charter had at all times remained in full force and effect by reason of Art. 23, sec. 85 (d) and therefore that any default caused by the forfeiture is made whole and obliterated. It is difficult to perceive how the later validation of acts of officers of the corporation during the period of forfeiture affects the fact that by the forfeiture ownership of the lease devolved upon persons other than the Lessee by operation of law from October 31, 1962 to January 27, 1964, which fact constitutes a default by the Lessee under the provisions of the lease and which default was in existence at the time the option to purchase was attempted to be exercised on December 18, 1962. The ultimate validation of the acts of the directors by making such acts the acts of the corporation does not alter the fact that by reason of the *35 forfeiture the lease devolved on persons other than the Lessee which was the situation when the option to purchase was attempted to be exercised."
 * * *
 "To interpret the intent of the parties to this lease, which restricted the option period to October, November and December, 1962 so that the Lessors would be required to hold the matter open for the Lessees to validate its offer to exercise the option at any time up until January 27, 1964 when the charter was revived or for a period of over a year after the specified period had terminated would be a strained and queer construction, indeed."
 The correctness of Judge Carter's holding is disputed by Judge Pugh. He cites as support for his position Code, Art. 23, § 85 (d) which validates, upon revival, "all contracts, acts, matters and things made, done and performed" during the period of forfeiture. Absent that part of paragraph 4 (e) of the lease which reads "or if this lease shall, by operation of law, devolve upon any person * * * other than Lessee" Judge Pugh's contention might be persuasive. In the circumstances, however, especially in light of the language of the lease, we think Judge Carter has correctly stated the law.
 Judge Pugh argues further that, because Landlords, in their motion for summary judgment filed 17 February 1964 in the equity case and in a similar motion filed the following day in the ejectment case (while it was in Baltimore County) undertook, for the first time, to make use of the forfeiture of the charter (which had been revived several weeks earlier (27 January 1964)), they are estopped from doing so. It is undisputed that Landlords were unaware of the forfeiture until 31 January 1964  four days after revival. We think the filing, within a few weeks, of their motions for summary judgment demonstrates, in the circumstances, something more than ordinary diligence and we see no reason why they should be estopped from making use of what is undeniably a fact.
 Tenant, in its brief, presented a number of questions which Judge Pugh, in his opinion, did not touch upon. We think several of them require some comment.
 *36 The Caroline County court lacked jurisdiction, argues Tenant, because an ejectment case can be tried only in the county where the land is located. Tenant insists this is the tenor of Maryland Rule T 41. No other authorities are offered. Rule T 41 says nothing about ejectment cases being tried only in the county where the land lies. "The action shall be brought in the county in which the land lies" is the precise language of Rule T 41 a. (Emphasis supplied.) In any event, the procedural and jurisdictional problems involved in the institution, removal and trial of actions at law (including ejectment) were settled long ago in Baltimore v. Libowitz, 159 Md. 28, 149 A. 449 (1930) and recently further discussed in Bullock v. State, 230 Md. 280, 186 A.2d 888 (1962). See also Maryland Rule 542 h which gives the court to which an action has been removed the power to issue a warrant of resurvey, a procedure frequently used in ejectment cases and provided for by Rule T 44.
 Still another oddity in the case is the fact that it was Judge Pugh himself who signed the order removing the case to Baltimore County. Tenant did not then attack nor, until the filing of its brief, has it since attacked, the propriety or legality of transferring this ejectment case to another county for trial.
 We might also point out that it seems to be well established that where the issue of jurisdiction is raised and determined in favor of the jurisdiction, the ensuing judgment on the merits is not open to later collateral attack on the jurisdictional issue, whether or not the determination thereon was erroneous. Jackson v. Irving Trust Co., 311 U.S. 494, 61 S. Ct. 326, 85 L. Ed. 297 (1941); 1 B Moore's Federal Practice, Par. 0.405 (5). See also 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 714 and A.L.I., Restatement, Judgments, §§ 5j, 9 and 10.
 Tenant insists that because the equity case was filed four days before the ejectment case the doctrine "qui prior est tempore, potior est jure" applies and operates to defeat the jurisdiction of the Caroline County court. We do not agree.
 The principle of priority is applicable only when the cases involved are identical as to subject matter, parties and relief sought. Baltimore City v. Gittings, 113 Md. 119, 77 A. 319 (1910); Mish v. Lechlider, 89 Md. 275, 43 A. 57 (1899); Buck v. Colbath, 70 U.S. 334 (1865); 20 Am.Jur.2d, Courts, *37 § 131. In the case at bar the relief sought was the specific enforcement of the option. The object of the ejectment suit was to obtain possession of the property. Nevertheless, argues Tenant, Judge Carter, by deciding that Tenant's default precluded the exercise of its option, invaded Judge Pugh's prerogative and decided the specific performance case against Tenant. To that argument we must turn a deaf ear for the conspicuously obvious reason that Tenant's plea on equitable grounds compelled Judge Carter to decide that issue. His decision is final, unreversed and beyond collateral attack.
 Only the final judgment itself may be considered in applying the principle of res judicata. The opinion, being irrelevant and obiter dicta, has no force or effect. So argues Tenant. In our judgment a more correct statement of the law will be found in 50 C.J.S., Judgments, § 726:
 "* * * [R]ecourse may be had to the opinion of the court in a former action to ascertain what was in the mind of the court when judgment was rendered, especially where there is only a general finding; and where the judgment makes the opinion `a part of the record' a direct statement in the opinion as to the matters litigated is conclusive. So it has been held that the matters decided in the opinion of an appellate court are concluded although the decision is not in the decree, at least where such matters are within the issues presented by the pleadings."
 It will be recalled that the concluding words of Judge Carter's order of 24 July 1964 were: "A written opinion in support of this Order will be filed."
 The basic theory of Tenant's defense in the ejectment case was that it was a vendee rather than a lessee holding over and that eviction, in the circumstances, would be inequitable. To reach this conclusion Judge Carter would have been obliged, under the pleadings, to find that Tenant had complied with the obligations under the lease which were a condition precedent to its right to exercise the option. But he found to the contrary, a finding, necessary under the pleadings, to support his final judgment that Tenant was wrongfully in possession.
 *38 Our holding in Cuffley v. Hammond, 228 Md. 162, 178 A.2d 901 (1962) is peculiarly relevant to the case at bar and it seems appropriate to conclude this opinion with a brief reference to it. Chief Judge Brune, for the Court, said:
 "The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties to the first ejectment suit. In that case, unlike Dundalk Holding Co. v. Easter, 195 Md. 488 (see p. 494), 73 A.2d 877, a plea upon equitable grounds was filed, and equitable considerations were therefore not irrelevant  at least in the absence of a showing that such a plea was wholly unfounded or frivolous. Whether the Circuit Court did or did not decide the ejectment suit correctly and whether or not it exercised its equitable jurisdiction therein properly (see Easter v. Dundalk Holding Co., 199 Md. 303, 86 A.2d 404; Dundalk Holding Co. v. Easter, 215 Md. 549, 137 A.2d 667), are questions which cannot now be relitigated. No appeal was taken in the first ejectment case, and it cannot be reviewed on this appeal. If it were a nullity, it might now be open to collateral attack; but in view of the court's jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, we think that its order was not a nullity. The appellants are accordingly bound by the order in the original ejectment suit, whether it was erroneous or not. Christopher v. Sisk, 133 Md. 48, 104 A. 355; Ugast v. La Fontaine, 189 Md. 227, 55 A.2d 705; Riggs v. Loweree, 189 Md. 437, 56 A.2d 152." Id. at 167-68.
 Decree reversed.
 Appellee to pay the costs.
 NOTES
 [1] Reporter's Note: Prescott, C.J., participated in the hearing of this case, in the conference in regard to its decision and in the adoption of this opinion but he had retired from the Court prior to the filing of the opinion.
 [1] Equity 24,390 which on appeal became Messall v. Merlands Club, 233 Md. 29. See paragraph 17 of Landlords' Petition to Reopen Proceedings, E. 52, Record Extract, No. 71, Sept. Term, 1963


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31991D0400
 91/400/CECA, CEE: Décision du Conseil et de la Commission, du 25 février 1991, concernant la conclusion de la quatrième Convention ACP-CEE
 Journal officiel n° L 229 du 17/08/1991 p. 0001 - 0002 édition spéciale finnoise: chapitre 11 tome 17 p. 0057 édition spéciale suédoise: chapitre 11 tome 17 p. 0057
 DÉCISION DU CONSEIL ET DE LA COMMISSION du 25 février 1991 concernant la conclusion de la quatrième convention ACP-CEE (91/400/CECA, CEE) LE CONSEIL DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES, LA COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES, vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l'acier, vu le traité instituant la Communauté économique européenne, et notamment son article 238, vu l'avis conforme du Parlement européen (1), considérant qu'il convient d'approuver la quatrième convention ACP-CEE, signée à Lomé le 15 décembre 1989, DÉCIDENT: Article premier La quatrième convention ACP-CEE, les protocoles et les déclarations qui y sont annexés, ainsi que les déclarations qui sont jointes à l'acte final, sont approuvés au nom de la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l'acier et de la Communauté économique européenne. Les textes de la convention et des protocoles et déclarations annexés, ainsi que celui de l'acte final, sont joints à la présente décision. Article 2 Le président du Conseil procède, en ce qui concerne la Communauté européenne du charbon et de l'acier et la Communauté économique européenne, au dépôt de l'acte de notification prévu à l'article 360 de la convention. Fait à Bruxelles, le 25 février 1991. Par le ConseilPar la Commission Le président Le président J.-C. JUNCKER Jacques DELORS (1) JO n° C 149 du 18. 6. 1990, p. 71.


text:
 8.3.2012
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 69/9
 A BIZOTTSÁG 189/2012/EU VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2012. március 7.)
 az egyes gyümölcs- és zöldségfélék behozatali árának meghatározására szolgáló behozatali átalányértékek megállapításáról
 AZ EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel a mezőgazdasági piacok közös szervezésének létrehozásáról, valamint egyes mezőgazdasági termékekre vonatkozó egyedi rendelkezésekről szóló, 2007. október 22-i 1234/2007/EK tanácsi rendeletre (az egységes közös piacszervezésről szóló rendelet) (1),
 tekintettel az 1234/2007/EK tanácsi rendeletnek a gyümölcs- és zöldség-, valamint a feldolgozottgyümölcs- és feldolgozottzöldség-ágazatra alkalmazandó részletes szabályainak a megállapításáról szóló, 2011. június 7-i 543/2011/EU bizottsági végrehajtási rendeletre (2), és különösen annak 136. cikke (1) bekezdésére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az Uruguayi Forduló többoldalú kereskedelmi tárgyalásai eredményeinek megfelelően az 543/2011/EU végrehajtási rendelet a XVI. mellékletének A. részében szereplő termékek és időszakok tekintetében meghatározza azokat a szempontokat, amelyek alapján a Bizottság rögzíti a harmadik országokból történő behozatalra vonatkozó átalányértékeket.
 (2)
 Az 543/2011/EU végrehajtási rendelet 136. cikke (1) bekezdése alapján a behozatali átalányérték számítására munkanaponként, változó napi adatok figyelembevételével kerül sor. Ezért helyénvaló előírni, hogy e rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetésének napján lépjen hatályba,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 Az 543/2011/EU végrehajtási rendelet 136. cikkében említett behozatali átalányértékeket e rendelet melléklete határozza meg.
 2. cikk
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetésének napján lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2012. március 7-én.
 a Bizottság részéről, az elnök nevében,
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 mezőgazdasági és vidékfejlesztési főigazgató
 (1) HL L 299., 2007.11.16., 1. o.
 (2) HL L 157., 2011.6.15., 1. o.
 MELLÉKLET
 Az egyes gyümölcs- és zöldségfélék behozatali árának meghatározására szolgáló behozatali átalányértékek
 (EUR/100 kg)
 KN-kód
 Országkód (1)
 Behozatali átalányérték
 0702 00 00
 IL
 87,3
 JO
 78,3
 MA
 66,2
 SN
 207,5
 TN
 79,6
 TR
 104,9
 ZZ
 104,0
 0707 00 05
 EG
 158,2
 JO
 129,5
 TR
 173,8
 ZZ
 153,8
 0709 91 00
 EG
 91,5
 ZZ
 91,5
 0709 93 10
 MA
 51,7
 TR
 149,8
 ZZ
 100,8
 0805 10 20
 EG
 52,2
 IL
 67,8
 MA
 47,0
 TN
 60,9
 TR
 67,7
 ZZ
 59,1
 0805 50 10
 BR
 43,7
 EG
 48,3
 TR
 49,0
 ZZ
 47,0
 0808 10 80
 CA
 124,8
 CL
 96,3
 CN
 103,9
 MK
 31,8
 US
 152,4
 ZZ
 101,8
 0808 30 90
 AR
 94,4
 CL
 106,2
 CN
 53,6
 ZA
 106,3
 ZZ
 90,1
 (1) Az országoknak az 1833/2006/EK bizottsági rendeletben (HL L 354., 2006.12.14., 19. o.) meghatározott nómenklatúrája szerint. A „ZZ” jelentése „egyéb származás”.