type: other

text:
Martorii nu mai pot fi obligaţi să facă declaraţii! | Curierul zilei Cel mai citit cotidian local din Argeş. Ştiri din (politică, economie, social, sport, fapt divers); anunţuri (matrimoniale şi mica publicitate), numai aici pe www.curier.ro. Toate anunţurile din RUBRICILE de MARE şi MICĂ PUBLICITATE publicate în ziarul Curierul zilei, vor fi postate GRATUIT, pe www.curier.ro, la rubrica PUBLICITATE PDF. Doriţi ca reclama dumneavoastră să apară aici (pe www.curier.ro)? Contactaţi-ne la tel:0248/215740 sau 0348/439035.
 Home Rubrici Fapt Divers Martorii nu mai pot fi obligaţi să facă declaraţii!
 Curierul zilei marți, 14 iulie 2020, 00:10:00 în:  Fapt Divers 1 Comentariu Vizualizări: 1.043
 Decizie importantă a CCR
 Curtea Constituţională a României a făcută publică motivarea deciziei privind neconstituționalitatea art. 118 din Codul de procedură penală, întrucât nu reglementează dreptul martorului la tăcere și neautoincriminare. Potrivit deciziei CCR matorul nu mai poate fi obligat să depună mărturie, aşa cum se întâmpla. Hotărârea CCR poate afecta o serie de procese aflate pe rolul instanţelor dar şi cauze penale aflate în curs de cercetare.
 Fotul judecător CCR, în prezent avocat la Baroul Bucureşti, Adrian Toni Neacşu a detaliat pe înţelesul tuturor ce reprezintă decizia CCR pentru justiţia din România. „Prin decizia nr. 236/2.06.2020 s-a constatat neconstituționalitatea art. 118 din Codul de procedură penală, întrucât nu reglementează dreptul martorului la tăcere și neautoincriminare.
 Efectul acestei decizii asupra proceselor penale, într-o anumită măsură inclusiv asupra celor aflate pe rol, este incalculabil. Până acum doar suspectul sau inculpatul avea dreptul de a nu da declarații, respectiv de a nu se autoincrimina. Prin această decizie revoluționară dreptul la tăcere a devenit unul absolut și general în procesul penal, inclusiv martorul putându-se prevala de el. Concret, înseamnă că un martor poate refuza să depună mărturie în proces, iar procurorul sau judecătorul nu-l poate obliga s-o facă. Până acum exista obligația de a declara ca martor. Dacă erai citat în această calitate aveai obligația să depui mărturie, indiferent dacă ceea ce spuneai te putea incrimina pe tine însuți sau nu. Altfel spus, fie spuneai adevărul și atunci ofereai organelor judiciare posibilitatea să strângă probe împotriva ta, fie mințeai și atunci săvârșeai infracțiunea de mărturie mincinoasă” a precizat Adrian Toni Neacşu pe contul său de Facebook.
 Se practica autoincriminarea!
 „Organele noastre de cercetare penală au abuzat din plin de instituția audierii martorului, chemând în această calitate chiar persoana pe care o cercetau (in rem) pentru o faptă penală și întârziind în mod intenționat acuzarea în mod oficial a acesteia. Viitorul suspect odată chemat ca martor era obligat să declare tot ceea ce știa și nu putea refuza să depună mărturie, pentru simplul considerent că încă nu era suspect. Aceasta șmecherie procedurală a fost desființată de Curtea Constituțională. Din 8 iulie 2020 nici o persoană chemată ca martor în procesul penal nu mai este obligată să depună mărturie dacă nu dorește acest lucru, invocând dreptul constituțional la tăcere. Curtea Constituțională nu s-a limitat să recunoască dreptul la tăcere doar pentru martorii care ulterior devin suspecți sau inculpați ci l-a extins pentru orice persoană care este audiată ca martor. CCR o spune acum explicit: martorul chemat într-un dosar penal nu poate refuza nici prezentarea în fața organului judiciar nici depunerea jurământului, dar organul judiciar are obligația să-i aducă la cunoștință imediat după depunerea jurământului că are dreptul de a nu da declarație, martorul urmând să hotărască el însuși dacă vrea su nu să depună mărturie, fără nici o justificare specială și fără să riște nimic. Efectul acestei decizii CCR asupra proceselor penale va fi ca al unui tsunami. Prin această decizie CCR a recunoscut în mod explicit și un drept propriu la apărare al martorului, astfel încât organele judiciare ar trebui să recunoască încă din acest moment dreptul martorului de a fi asistat de un avocat. “Până la adoptarea soluţiei legislative corespunzătoare, ca o consecinţă a prezentei decizii de admitere a excepţiei de neconstituţionalitate, având în vedere și dispozițiile art.147 alin.(4) din Legea fundamentală, Curtea reține că, în vederea asigurării dreptului la tăcere și neautoincriminare al martorului, organele judiciare urmează să aplice în mod direct dispozițiile art.21 alin.(3), art.24 alin.(1) și art.23 alin.(11) din Constituţie” , a mai precizat fostul judecător CCR. Adrian Toni Neacșu a fost judecător timp de 16 ani, președinte de tribunal și membru al Consiliului Superior al Magistraturii. În prezent este avocat în cadrul Baroului Bucureşti.
 Abia acum de vede profesionalismul procurorilor
 Despre importanţa acestei hotărâri am discutat şi cu Ingrid Alexandrescu avocat din cadrul Baroului Argeş. „Decizia va opera doar de la data la care a fost publicată nu se ia în considerare şi dosarele instrumentate. Multe dosare ar trebui să se axeze pe declaraţiile martorilor. Noile modificări ale Codului de Procedură Penală dădeau posibilitatea ca un martor să devină suspect sau inculpat. În timpul anchetei suspecţii erau citaţi ca martori şi practic prin declaraţiile pe care erau obligaţi să le dea, se autoincriminau, devenind suspecţi şi ulterior inculpaţi.. Pe vechiul CPP nu era aşa! Modificările au fost făcut exact cu acest scop de a avea cât mai multe autoincriminări. Decizia CCR nu mai permite această practică. Hotărârea va îngreuna foarte mult ancheta penală. Respectă dreptul la apărare atâta vreme cât ancheta nu se bazează numai pe autoincriminare. Abia acum începe să se vadă profesionalismul procurorilor care vor trebui să administreze probe prin care să dovedească vinovăţia inculpatului nu să aibă ca probă în dosar doar declaraţiile, prin care inculpatul se autoicrimienază. O să închei printr-o metaforă. Era ca şi cum aveai de rezolvat o problemă la matematică dar ştiai deja răspunsul.”, declarat avocata Ingrid Alexandrescu. M.S.
 14 iulie 2020 at 09:39:16
 O masura buna ! Adesea vedem pe la TV : martorii – expusi ; impricinatii – ascunsi / au drepturi.
 Prima Pagină - 3.096.904 Views


type: wikipedia

text:
Marko Licinije Kras, (latinski Marcus Licinius Crassus), nadimak Dives ( najbogatiji ), ( oko 115. pr. Kr. - Haran, 53. pr. Kr. ), rimski vojskovođa i političar.
 Od 59. pr. Kr. član prvog trijumvirata uz Gaja Julija Cezara i Pompeja Velikog. Nakon njegove smrti došlo je do građanskog rata između Cezara i Pompeja.
 Kras je 87. pr. Kr. pobjegao iz Rima kada je vlast preuzeo Gaj Marije. Iz Španjolske je prešao u Afriku a zatim u Italiju gdje se pridružio Suli. Kao mladi časnik podržao je Lucija Kornelija Sulu u građanskom ratu 83. pr. Kr. protiv Marija. Nakon Suline pobjede Kras se bezobzirno i okrutno obogatio na proskripcijama.
 73. pr. Kr. Kras je postao pretor. Kada se Spartak u Trećem robovskom ratu (72. pr. Kr.) krenuo s robovskom vojskom iz Alpa prema Rimu, Kras je preuzeo zapovjedništvo nad rimskom vojskom u Italiji. Kras je pobijedio Spartaka u odlučnoj bitci kod Lukanije (71. pr. Kr.). Time je ustanak ugušen. Nakon pobjede Kras je proslavio trijumf. Kras i Pompej su zajedno prisilili senat da ih izabere za konzule (70. pr. Kr.) Dok je Pompej gradio vojnu karijeru, Kras je povećavao svoje bogatstvo i skupljao sebi potporu u senatu.
 65. pr. Kr. Kras služi kao cenzor.63. pr. Kr. Kras i Cezar su pred senatom optuženi da su sudjelovali u uroti protiv senata koju je pokrenuo Lucije Sergije Katalina. Iako je konzul Marko Tulije Ciceron zatražio smrtnu kaznu, obojica su oslobođeni. Najvjerojatniji razlog oslobađanja su Krasove brojne veze u senatu.
 Nakon 59. pr. Kr. Kras je s Pompejom i Cezarom sklopio prvi trijumvirat.Kras je u ovom savezu vidio mogućnost za novo bogaćenje. 56. pr. Kr. trijumvirat je obnovljen, a 55. pr. Kr. Kras i Pompej su imenovani za konzule. Po novom ugovoru Krasu je povjerena uprava Španjolske i Sirije na pet godina. 54. pr. Kr. Kras je kao guverner Sirije zaratio s Partskim Carstvom. Partski general Surena mu je nanio katastrofalan poraz u bitci kod Harana (53. pr. Kr.) gdje je Kras i poginuo. Po legendi su ga Parti zarobili, te mu polako, pošto je bio najbogatiji član prvog trijumvirata, rastopljeno zlato usuli u grlo. Zapravo su ga Parti zarobili i odmah mu odsjekli glavu te poslali partskom vladaru.
 Rimski vojskovođe
 Rimski političari


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 8.11.2008
 MT
 Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea
 C 285/41
 Digriet tal-Qorti tal-Prim'Istanza tal-10 ta' Settembru 2008 — Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto (Lipor) vs Il-Kummissjoni
 (Kawża T-26/07) (1)
 (“Rikors għal annullament - Fond ta' Koeżjoni - Regolament (KE) Nru 1164/94 - Tnaqqis ta' għajnuna finanzjarja - Nuqqqas ta' interess dirett - Inammissibbiltà’)
 (2008/C 285/76)
 Lingwa tal-kawża: Il-Portugiż
 Partijiet
 Rikorrent: Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto (Lipor) (Baguim do Monte, il-Portugall) (rappreżentanti: P. Moura Pinheiro, M. Gorjão Henriques u F. Quintela, avukat)
 Konvenuta: Il-Kummissjoni tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej (rappreżentanti: P. Guerra e Andrade u A. Weimar, aġenti)
 Suġġett
 Talba għall-annullament tad-Deċiżjoni tal-Kummissjoni C (2006) 5008, tas-17 ta' Ottubru 2006, dwar tnaqqis tal-għajnuna finanzjarja tal-Fond ta' Koeżjoni għal ċerti proġetti li jikkonċernaw l-installazzjoni ta' impjant ta' inċinerazzjoni għat-tneħħija tal-iskart domestiku fir-Reġjun ta' Porto.
 Dispożittiv
 1)
 Ir-rikors huwa miċħud bħala inammissibbli.
 2)
 Serviço Intermunicipalizado de Gestão de Resíduos do Grande Porto (Lipor) għandu jbati l-ispejjeż tiegħu kif ukoll dawk tal- Kummissjoni.
 (1) ĠU C 82, 17.4.2007.


jurisdiction: US

text:
 197 Md. 15 (1951)
 78 A.2d 225
 THOMAS
 v.
 THOMAS
 [No. 64, October Term, 1950.]
 Court of Appeals of Maryland.
 Decided January 10, 1951.
 The cause was argued before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
 *16 William J. McWilliams for the appellant.
 C. Osborne Duvall for the appellee.
 MARKELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
 This is an appeal from a decree dismissing, after hearing in open court, an amended bill for divorce on the ground of abandonment. The parties were married on October 2, 1939. In the original bill, filed April 5, 1948, plaintiff alleged, under oath, that he had resided in Washington with his wife "until on or about the 11th day of February, 1944, except for two intervals of separation", and that "on or about the 11th day of February, 1944, the parties * * * voluntarily separated and have voluntarily lived separate and apart without any cohabitation for three consecutive years." Defendant in her answer denied the allegation of voluntary separation. On February 2, 1950, plaintiff, by his counsel, filed a petition alleging that "within the past few months certain information has come to the attention of the plaintiff, which the plaintiff believes will establish the fact that said separation was not voluntary but that the defendant did in fact desert the plaintiff" and asked leave (which was granted) to amend his bill so as to charge desertion. The amended bill, filed the same day, charges desertion "Since February, 1944." The case was heard on April 21, 1950, and an opinion and the decree were filed on May 4, 1950.
 The parties are in their forties. Neither had been married before. There were no children. She is a Roman Catholic, he is not. She was, and still is, a civil service employee in Washington. Her salary is now about $3,900. He was employed as a real estate salesman in Washington. A few months after the marriage he went into the real estate business there for himself. At first the business was not successful. Later, he says, it was. From the time of the marriage until February 11, 1944, with at least four "intervals of separation" when he left and stayed away, they lived *17 together at her house in Washington. On February 11, 1944, he says, he left her house never to return. She says, he denies, that one night in November, 1946, he returned, discussed a reconciliation, had marital relations with her and left the same night. With this possible exception they have not lived together since February 11, 1944. In the later part of 1943 he bought a waterfront property in Anne Arundel County at Shady Side, about thirty-five miles from Washington. The former owners had lived there the year round. Plaintiff says the house was still fit for such occupancy. Defendant says it could not be heated for winter until plaintiff later made improvements. They never lived together there. In the summer of 1944 he lent the Shady Side house to her and some friends for a week-end; he was there at the time. He says when he finally left in February, 1944 he was willing for her to come down to Shady Side to live with him. "I discussed it with her on several occasions, and she said until I was able to put her up in something better than she had there she wouldn't give it any consideration". The last time defendant was at Shady Side in 1945, he says he told her he had "a peace warrant out" (though in fact he had not) and if she came down there again he would have her arrested. "So I just told her to keep away, and she has never been back since. Apparently she believed me."
 He first left her about six months after the marriage. He came in about 8 o'clock in the morning, after an all night card party. She asked him to leave and he left. A few days later he returned. She said she would never ask him to leave again. "She never did ask me to leave any more. Over a period of two or three years I left her five times. Every time I got fed up with it more and more, week in and week out, and finally it just got to a point where I had to leave." He says he thinks he lived with her "all told for perhaps a year." He says she was domineering, always reminded him of her ownership of the house and her salary, constantly nagged him, rifled his desk by day and his pockets by night, refused *18 to sign mortgages and other business papers without exacting money from him, embarrassed him and even injured his credit among friends and business acquaintances. Apparently he kept a bag packed to leave at any moment. After she ordered him out he says he kept a room at a Washington hotel for three and a half years. Evidently he left so often that he has no definite recollection of the individual occasions, or even the exact number of them, except his generalization that he "got fed up" and could stand it no longer. She tells a different story, that he repeatedly left for no reason at all. It is unnecessary to review their testimony. Her story is no less plausible than his. Neither is corroborated. The judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, held that he had failed to sustain the burden of proof of desertion. We cannot say that the judge was wrong. On paper (without seeing or hearing the witnesses) we do not see how he could avoid holding that plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant deserted him when (or after) he left her for at least the fifth time on February 11, 1944.
 Counsel says the judge was prejudiced by "smear testimony". The wife testified that in April, 1942, just after her husband had left her without a word, when she was looking for cigarettes in his suitcase (which he got later, while she was at work), she found a box of contraceptives, which was offered in evidence. She said they had never used contraceptives. He did not deny or explain this testimony; she was not cross-examined about it. A neighbor, testifying for her (before she testified) was asked whether, and if so where, she had seen contraceptives in the Thomas house. On plaintiff's objection the question was excluded. Counsel says this testimony of the wife is too palpably incredible to call for denial. The judge did not, and on paper alone we cannot, so summarily dispose of it. If it were not true, plaintiff could at least have said so.
 A friend of the wife, a subordinate in Government employment, testified that in the spring of 1943 plaintiff *19 telephoned her and asked her to go to the races, she asked whether his wife was going and, when told not, declined to go with him, and that later the same day she saw him in his car with a girl in a naval uniform sitting beside him.
 One Sunday in the summer of 1945 the wife, with the same friend and other friends, went to Shady Side and found plaintiff playing cards with a neighbor, an elderly man, and a young woman "scantily attired" in "shorts and a halter", whom he introduced by name. Upstairs the young woman's clothes (some of which she later put on) were found in plaintiff's bedroom, where defendant also found a photograph of a blonde, which was offered in evidence. She says plaintiff said the blonde had been his housekeeper. Plaintiff says the young woman at the house was the last of a week-end house party of six or eight, that he was to drive her to town and later did so, and that when he had a house party the upstairs rooms were assigned to the women and the men slept downstairs and dressed and undressed in the bathhouse.
 About a month later, on a Sunday evening, defendant and some friends went to Shady Side and found no one in the house except a young woman on a bed, nude, asleep and drunk. Plaintiff says he had lent the house to friends for the week-end for a house party and he was not there. He does not know who the nude was.
 A witness testified that plaintiff told her he had a blonde housekeeper and had taken her to New York because he thought she had possibilities as a model. Plaintiff testified that if he ever referred to her as his housekeeper he did so facetiously; she never kept house for him. In 1945 he had a rooming house in Washington. The blonde had a room there. He says that in the spring of 1945 she and another girl employed by the Navy Department had a sixty day period in which they had to wait before they could be re-employed in another job; he let them go down to his house at Shady Side, to clean and fix it up and live free of *20 charge; they stayed for the sixty days and then left. While they were there he took the blonde to New York. She had recommendations to the Powers Model Agency. He was going to New York on business and agreed to take her with him. He got hotel reservations, two rooms, at one hotel, but she through a friend got reservations at another, where they spend the first night; they spent the next night at the other hotel. On the train he introduced her to a "very fine man", who took her out at night and some months later married her. About a week after she went to New York with plaintiff she came back to Shady Side, got her clothes and went back to New York to work.
 Regarding what counsel calls "smear testimony", Judge Michaelson says in his opinion: "When the overall picture presented by the evidence in this case is taken into consideration, the court cannot ignore certain component parts thereof, to wit: the presence of * * * the so-called blonde housekeeper, at the cottage, the contraceptives found in the travelling bag of the plaintiff, the statement by the defendant that she and her husband never used them, the nude woman on the porch, her pair of red slacks and an over-night bag, the statement by the plaintiff that he wasn't serious when he said he was going to have his wife bound to keep the peace, the girl in the naval uniform in Mr. Thomas' car, his hiring detectives to follow the movements of Mrs. Thomas.
 "The least that can be said about some of these details is that they indicate amorous inclinations of the plaintiff directed towards probable recipients other than the defendant. The picture is somewhat inconsistent with the actions of one who is professing to be serious in his desires and hopes of effecting a reconciliation."
 Counsel says, (1) this evidence does not prove adultery, (2) if it did, the adultery was condoned (which could only be true of the first incident, unless the wife's testimony as to cohabitation in 1946 is accepted), and (3) therefore it proves nothing. If we assume the first two *21 contentions, the third does not follow. We may assume that the fact that a married man of mature years (if not mature temperament) took a young blonde beauty, his "roomer" and quasi-housekeeper, to New York, where they registered under their own names and had separate rooms, does not prove adultery  even if she had not immediately met and eventually married a "very fine man". But we cannot say that in the circumstances the man's wife owed a duty to seek him out and resume cohabitation. Attentions to other women, short of proof of adultery, may sometimes justify a wife in leaving, or not returning to, her husband. Schilbach v. Schilbach, 138 Md. 56, 59, 113 A. 576; Meeks v. Meeks, 189 Md. 80, 87, 54 A.2d 334. The so-called "smear testimony" is not without legitimate weight as indicating what kind of people the husband, his friends and (if his testimony is believed) his friends' friends were.
 The husband's contention that his wife deserted him by refusing to follow him to a new matrimonial domicile might present a question of law if it were based on facts. The right to select the matrimonial domicile ordinarily seems to be the sole or principal remnant of the husband's dominant status in the common law unity of husband and wife. But even this right was the correlative of the husband's duty as worker and provider for the matrimonial unit. When the wife is an equal co-worker and provider, a different question would be presented if she were asked to move thirty-five miles from the workplace of both. We need not consider that question, as it does not arise on the facts. This husband did not move the matrimonial domicile; he simply left, for at least the fifth time.
 The only tangible evidence of effort toward reconciliation (other than the wife's testimony as to cohabitation in 1946) relates to the visit of the wife and her friends to Shady Side in 1945, when they met the week-end guest and the wife found the blonde's photograph. The husband says he then asked his wife to come there and live with him, she wanted time to consider and was to *22 telephone him the next day but did not do so, he called her, she began to make conditions (which he does not remember, but which were "not bad") and he concluded that she was trifling. She says he was to call her, but did not, she called him, he said he was busy and would call back but never did. At the hearing she testified that she was still prepared to take him back, "if he were willing to make an effort, to be the man that I thought I married." It is true, as counsel says, that this is not an unconditional offer, but this condition is virtually implied in every marriage. We recognize, however, that offers and refusals of reconciliation from the witness stand carry little weight. Hornstein v. Hornstein, 195 Md. 627, 638, 75 A.2d 103, 108.
 We have gone into too much detail about this routine case. As in so many of the divorce cases that reach us, the parties have made practically no effort to preserve a marriage which has become an increasingly irksome yoke to both. The short answer to all plaintiff's contentions is that the case is governed by the rule that divorces should not be granted for light and trivial causes and the rule, of broader application, that the decision on facts of a judge who has seen and heard the witnesses should not be reversed unless clearly wrong.
 Decree affirmed, with costs.


text:
21.3.2009
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 C 69/53
 Ricorso proposto il 3 febbraio 2009 — Cachuera/UAMI — Gelkaps (Ayanda)
 (Causa T-43/09)
 (2009/C 69/115)
 Lingua in cui è stato redatto il ricorso: lo spagnolo
 Parti
 Ricorrente: La Cachuera, SA (Misiones, Argentina) (rappresentante: Sr. E. Armijo Chávarri, avvocato)
 Convenuto: Ufficio per l'armonizzazione nel mercato interno (marchi, disegni e modelli)
 Controinteressata dinanzi alla commissione di ricorso: Gelkaps GmbH (Pritzwalk, Germania)
 Conclusioni della ricorrente
 —
 Si voglia dichiarare correttamente formulato e proposto entro i limiti di tempo il ricorso diretto contro la decisione della seconda commissione di ricorso dell'Ufficio per l'armonizzazione nel mercato interno (UAMI) 19 novembre 2008, e, previo disbrigo degli opportuni provvedimenti processuali, si voglia annullare la decisione di cui trattasi;
 —
 Condannare l'UAMI alle spese.
 Motivi e principali argomenti
 Richiedente il marchio comunitario: Gelkaps GmbH
 Marchio comunitario di cui trattasi: il marchio denominativo «AYANDA» (domanda di registrazione: 3.315.405) per prodotti e servizi delle classi 3, 5, 28, 29, 30, 32 e 44
 Titolare del marchio o del segno su cui si fonda l'opposizione: la ricorrente
 Marchio o segno su cui si fonda l'opposizione: marchi spagnoli figurativi e denominativi «AMANDA», per prodotti della classe 30
 Decisione della divisione di opposizione: parziale accoglimento dell'opposizione
 Decisione della commissione di ricorso: rigetto del ricorso
 Motivi dedotti: errata applicazione dell'art. 8, n. 1, lett. b), del regolamento (CE) n. 40/94, sul marchio comunitario.


text:
 8.2.2014
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 C 39/27
 Presuda Službeničkog suda (prvo vijeće) od 12. prosinca 2013. — Simpson protiv Vijeća
 (Predmet F-142/11) (1)
 (Javna služba - Promaknuće - Odluka o nepromicanju tužitelja u razred AD 9 nakon što je prošao na natječaju za razred AD 9 - Jednakost postupanja)
 2014/C 39/49
 Jezik postupka: engleski
 Stranke
 Tužitelj: Erik Simpson (Bruxelles, Belgija) (zastupnik: M. Velardo, odvjetnik)
 Tuženik: Vijeće Europske unije (zastupnici: M. Bauer i A. F. Jensen, agenti)
 Predmet
 Zahtjev za poništenje odluke o nepromicanju tužitelja u razred AD 9 nakon što je prošao na natječaju EPSO/AD/113/07 „Chefs d'unité (AD9) de langues tchèque, estonienne, hongroise, lituanienne, lettone, maltaise, polonaise, slovaque et slovène dans le domaine de la traduction” te zahtjev za naknadu štete i kamata.
 Izreka presude
 1.
 Odluka Vijeća Europske unije od 9. prosinca 2010. se poništava.
 2.
 U preostalom dijelu tužba se odbija.
 3.
 Vijeće Europske unije će, osim vlastitih, snositi i troškove E. Simpsona.
 (1) SL C 65, 3.3.2013., str. 26.


text:
 14.8.2010
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 C 221/17
 Cerere de pronunțare a unei hotărâri preliminare introdusă de Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (Franța) la 12 mai 2010 — Société Tereos — Union de coopératives agricoles à capital variable/Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
 (Cauza C-234/10)
 ()
 2010/C 221/28
 Limba de procedură: franceza
 Instanța de trimitere
 Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre.
 Părțile din acțiunea principală
 Reclamantă: Société Tereos — Union de coopératives agricoles à capital variable
 Pârâți: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers
 Întrebările preliminare
 1.
 Articolul 15 alineatul (1) litera (d) din Regulamentul nr. 1260/2001 (1) trebuie interpretat în sensul că, pentru calculul pierderii medii, trebuie să se împartă, pentru toate categoriile de zahăr exportate, totalul cheltuielilor reale la totalul cantităților exportate, indiferent dacă au fost sau nu au fost plătite efectiv restituiri pentru aceste cantități?
 2.
 Regulamentul nr. 1193/2009 (2) este nevalid în raport cu articolul 15 din Regulamentul nr. 1260/2001 al Consiliului în măsura în care acesta stabilește o cotizație la producție pentru zahăr calculată pe baza unei pierderi medii în calculul căreia intervine, în ceea ce privește zahărul exportat în produsele transformate, o înmulțire între valoarea unitară a restituirii la export referitoare la aceste produse și cantitățile totale exportate, inclusiv cantitățile exportate fără a beneficia de restituire, iar nu o împărțire a cheltuielilor efectuate în mod real la totalul cantităților exportate, cu sau fără restituire?
 (1) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1260/2001 al Consiliului din 19 iunie 2001 privind organizarea comună a piețelor în sectorul zahărului (JO L 178. p. 1).
 (2) Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1193/2009 al Comisiei din 3 noiembrie 2009 de rectificare a Regulamentelor (CE) nr. 1762/2003, (CE) nr. 1775/2004, (CE) nr. 1686/2005, (CE) nr. 164/2007 și de stabilire, pentru anii de comercializare 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 și 2005/2006, a valorilor cotizațiilor la producție pentru sectorul zahărului (JO L 321, p. 1).


text:
Lighstpan est une société américaine à but lucratif ayant conçu des jeux vidéo éducatifs pour PlayStation. La société fusionne avec Plato Learning en 2003.
 Lightspan Adventures
 Lightspan Adventures est un ensemble de jeux éducatifs sur PlayStation destinés aux écoles américaines, qui n'ont pas été distribués via le circuit commercial traditionnel.
 Liste des jeux
 16 Tales
 A Mars Moose Adventure - Cosmic Quest
 A Mars Moose Adventure - Stay & Play
 A Mars Moose Adventure - Walkabout
 Calamity
 Cali's Geo Tools
 Cosmic Cookoff
 Creative Camp
 Creative Isle
 Creative Journey
 Creative Voyage
 Every Child Can Succeed
 Faire Games
 Head to Toe
 KazMania
 K9.5
 Liquid Books
 Math Gallery
 Math on the Move!
 Mona & Moki
 P.K's Place
 The Quaddle Family Mysteries
 Road Writer
 Science is Elementary
 The Secret of Googol
 Story Lane Theater
 Str.at.ə.s.
 The Three Decoders
 Timeless Math
 Timeless Jade Trade
 Unknown Variable
 Write Away
 Family Connection - A Guide to Lightspan (disque promotionnel)
 Notes et références
 Liens externes
 Site officiel archivé ;
 Lightspan sur SEC ;
 Lightspan sur Crunchbase ;
 Lightspan sur Opencorporates.com ;
 Lightspan Video Tour - Game Rave TV sur YouTube.
 Développeur de jeux vidéo
 Entreprise de jeux vidéo ayant son siège à San Diego


type: legislation

text:
 IL-KUMMISSJONI EWROPEA
 Brussell, 21.6.2017
 COM(2017) 322 final
 Proposta għal
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILL
 dwar il-mobilizzazzjoni tal-Fond Ewropew ta' Aġġustament għall-Globalizzazzjoni waraapplikazzjoni mill-Finlandja - EGF/2017/002 FI/Microsoft 2
 MEMORANDUM TA' SPJEGAZZJONI
 KUNTEST TAL-PROPOSTA
 1.Ir-regoli applikabbli għall-kontribuzzjonijiet finanzjarji mill-Fond Ewropew ta’ Aġġustament għall-Globalizzazzjoni (FEG) huma stabbiliti fir-Regolament (UE) Nru 1309/2013 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tas-17 ta’ Diċembru 2013 dwar il-Fond Ewropew ta’ Aġġustament għall-Globalizzazzjoni (2014-2020) u li jħassar ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 1927/2006
 1
 (ir-“Regolament tal-FEG”).
 2.Fl-1 ta’ Frar 2017, il-Finlandja ppreżentat applikazzjoni EGF/2017/002 FI/Microsoft 2 għal kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja mill-FEG, wara li ngħataw is-sensji
 2
 fil-Microsoft (Microsoft Mobile Oy) u fi 11-il fornitur u produttur downstream (minn hawn’ il quddiem “sensji”).
 3.Wara l-valutazzjoni tagħha ta’ din l-applikazzjoni, il-Kummissjoni kkonkludiet li, skont id-dispożizzjonijiet kollha applikabbli tar-Regolament tal-FEG, il-kundizzjonijiet għall-għoti ta’ kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja mill-FEG huma ssodisfati.
 SOMMARJU TAL-APPLIKAZZJONI
 Applikazzjoni tal-FEG
 EGF/2017/002 FI/Microsoft 2
 L-Istat Membru
 Il-Finlandja
 Ir-reġjun(i) ikkonċernat(i) (il-livell NUTS
 3
 2)
 Helsinki-Uusimaa (Uusimaa, FI1B1)
 Länsi-Suomi (Pirkanmaa, FI197)
 Etelä-Suomi (Varsinais-Suomi,FI1C1)
 Id-data tat-tressiq tal-applikazzjoni:
 L-1 ta' Frar 2017
 Id-data ta’ konferma tal-wasla tal-applikazzjoni:
 L-1 ta' Frar 2017
 Id-data tat-talba għal informazzjoni addizzjonali
 Il-15 ta' Frar 2017
 Id-data ta’ skadenza għall-għoti tal-informazzjoni addizzjonali
 Id-29 ta' Marzu 2017
 L-iskadenza għat-tlestija tal-valutazzjoni
 Il-21 ta' Ġunju 2017
 Il-kriterju ta’ intervent
 L-Artikolu 4(1)(a) tar-Regolament tal-FEG
 L-intrapriża primarja
 Microsoft (Microsoft Mobile Oy))
 L-għadd ta’ intrapriżi kkonċernati
 12
 Is-settur(i) tal-attività ekonomika
 (Id-Diviżjoni NACE Reviżjoni 2)
 4
 62 Attivitajiet ta' pprogrammar ta' kompjuters, konsulenza u attivitajiet oħra
 L-għadd ta’ sussidjarji, fornituri u produtturi fl-istadju aħħari tal-produzzjoni
 11
 Il-perjodu ta’ referenza (erba’ xhur):
 Mit-12 ta' Lulju 2016 sat-12 ta' Novembru 2016
 L-għadd ta’ sensji matul il-perjodu ta’ referenza (a)
 1 248
 L-għadd ta’ sensji qabel jew wara l-perjodu ta’ referenza (b)
 0
 L-għadd totali ta’ sensji
 1 248
 L-għadd totali ta' benefiċjarji eliġibbli
 1 248
 L-għadd totali ta’ benefiċjarji fil-mira
 1 000
 L-għadd ta’ żgħażagħ fil-mira barra mill-edukazzjoni, impjieg jew taħriġ (NEETs)
 0
 Il-baġit għal servizzi personalizzati (EUR)
 5 559 300
 Il-baġit għall-implimentazzjoni tal-FEG
 5
 (EUR)
 307 500
 Il-baġit totali (EUR)
 5 866 800
 Il-kontribuzzjoni tal-FEG (60 %) (EUR)
 3 520 080
 VALUTAZZJONI TAL-APPLIKAZZJONI
 Proċedura
 4.Fl-1 ta’ Frar 2017, il-Finlandja ressqet applikazzjoni EGF/2017/002 FI/Microsoft 2 fi żmien 12-il ġimgħa mid-data li fiha ġew issodisfati l-kriterji tal-intervent stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 4 tar-Regolament tal-FEG. Il-Kummissjoni kkonfermat il-wasla tal-applikazzjoni fl-istess jum u talbet informazzjoni addizzjonali mingħand il-Finlandja fil-15 ta’ Frar 2017. Din l-informazzjoni addizzjonali ngħatat fi żmien sitt ġimgħat mid-data tat-talba. L-iskadenza ta’ 12-il ġimgħa minn meta waslet l-applikazzjoni kompluta, li fihom il-Kummissjoni għandha tiffinalizza l-valutazzjoni tagħha tal-konformità tal-applikazzjoni mal-kundizzjonijiet għall-għoti ta’ kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja, tiskadi fil-21 ta’ Ġunju 2017.
 L-eliġibbiltà tal-applikazzjoni
 L-intrapriżi u l-benefiċjarji kkonċernati
 5.L-applikazzjoni tirrigwarda 1 248 ħaddiem li ngħataw is-sensja f’Microsoft Oy(Microsoft Mobile Oy) u 11-il fornitur u produttur downstream. L-intrapriża ewlenija topera fis-settur ekonomiku kklassifikat fid-Diviżjoni 62 ta’ NACE Reviżjoni 2 Ipprogrammar ta' kompjuters, konsulenza u attivitajiet oħra. Is-sensji li ngħataw mill-Microsoft Mobile Oy jinsabu prinċipalment fir-reġjuni tal-livell NUTS 2 ta’ Helsinki-Uusimaa, Länsi-Suomi u Etelä-Suomi.
 L-intrapriżi u l-għadd ta’ sensji matul il-perjodu ta’ referenza
 Microsoft Mobile Oy
 1 191
 Manpower Group Solutions
 14
 Accenture Oy
 5
 Sale Nordic Oy
 1
 HCL Technologies Ltd
 3
 Spellpoint Oy
 1
 ISS Palvelut OyManpower
 20
 Symbio Finland Oy
 3
 JOT Automation Oy
 1
 Tieto Oy
 2
 Lionbridge Oy
 6
 Varamiespalvelu-Group Oy
 1
 L-għadd totali ta’ intrapriżi: 12
 L-għadd totali ta’ sensji:
 1 248
 L-għadd totali ta’ ħaddiema indipendenti li l-attività tagħhom waqfet:
 0
 L-għadd totali ta’ ħaddiema eliġibbli u ħaddiema indipendenti:
 1 248
 Il-kriterji ta’ intervent
 6.Il-Finlandja ppreżentat l-applikazzjoni skont il-kriterji ta’ intervent tal-Artikolu 4(1)(a) tar-Regolament tal-FEG, li jitlob li tal-anqas 500 ħaddiem jingħataw is-sensja matul perjodu ta’ referenza ta’ erba’ xhur f'intrapriża fi Stat Membru, inklużi ħaddiema li jingħataw is-sensja minn fornituri u produtturi downstream..
 7.Il-perjodu ta’ referenza ta’ erba’ xhur tal-applikazzjoni huwa mit-12 ta’ Lulju 2016 sat-12 ta’ Novembru 2016.
 8.Is-sensji matul il-perjodu ta' referenza huma kif ġej:
 –1 191 ħaddiem li ngħataw is-sensja minn Microsoft,
 –57 ħaddiema li ngħataw is-sensja fil-11-il fornitur u produttur tal-Microsoft.
 Il-kalkolu tas-sensji u l-waqfien tal-attività
 9.Is-sensji mogħtija matul il-perjodu ta' referenza ġew ikkalkulati kif ġej:
 –1 248 mid-data tal-avviż individwali tal-impjegatur biex ikeċċi l-ħaddiem.
 Il-benefiċjarji eliġibbli
 10.L-għadd totali ta’ benefiċjarji eliġibbli huwa ta’ 1 248.
 Ir-rabta bejn is-sensji u l-bidliet strutturali ewlenin fix-xejriet tal-kummerċ dinji minħabba l-globalizzazzjoni
 11.Sabiex tiġi stabbilita r-rabta bejn is-sensji u l-bidliet strutturali ewlenin fix-xejriet kummerċjali dinjija minħabba l-globalizzazzjoni, il-Finlandja ġabet l-argument li, ir-raġuni prinċipali wara t-tnaqqis fil-forza tax-xogħol hija kompetizzjoni globali fis-settur tat-telefonija ċellulari u telf konsegwenti fis-sehem mis-suq mill-Microsoft Mobile Oy (u s-sistema operattiva tagħha bbażata fuq Windows).
 12.Wara l-akkwist tan-negozju tat-telefonija ċellulari tan-Nokia mill-Microsoft (l-Istati Uniti), fl-2014 ġiet stabbilita l-Microsoft Mobile Oy li għandha l-kwartieri ġenerali tagħha f’Espoo, il-Finlandja. Madwar 4 700 impjegat tan-Nokia ġew trasferiti għall-Microsoft Mobile Oy fil-Finlandja.
 13.In-Nokia kienet qed tuża esklużivament is-sistema operattiva Windows tal-Microsoft. Microsoft Mobile Oy kompliet b’din il-prattika. Sa nofs l-2013, din is-sistema operattiva kellha sehem mis-suq globali ta’ 3,3 %, sehem li naqas għal 0,8 % fl-2016. Is-sistemi operattivi tal-kompetituri bħall-Android żiedu s-sehem tas-suq tagħhom għal 82,2 % u l-iOS (Apple) żiedet is-sehem tagħha għal 14,6 % sal-bidu tal-2016
 6
 7
 .
 14.Dan it-tnaqqis seħħ minkejja l-fatt li l-Microsoft Mobile Oy nidiet apparat mobbli ġdid u investiet f’disinn, komponenti u l-kummerċjalizzazzjoni
 8
 .. Il-kompetituri joffru prodotti tal-ħardwer u tas-sistema operattiva irħas li huma attraenti ħafna għal klijenti ġodda kemm fis-swieq emerġenti u kif ukoll fl-Ewropa.
 15.L-applikazzjoni attwali hija l-kontinwazzjoni ta’ sensiela ta’ applikazzjonijiet preċedenti mill-Finlandja, madwar it-tnaqqis ta’ Nokia (EGF/2007/003 FI/Perlos, EGF/2012/006 FI/Nokia Salo, EGF/2013/001 FI/Nokia, EGF/2015/001 FI/Broadcom, EGF/2015/005 FI/Computer Programming, EGF/2016/001 FI/Microsoft u EGF/2016/008 FI/Nokia Network Systems).
 Avvenimenti li wasslu għas-sensji u l-waqfien tal-attività
 16.Il-manifattura ta’ apparati mobbli qed jiċċaqalqu b’mod kontinwu għal pajjiżi b’salarji aktar baxxi, fejn il-kondizzjonijiet tax-xogħol huma sikwit foqra
 9
 . Il-pagi baxxi huma parti mill-kosteffettività
 10
 . Apparati ċellulari rħas huma f’domanda kbira fis-swieq emerġenti. L-importazzjoni Ewropea qiegħda tikber ukoll
 11
 ..
 17.It-telf tas-sehem mis-suq min-Nokia hu dovut għad-dħul aggressiv fis-suq ta’ diversi manifatturi tas-smartphones tal-Lvant tal-Asja, li jibbenefikaw minn spiża baxxa tax-xogħol u tal-manifattura.
 18.Ir-rebbieħa f’din il-kompetizzjoni kienu l-manifatturi bbażati fl-Istati Uniti u fl-Asja li qegħdin jużaw is-softwer operattiv tal-Android u tal-iOS.
 19.L-Android għandu mijiet ta’ sħab, speċjalment fl-Asja, li kull sena joħoroġu telefowns ġodda. Hemm diversi għażliet tal-Android fil-firxa ta’ prezzijiet medji u prezzijiet baxxi. Dan huwa kruċjali fis-swieq bħall-Indja, l-Afrika u l-Lvant Nofsani.
 20.Il-manifattura ta’ apparat mobbli ġiet trasferita mill-Korea t’Isfel lejn iċ-Ċina u iktar reċentement, anke f’pajjiżi irħas, bħall-Vjetnam
 12
 .
 21.F’Mejju 2016, il-Microsoft ħabbret tnaqqis sa 1 350 impjieg fil-Microsoft Mobile Oy fil-Finlandja. L-attivitajiet kollha tal-Microsoft Mobile Oy qed jagħlqu. 550 impjegat li tilfu l-impjieg tagħhom fir-reġjun ta’ Ħelsinki-Uusimaa, 500 fiż-żona ta’ Pirkanmaa (ir-reġjun ta’ Länsi-Suomi ) u 300 f’Salo (Etelä-Suomi reġjun)
 22.Hemm għaddej intervent tal-FEG (EGF/2016/001 FI/Microsoft) immirat biex jappoġġa lill-ħaddiema li aktar kmieni ngħataw is-sensja mill-Microsoft. Il-benefiċjarji fil-mira ta’ din il-proposta huma separati mill-benefiċjarji ta’ dak il-każ.
 L-impatt mistenni tas-sensji fir-rigward tal-ekonomija lokali, reġjonali jew nazzjonali u l-impjiegi
 Ir-reġjuni tan-NUTS 2 affettwati huma Helsinki-Uusimaa, Etelä-Suomi and Länsi-Suomi.
 Helsinki-Uusimaa
 23.Fil-perjodu 2012-2016, il-ħafna sensji li ngħataw kienu jikkonċernaw l-aktar l-industrija tal-elettronika u l-industrija tas-softwer. Fil-ħarifa tat-2016 saru sensji f’diversi setturi tal-manifattura u tal-kostruzzjoni.
 24.Fit-tielet kwart tal-2016, in-numru ta’ persuni impjegati fis-settur tal-informazzjoni u tal-komunikazzjoni f’Uusimaa kien ta’ 6 000 anqas mis-sena ta’ qabel. Il-qgħad fost il-gruppi b’edukazzjoni għolja u professjonisti tal-ICT għadu qed jikber
 13
 .
 25.Fl-2012–2016, il-ħafna sensji fl-ibliet ta’ Ħelsinki, Espoo u Vantaa, fil-biċċa l-kbira, kienu jikkonċernaw l-industrija tal-elettronika u l-industrija tas-softwer. Dawn il-kumpaniji taw is-sensja lil aktar minn 5 000 ħaddiem fl-2012-2016.
 26.Madwar 72 % tal-persuni li ngħataw is-sensja mill-Microsoft fir-reġjun huma ta’ edukazzjoni għolja.
 Länsi-Suomi
 27.Iż-żona ta’ Pirkanmaa hi l-aktar waħda milquta mis-sensji tal-Microsoft Mobile Oy f’dan ir-reġjun.
 28.Fl-2016, l-Uffiċċju tal-Impjiegi u l-Iżvilupp Ekonomiku (l-Uffiċċju TE) ta’ Pirkanmaa rrapporta total ta’ 38 077 persuna qiegħda li qed ifittxu impjieg. Dawk il-persuni qiegħda li qed ifittxu impjieg kienu jammontaw għal 14,6 % tal-forza tax-xogħol
 14
 .
 29.L-Uffiċċju TE ta’ Pirkanmaa, bħalissa rreġistra madwar 1 700 persuna qiegħda li qed ifittxu impjieg fis-settur tal-ICT. Fl-2016, persuni qiegħda għal żmien twil kienu jammontaw għal 40 % ta’ dawk reġistrati qiegħda u li qed ifittxu impjieg fis-settur tal-ICT Pirkanmaa.
 30.Il-grupp okkupazzjonali li qed jaffaċċja l-akbar żieda fil-qgħad huwa dak tal-ispeċjalisti, b’livell għoli ta’ edukazzjoni. Fir-reġjun, f’Settembru 2016, kien reġistrat total ta’ 6 084 persuna b’lawrja akkademika bħala qiegħda li qed ifittxu xogħol. Ir-rata tal-qgħad ta’ ħaddiema b’edukazzjoni għolja fis-settur tat-teknoloġija kiber mis-sena l-oħra bi 8,1 p.p. fir-reġjun.
 Etelä-Suomi
 31.F’dan ir-reġjun fiż-żona, il-belt ta’ Salo hija l-aktar milquta mis-sensji tal-Microsoft Mobile Oy. Skont l-Uffiċċju TE, 300 impjegat se jitilfu l-impjieg tagħhom mal-Microsoft f’Salo, .
 32.Il-belt ta’ Salo tilfet total ta’ 6 900 impjieg bejn l-2007 u l-2014, tnaqqis ta’ 26 p.p. f’impjiegi. Bħala riżultat tat-tmiem tal-produzzjoni tat-telefown ċellulari preċedenti tan-Nokia u t-tnaqqis fir-ritmu ekonomiku, il-qgħad żdied b'aktar mid-doppju bejn l-2008 u l-2016 f’dan is-settur.
 33.Ir-rata tal-qgħad fir-reġjun żdiedet b’aktar minn għaxar punti perċentwali, minn 7,0 għal 17.5 %. Din il-bidla kienet eċċezzjonali meta mqabbla anki ma’ muniċipalitajiet Finlandiżi oħra bil-preżenza ta’ Nokia/Microsoft
 15
 .
 34.Kien hemm żieda fil-proporzjon ta’ persuni b’edukazzjoni għolja fost dawk qiegħda f’Salo.
 Il-benefiċjarji fil-mira u l-azzjonijiet proposti
 Il-benefiċjarji fil-mira
 35.L-għadd stmat ta’ ħaddiema ssensjati li mistennija jipparteċipaw fil-miżuri huwa ta’ 1 000. It-tqassim ta' dawn il-ħaddiema skont is-sess, iċ-ċittadinanza u l-grupp ta’ età huwa kif ġej:
 Il-kategorija
 L-għadd ta'
 benefiċjarji fil-mira
 Sess:
 Irġiel:
 740
 (74,0 %)
 Nisa:
 260
 (26,0 %)
 Ċittadinanza:
 Ċittadini tal-UE:
 955
 (95,5 %)
 ċittadini mhux tal-UE:
 45
 (4,5 %)
 Grupp ta’ età:
 15-24 sena:
 0
 (0 %)
 25-29 sena:
 25
 (2,5 %)
 30-54 sena:
 925
 (92,5 %)
 55-64 sena:
 50
 (5,0 %)
 iktar minn 64 sena:
 0
 (0 %)
 L-eliġibbiltà tal-azzjonijiet proposti
 36.Is-servizzi personalizzati li jridu jiġu pprovduti lill-ħaddiema li ngħataw is-sensja jikkonsistu mill-azzjonijiet li ġejjin:
 –Il-miżuri ta’ kowċing u miżuri oħrajn ta’ tħejjija dawn il-miżuri se jinkludu taħriġ dwar tiftix għal impjieg, appoġġ għall-mobilità tax-xogħol (servizzi tal-EURES), gwida individwali (job coaching), coaching fil-karrieri u valutazzjonijiet tal-esperti.
 –Impjiegi u servizzi tan-negozju: dawn il-miżuri se jinkludu l-appoġġ għal persuni indipendenti li qed ifittxu impjieg, il-valutazzjoni tal-kompetenzi, try-outs u avvenimenti ta’ reklutaġġ.
 –It-taħriġ: din il-miżura se tinkludi taħriġ vokazzjonali, taħriġ kontinwu u ta’ bidla, ta’ edukazzjoni mill-ġdid, taħriġ relatat mal-mobilità intraprenditorjali u tax-xogħol.
 –Għotja għall-istart-ups: din il-miżura se tipprovdi għotjiet lill-istart-ups biex jitħeġġeġ il-ħolqien ta’ attivitajiet tan-negozju, biex jitnieda u jiġi stabbilit negozju full-time, fl-ICT jew f’setturi oħrajn.
 –Sussidju tal-pagi: din il-miżura se tappoġġa t-tħaddim f’impjieg ġdid billi jitnaqqsu l-ispejjeż tas-salarji. Is-sussidju fuq is-salarju hu 30-50 % tal-ispejjeż tas-salarji.
 –Allowances għall-ivvjaġġar u l-akkomodazzjoni: din il-miżura hija biex tkopri l-ispejjeż li jirriżultaw lil dawk li qed ifittxu x-xogħol matul it-taħriġ.
 37.L-azzjonijiet proposti deskritti hawnhekk jikkostitwixxu miżuri attivi tas-suq tax-xogħol fil-qafas tal-azzjonijiet eliġibbli stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 7 tar-Regolament tal-FEG. Dawn l-azzjonijiet ma jissostitwixxux miżuri passivi ta’ protezzjoni soċjali.
 38.Il-Finlandja pprovdiet l-informazzjoni meħtieġa dwar azzjonijiet li huma obbligatorji għall-intrapriża kkonċernata permezz tal-liġi nazzjonali jew skont il-ftehimiet kollettivi. Huma kkonfermaw li kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja mill-FEG mhijiex sejra tieħu post dawn l-azzjonijiet.
 Il-baġit stmat
 39.L-ispejjeż totali stmati huma ta' EUR 5 866 800, li jinkludu nefqa ta' EUR 5 559 300 għal servizzi personalizzati u nefqa ta' EUR 307 500 għal attivitajiet preparatorji, ta' ġestjoni, informazzjoni u pubbliċità, kontroll u rapportar.
 40.Il-kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja totali mitluba mingħand il-FEG hija ta' EUR 3 520 080 (60 % tal-ispejjeż totali).
 L-azzjonijiet
 L-għadd stmat ta’ parteċipanti
 L-ispiża stmata għal kull parteċipant
 (f’EUR)
 L-ispejjeż totali stmati
 (f’EUR)
 Servizzi personalizzati (Azzjonijiet skont l-Artikolu 7(1)(a) u (c) tar-Regolament tal-FEG)
 Miżuri ta’ kkowċjar u miżuri preparatorji oħrajn (Valmennukset ja muut valmentavat toimenpiteet)
 195
 1 200
 234 000
 Is-servizzi ta’ impjieg u tan-negozju (Työllisyys- ja yrityspalvelut)
 800
 606
 484 800
 It-taħriġ (Koulutus)
 535
 6 000
 3 210 000
 L-għotja għal negozju ġdid (Starttiraha)
 18
 8 000
 144 000
 Is-subtotal (a):
 Il-perċentwal tal-pakkett ta' servizzi personalizzati
 –
 4 072 800
 (73,26 %)
 L-allowances u l-inċentivi (Azzjonijiet skont l-Artikolu 7(1)(b) tar-Regolament tal-FEG)
 Is-sussidju għall-paga (Palkkatuki)
 163
 9 000
 1 467 000
 Allowances għall-ivvjaġġar u l-akkomodazzjoni (Liikkuvuusavustus)
 130
 150
 19 500
 Is-subtotal (b):
 Il-perċentwal tal-pakkett ta' servizzi personalizzati:
 –
 1 486 500
 (26,74 %)
 L-azzjonijiet skont l-Artikolu 7(4) tar-Regolament tal-FEG
 1. L-attivitajiet ta' tħejjija
 –
 9 000
 2. Il-ġestjoni
 –
 143 000
 3. L-informazzjoni u l-pubbliċità
 –
 115 500
 4. Il-kontroll u r-rapportar
 –
 40 000
 Is-subtotal (c):
 Il-perċentwal tal-ispejjeż totali:
 –
 307 500
 (5,24 %)
 L-ispejjeż totali (a + b + c):
 –
 5 866 800
 Il-kontribuzzjoni tal-FEG (60 % tal-ispejjeż totali)
 –
 3 520 080
 *: % huwa arrondat, ċifri mhux
 41.L-ispejjeż tal-azzjonijiet identifikati fit-tabella ta' hawn fuq bħala azzjonijiet skont l-Artikolu 7(1)(b) tar-Regolament tal-FEG ma jaqbżux il-35 % tal-ispejjeż totali tal-pakkett koordinat ta' servizzi personalizzati. Il-Finlandja kkonfermat li dawn l-azzjonijiet jiddependu fuq il-parteċipazzjoni attiva tal-benefiċjarji fil-mira fl-attivitajiet ta’ tiftix ta’ impjieg jew ta’ taħriġ.
 42.Il-Finlandja kkonfermat li l-ispejjeż tal-investimenti għall-ħaddiema li jaħdmu għal rashom, il-ftuħ ta’ negozji u l-akkwiżizzjonijiet minn impjegati mhux se jaqbżu l-EUR 15 000 għal kull benefiċjarju.
 Il-perjodu ta' eliġibbiltà tan-nefqa
 43.Il-Finlandja bdiet tipprovdi s-servizzi personalizzati lill-benefiċjarji fil-mira fit-12 ta’ Lulju 2016. Għalhekk, in-nefqa fuq l-azzjonijiet se tkun eliġibbli għal kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja mill-FEG mit-12 ta’ Lulju 2016 sal-1 ta’ Frar 2019.
 44.Il-Finlandja bdiet iġġarrab in-nefqa amministrattiva sabiex timplimenta l-FEG fit-12 ta’ Lulju 2016. Għalhekk, in-nefqa għall-attivitajiet ta' tħejjija, ġestjoni, informazzjoni u pubbliċità kif ukoll dawk ta' kontroll u rapportar għandha tkun eliġibbli għal kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja mill-FEG mit-12 ta’ Ġunju 2016 sat-1 ta’ Awwissu 2019.
 Kumplimentarjetà ma’ azzjonijiet iffinanzjati minn fondi nazzjonali jew tal-Unjoni
 45.Is-sorsi ta’ prefinanzjament nazzjonali jew kofinanzjament huma l-punt tas-servizzi tal-impjieg pubbliku fil-fergħa amministrattiva tal-Ministeru tal-Affarijiet Ekonomiċi u x-Xogħol (MEE). Xi servizzi se jkunu ffinanzjati wkoll mill-ispejjeż operattivi taċ-Ċentri għall-Iżvilupp Ekonomiku (Ċentri ELY) u l-Uffiċċji Uffiċċji TE.
 46.Il-Finlandja kkonfermat li l-miżuri deskritti hawn fuq li jirċievu kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja mill-FEG mhux se jirċievu wkoll kontribuzzjonijiet finanzjarji minn strumenti finanzjarji oħrajn tal-Unjoni.
 Proċeduri għall-konsultazzjoni tal-benefiċjarji fil-mira jew ir-rappreżentanti tagħhom jew is-sħab soċjali kif ukoll l-awtoritajiet lokali u reġjonali
 47.Il-Finlandja indikat li l-pakkett ikkoordinat ta’ servizzi personalizzati tfassal b’konsultazzjoni ma’ grupp ta’ ħidma, li kien jinkludi rappreżentanti miċ-Ċentri ELY, l-uffiċċji TE tar-reġjuni kkonċernati, il-Microsoft, l-Industriji tat-Teknoloġija tal-Finlandja, Trade Union Pro, l-Unjoni tal-Inġiniera Professjonali fil-Finlandja u tal-Aġenzija Finlandiża tal-Finanzjament għall-Innovazzjoni.
 Sistemi ta' ġestjoni u kontroll
 48.L-applikazzjoni tinkludi deskrizzjoni tas-sistema ta’ ġestjoni u kontroll li tispeċifika r-responsabbiltajiet tal-korpi involuti. Il-Finlandja nnotifikat lill-Kummissjoni li l-kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja se tkun ġestita mill-MEE, li taġixxi bħala awtorità ta’ ġestjoni u ċertifikazzjoni għall-FEG u bħala korp intermedjarju għat-tqassim tal-fondi tal-FEG. Il-funzjonijiet ta’ ġestjoni għall-FEG ġew assenjati lid-Dipartiment tal-Impjiegi u l-Intraprenditorija.
 49.Il-funzjonijiet taċ-ċertifikazzjoni huma fi ħdan l-Unità tar-Riżorsi Umani u tal-Amministrazzjoni. Il-ħlasijiet lill-benefiċjarji jsiru permezz taċ-Ċentri reġjunali ELY u l-Uffiċċji TE.
 50.Fir-rigward tal-verifika, il-korp responsabbli huwa l-Unità tal-Verifika Interna indipendenti, li jopera taħt is-Segretarju Permanenti tal-MEE.
 Impenji pprovduti mill-Istat Membru kkonċernat
 51.Il-Finlandja pprovdiet l-assigurazzjonijiet meħtieġa kollha rigward dawn li ġejjin:
 –il-prinċipji tal-ugwaljanza tat-trattament u ta' nondiskriminazzjoni se jiġu rispettati fil-kuntest tal-aċċess għall-azzjonijiet proposti u fl-implimentazzjoni tagħhom,
 –ir-rekwiżiti stabbiliti fil-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali u tal-UE dwar is-sensji kollettivi ġew issodisfati,
 –l-intrapriżi li taw is-sensji, li komplew bl-attivitajiet tagħhom wara s-sensji, ikkonformaw mal-obbligi legali tagħhom li jikkontrollaw is-sensji u pprovdew għall-ħaddiema tagħhom kif xieraq,
 –l-azzjonijiet proposti mhumiex se jirċievu għajnuna finanzjarja minn fondi oħrajn jew minn strumenti finanzjarji oħra tal-Unjoni, u kwalunkwe finanzjament doppju se jiġi evitat,
 –l-azzjonijiet proposti se jikkumplimentaw l-azzjonijiet iffinanzjati mill-Fondi Strutturali,
 –il-kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja mill-FEG se tkun konformi mar-regoli proċedurali u materjali tal-Unjoni dwar l-għajnuna mill-Istat.
 IMPLIKAZZJONI BAĠITARJA
 Proposta baġitarja
 52.Il-FEG ma għandux jaqbeż ammont annwali massimu ta' EUR 150 miljun (prezzijiet tal-2011), kif stipulat fl-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (UE, Euratom) Nru 1311/2013 tat-2 ta' Diċembru 2013 li jistabbilixxi l-qafas finanzjarju pluriennali għas-snin 2014-2020
 16
 .
 53.Wara li eżaminat l-applikazzjoni fir-rigward tal-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti fl-Artikolu 13(1) tar-Regolament tal-FEG, u b'kont meħud tal-għadd ta' benefiċjarji fil-mira, l-azzjonijiet proposti u l-ispejjeż stmati, il-Kummissjoni qed tipproponi li timmobilizza l-FEG għall-ammont ta' EUR 3 520 080, li jirrappreżenta 60 % tal-ispejjeż totali tal-azzjonijiet proposti, sabiex tiġi pprovduta kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja għall-applikazzjoni.
 54.Id-deċiżjoni proposta għall-mobilizzazzjoni tal-FEG se tittieħed b'mod konġunt mill-Parlament Ewropew u mill-Kunsill, kif stabbilit fil-punt 13 tal-Ftehim Interistituzzjonali tat-2 ta' Diċembru 2013 bejn il-Parlament Ewropew, il-Kunsill u l-Kummissjoni dwar dixxiplina baġitarja, dwar kooperazzjoni f'materji ta' baġit u dwar ġestjoni finanzjarja tajba
 17
 .
 Atti relatati
 55.Fl-istess waqt li tippreżenta din il-proposta għal deċiżjoni biex jiġi mmobilizzat il-FEG, il-Kummissjoni se tippreżenta proposta lill-Parlament Ewropew u lill-Kunsill għal trasferiment tal-ammont ta' EUR 3 520 080 għall-intestatura baġitarja rilevanti.
 56.Fl-istess waqt li se tadotta din il-proposta għal deċiżjoni biex jiġi mmobilizzat il-FEG, il-Kummissjoni se tadotta deċiżjoni dwar kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja, permezz ta’ att ta’ implimentazzjoni, li se jidħol fis-seħħ fid-data li fiha l-Parlament Ewropew u l-Kunsill jadottaw id-deċiżjoni proposta biex jiġi mmobilizzat il-FEG.
 Proposta għal
 DEĊIŻJONI TAL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U TAL-KUNSILL
 dwar il-mobilizzazzjoni tal-Fond Ewropew ta' Aġġustament għall-Globalizzazzjoni wara
 applikazzjoni mill-Finlandja - EGF/2017/002 FI/Microsoft 2
 IL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW U L-KUNSILL TAL-UNJONI EWROPEA,
 Wara li kkunsidraw it-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament tal-Unjoni Ewropea,
 Wara li kkunsidraw ir-Regolament (UE) Nru 1309/2013 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill tas-17 ta' Diċembru 2013 dwar il-Fond Ewropew ta' Aġġustament għall-Globalizzazzjoni (2014-2020) u li jħassar ir-Regolament (KE) Nru 1927/2006
 18
 , u b'mod partikolari l-Artikolu 15(4) tiegħu,
 Wara li kkunsidraw il-Ftehim Interistituzzjonali tat-2 ta' Diċembru 2013 bejn il-Parlament Ewropew, il-Kunsill u l-Kummissjoni dwar dixxiplina baġitarja, dwar kooperazzjoni f'materji ta' baġit u dwar ġestjoni finanzjarja tajba
 19
 , u b'mod partikolari l-punt 13 tiegħu,
 Wara li kkunsidraw il-proposta mill-Kummissjoni Ewropea,
 Billi:
 (1)Il-Fond Ewropew ta' Aġġustament għall-Globalizzazzjoni (FEG) għandu l-għan li jipprovdi appoġġ lill-ħaddiema li jkunu ngħataw is-sensja u fil-każ ta' persuni li jaħdmu għal rashom meta l-attività tagħhom tkun intemmet b'riżultat ta' bidliet strutturali kbar fl-andament tal-kummerċ dinji minħabba l-globalizzazzjoni, b'riżultat ta' kontinwazzjoni tal-kriżi finanzjarja u ekonomika globali, jew b'riżultat ta' kriżi ekonomika u finanzjarja globali ġdida, u biex jgħinhom fl-integrazzjoni mill-ġdid tagħhom fis-suq tax-xogħol.
 (2)Il-FEG ma għandux jaqbeż l-ammont annwali massimu ta' EUR 150 miljun (prezzijiet tal-2011), kif stabbilit fl-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (UE, Euratom) Nru 1311/2013
 20
 .
 (3)Fl-1 ta’ Frar 2017, il-Finlandja ppreżentat applikazzjoni biex jiġi mmobilizzat il-FEG, fir-rigward tas-sensji fil-Microsoft Oy (Microsoft Mobile Oy) u 11-il fornitur u produttur downstream u l-waqfien ta’ attivitajiet. Din ġiet issupplimentata b'informazzjoni addizzjonali pprovduta skont l-Artikolu 8(3) tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1309/2013. Dik l-applikazzjoni tikkonforma mar-rekwiżiti għad-determinazzjoni ta' kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja mill-FEG kif stabbilit fl-Artikolu 13 tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1309/2013.
 (4)Għaldaqstant, il-FEG għandu jiġi mmobilizzat sabiex tingħata kontribuzzjoni finanzjarja li tammonta għal EUR 3 520 080 għall-applikazzjoni ppreżentata mill-Finlandja.
 (5)Biex jitnaqqas kemm jista' jkun iż-żmien għall-mobilizzazzjoni tal-FEG, jenħtieġ li din id-Deċiżjoni tapplika mid-data tal-adozzjoni tagħha,
 ADOTTAW DIN ID-DEĊIŻJONI:
 Artikolu 1
 Għall-baġit ġenerali tal-Unjoni għas-sena finanzjarja 2017, il-Fond Ewropew ta’ Aġġustament għall-Globalizzazzjoni għandu jiġi mmobilizzat biex jipprovdi l-ammont ta’ EUR 3 520 080 f’approprjazzjonijiet ta’ impenn u ta’ pagament.
 Artikolu 2
 Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fil-jum tal-pubblikazzjoni tagħha f’Il-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Hija għandha tapplika minn [the date of its adoption]*.
 21Magħmul fi Brussell,
 Għall-Parlament Ewropew
 Għall-Kunsill
 Il-President
 Il-President
 (1)
 ĠU L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855.
 (2)
 Skont it-tifsira tal-Artikolu 3 tar-Regolament tal-FEG.
 (3)
 Ir-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (UE) Nru 1046/2012 tat-8 ta' Novembru 2012 li jimplimenta r-Regolament (KE) Nru 1059/2003 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill dwar l-istabbiliment ta' klassifikazzjoni komuni ta' unitajiet territorjali għall-istatistika (NUTS), fejn tidħol it-trażmissjoni tas-serje kronoloġiċi għat-tqassim reġjonali l-ġdid (ĠU L 310, 9.11.2012, p. 34).
 (4)
 ĠU L 393, 30.12.2006, p. 1.
 (5)
 Skont ir-raba' paragrafu tal-Artikolu 7 tar-Regolament (UE) Nru 1309/2013.
 (6)
 www.statista.com/chart/4112/smartphone-market-share
 (7)
 https://www.strategyanalytics.com/strategy-analytics/news/strategy-analytics-press-releases/strategy-analytics-press-release/2016/11/02/strategy-analytics-android-captures-record-88-percent-share-of-global-smartphone-shipments-in-q3-2016#.WTosOjclGUl
 (8)
 www.statista.com/chart/4112/smartphone-market-share
 (9)
 http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-factory-working-conditions-2012-11?r=US&IR=T&IR=T
 (10)
 http://comptryx.com/product/global_salary_survey
 (11)
 https://www.kantarworldpanel.com/global/News/Android-Share-Tops-75-in-Europes-Largest-Markets
 (12)
 http://www.thanhniennews.com/business/samsung-shifts-plants-from-china-to-vietnam-to-protect-margins-392.html
 (13)
 http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/78927/TKAT_Oct_2016_en.pdf?sequence=1
 (14)
 http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/78927/TKAT_Oct_2016_en.pdf?sequence=1
 (15)
 http://www.itproportal.com/2015/07/20/nokias-woes-pushing-finnish-town-salo-further- into-recession/
 (16)
 ĠU L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.
 (17)
 ĠU C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.
 (18)
 ĠU L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855.
 (19)
 ĠU C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.
 (20)
 Ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (UE, Euratom) Nru 1311/2013 tat-2 ta' Diċembru 2013 li jistabbilixxi l-qafas finanzjarju pluriennali għas-snin 2014-2020 (ĠU L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884).
 (21)
 Date to be inserted by the Parliament before the publication in OJ.