jurisdiction: US

text:
 319 Md. 25 (1990)
 570 A.2d 840
 CHEVRON, U.S.A., INC. ET AL.
 v.
 WARREN ROBERT LESCH ET AL.
 No. 86, September Term, 1988.
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 March 7, 1990.
 Motion for Reconsideration Denied April 2, 1990.
 Donald E. Sharpe (Elizabeth C. Kelley, Piper & Marbury, David D. Patton, all on brief), Baltimore, Charles N. Ketterman (Montedonico & Mason, Chartered, both on brief), Baltimore, for petitioners.
 Glenn E. Bushel (Ira L. Oring, Melnicove, Kaufman, Weiner & Smouse, P.A., Baltimore, H. Patrick Stringer, Jr. and Mudd, Harrison & Burch, Towson, all on brief), for respondent.
 Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, ADKINS and BLACKWELL,[*] JJ.
 McAULIFFE, Judge.
 Dr. Warren R. Lesch and his wife were severely burned and suffered the loss of their home and its contents when an explosion occurred in their garage in July 1985. The Lesches filed suit in the Circuit Court for Harford County, contending that the explosion was caused by the negligence of Malcolm Weeks, an employee of Walker's Chevron, Inc. (Walker's Chevron). Walker's Chevron owned and operated an automobile service station business located on Conowingo Road in Bel Air, Maryland. It leased the premises, and also purchased gasoline, oil, and lubricants from Bay Oil, Inc. (Bay Oil), a jobber.[1] Walker's Chevron was a "branded station"; that is, it displayed the signs and colors of a particular brand, Chevron, and sold only that brand of gasoline and oil.[2] Bay Oil purchased the Chevron products that it sold to Walker's Chevron from Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (Chevron U.S.A.), a national oil company.
 The Lesches sued Weeks, Walker's Chevron, Bay Oil, and Chevron U.S.A. The claims against Weeks and Walker's Chevron are based on Weeks's alleged negligence in failing to properly repair a leak in the gas tank of the Lesch automobile, and on the vicarious liability of Walker's Chevron as the employer of Weeks. The claim against Bay Oil is grounded on the theory that Walker's Chevron and its employees were servants of Bay Oil, subject in fact to its control.
 The complaint against Chevron U.S.A. proceeds on theories of apparent agency, or agency by estoppel. The Lesches contend that Chevron U.S.A. created, or knowingly allowed to exist, a situation that actually conveyed to the Lesches the reasonable belief that Weeks was an employee of Chevron U.S.A., and therefore possessed the skill that they had the right to expect of one under the control and supervision of a major oil company. They entrusted the repair work to Weeks and Walker's Chevron because of that belief, and they suffered damage because of that reliance.
 Before trial, Bay Oil and Chevron U.S.A. filed motions for summary judgment. Judge Cypert O. Whitfill granted the motions, concluding from facts not in dispute that Bay Oil neither possessed nor exercised that degree of control over Walker's Chevron which would give rise to vicarious liability, and that any belief entertained by the Lesches that employees of Walker's Chevron were employees of Chevron U.S.A. was not justified by the facts, and was unreasonable as a matter of law.
 With the concurrence of all parties, and under circumstances we find were appropriate, Judge Whitfill entered final judgment in favor of Bay Oil and Chevron U.S.A., expressly finding that there was no just reason for delay. Maryland Rule 2-602(b). The plaintiffs appealed, and the Court of Special Appeals reversed, directing that both judgments be vacated. Lesch v. Chevron, 75 Md. App. 669, 542 A.2d 1292 (1988). We granted certiorari, and we now reverse the judgment of the intermediate appellate court.
 The facts surrounding the repair in question, and the subsequent explosion, are as follows. On 14 July 1985, Dr. Lesch became aware that the gas tank of his Buick automobile was leaking, apparently as a result of having been struck by a metal rod he had run over earlier in the day. He pushed the car out of his garage and hosed down the garage floor. The next morning, he called Walker's Chevron, with whom he dealt regularly, and reported the problem. Weeks arranged to have Dr. Lesch's car towed to the service station, and after determining that there was a small puncture in the tank, called Dr. Lesch. The content of that conversation is in dispute, but in any event, Weeks proceeded to attempt a repair. He cleaned the tank in the area of the hole with a solvent, pressed air conditioning duct tape into or over the hole, inserted a screw into the hole and covered the patch with a multi-purpose epoxy. After allowing the epoxy to set up for one to two hours, Weeks put several gallons of gasoline in the tank and checked it for leaks. Finding none, he filled the tank and parked the car. Dr. Lesch picked up the car the next day. Weeks explained the nature of the repair to Dr. Lesch, and said he had not observed any leaks. Weeks suggested, however, that Dr. Lesch "keep an eye on it." That afternoon and evening, Dr. Lesch made several checks for evidence of leaks, but saw nothing. The next morning, however, he and his wife smelled an odor of gasoline, and went to the garage to investigate. Dr. Lesch said that he was careful not to turn on any lights, or to activate the electric garage door opener. Perceiving a significant odor of gasoline in the garage, he stated that he disengaged the garage door from the electric opening device, and manually raised the door. He said that when the door reached a certain height it activated a light on the housing of the electric door opener, and the explosion occurred. Dr. Lesch suffered second degree burns to 45 percent of his body, and Mrs. Lesch incurred second and third degree burns to 45 percent of her body. Their home and all of its contents were destroyed by the ensuing fire.
 Additional facts pertaining to the relationship that existed between the Lesches and Walker's Chevron, and between the several defendants, as well as additional facts bearing on the possible appearance of an agency relationship between Walker's Chevron and Chevron U.S.A., will be set forth as we discuss the separate theories of liability.
 I.
 Bay Oil  The Claim of Actual Agency
 Bay Oil is a petroleum products jobber doing business primarily in Harford, Cecil and Baltimore counties. It has, for some time, purchased petroleum products from several national gasoline producers, and sold those products to branded and unbranded retail gasoline service stations. It became a Chevron jobber in 1972, after which it provided Chevron products to branded Chevron dealers. Contractual rights and obligations between Bay Oil and Chevron U.S.A. for the period of time involved in this case were controlled by a Branded Jobber Petroleum Products Agreement dated 11 September 1984. As part of this agreement, Bay Oil was authorized to supply Chevron products and "insignia"[3] to those retail stations that were approved by Chevron U.S.A. as acceptable outlets for Chevron branded products.
 The service station involved in this case was first approved as a Chevron branded station in 1976. The business of that station was then owned by Ben Walker, and was operated as a sole proprietorship. Ben Walker had been in the service station business for some time, and had owned the business at this particular station since the mid-1960's. Prior to that time, he had owned a service station business on Rock Spring Road, approximately two miles from the Conowingo Road station. The Rock Spring Road location was a branded Sinclair station, and Ben Walker traded there as Walker's Sinclair. When he moved his business to Conowingo Road, he continued to operate as Walker's Sinclair. In the mid or late 1960's, B.P. Oil, Inc. bought Sinclair, and Walker's Sinclair became Walker's BP. In 1976, Bay Oil obtained a leasehold interest in the Conowingo Road property from B.P. Oil, Inc., and in turn entered into a sublease with Ben Walker. It was at that time that Bay Oil entered into a Reseller's Contract with Walker, and Walker's BP became Walker's Chevron.
 The original Reseller's Contract, which was apparently extended by an oral agreement of the parties, was a fairly simple document consisting of two pages. Bay Oil agreed to sell and deliver, and Ben Walker agreed to buy, certain quantities of Chevron gasoline, oil, and lubricants. Additionally, Bay Oil agreed to lease an eight foot internally lighted Chevron sign and a credit card imprinter to Walker. The contract did not grant Bay Oil any control over the operation of Walker's business, and included this provision:
 It is the spirit and intent of this contract that Buyer will have the right to conduct and carry on the business of selling at retail, automobile fuel and gasoline and lubricating oils and greases, wholly free and independent of any domination or control by Seller; and nothing in this contract is intended or shall be construed to give Seller any domination or control of Buyer's said business.
 The original lease agreement between Bay Oil and Walker's Chevron was also an uncomplicated pre-printed document consisting of two pages. It provided, at paragraph 10, that:
 The provisions of this lease shall not be construed as reserving to the Lessor any right to exercise any control over the business or operations of the Lessee conducted upon the leased premises or to direct in any respect the manner in which any such business and operations shall be conducted.
 Although these provisions are not controlling, they may be of assistance in determining the intent of the contracting parties.
 In support of their contention that Bay Oil exercised actual control over Walker's Chevron, plaintiffs point to a letter of 16 December 1982 from Bay Oil to Ben Walker. This letter advised Walker "of certain problems regarding the operation of your service station," and stated that if Walker wished to continue to occupy the premises, then he would be expected to conform to certain conditions. The conditions stated in the letter were:
 1. The station will be kept clean and free of debris and trash at all times.
 2. The station will be opened seven days per week no later than 7:00 a.m. and closed no earlier than 8:00 p.m.
 3. The station will be properly lighted in a manner to give the appearance the station is open for business between sundown and 8:00 p.m.
 4. All junk cars will be removed immediately, no more than three motor vehicles shall remain outside overnight and no automobile shall remain on the premises for more than one week.
 5. You will be expected to furnish a deposit of $700.00 as security for future payments of rent.
 6. Gas will be paid for in full at the time of delivery.
 7. Monthly rent will be calculated based on the previous month's sales according to the attached schedule.
 8. We will bill you for rent at the beginning of each month. Your rent shall be due upon receipt of the bill.
 The Court of Special Appeals, characterizing this letter as an ultimatum, held that its contents constituted sufficient evidence of Bay Oil's power to control the conduct of Walker's Chevron to permit a trier of fact to find the existence of a master-servant relationship. Lesch v. Chevron, supra, 75 Md. App. at 698-700, 542 A.2d 1292. We do not agree.
 In evaluating the relationship that existed between these parties to determine whether Bay Oil may be held vicariously liable for the torts of employees of Walker's Chevron, we keep in mind that not every close relationship will create that liability. One may be an agent of another, owing to his principal the fiduciary obligations of loyalty and general obedience, but at the same time not be sufficiently under the control of the principal to be considered a servant. See Brady v. Ralph Parsons Co., 308 Md. 486, 510-512, 520 A.2d 717 (1987). The relationship of master and servant exists only when the employer has the right to control and direct the servant in the performance of his work and in the manner in which the work is to be done. Id. at 510; Mackall v. Zayre Corp., 293 Md. 221, 230, 443 A.2d 98 (1982).
 In Keitz v. National Paving Co., 214 Md. 479, 491, 134 A.2d 296 (1957), this Court said:
 [T]here are at least five criteria that may be considered in determining the question whether the relationship of master and servant exists. These are: (1) the selection and engagement of the servant, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to discharge, (4) the power to control the servant's conduct, (5) and whether the work is a part of the regular business of the employer. Standing alone, none of these indicia, excepting (4), seems controlling in the determination as to whether such relationship exists. The decisive test in determining whether the relation of master and servant exists is whether the employer has the right to control and direct the servant in the performance of his work and in the manner in which the work is to be done. (emphasis in original).
 To like effect, see Whitehead v. Safway Steel Products, 304 Md. 67, 77-78, 497 A.2d 803 (1985); B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, 279 Md. 632, 637-39, 370 A.2d 554 (1977).
 Assuming, as we do for the purpose of considering Bay Oil's motion for summary judgment, that the plaintiffs could establish that Ben Walker, and his successor, Walker's Chevron, had accepted and agreed to be bound by the conditions imposed by Bay Oil, we hold that to be insufficient evidence of the right on the part of Bay Oil to exercise the degree of control that would support a claim of vicarious liability. This exercise of control by Bay Oil flows partly from its status as landlord, and partly from its status as jobber. Provisions dealing with required cleanliness of the premises, number of cars that may be parked overnight, and revised rent structures are customary in lease agreements. See, e.g., Miller v. Sinclair Refining Company, 268 F.2d 114, 117 (5th Cir.1959); Texas Co. v. Wheat, 140 Tex. 468, 168 S.W.2d 632, 635 (1943). Because the parties apparently were in agreement that they were on a month-to-month rental basis, Bay Oil announced the change in terms as a condition to the continuation of the lease. For example, Item 2, dealing with the minimum hours of operation of the station, parallels a provision that was contained in the original, pre-printed lease, but which had not been filled in by the parties. In addition, Item 6, which provided that gas would be sold to Walker's Chevron on a C.O.D. basis, was entirely in accordance with the Reseller's Contract that existed between the parties. Individually or collectively, these conditions did not demonstrate a claim to, or exercise of, the degree of control required to establish a master-servant relationship. Summary judgment was correctly entered in favor of Bay Oil.
 II.
 Chevron U.S.A.  The Claim of Apparent Agency
 Plaintiffs do not contend that a master-servant relationship existed between Chevron U.S.A. and Walker's Chevron, and the facts of record would not support the contention if made. Rather, plaintiffs contend that Chevron U.S.A. is liable for the negligent acts of employees of Walker's Chevron because Chevron U.S.A. influenced the plaintiffs to believe that Weeks was its employee and, reasonably relying on that apparent relationship and the care and skill that the plaintiffs believed a mechanic employed by Chevron U.S.A. would possess, they entrusted the repair to Weeks, to their detriment. This theory of liability, most often referred to as apparent agency or agency by estoppel,[4] was before us in B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, supra, and more recently in Mehlman v. Powell, 281 Md. 269, 378 A.2d 1121 (1977).
 As we pointed out in B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, supra, the law applicable to the plaintiffs' claim against Chevron U.S.A. is that set forth in Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 267 (1958):
 One who represents that another is his servant or other agent and thereby causes a third person justifiably to rely upon the care or skill of such apparent agent is subject to liability to the third person for harm caused by the lack of care or skill of the one appearing to be a servant or other agent as if he were such.
 In order to recover on this theory, in addition to showing that Weeks was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the ensuing damage, plaintiffs must show that: 1) they were misled by appearances by Chevron U.S.A. into believing that Weeks was an employee of Chevron U.S.A.; 2) this belief was objectively reasonable under all the circumstances; and, 3) they relied on the existence of that relationship in making their decision to entrust Weeks with the repairs. See B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, supra, 279 Md. at 644-45, 370 A.2d 554. See also Drexel v. Union Prescription Centers, Inc., 582 F.2d 781, 791 (3rd Cir.1978). One commentator has described the first two requirements in these terms:
 The first [test] is objective: could a reasonable man believe that the company's manifestations of apparent authority indicate it is holding the operator out as its agent? The second is subjective: did the facts known by the plaintiff in a particular case reasonably justify his assumption that the operator was the company's agent?
 Comment, Service Stations Torts: Time for the Oil Companies to Assume Their Share of the Responsibility, 10 Cal.W.L.Rev. 382, 394-95 (1974). Comment a to § 267 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency discusses the third requirement:
 The mere fact that acts are done by one whom the injured party believes to be the defendant's servant is not sufficient to cause the apparent master to be liable. There must be such reliance upon the manifestation as exposes the plaintiff to the negligent conduct.
 We shall assume, without deciding, that summary judgment could not properly have been entered on the questions of whether the plaintiffs subjectively entertained the belief that Weeks was an employee of Chevron U.S.A., and whether Weeks was engaged by the plaintiffs to make the repairs as a result of that belief. We hold, however, that summary judgment was correctly entered in favor of Chevron U.S.A. on the ground that any belief so held by the plaintiffs was not objectively reasonable under all of the circumstances.
 Most of the alleged indicia of control relied on by these plaintiffs were identical to those relied on by the plaintiff in B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, supra. The Lesches related by affidavit that:
 The station was known as Walker's Chevron, Inc. There was a large sign bearing the Chevron logo which was located on the parking lot of the station. The gasoline pumps had Chevron decals. The service vehicles had Chevron decals on each door. There was a Chevron emblem and slogan on the door to the service bay. There were other Chevron decals on the poles supporting the canopy over the full service island, as well as on the office desk. The gas station employees wore uniforms with Chevron emblems on them, and the gas station service tickets had the Chevron emblem on them. There was no indication at the service station that it was not associated with Chevron in any respect.
 * * *
 Also, Walker's Chevron identified itself as a Chevron service station in the local yellow pages.
 From this, the Lesches said "it was evident to us that Walker's Chevron was associated with Chevron, a national oil company," and they thought that Chevron U.S.A. "would stand behind any repair."
 In B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, supra, 279 Md. at 640, 370 A.2d 554, we quoted the following passage from Coe v. Esau, 377 P.2d 815, 818 (Okla. 1963):
 It is indeed a matter of common knowledge and practice that distinctive colors and trademark signs are displayed at gasoline stations by independent dealers of petroleum product suppliers. These signs and emblems represent no more than notice to the motorist that a given company's products are being marketed at the station.
 We also quoted from Reynolds v. Skelly Oil Co., 227 Iowa 163, 171, 287 N.W. 823, 827 (1939), as follows:
 The argument of appellee that the Skelly Oil Company was estopped because of the signs displayed and that, because of such signs, there was a presumption that the station was owned by the Skelly Oil Company has no support in reason or authority. [One may a]s well argue, that because the word `Chevrolet' or `Buick' is displayed in front of a place of business, General Motors would be estopped to claim that it was not the owner of the business. It is a matter of common knowledge that these trademark signs are displayed throughout the country by independent dealers.
 This "common knowledge" line of reasoning has been followed by many courts throughout the country. See, e.g., Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 291 S.C. 62, 352 S.E.2d 284, 287 (1986) (sale of Mobil products, presence of Mobil signs and emblems on uniforms, and station trading as "North Main Mobil" was not sufficient evidence to establish apparent agency); Wood v. Shell Oil Co., 495 So. 2d 1034, 1039 (Ala. 1986) (presence of oil company's distinctive logo displayed on signs, literature, products, and uniforms is not sufficient evidence, in itself, to establish apparent agency because it is "common knowledge among the general public that such a logo is often displayed by independent dealers and that the only representation made by such displays is that the oil company's gasoline is sold at the service station"); Stephens v. Yahama Motor Co., Ltd., 627 P.2d 439, 442 (Okl. 1981) (display of two Conoco signs at service station not sufficient to establish apparent agency because it is common knowledge that such signs are displayed by independent dealers); Apple v. Standard Oil, Division of American Oil Company, 307 F. Supp. 107, 115 (N.D.Cal. 1969) (mere fact that service station sold Amoco gasoline and displayed Amoco signs did not constitute a "holding out" sufficient to give rise to a finding of apparent agency).
 In Mehlman v. Powell, supra, 281 Md. at 274, 378 A.2d 1121, Judge Eldridge made this cogent observation for the Court:
 [I]n B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, supra, it was necessary to distinguish between the products offered for sale and the automotive services provided by the attendant. The mere fact that BP products are advertised for sale does not, in itself, justify the inference that BP is as well directly providing automotive services. (emphasis in original).
 A similar distinction was drawn by the District Court of Appeal of Florida in Cawthon v. Phillips Petroleum Company, 124 So. 2d 517, 521 (Fla.App. 1960). See also Sydenham v. Santiago, 392 So. 2d 357 (Fla.App. 1981); Ortega v. General Motors Corp., 392 So. 2d 40 (Fla.App. 1980). Compare Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491, 493-94 (Fla. 1983) (distinguishing "oil company cases" from other apparent agency situations).
 The Lesches, however, point to additional factors that they believe militate in favor of a finding of apparent agency. First, they note that Chevron U.S.A. allowed them to charge their purchases of products and repairs on a VISA credit card.[5] We do not view that fact as an indication that Chevron U.S.A. controlled the details of the operation of Walker's Chevron. It is common knowledge that major oil companies accept credit card purchases, not only of their products, but of virtually anything sold by a service station, which, at least of fairly recent date, may even include grocery as well as automotive items. Moreover, it is common knowledge that many gasoline service stations accept several different major oil company credit cards. Whatever reasonable conclusions one might legitimately draw from the widespread use of credit cards in today's society, we are not convinced that there may be numbered among them the conviction that the party furnishing the credit card slip and cooperating with the credit card company and issuing bank enjoys the control of an employer over those whose bill is paid by the charge.
 Additionally, the Lesches claim that Chevron U.S.A., although expressing concern in its internal communications about the use by independent dealers of the word "Chevron" in corporate names, failed to require Walker's Chevron, Inc. to change its name. We believe Chevron U.S.A.'s principal concern was with the mandate of federal law[6] that it continually monitor the use of, and protect, its hallmark, at the risk of losing it. We do not believe that the inclusion of the word "Chevron" in the corporate name of Walker's Chevron to be a significant factor in favor of the plaintiffs' claim of a reasonable belief that Chevron U.S.A. was the master of the employees of this station. The station had been known as "Walker's Chevron" long before the decision to incorporate had been made.
 The plaintiffs next advance an argument that, given slightly altered circumstances, might have proven persuasive. The argument deals with a campaign designed to encourage Chevron customers to utilize the service facilities of their dealers in addition to purchasing Chevron products. It is in the area of advertising that some courts have found that major oil companies, already perilously close to broad liability by reason of what appears to be rather than what really is, have occasionally gone over the precipice. See, e.g., Gizzi v. Texaco Inc., 437 F.2d 308 (3rd Cir.1971) (national advertising slogan "You can trust your car to the man who wears the star" in addition to usual indicia of branded station); Chevron Oil Company v. Sutton, 85 N.M. 679, 515 P.2d 1283 (1973) (Chevron advertised in telephone directory that its repairmen were skillful).
 The advertising program involved in the case before us was Chevron U.S.A.'s "We Care" program. Initiated in 1976, it provided to station owners, at a modest cost, a package of materials for display and distribution. Known as a "point-of-sale" program, it was apparently not accompanied by any national or local media advertising. Central to the "We Care" program was a dealer-customer pledge, framed for posting in the station, which read as follows:
 WE CARE ...
  for you, our customer
  for your comfort
  for your safety
  for your economy!
 If at any time our service slips,
 remind us, because we're
 working hard to prove to you ...
 WE CARE!
 This station is dedicated to
 this attitude and we want
 to take care of your car for you,
 properly and efficiently,
 so you are happy, safe and
 comfortable! Give us a try or
 tell us when we miss the mark, so
 we can keep up our promise ...
 WE CARE!
 The package also contained a two foot by three foot double-faced pump island sign, designed to contain a series of point-of-sale messages during the year; a large, double-faced pole sign; window signs; pressure sensitive decals; cards and "We Care" pens for distribution to customers; and, a Chevron car care guide.
 It is a fair inference that Walker's Chevron participated in this program, but the record does not indicate the extent of its participation. Nine years later, when this incident occurred, the only visible remnants of the program were decals bearing only the words "We Care" and the Chevron hallmark. These were located on the poles supporting the canopy over the service island, on the desk in the office, and on a service bay door. There is no suggestion in this record that Dr. Lesch or his wife ever saw any of the "We Care" promotional materials except the decals, or that these decals conveyed a message to them different in kind from that generally conveyed by the other Chevron insignia prominently displayed throughout the station. In short, the presence of the "We Care" decals under the particular circumstances present here does nothing to bolster the case of reasonable reliance.
 Dr. Lesch also sought to prove his reasonable reliance on the involvement of Chevron U.S.A. with Walker's Chevron by referring to a conversation he had in 1980 or 1981 with Benny Walker, son of Ben Walker. At the time of this conversation, Ben Walker had died, and his son had become an owner of the business.[7] Dr. Lesch said that he had always had the greatest respect for the integrity and mechanical ability of Ben Walker. He knew, however, that Benny Walker did not have his father's mechanical ability. For this reason, and because he was experiencing some difficulties with a vehicle that Weeks was working on for him, he inquired of Benny Walker concerning Weeks's experience and ability. He related the conversation as follows:
 A. Mr. Lloyd Creighton, one of the owners, mentioned to me when I inquired as to  it must have been shortly after Mr. Walker passed away, and I had my son's old '67 Valiant out to Walker's to have some engine problems, that we took it back once or twice, and Mr. Weeks was working on it, and there were some problems that kept recurring. And I asked Mr. Creighton, I said, not knowing that much about Mr. Weeks at the time, and having to adjust to new mechanics, after having years of faith in Mr. Walker, I had mentioned, questioning his ability, is he a good mechanic, or does he know what he's doing. And his answer was, oh, yes, he is sent to courses or he goes to courses. And by this I assumed or believed that this was a strong implication that he did indeed attend refresher courses or modernization courses, whatever, that were perhaps given by a national organization, most likely the one his gas station was affiliated with by its logo.
 Q. Did he tell you which organization he went to these courses?
 A. No. He said, oh, yes, he's a good mechanic, he regularly is sent to, or has to go to, not as if it was his own volition, as if it was a requirement.
 So, I felt much more secure at that point in time, knowing that there were requirements or standards to be met by the employees.
 Dr. Lesch said that he inferred from that conversation that Walker's Chevron was "being backed up by the major concern of Chevron." The conversation does not support the inference. There was nothing in the answer given by Creighton that involved Chevron.[8] Moreover, if Dr. Lesch was misled, it was not by any representation of Chevron U.S.A., and it is the manifestations of the party to be charged that are significant in this analysis. See Restatement (Second) of Agency, supra at § 267; Note, Theories of Liability for Retail Franchisors: A Theme in Four Variations, 39 Md.L.Rev. 264, 280 (1979).
 In assessing the reasonableness of any reliance claimed by the Lesches, we also consider the history of the Lesches' dealings with the Walkers. Dr. Lesch began dealing with Ben Walker in 1959, when Walker owned the Sinclair branded service station business on Rock Spring Road. As noted above, Dr. Lesch held in high regard Ben Walker's mechanical ability and personal integrity. As a result, with the exception of warranty work on new vehicles, he had all of his automobiles serviced exclusively at Ben Walker's station. When Ben Walker moved his business to the Conowingo Road station, Dr. Lesch followed him. When Ben Walker changed from the Sinclair station to a BP station, and later from a BP station to a Chevron station, Dr. Lesch stayed with him. Dr. Lesch knew that Ben Walker owned the business at that time and recognized also that Chevron did not employ Ben Walker. In describing the time of the transition from BP to Chevron, Dr. Lesch testified:
 When his British Petroleum station became a part of the Chevron system. Or Chevron was the one who, I can't say employed him, but was the organizational head, or his supplier of gasoline and gasoline-related products. (emphasis added).
 After Ben Walker's death in 1980, Dr. Lesch knew that the business continued to be privately owned.[9] He described Lloyd Creighton as "a part owner of the station."
 The national product branding that existed at Walker's Chevron in 1985 differed very little from that which we found to exist in B.P. Oil Corp. v. Mabe, supra. Here, as there, we conclude that the reasonable inference that may be drawn from such indicia is that products of the featured national oil producer are sold at that station. The problem presented by a factual situation of this kind was well stated in an article dealing with vicarious liability appearing in the Yale Law Journal:
 The negligent repair cases pose somewhat more difficult issues. Certainly, the mere display of brand-name petroleum products hardly constitutes a representation about the skill of an auto mechanic. It may, however, lead a few customers to believe that the financial resources of the oil company are available to satisfy the judgment in the event of faulty repairs, or even that the mechanic has received some training from the oil company.
 Whether such beliefs are reasonable, however, is another question. Just as it is inefficient to allow sellers to deceive buyers, it is in general inefficient to impose liability on sellers for illogical or unreasonable beliefs of buyers. To do so would impose costs on sellers that are attributable to buyers' unpredicable idiosyncrasies, and would thereby lead to higher prices and to a smaller scale of operation with no attendant loss-avoidance benefits. Thus, the requirement of reasonable or justifiable reliance in the apparent authority rule is efficient, and it is certainly questionable whether the mere display of brand name logos and products at a service station constitutes a reasonable basis for any specific customer beliefs about the skill or financial status of the enterprise and its employees. (footnote omitted).
 A. Sykes, The Economics of Vicarious Liability, 93 Yale L.J. 1231, 1277 (1984). It was not reasonable for the Lesches to conclude that Chevron owned or operated the station, or that it so controlled the employees of the station so as to be considered their master, and therefore responsible for their negligence. The facts of this case, viewed in light most favorable to the plaintiffs, do not support the imposition of vicarious liability against Chevron U.S.A.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HARFORD COUNTY; COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENTS.
 NOTES
 [*] Blackwell, J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court but did not participate in the decision and adoption of this opinion.
 [1] A "jobber" is an individual or corporation who purchases gasoline products from a wholesaler for resale to a dealer. See Maryland Code (1975, 1983 Repl.Vol.) § 11-301(h) of the Commercial Law Article.
 [2] Walker's Chevron sold other automotive products that were neither manufactured nor sold by Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
 [3] The agreement defined "insignia" as "trademarks, service marks, trade names, color schemes and service station designs."
 [4] Although often spoken of interchangeably, and in some factual situations indistinguishable in effect, the concepts of apparent agency and agency by estoppel are somewhat different. See Medical Mut. Liab. v. Mutual Fire, 37 Md. App. 706, 721, 379 A.2d 739 (1977); Restatement (Second) of Agency, Comment d to § 8 (1958).
 [5] The Lesches signed credit card slips that bore the name "Chevron U.S.A., Inc.", and the Chevron hallmark. They were billed by, and made payments to, First Omni Bank, through which their VISA card was issued.
 [6] See Oberlin v. Marlin American Corp., 596 F.2d 1322, 1327 (7th Cir.1979), discussing the requirements of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.
 [7] Ben Walker died in 1980. His wife and son incorporated the business that year, and conveyed an ownership interest to Lloyd Creighton, who was also a manager at the station.
 [8] The record discloses that Weeks had approximately 23 years experience as a mechanic. He had attended schools given by Citgo and Mercedes-Benz, as well as seminars given by various product suppliers. He was certified in various mechanical specialities by the National Institute of Automotive Service Excellence. He had never attended a school given by Chevron, nor was he aware of any such schools.
 [9] Because the record clearly demonstrates that Dr. Lesch was aware that Walker Chevron was privately owned and operated, we need not consider Chevron U.S.A.'s argument that because all persons are presumed to know the law, and because Maryland law prohibits operation of a retail service station by a producer or refiner of petroleum products, Maryland Code (1957, 1988 Repl.Vol.) Art. 56, § 157E, all consumers must be charged with knowledge that Chevron did not operate the station.


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
C 149/28 FI Euroopan yhteisöjen virallinen lehti 27.5.2000
 Toinen kysymys riumkloridin pitoisuus leivän kuivapainosta on enemmän
 kuin 2,0 %, ristiriidassa edellä mainitun EY 28 artiklan
 Vaikuttaako ensimmäiseen kysymykseen annettavaan vastauk- kanssa tai voivatko nämä säädökset olla perusteltuja EY
 seen mitenkään se, että palvelukseen ottaminen tapahtuu hyvin 30 artiklassa tarkoitetulla tavalla?
 suuressa yrityksessä ja että kyseinen yritys käyttää usein
 tilapäistä työvoimaa? 2. Ovatko leipä- ja leipomotuotteista 2.9.1985 annetun ku-
 ninkaan päätöksen 1, 3 ja 8 §:n ja elintarvikkeisiin ja
 muihin tuotteisiin liittyvästä kuluttajien terveyden suojele-
 (1) EYVL L 39, 14.2.1976, s. 40. misesta 24.1.1977 annetun lain 14 §:n säännökset ristirii-
 (2) EYVL L 348, 28.11.1992, s. 1.
 dassa edellä mainitun EY 28 artiklan kanssa tai voivatko
 nämä säädökset olla perusteltuja EY 30 artiklassa tarkoite-
 tulla tavalla?
 3. Ovatko elintarvikkeiden mainonnasta 17.4.1980 annetun
 kuninkaallisen asetuksen 4 §:n 2 momentin ja 5 §:n ja
 Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles’n (55. jaosto) elintarvikkeisiin ja muihin tuotteisiin liittyvästä kuluttajien
 28.3.2000 tekemällään päätöksellä esittämä ennakkorat- terveyden suojelemisesta 24.1.1977 annetun lain 14 §:n
 kaisupyyntö asiassa Christina Bellamy vastaan Procureur säännökset ristiriidassa edellä mainitun EY 28 artiklan
 du Roi, jossa English Shop Wholesale SA:lta on vaadittu kanssa tai voivatko nämä säädökset olla perusteltuja EY
 vahingonkorvausta 30 artiklassa tarkoitetulla tavalla?
 (Asia C-123/00)
 (2000/C 149/52)
 Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles on pyytänyt
 28.3.2000 tekemällään päätöksellä, joka on saapunut yhteisö- Asian C-20/99 (1) poistaminen rekisteristä
 jen tuomioistuimeen 31.3.2000, Euroopan yhteisöjen tuo-
 mioistuimelta ennakkoratkaisua asiassa Christina Bellamy vas- (2000/C 149/53)
 taan Procureur du Roi, jossa English Shop Wholesale SA:lta on
 vaadittu vahingonkorvausta, seuraavaan kysymykseen: Euroopan yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen presidentin 25.1.2000
 antamalla määräyksellä tuomioistuimen rekisteristä on poistet-
 1. Ovatko leipä- ja leipomotuotteista 2.9.1985 annetun ku- tu asia C-20/99, Euroopan yhteisöjen komissio vastaan Itäval-
 ninkaan päätöksen 1, 3 ja 8 §:n sekä elintarvikkeisiin ja lan tasavalta.
 muihin tuotteisiin liittyvästä kuluttajien terveyden suojele-
 misesta 24.1.1977 annetun lain 14 §:n rajoitukset sellaisen
 leivän myynnistä, jonka sisältämän ruokasuolan eli nat- (1) PB C 86 van 27.3.1999.


type: wikipedia

text:
Geografinių atradimų istorija – įvairių, paprastai nutolusių ir sunkiai prieinamų, teritorijų atradimo ir tyrimo istorija. Ši istorija tęsiasi nuo pirmųjų civilizacijų atsiradimo iki dabartinių laikų.
 Geografinių atradimų istorijos periodizacija
 Geografinių atradimų priešistorė
 Antikos geografiniai atradimai
 Senovės Romos geografiniai atradimai
 Viduramžių geografiniai atradimai
 Arabų geografiniai atradimai
 Europiečių geografiniai atradimai Viduramžiais
 Didieji geografiniai atradimai
 Geografiniai atradimai XVII ir XVIII a.
 Geografiniai atradimai XIX a. ir XX a. I-oje pusėje
 Šiuolaikiniai geografiniai atradimai ir tyrimai
 Geografiniai atradimai atskirose pasaulio dalyse
 Europa
 Azija
 Šiaurės Azija
 Arktinė Azija
 Vakarų Azija
 Pietų ir Rytų Azija
 Vidurinė Azija
 Amerika
 Pietų ir Centrinė Amerika
 Šiaurės Amerika
 Afrika
 Australija
 Okeanija
 Arktis
 Antarktida
 Geografiniai atradimai


type: legislation

text:
 26.10.2013
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 284/12
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) NR. 1044/2013 AL COMISIEI
 din 25 octombrie 2013
 de modificare a anexei IV la Regulamentul (UE) nr. 206/2010 în ceea ce privește modelul de certificat sanitar-veterinar pentru transporturile de mătci de albine și de mătci de bondari
 (Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Directiva 92/65/CEE a Consiliului din 13 iulie 1992 de definire a cerințelor de sănătate animală care reglementează schimburile și importurile în Comunitate de animale, material seminal, ovule și embrioni care nu se supun, în ceea ce privește cerințele de sănătate animală, reglementărilor comunitare speciale prevăzute la punctul I din anexa A la Directiva 90/425/CEE (1), în special articolul 17 alineatul (2) litera (b) și articolul 19 litera (b),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 Directiva 92/65/CEE stabilește cerințele de sănătate animală care reglementează comerțul și importurile în Uniune de animale, material seminal, ovule și embrioni care nu se supun cerințelor de sănătate animală menționate în actele specifice ale Uniunii la care se face referire în anexa F a directivei respective.
 (2)
 Varrooza albinelor este menționată în anexa B la Directiva 92/65/CEE. Ea este cauzată de acarieni ectoparazitari din genul Varroa și a fost raportată în întreaga lume.
 (3)
 Regulamentul (UE) nr. 206/2010 al Comisiei (2) conține cerințele de certificare sanitar-veterinară pentru introducerea în Uniune a anumitor transporturi de animale vii. Partea 2 din anexa IV la Regulamentul (UE) nr. 206/2010 conține certificatul sanitar-veterinar QUE de utilizat pentru transporturile de mătci de albine și de mătci de bondari (Apis mellifera și Bombus spp.).
 (4)
 Anumite teritorii ale statelor membre au fost recunoscute ca fiind indemne de varrooză prin Decizia de punere în aplicare 2013/503/UE a Comisiei (3). Garanțiile suplimentare solicitate în cadrul schimburilor comerciale, stipulate în decizia respectivă, pentru păstrarea în stare indemnă de varrooză a respectivelor teritorii prevăd că statele membre interzic introducerea în Uniune a transporturilor de mătci de albine și de însoțitoare ale acestora în cazul în care destinația lor finală este un teritoriu indemn de varrooză.
 (5)
 Certificatul sanitar-veterinar QUE prevăzut în partea 2 din anexa IV la Regulamentul (UE) nr. 206/2010 ar trebui modificat în consecință.
 (6)
 Măsurile prevăzute în prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comitetului permanent pentru lanțul alimentar și sănătatea animală,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 În partea 2 din anexa IV la Regulamentul (UE) nr. 206/2010, certificatul sanitar-veterinar QUE se înlocuiește cu textul anexei la prezentul regulament.
 Articolul 2
 Într-o perioadă de tranziție până la 30 mai 2014, se autorizează introducerea în Uniune a transporturilor de albine menționate la articolul 7 alineatul (3) litera (a) din Regulamentul (UE) nr. 206/2010 însoțite de un certificat sanitar-veterinar completat și semnat în conformitate cu modelul QUE prevăzut în partea 2 din anexa IV la Regulamentul (UE) nr. 206/2010, în versiunea sa anterioară intrării în vigoare a prezentului regulament.
 Articolul 3
 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, 25 octombrie 2013.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) JO L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 54.
 (2) Regulamentul (UE) nr. 206/2010 al Comisiei din 12 martie 2010 de stabilire a unor liste de țări terțe, teritorii sau părți ale acestora autorizate să introducă în Uniunea Europeană anumite animale și carne proaspătă, precum și a cerințelor de certificare sanitar-veterinară (JO L 73, 20.3.2010, p. 1).
 (3) Decizia de punere în aplicare 2013/503/UE a Comisiei din 11 octombrie 2013 de recunoaștere a unor părți ale Uniunii ca fiind indemne de varrooză la albine și de stabilire a garanțiilor suplimentare solicitate în cadrul schimburilor comerciale din interiorul Uniunii și a importurilor pentru a proteja statutul indemn de varrooză al acestora (JO L 273, 15.10.2013, p. 38).
 ANEXĂ
 „Model QUE


type: contracts

text:
 27.2.2014
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 58/10
 DECYZJA WSPÓLNEGO KOMITETU EOG
 NR 158/2013
 z dnia 8 października 2013 r.
 zmieniająca załącznik II (Przepisy techniczne, normy, badania i certyfikacja) do Porozumienia EOG
 WSPÓLNY KOMITET EOG,
 uwzględniając Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym (zwane dalej „Porozumieniem EOG”), w szczególności jego art. 98,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W Porozumieniu EOG należy uwzględnić rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1235/2010 z dnia 15 grudnia 2010 r. zmieniające – w zakresie nadzoru nad bezpieczeństwem farmakoterapii w odniesieniu do produktów leczniczych stosowanych u ludzi – rozporządzenie (WE) nr 726/2004 ustanawiające wspólnotowe procedury wydawania pozwoleń dla produktów leczniczych stosowanych u ludzi i do celów weterynaryjnych i nadzoru nad nimi oraz ustanawiające Europejską Agencję Leków i rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1394/2007 w sprawie produktów leczniczych terapii zaawansowanej (1), sprostowane w Dz.U. L 201 z 27.7.2012, s. 138.
 (2)
 W Porozumieniu EOG należy uwzględnić dyrektywę Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady 2010/84/UE z dnia 15 grudnia 2010 r. zmieniającą – w zakresie nadzoru nad bezpieczeństwem farmakoterapii – dyrektywę 2001/83/WE w sprawie wspólnotowego kodeksu odnoszącego się do produktów leczniczych stosowanych u ludzi (2), sprostowanym w Dz.U. L 21 z 25.1.2011, s. 8 i Dz.U. L 276 z 21.10.2011, s. 63.
 (3)
 W związku z tym należy odpowiednio zmienić załącznik II do Porozumienia EOG,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZĄ DECYZJĘ:
 Artykuł 1
 W rozdziale XIII załącznika II do Porozumienia EOG wprowadza się następujące zmiany:
 1)
 w tekście wprowadzającym w akapicie trzynastym po słowach „Komitet ds. Sierocych Produktów Leczniczych (COMP)” dodaje się, co następuje:
 „Komitet ds. Oceny Ryzyka w ramach Nadzoru nad Bezpieczeństwem Farmakoterapii (PRAC)”;
 2)
 w pkt 15q (dyrektywa 2001/83/WE Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady) wprowadza się następujące zmiany:
 (i)
 dodaje się tiret w brzmieniu:
 „—
 32010 L 0084: dyrektywą Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady 2010/84/UE z dnia 15 grudnia 2010 r. (Dz.U. L 348 z 31.12.2010, s. 74), sprostowaną w Dz.U. L 21 z 25.1.2011, s. 8 i Dz.U. L 276 z 21.10.2011, s. 63.”;
 (ii)
 tekst dostosowania otrzymuje brzmienie:
 „Do celów Porozumienia przepisy tej dyrektywy odczytuje się z uwzględnieniem następujących dostosowań:
 a)
 Liechtenstein nie jest zobowiązany do uczestnictwa w procedurze zdecentralizowanej i procedurze wzajemnego uznawania i w związku z tym nie jest zobowiązany do wydawania odpowiednich pozwoleń na dopuszczenie do obrotu. Zamiast tego, pozwolenia na dopuszczenie do obrotu wydane przez Austrię w procedurze zdecentralizowanej i procedurze wzajemnego uznawania są ważne w Liechtensteinie na wniosek podmiotu ubiegającego się o pozwolenie na dopuszczenie do obrotu;
 b)
 państwa EFTA mogą wszcząć pilną procedurę unijną zgodnie z sekcją 4 rozdziału 3 tytułu IX tej dyrektywy;
 c)
 w odniesieniu do tytułu IX obowiązki Liechtensteinu zostaną wykonane przez Austrię. Jednak, w zakresie w jakim znajdzie to do niego zastosowanie, Liechtenstein:
 —
 zastosuje system nadzoru nad bezpieczeństwem farmakoterapii zgodnie z art. 101 ust. 1,
 —
 będzie regularnie przeprowadzał audyt swojego systemu nadzoru nad bezpieczeństwem farmakoterapii zgodnie z art. 101 ust. 2,
 —
 wyznaczy właściwy organ do realizacji zadań w zakresie nadzoru nad bezpieczeństwem farmakoterapii zgodnie z art. 101 ust. 3,
 —
 podejmie wszelkie właściwe środki, aby zachęcać pacjentów, lekarzy, farmaceutów i innych pracowników służby zdrowia do zgłaszania domniemanych działań niepożądanych do właściwego organu krajowego zgodnie z art. 102 lit. a),
 —
 ułatwi zgłoszenia pacjentów zapewniając – oprócz formatu internetowego – alternatywne formaty sprawozdań zgodnie z art. 102 lit. b),
 —
 nałoży na posiadacza pozwolenia na dopuszczenie do obrotu obowiązek prowadzenia systemu zarządzania ryzykiem, o którym mowa w art. 104 ust. 3 lit. c), jeśli istnieją obawy dotyczące rodzajów ryzyka mających wpływ na równowagę ryzyko-korzyść dla dopuszczonego do obrotu produktu leczniczego zgodnie z art. 104a ust. 2. Przy nakładaniu takiego obowiązku Liechtenstein będzie opierać się na odpowiedniej decyzji władz austriackich,
 —
 stworzy i będzie prowadził krajową stronę internetową dotyczącą leków, powiązaną z europejską stroną internetową dotyczącą leków, zgodnie z art. 106,
 —
 będzie rejestrował informacje o wszelkich domniemanych działaniach niepożądanych, jakie występują na jego terytorium i na które zwrócili mu uwagę pracownicy służby zdrowia i pacjenci, oraz dopilnuje, aby zgłoszenia o takich działaniach mogły zostać przekazane za pośrednictwem krajowych stron internetowych dotyczących leków lub w inny sposób zgodnie z art. 107a ust. 1, oraz
 —
 będzie składał sprawozdania zgodnie z art. 107a ust. 4;
 d)
 w art. 107c ust. 5 dodaje się akapit w brzmieniu:
 „Szwajcarskie zezwolenie na dopuszczenie do obrotu produktu leczniczego, które zacznie obowiązywać w Liechtensteinie na mocy prawa Liechtensteinu na podstawie unii celnej między Księstwem Liechtensteinu a Konfederacją Szwajcarską, nie jest traktowane jako pierwsze pozwolenie na wprowadzenie produktu na rynek do celów niniejszego ustępu.” ”;
 3)
 w pkt 15zb (rozporządzenie (WE) nr 726/2004 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady) dodaje się tiret w brzmieniu:
 „—
 32010 R 1235: rozporządzeniem Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1235/2010 z dnia 15 grudnia 2010 r. (Dz.U. L 348 z 31.12.2010, s. 1), sprostowanym w Dz.U. L 201 z 27.7.2012, s. 138.”;
 4)
 w pkt 15zh (rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1394/2007 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady) dodaje się, co następuje:
 „, zmienione:
 —
 32010 R 1235: rozporządzeniem Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 1235/2010 z dnia 15 grudnia 2010 r. (Dz.U. L 348 z 31.12.2010, s. 1), sprostowanym w Dz.U. L 201 z 27.7.2012, s. 138.”.
 Artykuł 2
 Teksty rozporządzenia (UE) nr 1235/2010, sprostowanego w Dz.U. L 201 z 27.7.2012, s. 138, i dyrektywy 2010/84/UE, sprostowanej w Dz.U. L 21 z 25.1.2011, s. 8 i Dz.U. L 276 z 21.10.2011, s. 63, w językach islandzkim i norweskim, które zostaną opublikowane w Suplemencie EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Unii Europejskiej, są autentyczne.
 Artykuł 3
 Niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie z dniem 9 października 2013 r. lub w dniu następującym po ostatniej notyfikacji dokonanej na mocy art. 103 ust. 1 Porozumienia EOG, w zależności od tego, która z tych dat przypada później (3).
 W odniesieniu do Liechtensteinu niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie w tym samym dniu lub z dniem wejścia w życie zmian do umowy między Liechtensteinem a Austrią ustanawiającej szczegóły techniczne dotyczące uznawania przez Liechtenstein austriackich pozwoleń na dopuszczenie do obrotu w procedurze zdecentralizowanej (DCP) i procedurze wzajemnego uznawania (MRP), w zależności od tego, która z tych dat przypada później.
 Artykuł 4
 Niniejsza decyzja zostaje opublikowana w sekcji EOG i w Suplemencie EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Unii Europejskiej.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli 8 października 2013 r.
 W imieniu Wspólnego Komitetu EOG
 Thórir IBSEN
 Przewodniczący
 (1) Dz.U. L 348 z 31.12.2010, s. 1.
 (2) Dz.U. L 348 z 31.12.2010, s. 74.
 (3) Wskazano wymogi konstytucyjne.


text:
Hugo Marie de Vries [vri:s] (16. veebruar 1848 – 21. mai 1935) oli hollandi bioloog, kes rööbiti Carl Corrensi ja Erich von Tschermakiga taasavastas 1900. aastal Gregor Mendeli tööd geneetika alal.
 De Vries õppis Leideni, Heidelbergi ja Würzburgi ülikoolis. 1878. aastal sai ta Amsterdami Ülikoolis doktorikraadi botaanika alal.
 1890. aastatel tegeles de Vries taimede hübridiseerimise katsete seeriatega ja avastas uusi suureõielise kuningakepi vorme, mis kasvasid looduslikel jäätmaadel. Need avastused viisid ta samadele järeldustele, milleni oli jõudnud Mendel: konkreetsete tunnuste pärandumine ilmneb vaid üksikutel isenditel. Ta arvas koguni, et geenid (mida ta nimetas pangeenideks) suudavad ületada liigibarjääri: sama geeni olemasolu on vastutav kahe lilleliigi karvasuse eest. Nendes oletustes oli ta oma ajast palju ees.
 1890. aastate lõpus tutvus de Vries Mendeli artikliga, mis oli kirjutatud 40 aastat varem. De Vries muutis Mendeli töödes terminoloogiat, et kõrvaldada arusaamatused. Aastal 1900 avaldas ta oma katsete tulemused Prantsuse ajakirjas Comtes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences, kuid ei maininud sõnagagi Mendeli töid, millest ta oli lähtunud. Pärast Carl Corrensi teravat kriitikat oli de Vries nõus mainima Mendeli nime.
 Hugo Marie de Vries lahkus küll 1918. aastal Amsterdami Ülikoolist, kuid jätkas uurimistöid uute bioloogiliste objektide kallal. Tema tuntumad tööd on järgmised:
 "Intracellular Pangenesis" ('rakusisene pangenees') (1889)
 "Mutatsiooniteooria" (saksakeelne väljaanne "Die Mutationstheorie" 1900–1903, ingliskeelne väljaanne 1910–1911)
 "Taimekasvatus", saksakeelne tõlge (1908)
 Tunnustus
 1900 – valiti Baieri Teaduste Akadeemia korrespondentliikmeks
 1903 – valiti Ameerika Filosoofiaseltsi välisliikmeks
 Vaata ka
 Geneetikute ja biokeemikute loend
 Hollandi bioloogid
 Sündinud 1848
 Surnud 1935


type: other

text:
ORDEN de 27 de junio de 2001, conjunta de las Consejerías de Medio Ambiente y de Agricultura y Pesca, por la que se aprueba el Programa de Actuación aplicable en las zonas vulnerables a la contaminación por nitratos procedentes de fuentes agrarias designadas en Andalucía.
 El Decreto 261/1998, de 15 de diciembre, por el que se designan las zonas vulnerables a la contaminación por nitratos procedentes de fuentes agrarias en la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía, prevé en el artículo 3 la elaboración de un Programa de Actuación para tales zonas con la finalidad de prevenir y reducir la contaminación causada por los nitratos de origen agrario, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el Real Decreto
 261/1996, de 16 de febrero, sobre protección de las aguas contra la contaminación producida por los nitratos de fuentes agrarias.
 Conforme se establece en el artículo 4.6 del Decreto/1998, antes citado, por la Comisión para la aplicación y seguimiento de lo dispuesto en la normativa sobre contaminación producida por los nitratos de origen agrario, se ha procedido a la elaboración de la propuesta de aprobación del correspondiente Programa de Actuación.
 En su virtud, y en ejercicio de las competencias conferidas por la disposición final primera del citado Decreto 261/1998, de 15 de diciembre, y en el artículo 44.4 de la Ley 6/1983, de 21 de julio, del Gobierno y la Administración de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía,
 Artículo único. Se aprueba el Programa de Actuación en las zonas vulnerables a la contaminación nítrica de origen agrario designadas en la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía, el cual figura en el Anexo a esta Orden, de conformidad con lo previsto en el artículo 3 del Decreto 261/1998, de 15 de diciembre, por el que se designan las zonas vulnerables a la contaminación por nitratos procedentes de fuentes agrarias.
 Disposición final primera. Desarrollo y ejecución. Se faculta a la persona titular de la Dirección General de la Producción Agraria de la Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca, en el ámbito de sus competencias, para dictar cuantas disposiciones sean necesarias para el desarrollo y ejecución de la presente Orden.
 Sevilla, 27 de junio de 2001
 FUENSANTA COVES BOTELLA PAULINO PLATA CANOVAS Consejera de Medio Ambiente Consejero de Agricultura y Pesca
 PROGRAMA DE ACTUACION EN LAS ZONAS VULNERABLES A LA CONTAMINACION NITRICA DE ORIGEN AGRARIO DESIGNADAS EN LA COMUNIDAD AUTONOMA DE ANDALUCIA
 El presente Programa de Actuación tiene por objeto prevenir y reducir la contaminación causada por los nítratos de origen agrario, en las zonas vulnerables de la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía designadas por el Decreto 261/1998, de 15 de diciembre de 1998.
 Este Programa de Actuación será de aplicación a cada una de las seis Zonas determinadas en el artículo 3 del Decreto/1998 citado, que a continuación se relacionan, identificándose, asimismo, los cultivos que en cada una de estas áreas se verán afectados por las medidas que en dicho Programa se establecen.
 Para la determinación de los cultivos afectados se ha tenido en cuenta su importancia por su ocupación superficial así como por su concentración puntual.
 Asimismo, como consecuencia del Potencial Contaminante
 producido por la actividad ganadera que se desarrolla tanto en la superficie labrada como no-labrada de estas Zonas
 Vulnerables, el Programa de Actuación tiene en cuenta la determinación de la capacidad de almacenamiento de los residuos ganaderos en estas zonas.
 3. Aplicación y revisión del Programa.
 El presente Programa será de aplicación a los dos meses de su publicación. No obstante, las medidas previstas en el apartado
 5 se aplicarán al año de la aprobación del Programa, excepto las relativas a los residuos de origen porcino, que lo serán en los plazos previstos por el Real Decreto 324/2000, de 3 de marzo, por el que se establecen las normas básicas de
 ordenación de las explotaciones porcinas.
 Este Programa de Actuación será revisado, al menos, cada cuatro años desde su aprobación.
 4. Aportación de fertilizantes nitrogenados a los cultivos.
 4.1. Limitaciones.
 A) Se prohíbe la aplicación de fertilizantes nitrogenados:
 1. En períodos distintos a los indicados en el punto 4.2 de este Programa, en el que se determinan la distribución de la dosis, el momento y forma de aplicación por cada grupo de cultivos.
 2. En los momentos anteriores a que se prevean lluvias
 3. En suelos con posibilidad de encharcamientos y, por ello, con riesgos importantes de infiltración y escorrentía.
 4. En suelos inundados y empapados mientras se mantengan estas condiciones.
 B) Para la aplicación de fertilizantes nitrogenados en los terrenos cercanos a cursos de agua se tendrán en cuenta las siguientes limitaciones:
 - No se utilizarán tipos líquidos de fertilizantes a fin de evitar su escorrentía hacia el curso de agua.
 - Se utilizarán abonos con granulometría gruesa, ya que los abonos con granulometría fina pueden ser disueltos o
 arrastrados más fácilmente.
 - La aplicación de fertilizantes se realizará en ausencia de viento y lluvia.
 - Se utilizarán equipos que favorezcan la distribución con precisión, debiéndose efectuar una eficaz regulación del elemento distribuidor.
 - Se deberán tomar las medias necesarias para evitar la concentración de ganado durante el abrevamiento directo en cursos de aguas.
 - No se podrá fertilizar en los terrenos comprendidos en el margen de seguridad de 10 m del curso del agua.
 - No se aplicarán abonos orgánicos (especialmente estiércol y lisier) en el margen de seguridad de 50 m respecto del curso del agua. Esta limitación será de aplicación también en los pozos, perforaciones y fuentes que suministren agua para el consumo humano o que requieran condiciones de potabilidad.
 Los márgenes de seguridad establecidos anteriormente podrán ser ampliados en cada caso concreto a la vista de los
 resultados obtenidos por el programa de muestreo y seguimiento de la calidad de las aguas a que hace referencia el artículo
 2.2 del Decreto 261/1998, de 15 de diciembre.
 C) En la aplicación de fertilizantes nitrogenados en los cultivos herbáceos se tendrán en cuenta las siguientes
 1. Se evitará la aplicación de soluciones de amoniaco o amoniaco anhídrido en condiciones de altas temperaturas del suelo.
 2. No se realizará fertilización ni estercolado en suelos muy fríos o cuando se prevean lluvias intensas.
 3. Contra la práctica habitual en algunas zonas se deberá evitar mezclar abonado de fondo y de primera cobertera en el momento de la siembra.
 4. La aplicación de urea en forma sólida se realizará siempre mediante enterrado con una labor y con humedad en el suelo. No se aplicará en suelos con pH elevado y con altas temperaturas.
 5. En zonas con alto riesgo de lavado se utilizarán inhibidores de la nitrificación.
 6. En cultivos con altos requerimientos en N, y de escaso sistema radicular o bien con suelos muy arcillosos o muy arenosos, el abonado se aportará fraccionando las aplicaciones.
 D) En la aplicación de fertilizantes nitrogenados en los cultivos leñosos se tendrán en cuenta las siguientes
 1. Se suprimirá el abonado nitrogenado en plantaciones en las que el análisis foliar haya dado concentraciones excesivas en hoja.
 2. Como regla general, el N únicamente debe aportarse como abono cuando el nivel en hoja dado por el análisis esté por debajo del mínimo valor del intervalo de adecuación, en caso contrario será necesario moderar la dosis de fertilizante para mantener el nivel de dicho intervalo.
 3. Las aplicaciones de fertilizantes se realizarán
 preferiblemente en primavera, y para el supuesto de no ser posible se realizará al final del invierno.
 4. En terrenos de secano se dará preferencia a la utilización de fertilizantes en forma nítrica en las aplicaciones de finales de invierno o primavera.
 5. La aplicación de urea en forma sólida se realizará siempre mediante enterrado con una labor superficial de al menos 5 cm y con humedad en el suelo.
 6. En plantaciones de regadío se deberá repartir el nitrógeno en aplicaciones con pequeñas dosis a fin de incrementar la eficiencia del uso de N por las plantas y reducir al máximo las pérdidas.
 7. Se deberán controlar las dosis de riego y la concentración del fertilizante en el agua de riego cuando se realice
 4.2. Período y forma de aplicación de fertilizantes
 nitrogenados por cultivos.
 A) Cereales de invierno:
 - Período de aplicación.No se aplicará abonado de fondo, repartiéndose la totalidad de la dosis en cobertera, en los estados fenológicos de ahijado, encañado y espigado.
 En los años de sequía se harán sólo dos abonados en cobertera, no añadiéndose nitrógeno en el espigado.
 Nítrico: En el encañado y en el espigado.
 Amoniacal: En el ahijado.
 Nítrico o amoniacal: En el encañado.
 Ureico: En el ahijado.
 B) Girasol:
 - Período de aplicación.
 Se aplicará la mitad de la dosis previa a la siembra y la otra mitad en cobertera.
 Amoniacal o ureico: Antes de la siembra enterrándolo con labor. Nítrico, nítrico-amoniacal o ureico: En cobertera y cuando la humedad lo permita.
 C) Remolacha:
 Se distribuirá aplicando un tercio de la dosis en fondo antes de la siembra y los dos tercios restantes repartidos en el aclareo y un mes posterior. No se aplicará N una vez que la raíz alcance un mínimo de 400 gr.
 En caso de aporte de abono orgánico se hará cuando el cultivo ocupe cabeza de alternativa y con bastante anterioridad a la siembra, estando este abono orgánico bien hecho.
 Amoniacal, nítrico-amoniacal o ureico: Un tercio de la dosis con anterioridad a la siembra.
 Nítrico o nítrico-amonical: Los dos tercios restantes en cobertera.
 El abono orgánico podrá ser estiércoles, lisiers, gallinaza, compost o lodos.
 D) Algodón:
 La dosis se aplicará distribuyéndola un tercio en fondo y dos tercios en cobertera, la mitad en el aclareo y la otra mitad un mes después.
 Ureica o amoniacal: En la aplicación en fondo.
 Ureica, nítrico o nítrico-amoniacal: En las aplicaciones en cobertera.
 E) Maíz:
 Se distribuirá un tercio de la dosis en sementera y dos tercios en dos aplicaciones de cobertera, coincidiendo con los dos períodos críticos (altura de la planta de 30 a 40 cm y la floración).
 No se aplicará N una vez aparecidos los primeros penachos.
 Ureico, amoniacal o nítrico-amoniacal: En el tercio de la dosis antes de la siembra.
 Nítrico o nítrico-amoniacal: En las dos aplicaciones en cobertera, localizándolas entre calles.
 F) Patatas:
 Se distribuirá un tercio en sementera y los otros dos tercios en cobertera, no abonándose una vez transcurridos 60 días desde la fecha de siembra.
 En caso de abonado orgánico, éste se aplicará en invierno y cuando ocupe cabeza de alternativa, enterrando este abono adecuadamente según la textura del suelo.
 Ureico o amoniacal: En sementera.
 Nítrico o nítrico-amoniacal: En las dos cobertera coincidiendo con la bina y quince días después a partes iguales.
 Como abono orgánico se pueden utilizar estiércoles, lisieres, gallinaza y compost.
 G) Tabaco:
 Deberá aportarse la dosis en dos o tres aplicaciones, siendo una de ellas antes del trasplante y nunca de forma nítrica, y la restante o restantes desde el trasplante hasta las labores de bina y escarda.
 Ureica o de liberación lenta: En la aplicación antes del trasplante.
 Nítrica o nítrico-amoniacal: En la aplicación o aplicaciones posteriores al trasplante.
 Orgánica: Estiércol. Aportándose el máximo posible en la dosis calculada, sin sobrepasar los 170 kg de N por hectárea y año.
 H) Viñedo:
 Con abonos nitrogenados minerales con anterioridad a la formación de los racimos.
 El abonado orgánico se aplicará una vez realizada la poda.
 Los abonos minerales: Nítrico o nítrico-amoniacal.
 Orgánico: Cualquiera.
 I) Olivar mesa y almazara:
 La mayor parte de la dosis de nitrógeno se aplicará en los estados de prefloración y formación del fruto y el resto durante el engrosamiento del mismo.
 En años secos con pluviometría inferior a la normal en la zona se reducirá o descarta, según los casos, el abonado en el cultivo de secano.
 En caso de aportación en forma orgánica se hará únicamente al inicio del otoño.
 Nítrico, nítrico-amoniacal o ureico: En los estados de
 prefloración, floración y formación del fruto.
 Nítrico: Durante el engrosamiento del fruto.
 J) Cítricos y frutales no cítricos:
 La mitad de la dosis se aplicará 15 ó 30 días antes de la floración y la otra mitad coincidiendo con el cuajado de los primeros frutos.
 No se aplicará nitrógeno cuando los frutos estén próximos a la maduración.
 Los frutales de hueso y pepita no se abonarán después de la floración y en sistemas de cultivos intensivos no se abonará después de la aparición de las hojas.
 Amoniacal: La primera mitad de la dosis.
 Nítrico-amoniacal y ureico: En la segunda mitad de la dosis durante la primavera.
 K) Hortícolas:
 En cultivos de siembra primaveral se aportará un tercio en sementera y el resto en varias veces según el desarrollo y necesidades del tipo de cultivo.
 Los abonos orgánicos se aportarán con anticipación a la preparación del lecho de siembra no incorporándose fuera de ese momento.
 Amoniacal, ureico o nítrico-amoniacal: El tercio de N que se aporta en sementera.
 Nítrico, nítrico-amoniacal o ureico: El resto de la aplicación durante el ciclo del cultivo.
 Formas con liberación lenta del N: En caso de primavera muy lluviosa.
 4.3. Aportación máxima de nitrógeno a los cultivos.
 A fin de evitar, en el ámbito de aplicación de este Programa, la contaminación de las aguas superficiales y subterráneas debida a la lixiviación o escorrentía del nitrógeno en exceso aportado en la fertilización de los cultivos, las dosis máximas a aplicar a los cultivos afectados se establecen en la tabla adjunta, que será de aplicación obligatoria dentro de cada zona vulnerable por unidad de reproducción esperada y según el coeficiente de eficiencia para cada cultivo.
 De acuerdo con la Directiva Europea 91/676/CEE y el Real Decreto 261/1996, de 16 de febrero, la cantidad específica máxima por hectárea de estiércol a aplicar al terreno será la que contenga 170 kg/año de nitrógeno.
 5. Actividades ganaderas.
 En las actividades ganaderas que se desarrollen en las zonas vulnerables será obligatorio:
 1. Controlar los residuos ganaderos nitrogenados (deyecciones líquidas y sólidas) a fin de no sobrepasar en los aportes al suelo los límites contaminantes y respetar la normativa comunitaria.
 2. Conseguir una optimización ambiental en el manejo y
 almacenamiento de los alimentos y residuos ganaderos.
 Para conseguir estos fines, sin perjuicio de lo establecido al respecto por el Real Decreto 324/2000, de 3 de marzo, por el que se establecen normas básicas de ordenación de las
 explotaciones porcinas, y en tanto no se produzca el desarrollo normativo de las actividades ganaderas que afecten al medio ambiente, las explotaciones ganaderas ubicadas en las zonas vulnerables tendrán que cumplir las siguientes condiciones:
 a) Disponer de instalaciones de almacenamiento de
 estiércoles, purines y efluentes diversos (aguas sucias de lavados, baldeos, silos, etc.) con capacidad suficiente para poderlos almacenar hasta su aplicación en las épocas
 autorizadas. La capacidad de estas instalaciones se calculará con vistas a la valorización como abono orgánico-mineral, las posibilidades de compostaje, secado artificial, etc., en la propia explotación y la entrega a centros de gestión de estiércoles.
 b) Las aguas sucias y similares no serán vertidas directamente al entorno y se dirigirán a instalaciones de tratamiento adecuadas, debiendo recogerse en un depósito propio para ellas o, en su defecto, en el de las deyecciones.
 c) Las obras de almacenaje deben ser estancas, de formas que eviten los vertidos directos al medio natural, y estarán alejadas al menos 25 m de los cursos de agua.
 d) Los depósitos de almacenaje de productos sólidos deben tener un punto bajo de recogida de los líquidos rezumados (purines, jugos de ensilaje, etc.), de forma que puedan ser dirigidos hacia la instalación de deyecciones líquidas.
 6. Aplicación de las técnicas de riego.
 Con el objeto de evitar la contaminación por percolación y escorrentía superficial, se tendrán en cuenta las siguientes recomendaciones en el manejo del agua de riego:
 a) Utilizar una técnica de riego que garantice la máxima eficiencia en la utilización del agua, teniendo en cuenta las condiciones de la parcela.
 b) Establecer un programa de riego, en el que se determine cuándo y qué cantidad de agua hay que aplicar en cada riego, de forma que se ajuste a las necesidades del cultivo en cada momento para evitar los efectos de percolación o escorrentía superficial.
 c) No aplicar riegos con elevado volumen los días posteriores a la aplicación del fertilizante nitrogenado, ya que es el momento en que pueden producirse las mayores pérdidas por percolación o escorrentía. En el caso de riego por aspersión mediante un riego ligero se movilizará el fertilizante hacia la zona de raíces, evitando la percolación y las pérdidas
 d) La fertirrigación se aplicará con métodos de riego que aseguren una elevada eficiencia en la distribución del agua. El fertilizante nitrogenado se incorporará al agua después de haber suministrado un 20-25% y se suprimirá cuando se haya aplicado el 80-90% del volumen total.
 e) En el riego en superficie se procurará emplear el sistema de riego por surcos, en lugar de aplicar riego a manta.
 f) En el riego por aspersión se han de tener en cuenta los siguientes factores: Intensidad de riego respecto a la
 permeabilidad del suelo, interferencia del viento sobre el diagrama de distribución de los aspersores e influencia de la vegetación en la distribución de agua sobre el terreno.
 7. Control y seguimiento del programa de actuación.
 A fin de comprobar y constatar el cumplimiento de lo dispuesto en el presente Programa de Actuación, será exigible por el órgano competente, en el cumplimiento de la Directiva
 91/676/CEE, a cuantas explotaciones agrícolas y ganaderas estén comprendidas en el territorio de las zonas vulnerables
 designadas por el Decreto 261/1998, de 15 de diciembre, la siguiente documentación:
 a) Explotaciones agrícolas: Deberán cumplimentar un cuaderno de explotación en el que al menos conste, para cada uno de los cultivos que se lleven a cabo y estén comprendidos dentro de los especificados para cada zona vulnerable en el apartado 2: Fecha de siembra y de recolección, dosis total de nitrógeno aplicada al suelo por hectárea, momento, tipo de producto nitrogenado y forma de aplicación, producción esperada y final.
 b) Explotaciones ganaderas: Deberán presentar para su
 aprobación por el órgano competente un Plan de Producción y Gestión de Residuos Ganaderos cuyo contenido deberá garantizar que la explotación ganadera cumple las siguientes condiciones:
 - Que la explotación dispone de instalaciones para
 almacenamiento de estiércoles, purines y efluentes diversos con capacidad suficiente para almacenar estos residuos el tiempo en que no pueden ser aplicados al suelo.
 - Uso de estos residuos en la propia explotación mediante entrega por contrato o convenio a empresa de gestión de los mismos, acreditada mediante contrato debidamente registrado y autorizada por la Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía.


text:
 21.12.2015
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 429/8
 Apelācijas sūdzība, ko par Vispārējās tiesas (septītā palāta) 2014. gada 27. novembrī spriedumu lietā T-154/11 Cantina Broglie 1 Srl/ITSB 2015. gada 26. janvārī iesniedza Cantina Broglie 1 Srl
 (Lieta C-34/115 P)
 (2015/C 429/11)
 Tiesvedības valoda – itāļu
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Apelācijas sūdzības iesniedzēja: Cantina Broglie 1 Srl (pārstāvis – A. Rizzoli, avvocato)
 Pārējie lietas dalībnieki: Iekšējā tirgus saskaņošanas birojs (preču zīmes, paraugi un modeļi), Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Verona
 Ar 2015. gada 15. oktobra rīkojumu Tiesa (devītā palāta) apelācijas sūdzību noraidīja un piesprieda Cantina Broglie 1 Srl atlīdzināt tiesāšanās izdevumus.


text:
Le competizioni di triathlon ai XVIII Giochi del Mediterraneo, quella maschile e quella femminile, si sono svolte il 23 giugno 2018 lungo il circuito urbano di Altafulla sulla distanza sprint. Questa rappresenta la prima apparizione della disciplina all'interno del programma dei Giochi.
 Calendario
 Il calendario delle gare è stato il seguente:
 Podi
 Uomini
 Donne
 Medagliere
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni
 Raccolta dei risultati di Tarragona 2018 sul sito ufficiale del Comitato Internazionale dei Giochi del Mediterraneo, cijm.org.gr.
 Sport ai XVIII Giochi del Mediterraneo
 Triathlon ai Giochi del Mediterraneo
 Giochi del Mediterraneo
 Giochi del Mediterraneo 2018


text:
 23.7.2005
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 182/14
 YHTEISÖJEN TUOMIOISTUIMEN TUOMIO,
 (toinen jaosto)
 2 päivänä kesäkuuta 2005,
 asiassa C-15/04 (Bundesvergabeamtin esittämä ennakkoratkaisupyyntö): Koppensteiner GmbH vastaan Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH (1)
 (Julkiset hankinnat - Direktiivi 89/665/ETY - Julkisia hankintoja koskeviin sopimuksiin liittyvät muutoksenhakumenettelyt - Tarjouspyynnön peruuttamisesta tarjousten avaamisen jälkeen tehty päätös - Tuomioistuinvalvonta - Ulottuvuus - Tehokkuusperiaate)
 (2005/C 182/26)
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: saksa
 Asiassa C–15/04, jossa on kyse EY 234 artiklaan perustuvasta ennakkoratkaisupyynnöstä, jonka Bundesvergabeamt (Itävalta) on esittänyt 12.1.2004 tekemällään päätöksellä, joka on saapunut yhteisöjen tuomioistuimeen 19.1.2004, saadakseen ennakkoratkaisun asiassa Koppensteiner GmbH vastaan Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH, yhteisöjen tuomioistuin (toinen jaosto), toimien kokoonpanossa: jaoston puheenjohtaja C. W. A. Timmermans sekä tuomarit R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann (esittelevä tuomari), P. Kūris ja G. Arestis, julkisasiamies: C. Stix-Hackl, kirjaaja: R. Grass, on antanut 2.6.2005 tuomion, jonka tuomiolauselma on seuraava:
 Toimivaltainen tuomioistuin on velvollinen jättämään soveltamatta kansallisia sääntöjä, jotka estävät julkisia tavaranhankintoja ja rakennusurakoita koskeviin sopimuksiin liittyvien muutoksenhakumenettelyjen soveltamista koskevien lakien, asetusten ja hallinnollisten määräysten yhteensovittamisesta 21 päivänä joulukuuta 1989 annetun neuvoston direktiivin 89/665/ETY 1 artiklan 1 kohdasta ja 2 artiklan 1 kohdan b alakohdasta, sellaisena kuin tämä direktiivi on muutettuna julkisia palveluhankintoja koskevien sopimusten tekomenettelyjen yhteensovittamisesta 18 päivänä kesäkuuta 1992 annetulla neuvoston direktiivillä 92/50/ETY, johtuvan velvoitteen noudattamisen.
 (1) EUVL C 85, 3.4.2004.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31983L0416
 Richtlinie 83/416/EWG des Rates vom 25. Juli 1983 über die Zulassung des interregionalen Linienflugverkehrs zur Beförderung von Personen, Post und Fracht zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 237 vom 26/08/1983 S. 0019 - 0024 Spanische Sonderausgabe: Kapitel 07 Band 3 S. 0166 Portugiesische Sonderausgabe: Kapitel 07 Band 3 S. 0166
 ++++ ( 1 ) ABL . NR . C 287 VOM 9 . 11 . 1981 , S . 114 . ( 2 ) ABL . NR . C 343 VOM 31 . 12 . 1981 , S . 13 . RICHTLINIE DES RATES VOM 25 . JULI 1983 ÜBER DIE ZULASSUNG DES INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS ZUR BEFÖRDERUNG VON PERSONEN , POST UND FRACHT ZWISCHEN DEN MITGLIEDSTAATEN ( 83/416/EWG ) DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN _ GESTÜTZT AUF DEN VERTRAG ZUR GRÜNDUNG DER EUROPÄISCHEN WIRTSCHAFTSGEMEINSCHAFT , INSBESONDERE AUF ARTIKEL 84 ABSATZ 2 , AUF VORSCHLAG DER KOMMISSION , NACH STELLUNGNAHME DES EUROPÄISCHEN PARLAMENTS ( 1 ) , NACH STELLUNGNAHME DES WIRTSCHAFTS - UND SOZIALAUSSCHUSSES ( 2 ) , IN ERWAEGUNG NACHSTEHENDER GRÜNDE : EIN GEMEINSCHAFTLICHES GENEHMIGUNGSVERFAHREN FÜR DEN INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR ZWISCHEN DEN MITGLIEDSTAATEN ZUR BEFÖRDERUNG NUR VON PERSONEN ODER VON PERSONEN IN VERBINDUNG MIT POST UND / ODER FRACHT ZWISCHEN BESTIMMTEN FLUGHÄFEN IN DER GEMEINSCHAFT WÜRDE DEN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN EINE BESSERE ERSCHLIESSUNG DER MÄRKTE ERMÖGLICHEN UND SO ZUR WEITERENTWICKLUNG DES INNERGEMEINSCHAFTLICHEN FLUGVERKEHRS BEITRAGEN . ES SIND ALLGEMEINE VORSCHRIFTEN DARÜBER ERLASSEN , WIE LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN AN DIESEM LUFTVERKEHR TEILNEHMEN KÖNNEN , DIE VON MITGLIEDSTAATEN ODER DEREN ANGEHÖRIGEN TATSÄCHLICH KONTROLLIERT WERDEN ODER DIE SICH ZWAR NICHT IM EIGENTUM VON MITGLIEDSTAATEN ODER DEREN ANGEHÖRIGEN BEFINDEN UND NICHT VON IHNEN TATSÄCHLICH KONTROLLIERT WERDEN , JEDOCH BESTIMMTE VORAUSSETZUNGEN ERFÜLLEN . DIESE VORSCHRIFTEN SOLLEN DAS VERHÄLTNIS ZWISCHEN DEM HEIMATSTAAT UND SEINEN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN NICHT BERÜHREN . ES IST ERFORDERLICH , AUF REGIONALEN LINIEN DEN INNERGEMEINSCHAFTLICHEN FLUGVERKEHR AUSZUBAUEN , UM AUF DIESE WEISE ZUR REGIONALENTWICKLUNG IN DER GEMEINSCHAFT BEIZUTRAGEN . BEI DEN FLUGPREISEN UND FRACHTRATEN MÜSSEN DIE GRUNDSÄTZE EINES ANGEMESSENEN KOSTEN-PREIS-VERHÄLTNISSES UND EINER ANGEMESSENEN KAPITALVERZINSUNG BEACHTET WERDEN . DIE RECHTS - UND VERWALTUNGSVORSCHRIFTEN DER MITGLIEDSTAATEN ÜBER UMWELTSCHUTZ , SOZIALE BEDINGUNGEN UND FLUGHAFENANGELEGENHEITEN SOLLEN VON DIESER RICHTLINIE NICHT BERÜHRT WERDEN . DER HEIMATSTAAT UND DER BETEILIGTE STAAT SOLLTEN DIE MÖGLICHKEIT HABEN , WENIGER STRENGE BESTIMMUNGEN ANZUWENDEN ALS IN DIESER RICHTLINIE VORGESEHEN . EINEM MITGLIEDSTAAT VON EINEM ANDEREN MITGLIEDSTAAT BEREITS EINGERÄUMTE VERKEHRSRECHTE SOLLEN DURCH DIESE RICHTLINIE NICHT EINGESCHRÄNKT WERDEN . DA DAS DURCH DIESE RICHTLINIE GESCHAFFENE SYSTEM VERSUCHSCHARAKTER HAT , IST SEINE ANWENDUNG EINE GEWISSE ZEIT NACH DEM ZEITPUNKT , ZU DEM ES WIRKSAM GEWORDEN IST , VOM RAT ZU ÜBERPRÜFEN . DIE ENTWICKLUNG DES LUFTVERKEHRSSYSTEMS AUF DEN GRIECHISCHEN INSELN IST GEGENWÄRTIG UNZUREICHEND , UND AUS DIESEM GRUNDE IST ES ANGEZEIGT , FLUGHÄFEN AUF DIESEN INSELN ZEITWEILIG VON DER ANWENDUNG DIESER RICHTLINIE AUSZUNEHMEN _ HAT FOLGENDE RICHTLINIE ERLASSEN : ARTIKEL 1 ZUR ENTWICKLUNG DES INNERGEMEINSCHAFTLICHEN LUFTVERKEHRS REGELT DIESE RICHTLINIE DIE ZULASSUNGSVERFAHREN FÜR DEN INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR ZUR BEFÖRDERUNG _ VON PERSONEN ODER _ VON PERSONEN IN VERBINDUNG MIT POST UND / ODER FRACHT AUF FLÜGEN , DIE IN DEN EUROPÄISCHEN HOHEITSGEBIETEN DER MITGLIEDSTAATEN BEGINNEN UND ENDEN UND WIE FOLGT DURCHGEFÜHRT WERDEN : A ) MIT FLUGABSCHNITTEN VON JEWEILS MEHR ALS 400 KM ODER VON WENIGER ALS 400 KM , WENN DER LUFTVERKEHR WEGEN NATÜRLICHER HINDERNISSE WIE MEERE ODER GEBIRGE EINE ERHEBLICHE ZEITERSPARNIS IM VERGLEICH ZUM LAND - ODER SCHIFFSVERKEHR BEDEUTET , B ) MIT LUFTFAHRZEUGEN MIT HÖCHSTENS 70 SITZPLÄTZEN ODER EINEM STARTHÖCHSTGEWICHT VON HÖCHSTENS 30 TONNEN UND C ) ZWISCHEN ZWEI DEM INTERNATIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR OFFENSTEHENDEN FLUGHÄFEN DER KLASSEN 2 UND 2 , DER KLASSEN 2 UND 3 ODER DER KLASSEN 3 UND 3 IN DER GEMEINSCHAFT . DIE KLASSIFIKATION DER FLUGHÄFEN IST IN ANHANG A FESTGELEGT . ARTIKEL 2 IM SINNE DIESER RICHTLINIE IST A ) LINIENFLUGVERKEHR : EINE FOLGE VON FLÜGEN , VON DENEN JEDER FOLGENDE MERKMALE AUFWEIST : I ) ER WIRD GEMÄSS ARTIKEL 1 GEGEN ENTGELT DURCHGEFÜHRT , WOBEI DIE BETEILIGUNG AN DIESEN FLÜGEN JEDERMANN OFFENSTEHT ; II ) ER DIENT DER BEFÖRDERUNG ZWISCHEN ZWEI ODER MEHREREN FESTEN PUNKTEN 1 . NACH EINEM VERÖFFENTLICHTEN FLUGPLAN ODER 2 . MIT SO REGELMÄSSIGEN ODER HÄUFIGEN FLÜGEN , DASS SIE EINE ECHTE SYSTEMATISCHE FOLGE BILDEN ; B ) INTERREGIONALER LINIENFLUGVERKEHR : EIN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR , DER NACH ARTIKEL 1 ZUGELASSEN WERDEN KANN ; C ) LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN : I ) EIN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN , DESSEN HAUPTVERWALTUNG UND HAUPTGESCHÄFTSSITZ SICH IN DER GEMEINSCHAFT BEFINDEN , DAS SICH MEHRHEITLICH IM EIGENTUM VON STAATSANGEHÖRIGEN DER MITGLIEDSTAATEN UND / ODER IM EIGENTUM VON MITGLIEDSTAATEN BEFINDET UND DAS TATSÄCHLICH VON DIESEN STAATSANGEHÖRIGEN ODER STAATEN KONTROLLIERT WIRD , ODER II ) EIN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN , DAS BEI ERLASS DIESER RICHTLINIE ZWAR NICHT DER DEFINITION DER ZIFFER I ) ENTSPRICHT , ABER A . DESSEN HAUPTVERWALTUNG UND HAUPTGESCHÄFTSSITZ SICH IN DER GEMEINSCHAFT BEFINDEN UND DAS IN DEN ZWÖLF MONATEN VOR ERLASS DIESER RICHTLINIE EINEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR ODER EINEN ANDEREN FLUGVERKEHR IN DER GEMEINSCHAFT BETRIEBEN HAT ODER B . DAS IN DEN ZWÖLF MONATEN VOR ERLASS DIESER RICHTLINIE EINEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR DER DRITTEN ODER VIERTEN FREIHEIT ZWISCHEN MITGLIEDSTAATEN BETRIEBEN HAT . DIE UNTERNEHMEN , DIE DEN OBENGENANNTEN MERKMALEN ENTSPRECHEN , SIND IN ANHANG B AUFGEFÜHRT . D ) HEIMATSTAAT : DER MITGLIEDSTAAT , IN DEM EIN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN ALS LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN FÜR GEWERBLICHE ZWECKE GEGRÜNDET WURDE ; E ) BETEILIGTER STAAT : EIN MITGLIEDSTAAT _ AUSSER DEM HEIMATSTAAT _ , IN DEM DIE FLUGHÄFEN EINES INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS LIEGEN . ARTIKEL 3 ( 1 ) ERTEILT DER HEIMATSTAAT DES BETREFFENDEN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMENS SEINE GENEHMIGUNG , SO ÜBERMITTELT ER DEN BETEILIGTEN STAATEN DEN ANTRAG AUF BETRIEB EINES INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS . ( 2 ) DIE BETEILIGTEN STAATEN ERTEILEN DEM BETREFFENDEN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN DIE ZULASSUNG ZUM BETRIEB EINES SOLCHEN INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS , WENN DIESER VERKEHR DEN VORSCHRIFTEN DIESER RICHTLINIE ENTSPRICHT . DIESE BESTIMMUNG FINDET JEDOCH KEINE ANWENDUNG , WENN IM ZEITPUNKT DES ANTRAGS AUF EINE GENEHMIGUNG A ) BEREITS EIN INDIREKTER LINIENFLUGVERKEHR ZWISCHEN DEN BEIDEN BETREFFENDEN FLUGHÄFEN ODER ZWISCHEN ANDEREN FLUGHÄFEN , DIE VON DIESEN JEWEILS NICHT MEHR ALS 50 KM ENTFERNT SIND , BESTEHT , _ DER EINE GESAMTE TRANSITZEIT VON WENIGER ALS 90 MINUTEN ZWISCHEN FLUGSTRECKEN UMFASST UND _ DESSEN GESAMTFLUGZEIT WENIGER ALS 50 V . H . ÜBER DERJENIGEN DER VORGESCHLAGENEN INTERREGIONALEN FLUGVERBINDUNG LIEGT , ODER B ) BEREITS EIN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR BESTEHT _ ZWISCHEN EINEM DER BEIDEN BETREFFENDEN FLUGHÄFEN UND EINEM ANDEREN FLUGHAFEN , DER NICHT MEHR ALS 50 KM VON DEM ANDEREN BETREFFENDEN FLUGHAFEN ENTFERNT IST , ODER _ ZWISCHEN ZWEI ANDEREN FLUGHÄFEN , DIE JEWEILS NICHT MEHR ALS 50 KM VON EINEM DER BEIDEN BETREFFENDEN FLUGHÄFEN ENTFERNT SIND . ( 3 ) ÜBERMITTELT DER HEIMATSTAAT DEM BETEILIGTEN STAAT EINEN ANTRAG AUF BETRIEB EINES INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS , SO HAT DIESER STAAT INNERHALB VON DREI MONATEN NACH EINGANG DES ANTRAGS DARÜBER ZU ENTSCHEIDEN , OB ER DIE ZULASSUNG FÜR DEN BEANTRAGTEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR ERTEILT ODER AUS DEN IN DIESEM ARTIKEL ODER IN ARTIKEL 6 GENANNTEN GRÜNDEN VERWEIGERT , UND DIESE ENTSCHEIDUNG DEM HEIMATSTAAT UND DER KOMMISSION MITZUTEILEN . ARTIKEL 4 EIN INTERREGIONALER LINIENFLUGVERKEHR WIRD NACH DIESER RICHTLINIE NUR DANN GENEHMIGT , WENN DER AUSGANGSPUNKT DIESES FLUGVERKEHRS IM HEIMATSTAAT DES BETREFFENDEN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMENS LIEGT . ARTIKEL 5 ( 1 ) DIE ZULASSUNGEN GEMÄSS ARTIKEL 3 VERLEIHEN DEM BETREFFENDEN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN DAS RECHT , DIE IN ARTIKEL 1 GENANNTEN BEFÖRDERUNGSLEISTUNGEN ZU ERBRINGEN . ( 2 ) DIE ZULASSUNGEN IM SINNE DES ABSATZES 1 GELTEN FÜR EINEN ZEITRAUM VON MINDESTENS DREI JAHREN ODER FÜR EINEN VON DEN BETREFFENDEN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN GEWÜNSCHTEN KÜRZEREN ZEITRAUM , SOFERN SIE NICH WIDERRUFEN ODER ENTZOGEN WERDEN , WEIL DER BETREFFENDE FLUGVERKEHR NICHT MEHR DEN BEDINGUNGEN GERECHT WIRD , UNTER DENEN ER ZUGELASSEN WURDE . ( 3 ) EINE ZULASSUNG ERLISCHT , WENN DAS BETREFFENDE LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN DEN BETRIEB NICHT BINNEN EINEM JAHR NACH DEM IN DER ZULASSUNG GENANNTEN ERÖFFNUNGSTERMIN AUFGENOMMEN HAT . ( 4 ) VERFÜGT EIN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN FÜR DAS HOHEITSGEBIET EINES MITGLIEDSTAATS NICHT ÜBER DAS RECHT ZUM ÜBERFLIEGEN UND ZUR LANDUNG ZU ANDEREN ZWECKEN ALS DEM DES VERKEHRS , SO GEWÄHRT DER BETREFFENDE MITGLIEDSTAAT DEM UNTERNEHMEN DIESES RECHT FÜR DEN BETRIEB EINES JEDEN INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS NACH DIESER RICHTLINIE . ARTIKEL 6 ( 1 ) EIN BETEILIGTER STAAT ERTEILT DIE ZULASSUNG FÜR EINEN INTERREGIONALEN FLUGVERKEHR , SOFERN NICHT EINER ODER MEHRERE DER FOLGENDEN GRÜNDE DIESER ZULASSUNG ENTGEGENSTEHEN , DIE JEDOCH KEINE DISKRIMINIERUNG DES INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS MIT SICH BRINGEN DÜRFEN : A ) DER BETEILIGTE FLUGHAFEN IN DIESEM STAAT VERFÜGT ÜBER UNZUREICHENDE EINRICHTUNGEN FÜR DIESEN FLUGVERKEHR ; B ) DIE IN DIESEM STAAT VORHANDENEN NAVIGATIONSHILFEN SIND FÜR DIESEN FLUGVERKEHR UNZUREICHEND ; C ) DIE VERKEHRSVERBINDUNG , FÜR DIE DER FLUGVERKEHR BEANTRAGT WURDE , WIRD BEREITS IN QUALITATIVER UND QUANTITATIVER HINSICHT DURCH VORHANDENE DIREKTE FLUGVERBINDUNGEN ZWISCHEN DEN BEIDEN BETROFFENEN FLUGHÄFEN ZUFRIEDENSTELLEND BEDIENT . ( 2 ) IST EIN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN EINES MITGLIEDSTAATS ZUM BETRIEB EINES INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS ZUGELASSEN WORDEN , SO ERHEBT DER HEIMATSTAAT DIESES LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMENS KEINE EINWÄNDE GEGEN EINEN ANTRAG AUF AUFNAHME EINES INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS AUF DER GLEICHEN STRECKE DURCH EIN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN DES BETEILIGTEN STAATES . ARTIKEL 7 DER HEIMATSTAAT UND DER BETEILIGTE STAAT BILLIGEN DIE TARIFE EINES LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMENS FÜR EINEN INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR OHNE ZUSCHUSS VON AUSSEN , SOFERN DIESE A ) IN EINEM ANGEMESSENEN VERHÄLTNIS ZU DEN BETRIEBSKOSTEN DES LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMENS FÜR DIESEN FLUGVERKEHR OHEN DIREKTE ODER INDIREKTE STAATLICHE BEIHILFE STEHEN UND GLEICHZEITIG EINE ANGEMESSENE KAPITALVERZINSUNG ERLAUBEN UND B ) NICHT DEN CHARAKTER VON DUMPINGTARIFEN HABEN . ARTIKEL 8 DIE HOHEITSGEBIETE DER MITGLIEDSTAATEN , DIE VON DIESER RICHTLINIE ERFASST WERDEN , SIND DIE EUROPÄISCHEN HOHEITSGEBIETE DER MITGLIEDSTAATEN , FÜR DIE DER VERTRAG GILT . ARTIKEL 9 DIESE RICHTLINIE BERÜHRT NICHT DIE NATIONALEN , REGIONALEN ODER LOKALEN RECHTS - UND VERWALTUNGSVORSCHRIFTEN DER MITGLIEDSTAATEN ÜBER UMWELTSCHUTZ UND SOZIALE BEDINGUNGEN SOWIE ÜBER STANDORTFRAGEN , BETRIEB UND SICHERHEIT DER FLUGHÄFEN UND IHRER ANLAGEN . DIESE VORSCHRIFTEN DÜRFEN JEDOCH KEINE DISKRIMINIERUNG DES INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS MIT SICH BRINGEN . ARTIKEL 10 ( 1 ) DER HEIMATSTAAT UND DER BETEILIGTE STAAT KÖNNEN VEREINBAREN , UNTER EINHALTUNG DIESER RICHTLINIE WENIGER STRENGE BESTIMMUNGEN ANZUWENDEN . ( 2 ) DIESE RICHTLINIE BESCHRÄNKT KEINE VERKEHRSRECHTE , DIE VOR DEM ZEITPUNKT DES ERLASSES DER RICHTLINIE EINEM MITGLIEDSTAAT VON EINEM ANDEREN MITGLIEDSTAAT GEWÄHRT WORDEN SIND UND AUFGRUND DERER EIN LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN DIE ZULASSUNG ERHALTEN HAT ODER ERHALTEN KANN , EINEN FLUGVERKEHR ZU BETREIBEN . ARTIKEL 11 EIN BETEILIGTER STAAT , DER EINE GENEHMIGUNG NACH DEN ARTIKELN 3 UND 6 VERWEIGERT , HAT DIES AUF ANTRAG SCHRIFTLICH ZU BEGRÜNDEN . ARTIKEL 12 ( 1 ) DIE KOMMISSION LEGT DEM RAT JÄHRLICH EINEN BERICHT ÜBER DIE DURCHFÜHRUNG DIESER RICHTLINIE VOR , DER AUCH STATISTISCHE ANGABEN DARÜBER ENTHÄLT , WIE VIELE INTERREGIONALE LUFTVERKEHRSDIENSTE GENEHMIGT , ZUGELASSEN ODER VERWEIGERT WURDEN UND WIE VIELE DIESER LUFTVERKEHRSDIENSTE WÄHREND DES BERICHTSZEITRAUMS IN BETRIEB GENOMMEN ODER EINGESTELLT WURDEN . ( 2 ) DIE MITGLIEDSTAATEN UND DIE KOMMISSION ARBEITEN BEI DER DURCHFÜHRUNG DIESER RICHTLINIE ZUSAMMEN , INSBESONDERE HINSICHTLICH DER SAMMLUNG DER IN ABSATZ 1 GENANNTEN ANGABEN . ARTIKEL 13 DER RAT ÜBERPRÜFT VOR DEM 1 . JULI 1986 ANHAND DER BERICHTE DER KOMMISSION DIE DURCHFÜHRUNG DIESER RICHTLINIE . ARTIKEL 14 ( 1 ) DIE MITGLIEDSTAATEN TREFFEN NACH ANHÖRUNG DER KOMMISSION DIE ERFORDERLICHEN MASSNAHMEN ZUR ÄNDERUNG IHRER RECHTS - UND VERWALTUNGSVORSCHRIFTEN , UM SIE SPÄTESTENS AM 1 . OKTOBER 1984 MIT DIESER RICHTLINIE IN EINKLANG ZU BRINGEN . ( 2 ) DIE MITGLIEDSTAATEN TEILEN DER KOMMISSION ALLE RECHTS - UND VERWALTUNGSVORSCHRIFTEN MIT , DIE SIE ZUR DURCHFÜHRUNG DIESER RICHTLINIE ERLASSEN . ARTIKEL 15 ( 1 ) FLUGHÄFEN AUF DEN GRIECHISCHEN INSELN SIND BIS ZUM 1 . JULI 1993 VON DER ANWENDUNG DIESER RICHTLINIE AUSGENOMMEN . ( 2 ) SOWEIT DER RAT NICHT AUF VORSCHLAG DER KOMMISSION ETWAS ANDERES BESCHLIESST , GILT DIESE AUSNAHME FÜR EINEN WEITEREN ZEITRAUM VON FÜNF JAHREN UND KANN ANSCHLIESSEND NOCH EINMAL FÜR FÜNF JAHRE VERLÄNGERT WERDEN . ( 3 ) DIE KOMMISSION LEGT ZUM 31 . DEZEMBER 1991 EINEN BERICHT ÜBER DAS LUFTVERKEHRSSYSTEM AUF DEN GRIECHISCHEN INSELN VOR ; EINEN WEITEREN BERICHT UNTERBREITET SIE ZUM 31 . DEZEMBER 1996 . ARTIKEL 16 DIESE RICHTLINIE IST AN DIE MITGLIEDSTAATEN GERICHTET . GESCHEHEN ZU BRÜSSEL AM 25 . JULI 1983 . IM NAMEN DES RATES DER PRÄSIDENT C . SIMITIS ANHANG A KLASSIFIKATION DER FLUGHÄFEN , DIE FÜR DEN INTERNATIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR OFFENSTEHEN MITGLIEDSTAAT * FLUGHAFEN * FLUGHAFEN - * * KLASSE BELGIEN * BRÜSSEL-ZAVENTEM * 1 DÄNEMARK * KÖBENHAVN-KASTRUP / ROSKILDE * 1 DEUTSCHLAND * FRANKFURT / RHEIN-MAIN * 1 * DÜSSELDORF-LOHAUSEN * 1 * MÜNCHEN-RIEM * 1 * HAMBURG-FUHLSBÜTTEL * 2 * STUTTGART-ECHTERDINGEN * 2 * KÖLN / BONN * 2 GRIECHENLAND * ATHINAI-HELLINIKON * 1 * THESSALONIKI-MICRA * 1 FRANKREICH * PARIS-CHARLES DE GAULLE / ORLY * 1 * MARSEILLE-MARIGNANE * 2 * NICE-COTE D'AZUR * 2 * LYON-SATOLAS * 2 * BALE-MULHOUSE * 2 IRLAND * DUBLIN * 1 * SHANNON * 2 ITALIEN * ROMA-FIUMICINO / CIAMPINO * 1 * MILANO-LINATE / MALPENSA * 1 * NAPOLI-CAPODICHINO * 2 * VENEZIA-TESSERA * 2 * CATANIA-FONTANAROSSA * 2 LUXEMBOURG * LUXEMBOURG-FINDEL * 2 NIEDERLANDE * AMSTERDAM-SCHIPHOL * 1 VEREINIGTES KÖNIGREICH * LONDON-HEATHROW / GATWICK / STANSTED * 1 * LUTON * 1 * MANCHESTER-RINGWAY * 2 * BIRMINGHAM-ELMDON * 2 * GLASGOW-ABBOTSINCH * 2 ALLE ÜBRIGEN FLUGHÄFEN , DIE FÜR DEN INTERNATIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHR OFFENSTEHEN * 3 ANHANG B LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN IM SINNE DES ARTIKELS 2 BUCHSTABE C ) ZIFFER II ) FOLGENDE LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN ENTSPRECHEN DEN MERKMALEN DES ARTIKELS 2 BUCHSTABE C ) ZIFFER II ) , SOLANGE SIE DER MITGLIEDSTAAT , DER SIE BEI ERLASS DER RICHTLINIE ALS NATIONALE LUFTVERKEHRSUNTERNEHMEN ANERKENNT , ALS SOLCHE ANERKENNT : SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM BRITANNA AIRWAYS MONARCH AIRLINES DER RAT HAT DIE NACHSTEHENDE MITTEILUNG VON DER REGIERUNG DER BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND ERHALTEN : " DIE BUNDESREPUBLIK DEUTSCHLAND HAT BEI HINTERLEGUNG DER RATIFIKATIONSURKUNDEN ZU DEN GRÜNDUNGSVERTRAEGEN DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN ERKLÄRT , DASS DIESE VERTRAEGE AUCH FÜR DAS LAND BERLIN GELTEN . SIE HAT GLEICHZEITIG ERKLÄRT , DASS DIE RECHTE UND VERANTWORTLICHKEITEN FRANKREICHS , DES VEREINIGTEN KÖNIGREICHS UND DER VEREINIGTEN STAATEN IN BEZUG AUF BERLIN UNBERÜHRT BLEIBEN . IM HINBLICK AUF DIE TATSACHE , DASS DIE ZIVILE LUFTFAHRT ZU DEN BEREICHEN GEHÖRT , IN DENEN SICH DIE GENANNTEN STAATEN BEFUGNISSE IN BERLIN AUSDRÜCKLICH VORBEHALTEN HABEN , UND NACH KONSULTATIONEN MIT DEN REGIERUNGEN DIESER STAATEN WEIST DIE BUNDESREGIERUNG DARAUF HIN , DASS DIE RICHTLINIE DES RATES ÜBER DIE ZULASSUNG DES INTERREGIONALEN LINIENFLUGVERKEHRS ZUR BEFÖRDERUNG VON PERSONEN , POST UND FRACHT ZWISCHEN DEN MITGLIEDSTAATEN DAS LAND BERLIN NICHT EINBEZIEHT . "


text:
 15.12.2014
 PT
 Jornal Oficial da União Europeia
 C 448/15
 Pedido de decisão prejudicial apresentado pelo Högsta domstolen (Suécia) em 20 de outubro de 2014 — Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB, Anders Rantén/Riksåklagaren
 (Processo C-472/14)
 (2014/C 448/19)
 Língua do processo: sueco
 Órgão jurisdicional de reenvio
 Högsta domstolen
 Partes no processo principal
 Recorrente: Canadian Oil Company Sweden AB e Anders Rantén
 Recorrida: Riksåklagaren
 Questões prejudiciais
 1)
 O facto de uma pessoa que, no âmbito de uma atividade comercial, importa um produto químico para a Suécia — situação em relação à qual existe o dever de notificar previsto no Regulamento REACH (1) — ter também de fazer uma notificação, nos termos da legislação sueca, ao Kemikalieinspektionen para inscrição no registo de produtos químicos sueco constitui uma violação do Regulamento REACH [Regulamento (CE) n.o 1907/2006]?
 2)
 Em caso de resposta negativa à primeira questão, o dever de notificar previsto na legislação sueca viola o artigo 34.o TFUE se se tiverem em consideração as exceções previstas no artigo 36.o TFUE?
 (1) Regulamento (CE) n.o 1907/2006 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 18 de dezembro de 2006, relativo ao registo, avaliação, autorização e restrição dos produtos químicos (REACH), que cria a Agência Europeia dos Produtos Químicos, que altera a Diretiva 1999/45/CE e revoga o Regulamento (CEE) n.o 793/93 do Conselho e o Regulamento (CE) n.o 1488/94 da Comissão, bem como a Diretiva 76/769/CEE do Conselho e as Diretivas 91/155/CEE, 93/67/CEE, 93/105/CE e 2000/21/CE da Comissão (JO 2006 L 396, p. 1).


text:
 15.2.2006
 DE
 Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union
 L 44/18
 BESCHLUSS Nr. 1/2006 DES GEMISCHTEN AUSSCHUSSES EG-SCHWEIZ
 vom 31. Januar 2006
 zur Ersetzung der Tabellen III und IV b des Protokolls Nr. 2
 (2006/92/EG)
 DER GEMISCHTE AUSSCHUSS —
 gestützt auf das am 22. Juli 1972 in Brüssel unterzeichnete Abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, nachstehend „das Abkommen“ genannt, geändert durch das am 26. Oktober 2004 in Luxemburg unterzeichnete Abkommen zwischen der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft zur Änderung des Abkommens in Bezug auf die Bestimmungen über landwirtschaftliche Verarbeitungserzeugnisse, und auf das zugehörige Protokoll Nr. 2, insbesondere auf Artikel 7,
 in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe:
 (1)
 Zur Umsetzung des Protokolls Nr. 2 des Abkommens legt der Gemischte Ausschuss für die Vertragsparteien Referenzpreise auf dem Inlandsmarkt fest.
 (2)
 Die tatsächlichen Preise auf den Inlandsmärkten der Vertragsparteien für die Rohstoffe, auf die Preisausgleichsmaßnahmen angewendet werden, haben sich geändert.
 (3)
 Daher ist es erforderlich, die in den Tabellen III und IV b des Protokolls Nr. 2 aufgeführten Referenzpreise und Grundbeträge entsprechend zu aktualisieren —
 BESCHLIESST:
 Artikel 1
 Die Tabellen III und IV b des Protokolls Nr. 2 werden durch die Tabellen in den Anhängen I und II dieses Beschlusses ersetzt.
 Artikel 2
 Dieser Beschluss tritt am 1. Februar 2006 in Kraft.
 Geschehen zu Brüssel am 31. Januar 2006.
 Für den Gemischten Ausschuss
 Der Vorsitzende
 Bernhard MARFURT
 ANHANG I
 „TABELLE III
 Referenzpreise der Gemeinschaft und der Schweiz auf dem Inlandsmarkt
 (CHF je 100 kg Eigengewicht)
 Landwirtschaftlicher Rohstoff
 Referenzpreis auf dem Inlandsmarkt der Schweiz
 Referenzpreis auf dem Inlandsmarkt der EG
 Unterschied Referenzpreis Schweiz/EG
 Weichweizen
 55,36
 17,88
 37,48
 Hartweizen
 35,39
 26,51
 8,88
 Roggen
 48,45
 17,82
 30,63
 Gerste
 26,48
 20,33
 6,15
 Mais
 29,42
 20,67
 8,75
 Weichweizenmehl
 99,96
 37,36
 62,60
 Vollmilchpulver
 583,10
 370,70
 212,40
 Magermilchpulver
 456,50
 315,29
 141,21
 Butter
 897,00
 433,29
 463,71
 Weißzucker
 —
 —
 0,00
 Eier (1)
 255,00
 205,50
 49,50
 Kartoffeln, frisch
 42,00
 21,00
 21,00
 Pflanzliche Fette (2)
 390,00
 160,00
 230,00
 (1) Auf der Grundlage der Preise für Flüssigei (nicht in der Schale), multipliziert mit dem Faktor 0,85.
 (2) Preise für pflanzliche Fette (zum Backen und für die Nahrungsmittelindustrie) mit einem Fettgehalt von 100 GHT.“
 ANHANG II
 „TABELLE IV
 b)
 Grundbeträge für die landwirtschaftlichen Rohstoffe, die bei der Berechnung der Agrarteilbeträge berücksichtigt werden:
 (CHF je 100 kg Eigengewicht)
 Landwirtschaftlicher Rohstoff
 Grundbetrag ab Inkrafttreten
 Grundbetrag ab Inkrafttreten + 3 Jahre
 Weichweizen
 34,00
 32,00
 Hartweizen
 8,00
 8,00
 Roggen
 28,00
 26,00
 Gerste
 6,00
 5,00
 Mais
 8,00
 7,00
 Weichweizenmehl
 54,00
 51,00
 Vollmilchpulver
 191,00
 181,00
 Magermilchpulver
 127,00
 120,00
 Butter
 464,00 (1)
 464,00 (1)
 Weißzucker
 Null
 Null
 Eier
 36,00
 36,00
 Kartoffeln, frisch
 19,00
 18,00
 Pflanzliche Fette
 207,00
 196,00
 (1) Angesichts der nach Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2571/97 der Kommission vom 15. Dezember 1997 und den nachfolgenden Verordnungen gewährten Beihilfe für Butter wird der Grundbetrag für Butter gegenüber der Preisdifferenz in Tabelle III nicht verringert.“


text:
21. rujna (21.9.) 264. je dan godine po gregorijanskom kalendaru (265. u prijestupnoj godini).
 Do kraja godine ima još 101 dan.
 Događaji
 1937. – J.R.R. Tolkien izdao knjigu Hobit.
 1991. – osnovan Glavni stožer Oružanih snaga Republike Hrvatske
 1991. – Velikosrpske snage nakon pokolja i progona hrvatskog stanovništva u okolnim selima i 20 dana borbe, okupirali Petrinju.
 1991. – Na povratku sa stranačkog skupa HSP-a u Križevcima, hrvatski policajci ubili su Antu Paradžika.
 Blagdani i spomendani
 Međunarodni dan mira
 Sveti Matej
 Imendani
 Izvori
 021