text:
 13/Sv. 043
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 277
 22011A1220(01)
 L 336/2
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 24.01.2001.
 EUROPSKA KONVENCIJA O PRAVNOJ ZAŠTITI USLUGA KOJE SE TEMELJE NA UVJETOVANOM PRISTUPU ILI USLUGA KOJE PRUŽAJU UVJETOVANI PRISTUP
 PREAMBULA
 Države članice Vijeća Europe, druge države i Europska zajednica, potpisnice ove Konvencije,
 Smatrajući da je cilj Vijeća Europe ostvarivanje većeg stupnja jedinstva između njegovih članica,
 Imajući u vidu Preporuku br. R(91) 14 Odbora ministara o pravnoj zaštiti kodiranih televizijskih usluga,
 Smatrajući da piratstvo opreme za dekodiranje kodiranih usluga još uvijek predstavlja problem diljem Europe,
 Primjećujući pojavu novih vrsta usluga i opreme uvjetovanog pristupa te novih oblika nezakonitog pristupa njima od vremena usvajanja gore navedene preporuke,
 Primjećujući postojanje velikih razlika među europskim državama u pogledu zakonodavstva koje ima za cilj zaštitu usluga koje se temelje na, ili im je svojstven uvjetovani pristup,
 Primjećujući da nezakoniti pristup ugrožava ekonomsku održivost organizacija koje pružaju radio-televizijske i usluge vezane uz informacijsko društvo i koji uslijed toga može utjecati na raznolikost programa i usluga ponuđenih javnosti,
 Uvjerene u potrebu za provođenjem zajedničke politike usmjerene na zaštitu usluga koje se temelje na, ili im je svojstven, uvjetovani pristup,
 Uvjerene da kaznene, administrativne ili druge sankcije mogu imati učinkovitu ulogu u prevenciji nezakonitih aktivnosti vezanih uz usluge uvjetovanog pristupa,
 Uvjerene da posebnu pozornost treba pokloniti nedopuštenim aktivnostima koje se poduzimaju iz komercijalnog razloga,
 Uzimajući u obzir postojeće međunarodne instrumente koje sadrže odredbe koje imaju za cilj zaštitu usluga koje se temelje na, ili im je svojstven, uvjetovani pristup,
 SPORAZUMJELE SU SE KAKO SLIJEDI:
 DIO I.
 OPĆE ODREDBE
 Članak 1.
 Predmet i svrha
 Ova se Konvencija bavi uslugama vezanim uz radio-televizijsko emitiranje programa i informacijsko društvo koje se nude za naknadu i temelje na, ili im je svojstven, uvjetovani pristup. Cilj ove Konvencije je učiniti nezakonitim na državnom području stranaka niz aktivnosti koje omogućuju neovlašteni pristup zaštićenim uslugama te usuglasiti zakonodavstva stranaka u ovome području.
 Članak 2.
 Definicije
 Za potrebe ove Konvencije:
 (a)
 „zaštićena usluga“ znači bilo koju od sljedećih usluga ako se pružaju za naknadu i na temelju uvjetovanog pristupa:
 —
 usluge televizijskog programa, kako su definirane u članku 2. izmijenjene i dopunjene Europske konvencije o prekograničnoj televiziji,
 —
 usluge emitiranja radijskog programa, odnosno radijskih programa namijenjenih javnosti, a koji se prenose žično ili bežično, uključujući satelitom,
 —
 usluge informacijskog društva, odnosno usluge koje se nude elektroničkim sredstvima na daljinu i na osobni zahtjev primatelja usluge,
 ili pružanje uvjetovanog pristupa gore navedenim uslugama kao usluge po sebi,
 (b)
 „uvjetovani pristup“ znači bilo koju tehničku mjeru i/ili aranžman koji omogućuje pristup u razumljivom obliku i uz prethodno individualno odobrenje, jednoj od usluga iz stavka (a) ovoga članka,
 (c)
 „sredstvo uvjetovanog pristupa“ znači bilo kakvu opremu, software i/ili aranžman koji ima za cilj ili je prilagođen da omogući pristup u razumljivom obliku jednoj od usluga navedenoj u stavku (a) ovoga članka,
 (d)
 „nedopušteno sredstvo“ znači bilo kakvu opremu, software i/ili aranžman koji ima za cilj ili je prilagođen da omogući pristup u razumljivom obliku jednoj od usluga iz stavka (a) ovoga članka bez ovlasti davatelja usluge.
 Članak 3.
 Korisnici
 Ova će se Konvencija primjenjivati na sve pravne ili fizičke osobe koje nude zaštićenu uslugu kako je definirana u gornjem članku 2.(a), bez obzira na njihovu nacionalnost te potpadaju li pod nadležnosti stranke.
 DIO II.
 NEDOPUŠTENE AKTIVNOSTI
 Članak 4.
 Prekršaji
 Smatrat će se nezakonitim obavljati jednu od sljedećih aktivnosti na teritoriju stranke:
 (a)
 izrađivati ili proizvoditi nedopuštena sredstva za komercijalne svrhe,
 (b)
 uvoziti nedopuštena sredstva za komercijalne svrhe,
 (c)
 distribuirati nedopuštena sredstva za komercijalne svrhe,
 (d)
 prodavati ili iznajmljivati nedopuštena sredstva za komercijalne svrhe,
 (e)
 posjedovati nedopuštena sredstva za komercijalne svrhe,
 (f)
 instalirati, održavati ili zamjenjivati nedopuštena sredstva za komercijalne svrhe,
 (g)
 komercijalno promicati, plasirati ili oglašavati nedopuštena sredstva.
 Svaka stranka može, u bilo koje vrijeme, u obavijesti upućenoj Glavnom tajniku Vijeća Europe, izjaviti da će sankcionirati i druge nezakonite aktivnosti osim onih navedenih u stavku 1. ovoga članka.
 DIO III.
 SANKCIJE I PRAVNI LIJEKOVI
 Članak 5.
 Sankcije za nezakonite aktivnosti
 Stranke će usvojiti mjere na temelju kojih će nezakonite aktivnosti iz gornjeg članka 4. postati kažnjive kaznenim, administrativnim ili drugim kaznama. Takve će mjere biti djelotvorne, odvraćajuće i razmjerne mogućem učinku nezakonite aktivnosti.
 Članak 6.
 Mjere zapljene
 Stranke će usvojiti odgovarajuće mjere potrebne da bi im se omogućilo da oduzmu i zaplijene nedopuštena sredstva ili materijale za promoviranje, plasiranje ili oglašavanje korištene kod izvršenje prekršaja te oduzmu sve prihode ili financijsku dobit koji su proistekli iz nedopuštene aktivnosti.
 Članak 7.
 Građanski postupci
 Stranke će usvojiti potrebne mjere kojima bi osigurali da davatelji zaštićenih usluga čiji su interesi narušeni nezakonitim aktivnostima iz gornjeg članka 4. imaju pristup odgovarajućim pravnim lijekovima, uključujući pokretanje postupka za naknadu štete i sudsku zabranu ili drugim preventivnim mjerama i po potrebi podnošenju zahtjeva za povlačenjem nezakonitih sredstava s komercijalnih kanala.
 DIO IV.
 PROVEDBA I IZMJENE I DOPUNE
 Članak 8.
 Međunarodna suradnja
 Stranke se obvezuju na pružanje uzajamne pomoći u cilju provođenja ove Konvencije. Stranke će uzajamno surađivati u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri, sukladno odredbama relevantnih međunarodnih instrumenata za međunarodnu suradnju u kaznenim i administrativnim pitanjima i nacionalnih zakona, u istragama i sudskim postupcima vezanim uz kaznene ili administrativne prekršaje utvrđene u skladu s ovom Konvencijom.
 Članak 9.
 Multilateralna savjetovanja
 1. Stranke će u roku od dvije godine od stupanja ove Konvencije na snagu i nakon toga svake druge godine te kad god jedna od stranaka to zatraži, održati multilateralno savjetovanje unutar Vijeća Europe kako bi ispitali primjenu ove Konvencije i eventualnu potrebu proširivanja ili revidiranja pojedinih odredbi, osobito u pogledu definicija iz članka 2. Ova savjetovanja će se održavati na sastancima koje sazove Glavni tajnik Vijeća Europe.
 2. Svaku stranku na multilateralnim savjetodavnim sastancima može zastupati jedan ili više zastupnika. Svaka stranka ima pravo glasa. Država stranka potpisnica ove Konvencije ima jedan glas. Vezano uz pitanja iz okvira njezine nadležnosti Europska zajednica će koristiti svoje pravo glasa i imati broj glasova jednak broju njezinih država članica koje su stranke Konvencije. Europska zajednica neće koristiti svoje pravo glasa kada se glasovanje odnosi na pitanje koje ne spada u njezinu nadležnosti.
 3. Svaku državu navedenu u članku 12. stavku 1., ili Europsku zajednicu, koja nije stranka ove Konvencije može na savjetodavnim sastancima zastupati promatrač.
 4. Nakon svakog savjetovanja stranke će uputiti Odboru ministara Vijeća Europe izvješće o savjetovanju i funkcioniranju Konvencije, uključujući, po potrebi, prijedloge o izmjenama i dopunama Konvencije.
 5. Podložno odredbama ove Konvencije, stranke će donijeti poslovnik za savjetodavne sastanke.
 Članak 10.
 Izmjene i dopune
 1. Svaka stranka može predložiti izmjene i dopune ove Konvencije.
 2. Svaki prijedlog o izmjenama i dopunama proslijedit će se Glavnom tajniku Vijeća Europe koji će ih prenijeti državama članicama Vijeća Europe, drugim državama strankama Europske kulturne konvencije, Europskoj zajednici i svim državama koje nisu članice a pristupile su ili su pozvane da pristupe ovoj Konvenciji sukladno odredbama članka 13.
 3. Svaka izmjena i dopuna predložena sukladno odredbama prethodnog stavka razmatrat će se u roku od šest mjeseci od dana njihovog upućivanja od strane Glavnog tajnika, na multilateralnom savjetodavnom sastanku na kojem se izmjene i dopune mogu usvojiti većinom glasova dvije trećine država koje su ratificirale Konvenciju.
 4. Tekst usvojen na multilateralnom savjetodavnom sastanku dostavit će se Odboru ministara na odobrenje. Kada izmijenjeni i dopunjeni tekst bude odobren, uputit će se strankama na prihvaćanje.
 5. Sve izmjene i dopune stupit će na snagu tridesetog dana nakon što su sve stranke obavijestile Glavnog tajnika o prihvaćanju istih.
 6. Na temelju preporuke s multilateralnog savjetodavnog sastanka, Odbor ministara može odlučiti, većinom glasova predviđenom člankom 20.(d) Statuta Vijeća Europe i jednoglasno od strane predstavnika stranaka koje imaju pravo na mjesto u Odboru, da pojedina izmjena i dopuna stupi na snagu po isteku razdoblja od dvije godine od dana upućivanja na prihvaćanje, osim ako stranka nije obavijestila Glavnog tajnika Vijeća Europe da se protivi njezinom stupanju na snagu. Ako se uputi takvo protivljenje, izmjena i dopuna će stupiti na snagu prvoga dana u mjesecu nakon datuma na koji je stranka Konvencije koja je uputila svoje protivljenje položila svoju ispravu o prihvatu kod Glavnog tajnika Vijeća Europe.
 7. Ako je Odbor ministara odobrio izmjenu i dopunu, ali još uvijek nije stupila na snagu sukladno gornjim stavcima 5. ili 6., država ili Europska zajednica ne mogu se obvezati u pogledu Konvencije bez istodobnog prihvaćanja izmjene i dopune.
 Članak 11.
 Odnos s drugim konvencijama ili sporazumima
 1. Ova Konvencije ne utječe na prava i obveze koje proistječu iz međunarodnih višestranih konvencija koje uređuju posebna pitanja.
 2. Stranke Konvencije mogu između sebe zaključivati dvostrane ili višestrane sporazume o pitanjima iz djelokruga ove Konvencije s ciljem dopune ili jačanja njezinih odredbi ili olakšavanja primjene u njoj sadržanih načela.
 3. Ako su dvije ili više stranaka već zaključile sporazum ili međunarodni ugovor o jednom od pitanja kojima se bavi ova Konvencija ili su na drugi način uspostavile odnose vezane uz to pitanje, imaju pravo, umjesto ove Konvencije, primjenjivati taj sporazum ili ugovor ili regulirati te odnose na odgovarajući način, ako to olakšava međunarodnu suradnju.
 4. U svojim međusobnim odnosima, stranke koje su članice Europske zajednice primjenjivat će propise Zajednice, odnosno neće primjenjivati propise koji proistječu iz ove Konvencije osim u slučaju nepostojanja propisa Zajednice koji se odnosi na to pitanje.
 DIO V.
 ZAVRŠNE ODREDBE
 Članak 12.
 Potpisivanje i stupanje na snagu
 1. Ova će Konvencija biti otvorena za potpisivanje državama članicama Vijeća Europe i drugim državama strankama Europske kulturne konvencije, te Europskoj zajednici. Te države i Europska zajednica mogu izraziti svoju suglasnost na obvezivanje:
 (a)
 potpisivanjem bez rezerve u odnosu na ratifikaciju, prihvat ili odobrenje, ili
 (b)
 potpisivanjem podložnim ratifikaciji, prihvatu ili odobrenju, nakon čega slijedi ratifikacija, prihvat ili odobrenje.
 2. Isprave o ratifikaciji, prihvatu ili odobrenju polažu se kod Glavnog tajnika Vijeća Europe.
 3. Ova će Konvencija stupiti na snagu prvog dana u mjesecu nakon isteka tromjesečnog razdoblja od dana na koji su tri države izrazile pristanak biti vezane Konvencijom sukladno odredbama iz prethodnog stavka.
 4. U odnosu na države potpisnice ili Europsku zajednicu koje su naknadno izrazile pristanak da budu vezane Konvencijom, Konvencija će stupiti na snagu prvog dana u mjesecu nakon isteka tromjesečnog razdoblja od dana izražavanja pristanka da budu vezane Konvencijom sukladno odredbama stavka 1.
 Članak 13.
 Pristupanje zemalja nečlanica Konvenciji
 1. Nakon stupanja na snagu ove Konvencije, Odbor ministara Vijeća Europe, izvršivši konzultacije sa strankama Konvencije, može pozvati bilo koju državu članicu koja nije navedena u članku 12. stavku 1. da pristupi Konvenciji, na temelju odluke donesene većinom glasova iz članka 20.(d) Statuta Vijeća Europe i jednoglasno od strane predstavnika ugovornih stranaka s pravom članstva u Odboru
 2. U odnosu na sve pristupajuće države, Konvencija će stupiti na snagu prvog dana u mjesecu po isteku tromjesečnog razdoblja od dana polaganja isprave o pristupu kod Glavnog tajnika Vijeća Europe.
 Članak 14.
 Teritorijalna primjena
 1. Svaka država ili Europska zajednica mogu u vrijeme potpisivanja ili pri polaganju isprava o ratifikaciji, prihvatu, odobrenju ili pristupu, navesti teritorij i teritorije na kojima će se primjenjivati ova Konvencija.
 2. Svaka država ili Europska zajednica mogu, naknadnom izjavom upućenoj Glavnom tajniku Vijeća Europe, proširiti primjenu ove Konvencije na bilo koji drugi teritorij naveden u izjavi. U odnosu na takav teritorij Konvencija će stupiti na snagu prvog dana u mjesecu koji slijedi nakon isteka tromjesečnog razdoblja od dana primitka takve izjave od strane Glavnog tajnika.
 3. Svaka izjava dana na temelju dva prethodna stavka može, u odnosu na bilo koji teritorij naveden u takvoj izjavi, biti povučena na temelju obavijesti upućene Glavnom tajniku Vijeća Europe. Povlačenje će stupiti na snagu prvog dana u mjesecu koji slijedi nakon isteka tromjesečnog razdoblja od dana primitka takve obavijesti od strane Glavnog tajnika.
 Članak 15.
 Rezerve
 Na ovu Konvenciju ne mogu se stavljati rezerve.
 Članak 16.
 Rješavanje sporova
 slučaju sporova između stranaka vezanih uz tumačenje ili primjenu ove Konvencije, odnosne stranke će nastojati spor riješiti na prijateljski način putem pregovora ili drugim mirnim načinom po svom izboru, uključujući podnošenje spora arbitražnom sudu čija će odluka biti obvezujuća za stranke.
 Članak 17.
 Otkazivanje
 1. Svaka stranka može u bilo koje vrijeme otkazati ovu Konvenciju na temelju obavijesti upućene Glavnom tajniku Vijeća Europe.
 2. Takvo će otkazivanje stupiti na snagu prvog dana u mjesecu koji slijedi nakon isteka tromjesečnog razdoblja od dana primitka obavijesti od strane Glavnog tajnika.
 Članak 18.
 Obavijesti
 Glavni tajnik Vijeća Europe obavijestit će države članice Vijeća Europe, druge države stranke Europske kulturne konvencije, Europsku zajednicu i sve ostale države koje su pristupile ovoj Konvenciji o:
 (a)
 svakom potpisu u skladu s člankom 12.,
 (b)
 polaganju svake isprave o ratifikaciji, prihvatu, odobrenju ili pristupanju u skladu s člancima 12. ili 13.,
 (c)
 svakom datumu stupanja na snagu ove Konvenciju u skladu s člancima 12. i 13.,
 (d)
 svakoj izjavi danoj u skladu s člankom 4.,
 (e)
 svakom prijedlogu o izmjenama i dopunama na temelju članka 10.,
 (f)
 svakom drugom aktu, obavijesti ili dopisu vezanom uz ovu Konvenciju.
 U potvrdu navedenoga, niže potpisani, propisno za to ovlašteni, potpisali su ovu Konvenciju.
 Sastavljeno u Strasbourgu, 24. siječnja 2001. godine na engleskom i francuskom jeziku, pri čemu su oba teksta jednako vjerodostojna, u jednom primjerku koji će biti položen u pismohrani Vijeća Europe. Glavni tajnik Vijeća Europe će dostaviti ovjerene preslike svim državama članicama Vijeća Europe, drugim državama strankama Europske kulturne konvencije, Europskoj zajednici i svim državama pozvanim da pristupe Konvenciji.


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 31974L0483
 Richtlinie 74/483/EWG des Rates vom 17. September 1974 zur Angleichung der Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über die vorstehenden Außenkanten bei Kraftfahrzeugen
 Amtsblatt Nr. L 266 vom 02/10/1974 S. 0004 - 0013 Finnische Sonderausgabe: Kapitel 13 Band 4 S. 0058 Griechische Sonderausgabe: Kapitel 13 Band 3 S. 0012 Schwedische Sonderausgabe: Kapitel 13 Band 4 S. 0058 Spanische Sonderausgabe: Kapitel 13 Band 4 S. 0031 Portugiesische Sonderausgabe: Kapitel 13 Band 4 S. 0031
 ++++ RICHTLINIE DES RATES vom 17 . September 1974 zur Angleichung der Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über die vorstehenden Aussenkanten bei Kraftfahrzeugen ( 74/483/EWG ) DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN - gestützt auf den Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft , insbesondere auf Artikel 100 , auf Vorschlag der Kommission , nach Stellungnahme des Europäischen Parlaments ( 1 ) , nach Stellungnahme des Wirtschafts - und Sozialausschusses , in Erwägung nachstehender Gründe : Die technischen Vorschriften , denen die Kraftfahrzeuge nach den einzelstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften genügen müssen , betreffen unter anderem auch die vorstehenden Aussenkanten . Diese Vorschriften sind von Mitgliedstaat zu Mitgliedstaat verschieden . Hieraus ergibt sich die Notwendigkeit , daß von allen Mitgliedstaaten - entweder zusätzlich oder an Stelle ihre * derzeitigen Regelung - gleiche Vorschriften erlassen werden , damit vor allem das EWG-Betriebserlaubnisverfahren gemäß der Richtlinie 70/156/EWG des Rates vom 6 . Februar 1970 zur Angleichung der Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über die Betriebserlaubnis für Kraftfahrzeuge und Kraftfahrzeuganhänger ( 2 ) auf jeden Fahrzeugtyp angewandt werden kann . Es empfiehlt sich , im wesentlichen die technischen Vorschriften zu übernehmen , die die UN-Wirtschaftskommission für Europa in der Regelung Nr . 26 ( " Einheitliche Vorschriften für die Genehmigung der Kraftfahrzeuge hinsichtlich der vorstehenden Aussenkanten " ) ( 3 ) festgelegt hat . Diese Regelung ist dem Übereinkommen vom 20 . März 1958 über die Annahme einheitlicher Bedingungen für die Genehmigung der Ausrüstungsgegenstände und Teile von Kraftfahrzeugen und über die gegenseitige Anerkennung der Genehmigung als Anhang beigefügt . Diese Vorschriften gelten für Kraftfahrzeuge der Klasse M1 . Die internationale Klassifizierung ist in der obengenannten Richtlinie 70/156/EWG aufgeführt . Die Angleichung der innerstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften über Kraftfahrzeuge impliziert , daß die Mitgliedstaaten die von jedem von ihnen auf Grund gemeinsamer Vorschriften durchgeführten Kontrollen gegenseitig anerkennen . Ein derartiges System setzt zum einwandfreien Funktionieren voraus , daß diese Vorschriften von allen Mitgliedstaaten vom gleichen Zeitpunkt an angewendet werden - HAT FOLGENDE RICHTLINIE ERLASSEN : Artikel 1 Fahrzeuge im Sinne dieser Richtlinie sind alle zur Teilnahme am Strassenverkehr bestimmten Kraftfahrzeuge der Klasse M1 ( die in Anhang I der Richtlinie 70/156/EWG definiert ist ) mit mindestens vier Rädern und einer bauartbedingten Hoechstgeschwindigkeit von mehr als 25 km/h . Artikel 2 Die Mitgliedstaaten dürfen die EWG-Betriebserlaubnis oder die Betriebserlaubnis mit nationaler Geltung für ein Fahrzeug nicht wegen der vorstehenden Aussenkanten verweigern , wenn diese den Vorschriften der Anhänge I und II entsprechen . Artikel 3 Die Mitgliedstaaten dürfen den Verkauf , die Zulassung , die Inbetriebnahme oder die Benutzung von Fahrzeugen nicht wegen der vorstehenden Aussenkanten verweigern oder verbieten , wenn diese den Vorschriften der Anhänge I und II entsprechen . Artikel 4 Der Mitgliedstaat , der die Betriebserlaubnis erteilt hat , trifft die erforderlichen Maßnahmen , damit er von jeder Änderung eines der in Anhang I 2.2 genannten Teile oder Merkmale unterrichtet wird . Die zuständigen Behörden dieses Mitgliedstaats befinden darüber , ob der geänderte Fahrzeugtyp erneut geprüft und darüber ein neuer Prüfbericht erstellt werden muß . Die Änderung wird nicht genehmigt , wenn die Prüfung ergibt , daß die Vorschriften dieser Richtlinie nicht eingehalten worden sind . Artikel 5 Änderungen , die zur Anpassung der Anhänge I , II und III an den technischen Fortschritt notwendig sind , werden nach dem Verfahren des Artikels 13 der Richtlinie 70/156/EWG erlassen . Artikel 6 ( 1 ) Die Mitgliedstaaten erlassen und veröffentlichen vor dem 1 . Juni 1975 die erforderlichen Bestimmungen , um dieser Richtlinie nachzukommen , und setzen die Kommission unverzueglich hiervon in Kenntnis . Sie wenden diese Bestimmungen ab 1 . Oktober 1975 an . ( 2 ) Nach Bekanntgabe dieser Richtlinie sorgen die Mitgliedstaaten ferner dafür , daß die Kommission von allen Entwürfen von Rechts - und Verwaltungsvorschriften , die die Mitgliedstaaten auf dem von dieser Richtlinie erfassten Gebiet zu erlassen beabsichtigen , so rechtzeitig unterrichtet wird , daß sie dazu Stellung nehmen kann . Artikel 7 Diese Richtlinie ist an die Mitgliedstaaten gerichtet . Geschehen zu Brüssel am 17 . September 1974 . Im Namen des Rates Der Präsident J . SAUVAGNARGÜS ( 1 ) ABl . Nr . C 55 vom 13 . 5 . 1974 , S . 14 . ( 2 ) ABl . Nr . L 42 vom 23 . 2 . 1970 , S . 1 . ( 3 ) Dokument der ECE Genf E/ECE/324 Rev . 1 Add . 25 . E/ECE/TRANS 505 Rev . 1 Add . 25 . ANHANG I ALLGEMEINES , BEGRIFFSBESTIMMUNGEN , ANTRAG AUF EWG-BETRIEBSERLAUBNIS , EWG-BETRIEBSERLAUBNIS , ALLGEMEINE VORSCHRIFTEN , BESONDERE VORSCHRIFTEN , ÜBEREINSTIMMUNG DER HERSTELLUNG ( 1 ) 1 . ALLGEMEINES 1.1 . Aussenrückspiegel und Zubehörteile wie Radioantennen oder Gepäckträger fallen nicht unter den Geltungsbereich dieses Anhangs . 1.2 . Zweck dieser Vorschriften ist , die Gefahr oder die Schwere der Verletzung von Personen zu verringern , die sich bei einem Zusammenstoß am Aufbau stossen oder von diesem gestreift werden . 2 . BEGRIFFSBESTIMMUNGEN Im Sinne dieser Richtlinie bedeutet : 2.1 . " Betriebserlaubnis für ein Fahrzeug " die Betriebserlaubnis für einen Fahrzeugtyp hinsichtlich der vorstehenden Aussenkanten ; 2.2 . " Fahrzeugtyp hinsichtlich der vorstehenden Aussenkanten " Kraftfahrzeuge , die untereinander keine wesentlichen Unterschiede aufweisen ; diese Unterschiede können insbesondere die Form oder die Werkstoffe der Aussenfläche betreffen ; 2.3 . " Aussenfläche " der Teil des Fahrzeugaufbaus , der die Aussenseite des Fahrzeugs bildet und die Motorhaube , den Kofferraumdeckel , die Turen , die Kotfluegel und die sichtbaren Verstärkungsteile einschließt ; 2.4 . " Bodenlinie " die Linie , die folgendermassen bestimmt wird : Um ein Fahrzeug herum ist ein Kegel mit senkrechter Achse und einem halben Kegelwinkel von 30 * in der Weise aufzustellen , daß er die Aussenfläche des Aufbaus stets und so niedrig wie möglich berührt . Die Bodenlinie ist die Verbindungslinie dieser Berührungspunkte . Die Ansätze für Wagenheber , die Auspuffrohre und die Räder sind bei der Bestimmung der Bodenlinie nicht zu berücksichtigen . Für die Radausschnitte wird angenommen , daß sie mit einer Oberfläche ausgefuellt sind , die die sie umgebende Aussenfläche stetig fortsetzt ; 2.5 . " Abrundungsradius " die angenäherte Grösse einer Abrundung , jedoch keine präzise geometrische Form . 3 . ANTRAG AUF ERTEILUNG DER EWG-BETRIEBSERLAUBNIS 3.1 . Der Antrag auf Erteilung der EWG-Betriebserlaubnis für einen Fahrzeugtyp hinsichtlich der vorstehenden Aussenkanten ist vom Fahrzeughersteller oder seinem Beauftragten einzureichen . 3.2 . Dem Antrag sind in dreifacher Ausfertigung beizufügen : 3.2.1 . Fotografien der Vorder - und Hinterseite sowie der Seitenflächen des Fahrzeugs , 3.2.2 . Zeichnungen der Stoßstangen sowie gegebenenfalls 3.2.3 . Zeichnungen bestimmter vorstehender Aussenkanten und , soweit erforderlich , auch Zeichnungen gewisser Teile der Aussenfläche gemäß 6.9.1 . 3.3 . Dem technischen Dienst , der die Prüfungen für die Betriebserlaubnis durchführt , ist zur Verfügung zu stellen : 3.3.1 . ein Fahrzeug , das für den zu genehmigenden Fahrzeugtyp repräsentativ ist oder der Teil oder die Teile des Fahrzeugs , die für die durch diesen Anhang vorgeschriebenen Kontrollen und Prüfungen als wesentlich angesehen werden , 3.3.2 . auf Anforderung des vorgenannten technischen Dienstes bestimmte Teile oder Muster der verwendeten Werkstoffe . 4 . EWG-BETRIEBSERLAUBNIS ( 4.1 . ) ( 4.2 . ) ( 4.3 . ) ( 4.4 . ) ( 4.4.1 . ) ( 4.4.2 . ) ( 4.5 . ) 4.6 . Ein Bogen entsprechend dem Muster in Anhang III ist dem EWG-Betriebserlaubnisbogen beizufügen . 5 . ALLGEMEINE VORSCHRIFTEN 5.1 . Die Vorschriften dieses Anhangs gelten nicht für die Teile der Aussenfläche , die bei beladenem Fahrzeug und insbesondere bei geschlossenen Türen , Fenstern , Kofferraumdeckel und Motorhaube 5.1.1 . sich entweder in einer Höhe von mehr als 2 m oder 5.1.2 . unterhalb der Bodenlinie oder 5.1.3 . so liegen , daß sie untet statischen Bedingungen von einer Kugel mit einem Durchmesser von 100 mm nicht berührt werden können . 5.2 . Die Aussenfläche des Fahrzeugs darf keine nach aussen gerichteten spitzen oder scharfen Teile oder nach aussen vorstehende Teile aufweisen , deren Form , Abmessungen , Richtung oder Gestaltfestigkeit die Gefahr oder die Schwere der Verletzung von Personen vergrössern können , die sich bei einem Zusammenstoß am Aufbau stossen oder von diesem gestreift werden . 5.3 . Die Aubenfläche eines Fahrzeugs darf keine nach aussen gerichteten Teile aufweisen , von denen Fußgänger , Radfahrer oder Motorradfahrer erfasst werden können . 5.4 . Vorbehaltlich der Vorschriften von 5.5 , 6.1.3 , 6.3 , 6.4.2 , 6.7.1 , 6.8.1 und 6.10 darf kein vorstehender Teil der Aussenfläche des Fahrzeugs einen Abrundungsradius unter 2,5 mm aufweisen . 5.5 . Vorstehende Teile der Aussenfläche aus Werkstoffen , deren Härte 60 shore A nicht übersteigt , dürfen einen Abrundungsradius unter 2,5 mm haben . 6 . BESONDERE VORSCHRIFTEN 6.1 . Verzierungen 6.1.1 . Aufgesetzte Verzierungen , die um mehr als 10 mm über ihre Halterung hervorstehen , müssen bei einer Kraft von 10 daN , die auf ihren am weitesten vorstehenden Punkt in beliebiger Richtung in einer Ebene aufgebracht wird , die ungefähr parallel zu der Oberfläche verläuft , auf der sie angebracht sind , entweder ausweichen , sich ablösen oder sich verbiegen . Diese Vorschriften gelten nicht für Verzierungen an Kühlergittern , für die nur die allgemeinen Vorschriften nach 5 gelten . 6.1.2 . Schutzstreifen oder -kappen auf der Aussenfläche fallen nicht unter die Vorschriften nach 6.1.1 ; sie müssen jedoch am Fahrzeug fest angebracht sein . 6.1.3 . Die Vorschrift über den Abrundungsradius von mindestens 2,5 mm gilt nicht für aufgesetzte Verzierungen von weniger als 5 mm Dicke ; die nach aussen gerichteten Kanten solcher Verzierungen müssen jedoch gebrochen sein . 6.2 . Scheinwerfer 6.2.1 . Vorstehende Blenden und Umrandungen an Scheinwerfern sind zulässig , sofern ihr Vorsprung , gemessen im Verhältnis zur äusseren durchsichtigen Fläche des Scheinwerfers nicht mehr als 30 mm und ihr Abrundungsradius durchgehend mindestens 2,5 mm beträgt . 6.2.2 . Verdeckbare Scheinwerfer müssen sowohl in Betriebsstellung wie auch in verdecktem Zustand den Vorschriften nach 6.2.1 entsprechen . 6.3 . Gitter und Aussparungen 6.3.1 . Die Vorschriften nach 5.4 gelten nicht für Aussparungen zwischen festen oder beweglichen Teilen einschließlich derjenigen , die einen Teil von Lufteinlaß - oder Luftauslaßgittern oder Kühlergittern bilden , sofern der Abstand zwischen benachbarten Teilen nicht grösser ist als 40 mm . Bei Aussparungen zwischen 40 mm und 25 mm müssen die Abrundungsradien 1 mm oder mehr betragen . Wenn jedoch der Abstand zwischen zwei benachbarten Teilen 25 mm oder weniger beträgt , dürfen die Abrundungsradien der Aussenflächen der Teile nicht kleiner als 0,5 mm sein . 6.3.2 . Die Verbindung der Strinseite mit den Seitenflächen jedes Teiles , das ein Gitter oder eine Aussparung bildet , muß abgerundet sein . 6.4 . Scheibenwischer 6.4.1 . Die Anbringung der Scheibenwischer soll so beschaffen sein , daß die Wischerwelle von einem Schutzgehäuse umgeben ist , dessen Abrundungsradius Absatz 5,4 entspricht und dessen Mindestoberfläche 150 mm2 beträgt . 6.4.2 . Absatz 5.4 gilt nicht für Wischerblätter oder Wischerarme . Diese Teile müssen jedoch so beschaffen sein , daß sie weder spitze Winkel noch scharfe oder schneidende Kanten haben , soweit diese nicht für die Wirkung erforderlich sind . 6.5 . Stoßstangen 6.5.1 . Die Enden der Stoßstangen müssen nach innen auf die Aussenfläche zugebogen sein , um die Gefahr des Hängenbleibens zu verringern . 6.5.2 . Die Bestandteile der Stoßstange müssen so beschaffen sein , daß alle nach aussen gerichteten harten Oberflächen einen Abrundungsradius von mindestens 5 mm aufweisen . 6.6 . Griffe , Scharniere und Druckknöpfe an Türen , Kofferräumen und Deckeln ; Tanköffnungen und Tankdeckel 6.6.1 . Diese Teile dürfen bei den Griffen der Seitentüren um nicht mehr als 40 mm , in allen anderen Fällen nicht mehr als 30 mm vorstehen . 6.6.2 . Sind die Griffe der Seitentüren als Drehgriffe ausgeführt , so müssen sie folgende Bedingungen erfuellen : 6.6.2.1 . Das offene Ende des Griffes muß nach hinten gerichtet sein und der Griff muß so angeordnet sein , daß die Drehbewegung parallel zur Türebene und nicht nach aussen erfolgt . 6.6.2.2 . Das Ende des Griffes muß gegen die Tür umgebogen sein und in einer Vertiefung liegen . 6.7 . Radmuttern , Nabendeckel und Zierdeckel 6.7.1 . Die Vorschriften nach 5.4 finden keine Anwendung . 6.7.2 . Die Radmuttern , Nabendeckel und Zierdeckel dürfen keine fluegelförmigen nach aussen vorstehenden Teile haben . 6.7.3 . Wenn das Fahrzeug geradeaus fährt , darf ausser den Reifen kein Teil der Räder , der oberhalb der durch ihre Drehachse verlaufenden waagerechten Ebene liegt , über die senkrechte Projektion der Aussenfläche oder des Aufbaus in eine waagerechte Ebene hinausragen . Wenn es jedoch durch funktionelle Erfordernisse gerechtfertigt ist , so dürfen Zierdeckel , die Radmuttern und Nabendeckel bedecken , über die senkrechte Projektion der Aussenfläche oder des Aufbaus hinausragen , wenn der Abrundungsradius der Oberfläche des vorstehenden Teils nicht kleiner als 30 mm ist und wenn der Vorsprung über die senkrechte Projektion der Aussenfläche oder des Aufbaus hinaus 30 mm nicht überschreitet . 6.8 . Blechkanten 6.8.1 . Blechkanten wie die Kanten von Wasserabflußrinnen oder die Schienen von Schiebetüren sind nur zulässig , sofern sie gebördelt oder mit einem Schutzueberzug versehen sind , der den Vorschriften dieses Anhangs entspricht . 6.9 . Wandung des Aufbaus 6.9.1 . Falze in der Wandung des Aufbaus dürfen einen Abrundungsradius haben , der kleiner als 2,5 mm , jedoch nicht kleiner als ein Zehntel der nach Anhang II zu bestimmenden Höhe " H " der Projektion ist . 6.10 . Seitliche Luft - oder Regenabweiser 6.10.1 . Die Kanten der seitlichen Abweiser , die nach aussen gerichtet werden können , müssen einen Abrundungsradius von mindestens 1 mm haben . 6.11 . Ansätze für den Wagenheber 6.11.1 . Die Ansätze für den Wagenheber dürfen nicht mehr als 10 mm über die senkrechte Projektion der unmittelbar über ihnen liegenden Bodenlinie hinausragen . ( 7 . ) ( 7.1 . ) ( 7.1.1 . ) ( 7.1.2 . ) ( 7.2 . ) 8 . ÜBEREINSTIMMUNG DER HERSTELLUNG ( 8.1 . ) 8.2 . Zur Überprüfung der Übereinstimmung mit dem genehmigten Typ sind an einer ausreichend grossen Zahl von Fahrzeugen aus der Serie stichprobenartige Prüfungen durchzuführen . ( 9 . ) ( 9.1 . ) ( 9.2 . ) ( 10 . ) ( 1 ) Der Wortlaut dieser Anhänge entspricht im wesentlichen der Regelung Nr . 26 der UN-Wirtschaftskommission für Europa , insbesondere ist die Gliederung in Absätze dieselbe ; entspricht einem Absatz der Regelung Nr . 26 kein solcher in dem vorliegenden Anhang , so ist seine Nummer in Klammern zum Vermerk aufgeführt . ANHANG II VERFAHREN ZUR BESTIMMUNG DER HÖHE DER ÜBER DIE AUSSENFLÄCHE HINAUSRAGENDEN TEILE 1 . Die Höhe H eines vorstehenden Teiles ist graphisch mittels eines Kreises mit einem Durchmesser von 165 mm zu bestimmen , wobei dieser Kreis den äusseren Umriß der Aussenfläche des zu prüfenden Bereichs innen berühren muß . 2 . H ist der Hoechstwert des Abstands zwischen dem Umfang des vorerwähnten Kreises und dem äusseren Umriß des vorstehenden Teiles , gemessen auf einer Geraden durch den Mittelpunkt des Kreises mit einem Durchmesser von 165 mm ( siehe Abbildung 1 ) . 3 . In Fällen , in denen ein Kreis mit einem Durchmesser von 100 mm einen Teil des äusseren Umrisses der Aussenfläche des zu prüfenden Bereichs von aussen nicht berühren kann , gilt als Oberflächenumriß in diesem Bereich der Umriß , der gebildet wird durch den Umfang des Kreises mit einem Durchmesser von 100 mm zwischen seinen Berührungspunkten mit dem Aussenumriß ( siehe Abbildung 2 ) . 4 . Zeichnungen der notwendigen Querschnitte durch die Aussenfläche sind vom Hersteller zu liefern , um ein Messen der Höhe der vorstehenden Teile zu ermöglichen . Abbildung 1 und 2 : siehe ABl . ANHANG III MUSTER Bezeichnung der Behörde ANHANG ZUM EWG-BETRIEBSERLAUBNISBOGEN FÜR EINEN FAHRZEUGTYP HINSICHTLICH DER VORSTEHENDEN AUSSENKANTEN ( Artikel 4 Absatz 2 und Artikel 10 der Richtlinie des Rates vom 6 . Februar 1970 zur Angleichung der Rechtsvorschriften der Mitgliedstaaten über die Betriebserlaubnis für Kraftfahrzeuge und Kraftfahrzeuganhänger ) Nummer der Betriebserlaubnis ... 1 . Fabrik - oder Handelsmarke des Kraftfahrzeugs ... 2 . Fahrzeugtyp ... 3 . Name und Anschrift des Herstellers ... 4 . Gegebenenfalls Name und Anschrift des Beauftragten des Herstellers ... 5 . Fahrzeug zur Betriebserlaubnis vorgeführt am ... 6 . Mit den Prüfungen für die Betriebserlaubnis beauftragter technischer Dienst ... 7 . Datum des Prüfberichts des technischen Dienstes ... 8 . Nummer des Prüfberichts des technischen Dienstes ... 9 . Die Betriebserlaubnis hinsichtlich der vorstehenden Aussenkanten wird erteilt/versagt ( 1 ) ... 10 . Ort ... 11 . Datum ... 12 . Unterschrift ... 13 . Folgende Unterlagen , die die vorgenannte Nummer der Betriebserlaubnis tragen , sind beigefügt : ... Fotografien der Vorder - und Hinterseite und der Seitenflächen des Fahrzeugs ... Zeichnungen der Stoßstangen sowie gegebenenfalls ... Zeichnungen bestimmter Vorsprünge ( 1 ) Nichtzutreffendes streichen .


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: US

text:
Andrew Reid Myers and Herbert Myers were convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City of having and receiving *Page 484
 an automobile knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen, and they were both sentenced to be imprisoned in the Maryland penitentiary for ten years. From that judgment this appeal was taken.
 The specific crime with which the appellants were charged was the larceny and subsequent disposal of an automobile belonging to Samuel W. Mays of New York, and the facts of the case may be briefly stated. The appellants are brothers and had been connected with the operation, hiring, and barter of automobiles for a number of years. They do not appear to have operated jointly and had no established place of business. On September 5th, 1919, Herbert Myers sold E.H. Stevens, an automobile dealer, an automobile which had been stolen, on September 2d 1919, from Samuel W. Mays, at 131 Riverside Drive, New York. Mays testified that Andrew Reid Myers actually stole the car, that he saw him drive it off, but could not stop him.
 Sixteen of the seventeen exceptions relate to rulings of the lower court on questions of evidence, while the seventeenth is to the court's action in overruling a motion in arrest of the judgment.
 Two days after the jury had returned its verdict, the appellants filed two motions which were identical in form and substance, except that one was called a "motion for a new trial," and the other a "motion in arrest of judgment," and they were filed in the order in which they have been named. Both motions were overruled, and to the action of the court in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment (which the reporter will set out in the report of this case) an exception was reserved, and the principal question presented by the appeal is raised by the arguments of appellants' counsel in connection with this exception.
 Tersely stated, their contention is that there was no evidence in the case legally sufficient to show that the appellants had committed the offense described in the indictment, and therefore the verdict of "guilty" returned by the jury was *Page 485
 illegal and no judgment should have been entered up on it, and the oral and written arguments in connection with this exception were mainly addressed to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to warrant a conviction under the indictment in the case. If the question of the guilt or innocence of the appellants were before us for determination, or if we were free to consider the legal effect of the evidence in connection with any ruling of the court made during the trial of the case, these arguments would have great force, but under the long settled law of this State such questions as these were exclusively for the jury which tried the case, and their findings in regard to them cannot be reviewed in this Court. Passing for the time the manner in which the proposition is presented, it may be said that whatever the law may be elsewhere, under the Constitution of this State, and the decisions of this Court construing it, juries in criminal cases are "judges of law, as well as of fact," and while this provision of our law has often been the subject of frequent, widespread, and often unfavorable, criticism and comment, it has nevertheless remained unchanged for nearly seventy years as a part of our organic law, and it is not within the power of this Court to amend it. This provision first occurs in the Constitution of 1851 and has frequently been passed upon by this Court. It was first construed in the case of Franklin v. State, 12 Md. 236, in which it was held that the provision was merely "declaratory" and had "not altered the pre-existing law regulating the powers of the court and jury in criminal cases." The precise point before the court in that case was the right of a jury to pass on the constitutionality of a statute, and it was decided no such right existed. In Wheeler v. State, 42 Md. 568, after the jury had retired in a criminal case, they asked the court for instructions in regard to the issues they were considering, and the court in response to the inquiry gave them his opinion of the law, but also informed them that they were not bound by it. This Court, after approving that practice, said: "The jury are made the *Page 486 judges of law as well as of fact, in the trial of criminal cases under the Constitution of this State; and any instruction given by the court as to the law of the crime is but advisory and in no manner binding upon the jury." In Broll v. State,45 Md. 359, exception was taken to the refusal of the lower court to instruct the jury as to the law of the crime at the request of the traverser, and in reviewing this action this Court said: "No court in this State can be required by the counsel or jury to give instructions either upon the law or the legal effect of the evidence given at the trial." In Bloomer v. State,48 Md. 538, at the conclusion of the testimony, the traversers moved the court to exclude from the jury all the evidence offered by the state to support the several counts of the indictment, on the ground that the evidence was not "sufficient in law" to support them. It was held that these motions were properly overruled, because they amounted to a demurrer to the evidence, and under the law of this State, the sufficiency of the evidence was a question for the jury. In Beard v. State, 71 Md. 278, the court was asked by the jury to instruct them as to the law governing the case. In compliance with this request the court did instruct the jury, at the same time warning them that they were not bound by the instructions. Its power to do this was challenged and, in passing upon the question so raised, JUDGE ALVEY, speaking for this Court, said: "The judge therefore cannot, by any instruction given in a criminal case, bind the jury as to the definition of the crime, or as to the legal effect of the evidence before them." In Ridgely and Melvin v. State,75 Md. 512, at the close of the State's case, the traverser offered a prayer that there was "no evidence legally sufficient to support the indictment" and the verdict of the jury should therefore be for the defendant. This prayer was refused, and on appeal it was said in reference to that ruling: "In view of the decisions of this Court there ought not to be any doubt about the question here presented, for it has frequently been held that no court in this State, *Page 487
 whatever may be the rule elsewhere, can be required by counsel or jury in criminal cases to give instructions either upon the lawof the crime or the legal effect of the evidence."
 It would be useless to further prolong this opinion by the citation of authority in support of a proposition about which there can be no possible doubt, and that is that, in this State, juries in criminal cases are finally and exclusively the judges of the law as well as the facts in cases tried before them, and that the only remedy for any mistake or error in the exercise of such power, or for any abuse of it, is by an application to the proper tribunal for a new trial.
 There was a motion for a new trial in this case, which was overruled by the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, and while that ruling is not before us on this appeal, it appears in the record, and is referred to because it was based upon the same grounds as the motion in arrest of judgment which we are now considering. This motion, although described as a "motion in arrest of judgment," is really the ordinary motion for a new trial, applied to new and strange ends, and is apparently intended to operate, in some way not clearly apparent, as a demurrer to the evidence.
 It is well settled that no appeal lies from the action of the court in overruling a motion for a new trial (Miller v.State, 135 Md. 379; Archer v. State, 45 Md. 460), for the reason that such a motion is addressed to the discretion of the court, and its exercise of that discretion is not reviewable on appeal. It would be strange indeed if this well established rule could be changed and a right of appeal acquired by the simple expedient of calling the motion for a new trial "a motion in arrest of judgment."
 The motion, although called a "motion in arrest of judgment," possesses none of the incidents or characteristics of such a motion. A motion in arrest of judgment "lies only for defects and errors apparent upon the face of the record." Archer v.State, 45 Md. 460. And not only are there no defects or errors apparent on the face of the record, but none *Page 488
 are even suggested in the motion, which relies entirely upon such reasons as that the verdict was against the evidence, and against the weight of the evidence, that the court erred in its rulings, and because of newly discovered evidence. Manifestly, while such matters could properly be urged as reasons for a new trial, they could not be considered in connection with a motion to arrest the judgment, and since they were addressed solely to the discretion of the court, and as the exercise of that discretion is not the subject of review in this Court, they will not be considered. To approve such a practice would be in effect to amend if not to nullify the constitutional provision referred to, and to hold that courts and not the juries are the final and exclusive judges of the law and the facts in criminal cases in this State.
 The record contains sixteen exceptions to the rulings of the court upon question of evidence, of which six, the seventh, tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth were pressed in this Court, and these exceptions we will now consider. Samuel W. Mays testified that he was the owner of the automobile said to have been stolen, and that, when he last saw it, it was being driven away from his residence in New York by Andrew Reid Myers, one of the appellants. There were two objections to so much of this testimony as referred to Myers, one made before it was given, and the other at its conclusion. These objections are the subject of the seventh and tenth exceptions. It was clearly proper for the witness to prove his ownership of the car and to describe its appearance when he last saw it, and to tell where that was, and the circumstances under which he lost it. These were naturally matters about which the jury should have been informed, and there is no apparent reason why this testimony should not have been admitted. That it alone did not prove the crime charged in the indictment, or, that a misleading inference might have been drawn from the statement that Myers took the car away, did not affect the relevancy of the testimony, but the jury were entitled to consider it in *Page 489
 connection with other testimony in the case, and such authorities and arguments as the appellants may have submitted in connection with it, and we find no error in these rulings. Nor was there any error in the ruling involved in the eleventh exception. The witness had already testified without objection to some memoranda he had made of the numbers, and other identification marks on the automobile, and had testified that he had made them the "week of September 8th." Counsel for the traversers then announced he would object to the memorandum if offered in evidence. The court thereupon asked the witness: "Did you take it off or make it right at the time?" To which he answered: "Yes." "To which question and answer the defendants' attorney objected, but the court overruled the objection," and this is the subject of the eleventh exception. The exception was not to the admission of the memorandum, because it does not appear to have ever been offered in evidence, but to the court's question. It was both relevant and proper for the court to have been informed as to the time when the memoranda were made, because the right of the witness to refer to them may have depended on that fact. Jones onEvidence, Sec. 874.
 Andrew Reid Myers having testified in chief as to his age and residence and as to his movements between the first and sixth of September and having further testified that he had been convicted of the larceny of an automobile in Baltimore, but that he owned the automobile and was not guilty of the crime of which he was convicted, further testified on cross-examination that he had a bill of sale for the automobile, sworn to in the office of L.M. Limp on Gay Street, which was destroyed by the detective. He added that he was not sure whether the bill of sale was executed at 733 N. Gay Street, or whether it was at the office of the Commercial Guarantee Company, and was then asked: "Don't you know that Mr. Pumphrey testified in your case, on the 15th of March, that he took an acknowledgment from you, and that that bill of sale was executed by him, and that he was manager *Page 490
 of the Commercial Guarantee Company at 733 N. Gay Street, the same place where this bill of sale was executed which you are offering in this case today?" This question was allowed over the appellants' objection. This ruling is the subject of the thirteenth exception. The state in rebuttal was permitted, over the objection of the appellants, to ask Lawrence King, a detective, the following question: "Under cross-examination Andrew Reid Myers was asked in reference to a bill of sale executed at 732 N. Gay Street, and he said he didn't know whether that was the number or not. What have you to say to that?" H. Warren Shank, also a detective, was asked what was intended to be the same question, and they both answered that Myers had testified in another case that the bill of sale was executed at 732 N. Gay Street. These rulings are covered by the fifteenth and sixteenth exceptions.
 There was technical error in permitting the question involved in the thirteenth exception to be asked, because the witness could not be impeached by showing that other persons, although they were his witnesses, had made statements at variance with his own, but the error was harmless and could not have injured the appellants, because it does not appear from the record that the witness ever answered the question or in any way admitted that Pumphrey had so testified. Nor was there reversible error in admitting the testimony involved in the fifteenth and sixteenth exceptions? This testimony was designed not so much to impeach the witness as to show an admission on his part of facts relevant to the issues in the case. The witness had not denied the facts when asked about them, but said that he was unable to recall them, and under such circumstances it was permissible to prove that on a prior occasion he had admitted them.
 The other exceptions to the evidence were not pressed and an examination of them fails to disclose any reversible error, and for the reasons stated the judgment will be affirmed.
 Judgment affirmed. *Page 491


type: wikipedia

text:
Για άλλες χρήσεις της λέξης δέλτα δείτε Δέλτα (αποσαφήνιση)
 Το γράμμα δέλτα (κεφαλαίο Δ, πεζό δ) είναι το τέταρτο γράμμα του ελληνικού αλφαβήτου. Στην νέα ελληνική αναπαριστά το ηχηρό τριβόμενο οδοντικό σύμφωνο /ð/ και το αντίστοιχο αλλόφωνο ενώ στην αρχαία ελληνική αναπαριστούσε το κλειστό /d/.
 Προήλθε από το φοινικικό γράμμα ντάλεθ (), που στα φοινικικά σήμαινε πόρτα. Το γράμμα D,d του λατινικού αλφαβήτου προήλθε από το παρόμοιο γράφημα του χαλκιδικού αλφαβήτου, με το Д, д του κυριλλικού να αποτελεί επίσης προσαρμογή του.
 Στο ελληνικό σύστημα αρίθμησης έχει αριθμητική αξία δ ́=4.
 Ως διεθνές σύμβολο
 Το κεφαλαίο Δ ως σύμβολο το συναντούμε σε διάφορες περιπτώσεις:
 Συμβολίζει μια μακροσκοπική μεταβολή μιας τιμής ή μεταβλητής στη φυσική ή στα μαθηματικά. Π.χ.
 Συμβολίζει τη διακρίνουσα εξίσωσης (συνήθως) δευτέρου βαθμού. Για μια εξίσωση γενικού τύπου αx2 + βx + γ = 0, είναι Δ = β2 - 4αγ. Ανάλογα με το πρόσημό της, διακρίνει την ύπαρξη ή και τον αριθμό των πραγματικών λύσεων της εξίσωσης.
 Συμβολίζει τα σωμάτια Δέλτα στη σωματιδιακή φυσική
 Παριστάνει μερικές τον τελεστή Laplace: , αν και πιο συχνά παριστάνεται με ανάδελτα στο τετράγωνο (∇2). Είναι .
 Το πεζό δ χρησιμοποιείται ως:
 Σύμβολο της μικροσκοπικής μεταβολής μιας τιμής ή μεταβολής στη φυσική ή στα μαθηματικά είτε ως ένδειξη ότι μια τιμή είναι μικροσκοπικής κλίμακας.
 Στατιστικό ηλεκτρικό φορτίο μικρότερο κατά απόλυτη τιμή από αυτό του ενός ηλεκτρονίου στη Χημεία. Χρησιμοποιείται για να δείξει την κατανομή στατιστικού φορτίου σε πολωμένους ομοιοπολικούς δεσμούς. Π.χ. το υδροφθόριο παριστάνεται μερικές φορές έτσι: Hδ+-Fδ-.
 Το δέλτα του Κρόνεκερ στα μαθηματικά.
 Το δέλτα του Ντιράκ στα μαθηματικά.
 Το Δ επίσης συμβόλιζε το δέκα σε ένα αρχαιότερο ελληνικό σύστημα αρίθμησης το ακροφωνικό σύστημα αρίθμησης.
 Παραπομπές
 δ


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22004A1130(04)
 Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the participation of the Republic of Turkey in the European Union Police Mission in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUPOL ‘Proxima’)
 Official Journal L 354 , 30/11/2004 P. 0090 - 0092
 Agreementbetween the European Union and the Republic of Turkey on the participation of the Republic of Turkey in the European Union Police Mission in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUPOL "Proxima")THE EUROPEAN UNION,on the one hand, andTHE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY,on the other hand,together hereinafter referred to as the "Participating Parties",- the adoption by the Council of the European Union on 29 September 2003 of Joint Action 2003/681/CFSP on the European Union Police Mission in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (EUPOL "Proxima") [1], stating that Acceding States are invited and other third States may be invited to contribute to EUPOL "Proxima",- the invitation to the Republic of Turkey to participate in EUPOL "Proxima",- the successful completion of the Force Generation process and the recommendation by the Police Head of Mission and the Committee for Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management to agree on the participation of the Republic of Turkey in EUPOL "Proxima",- the decision by the Political and Security Committee of 10 February 2004 to accept the contribution of the Republic of Turkey to EUPOL "Proxima",- the agreement concluded on 11 December 2003 between the EU and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the status and activities of EUPOL "Proxima" in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [2], including provisions on the status of the EUPOL "Proxima" personnel,HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS:Article 1Framework1. The Republic of Turkey shall associate itself with the provisions of the Joint Action 2003/681/CFSP on EUPOL "Proxima" adopted by the Council of the European Union on 29 September 2003, and with any Joint Action or Decision by which the Council of the European Union may decide to extend EUPOL "Proxima".2. The contribution of the Republic of Turkey to EUPOL "Proxima" is without prejudice to the decision-making autonomy of the European Union.Article 2Status of personnel1. The status of personnel seconded to EUPOL "Proxima" by the Republic of Turkey shall be governed by the Agreement concluded on 11 December 2003 between the EU and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the status and activities of EUPOL "Proxima" in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.2. Without prejudice to the Agreement between the EU and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on the status and activities of EUPOL "Proxima" in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Turkey shall exercise jurisdiction over its personnel participating in EUPOL "Proxima".3. The Republic of Turkey shall be responsible for answering any claims linked to the participation in EUPOL "Proxima", from or concerning any of its personnel. The Republic of Turkey shall be responsible for bringing any action, in particular legal or disciplinary, against any of its personnel.4. The Republic of Turkey shall waive all claims against any State participating in EUPOL "Proxima", for injury, death of the Republic of Turkey personnel, or damage to, or loss of, any assets owned by itself and used by EUPOL "Proxima" if such injury, death, damage or loss:- was caused by EUPOL "Proxima" personnel in the execution of their duties in connection with the operation, except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct,- or arose from the use of any assets owned by States participating in EUPOL "Proxima", provided that the assets were used in connection with the operation and except in case of gross negligence or wilful misconduct of EUPOL "Proxima" personnel using those assets.5. The European Union Member States undertake to make a declaration as regards the waiver of claims, for participation of the Republic of Turkey in EUPOL "Proxima".Article 3Classified information1. The Republic of Turkey shall take appropriate measures to ensure that EU classified information is protected in accordance with the European Union Council's security regulations, contained in the Council Decision 2001/264/EC [3], and in accordance with further guidance issued by competent authorities, including by EUPOL "Proxima" Head of Mission/Police Commissioner.2. Where the EU and the Republic of Turkey have concluded an agreement on security procedures for the exchange of classified information, the provisions of such an agreement shall apply in the context of EUPOL "Proxima".Article 4Personnel seconded to EUPOL "Proxima"1. The Republic of Turkey shall ensure that its personnel seconded to EUPOL "Proxima" undertake their mission in conformity with:- the provisions of Joint Action 2003/681/CFSP and subsequent amendments as referred to in Article 1(1) of this Agreement,- the Operation Plan,- Implementing measures.2. The Republic of Turkey shall inform in due time EUPOL "Proxima" Head of Mission/Police Commissioner and the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union of any change to its contribution to EUPOL "Proxima".3. Personnel seconded to EUPOL "Proxima" shall undergo a medical examination, vaccination and be certified medically fit for duty by a competent authority from the Republic of Turkey. Personnel seconded to EUPOL "Proxima" shall produce a copy of this certification.4. Seconded police officers shall work in their national police uniforms. Berets and insignia shall be provided by EUPOL "Proxima".Article 5Chain of command1. Personnel seconded by the Republic of Turkey shall carry out their duties and conduct themselves solely with the interests of EUPOL "Proxima" in mind.2. All personnel shall remain under the full command of their national authorities.3. National authorities shall transfer Operational Control (OPCON) to EUPOL "Proxima" Head of Mission/Police Commissioner, who shall exercise that command and control through a hierarchical structure of command and control.4. The Head of Mission/Police Commissioner shall lead EUPOL "Proxima" and assume its day-to-day management.5. The Republic of Turkey shall have the same rights and obligations in terms of day-to-day management of the operation as European Union Member States taking part in the operation, in accordance with Article 9(4) of Joint Action 2003/681/CFSP.6. EUPOL "Proxima" Head of Mission/Police Commissioner shall be responsible for disciplinary control over operation personnel. Where required, disciplinary action shall be taken by the national authority concerned.7. A national contingent point of contact (NPC) shall be appointed by the Republic of Turkey to represent its national contingent in the operation. NPCs shall report to the EUPOL "Proxima" Head of Mission/Police Commissioner on national matters and shall be responsible for day-to-day contingent discipline.8. The decision to end the operation shall be taken by the European Union following consultation with the Republic of Turkey, provided that this country is still contributing to EUPOL "Proxima" at the date of termination of the operation.Article 6Financial aspects1. The Republic of Turkey shall assume all the costs associated with its participation in the operation apart from the costs, which are subject to EU common funding, as set out in the operational budget of the operation.2. The Republic of Turkey shall consider making contributions of a voluntary nature.3. In case of such contributions of a voluntary nature, an arrangement on the practical modalities of the payment shall be signed between the EUPOL "Proxima" Head of Mission/Police Commissioner and the relevant administrative services of the Republic of Turkey on the contributions of the Republic of Turkey to the operational budget of EUPOL "Proxima". This arrangement shall, inter alia, include the following provisions:(a) the amount concerned;(b) the arrangements for payment of the financial contribution;(c) the auditing procedure.4. In case of death, injury, loss or damage to natural or legal persons from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Turkey shall, when its liability has been established, pay compensation under the conditions provided for in the agreement on status of mission as referred to in Article 2(1) of the Agreement.Article 7Non-complianceShould one of the Parties fail to comply with its obligations laid down in the Agreement, the other Party shall have the right to terminate this agreement by serving a notice of one month.Article 8Dispute settlementDisputes concerning the interpretation or application of this Agreement shall be settled by diplomatic means between the Parties.Article 9Entry into force1. This Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the first month after the Parties have notified each other of the completion of the internal procedures necessary for this purpose.2. This Agreement may be amended on the basis of mutual written agreement between the Parties. The amendments shall enter into force in accordance with the procedures provided for in paragraph 1.3. This Agreement may be denounced by one Party by written notice of denunciation given to the other Party. Such denunciation shall take effect six months after receipt of notification by the other Party.Done at Brussels, on in the English language in four copies.For the European UnionFor the Republic of Turkey--------------------------------------------------[1] OJ L 249, 1.10.2003, p. 66.[2] OJ L 16, 23.1.2004, p. 65.[3] OJ L 101, 11.4.2001, p. 1.


type: other

text:
L-Artikolu 50(l)(a) - Ismijiet u dettalji ta’ kuntatt tal-qrati deżinjati bħala kompetenti li joħorġu Ordni Ewropea tal-Preservazzjoni tal-Kontijiet (l-Artikolu 6(4));
 Fid-dritt tal-Irlanda ma hemmx strumenti awtentiċi u għaldaqstant din id-dispożizzjoni ma tapplikax fl-Irlanda.
 Fl-Irlanda japplika l-Artikolu 14(5)(a), jiġifieri, obbligu fuq il-banek kollha tal-Irlanda li jiddivulgaw, fuq talba mill-awtorità tal-informazzjoni, jekk id-debitur għandux kont magħhom.
 fil-każijiet li fihom il-ġurisdizzjoni għall-ħruġ ta’ Ordni ta’ Preservazzjoni tkun tal-Qorti Distrettwali, lill-Imħallef tal-Qorti taċ-Ċirkwit (Circuit Court) li l-Ordni ta’ Preservazzjoni tkun inħarġet fiċ-Ċirkwit tiegħu.
 fil-każijiet li fihom il-ġurisdizzjoni għall-ħruġ ta’ Ordni ta’ Preservazzjoni tkun tal-Qorti taċ-Ċirkwit, lill-Qorti Superjuri
 fil-każijiet li fihom il-ġurisdizzjoni għall-ħruġ ta’ Ordni ta’ Preservazzjoni tkun tal-Qorti Superjuri, lill-Qorti tal-Appell (madankollu, għandu jiġi nnutat li, f’konformità mad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Kostituzzjoni Irlandiża, il-Qorti Suprema għandu jkollha l-ġurisdizzjoni ta’ appell minn deċiżjoni tal-Qorti Superjuri jekk hi tkun issodisfata li hemm ċirkostanzi ta’ eċċezzjoni li jiġġustifikaw appell dirett minnha. Prekundizzjoni biex il-Qorti Suprema tkun daqshekk issodisfata hija li d-deċiżjoni kkonċernata tkun tinvolvi materja ta’ importanza għall-pubbliku ġenerali u/jew jekk l-interessi tal-ġustizzja jkunu jeħtieġu hekk.)
 Il-punt sa liema l-kontijiet konġunti u ta’ mandatarji jistgħu jiġu preservati skont il-liġi Irlandiża jiddependi miċ-ċirkostanzi tal-kawża inkwistjoni. Fir-rigward tal-kontijiet konġunti, ir-regola ġenerali hija li inġunzjoni tat-tip Mareva li tingħata kontra konvenut waħdu ma għandhiex tipprevjeni lil detentur ta’ kont konġunt milli jiġbed mill-kont bankarju dment li dan ma jkunx speċifikament previst fl-ordni.
 Fir-rigward tal-kontijiet ta’ mandatarji, meta parti terza jkollha assi għan-nom tal-konvenut f’kont ta’ mandatarju, dawk l-assi jkunu suxxettibbli li jintlaqtu minn inġunzjoni Mareva diretta għall-konvenut għaliex dan tal-aħħar ikun is-sid f’ekwità jew benefiċjarju ta’ dawk l-assi.
 Detentur ta’ kont konġunt jew ta’ mandatarju li l-kont tiegħu jkun soġġett għal inġunzjoni bħal din jista’ jressaq rikors quddiem il-qorti rilevanti bl-għan li jiġu emendati t-termini tal-inġunzjoni.
 Fil-każ ta’ proċedimenti nazzjonali ekwivalenti, il-Qorti tiddetermina l-ammont disponibbli għad-debitur abbażi tal-każ individwali wara li tkun qieset iċ-ċirkostanzi tal-parti kkonċernata. Ir-rikors rilevanti jsir mid-debitur u ma hemm l-ebda regola dwar l-ammont li jista’ jkun disponibbli.
 Il-banek ma jitolbux ħlas għall-eżekuzzjoni tal-ordnijiet tal-qrati f’każ ta’ proċedimenti nazzjonali ekwivalenti. Fil-każ li kellha tintalab informazzjoni dwar kont, ma hemm l-ebda regola fis-seħħ li timpedixxi lill-banek milli jitolbu ħlas ta’ tariffa għall-forniment ta’ tali informazzjoni. Bħala prinċipju ġenerali, il-kreditur ikun responsabbli għall-ispejjeż imġarrba mill-bank, minkejja li l-qorti tista’ eventwalment tikkundanna lid-debitur iħallas tali spejjeż.
 Mhuwiex previst li l-awtoritajiet kompetenti u ta’ informazzjoni jitolbu l-ħlas ta’ tariffa ta’ amministrazzjoni. Madankollu, in-notifika personali tad-dokumenti tinvolvi ħlas ta’ madwar EUR 100 sa EUR 200, skont id-diffikultà fit-twettiq tan-notifika.
 Nota: in-notifika personali tad-dokumenti sseħħ minn kumpanija tas-settur privat f’dan il-każ, u ma teżistix skala ta’ tariffi disponibbli.
 Ma ssirx klassifikazzjoni ta’ proċeduri simili bħall-inġunzjonijiet Mareva skont il-liġi Irlandiża billi l-kreditur ma jiksibx interessi proprjetarji fl-assi inkwistjoni.
 Fl-Irlanda,
 Sa fejn għandu x’jaqsam l-Artikolu 33(1), il-qorti b’kompetenza li tagħti rimedju hija l-qorti li tkun ħarġet l-Ordni ta’ Preservazzjoni li, skont iċ-ċirkostanzi, tista’ tkun Qorti Distrettwali, Qorti taċ-Ċirkwit jew Qorti Superjuri*.
 Sa fejn għandhom x’jaqsmu l-Artikolu 34(1) u 34(2), il-qorti b’kompetenza li tagħti rimedju hija,
 meta l-Ordni Ewropea tal-Preservazzjoni tal-Kontijiet tkun inħarġet minn qorti fl-Istat, l-qorti li tkun ħarġet l-ordni ta’ preservazzjoni;
 meta l-Ordni Ewropea tal-Preservazzjoni tal-Kontijiet tkun inħarġet minn Stat Membru li ma jkunx l-Istat, il-Qorti Superjuri*.
 *Il-Qorti Superjuri,
 Fl-Irlanda, jista’ jsir appell minn deċiżjoni maħruġa skont l-Artikoli 33, 34 jew 35, kif ġej –
 meta d-deċiżjoni tkun ittieħdet mill-Qorti Distrettwali, jista’ jitressaq appell quddiem l-Imħallef tal-Qorti taċ-Ċirkwit li l-Ordni ta’ Preservazzjoni tkun ħarġet fiċ-Ċirkwit tiegħu fi żmien 14-il jum mid-data li fiha tkun ingħatat id-deċiżjoni li tkun qed tiġi appellata (l-Artikoli 35.1 u 35.3 biss). http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0/e7bc3303e9b0464a80256d2b0046a095?OpenDocument
 meta d-deċiżjoni tkun ittieħdet mill-Qorti taċ-Ċirkwit, jista’ jitressaq appell quddiem il-Qorti Superjuri fi żmien 10 ijiem mid-data li fiha s-sentenza jew l-ordni li tkun qed tiġi appellata tkun inqrat fi smigħ pubbliku (l-Artikoli 35.1 u 35.3 biss). http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/d7ed4ce54d2bd0c680256e5400502ec7/d5629e64d4c7cae680256d2b0046b3ae?OpenDocument
 meta d-deċiżjoni tkun ittieħdet mill-Qorti Superjuri, jista’ jsir appell quddiem il-Qorti tal-Appell fi żmien 28 jum mill-ipperfezzjonar tal-Ordni. (Madankollu, għandu jiġi nnutat li, f’konformità mad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Kostituzzjoni Irlandiża, il-Qorti Suprema għandu jkollha l-ġurisdizzjoni ta’ appell minn deċiżjoni tal-Qorti Superjuri jekk hi tkun issodisfata li hemm ċirkostanzi ta’ eċċezzjoni li jiġġustifikaw appell dirett minnha. Prekundizzjoni biex il-Qorti Suprema tkun daqshekk issodisfata hija li d-deċiżjoni kkonċernata tkun tinvolvi materja ta’ importanza għall-pubbliku ġenerali u/jew jekk l-interessi tal-ġustizzja jkunu jeħtieġu hekk.) http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/6805f0acd71dd40f80256f900064bdeb?OpenDocument
 Skont iċ-ċirkostanzi tal-każ, it-tariffi tal-qorti fi proċedimenti biex tinkiseb Ordni ta’ Preservazzjoni jew rimedju fil-konfront ta’ Ordni, jistgħu jvarjaw minn madwar EUR 80 sa EUR 200. L-informazzjoni rilevanti tinsab hawnhekk:
 L-ebda lingwa (l-Irlanda taċċetta l-Irlandiż u l-Ingliż biss).


text:
In WWE, Deuce ha detenuto una volta il WWE Tag Team Championship assieme Domino con un regno durato 133 giorni.
 Rehier è inoltre il figlio adottivo del wrestler Jimmy Snuka.
 Carriera
 World Wrestling Entertainment (2005–2009)
 Ohio Valley Wrestling (2005–2009)
 SmackDown! (2007–2008)
 I due debuttano a SmackDown! nel gennaio 2007 come "Deuce n'Domino" sconfiggendo due jobber nel loro primo match. Successivamente, sconfiggono Paul London e Brian Kendrick, i detentori del WWE Tag Team Championship. A No Way Out 2007, Deuce e Domino non riescono a vincere i titoli poiché Kendrick schiena Deuce via roll-up. Riescono a vincere i titoli nella puntata di Smackdown del 20 aprile dopo che London si era infortunato sbagliando un Moonsault e Kendrick doveva difendere i titoli da solo. Successivamente, difendono i titoli in un Triple Treath Tag Team Match che includeva sia London e Kendrick sia William Regal e Dave Taylor.
 Durante un match di coppia contro Shad Gaspard e JTG, Domino si infortuna rompendosi il setto nasale. Dopo il suo ritorno dall'infortunio, Deuce n'Domino ingaggiano una rivalità con Batista e Ric Flair. Nella puntata di Smackdown del 31 agosto, Deuce n'Domino perdono i titoli di coppia contro Matt Hardy & MVP. Verso la fine del 2007, hanno rivalità con Jimmy Wang Yang e Shannon Moore, Jesse & Festus e Finlay e Hornswoggle. Dopo un 2008 pieno di sconfitte, a Wrestlemania XXIV, Domino partecipa alla battle royal a 24 uomini nel quale il vincitore avrebbe sfidato Chavo Guerrero in un match valido per l'ECW Championship. Il match viene poi vinto da Kane. I due splittano nella puntata di Smackdown del 20 giugno, dopo aver perso contro Jesse e Festus, Deuce colpisce Domino con la Crack 'em in da Mouth. Dopo, Deuce passa a Raw e Domino viene prevalentemente usato per lanciare altri talenti. Nella puntata di Smackdown del 1o agosto, perde contro Big Show. La settimana dopo, viene licenziato dalla WWE.
 Cambio di gimmick e rilascio (2008–2009)
 National Wrestling Alliance (2009)
 Circuito indipendente e ritiro (2009–2017)
 Nel wrestling
 Mosse finali
 Come Deuce
 Crack 'em in da Mouth (Running big boot alla faccia di un avversario seduto)
 Come Jimmy Snuka Jr.
 Superfly Twister (Corkscrew splash)
 Come Sim Snuka
 Jumping hook kick
 Manager
 Cherry
 Jimmy Snuka
 Maryse
 Musiche d'ingresso
 "All About Cool" di Jim Johnston (2007–2008)
 "Hold Tight" di Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick e Tich
 Titoli e riconoscimenti
 American Pro Wrestling Alliance
 APWA Tri State Championship (2)
 Championship Wrestling From Arizona
 CWFAZ Heavyweight Championship (1)
 Deep South Wrestling
 DSW Tag Team Championship (1) – con Domino
 International Wrestling Association
 IWA Hardcore Championship (1)
 Ohio Valley Wrestling
 OVW Southern Tag Team Championship (3) – con Domino
 OVW Television Championship (1)
 Pro Wrestling Illustrated
 150o nella classifica dei 500 migliori wrestler su PWI 500 (2009)
 World Wrestling Entertainment
 WWE Tag Team Championship (1) – con Domino
 Altri progetti
 Collegamenti esterni
 Wrestler della WWE
 Wrestler figli d'arte


text:
A craonne-i csata 1814. március 7-én zajlott le a Napóleon császár által vezetett francia és Blücher tábornagy által irányított orosz és porosz erők között. Az ütközet francia győzelemmel ért véget. (Napóleon „elfelejtett győzelme” a Chemin des Dames-on)
 Előzmények
 Blücher gyorsabban felgyógyult korábbi sérüléséből, mint azt a francia császár szerette volna, így amikor Napóleon hirtelen megtámadta Schwarzenberg herceget, az idős porosz főparancsnok már visszatért. Blücher százezres sereggel nyomult előre a Chemin des Dames-on, a 35 km-es gerincen, ami Reims és Soissons között húzódott, és március 4-én Soissons-ba ért. Napóleon gyenge hadereje, ami jórészt tapasztalatlan újoncokból állt, nem látszott alkalmasnak arra, hogy szembeszálljon az invázióval. (A legfiatalabb katonákat a nép – Napóleon második feleségének neve után – Mária Lujzáknak csúfolta, ezek még nem borotválkoztak, de már harcoltak.)
 A csata
 Gyorsan és agresszíven mozogva a franciák visszanyomták a poroszokat az Aisne folyón, mialatt Blücher vette számba, Napóleon emberével rajtaütött. Napóleon célja az volt, hogy a harapófogóba zárja a szövetségeseket, odaküldte Ney marsallt, hogy a kevert fajsúlyú erőivel a szárnyakon mozogjon. A franciák számára sajnálatos módon a koordinációt rosszul időzítették, és Ney nemcsak hogy súlyos veszteséget szenvedett, de a szövetségeseknek sikerült kiszabadítani magukat szorult helyzetükből. A harcok súlypontja az Hurtebise farm körüli földsávon volt, ez képezte a kulcspozíciót a Caverne du Dragon melletti úton, a dombok között.
 Következmények
 Blücher tábornagynak ez a vereség főnyi veszteségébe került, a franciák embert áldoztak fel győzelmükért.
 Ez a csata volt a bevezető a két nappal később lezajlott laoni csatához, amelynél megfordult a hadiszerencse, és ez már Napóleon uralmának végéhez vezetett.
 A sors iróniája, hogy egy évszázaddal később, az első világháború idején a franciák és németek ugyanitt vívták legvéresebb csatáikat a Nivelle-offenzíva idején.
 Fordítás
 Források
 https://web.archive.org/web/20110219025101/http://battlefieldseurope.co.uk/craonne.aspx
 1814
 Franciaország csatái a napóleoni háborúkban
 Poroszország csatái a napóleoni háborúkban
 Oroszország csatái a napóleoni háborúkban
 A hatodik koalíciós háború csatái


text:
 24.11.2011
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 308/15
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) št. 1211/2011
 z dne 23. novembra 2011
 o izvajanju odbitkov od nekaterih ribolovnih naporov za leto 2011 zaradi prelova s strani nekaterih držav članic v preteklem letu
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 z dne 20. novembra 2009 (1) o vzpostavitvi nadzornega sistema Skupnosti za zagotavljanje skladnosti s pravili skupne ribiške politike, o spremembi uredb (ES) št. 847/96, (ES) št. 2371/2002, (ES) št. 811/2004, (ES) št. 768/2005, (ES) št. 2115/2005, (ES) št. 2166/2005, (ES) št. 388/2006, (ES) št. 509/2007, (ES) št. 676/2007, (ES) št. 1098/2007, (ES) št. 1300/2008, (ES) št. 1342/2008 in razveljavitvi uredb (EGS) št. 2847/93, (ES) št. 1627/94 in (ES) št. 1966/2006 ter zlasti člena 106(1) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1415/2004 z dne 19. julija 2004 o določitvi največje dovoljene letne količine ribolovnega napora za nekatera ribolovna območja in vrste ribištva (2) določa največje dovoljene letne količine ribolovnega napora za nekatera ribolovna območja in vrste ribištva, zlasti za pokrovače na nekaterih območjih Irske.
 (2)
 Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1342/2008 z dne 18. decembra 2008 o določitvi dolgoročnega načrta za staleže trske in ribištvo, ki izkorišča te staleže, ter razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 423/2004 (3), določa omejitve ribolovnega napora za štiri staleže trsk na nekaterih geografskih območjih.
 (3)
 Uredba Sveta (EU) št. 53/2010 z dne 14. januarja 2010 o določitvi ribolovnih možnosti za leto 2010 za nekatere staleže rib in skupine staležev rib, ki se uporabljajo v vodah EU, in za plovila EU v vodah, kjer so potrebne omejitve ulova ter o spremembah uredb (ES) št. 1359/2008, (ES) št. 754/2009, (ES) št. 1226/2009 in (ES) št. 1287/2009 (4) določa največjo dovoljeno količino ribolovnega napora za leto 2010.
 (4)
 Uredba Sveta (EU) št. 57/2011 z dne 18. januarja 2011 o določitvi ribolovnih možnosti za leto 2011 za nekatere staleže rib in skupine staležev rib, ki veljajo za vode EU in za plovila EU v nekaterih vodah zunaj EU (5), določa največjo dovoljeno količino ribolovnega napora za leto 2011.
 (5)
 Ko Komisija ugotovi, da je država članica presegla ribolovni napor, ki ji je bil dodeljen, v skladu s členom 106(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 izvede odbitke od dodelitev prihodnjih ribolovnih naporov za navedeno državo članico.
 (6)
 Člen 106(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 določa merila in pogoje za izvajanje takšnih odbitkov s strani Komisije.
 (7)
 Nekatere države članice so prekoračile ribolovni napor, ki jim je bil dodeljen za leto 2010. Zato je primerno izvesti odbitke od ribolovnih naporov, ki so bile zanje dodeljene v letu 2011.
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Največja dovoljena količina ribolovnega napora, določena v Uredbi Sveta (EU) št. 57/2011 in, za nekatera ribolovna območja in vrste ribištva, v Uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 1415/2004, se za leto 2011 za nekatere države članice zmanjša, kot je določeno v Prilogi.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati sedmi dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 23. novembra 2011
 Za Komisijo
 Predsednik
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 1.
 (2) UL L 258, 5.8.2004, str. 1.
 (3) UL L 348, 24.12.2008, str. 20.
 (4) UL L 21, 26.1.2010, str. 1.
 (5) UL L 24, 27.1.2011, str. 1.
 PRILOGA
 Država članica
 Zemljepisno območje/ vrsta
 Orodje
 Začetna razporeditev za leto 2010
 (število kW na dan)
 Spremembe v letu 2010
 Izkoriščen napor
 (število kW na dan)
 % izkoriščenega
 V primerjavi z dovoljeno dodelitvijo
 Zmanjšanje napora
 (število kW na dan)
 Faktor pomnožitve po členu 106(2) Ur. 1224/09
 Zmanjšanje napora za leto 2011
 (število kW na dan)
 Dodelitev napora za leto 2011
 (število kW na dan)
 Revidirana dodelitev napora za leto 2011
 (število kW na dan)
 Izključitve po členu 11
 (število kW na dan) (3)
 Izogibanje po členu 13
 (število kW na dan) (3)
 Izmenjava po členu 16
 (število kW na dan) (3)
 Prenosi po členu 17
 (število kW na dan) (3)
 Prilagojen napor
 (število kW na dan)
 Nemčija
 (a)
 Kattegat
 TR2
 9 316
 (1)
 0
 1 702
 14 258
 25 276
 26 657
 105,46 %
 5,46 %
 –1 381
 1,1
 –1 519
 6 987
 (2)
 5 468
 Nemčija
 (b)
 Skagerrak, del cone ICES IIIa, ki ni vključen pod Skagerrak in Kattegat; cona ICES IV ter vode EU cone ICES IIa; cona ICES VIId
 TR2
 516 154
 (1)
 0
 0
 –94 507
 421 647
 421 766
 100,03 %
 0,03 %
 – 119
 1
 – 119
 436 666
 (2)
 436 547
 Irska
 Cona ICES VII, Pokrovače
 525 012
 (4)
 259 012
 270 368
 104,38 %
 4,38 %
 –11 356
 1
 –11 356
 525 012
 (4)
 513 656
 Francija
 (b)
 Skagerrak, del cone ICES IIIa, ki ni vključen pod Skagerrak in Kattegat; cona ICES IV ter vode EU cone ICES IIa; cona ICES VIId
 TR1
 2 214 240
 (1)
 0
 339 670
 0
 2 553 910
 2 680 473
 104,96 %
 4,96 %
 – 126 563
 1
 – 126 563
 1 840 286
 (2)
 1 713 723
 Francija
 (d)
 cona ICES VIa in vode EU cone ICES Vb
 TR1
 3 387 803
 (1)
 702 070
 10 299
 – 178 123
 2 517 909
 2 611 435
 103,71 %
 3,71 %
 –93 526
 1
 –93 526
 1 980 786
 (2)
 1 887 260
 Združeno kraljestvo
 (b)
 Skagerrak, del cone ICES IIIa, ki ni vključen pod Skagerrak in Kattegat; cona ICES IV ter vode EU cone ICES IIa; cona ICES VIId
 TR1
 8 938 164
 (1)
 0
 2 819 635
 660 115
 12 417 914
 12 450 755
 100,26 %
 0,26 %
 –32 841
 1
 –32 841
 7 561 687
 (2)
 7 528 846
 TR2
 7 409 969
 (1)
 0
 2 010 770
 0
 9 420 739
 10 274 753
 109,07 %
 9,07 %
 – 854 014
 1,1
 – 939 415
 6 268 834
 (2)
 5 329 419
 Združeno kraljestvo
 (c)
 cona ICES VIIa
 TR2
 1 934 646
 (1)
 0
 366 622
 300 000
 2 601 268
 2 931 719
 112,70 %
 12,70 %
 – 330 451
 1,2
 – 396 541
 1 450 985
 (2)
 1 054 444
 (1) Količina, določena z Uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 53/2010 - Dodatek 1 k Prilogi IIA.
 (2) Količina, določena z Uredbo Sveta (EU) št. 57/2011 - Dodatek 1 k Prilogi IIA.
 (3) Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1342/2008.
 (4) Količina, določena z Uredbo Sveta (EC) št. 1415/2004 - Dodatek I.


text:
El término expresionismo en ladrillo (en Alemán: backsteinexpressionismus) describe una variante de la arquitectura expresionista que usa ladrillos, baldosas o ladrillos clinker como el material de construcción más visible del edificio. Las construcciones con este estilo se levantaron especialmente en los años 1920, principalmente en Alemania y los Países Bajos.
 Este estilo se usaba principalmente en las grandes ciudades del norte de Alemania y la zona del Ruhr, la Escuela de Ámsterdam pertenece al mismo movimiento. Este estilo tuvo cierto impacto fuera de las áreas mencionadas.
 Estilo
 El expresionismo en ladrillo se desarrolló al mismo tiempo que el Nueva Objetividad de la Arquitectura de la Bauhaus. Pero al
 ver que los arquitectos de Bauhaus renunciaban al ornamento, los expresionistas desarrollaron una ornamentación distintiva, caracterizada por ángulos y puntas bastante fuertes. Querían expresar de esta manera la dinámica tensa e intensa de este periodo.
 El material de construcción más popular era el ladrillo clinker. Este material se adaptó muy bien a los difíciles requisitos ambientales de construcción de edificios industriales, particularmente en la cuenca del Ruhr. Su característica superficie áspera y rica variedad de colores, desde el café al rojo y púrpura, también ayudó a la popularidad de este material.
 Una característica llamativa de este estilo es la vivacidad de sus fachadas, logradas a través de los aparejos en que eran puestos los ladrillos. Esto ayudó a darle vida a grandes muros, que de lo contrario serían monótonos. En ciertos casos, hasta los ladrillos de descarte (piezas que se habían dañado durante la cocción, o que se habían calentado demasiado, o no el tiempo necesario, haciéndolos imparejos o sin el color deseado) eran usados como elementos decorativos, explotando su apariencia individual. Los ladrillos angulares se combinaban de varias maneras, creando un rico repertorio ornamental, incluyendo
 formas esculturales.
 Los diseños de las fachadas se mejoraban con el uso de escultura arquitectónica, hecha de ladrillos clinker o cerámica. Un conocido representante de esta forma de arte era Richard Kuöhl. Ernst Barlach también creó estatuas clinker, como el friso Gemeinschaft der Heiligen("comunidad de santos") en la iglesia Santa
 Catalina de Lübeck, Alemania (completada por Gerhard Marcks).
 Ocasionalmente, se usaban elementos de otros estilos arquitectónicos, trasladados al repertorio de formas que permite el ladrillo. Por ejemplo en el Chilehaus de Fritz Höger en Hamburgo domina la estética art déco. La Anzeigerhochhaus en Hanover tiene algo de arquitectura oriental. Pero el expresionismo en ladrillo también creó su propio estilo, su propia idiosincrasia, como en la Iglesias Parábola (Parabel-Kirchen) por ejemplo: el Heiling-Kreuz-Kirche en Gelsenkirchen-Ückendorf.
 Norte de Alemania
 Algunos de los mejores ejemplos del expresionismo en ladrillo están en Hamburgo. Aquí Fritz Höger creó el innovador Chilehaus, con sus pronunciada vertical y su curioso uso de materiales. Otros ejemplos son el vecino Sprinkenhof (de Hans und Oskar Gerson y Högen), el Broschekhaus y el Zigarettenfabrik Reemtsma (Fábrica de cigarros Reemtsma).
 Otro importante representante del estilo en el norte de Alemania era Fritz Schumacher. Este creó numerosos edificios públicos en Hamburgo, como las oficinas financieras en el Gänsenmarkt, el crematorio en el Cementerio Ohlsdorf, el Walddörfer-Gymnasium en la escuela secundaria Volksdorf y la escuela Jarrestadt.
 Böttchertrasse en Bremen es un gran ejemplo tardío del estilo en el norte de Alemania.
 Área del Ruhr
 El expresionismo en ladrillo tuvo su distribución más densa en el área del Rin-Ruhr, desarrollando un característico estilo regional. El material resistía difíciles condiciones industriales y permitía la creación de una gran variedad de fachadas con relativamente poco esfuerzo. Pero el ladrillo clinker era costoso, por lo que muchos edificios se diseñaron para usarlos sólo en partes de sus fachadas.
 Ejemplos que fueron construidos en la Cuenca del Ruhr, incluyendo arquitectura industrial (fábricas, edificios de oficinas, torres de agua, etc.) y edificios residenciales, como los municipios, oficinas de correos, iglesias y mansiones.
 Un ejemplo importante es el Hans-Sachs-Haus de Alfred Fischer en Gelsenkirchen, planeado como un edificio multifuncional, que al final terminó siendo utilizado como edificio municipal. Su comparativamente simple fachada de ladrillo y esquinas redondeadas lo caracterizan como una síntesis entre el expresionismo y la Nueva Objetividad.
 También en Gelsenkirchen, en la zona de Ückendorf, esta la gran obra de Josef Franke, la Iglesia Heilig-Kreutz (Santa Cruz). Su bóveda tiene la forma de una parábola. La punta de la torre cuadrada está coronada por una figura de Cristo hecha en ladrillo.
 Otros edificios importantes del expresionismo en ladrillo son los cuarteles de policía, Bert-Brecht-Haus, y el municipio en Oberhausen, las oficinas de
 Alfred Fischer en el Regionalverband (autoridad de desarrollo regional) en Essen, el edificio BOGESTRA y los cuarteles policiales de Bochum, y el ala de cirugía pediátrica del hospital de la ciudad de Dortmund.
 Berlín
 Los ejemplos en Berlín incluyen el Kreuzkirche (Iglesia Evangélica de la Cruz) en Berlin-Schmargendorf y la Iglesia Evangélica en Hohenzollernplatz,
 de Fritz Höger.
 Holanda
 Otros lugares
 Otros grandes ejemplos del expresionismo en ladrillo incluyen la Sede del Banco Central Europeo (Grossmarkthalle) en Fráncfort del Meno, el Salón Principal de las oficinas centrales de Hoechst AH en Francfort-Höchst, y la iglesia de Grundtvig en Copenhague.
 Selección de Arquitectos
 Peter Behrens.
 Martin Elsaesser (Sur de Alemania).
 Theodor Veil (Sur de Alemania y Aachen).
 Alfred Fischer (Essen, área del Ruhr).
 Josef Franke (Gelsenkirchen, área del Ruhr).
 Fritz Höger (Norte de Alemania y Hamburgo, ejemplo: Chilehaus).
 Ossip Klarwein, chief designer () with Höger's architecture firm (Northern Germany, Hamburg, e.g. Wichernkirche (destroyed in 1943), and Berlin, e.g. Kirche am Hohenzollernplatz).
 Michel de Klerk (Ámsterdam).
 Edmund Körner (área del Ruhr).
 Max Krusemark (área de Münster, Westfalia).
 Wilhelm Kreis (Rhineland y Westfalia).
 Paul Mebes (Berlín, Alemania oriental).
 Wilhelm Riphahn (Colonia)f
 Hans Poelzig (Berlín, Breslau)f
 Fritz Schumacher (Hamburgo)f
 Dominikus Böhm (Colonia, área del Ruhr, Swabia, Hesse)f
 Véase también
 Historia del ladrillo.
 Arquitectura expresionista.
 Ladrillismo.
 Referencias
 Backstein-Expressionismus, brochure by Gelsenkirchen City (Can be ordered free of charge)
 Notas
 Estilos arquitectónicos del siglo XX
 Arquitectura expresionista
 Arquitectura de Alemania del siglo XX
 Arquitectura de los Países Bajos del siglo XX